Antifa

[Torrocca]

Nah, it's usually easy to tell when people genuinely hate both sides, because they normally say they're still against Fascism - which, y'know, I'm generally okay with even if I disagree with it. It's the ones who merely play up the "both sides" angle without that that are of concern.

How is saying "both sides" any more "crypto-fascist" (that's basically what you're saying) than explicitly stating their opposed to fascists? They're still implying that they hold views at odds with things "both sides" commit or support.

The former's just uncritical demonization of both sides without any exploration into the context of why those sides exist or why they do what they do, whereas the latter is at least showing that they understand the finer nuances between AntiFA and Fascism, even if they have staunch disagreements with the methodology of various AntiFA movements.

You have my sincerest apology that I can't come up with a poll that features concrete numbers on the number of people who feign a hatred of both sides in support of Fascism.

Indeed, I know that you're just talking shit that you can't back up.

Also, you cast a much, much wider net than just those "feigning" hatred of both sides. "Unwitting" and "otherwise support", I seem to recall. Positively Marxist levels of paranoia, there, and no evidence, to boot. Tsk, tsk.

I've really got no reason to talk shit, chief. I've seen it happen before, and if you're so certain to call me a liar over it, I'll gladly go hunting down some examples.

[Scomagia]

How is saying "both sides" any more "crypto-fascist" (that's basically what you're saying) than explicitly stating their opposed to fascists? They're still implying that they hold views at odds with things "both sides" commit or support.

The former's just uncritical demonization of both sides without any exploration into the context of why those sides exist or why they do what they do, whereas the latter is at least showing that they understand the finer nuances between AntiFA and Fascism, even if they have staunch disagreements with the methodology of various AntiFA movements.

Indeed, I know that you're just talking shit that you can't back up.

Also, you cast a much, much wider net than just those "feigning" hatred of both sides. "Unwitting" and "otherwise support", I seem to recall. Positively Marxist levels of paranoia, there, and no evidence, to boot. Tsk, tsk.

I've really got no reason to talk shit, chief. I've seen it happen before, and if you're so certain to call me a liar over it, I'll gladly go hunting down some examples.

You have every reason to talk shit, son. You obviously take this shit way too seriously. That tends to lead to an increase of bullshitting.

But I will humor you: show me examples of people who claim to hate both sides that are "unwittingly" supporting fascism.

*Edit: I'm not sure how sensitive you are but my calling you "son" was not intended as misgendering. I didn't notice your signature until after.

[Takso]

"They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right." from the article on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa

That particular quote references:
https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech ... ta-mining/
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgroun ... the-antifa
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-i ... index.html
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/0 ... e/22067671
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/53325561 ... nce-rising

"Antifa are not new. They're a latter-day version of the anarchists and "black bloc" groups who, over the years, have often challenged police and broken windows during May Day protests in Seattle and Portland. Their membership is hard to track, but it appears to be expanding beyond the West Coast. They are also embracing other leftist causes beyond just fighting white supremacists.

Still, their numbers are tiny in relation to the mainstream political left. And, say experts, it's misleading for right-wing groups to suggest that the Antifa are more violent than right-wing extremists." - From the article published by the NPR

[Kassaran]

Antifa organizations are in my opinion, about as helpful as any activist group that advocates for violence in debate. If you resolve to violence to win an argument, you only drive a deeper wedge between the opposing sides. It is okay to oppose fascism with your words and peaceful demonstrations. It is not okay to oppose fascism with provocation and violence in a society where there are no fascists openly in power and cannot subject others to their flawed political ideology. In the end, better to simply lump them in with the ethno-nationalists, the Marxists, and Green Peace for the damage they do to wider society in their attempts to rule it.

[Estanglia]

Association with Antifa is a terrorist act and should not be tolerated

Define Antifa. Define how one can associate with it.

Please pick one.

No, because they don't contradict. ANTIFA is a dangerous terrorist group that seeks to inflict violence on their political opponents, and every member of this hate group deserves to be locked up for domestic terrorism.

Define how one can be a member of Antifa.

Honestly, I'm sick of hearing about Antifa. Sometimes they get a little too militant, or they have a couple douches in the group, but it's way overhyped by fearmongers on the right.

