Support NeoGAF

[Hierophant]

I'm confused. I thought Antifa was a group, or collection of groups, that self identify as anarchists.



What are considered "dirty tactics" to you?

Probably the absolute lack of respect and decorum for the other side, the spewing of horrible shit and insults

Violence is an absolute last resort if that's what you're looking for (though our definition of last resort may differ)

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

admittedly, Peterson was the only name I was more familiar with of the 3 (and he's a fuckwit) but a cursory search of the other 2 yielded enough ANTI-PC & college campus boogeyman drivel that while academic distinctions can be made about degrees here, none of them seem worth the effort. my thesis point here is that if the "far left" is so inexcusable for taking stands on hate speech/etc, I think it's worth examining who you share that hill with before dying on it.

I can't speak for them, but the fact that defense of the first amendment as it is currently written and construed by the courts has become a "conservative" cause for the moment is hardly the fault of regular liberals whose views on the subject have stayed basically the same as they were prior to the rise of the philosophy of intersectionalism the last four years or so. Most of us are basically riding it out and assuming the pendulum will probably swing back the other way a few years after Trump exits the scene, and the Repubs go back to electing Paul Ryan/Marco Rubio types (assuming they successfully change their primary system to prevent someone like Trump from exploiting it like he did).

 

[TestOfTide]

If our standard is that political violence is unacceptable under all circumstances, then absolutely. Is that the standard you want?

First off I never said that all political violence is unacceptable.

Second, I don't know if you have figured this out, but there is thing called a global superpower, and I would have a democracy like the US, even with ALL of its NUMEROUS flaws, play that role than a dictatorship like Russia or China.

"Well maybe we shouldn't have a any global superpower at all."

Great. And I want lollipops and unicorns to rain from the sky.

While hegemony under the United States is probably less violent than an apolar system, our imperialistic domination of 90% of the world's people has led to so much suffering and bloodshed that any reaction other than relentless criticism absolves America of war crimes. Both historically and currently, the US military has served as the vanguard of the American business elite, protecting investments through mass violence in the global south and turning the Middle East into a pockmarked wasteland in hopes of appeasing our Saudi and Israeli allies.

Ideally, the military power currently monopolized by the United States would be assumed by a transnational body free from chauvinism or the influence of profit. This way, the world's people could enjoy the freedoms such as national self-determination and the current Pax Americana without the risk of being massacred because American capitalists want their resources.

Here's a crazy idea:

How about a US military that does more stuff like Marshall Plan instead of all of its focus being on the conflict aspects?

 

[Chairman Yang]

This is the fucking United States. You don't have to worry about leftists shoving stock brokers into a Gulag any time soon.

Fear-mongering about left-wing extremism is generally harmful. Even if if not made with the intent of delegitimizing left-wing causes, this kind of rhetoric enables the right... particularly the extreme right, as figures like Gavin McInnes and Richard Spencer derive a lot of their legitimacy from fears of BLM and Antifa and other activist groups.

If some 20-year-old communist posts shooting Nazis, comparing them with white supremacists who actually wish to kill people is not a rational response. Instead, consider why increasing numbers of people are militantly critical of the current state of affairs, and listen to the alternative policies we propose.

The US didn't have to worry about crazy neo-Nazis going relatively mainstream, either. Until, suddenly, it did.

Like I said earlier in this thread, left-wing extremism in the US doesn't seem like a serious issue to me right now. But it should be monitored and nipped in the bud before it becomes one. Fear-mongering about the left can empower the right, sure. But the Vice News article doesn't seem like fear-mongering. Going beyond that and sweeping any excesses of left-wingers under the rug seems like a morally repugnant tactic that has shown to backfire again and again.

 

[Cirion]

I think it's accurate to say that old Max and and the gang function as proto-leftists in the wider scheme of things since the bourgeoisie was a historically progressive class in the fight against the aristocracy. The Leninists were certainly fans of the Jacobins.

Marxists are also fans of Thomas Müntzer and the revolting peasants in the German Peasant's War of 1525/26, that doesn't mean they can be considered "leftists" or "proto-leftists". You are not a leftists just because you revolt against oppression or fight for more freedom.

