There are fascists, and there are antifascists. These are the only choices available.

1) Fascism is a reflection, and public expression, of a worldview:

powerful groups support social attitudes and beliefs and policies that place themselves to a greater advantage over lesser groups (pg. 2)

2) If someone is comfortable aligning with any group that espouses manifestly fascist aims and policies, that person is demonstrating they are unbothered by those aims and policies:

If legitimacy is about the belief that the police are a morally appropriate institution that should be obeyed, political ideology is a broader set of preferences for how society should be organized and how institutions should be designed and operate (see Pratto, 1999). We focus on two ideologies (RWA and SDO) [Right Wing Authoritarianism & Social Dominance Orientation]. Altemeyer (1981, 1988) defines RWA as the covariation of three attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism. High authoritarians are more likely to perceive situations as threatening (Cohrs & Ibler, 2009) and to favour policies that help controlling social threats and bring back security and order, such as the restriction of civil liberties (Cohrs, Kielmann, Maes, & Moschner, 2005) and punitive responses to crime (Gerber & Jackson, 2013; 2016). Individuals high in authoritarianism may be more likely to legitimize authorities (such as police officers), to be generally more supportive of acts carried out by authorities, and in particular if these acts are perceived as helping to control social threats. On the whole, high RWA’s are motivated to control social threats and should be willing to accept extreme measures if necessary (pg. 5)

3) If someone is unbothered by callous indifference to the suffering and death of others, to genocide, to mass violence, state sanctioned brutality and facilitate these by way of the choice to affiliate with a group whose policies endorse genocide, mass violence, and state sponsored brutality, then that person is simply a fascist:

Several of the most conspicuous instantiations of dehumanization—colonists referring to natives as “savage brutes,” Nazis equating Jews with rats, or Buddhist monks deeming Rohingya Muslims “reincarnated snakes”—were at least as much about actively imbuing targets with despicable attributes of lower animals as they are with ignoring their agency or emotional capacities (7–10). Although not affectively neutral, such dehumanization goes beyond merely expressing negative affect toward the target. Rather, it deems its subjects irredeemably beneath the human pale, stripping them of the moral elevation distinguishing “civilized” humans from lower animals (10).

4) Whatever narrative of self-absolution a person constructs for their participation in elevating a fascist regime, for <reasons>, presumably to skirt any personal accountability for contributing to suffering and death of other human beings it is inherently a narrative of justification for maintaining a fascist worldview, and a preferred identity within that frame:

Historically, conservatism as an ideological belief system has embodied many things, including the desire for order and stability, preference for gradual rather than revolutionary change (if any), adherence to preexisting social norms, idealization of authority figures, punishment of deviants, and endorsement of social and economic inequality (e.g., Eckhardt, 1991; Eysenck & Wilson, 1978; Kerlinger, 1984; Lentz, 1939; Mannheim, 1927/1986; McClosky & Zaller, 1984; Sidanius et al., 1996; W. F. Stone & Schaffner, 1988; Tomkins, 1963; Wilson, 1973c)

Stated differently, there is no such thing as 'fascist-adjacent'- one is either fascist or antifascist.

Thems the options.

A person's choice shows who they are. This is not even remotely arguable.

All else is noise.