Fearmongering implies exaggeration, but there's no exaggeration here, ANTIFA is one of the most insidious, sinister, sneaky, confrontational, aggressive and dangerous organisations to have ever existed in modern American history, they are ruthless, sociopathic, their members are antisocial and have no empathy, they have no qualms about wrecking mass chaos and havoc, preying on the innocent, taking advantage of the weak, ganging up on the unarmed and the vulnerable, they attack like wolf packs in the night, without warning, without an opportunity to defend yourself.

No one is safe, no one is secure, no child, no family, when a Black Bloc of roaming anarchists and lawless gangsters and hooligans, regarding themselves as above the law, take up arms and hurt, maim, injure innocent people and wreck property, without anyone to put an end to their brutality and their criminality. Their attacks have only escalated, from beating up a journalist, firebombing ICE facilities, attacking Trump supporters or a Bernie voter in Portland, throwing Molotov cocktails in Berkeley, and it won't stop, it won't end, until someone has the courage in Washington DC to lay down the law, once and for all, on these violent hoodlums, these sociopathic thugs and gangsters terrorising innocent Americans and seeking to destroy American society from within, gnashing at their teeth to punch and kick and hurt innocent people who are too weak to defend themselves.

Truly, ANTIFA is one of the most dangerous threats to have ever faced the American people, and urgent action needs to be taken by the federal government or their suffering and criminality will continue to be inflicted on more and more people, helpless to protect themselves.

You say that there's no exaggeration, then proceed to exaggerate Antifa.

If you genuinely think that a bunch of hooligans who go around beating things and people up is the most dangerous organisation modern American history then I wonder what happened to all the literal terror groups.

I'm not saying that you invented the word "antifa". I'm saying that you weirdly insist on using all caps to refer to all people doin' an antifa, something anti-fascists themselves do not do. I don't dispute that some groups to include the word "antifa" in their names to get across how they do an antifa. But look at your example. "Antifa International". Not "ANTIFA International". And incidentally, @antifaintl is not a verified account.


I just said I'm a little worried.


A sentence of life without parole for the entirely legal crime of associating with people of a given political persuasion who may or may not themselves have broken some law or laws is mass incarceration of your political opponents.

If I want to capitalise something I'll capitalise it, I don't see what the big deal is, Antifa just looks weird to me compared to ANTIFA so its an aesthetic preference. Regardless, it makes no difference to my underlying point, it's more semantic nitpicking.

More importantly, I want ANTIFA members jailed not because they are 'peacefully associating' with others but because ANTIFA is a violent terrorist organisation willing to attack and main and hospitalise people simply because they are of a different political persuasion to them, in the same way as I would want to prosecute and jail members of other political terrorist organisations. That's not suppression of dissent, peaceful and non-terrorist dissent should not be penalised.

No matter how many times you say it, Antifa is not an organisation.

[Estanglia]

It's a semantic point,

It's not.

See, if Antifa is not an actual organisation, then banning Antifa is loosely defined. After all, you don't have the solid criteria of membership.

Is it antifascism? Then you're banning an ideology.
Is it violent antifascism? Then what about non-violent antifascist groups that call themselves Antifa?
Is it groups that call themselves Antifa? Then what about antifascist groups that don't call themselves Antifa?

because there are local chapters,

Which form Antifa, sure, but they aren't Antifa itself.

there are people who attend rallies self-describing as an ANTIFA Black Bloc,

Which doesn't make it an organisation.

there's an Antifa International official Twitter page and other Antifa pages on social media,

Do they claim to speak for the organisation Antifa, or are sanctioned by the organisation Antifa?

and slogans and chants of Antifa attendees at political events.

Sounds more like a movement than an organisation to me.

Again, this is a semantic distraction from the key point that ANTIFA members are terrorists who inflict targeted violence on their political opponents.

It isn't because you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an actual organisation.

[Ifreann]

You have my sincerest apology that I can't come up with a poll that features concrete numbers on the number of people who feign a hatred of both sides in support of Fascism.

Indeed, I know that you're just talking shit that you can't back up.

Also, you cast a much, much wider net than just those "feigning" hatred of both sides. "Unwitting" and "otherwise support", I seem to recall. Positively Marxist levels of paranoia, there, and no evidence, to boot. Tsk, tsk.

Marx: Famously paranoid, apparently?

[Phoenicaea]

i despise people with these inner dispositions, deeply and in my bowels.
besides, i share solidarity with them politically, and whatever else, against putrid society.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

in my bowels.

[Aclion]

It isn't because you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an actual organisation.