 

[Galava]

As history has taught us, both sides can be very dangerous and extremisms must be treated with great care.

Extremisms usually do not tend to bring good things.

Now, the definition of extreme leftist is quite different depending on the country you live in imo. Looks like over there in the states the threshold of the "extreme left" is "whatever is not right-wing".

 

[harriet the spy]

No, he can't. Nothing in what he did or what he wanted to achieve has anything to with what radical leftism is about. Radical leftism originated with the birth of Marxism and anarchism, or anti-capitalism in general .

Eh. The term left right literally comes from French politics, so feel free to redefine if you like - semantics is an idiots' game anyway- but you're technically wrong. I mean wannabe lefty magazine jacobins is literally named after Robespierre party.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I'm pretty biased regarding the topic, since I would rather have Antifa fighting for some sort of anarchistic, leftist, progresive wanderlust commune, than see the nationalists, racists, homophobes and nazis get their elbows into the game, getting some clout.

I dunno, a friend sent me some videos from the Antifa riots in Berkeley and that shit was scary.

 

[Got]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016

there, not a bill

that has nothing to do with what he originally asserted. let him fight his own fights with facts about democrats suppressing free speech. my guess is he doesn't even understand free speech in the states.

 

[jackissocool]

First off I never said that all political violence is unacceptable.

Second, I don't know if you have figured this out, but there is thing called a global superpower, and I would have a democracy like the US, even with ALL of its NUMEROUS flaws, play that role than a dictatorship like Russia or China.

"Well maybe we shouldn't have a any global superpower at all."

Great. And I want lollipops and unicorns to rain from the sky.

My original post was in response to the thread's premise.

The US has also proven to be wildly more aggressive and destructive to other nations than any other major power today. Our foreign policy is nothing but evil.

 

[gutter_trash]

The US didn't have to worry about crazy neo-Nazis going relatively mainstream, either. Until, suddenly, it did.

Like I said earlier in this thread, left-wing extremism in the US doesn't seem like a serious issue to me right now. But it should be monitored and nipped in the bud before it becomes one. Fear-mongering about the left can empower the right, sure. But the Vice News article doesn't seem like fear-mongering. Going beyond that and sweeping any excesses of left-wingers under the rug seems like a morally repugnant tactic that has shown to backfire again and again.

the US has always been Right Wing Nation since the Revolution and remained so.

the Left has no power and never held power in the US

 

[nkarafo]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016

there, not a bill

I have no idea about legal things so i legit wonder, what exactly is a motion?

Edit: It says "It cannot become a law, but it can lead to the development of a bill that could eventually become a law".

So is it a problem or not?

that has nothing to do with what he originally asserted. let him fight his own fights with facts about democrats suppressing free speech. my guess is he doesn't even understand free speech in the states.

Is free speech in the states different than the rest of the world?

I live in Europe btw, if that counts to you.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I'm confused. I thought Antifa was a group, or collection of groups, that self identify as anarchists.



What are considered "dirty tactics" to you?

Unless it was another anarchist group, I thought they were held by the left for all the violence erupting at peaceful protests from at least as far back as Occupy Wall Street, and they weren't welcome at all due to it. Partly as they were often purportedly the instigators.

Now suddenly I'm seeing them propped up in this thread, that it's just self defense, and that the negativity all this time is some right wing conspiracy, so I share in your confusion.

 

[TestOfTide]

My original post was in response to the thread's premise.

The US has also proven to be wildly more aggressive and destructive to other nations than any other major power today. Our foreign policy is nothing but evil.

So you are arguing that the US Military is literally worse than Russia?

Also, explain to me how the Marshall Plan was evil. I'd love to hear THAT ONE.

 

[Not]

History has shown that far-left groups that completely embrace an "ends justify the means" approach become monstrous. This hasn't just happened once, but again and again.

Maybe you, personally, will use whatever tactics necessary (including violence and killing) to implement your desired policies, and then revert to being a decent human being. But others won't stop there.

This is probably a really great discussion to be having. So how the fuck do we stop people who don't even care about the means?

 

[Valhelm]

I'm confused. I thought Antifa was a group, or collection of groups, that self identify as anarchists.

