> This person and the people killed at Charlie Hebdo were not fascist

They were if you define Fascism the same way certain religious groups do.

Richard Spencer is the most brand label fascism that fascism will get at this point in time.

I mean, ffs, read the first few paragraphs on the guys wikipedia page before you defend him.

I'm not defending anyone in that interaction.

The fact you think I am is why I don't want you hitting people for being "fascist" when you don't know what the Hell that is.

I get it, you want to point out how hard, or even borderline impossible it is to delineate who is a fascist and who isn't, because you think people use the word to loosely.

Maybe they know the word better than you, though? Maybe they're not as oblivious to the dog whistles.

Well, either way, I don't really care where "the line" is here, because Richard Spencer is so clearly over it, it's a ridiculous argument to make. Because actually, often it is quite clear.

No, I want to point out that the idiots who think hitting others accomplishes something don't know what the hell a "Fascist" is.

Look up the history of Weimar Germany. That's what "hitting Fascists" accomplishes. Anyone who wants that must be a Fascist, like you.

This is a hilarious misinterpretation of history. Imagine if the nazis hadn't been beaten back during the Beer Hall Putsch.

If you can level a criticism at violence during the Weimer Republic, it's that is was too unfocused, with monarchists, social democrats and communists (who, indeed, were the original organization structure known as "Antifaschistische Aktion", or colloquially, Antifa) all beating each other up as much as they did nazis.

Clearly World War 2 could have been avoided if the Allies had simply challenged Hitler and the other Axis leaders to a debate.

which point in the history of the weimar republic proves that it's punching the nazis too much that brought hitler to power? (please support your claims with citations, thanks.)