Fortunately being an organisation is not a requirement to be a terrorist. This same argument was used to deflect criticism of Al Qaeda.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

It isn't because you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an actual organisation.

Fortunately Organisation is not a requirement to be a terrorist. This same argument was used to deflect criticism of Al Qaeda.

Antifa isn't Al-Qaeda.

[Estanglia]

It isn't because you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an actual organisation.

Fortunately Organisation is not a requirement to be a terrorist. This same argument was used to deflect criticism of Al Qaeda.

Sure, but the argument was

ANTIFA members are terrorists

Which would require there to be something that you can be a member of, namely an organisation (from his other posts).

My point was that you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an organisation.

[Aclion]

Fortunately Organisation is not a requirement to be a terrorist. This same argument was used to deflect criticism of Al Qaeda.

Antifa isn't Al-Qaeda.

Oh shit, Scotland Yard must be missing you, Mr. Holmes.

Fortunately Organisation is not a requirement to be a terrorist. This same argument was used to deflect criticism of Al Qaeda.

Sure, but the argument was

ANTIFA members are terrorists

Which would require there to be something that you can be a member of, namely an organisation (from his other posts).

My point was that you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an organisation.

You can however be a member of a group or even movement.

[Phoenicaea]

ANTIFA members are terrorists

ah, so they are right. terror against foes of the republic.
unfortunately, them who can t give value to human word, can t be dealed with.

[Kaedijork]

It's a semantic point, because there are local chapters, there are people who attend rallies self-describing as an ANTIFA Black Bloc, there's an Antifa International official Twitter page and other Antifa pages on social media, and slogans and chants of Antifa attendees at political events. Again, this is a semantic distraction from the key point that ANTIFA members are terrorists who inflict targeted violence on their political opponents.

There's also a Capitalist International official twitter page. That doesn't make capitalism an organisation. Theres plenty of capitalist pages on social media, and theres plenty of capitalist slogans and chants - eg; there is no alternative, better dead than red, etc. Capitalism is not an organisation. Antifa is not an organisation. You cannot be a member of antifa. It is not a semantic point. It destroys your entire argument.

[Kaedijork]

You can however be a member of a group or even movement.

Perhaps actually read the above post that you lot conveniently gloss over whenever any points are raised that challenge your worldview in that you are fighting for freedom. You know what, here, I'll link it for you:

It's a semantic point,

It's not.

See, if Antifa is not an actual organisation, then banning Antifa is loosely defined. After all, you don't have the solid criteria of membership.

Is it antifascism? Then you're banning an ideology.
Is it violent antifascism? Then what about non-violent antifascist groups that call themselves Antifa?
Is it groups that call themselves Antifa? Then what about antifascist groups that don't call themselves Antifa?

because there are local chapters,

Which form Antifa, sure, but they aren't Antifa itself.

there are people who attend rallies self-describing as an ANTIFA Black Bloc,

Which doesn't make it an organisation.

there's an Antifa International official Twitter page and other Antifa pages on social media,

Do they claim to speak for the organisation Antifa, or are sanctioned by the organisation Antifa?

and slogans and chants of Antifa attendees at political events.

Sounds more like a movement than an organisation to me.

Again, this is a semantic distraction from the key point that ANTIFA members are terrorists who inflict targeted violence on their political opponents.

It isn't because you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an actual organisation.

[Estanglia]

Antifa isn't Al-Qaeda.

Oh shit, Scotland Yard must be missing you, Mr. Holmes.

Sure, but the argument was

ANTIFA members are terrorists

Which would require there to be something that you can be a member of, namely an organisation (from his other posts).

My point was that you can't be a member of an organisation if the 'organisation' in question isn't an organisation.

You can however be a member of a group or even movement.

Sure, but Antifa is not a group (unless it's a group of groups, but then you run into the problem of 'what groups make up Antifa?') and, if it's a movement, then you're effectively banning the movement's ideology when you ban the movement (which gets into the 'banning Antifa will be used to suppress dissent' argument) and what is and isn't part of the movement is again loose (is it all antifascists? violent antifascists? groups who call themselves Antifa? etc.).

[Communist Crimean Republic]

To what extent does antifascism become unjustified or non-good? When you attack conservatives and people who aren't even fascists (and don't like fascists) for not being against them enough vocally?

I don’t advocate attacking people, but being complicit in fascism removes your “innocent card.”

Hold up.

I don't like talking in Political threads, but this line is killing me.

