Read on Twitter
The reason I find all the vocab-scolding around "coup" and "fascism" irritating is because the consequences of exaggerating the threat of an explicitly anti-democratic political party are minor compared to downplaying it.
Most moral panics cast marginalized groups as more evil, monolithic and powerful than they are. The Jews are plotting to steal your babies, the gays are recruiting your kids, Black teens are members of street gangs, etc.
Exaggerating those threats reinforces existing, often centuries-long narratives about societal outgroups. They result in worse medical care, more police harassment, an uptick in employment discrimination etc.
Describing Trump as a fascist dictator or the GOP as pro-white supremacy doesn't do any of those things. Republicans (despite their desperation to be) aren't victims of discrimination. There's no pre-programmed narrative of marginalization we're at risk of entrenching.
The risks of exaggerating the threat of Trump's GOP are basically just ... consequences for their actions. If news organizations started describing what happened last wednesday as a coup it would make it easier to arrest the people involved and eject the politicians who abetted.
It would also make it harder for them to win future elections—which is fine. They should. Political parties that lie constantly and foment violence should be marginalized. We would celebrate this if it happened in another country. Stupid games stupid prizes etc.
I'm not being prescriptive here. If you don't want to call Trump a fascist that's fine. I've actually found the debates among academics about what "coup" means super interesting. People should use the words they're comfortable using.
