Sam_Stone, while well intentioned, has sent you on a wild goose chase. “Rethuglican” is a totally irrelevant epithet. It is not dehumanizing in the least bit. It certainly isn’t hate speech. (Aside: I would argue the same for “invader”.)
Comparing people to animals or inanimate objects - in a bad way - is dehumanizing. Describing the Republican base as “garbage” (noun) is dehumanizing. Describing anti-vax truckers as “cockroaches” is dehumanizing. More conventional examples include “Men are pigs.” “Capitalist pigs.” “Russian dogs.” Etc.
None of these are beyond the pale, IMO. Comparing a Republican candidate or campaign to apes or dogs can pass as standard political speech. But something like comparing Black people to apes is way over the line. Language does not become unacceptably offensive when it merely dehumanizes people, or groups of people. There has to be another element… say, a protected characteristic that makes the denigration undeserved.
~Max