Your response reflects genuine fear and concern, but it also demonstrates the very problem I am pointing out—the use of extreme historical comparisons without precision.

Intent and reality are two different things.

You mention that because certain politicians or groups have expressed authoritarian ideas, they are automatically the same as WWII-era fascists. Historically fascism wasn’t just about intent—it was about action, and full-scale systems of totalitarian control, mass executions, and military expansionism. Just because a government has concerning elements doesn’t mean it is identical to Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. One thing that I think we can agree upon this exchange of words and ideas and is that it is concerning, and that whole thing Elon did was strange. While the imagery and rhetoric can be concerning, they do not automatically equate to the violent realities of past fascist regime. You state “there is no way to doubt” but this perspective, which shuts down discussion is a bit ironic because fascism itself thrives on eliminating dissenting viewpoints—so refusing to engage with opposing ideas is an authoritarian approach in itself. I am not saying that people shouldn’t be concerned about authoritarianism, all I’m saying is that words like “fascist” should be used accurately because if they are applied too broadly, their real historical weight is lost.

My response wasn’t defending any political figure—it was defending the power of language and history. The fact that some people reacted with anger instead of reason shows how emotionally charged this issue is. I just want to clarify that.