There is no Antifa organization. Anti-fascists are just collections of left-wing activist cells (mostly anarcho-communists) who believe force is necessary to resist the violence of the right. Some anti-fascists believe that this activity can help spur a greater revolution against the capitalistic forces which enable figures like Trump.

Most Antifa cells have no organizational structure beyond a closed Facebook group.

 

[The Kree]

This is probably a really great discussion to be having. So how the fuck do we stop people who don't even care about the means?

Try to talk them down and hope your personal set of morals are worth something to someone else when you're dead because your enemy didn't give a shit about the rules.

 

[Chairman Yang]

the US has always been Right Wing Nation since the Revolution and remained so.

the Left has no power and never held power in the US

That applies to every Communist nation before it became Communist. In fact, it tended to be the extremely regressive societies that became insane leftist dystopias (like Tsarist Russia or Nationalist China). The societies that were already somewhat left-wing or liberal tended to be more insulated from the madness.

I'm just saying things can spiral out of control quickly and that previously unthinkable situations can happen. The US isn't going to become Nazi or Stalinist America anytime soon. But don't get complacent and think that it could never happen, either.

 

[King Tubby]

I would just encourage people in blue states to strongly consider arming themselves for personal protection. Civil strife seems like it's only going to get worse.

 

[Cirion]

So you are arguing that the US Military is literally worse than Russia?

Also, explain to me how the Marshall Plan was evil. I'd love to hear THAT ONE.

Can liberals ever stop comparing who is the worst right now and justifying why WE still need to enforce our militaristic imperialism? "We aren't as bad as the others"? This is your defense?
Also, yes, right now to the civilians in Syria, the US military IS way worse than Russia.

Also, love the usual "We did this one good thing back in the day, we fought Nazis, we are the good guys"

By the way, the Marshal plan was born out of American national interests in containing Soviet influence and increasing American power in Europe, just like every other Cold War action. It had nothing to do with good-hearted Truman thinking "Oh, those poor people, we need to help them ASAP".

That applies to every Communist nation before it became Communist. In fact, it tended to be the extremely regressive societies that became insane leftist dystopias (like Tsarist Russia or Nationalist China). The societies that were already somewhat left-wing or liberal tended to be more insulated from the madness.

I'm just saying things can spiral out of control quickly and that previously unthinkable situations can happen. The US isn't going to become Nazi or Stalinist America anytime soon. But don't get complacent and think that it could never happen, either.

The Soviet-Union and China going full authoritarian has specific historical reason, among them the complete lack of democracy and civil society beforehand. Also, they were not communist countries, they were countries practicing a authoritarian form of socialism. "Communist state" is an oxymoron.

 

[gutter_trash]

That applies to every Communist nation before it became Communist. In fact, it tended to be the extremely regressive societies that became insane leftist dystopias (like Tsarist Russia or Nationalist China). The societies that were already somewhat left-wing or liberal tended to be more insulated from the madness.

I'm just saying things can spiral out of control quickly and that previously unthinkable situations can happen. The US isn't going to become Nazi or Stalinist America anytime soon. But don't get complacent and think that it could never happen, either.

I am fairly confident that it will never happen in the US,

a) a huge faction of the population doesn't care

b) the Far-Right is more powerful in the US than the non-existant Left

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Try to talk them down and hope your personal set of morals are worth something to someone else when you're dead because your enemy didn't give a shit about the rules.

As well as intimidate to the point that, while you take care not to harm outside of self defense if possible, the other side believes you are fully willing to go all the way.

Preemptive violence tends to just give them the excuse to bring the hammer as it is then justified.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Yeah, that, or brutal authoritarian tyranny and the industrial-scale mass murder of millions.

I'm disturbed that a bunch of posters are echoing your (incorrect) sentiment. I don't think that leftist violence is a huge issue right now, but as a justified reaction to the evil of the right-wing or not, it absolutely could become one in the future.

If you're disturbed you're being over-dramatic. What you're hypothesizing is baseless. What evidence is there on the left, which is vehemently anti-war, anti violence, for reducing military presence abroad and the military industrial complex, for gun regulation, pro negotiations, and are characteristically, as the right loves to repeat, "pacifist pussies" - what evidence is there that on THAT side there's an opportunity for mass murder? Fucking nonsense.

