Gonna leave this here, with the question: Can you name one target of antifa that you would deem "tolerant"?
It's easy to categorise antifa as morally wrong if you start from a position that violence is always morally wrong, but if you view it from the perspective of what antifa is a response to, I think it gets a lot muddier. Is war wrong? If so, is it equally fair to condemn those that defend as those who attack?
In this case you have to debate the ethical view that AntiFa and Neo-Nazi's crave confrontational violence. So yes to me both sides aren't exactly Moral in that sense.
Antifa's aren't some benign group of protestors waving banners, they confront and challenge and violence is one thing that they move to very easily.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
In this case you have to debate the ethical view that AntiFa and Neo-Nazi's crave confrontational violence. So yes to me both sides aren't exactly Moral in that sense.
Antifa's aren't some benign group of protestors waving banners, they confront and challenge and violence is one thing that they move to very easily.
I don't really think most people who have read a lick about antifa think they're benign flag wavers. Moving to action is at the core of their purpose.
That said, by comparing the desire for confrontational violence and then saying "both sides aren't exactly moral" you can't possibly be approaching the subject in an honest way. Lying by omission, essentially. Because the real key here is that you're comparing the worst part of one group with one of many many terrible parts of the other. Saying "both sides aren't exactly moral" is like saying someone who commits tax fraud and someone who is a serial rapist "aren't exactly moral people," you're technically right, but because there is such a huge disparity between the severity of each moral transgression, it makes zero sense to use the same description for both. It's either too severe for one, or too light for another.
That's why people get irked at this type of discussion or reject it outright. Yes Captain, Antifa "aren't exactly moral," this is a true and accurate statement. But nazi's aren't just not "exactly moral," they're so ####ing far from moral that you would have to be insane or a moron to believe they even approach morality. That's why there's no discussion that can be had where they're compared. You can say both are bad, but you have to make the distinction between the severity of "bad," because it's a casm pretty much nobody else is going to ignore and anyone who does is suspect.
Will Nazi's have a rational discussion about the absurdity of their position and honestly listen to outside views?
Will skin-heads stop attacking innocent people if we ignore them?
Will White Nationalists stop spreading their message of hate and intolerance if we just let them be?
I would argue the answer to all of these is "no". Most of the people that are part of these "movements" are either spoiled brats, sad losers, lifelong bullies or career criminals. The only thing they respect is strength. We saw some of that in the crying video and the video of the guy who threw his shirt off as soon as he was confronted. Does that mean violence is necessary? Of course not, but if violence is required to stop them than that's what needs to happen. This why both of my grandfathers fought in WWII.
Ignore these animals and try to rationalize with them at your own peril.
If only there was a force of trained professionals to keep Nazis from hurting civilians. Then we wouldn't have to rely on a communist anarchist group with only a slightly better history of violence than Nazis to be the neutral arbiters of law and order.
If only there was a force of trained professionals to keep Nazis from hurting civilians. Then we wouldn't have to rely on a communist anarchist group with only a slightly better history of violence than Nazis to be the neutral arbiters of law and order.
Dare to dream I guess.
I guess I'll just have to dare to dream about the citation you're sitting on for that one! LOL
If only there was a force of trained professionals to keep Nazis from hurting civilians. Then we wouldn't have to rely on a communist anarchist group with only a slightly better history of violence than Nazis to be the neutral arbiters of law and order.
Dare to dream I guess.
Seriously tho, really shameful post. Awful. I hope you feel bad.
^Why are you waiting for that, though? You're looking for someone to offer a counterpoint to your argument that Nazis are worse than Antifa protesters in that particular regard? If so, I don't understand; no one is arguing that Nazis aren't worse than Antifa in that way, and in other ways too.
As to why people are, in general, more likely to act like animals when in a large group of like-minded people, there's lots of research on that point.
