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.
Something like this seems to happen at the vast majority of Antifa participation in events. They never seem to go anywhere without ski masks, mace and weapons. That should tell you something. Granted, I'd take getting pepper sprayed over getting run over by a car or shot, but violence in support of a world view that eliminates competing views does seem, based on the actions of the guys in the ski masks, to be a central tenet.
So I really don't think I'm weak-manning them, given that they do in fact often beat people up to stop someone from saying things they don't like, and those things are not limited to "Heil Hitler". Given that only a few pages ago you were defending political violence, I wouldn't have thought you would object to that characterization of the movement.
Quote:
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.
I see what you're saying here, but from my perspective, you're simply demonstrating a mirror image of this fallacy by making a motte and bailey argument - similarly spoilered for those not familiar.
Spoiler!
A motte and bailey is a type of medieval castle with a large courtyard (the "bailey") and a small keep that's hard to attack (the "motte"). The inhabitants would spend most of their time in the bailey, but when attacked, would retreat to the motte.
The motte and bailey argument follows a similar pattern. An individual occupies a field with a wide range of ideas that are controversial, but when challenged, claims they were really just positing something completely benign and impossible to argue with. In other words,
Quote:
So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
1. The religious group that acts for all the world like God is a supernatural creator who builds universes, creates people out of other people’s ribs, parts seas, and heals the sick when asked very nicely (bailey). Then when atheists come around and say maybe there’s no God, the religious group objects “But God is just another name for the beauty and order in the Universe! You’re not denying that there’s beauty and order in the Universe, are you?” (motte). Then when the atheists go away they get back to making people out of other people’s ribs and stuff.
In this case, it's suggested that antifa really just stands for being against facism ("surely you agree that facism is bad, right?") and isn't really characterized by the broader set of ideas like "political violence is acceptable against people we disagree with", or tactics that can be routinely seen whenever they show up anywhere.
Maybe the point is more clearly made by looking at the below statement that you asked me to adopt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
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.
If you change "there are a lot of good ways of being an anti-facist" to "there are a lot of good ways to oppose facism", I'd happily endorse that. My point is that those are two very, very different statements.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I am somewhat skeptical about the real impact of things like counter-protests, because other than bringing people together, they don't really have any practical goal. So I'd be more on the side of picking a legislative goal that would be bad for facists, like laws against open carry of long guns or background checks for gun purchases that flag affiliations with extremist groups, and setting about putting pressure on elected officials to implement those. But if you like, just counter-protest without bringing weapons. That's not that hard, is it?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
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.
It doesn't have to be a matter of making a moral judgement to compare the two. On utilitarian grounds, it's hard to see what positive contributions antifa make to the political climate. Do you think their actions really reduce the amount of white-supremacist idiocy out there? Have they made anyone safer?
Personally, I see antifa's actions, and their tolerance by many people who should know better, as a legitimization of political violence. And that's a bad thing. I don't have to think they're as bad as Nazis to believe their actions are a net negative for civil, liberal society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
Okay, what are the best ways to oppose fascism then?
The usual ways. Free and open speech. Countering their arguments with reason. Pointing out the folly of their agenda. Counter-marches. Championing individual freedoms, while preventing them from hurting others.
You know - liberalism.
Fighting in the streets only inflames the conflict. And when the chaos and violence gets bad enough, the great bulk of citizens who just want to get on with their lives turn to authoritarians to restore order. History shows this happening over and over. You just have to look back to the 60s and early 70s, when alarm over political street violence and chaos led to the election of Richard Nixon - twice.
__________________
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.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-20-2017 at 10:49 AM.
The usual ways. Free and open speech. Countering their arguments with reason. Pointing out the folly of their agenda. Championing individual freedoms, while preventing them from hurting others.
You know - liberalism.
How well did this approach work out for the opponents of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 1920s and 30s?
Neo-Nazis have no interest in hearing your enlightened arguments about why their worldview is misguided and wrong. You're never going to convince a white supremacist to see the error of his ways by quoting Frederick Douglass or even Jesus of Nazareth to him.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
This isn't the 1930s and it isn't Germany. The comparisons make no sense. You can actually de-radicalize some people, actually, but the bigger issue is to make them unappealing to the broader, unaffiliated populace so that it's harder to recruit people. I suspect that the story linked above about sponsoring their march did not win those nazi groups many new recruits, because they looked like a laughing stock.
