>You're not actually offering an alternative classification or even describing why they are not far right

I don't have to. It's a term with a big history, and it never used to mean "conservative" or mere "right of center".

>Is it possible that you know "far right" is a bad thing, but you agree with these people, so they can't be far right? Or how do you get to your conclusion?

It's more possible that I know what the term means, and the modern use is an overuse to score points for political reasons, just like "fascist" has been. George Orwell, back in 1944:

(...) when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’.

I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people: (...) Conservatives, Socialists, Communists, Trotskyists, Catholics, War resisters, Supporters of the war, Nationalists (...)

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

>Is it possible that you know "far right" is a bad thing, but you agree with these people, so they can't be far right? Or how do you get to your conclusion?

Is it even more possible possible that you don't know what far right has historically referred to, and you think those people are far right just because you disagree with them?

> I don't have to. It's a term with a big history, and it never used to mean "conservative" or mere "right of center".

Sure, you don't have to. But if you don't want to explain why you make the comment you make, you probably just shouldn't make the comment.

> Is it even more possible possible that you don't know what far right has historically referred to, and you think those people are far right just because you disagree with them?

No. Would you now mind explaining how these people are not far right?

> Would you now mind explaining how these people are not far right?

Clearly the onus is on the people who are using the term to explain why they think it applies to the people they are using it on. The onus is always on the person who makes the assertion, not on the person who is sceptical.

Except they’re now making their own assertion to the contrary. There’s a number of comments explaining why far right is an accurate description, and none in support of why it’s not, and a complete dishonest about it all when pressed. Low quality, shit-stirring commentary like that doesn’t belong here.