I was sort of joking, but it was a reference to the statement, "they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive" - if you've ever had a conversation with someone devoted to postmodernism, it can be a surreal experience, where the very concept of objective reality that can be verified is in question. There's a pervasive reading of Foucault's Truth and Power that is highly suspicious of logic and rationality, viewing them as tools of the oppressor class. As a result, argument based on reason is rejected at the outset, because to engage in it would be playing the game on the terms of the oppressors. Engaging with someone who holds those views like suddenly finding yourself in a Beckett play.
In seriousness again though, if violence can be justified on the basis that your opponents won't listen to reason, well, it's pretty easy for people to convince themselves of that. That seems to me to be far too low a bar to place in front of vigilantism. It's not until you get to the "fists and pistols" part that you're in the realm of sound policy.
i think my point in bringing up the question is based primarily on intent.
The anfita movement isn't something that has been growing in isolation. Rather its strength is wholly dependent on the the Far Right and white supremacists. It is a response to that growth and throughout history, one could chart the growth of Antifa with the growth of the Far Right...
the violence shown by antifa, as far is I can see happen in these large scale protests and counter protests, where there is an ideological enemy: those espousing extreme right ideologies. Rightly or wrongly, they see themselves as a counter balance to that and organize accordingly.
Do people believe that Antifa would exist without the rise of the Far Right?
The point of raising the question with respect to violent acts is one of intent and context. Within a mob, I think we can agree, it can bring out the worst in people from all sides, and often violence ensues because people are on edge...
However, if i were an individual walking past a group of antifa vs a group of white supremacists in the middle of the night, i'd definitely take my chances with antifa.
With all due respect to those putting out the notion that the antifa and the far right violence is the same, you might be right when it comes to clashes when those two groups come together to protest the removal of a statue... however, with respect to incidents that are actually labelled domestic terrorism, the far right has a much bigger threat than antifa is.
If only there was a force of trained professionals to keep Nazis from hurting civilians. Then we wouldn't have to rely on a communist anarchist group with only a slightly better history of violence than Nazis to be the neutral arbiters of law and order.
Dare to dream I guess.
Presumably you mean the police, but, well. When you have cops with Nazi-style tattoos, I'm not sure how much I trust them to try to stop Nazis.
"Federal law enforcement agencies in general — the FBI, the Marshals, the ATF — are aware that extremists have infiltrated state and local law enforcement agencies and that there are people in law enforcement agencies that may be sympathetic to these groups," said Daryl Johnson
I get what you're saying--but can you really blame marginalized people for not really trusting the police, given the way police in the US seem to regularly shoot (to kill) first, ask questions later?
Not that Antifa is the answer, but it's an issue far more muddied than just "let the cops deal with it."
Its crazy and confusing how anyone can suggest that antifa is anything but a suppression party. They will not stop with racists and kkk because they didn't start with them they started by stopping speakers they didn't agree with. Just because they are the lesser of 2 evils in this instance does not legitimize them.
This is where you lose me. The central tenet of antifa is to suppress any perspectives they deem to be wrong through violence.
Quote:
But they essentially stand for, "conform to our world view, or we'll beat the #### out of you until you do". That's not to be celebrated. Nor is violence to prevent the people you don't want to speak from speaking.
Quote:
These people seem to take it as read that it's so important to stop people you don't like from saying the things you don't like, that physical assault is justifiable. I'm just going to go ahead and post this again, because it should act as a full answer to this idiotic political position.
You keep equating rare incidents with the general behavior of a movement and keep making blatantly absurd statements about their supposed "central tenets". I tried to look for something to steelman in your argument, but even at it's best you keep repeating a weak man fallacy. Yes, attacking Alison Strange was wrong, but it's hardly typical. Yes antifa sometimes attacks the wrong people for wrong reasons, but it's really pretty easy to tell how far removed something like the Alison Strange attack is from general antifa propaganda.
(Explained within the tag for those unfamiliar with the concept.)
Spoiler!
One of the cutting-edge advances in fallacy-ology has been the weak man, a terribly-named cousin of the straw man. The straw man is a terrible argument nobody really holds, which was only invented so your side had something easy to defeat. The weak man is a terrible argument that only a few unrepresentative people hold, which was only brought to prominence so your side had something easy to defeat.