I don't know where you lean politically so this statement may be completely unrelated to you: my opinion is that for people on the left, projection is at the heart of this issue.

People know right-wing extremists are dangerous and can fuck shit up, so they have to believe it must be a possibility on the left. I mean, if they dared say, "I don't think it really is", someone might call them biased or partisan. This is another version of the "both sides" myth.

And at the heart of that is a profound ignorance by Americans, including those on the left, of what progressives have done and fight for around the world, as well as just profound ignorance of what they've done and fight for in America. We constantly harp on about how "both parties about the same", then blame them for voting along party lines. That doesn't make fucking sense, but the latter is true: the Democrats typically vote for things that preserve reproductive rights, expand education and healthcare and serve social welfare in general, are backed by science and have been demonstrably effective practiced elsewhere in the world. Republicans typically vote for things that aim to take us back to the 1950's when there weren't any Muslims and black people, women, and other minorities knew their place. Also, we all prayed and had guns. Right-wing groups across the world follow this same mantra of xenophobia, homophobia, mass incarceration, capital punishment, and even violence against perceived criminals with no legal process. This is the modern right wing at its very best.

In summation: what you're worried about is baseless.

 

[King Tubby]

If you're disturbed you're being over-dramatic. What you're hypothesizing is baseless. What evidence is there on the left, which is vehemently anti-war, anti violence, for reducing military presence abroad and the military industrial complex, for gun regulation, pro negotiations, and are characteristically, as the right loves to repeat, "pacifist pussies" - what evidence is there that on THAT side there's an opportunity for mass murder? Fucking nonsense.

I could easily see a future purge of "far-right extremists" in the future under such a scenario. I've seen some on the left express language to that effect before. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that such violence is justified as a means of "defense".

 

[The Kree]

As well as intimidate to the point that, while you take care not to harm outside of self defense if possible, the other side believes you are fully willing to go all the way.

Preemptive violence tends to just give them the excuse to bring the hammer as it is then justified.

Only if you let them frame the narrative that you swung first when you didn't.

 

[Chairman Yang]

This is probably a really great discussion to be having. So how the fuck do we stop people who don't even care about the means?

The same way those people were stopped in the past. The ballot box, as flawed as it is. Popular sentiment. Reason, for those open to it.

If Trump and the Republicans win the next election, remove many more checks and balances, actually manage to implement the worst of the insane stuff they believe, and right-wing violence becomes much more common than it is now, I'll be more open to leftists going ballistic and embracing violence. But we're not there yet, and going with that approach prematurely will backfire, badly.

 

[TestOfTide]

Can liberals ever stop comparing who is the worst right now and justifying why WE still need to enforce our militaristic imperialism? "We aren't as bad as the others"? This is your defense?

My defense is that the real world isn't fucking black and white where you can put everyone into either the category of "good guys" or "bad guys". The real world includes a shitload of scenarios where you have to choose between two very less than ideal options.

So explain to me why it's better to have Russia or China as the world's superpower than the US, because only a fool would think that there could magically be no global superpower.

Also, yes, right now to the civilians in Syria, the US military IS way worse than Russia.

Bullshit, considering that most of the civilian deaths in Syria are at the hands of Syrian and Russian force (or are you one of those people who defends Assad?)

Also, love the usual "We did this one good thing back in the day, we fought Nazis, we are the good guys"

No I was just pointing out the part where they LITERALLY suggested that the US Military has only done evil stuff.

By the way, the Marshal plan was born out of American national interests in containing Soviet influence and increasing American power in Europe, just like every other Cold War action. It had nothing to do with good-hearted Truman thinking "Oh, those poor people, we need to help them ASAP".

Part of it was motivated by making sure the Soviets wouldn't gain influence and part of it was motivated for the same reason as NATO: We and the rest of the Western World didn't want another World War 3 to happen 20 years after WW2, so what better way to prevent that than to put the western world under one big alliance and to help Europe rebuild itself.

 

[unpopularblargh]

do you honestly think civil rights movements never utilized violence in their practices/demonstrations? this is exactly why the context less "both sides" narrative is garbage



yeah guys, let's just hear these white nationalists out

I think of this comic whenever someone brings up the horseshoe theory as a legit discussion topic.

