Support NeoGAF

[Tain]

No, if they weren't around we would just be discussing how fucking stupid the nazis look at their little sausage parties. If there is nobody for these losers (nazis) to fight with then their threats are completely hollow. antifa is just giving them the fight that they BOTH want.

actively wishing for an absence of protesters at a nazi gathering? are you for real?

 

[GustyGardens]

I covered some of this in my later post but basically, antifa aren't generally concerned with you or me or the majority of Americans. Their strategy is directly concerned with the fascists, who they want to forcibly remove from the public discourse. If we or the media condemn or demonise them, they don't care, because that is not their area of action.

It's not about the media or public perception.

They may not care, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. The idea of changing the public discourse without the support from the public you intend to change is a naive. Given the state that our country is in, I do believe Antifa serve a purpose, but they need to evolve to become much more.

Violence has its place, but without a firm cause behind the violence, your actions are lost. There's also the risk that the alt-right could play the victim and garner public sympathy.

 

[shawnbuddy]

What I am taking away from this is you're calling him a lone wolf and that the white supremacists he came with have nothing to do with her death.

Nah, I think there are a couple things at play. I think that the violent ideologies of the people who organized the rally inoculated him with violence, and that those people are culpable.

We don't know his state of mind or what his motives were, but I also think that after a day of violent clashes with leftists, we have to acknowledge the possibility that he saw leftists as violent and deserving to be met with violence. And people who weren't involved in any violence suffered. This is not to say that this is justified in any way, but that this is how white supremacists think. They look for enemies and they're always itching for a race war.

 

[off duty ninja]

You act like going into someone's city and saying that they don't belong there and you desire their removal from not only that city but the country as a whole, through force if necessary, is not in itself an act of violence deliberately targeted at the minority residents of the communities they are invading.

You are right that I think violence involves physical contact and not simple words. i just think everybody should laugh at them and mock them civilly rather than feeding into what they want to begin with.

 

[legacyzero]

No, if they weren't around we would just be discussing how fucking stupid the nazis look at their little sausage parties. If there is nobody for these losers (nazis) to fight with then their threats are completely hollow. antifa is just giving them the fight that they BOTH want.

Yeah.

That sausage party wants a fight NOW, dont they

 

[DogDude]

Anyone else feel there's been a very sudden turn on antifa in the mainstream media this week and questioning what caused it?

 

[jtb]

Well I'm not sure that necessarily follows.

When people engage in civil disobedience, through let's say a sit-in or a traffic stoppage, they are intentionally breaking the law to enact political change. Trespassing and jaywalking are inherently illegal and restrict basic property rights and safety procedures. That doesn't mean that every person who engages in a sit-in or traffic stoppage wants to overthrow the government.

Some antifa are definitely revolutionary anarchists and communists. There are also liberals and democratic socialists and politically agnostic antifascists and communitarians and whatever else. Antifa is a tactic, the people who subscribe to it don't necessarily want to violently overthrow the government any more than nonviolent protesters do.

I guess that's my problem with Antifa. It's a unified tactic in search of a unified goal.

How can you use the tactic to create political change if you can't even agree on what that political change should look like? How can third parties trust antifa if they have no political goals? How can I trust antifa that allies will not be subject to political violence if antifa has no defined politics? etc. etc.

Civil disobedience is constructed around victimless crimes or low-stakes "crimes" where the state is the "victim" moreso than actual citizens. When the stakes raise, the burden to responsibly wield that power raises exponentially imo

 

[besada]

No, if they weren't around we would just be discussing how fucking stupid the nazis look at their little sausage parties. If there is nobody for these losers (nazis) to fight with then their threats are completely hollow. antifa is just giving them the fight that they BOTH want.

This is delusional. Stormfront members have been linked to over a hundred murders. When people ignore white supremacists and nazis, they murder people. These same groups are tied to a huge number of crimes of violence. They didn't suddenly become violent when they showed up at Charlottesville. The only difference is there were cameras.

 

[Deepwater]

actively wishing for an absence of protesters at a nazi gathering? are you for real?

He thinks they're just attention whoring trolls.

