Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
I think almost everyone is pretty much agreeing. The difference is you and one side is focused on the slippery slope of putting everyone in the same basket where as others focus on the slippery slope of justifying violence for political reasons.
|
The first side has nothing to do with a slippery slope analogy. It's pointing out a categorisation that is ignorant with the potential to be dangerous to a very high degree. It's not an "what might happen in the future" situation, it's a "the thing that people are saying? right now? it's bad, stop saying it."
Slippery slopes are always stupid, and they essentially defy human history because they're rarely noticeable and always rely on the acceptance of society at large. Antifa has existed for almost 100 years, and religious groups have used violence to incite change for 1000s of years before that. There are more examples of religious violence today than violence carried out by Antifa. In fact, there are more examples of violence from any single hate group than there are of Antifa. What influence, exactly, are you worried that a far left militant group is going to have? Because it seems that their actions pale in comparison to the many many many other examples of political and ideological motivated acts of violence in the US and abroad happening right now. Their acts of violence are dwarfed by severity and number by every other measurable.
I'm not saying don't think violence is wrong, I'm saying pointing to Antifa as dangerous because they're a potential catalyst for religious and ideological violence that already outranks them by a shockingly high degree is impossible to understand. It is literally a non-point.