 

[Valhelm]

That applies to every Communist nation before it became Communist. In fact, it tended to be the extremely regressive societies that became insane leftist dystopias (like Tsarist Russia or Nationalist China). The societies that were already somewhat left-wing or liberal tended to be more insulated from the madness.

I'm just saying things can spiral out of control quickly and that previously unthinkable situations can happen. The US isn't going to become Nazi or Stalinist America anytime soon. But don't get complacent and think that it could never happen, either.

I'm personally not comfortable with your conflation with radical ideology and the abuses of ideology. Radical leftists and radical leftism are not necessarily violent. We are just more likely to support some expressions of violence because we disagree with liberal demands of incrementalism and civil discourse. Most socialists believe that not all change must happen through parliamentary procedure, and not all views deserve a platform. This doesn't mean we want to kill people. Sure, some leftists are edgy and are uncritically supportive of past authoritarian socialist projects, but we tend to dislike these folks as much as you do.

Anybody in America who calls themself a leftist should clap Antifa on the back. If you disagree with some of their behaviors, that's fine. I'm an Antifa supporter and I think the window-smashing is stupid. But you must recognizing that the rise of "left-wing extremism" in America is a direct result of the increasing violence of the right. Republican attempts to steal healthcare from over 20 million people is a hell of a lot worse than some Antifas getting into a scuffle with neo-Nazis. Rather than condemning their activism arm-and-arm with fascists, listen to young radicals and utilize their anger toward more productive political ends.

 

[Not]

While hegemony under the United States is probably less violent than an apolar system, our imperialistic domination of 90% of the world's people has led to so much suffering and bloodshed that any reaction other than relentless criticism absolves America of war crimes. Both historically and currently, the US military has served as the vanguard of the American business elite, protecting investments through mass violence in the global south and turning the Middle East into a pockmarked wasteland in hopes of appeasing our Saudi and Israeli allies.

Ideally, the military power currently monopolized by the United States would be assumed by a transnational body free from chauvinism or the influence of profit. This way, the world's people could enjoy the freedoms such as national self-determination and the current Pax Americana without the risk of being massacred because American capitalists want their resources.

A single, permanent, massive transnational military though? Seems like so many things could go really wrong. God, you'd have to really take some time to make that one unable to be sabotaged or co-opted. 3 separate, allied global militaries maybe? Political and societal idealism is fascinating, I should really research this more.

I get what you're trying to say, but remember that leftism and liberalism aren't the same thing. American conceptions of politics are totally fucked, but a liberal is a capitalist who opposes attempts to inhibit the private sphere. While liberalism has given us many of the liberal values we all cherish, also requisite of liberalism is the defense of wage labor and economic inequality. Since the '20s, left-wing liberals have followed the Keynesian model, which retreats from the classical liberal rhetoric of the right in its optimism about state intervention and warnings against inequality. More recently, left-wing liberals look increasingly similar to right-wing liberals when it comes to economics. While Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan obviously disagree about a lot of important issues, they have a shared belief that free trade and low taxes and a strong upper class are effects that we should strive for.

While some people might call Bernie and Corbyn "extremist liberals", they're some of the most illiberal politicians in the West given their criticism of capitalism. Anybody who outright advocates the overthrow of capitalism (and thus, the abolition of liberal politics) is not a liberal. Socialists and left-wing liberals only resemble each other because they have a shared opposition to racism, misogyny, and homophobia. Socialists go a step beyond in their opposition to economic, as well as identitarian, inequality, and generally identify capitalism as interconnected with other forms of social oppression.

Thanks for the clarification. I kind of figured that out-- the belief that faulty economic systems are tied to everything negative, when in reality it's just that a sizable number of people will always be too stupid to not blame their problems on people different than them physically. Maybe a less homogenous distribution of power would rectify that. Affirmative action? Redistribution? Yeah, good luck. Who knows how to even STOP white guys from fucking over the world at this point.

 

[jackissocool]

So you are arguing that the US Military is literally worse than Russia?