Except for the part where they have presence in law enforcement, local, state, and federal government, the judiciary.

Even if people hesitate at the nazi symbolism and paraphernalia, the ideology is very much something lots of white people agree on. Especially the ones with political and legal power.

Nah, I think there are a couple things at play. I think that the violent ideologies of the people who organized the rally inoculated him with violence, and that those people are culpable.

We don't know his state of mind or what his motives were, but I also think that after a day of violent clashes with leftists, we have to acknowledge the possibility that he saw leftists as violent and deserving to be met with violence. And people who weren't involved in any violence suffered. This is not to say that this is justified in any way, but that this is how white supremacists think. They look for enemies and they're always itching for a race war.

What the hell do you mean we don't know what his motives were? Are you daft?

 

[off duty ninja]

This is delusional. Stormfront members have been linked to over a hundred murders. When people ignore white supremacists and nazis, they murder people. These same groups are tied to a huge number of crimes of violence. They didn't suddenly become violent when they showed up at Charlottesville. The only difference is there were cameras.

You missed where I said that when they commit hate crimes we need to punish them extensively. I just don't like how this dialogue is slowly turning thought into a crime.

You know the old "First they came for the..." adage can be applied to more than just nazis.

 

[shawnbuddy]

They may not care, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. The idea of changing the public discourse without the support from the public you intend to change is a naive. Given the state that our country is in, I do believe Antifa serve a purpose, but they need to evolve to become much more.

Violence has its place, but without a firm cause behind the violence, your actions are lost. There's also the risk that the alt-right could play the victim and garner public sympathy.

If it hadn't been for the murder, Charlottesville would have been a net PR win for Nazis. Just an example of how the "violent left" suppressed their "free speech" as the protected "heritage."

 

[stupei]

You are right that I think violence involves physical contact and not simple words. i just think everybody should laugh at them and mock them civilly rather than feeding into what they want to begin with.

The cleansing of "undesirables" always begins with simple words.

There is no non-violent way to express that someone shouldn't exist anymore.

 

[Principate]

Disingenuous.

Even if the masses were to accept that violence was acceptable at ANY level, let's not omit that Antifa isn't just performing violence towards the 'alt-right'. They're doing it in every direction. And it's bullshit. If they want to equate themselves to a Civil Rights era movement, maybe they'll want to start focusing exclusively on those who seek to violate/remove those rights?

It's not ignorance in this thread. It's reason.



What do you even mean? I feel my post was pretty straight forward, and you're reading it wrong I guess. I mean Antifa as a movement. At least expand and criticize my post instead of calling it what it isn't.


LOL Yeah that confused me.

Yes and a movement with multiple internal ideologies, organisations, and interpretation of their goals. To say anti-fa does this and that paints them all under one big brush when the "organization" if you can call it that is anything but. This is what happens when you simplify massive groups of people it easily digestable all encompassing terms.

I'm not saying this in a just a few bad apples sort of way more that your point doesn't even make sense unless you assume it's an internally constistent organisation.

 

[pwack]

The only justification, imo, for extrajudicial vigilante violence (i.e. not self-defense) is if the state has collapsed and has failed in its duty to protect its citizens (i.e. POC, LGBTQ, etc.). Now, I think you can make a credible argument that the police forces in many jurisdictions are inequitable enough to make that violence morally justified.

The question that I have that antifa has wholly failed to answer is: what next?

Either you choose to reform the state to protect those that are not protected, or you destroy the state itself.

I just don't understand 1. what Antifa's goals are (it seems like there are two wildly divergent camps within antifa: the far-left and the anarchists) and 2. how they can ever hope to accomplish them. Otherwise, they are just a group without an ideology that inflicts wanton extrajudicial violence? Very 'Anonymous' to me.

Exactly. Stopping specific acts of violence and intimidation perpetrated by Nazis through direct intervention -- violent or non-violent -- is good. But what the fuck does Antifa do beyond that? Are they just the Hell's ANgels for the modern time?

