[CorsiHockeyLeague]

We're getting way closer here.

Originally Posted by Itse

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.

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,

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:

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.