What about ANTIFA?

[Republic of the Cristo]

This is a subject I have always been aware of, but after the events of Charlottesville am now entirely appalled by. For months now, I have noticed the following: the role of ANTIFA is greatly down played by the MSM, while the Alt-Right is greatly exaggerated in terms of it's actual scope. The point of this thread is not to discuss which is better, simply, why has the media been playing up one and censoring out mention of the other?

Following the events of Charlottesville, the MSM went into hysteria mode of condemning the organizers of the original protest as neo-nazis ( which was not true, and such groups were only one of many groups present ) who came to the protest intent on causing violence. This hysteria later turned into the usual session of bashing Trump as a ( insert derogatory term of the week here ). What has appalled me was how one sided and untrue this coverage was though. The MSM completely down played the counter protestors and only made scant dismissive references to ANTIFA, while taking up huge amounts of time to discuss the dangers of the Alt-right. Mouthy Buddha did an excellent videowere CNN chose not to say some choice lines regarding the group, and were Stephen Colbert straight up just censored reference to them.

This isn't exactly a new trend though is it? Over the last couple of months and over a number of protests the massive role of ANTIFA has been down played by the media. During the Hamburg G20 protests, when CNN wrote an article on the matter, they simply called the protestors and Anti-capitalists or student activists. During the Berkley riots, the CNN wrote an article about the affair were they simply called the counter protestors Anti-Trump protestors, yet in the bottom picture a black bloc can clearly be seen on the right side of the frame.

You want sources of the MSM criticizing the Alt-right by name? Turn on your TV and there you go.

My question now is, why has this been the case?

MY opinion:

Liberal bias. I know it was an expected answer, but it is an honest one. The MSM has been pushing the narrative that Trump is a racist extremist, and it is necessary to perpetuate groups of people ( no matter how small ) which help further this narrative - while simultaneously down playing extremists from your own side of the perspective.

( Dear mods, please don't lock this thread. I know you guys like to shut down controversial threads, but for the sanctity of free speech and open discussion allow us to debate here. This thread will get heated, but that is kind of intrinsic to something being controversial. So long as we don't start sending death threats, please have a wide girth in acceptance of our heatedness. )

[Jackonia]

Yes, Antifa are terrorists,

And yes, there is Liberal bias in the MSM unfortunately.

[Farnhamia]

This is a subject I have always been aware of, but after the events of Charlottesville am now entirely appalled by. For months now, I have noticed the following: the role of ANTIFA is greatly down played by the MSM, while the Alt-Right is greatly exaggerated in terms of it's actual scope. The point of this thread is not to discuss which is better, simply, why has the media been playing up one and censoring out mention of the other?

Following the events of Charlottesville, the MSM went into hysteria mode of condemning the organizers of the original protest as neo-nazis ( which was not true, and such groups were only one of many groups present ) who came to the protest intent on causing violence. This hysteria later turned into the usual session of bashing Trump as a ( insert derogatory term of the week here ). What has appalled me was how one sided and untrue this coverage was though. The MSM completely down played the counter protestors and only made scant dismissive references to ANTIFA, while taking up huge amounts of time to discuss the dangers of the Alt-right. Mouthy Buddha did an excellent videowere CNN chose not to say some choice lines regarding the group, and were Stephen Colbert straight up just censored reference to them.

This isn't exactly a new trend though is it? Over the last couple of months and over a number of protests the massive role of ANTIFA has been down played by the media. During the Hamburg G20 protests, when CNN wrote an article on the matter, they simply called the protestors and Anti-capitalists or student activists. During the Berkley riots, the CNN wrote an article about the affair were they simply called the counter protestors Anti-Trump protestors, yet in the bottom picture a black bloc can clearly be seen on the right side of the frame.

You want sources of the MSM criticizing the Alt-right by name? Turn on your TV and there you go.

My question now is, why has this been the case?

MY opinion:

Liberal bias. I know it was an expected answer, but it is an honest one. The MSM has been pushing the narrative that Trump is a racist extremist, and it is necessary to perpetuate groups of people ( no matter how small ) which help further this narrative - while simultaneously down playing extremists from your own side of the perspective.

( Dear mods, please don't lock this thread. I know you guys like to shut down controversial threads, but for the sanctity of free speech and open discussion allow us to debate here. This thread will get heated, but that is kind of intrinsic to something being controversial. So long as we don't start sending death threats, please have a wide girth in acceptance of our heatedness. )

Heated posts in threads carry consequences. Post civilly or do not post at all.

[Truemerica]

Antifa assaulted and attacked protesters, pinning them into a corner.

[Philjia]

They're a disparate bunch of random left wingers of various stripes who really want to beat up Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists. They aren't terribly nice, but neither are they terribly important, prominent, or dangerous. The best way to identify a closet sympathiser to Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists is to note that they're mad about Antifa, because why else would you be mad about a group who's sole reason to exist is to beat up extremist wankers?