Antifa is, essentially, a bunch of anarchists who won't accomplish anything beyond the individual/hyper-local scale. THat's fine, but we need large scale social reform. Running around in masks punching individual assholes doesn't make large scale impacts. It's essentially a hobby for left-wing/anarchists who need an outlet for their aggression.

And -- if Antifa creates a counter-narrative to be used by the right to avoid large social changes, they need to question if the good they produce counterbalances that negative.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

You missed where I said that when they commit hate crimes we need to punish them extensively. I just don't like how this dialogue is slowly turning thought into a crime.

You know the old "First they came for the..." adage can be applied to more than just nazis.

Promoting Nazism isn't just thought, it's an incitement to genocide.

 

[shawnbuddy]

What the hell do you mean we don't know what his motives were? Are you daft?

Other than that he's a racist who obviously wanted to kill a lot of people, we don't. He hasn't given a statement or any explanation.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

You missed where I said that when they commit hate crimes we need to punish them extensively. I just don't like how this dialogue is slowly turning thought into a crime.

You know the old "First they came for the..." adage can be applied to more than just nazis.

The current administration could give a shit about white supremacists. Feds have known even in the last administration that policing at all levels had been "infiltrated" by white supremacists. This is naive.

 

[shamanick]

Other than that he's a racist who obviously wanted to kill a lot of people, we don't. He hasn't given a statement or any explanation.

do you know what motive means

 

[besada]

You missed where I said that when they commit hate crimes we need to punish them extensively. I just don't like how this dialogue is slowly turning thought into a crime.

You know the old "First they came for my..." adage can be applied to more than just nazis.

Nothing's turning into a "thought crime". Speech and behavior are actions, not thought. The reality is that when you allow nazis and white supremacists -- whose political views require ethnic cleansing at a minimum -- to congregate and organize, without any sort of opposition, they historically engage in violence. You need more than a misreading of 1984 to argue against that.

And yes, you can dishonestly use an aphorism about nazis murdering people to defend nazis, if that's the sort of thing you think is reasonable, instead of incredibly objectionable.

 

[Muffin1611]

You missed where I said that when they commit hate crimes we need to punish them extensively. I just don't like how this dialogue is slowly turning thought into a crime.

You know the old "First they came for the..." adage can be applied to more than just nazis.

Hate speech should be a crime and is one in plenty of civilized countries.

 

[legacyzero]

Yes and a movement with multiple internal ideologies ,organisations, and interpretation of their goals. To say anti-fa does this and that paints them al under one big brush when the "organization" if you can call it that is anything but. This is what happens when you simplify massive groups of people it easy digestable all encompassing terms.

I'm not saying this in a just a few bad apples sort of way more that your point doesn't even make sense unless you assume it's an internally constistent organisation.

My point is that the PERCEPTION is exactly that. You and I can be in the know, but when he media and outside viewers see it, they're not going to care much about whatever ideologies you think exist within the group. That point gets lost the moment the perception become reception. And right now the current reception is that they are a violent and destructive group .

Hate speech should be a crime and is one in plenty of civilized countries.

I don't know if I agree with this though. While it works in other countries, I'm not so sure it would work here.

For example: I'm an Atheist. Sure, maybe a liberal/progressive Government might successfully block hate speech to an extent. But what happens when a hard right government snaps back like what happened in 2016? A fundamentalist Christian fucker like Ted Cruz doesn't like what I have to say about his God and his views. Would he limit that too? You're goddamn right he would. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but it's true. Which is why free speech doesn't cover hate speech.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Promoting Nazism isn't just thought, it's an incitement to genocide.

Pish posh..

 

[off duty ninja]

The cleansing of "undesirables" always begins with simple words.

There is no non-violent way to express that someone shouldn't exist anymore.

I understand where you are coming from and this is where we part. While hateful speech is disgusting and wrong it is not an act of violence. To call it such is offensive when ACTUAL violence takes place all the time.

If someone commits an act of physical violence that isn't in self defense then they deserve all the punishment they get from the system or any bystanders that step in. That includes antifa and nazis.

 

[Deepwater]

You missed where I said that when they commit hate crimes we need to punish them extensively. I just don't like how this dialogue is slowly turning thought into a crime.