Also, just from that statement, I'm just wondering, what exactly do you think the approach of beating them up will do? Do you think a white nationalist will suddenly decide that he isn't morally justified in his beliefs if you pepper spray him in the face? Or is it that the end goal is simply to kill them all off?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It doesn't have to be a matter of making a moral judgement to compare the two. On utilitarian grounds, it's hard to see what positive contributions antifa make to the political climate. Do you think their actions really reduce the amount of white-supremacist idiocy out there? Have they made anyone safer?
Personally, I see antifa's actions, and their tolerance by many people who should know better, as a legitimization of political violence. And that's a bad thing. I don't have to think they're as bad as Nazis to believe their actions are a net negative for civil, liberal society.
We agree here (what's happening, Cliff and I agree, the dark times are here). I'm not trying to legitimise the methods of antifa, they're not a group anyone should advocate for, but there is a very dangerous and/or ignorant thread of conversation happening where people are loosely equating them with nazism. Their "evil" is not remotely comparable, and to compare the two in any way is either a negative misrepresentation of antifa, which is forgoveable, or a positive misrepresentation of nazism, which is not.
One can and should be able to talk about antifa without saying they're comparable to nazis. But again, people who do compare the two (by either suggesting their value is similar, or their evil is within striking range of one another) should be met with a high degree of suspicion and either condemnation or education. It's important that when condemning antifa, people don't use Nazi comparisons. If you understand what antifa is and still make those (even loose) comparisons, it treads dangerously close to a very forgiving view of nazis.
In the end the issue isn't about being too harsh on antifa, it's about accidentally being too gentle on nazism. It's unforgivable.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Success in those ventures is exponential, because anyone you manage to reach becomes a hugely useful ally in preventing others from following the same path.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Neo-Nazis have no interest in hearing your enlightened arguments about why their worldview is misguided and wrong. You're never going to convince a white supremacist to see the error of his ways by quoting Frederick Douglass or even Jesus of Nazareth to him.
No, they don't. They're morons. Which is why you let them expose their idiocy for all to see and laugh at. Beating them up only makes people who hate Nazis but don't want people beaten up for saying unpopular things - which is actually a pretty hefty proportion of citizens - sympathize with them as victims. And it only amps up the public will for government to clamp down and sort things out with the power of the state. Are you really sure you want that to happen - are you confident that a government which imposes severe restrictions on speech and public protest will be on your side?
__________________
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.
Are you really sure you want that to happen - are you confident that a government which imposes severe restrictions on speech and public protest will be on your side?
[...] But you cannot destroy a value in order to save it. Nazis — like terrorists — hope that we will abandon principles and fundamentally change who we are out of fear. Assault is assault, threats are threats, murder is murder, and all of them should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted. The allowance for self-defense by those threatened by Nazis should reasonably be generous. But despicable speech is protected by the First Amendment, and should remain so.
Our present circumstances show why it is sheer terrified madness to entrust a broad power to prevent or punish speech upon a fickle state. We've flirted with that madness of abandoning rights in pursuit of safety for our nation's whole life. The flirtation has turned sordid and degrading during the War on Crime and frankly self-destructive after 9/11. It would be philosophical suicide to hasten it now by giving a government — a visibly terrible and amoral government — the power to regulate speech. This is the final hypothetical come to pass: if the state asked you to give up freedoms in exchange for a dubious promise it would make you safer, would you do it? Would you convince yourself that the state would only use the power against Them, and not you?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
No, they don't. They're morons. Which is why you let them expose their idiocy for all to see and laugh at. Beating them up only makes people who hate Nazis but don't want people beaten up for saying unpopular things - which is actually a pretty hefty proportion of citizens - sympathize with them as victims.
Literally nobody felt any sympathy for the Nazis in the 1940s who suffered far, far worse fates than merely getting beat up. Indeed, destroying Nazi Germany (and the Confederacy 80 years prior to that) at the cost of millions of lives and untold human suffering is regarded by damn near everyone as a very necessary sacrifice that was worth the cost. Why would any reasonable person be sympathetic to neo-Nazis now?
Quote:
And it only amps up the public will for government to clamp down and sort things out with the power of the state. Are you really sure you want that to happen - are you confident that a government which imposes severe restrictions on speech and public protest will be on your side?
I am indeed quite confident that a government that imposed restrictions on Nazi/white supremacist hate speech would be on my side. What percentage of German citizens, do you reckon, are opposed to the anti-Nazi laws in that country because of muh freeze peach?
Seriously, you really need to stop comparing competing civilian protests to the second world war. These are wholly different contexts. Antifa should not be compared to allied soldiers. That is a horrible analogy.