[Republic of the Cristo]

Antifa assaulted and attacked protesters, pinning them into a corner.

That is not what this thread is about.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

I agree that ANTIFA needs to be dealt with as well. They should not be left ignored.

[Donut section]

Antifa should be dealt with the way we deal with other terrorists.

[Jackonia]

They've been doing this sort of thing for a while too, it's not like they've come out of thin air. Basically whenever someone from the Right wants to talk and debate they show up in their black shirts and smash everything up because "racism" and "hate".

I fear the time is near when the violence goes both ways, we need to stop this fast! ANTIFA don't need encouraging, we need to show the world what's they really are!

[Aclion]

Our political dialog is so dumbed down that the idea of both sides being condemnable is too complicated for mainstream discussion. Additionally most mainstream outlets have taken to catering to a particular narrative and recognizing fault on the part of your viewers "side" would undermine that narrative and drive away viewers. It does not help that may on the left tacitly support antifa's violence against their opponents and so will attempt to paint any critic as a supporter of racism.

In short recognizing Antifa's role in escalating demonstrations to violence would drive away veiwers seeking moral indignation reather the information and open accusations of support of racism of the part of the speaker.

[Ifreann]

I think what's really important right now is for America to agree on how antifa is to be capitalised. Is it a proper noun? Is it one word or one-and-a-half words?

[Jackonia]

Don't forget BAMN, BLM and the like, it's not just Antifa, but also it's people from the KKK etc, we need open discussion, that's why the shutting down of the Boston free speech event recently was such a tragedy!

[Alndar]

They're domestic terrorists.

[Aclion]

I think what's really important right now is for America to agree on how antifa is to be capitalised. Is it a proper noun? Is it one word or one-and-a-half words?

I vote AntiFA as it is a it is a Portmanteau Anti-Fascist

[Jackonia]

They're domestic terrorists.

True, at least New Jersey says so anyway, why isn't the UN saying anything?!

[Western Pacific Territories]

I think what's really important right now is for America to agree on how antifa is to be capitalised. Is it a proper noun? Is it one word or one-and-a-half words?

I use Antifa or ANtifa depending on whether my fingers feel like removing themselves from the 'Shift' key.

[Federated Kingdom]

both sides are just the same, obviously

[Torsiedelle]

This is a subject I have always been aware of, but after the events of Charlottesville am now entirely appalled by. For months now, I have noticed the following: the role of ANTIFA is greatly down played by the MSM, while the Alt-Right is greatly exaggerated in terms of it's actual scope. The point of this thread is not to discuss which is better, simply, why has the media been playing up one and censoring out mention of the other?

Following the events of Charlottesville, the MSM went into hysteria mode of condemning the organizers of the original protest as neo-nazis ( which was not true, and such groups were only one of many groups present ) who came to the protest intent on causing violence. This hysteria later turned into the usual session of bashing Trump as a ( insert derogatory term of the week here ). What has appalled me was how one sided and untrue this coverage was though. The MSM completely down played the counter protestors and only made scant dismissive references to ANTIFA, while taking up huge amounts of time to discuss the dangers of the Alt-right. Mouthy Buddha did an excellent videowere CNN chose not to say some choice lines regarding the group, and were Stephen Colbert straight up just censored reference to them.

This isn't exactly a new trend though is it? Over the last couple of months and over a number of protests the massive role of ANTIFA has been down played by the media. During the Hamburg G20 protests, when CNN wrote an article on the matter, they simply called the protestors and Anti-capitalists or student activists. During the Berkley riots, the CNN wrote an article about the affair were they simply called the counter protestors Anti-Trump protestors, yet in the bottom picture a black bloc can clearly be seen on the right side of the frame.

You want sources of the MSM criticizing the Alt-right by name? Turn on your TV and there you go.

My question now is, why has this been the case?

MY opinion:

Liberal bias. I know it was an expected answer, but it is an honest one. The MSM has been pushing the narrative that Trump is a racist extremist, and it is necessary to perpetuate groups of people ( no matter how small ) which help further this narrative - while simultaneously down playing extremists from your own side of the perspective.

( Dear mods, please don't lock this thread. I know you guys like to shut down controversial threads, but for the sanctity of free speech and open discussion allow us to debate here. This thread will get heated, but that is kind of intrinsic to something being controversial. So long as we don't start sending death threats, please have a wide girth in acceptance of our heatedness. )

Heated posts in threads carry consequences. Post civilly or do not post at all.

You must get hot very easily, because that post wasn't even lukewarm. Trust me, I'm a chef.