You know the old "First they came for the..." adage can be applied to more than just nazis.

The chickens have come to roost at last.

I don't know how much room you think there is (or lack thereof) between ugly armed white dudes waving nazi flags at a political rally about confederate statues and...everyone else.

If citizens want to go out and preach white nationalism, they can get they ass beat by other citizens. Yes, the stakes are that high, and as far as I know none of them have died yet because of it. To the contrary, several of us have died at their hands.

America has had a white supremacy problem since it's inception. It's not going to be ousted without threat of violence. And I sincerely mean that.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I find it pretty hilarious when people post stuff like "But if they act violent they just help FOX villfy them" as if Fox wouldn"t do that anyway. Have fun trying to sway Fox with reason and logic

 

[Imm0rt4l]

I think its really important that people don't dismiss rhetorical and epistemic violence as "just words"

 

[mlclmtckr]

I understand where you are coming from and this is where we part. While hateful speech is disgusting and wrong it is not an act of violence. To call it such is offensive when ACTUAL violence takes place all the time.

If someone commits an act of physical violence that isn't in self defense then they deserve all the punishment they get from the system or any bystanders that step in. That includes antifa and nazis.

So if a dude was standing in the street screaming "kill all the Jews" and wearing a Nazi uniform

And a Jewish guy walked up and sucker punched that guy

You would help the Nazi beat up the Jew.

 

[off duty ninja]

Nothing's turning into a "thought crime". Speech and behavior are actions, not thought. The reality is that when you allow nazis and white supremacists -- whose political views require ethnic cleansing at a minimum -- to congregate and organize, without any sort of opposition, they historically engage in violence. You need more than a misreading of 1984 to argue against that.

And yes, you can dishonestly use an aphorism about nazis murdering people to defend nazis, if that's the sort of thing you think is reasonable, instead of incredibly objectionable.

I wouldn't be against some changes to the laws surrounding hate speech but that requires changing laws. Something that antifa isn't doing at all with their actions.

I am not against counter protests either. I am against the groups that specifically look to cause violence and mayhem in order to somehow push their agenda.

So if a dude was standing in the street screaming "kill all the Jews" and wearing a Nazi uniform

And a Jewish guy walked up and sucker punched that guy

You would help the Nazi beat up the Jew.

Ok, you got me, lolz.

 

[shawnbuddy]

do you know what motive means

"A reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious."

We know what he did and who he is but it has not been communicated why he thinks he did what he did. I brought this up to make it clear that my thoughts on his influences were only speculation.

 

[Deepwater]

All I'm saying is:

Too many of you are overconcerned with the welfare of people who'd like to maim and murder people who look like me. It's an incredibly privileged stance to take, and I strongly do not respect many of you for it. Your delusional wishes of a non violent peaceful society were never a reality in this country for people who look like me and you continue to tell on yourselves each and every day how unwilling you are to change it on any terms that make you uncomfortable.

 

[GustyGardens]

America has had a white supremacy problem since it's inception. It's not going to be ousted without threat of violence. And I sincerely mean that.

At this point in time, I'm inclined to agree. White supremacists have used violence as a tactic for decades; it's about time we do the same. It's as they say, violence begets violence.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

So if a dude was standing in the street screaming "kill all the Jews" and wearing a Nazi uniform

And a Jewish guy walked up and sucker punched that guy

You would help the Nazi beat up the Jew.

He got physical tho..like those Antifa fucks during WW2..

 

[jimmypython]

The only justification, imo, for extrajudicial vigilante violence (i.e. not self-defense) is if the state has collapsed and has failed in its duty to protect its citizens (i.e. POC, LGBTQ, etc.). Now, I think you can make a credible argument that the police forces in many jurisdictions are inequitable enough to make that violence morally justified.

The question that I have that antifa has wholly failed to answer is: what next?

Either you choose to reform the state to protect those that are not protected, or you destroy the state itself.