For example, “I am a proud atheist and I don’t like religion. Think of the terrible things done by religion, like the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. They try to disturb the funerals of heroes because they think God hates everybody. But this is horrible. Religious people can’t justify why they do things like this. That’s why I’m proud to be an atheist.”
It’s not a straw man. There really is a Westboro Baptist Church, for some reason. But one still feels like the atheist is making things just a little too easy on himself.
Maybe the problem is that the atheist is indirectly suggesting that Westboro Baptist Church is typical of religion? An implied falsehood?
Then suppose the atheist posts on Tumblr: “I hate religious people who are rabidly certain that the world was created in seven days or that all their enemies will burn in Hell, and try to justify it through ‘faith’. You know, the sort of people who think that the Bible has all the answers and who hate anyone who tries to think for themselves.”
Now there’s practically no implication that these people are typical. So that’s fine, right?
On the other side of the world, a religious person is writing “I hate atheists who think morality is relative, and that this gives them the right to murder however many people stand between them and a world where no one is allowed to believe in God”.
Again, not a straw man. The Soviet Union contained several million of these people. But if you’re an atheist, would you just let this pass?
How about “I hate black thugs who rob people”?
What are the chances a black guy reads that and says “Well, good thing I’m not a thug who robs people, he’ll probably love me”?
I wonder; if we started a contest of comparing the number of times antifa have physically threatened people who were not clearly speaking out for fascism, racism, nazism or anti-queer activity, with the times white supremacists have gone on a ethnically or religiously motivated killing spree with multiple deaths, who could come up with more examples? US only in 2000's, for some limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Yet they have so much in common.
Dogma rooted in a simplistic and emotionally-satisfying narrative that eschews complexity and nuance.
You're saying that we should strive for more complex explanations of why fascism is bad? Besides, if you're looking for the most complex understanding of Nazi ideology and methodology outside the specific academic circles studying the, antifa is a good place to go. Heck, quite a few members of antifa are literally students and academics of relevant fields.
Quote:
Striving for an idealized state of society where everyone will conform to that dogma.
The antifa ideal is a world which does not tolerate attempts to preach hatred and spread violent behavior towards minorities or attempts to create fascist states (which would mean for example the end of democracy). They do not try to deny supporters of fascism the right to exist, the right to education, the right to healthcare, the right to citizenship, the right to vote etc. They don't go out hunting for fascists at their homes or places of worship. They confront Nazi demonstrations and at times fascist public figures, because they don't think preaching violence towards non-straight non-white non-Christians is speech that needs to be free.
In other words, the goals of these antifa "extremists" are arguably less extreme than for example vote-blocking black people or removing millions of immigrants from the country. What the antifa wants is to deny the very specific right of preaching quite specific speech.
In comparison the Nazi ideal is a fascist state where all ethnic and sexual minorities are gone and political and religious dissidence is completely removed from the society. One nation with one race, one religion, one ideal and only straight cis people.
Do you seriously consider these "dogmas" equal?
For the people who want to jump in here saying blocking any free speech is bad; I would first like you to start by explaining why is shutting down a website preaching a holy war against non-Christians a potentially dangerous precedent of limiting free speech, but shutting down a website preaching holy war against non-Muslims is not? If you're against antifa trying to physically block a Nazi rally because it's confrontational and violent, would you be equally against people going out and trying to physically block the passage of an ISIS support rally from touring the local churches? Because these are the things antifa supports as movement.
Let's remember the context here; White supremacists are the single biggest terrorist threat in the United States right now, according to the FBI. They commit more attacks killing more people than any other group. As an actual threat to Americans living in the country right now, they are literally worse than ISIS. Of course that last part is of no real concern to you if you're a white straight guy, but I think people should have a little understanding of that context when they start getting all huffed up about how angry the antifa seem.
(I said white straight guys, because a lot of these same people are also literally preaching that we should "bring back the patriarchy".)