Just because someone expresses a political ideology you don't like doesn't mean they lose due process and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What needs to happen to extremist ideologies like fascism, socialism, and communism is that they need to be disproven in a fair, open discussion, not make it so that the people who express extremist ideologies lose their rights.

Personally, I hate both extremes. I'm a classic liberal myself, and that's rather tame compared to today's politics. And Taking away people's rights just because they express a political ideology doesn't mean you get to take away their rights. That's one of the biggest reasons why I hate Antifa, they use fascist tactics to beat up people even to just slightly to the right of Stalin.

[Kowani]

I don’t advocate attacking people, but being complicit in fascism removes your “innocent card.”

Hold up.

I don't like talking in Political threads, but this line is killing me.

Just because someone expresses a political ideology you don't like doesn't mean they lose due process and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about, and as you’ll notice, I explicitly said “don’t attack people.”

What needs to happen to extremist ideologies like fascism, socialism, and communism is that they need to be disproven in a fair, open discussion, not make it so that the people who express extremist ideologies lose their rights.

Because that worked so well before-Why do I hear Deutschland über alles?

Personally, I hate both extremes. I'm a classic liberal myself, and that's rather tame compared to today's politics. And Taking away people's rights just because they express a political ideology doesn't mean you get to take away their rights. That's one of the biggest reasons why I hate Antifa, they use fascist tactics to beat up people even to just slightly to the right of Stalin.

You a) don’t understand Antifa, b) don’t understand political theory as a whole, and c) need to express that second sentence better. Also, rights are bullshit.

(Image)

None of this is even remotely true.

[Torrocca]

Just because someone expresses a political ideology you don't like doesn't mean they lose due process and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What needs to happen to extremist ideologies like fascism, socialism, and communism is that they need to be disproven in a fair, open discussion, not make it so that the people who express extremist ideologies lose their rights.

Also, imagine unironically equating Fascism to Socialism and Communism with literally no nuanced understanding of those ideologies being used to even remotely back up that false equivalence.

[Telconi]

Just because someone expresses a political ideology you don't like doesn't mean they lose due process and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What needs to happen to extremist ideologies like fascism, socialism, and communism is that they need to be disproven in a fair, open discussion, not make it so that the people who express extremist ideologies lose their rights.

Also, imagine unironically equating Fascism to Socialism and Communism with literally no nuanced understanding of those ideologies being used to even remotely back up that false equivalence.

What makes it false?

[Ifreann]

Just because someone expresses a political ideology you don't like doesn't mean they lose due process and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What needs to happen to extremist ideologies like fascism, socialism, and communism is that they need to be disproven in a fair, open discussion, not make it so that the people who express extremist ideologies lose their rights.

Also, imagine unironically equating Fascism to Socialism and Communism with literally no nuanced understanding of those ideologies being used to even remotely back up that false equivalence.

I'm sure that once the fascists learn that they have been defeated in the free marketplace of ideas they'll all disperse.

---

Also, imagine unironically equating Fascism to Socialism and Communism with literally no nuanced understanding of those ideologies being used to even remotely back up that false equivalence.

What makes it false?

Everything.

[Torrocca]

(Image)

Also, imagine unironically equating Fascism to Socialism and Communism with literally no nuanced understanding of those ideologies being used to even remotely back up that false equivalence.

What makes it false?

Hmm, who's exactly to say what makes any unnuanced equivalencies between Fascism and Socialism and Communism false, besides the fact that they're three completely different things, the latter two of which are primarily concerned with economics and the former one of which is an authoritarian political ideology? As we all know, all three of these things actually call for the social ownership of the means of production in a stateless, classless, moneyless one-party ethnostate, which totally means they're all three perfectly equivalent.

The world really may never know why unnuanced equivalences between these three things are false equivalences.

[Grosscobra Reich]

Death to Antifa! Long Live National Socialism! Hail Cobra!

[Greater vakolicci haven]

What makes it false?

Hmm, who's exactly to say what makes any unnuanced equivalencies between Fascism and Socialism and Communism false, besides the fact that they're three completely different things, the latter two of which are primarily concerned with economics and the former one of which is an authoritarian political ideology? As we all know, all three of these things actually call for the social ownership of the means of production in a stateless, classless, moneyless one-party ethnostate, which totally means they're all three perfectly equivalent.

The world really may never know why unnuanced equivalences between these three things are false equivalences.

Socialism I agree with, but democratic communism doesn't exactly have the greatest success rate.