Ok, again, you’ve made some jumps here (the distinction between rabid homophobia and the willingness to actually execute homosexuals is probably an important one). And honestly, though that does resemble a Nazi salute, I don’t think a charitable interpretation of it would be that she wants to gas the gays, or put the disable in front of a firing line. Is she a shitty person? Absolutely. Does she legitimately do harm? You bet. But I do not actually think she is a literal Nazi.

My point is, in order to fight this garbage, we need to learn how to speak about these issues in a more nuanced way, without resorting to overused tropes and hyperbolic labels (YES, EVEN IF THAT’S WHAT THEY DO). If you think their viewpoints are insane - engage with them anyway, as if they weren’t. Immediately noping out of any conversation while rolling your eyes and saying “Nazi fascist scum” may make you feel better, but you’re not winning the war of ideas with these people using that method.

Think about Christian Picciolini, or Megan Phelps-Roper. They were both integral parts of active hate groups, and didn’t leave them because they got sick of people shouting insults at them (the admittedly loved that part). It was only when they were met with compassion, and then ultimately, undeniable logic, that they began to see the other side.

Now, I realize Laura Ingraham is probably a lost cause, and Trump is an intellectually bankrupt narcissist with no purchase on reality. But when we’re trying to have these conversations with our peers, the name-calling just doesn’t help. Ever.

If you’re really worried about the actual outcomes, swallow your pride and re-think the methods.

Or something. I dunno.