Quote:
Dehumanizing some entity (Jews, Communists, Whites, Muslims, Capitalists, etc.) and blaming them for all the world's ills.
Now you're moving firmly into the territory of nonsense. While there certainly are anti-capitalists among antifa, this is not what the belief of antifa. Trying to sneak in "whites" there is just ridiculous. Antifa is a predominantly white movement.
Quote:
“Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.”
“The permanent misfits can find salvation only in a complete separation from the self; and they usually find it by losing themselves in the compact collectivity of a mass movement.”
“All mass movements, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred, and intolerance.”
― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
So, antifa and fascism are similar because they are both mass movements?
Mass movements are also things like abolitionism, the Civil Rights Movement, Gay rights movement, suffragettes or all independence movements. Just to name a few.
Do I need to even say "false equivalence" here?
Last edited by Itse; 08-20-2017 at 07:42 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Ignore these animals and try to rationalize with them at your own peril.
It's interesting to compare the reaction to the violence in Charlottesville with the reaction to the attacks in Barcelona.
Many say we cannot turn the cameras away from neo-Nazis. We have to publicize the marches, confront them publicly, and capture and any violence that takes place at them. And we can't kid ourselves we're only dealing with tiny group of people - neo-Nazis represent a far larger population of people who may not take to the streets but who sympathize with their agenda.
However, we need to stop publicizing the deaths at the hands of jihadis. It only plays into their agenda. These are rogue actors with no support in their broader community. Let the police deal with it and get on with our lives.
Strange that two violently reactionary movements with so many similarities -
their hatred of modernity, contempt for liberalism, naked misogyny (the knife-wielding attacker in Turku targeted women) - should be treated so differently.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Maybe by you. I've heard lots of people take a consistent position both ways, i.e. both domestic and jihadist terrorists should be ignored because what they want is attention OR they should be be confronted. And yes, I've also heard the inconsistent position that you refer to. I think there is merit to many arguments in how to deal with fascists and jihadists but the fact is that they are not the same and equating them is not so simple.
What's really disappointing is that some of the usual suspects have derailed this thread from discussing the vile, wretched scum like Fascists into a thread about Antifa...just as dear leader Donald has done.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Sorry for flooding, but I think this is an important addition to what I'm trying to say.
If you show me an incident like the Alison Strange the attack and ask me to join you condemning it, I absolutely will. If you ask me to go the length, I will go through my connections to find the personal contact information of people responsible and send them lengthy angry explanations why what they're doing is wrong, and how they are a disgrace to the movement and should be ashamed of themselves. I repeatedly in my own social circles speak out when someone is going overboard rhetorically (for example when they call local far-right politicians something like "scum").
I just don't consider it to be even remotely fair to judge the whole anti-fascist movement as bad simply because not all people participating are in the right or pay attention to the guidelines on acceptable and un-acceptable levels of physical confrontation.
I think even Corsi would accept this following statement(??)
There is no good ways of being a Nazi (apart from just keeping it to yourself), but there are a lot of good ways of being an anti-fascist.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Its crazy and confusing how anyone can suggest that antifa is anything but a suppression party. They will not stop with racists and kkk because they didn't start with them they started by stopping speakers they didn't agree with. Just because they are the lesser of 2 evils in this instance does not legitimize them.
It seems crazy and confusing because you're clearly not educated on the history of antifa, considering you have their history completely wrong.
Go and research antifa. This isn't some new group that popped up at the same time as Milo. They did start with racists and the kkk/nazis/whatever, and their suppression tactics are focused solely on them. It's their methods that are the problem, not their intent.
Education is key to understanding the issue.
EDIT: And, again, labelling them as simply the lesser of two evils is either to extremely overstate the evil of antifa, or to completely understate the evil of nazism. Unless you think suppressing racist speech (sometimes with pepper spray and batons) is as evil as mass genocide. Maybe I'm wrong.
Last edited by PepsiFree; 08-20-2017 at 09:56 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" was either too hard to put on a t-shirt, or existed the budget for lettering.
