1. People who use violence to obtain power are fascists. All fascists suck, whether left or right. The only person saying right wing fascists aren't real fascists is you, while making a very poor straw man argument.
2. Civil rights activists aren't primarily known for violence. Anarchists are.
3. Saying their actions have nothing to do with the principles of fascism is like staring at a wall of human skulls in Cambodia and saying this has nothing to do with the principles of socialism: you're missing the point.
> People who use violence to obtain power are fascists.
So, the American Revolutionaries were fascists?
Fascists, even in the lose sense theat doesn't refer tons particular historical Italian political group, are a much narrower label.
> All fascists suck, whether left or right.
There are left wing tyrants (tyrants, while broader than fascists, are still narrower than you have attempted to paint fascists), but they aren't fascists.
But anarchists aren't that, either (some of the subelements of the antifa movement, particularly the Maoist ones, might be inclined in theat direction, but Maoists and anarchists, even anarchocommunists, aren't the same thing.)
> Civil rights activists aren't primarily known for violence. Anarchists are.
During the period of major activity, most anti-estsblishment groups are tarred with the violence of their most extreme subcomponents (which may actually be provocateurs) or even the most extreme groups with similar objections, even if they are outside the main group. This was absolutely the case with the civil rights movement.
> Saying their actions have nothing to do with the principles of fascism
They have nothing to do with the defining characteristics of fascism, either. The only association is that fascism is broadly accepted as a negative label and you wish to brand anarchists negatively.
People are defined by their actions not by their own propaganda.
Civil rights activists fight against power systems, revolutionaries fought for representation: anarchists are violent thugs who pretend to be activists to justify violence towards anyone who doesn't share their ideology.
Understanding the obvious discrepancy between the words of anarchists and their actions is important part of being politically mature.
Anarchists already have a negative label: edgy people who pretend to be brave by wearing a mask and beating people / phone boxes because there's something wrong in their lives. If you don't believe that fine, trying to convince you of anything would be like trying to convince any other (moon landing / flat earth / building 7) conspiracy theorist. Enjoy your early twenties.
I think that when you draw a distinction between civil rights activists and anarchists, you are using hindsight. These days everybody claims MLK was a peaceful giant who was on their side all along. Republicans say he was a Republican, libertarians say he was a libertarian, anarchists say he was an anarchist, etc. But before he had become a safe historical figure, he was held responsible for violence and very seriously accused of being a communist/anarchist by those in the government and on the right who thought those categories were the worst thing possible to be. So one must be skeptical of such name calling today.
Left of center people attack libertarians these days using parallel rhetoric, identifying them as equivalent to the worst right wing types and responsible for everything about capitalism that can be criticized (e.g. the body count from everything bad). Are you on the same page, or do you reject that as invalid nonsense? Do you agree libertarians are fascists too?
Have you ever noticed how ubiquitous the fasces is in Washington, DC, on statues (e.g. Lincoln) and things? That doesn't make our government fascist to be sure, but it's about as good an argument as the one you are making about other people.
2. Civil rights activists aren't primarily known for violence. Anarchists are.
3. Saying their actions have nothing to do with the principles of fascism is like staring at a wall of human skulls in Cambodia and saying this has nothing to do with the principles of socialism: you're missing the point.