Second, this is essentially the same argument that Obama uses to address the nuance of islamic terrorism. Conservative Muslims who aren't aligned with the values of jihadists and wouldn't themselves commit violence are driven to sympathy by western overreach. You can agree or disagree with that argument, but it's hardly a new one. It seems more compelling in this context, in that white supremacists in the USA seem to be gaining steam over the past five years, not losing it.
As for your question about Germany, a reasonable percentage don't think it's the greatest idea to maintain those laws. They may have been necessary in the wake of the war, but now, they seem to just drive these groups underground where they can fester and grow, particularly with the internet as a tool to congregate. Again, there are parallels to jihadist extremism.
But even as a general principle, it's not at all the case that everyone's totally on board with criminalizing hate speech... Up here, we almost had a centrist CPC leader campaign against much lighter restrictions on hate speech. I'm amazed that you think this is uncontroversial. I do like how you deridingly characterized your own right to freedom of expression at the end, there, that was... something.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Also, just from that statement, I'm just wondering, what exactly do you think the approach of beating them up will do? Do you think a white nationalist will suddenly decide that he isn't morally justified in his beliefs if you pepper spray him in the face? Or is it that the end goal is simply to kill them all off?
No, you won't convince neo-Nazis to suddenly change their views, but you can force them underground, to private gatherings or internet forums where they're incapable of causing real harm to anyone. If they feel unsafe gathering en masse in public, they'll no longer be able to inflict terror on the targets of their hate, such as what occurred at a synagogue in Charlottesville last week:
Yeah, you and I disagree strongly about whether driving them underground is a good thing, apparently. I mean, we've pretty much been doing that for years, and here we are. Eventually they just bubble up... and eventually they stop going underground again, because enough of them have managed to breed down there that they can actually fight you. With, you know, guns and stuff.
Did you just ignore the notion of de-radicalization programs? Why isn't that a good idea? Do you think they're doomed to fail, for some reason?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I am indeed quite confident that a government that imposed restrictions on Nazi/white supremacist hate speech would be on my side. What percentage of German citizens, do you reckon, are opposed to the anti-Nazi laws in that country because of muh freeze peach?
Germany is a different country with a different history. The American constitution isn't set up to treat various kinds of unpopular speech differently. If Nazis qualify as a special case, you can be sure legislators will be lining up to add Communists to the list of prescribed groups. Then conservative Islam.
The progressive left has lost sight of the fact that they owe the the survival and eventual victory of liberal movements to free speech. Pretty much every gain we take for granted today started as deeply unpopular speech, which good, decent, law-abiding folk couldn't stomach. The reason it wasn't snuffed out is because of a legal fidelity to liberalism and free speech.
Go back and look at the history of the ACLU. Look at the fights they undertook. It's not inconsistent to defend the rights of Communists, black students, gay writers, and Nazis. It's inconsistent not to.
__________________
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.
Are you saying that the right to freedom of speech and public gathering should be absolute without any restrictions? Should it be legal for neo-Nazis to carry rifles, wave swastika flags, and chant anti-Semitic slogans while marching in front of a synagogue so long as they never physically harm anyone or explicitly call for violence? Or do the Jews peacefully worshiping inside have a right to not be terrorized that supersedes the free speech rights of the Nazis? If the latter, should the government therefore enforce limited, reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and public gathering to protect the victims of hate groups?
Or do the Jews peacefully worshiping inside have a right to not be terrorized that supersedes the free speech rights of the Nazis? If the latter, should the government therefore enforce limited, reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and public gathering to protect the victims of hate groups?
The police will keep everyone feeling safe. Oh wait... (I'm not making a broad statement with this, I'm just saying it's not simple, and I'm just frustrated at the huge difference between the police giving wide leeway last weekend vs. something like Ferguson).
One thing I didn't know about Antifa was the amount of stuff they do behind the scenes to non-violently combat fascism. They apparently monitor social media and common online hangouts to look for coming events and try and get them stopped before they start, by talking to venues and informing them that the group booking the event are nazis and white supremacists. They identify them and try and get social pressures to bear on them (informing their families, schools, workplaces).
Also didn't realize the history of the movement was as deep as it is.
I don't condone many of the methods, but I also can at least see and understand the motivation. As far as I understand they're saying that some ideas are so evil that they can't be permitted to see the light of day unchallenged. I can't say with any great confidence that that's wrong or right, but I can at least understand it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