They're a disparate bunch of random left wingers of various stripes who really want to beat up Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists. They aren't terribly nice, but neither are they terribly important, prominent, or dangerous. The best way to identify a closet sympathiser to Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists is to note that they're mad about Antifa, because why else would you be mad about a group who's sole reason to exist is to beat up extremist wankers?

Because Antifa dindu muffin ever to innocent people who just happened to be nearby and who looked "Too Fascist" like other extremist groups either.

Or, you know, trash public property.

Not to say they're the only ones, but they're hardly vigilante heroes off to save the world from evil Nazis.

Don't forget BAMN, BLM and the like, it's not just Antifa, but also it's people from the KKK etc, we need open discussion, that's why the shutting down of the Boston free speech event recently was such a tragedy!

The push by groups on both sides of the conflict to replay form the opposition has certainly become greater since the election, and neither side is in the right for it. That much is true.

I feel like some people are just so caught up and entrenched in their beliefs that the idea of talking for them is unthinkable. That's worrying.

[The Islands of Versilia]

I personally see AntiFa as a mishmash of people who don't like the Right. They're too disorganised and broad to be branded as terrorists. Disrupters of peace? Occasionally. Peaceful protestors? Occasionally. Maniacs? Occasionally.

Much of what makes up AntiFa, at least in the United States, is the first one in my opinion. The whole group needs to tone it down overall, really.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They're a disparate bunch of random left wingers of various stripes who really want to beat up Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists. They aren't terribly nice, but neither are they terribly important, prominent, or dangerous. The best way to identify a closet sympathiser to Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists is to note that they're mad about Antifa, because why else would you be mad about a group who's sole reason to exist is to beat up extremist wankers?

Because they are largely made up of anarchists and communists.

[Philjia]

They're a disparate bunch of random left wingers of various stripes who really want to beat up Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists. They aren't terribly nice, but neither are they terribly important, prominent, or dangerous. The best way to identify a closet sympathiser to Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists is to note that they're mad about Antifa, because why else would you be mad about a group who's sole reason to exist is to beat up extremist wankers?

Because Antifa dindu muffin ever to innocent people who just happened to be nearby and who looked "Too Fascist" like other extremist groups either.

Or, you know, trash public property.

Not to say they're the only ones, but they're hardly vigilante heroes off to save the world from evil Nazis.

Obviously if anyone is actually involved in committing a criminal offence they should be prosecuted. Antifa just don't need to be targeted wholesale as a group that is inherently harmful like, you know, Nazis and the KKK.

[Jackonia]

I personally see AntiFa as a mishmash of people who don't like the Right. They're too disorganised and broad to be branded as terrorists. Disrupters of peace? Occasionally. Peaceful protestors? Occasionally. Maniacs? Occasionally.

Much of what makes up AntiFa, at least in the United States, is the first one in my opinion. The whole group needs to tone it down overall, really.

I would argue that you will never be able to "tone down" a group that prides itself in "smashing fash". I mean, Fascists can be easily discredited through honest arguement, but by trying to inflict violence on them, as the title "Anti-Fascist Action" implies, you risk pushing said genuine Fascists into returning the violence, as seen recently.

They intend to carry out violence, destroy public property and beat people up because of political disagreement because that's procicely what they were created to do.

They're not a lobby or think-tank, they're a bunch of thugs.

[Sanctissima]

They're Communists, Anarchists and other undesirables.

The West didn't engage in a decades long Cold War to allow their ilk to set police cars on fire and riot in the streets. They're traitors to their countries, and deserve neither respect nor mercy.

[Donut section]

Because Antifa dindu muffin ever to innocent people who just happened to be nearby and who looked "Too Fascist" like other extremist groups either.

Or, you know, trash public property.

Not to say they're the only ones, but they're hardly vigilante heroes off to save the world from evil Nazis.

Obviously if anyone is actually involved in committing a criminal offence they should be prosecuted. Antifa just don't need to be targeted wholesale as a group that is inherently harmful like, you know, Nazis and the KKK.

Same shit. They both have shit ideas. When any group commits terrorism the entire group should generally be targeted.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I personally see AntiFa as a mishmash of people who don't like the Right. They're too disorganised and broad to be branded as terrorists. Disrupters of peace? Occasionally. Peaceful protestors? Occasionally. Maniacs? Occasionally.

Much of what makes up AntiFa, at least in the United States, is the first one in my opinion. The whole group needs to tone it down overall, really.

I would argue that you will never be able to "tone down" a group that prides itself in "smashing fash". I mean, Fascists can be easily discredited through honest arguement, but by trying to inflict violence on them, as the title "Anti-Fascist Action" implies, you risk pushing said genuine Fascists into returning the violence, as seen recently.

They intend to carry out violence, destroy public property and beat people up because of political disagreement because that's procicely what they were created to do.

They're not a lobby or think-tank, they're a bunch of thugs.

This, it would be incredibly naive to think that the average Antifa person is just a standard liberal.