I just don't understand 1. what Antifa's goals are (it seems like there are two wildly divergent camps within antifa: the far-left and the anarchists) and 2. how they can ever hope to accomplish them. Otherwise, they are just a group without an ideology that inflicts wanton extrajudicial violence? Very 'Anonymous' to me.

Exactly.

A few far-left and anarchists would not make a huge splash under a just state. The only reason it's (seemingly) gotten bigger is because people feel the current government has failed them and there is no good way to change that, i.e. evil GOP and corrupted Dem.

A legit path forward is to force the state to reform or overhaul. If the current lawmakers don't want to do it then vote them out. Or form new political parties just like what GOP did back in the 1850-1860s

 

[Imm0rt4l]

The chickens have come to roost at last.

I don't know how much room you think there is (or lack thereof) between ugly armed white dudes waving nazi flags at a political rally about confederate statues and...everyone else.

If citizens want to go out and preach white nationalism, they can get they ass beat by other citizens. Yes, the stakes are that high, and as far as I know none of them have died yet because of it. To the contrary, several of us have died at their hands.

America has had a white supremacy problem since it's inception. It's not going to be ousted without threat of violence. And I sincerely mean that.

word. Hell, peaceful protest in and of themselves don't do shit. Threat of violence is always necessary for them to work.

 

[Crosseyes]

I understand where you are coming from and this is where we part. While hateful speech is disgusting and wrong it is not an act of violence. To call it such is offensive when ACTUAL violence takes place all the time.

If someone commits an act of physical violence that isn't in self defense then they deserve all the punishment they get from the system or any bystanders that step in. That includes antifa and nazis.

That's just where you're ethically and morally wrong and why Antifa is needed.

Someone could have gone to the alt-right line and killed tens of nazis and it would have been completely moral and ethical use of self defense. Legally and politically it would have been wrong but ideals and causes behind words matter enough to justify violence. Many wars were fought and millions of people killed over ideals and in the face of great evil there can be justification of violence and death.

 

[Anung]

I thinknits really important that people don't dismiss rhetorical and epistemic violence as "just words"

For real. Verbal and psychological abuse is still abuse regardless of whether it gets physical and hate speech is absolutely violence. It's baffling to me that people would try and argue otherwise.

 

[shamanick]

Exactly.

A few far-left and anarchists would not make a huge splash under a just state. The only reason it's (seemingly) gotten bigger is because people feel the current government has failed them and there is no good way to change that, i.e. evil GOP and corrupted Dem.

A legit path forward is to force the state to reform or overhaul. If the current lawmakers don't want to do it then vote them out.

The state HAS failed them. It's not a question of feelings. People have a right to protect themselves.

 

[stupei]

I understand where you are coming from and this is where we part. While hateful speech is disgusting and wrong it is not an act of violence. To call it such is offensive when ACTUAL violence takes place all the time.

If someone commits an act of physical violence that isn't in self defense then they deserve all the punishment they get from the system or any bystanders that step in. That includes antifa and nazis.

There is more than one kind of violence. It's not an overly complex concept. If you threaten someone specific's life, that is considered illegal. If you are verbally abusive to a police officer, you don't get away with it because they were just "simple words." A parent can be verbally abusive to their child.

To say in public that entire categories of people should not exist is an act of psychological terror meant to make them feel unsafe and unwelcome in public spaces. If there was not also a dramatic increase in violent physical attacks against minorities, perhaps you would have a point. But violent rhetoric often accompanies violent action on a large scale. The words are intended as a clear reminder of why the physical attacks happen and why the speaker believes they should continue.

It is, at the very least, a promise of intent and a call to action.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I guess that's my problem with Antifa. It's a unified tactic in search of a unified goal.

How can you use the tactic to create political change if you can't even agree on what that political change should look like? How can third parties trust antifa if they have no political goals? How can I trust antifa that allies will not be subject to political violence if antifa has no defined politics? etc. etc.

Civil disobedience is constructed around victimless crimes or low-stakes "crimes" where the state is the "victim" moreso than actual citizens. When the stakes raise, the burden to responsibly wield that power raises exponentially imo

More simply, a group that defines itself solely by opposition to something else as opposed to standing for something is a group that isn't going to achieve much. Witness: the modern Republican party.