Also, explain to me how the Marshall Plan was evil. I'd love to hear THAT ONE.

in terms of foreign policy it is pretty objectively worse

and oh wow 70 years ago that's definitely still how the world works

 

[Kthulhu]

There is no Antifa organization. Anti-fascists are just collections of left-wing activist cells (mostly anarcho-communists) who believe force is necessary to resist the violence of the right. Some anti-fascists believe that this activity can help spur a greater revolution against the capitalistic forces which enable figures like Trump.

Most Antifa cells have no organizational structure beyond a closed Facebook group.

I thought so. Not the kind of people you want on your side.

Probably the absolute lack of respect and decorum for the other side, the spewing of horrible shit and insults

Violence is an absolute last resort if that's what you're looking for (though our definition of last resort may differ)

I don't have an issue with insults assuming they're true.

 

[theCalamity]

Let's get mad at the symptoms instead of the cause.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

I could easily see a future purge of "far-right extremists" in the future under such a scenario. I've seen some on the left express language to that effect before. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that such violence is justified as a means of "defense".

It is a contradiction to claim that something is "easily" seen when its only merit is that it's "not entirely out of the realm of possibility." Thus, at best, your hypothetical is meaningless. If it really is merely "not entirely out of the realm of possibility", then its irrational to talk about it so matter-of-factly and be"disturbed" by its prospects. Many things are not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Just because we can imagine all of them, doesn't mean they're even remotely likely to happen and we don't live our lives being afraid and disturbed by things that are simply "not out of the realm of possibility." I mean, at least I hope people don't; that'd be quite an anxious life I expect.

Ultimately, I think you're still propagating the both sides crap, comparing one scenario of right-wing extremists fucking up the world, which is actually occurring and whose average-American supporters AND lawmakers AND the fucking President have either explicitly stated or "joked" about taking out the opposition with armed revolution, to some fantasy scenario of the majority of Americans on the left, including its lawmakers and others at the highest offices of government, suddenly deciding we should purge people on the right when the rhetoric has been everything to the opposite of that for so long.

 

[Hierophant]

Let's get mad at the symptoms instead of the cause.

Centrism 101

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Only if you let them frame the narrative that you swung first when you didn't.

Depends on what you define as swung first. Many on GAf have shown in the past that verbal tradeoffs between protestors is a "swung first" to justify violence. That personally doesn't sit well.

Would a BLM chapter storming a random police stations and brutally kill every officer in there after disarming them be sound, since various cops "swung first" in the numerous cases of unwonted murders of unarmed minorities? Maybe that sounds great to some people, but is that a precinct that was a part of that? Were any of those murderers there (and yes, they are murderers as many of these cases have shown despite union stonewalling)? That's a difficult scenario to pin down, as there is a systemic issue that isn't being handled effectively.

If the Trump Administration or even just the Republican Party just existing is considered swinging first, then any violent action against anyone could be justified.

 

[uncelestial]

Thanks, owned by Rupert Murdoch-ass Vice, but we're good.

We have ONE gun-toting nutjob after all this time and now there's a crisis, after years of right-wing freakshows? Okay. The feds just had to stop a bunch of rednecks in Oregon from trying to secede and they had popular support from a scary large portion of the population, but let's worry about the left who are basically making memes.

in the years after 9/11, Segal says, the largest source of extremist violence was from the Left: eco-terrorists and animal rights activists.

Adjudicating this claim would be nice, but that would require journalism. Meanwhile, keep running Richard Spencer articles completely uncritical of his "controversial" views along with some "is it okay that he got punched?" articles, because that's what the pressing issue is: leftists not being peaceful enough.

 

[Breads]

Let me know whey they attempt to ban christians from entering the country, shoot up evangelical churches, invade the police force and start harassing/ arresting people in maga caps, and start terrorizing birthday parties with antifa flags/ rifles.

For now we have real problems to worry about. The imaginary ones can wait.

We have white supremacists bomb makers getting slaps on the wrist and nazis impaling people with swords in the streets.

 

[DrSlek]

Thanks, owned by Rupert Murdoch-ass Vice, but we're good.

I was not aware of this. Whelp, time to disregard Vice from now on.

 

[LouisaFerre]

Sign me up for any commie shit you got brewing.

 

[Hierophant]

I feel like Richard Spencer deserved to get punched and probably shoulda got his ass beat even harder, is that too violent?

