It seems to me that there are to many variables over a large canvas for this to have the ability to lock it down to so few options. Some examples:

(1) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against violence, then you are a PACIFIST.

Not necessarily. I don't think one need be a pacifist to object to innocent people being mob beaten as we have seen taking place in recent years by groups claiming to be anti fascist. I was surprised actually at how cowardly those under attack had often been. I watched teens beaten (as well as parents who stepped in) watched women being chased as she was being pelted with eggs as no one helped her. People assaulted with urine, bike locks etc. I'm against those scenarios but unlike the many videos I watched, I would have retaliated. You can't chase someone who isn't running.

(2) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against ALL censorship, then you are a HATE-SPEECH-ADVOCATE.

Who is determining what constitutes hate speech? I have seen many calls for books such as Huck Finn to be banned because of the N word usage. Yet anyone who has read the book that has any common sense at all would realize the character Jim is portrayed as a hero many times over, and one would be most fortunate to have such a friend.

(3) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests then you are a FASCIST.

Many of the videos I have seen aren't protests, they are acts of harassment and violence, usually against others who aren't actually the problem from what their claiming their grievances are. Many who they are targeting have as little power in making the structure as they do, and are getting the punishment for their anger. I notice they never go protest at the power brokers mansions and use violence on them. Guessing cause they know they would be arrested and most likely shot. Easier for them to enact violence on people who would prefer not to participate in it, and lean towards being cowards. Haven't seen any reports of them harassing 3% or biker club gatherings, lol.

Even the definition that you sourced is questionable.

typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Who decides what constitutes whether it is belligerent or not? Nationalism makes good sense and should be whittled down even further to localities. Having those far away making decisions on what is to be done with local resources and sweat is what allows for so much theft by wealthy corrupt individuals. As for the racism label, that is so overused now trying to force unnatural behaviors.

Words misused are often weapons by those seeking to manipulate their demands. But like the person who said they couldn't define what was pornographic/obscene, but recognized it when they saw it. That's the best approach when looking at these absolutes when things often don't really fit so neatly in their boxes of definition.

Sorry for the lengthy response that was about as long as your post, lol. It might also have been worded better, so my apologies. My schedule is hectic lately and my mental acuity not the greatest right now.

Excellent questions though, that touch on a subject more need to discuss and understand how they feel, not others defining positions they would foist upon them.