 

[MotionBlue]

Yeah.

That sausage party wants a fight NOW, dont they

You're proving the point. Peaceful protest shows how few and how small their group is.

Violent protest galvanizes their thoughts of oppression.

 

[off duty ninja]

There is more than one kind of violence. It's not an overly complex concept. If you threaten someone specific's life, that is considered illegal. If you are verbally abusive to a police officer, you don't get away with it because they were just "simple words." A parent can be verbally abusive to their child.

To say in public that entire categories of people should not exist is an act of psychological terror meant to make them feel unsafe and unwelcome in public spaces. If there was not also a dramatic increase in violent physical attacks against minorities, perhaps you would have a point. But violent rhetoric often accompanies violent action on a large scale. The words are intended as a clear reminder of why the physical attacks happen and why the speaker believes they should continue.

It is, at the very least, a promise of intent and a call to action.

It isn't that I disagree with what you are saying. I just disagree with how we should handle these things. We will never have a civil society if we resort to violence constantly to resolve our issues.

I think it is a subtle form of entitlement culture to expect things to change overnight. I believe that things will get better but I also believe that will only through non-violent channels such as PEACEFUL protest, voting and education.

 

[jtb]

The state HAS failed them. It's not a question of feelings. People have a right to protect themselves.

But no one is arguing (as far as I can tell) that Antifa is a group that commits only legally permissible violence. That's a moot point; of course they can. This is about actively targeting Nazis and driving them out of the public sphere using (extrajudicial) violence.

 

[JustenP88]

You're proving the point. Peaceful protest shows how few and how small their group is.

Violent protest galvanizes their thoughts of oppression.

The mere existence of people of color galvanizes their thoughts of oppression.

 

[besada]

I am not against counter protests either. I am against the groups that specifically look to cause violence and mayhem in order to somehow push their agenda.

You said that so long as they had no one to fight with, their threats would be hollow. They're going to fight anyone who counter-protests. They attacked non-antifa counter protestors at Charlottesville. They have a history of attacking non-violent protestors. So the only way to meet your criteria -- a situation where they can't attack someone -- is for no one to protest them.

The only reason they didn't attack protestors in the one rally they didn't cancel post-Charlottesville, was because they feared for their lives from a crowd swelled with anger over their violence in Charlottesville.

 

[mlclmtckr]

More simply, a group that defines itself solely by opposition to something else as opposed to standing for something is a group that isn't going to achieve much. Witness: the modern Republican party.

I mean come on guys I know you're against fascism but I need to know what you're for before I can approve of you

Also I would argue that the modern Republican Party has actually achieved quite a lot

 

[Gordon Shumway]

You said that so long as they had no one to fight with, their threats would be hollow. They're going to fight anyone who counter-protests. They attacked non-antifa counter protestors at Charlottesville. They have a history of attacking non-violent protestors. So the only way to meet your criteria -- a situation where they can't attack someone -- is for no one to protest them.

Well..if they had no one to fight..😏

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I would say being a nazi is a violent act.

 

[off duty ninja]

You said that so long as they had no one to fight with, their threats would be hollow. They're going to fight anyone who counter-protests. They attacked non-antifa counter protestors at Charlottesville. They have a history of attacking non-violent protestors. So the only way to meet your criteria -- a situation where they can't attack someone -- is for no one to protest them.

Fight with..ie antoginzing them with masks and bats. I do think counter protests are futile at times but I don't hold that against those who choose to do so. You can continue to apply what I say to all protests if you like but I have been pretty clear if you read my posts that I am against violent actions rather than protests.

 

[sangreal]

He isn't wrong about the perception. I mean this is the front page of Politico today

It's also very disingenuous to suggest all antifa does is break windows and punch nazis

 

[jtb]

I mean come on guys I know you're against fascism but I need to know what you're for before I can approve of you

Also I would argue that the modern Republican Party has actually achieved quite a lot

Without any actual goals, you're just committing violence for the sake of committing violence. That strikes me as the most indefensible and ineffective form of political violence possible.