 

[TumblingHippo]

I'm more worried about all the fence-sitters who are okay with the alt-right taking over the discussion. They are cowards who will be responsible for more violence than any antifa on the left.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Or maybe it means, "Hi, let's prove we are better by being better people."

better graves.

 

[The Kree]

Depends on what you define as swung first. Many on GAf have shown in the past that verbal tradeoffs between protestors is a "swung first" to justify violence. That personally doesn't sit well.

Would a BLM chapter storming a random police stations and brutally kill every officer in there after disarming them be sound, since various cops "swung first" in the numerous cases of unwonted murders of unarmed minorities? Maybe that sounds great to some people, but is that a precinct that was a part of that? Were any of those murderers there (and yes, they are murderers as many of these cases have shown despite union stonewalling)?

If the Trump Administration or even just the Republican Party just existing is considered swinging first, then any violent action against anyone could be justified.

You're not gonna convince me that advocating for civil liberties and clean air is ever an act of aggression.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Horse shoe is real. The further you go to each side, the closer you start coming back around to violent fascism. What's going on at our universities right now is fucking insane. Even GAF went a little off the deep end for a while.

Rationality and civility must win out.

While I do agree that there have been situations where things have escalated too much on universities, I am so tired of the right to protest being demonized at universities. It's amazing to me that people keep doing this while pumping up the first amendment for freedom of speech when the first amendment also gives us the right to protest. That's what's fucking insane.

 

[Chairman Yang]

If you're disturbed you're being over-dramatic. What you're hypothesizing is baseless. What evidence is there on the left, which is vehemently anti-war, anti violence, for reducing military presence abroad and the military industrial complex, for gun regulation, pro negotiations, and are characteristically, as the right loves to repeat, "pacifist pussies" - what evidence is there that on THAT side there's an opportunity for mass murder? Fucking nonsense.

The "left" isn't monolithic. Some self-avowed leftists would absolutely commit violence to further their ends. It's happened historically, many times. As I've said twice before in this thread, I agree that it's not a serious concern now. That doesn't mean it could never be in the future. And it doesn't mean that leftists shouldn't be vigilant against bad leftist behaviour.

I don't know where you lean politically so this statement may be completely unrelated to you: my opinion is that for people on the left, projection is at the heart of this issue.

People know right-wing extremists are dangerous and can fuck shit up, so they have to believe it must be a possibility on the left. I mean, if they dared say, "I don't think it really is", someone might call them biased or partisan. This is another version of the "both sides" myth.

And at the heart of that is a profound ignorance by Americans, including those on the left, of what progressives have done and fight for around the world, as well as just profound ignorance of what they've done and fight for in America. We constantly harp on about how "both parties about the same", then blame them for voting along party lines. That doesn't make fucking sense, but the latter is true: the Democrats typically vote for things that preserve reproductive rights, expand education and healthcare and serve social welfare in general, are backed by science and have been demonstrably effective practiced elsewhere in the world. Republicans typically vote for things that aim to take us back to the 1950's when there weren't any Muslims and black people, women, and other minorities knew their place. Also, we all prayed and had guns. Right-wing groups across the world follow this same mantra of xenophobia, homophobia, mass incarceration, capital punishment, and even violence against perceived criminals with no legal process. This is the modern right wing at its very best.

In summation: what you're worried about is baseless.

I try to be a pragmatist, politically. In practice, this means the majority of my positions are overwhelmingly liberal. I'm not American, but to me, the American right wing seems clearly insane and a menace to be stopped, and the Democrats seem horribly flawed but vastly better. To place my views outside of the US context, I like Macron (so far), and I would vote Lib Dem if I was British. Maybe I'm a neoliberal? I don't know. I'm not sure what that means. Point is, this isn't a "but both sides!" thing for me.

The reason I think we should be on guard for crazy violent leftism is because it's occurred in the past in many contexts, not because of projection.

 

[old manatee]

 

[low-G]

I'm just happy there are finally people left of me.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Political spectrum aside, you got a problem as soon as one group no longer recognizes members of another group as sympathy-worthy.

we've always had that problem.

this *new* problem is the other side is starting to feel the same way.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I'm not outta order, this whole system is outta order

Spoiler

Couldn't let that one go.