wiki says this:

During the late 1960s and 1970s, 'fascist' was popular term used to describe a wide range of individuals, governments, and public institutions. The term was often paired with other insulting terms, the most common being pig, as in fascist-pig. In this context, the term fascist generally referred to conservative positions which prioritised the maintenance of existing social relations over various personal rights upheld by protesters and dissidents. It basically served as an emotive substitute for "authoritarian", though it also described specific analytical functions (such as emphasising the privileging of order over freedom in an opponent's discourse, the perceived racism ...

wiki says this:

During the late 1960s and 1970s, 'fascist' was popular term used to describe a wide range of individuals, governments, and public institutions. The term was often paired with other insulting terms, the most common being pig, as in fascist-pig. In this context, the term fascist generally referred to conservative positions which prioritised the maintenance of existing social relations over various personal rights upheld by protesters and dissidents. It basically served as an emotive substitute for "authoritarian", though it also described specific analytical functions (such as emphasising the privileging of order over freedom in an opponent's discourse, the perceived racism of 'imperialist' practices, or even specific Marxist theories of the origins of fascism).

In the 1980s the term was used by leftist critics to describe the Reagan administration and in the 2000s, the George W. Bush administration. In her 1970 book Beyond Mere Obedience radical activist and theologian Dorothee Sölle, coined the term Christofascist to describe fundamentalist Christians.

There are also Fascist Pig Hunters (FPH)

And yet I know many immature conservatives and conservative liberals. Attacking the maturity of people who think differently than you...well, not only is that unfair, it's pretty immature and unwise. If you knew me, you'd know I am very mature for my age. I attempt to cultivate peace and promote understanding in my friendships and conflicts. I am well-read in natural and social sciences, in philosophy, in fiction and poetry. Yet I support equal rights for all, I cherish the Earth and apply sustainable practices in my life, I am anti-war, and I keep close tabs on genocide and human rights violations around the world. Do I sound like a tree-hugging liberal? I guess I am, although I dislike sim...

And yet I know many immature conservatives and conservative liberals. Attacking the maturity of people who think differently than you...well, not only is that unfair, it's pretty immature and unwise. If you knew me, you'd know I am very mature for my age. I attempt to cultivate peace and promote understanding in my friendships and conflicts. I am well-read in natural and social sciences, in philosophy, in fiction and poetry. Yet I support equal rights for all, I cherish the Earth and apply sustainable practices in my life, I am anti-war, and I keep close tabs on genocide and human rights violations around the world. Do I sound like a tree-hugging liberal? I guess I am, although I dislike simple characterizations of myself. Do I sound immature and unwise? My GPA is 3.5, I am a college senior and come from a good family. I have never been arrested, I don't do drugs, and I shower twice a day. Therefore, your characterization of liberals as dirty, uneducated, and half-wits is incredibly ridiculous.

Whether Wikipedia is reliable is another issue. But it is fallacious to suggest that because some articles might not be accurate, that every bit of content is a lie. As for Lophatt's quoting it, did you ever think he might have been pressed for time, or found that the Wikipedia entry said exactly what he wanted to say? Furthermore, I doubt using Wikipedia is a measure of ignorance or ability to grasp anything. I'm certain that Lophatt can and should take offense at your remark that he is perhaps unable to grasp anything.

But it is fallacious to suggest that because some articles might not be accurate, that every bit of content is a lie.

seaj11, That is not what I did. Of course you are smart enough to see that, right?

Also, I did not attack anyone. I made a factual statement.

I don't care how mature you are, or that you are mature. Good for you.

I attempt to cultivate peace and promote understanding in my friendships and conflicts.

That's wonderful.

Stereotyping either is insulting and counterproductive.

Stereo-typing may be counterproductive, but generalizations are the soul of wisdom. However, You can only be insulted if you choose to be insulted.

[quote...

But it is fallacious to suggest that because some articles might not be accurate, that every bit of content is a lie.

seaj11, That is not what I did. Of course you are smart enough to see that, right?

Also, I did not attack anyone. I made a factual statement.

I don't care how mature you are, or that you are mature. Good for you.

I attempt to cultivate peace and promote understanding in my friendships and conflicts.

That's wonderful.

Stereotyping either is insulting and counterproductive.

Stereo-typing may be counterproductive, but generalizations are the soul of wisdom. However, You can only be insulted if you choose to be insulted.

but it's no harm to me. I know who I am

Thanks for telling me all about who you are.

Therefore, your characterization of liberals as dirty, uneducated, and half-wits is incredibly ridiculous.

No it's not. It's an thoroughly valid characterization.

seaj11, You should go to the source and read the entire article.

Of course you don't care who I am. I am a person who tears your stereotype to shreds. And as I suspected, you still defend your "thoroughly valid characterization" -- amidst sarcastic comments, no less. People do not choose to be insulted, but they may allow themselves to be. Your comments, however, were intended to hurt. I think you're mad that I'm not insulted. I think you're mad that you can't defend your statement, but have to rely on comments like "thanks for telling me all about who you are." Guess you didn't want to know, huh? It's easier to put down people and build
yourself up if you don't know anything about them.

Generalizations are certainly not the soul of wisdom. That's the mo...

Of course you don't care who I am. I am a person who tears your stereotype to shreds. And as I suspected, you still defend your "thoroughly valid characterization" -- amidst sarcastic comments, no less. People do not choose to be insulted, but they may allow themselves to be. Your comments, however, were intended to hurt. I think you're mad that I'm not insulted. I think you're mad that you can't defend your statement, but have to rely on comments like "thanks for telling me all about who you are." Guess you didn't want to know, huh? It's easier to put down people and build
yourself up if you don't know anything about them.

Generalizations are certainly not the soul of wisdom. That's the most ridiculous defense I've heard of stereotypes ever. The soul of wisdom is insight and honesty.

And no, I'm not going to read your source. I'm extremely busy and I was responding to your comments, not to the article. Besides, why would I take any recommendation from someone who would say such awful things? You're never going to find a convert in me, mate. But I do hope you grow a heart soon.

Of course you don't care who I am.

Absolutely I do.

I think you're mad that I'm not insulted.

Wrong fro about the 20th time, but it is a sign of maturity that you were not insulted. Good for you.

Generalizations are certainly not the soul of wisdom.

They absolutely are. All stereotypes may be generalizations, but not all generalizations are stereotypes.

You're never going to find a convert in me, mate.

I'm not trying to "convert" you or persuade you, but your use of the "never" suggests you do not have an open mind. That discounts your claim to maturity and wisdom.

But I do hope you grow a heart soon.

I'm sor...

Of course you don't care who I am.

Absolutely I do.

I think you're mad that I'm not insulted.

Wrong fro about the 20th time, but it is a sign of maturity that you were not insulted. Good for you.

Generalizations are certainly not the soul of wisdom.

They absolutely are. All stereotypes may be generalizations, but not all generalizations are stereotypes.

You're never going to find a convert in me, mate.

I'm not trying to "convert" you or persuade you, but your use of the "never" suggests you do not have an open mind. That discounts your claim to maturity and wisdom.

But I do hope you grow a heart soon.

I'm sorry you ascribe such a characterization to my comments. I have no problem with that at all, but it says more about your ability to apprehend and be objective than it does about me.