Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

No, not "respond to" violence. "Respond with" violence. Violence puts the conversation on their level, so to speak, and makes it a fight they can win.

This idea that these guys are sad grubby basement dwellers is just wishful thinking. They're out training with firearms in the woods right now. They're dangerous and can do some damage.

And they aren't being motivated to violence by antifa.

 

[Fuchsdh]

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

In terms of actual laws? Trump and co. have done jack while they have unprecedented control of all branches of government. They can't even repeal the health care law they've spent the better part of a decade galvanizing people against.

 

[Oppo]

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.

It works pretty well in Canada.

i guess i'm also not worried about a sudden "hard right government".

(i see no reason why it couldn't work there. it's not actually a slippery slope; hate speech is a fairly bright line)

 

[excelsiorlef]

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.

Ummm no.

 

[legacyzero]

It works pretty well in Canada.

i guess i'm also not worried about a sudden "hard right government".

(i see no reason why it couldn't work there. it's not actually a slippery slope; hate speech is a fairly bright line)

For us Liberals, yes. But to the right wing fundamentalist Christian who likes to blur the 1st Amendment for Religious protection, has no problem blurring it for speech either

 

[Fenderputty]

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

We're in a thread about a comedy central host with a left slant vilifying them. That's the point. The violence is losing centrists. It serves to distract. Fuck Fox.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

And they aren't being motivated to violence by antifa.

To be fair, they are probably black or Jewish..that's pretty motivational..

 

[Nipo]

It works pretty well in Canada.

i guess i'm also not worried about a sudden "hard right government".

(i see no reason why it couldn't work there. it's not actually a slippery slope; hate speech is a fairly bright line)

BLM would be labelled hate speech is red states all over the country. YOu'd need really strict judicial oversight on what is and is not hate speech.

 

[mlclmtckr]

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.

But we just talked about how their explicit goal is to forcibly remove fascists from the mainstream political conversation. It's certainly not violence for the sake of violence. If they were into that they'd be with the fascists.

They're not a political movement. They're not about catchy hash tags and favourable headlines and getting internet commenters like us on board with some narrative.

I know that in 2017 we're all used to political actors trying really hard to be our friend and always being concerned with 'optics' and media coverage and celebrity-style fandom. But antifa are not playing the same game as Democrats and Republicans and fucking Politico or whoever.

They're antibodies. They're a necessary reaction to the infection. They, as a coalition, have one goal and that is to oppose fascism.

Getting the media or the average member of the public on board is not part of antifa's purview, but that doesn't mean they don't have goals or that they're committing violence for its own sake. They're just not concerned with getting you - you, specifically - to like them. That doesn't make them irrational or directionless.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

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.

No, that's not how this shit works at all.

 

[Deepwater]

In terms of actual laws? Trump and co. have done jack while they have unprecedented control of all branches of government. They can't even repeal the health care law they've spent the better part of a decade galvanizing people against.

You do realize that the GOP controls the majority of state governships and legislatures?

 

[JustenP88]

We're in a thread about a comedy central host with a left slant vilifying them. That's the point. The violence is losing centrists. It serves to distract. Fuck Fox.

What does it mean to "lose centrists" and where are they going?

 

[legacyzero]

What does it mean to "lose centrists" and where are they going?

To the ballot box to vote Trump.

 

[Lunar15]

The sad fact of all of this is that the government needs to label the KKK and any neoconfederate group as terrorist organizations. I'm not willing to have reasoned debate and discussion about whether or not black people are genetically inferior to white people. That should not be something this country stands for in any way, shape, or form.

 

[excelsiorlef]

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.

It's amazing how much you bend to assign fault of some level to counter protesters.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

The sad fact of all of this is that the government needs to label the KKK and any neoconfederate group as terrorist organizations.

They ain't brown..

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Sorry, no. These people are worms, they are extremely susceptible to intimidation and atomization through ass-kickings.

Antifa's calculation is as follows. Beating up fascists who are openly marching as fascists is a good tactic because it attacks fascism in the only way that has been proven to actually work.

Define "work"? Do you think La Meute will think twice about marching again, or do you think that, since the media attention was on the violent antifa, they feel emboldened and won't use their "victimization" to their advantage?

I'm actually asking this as a real question, not a rhetorical one, because I don't know. On the one hand, Spencer has said he felt intimidated and unsafe after the punching incident. On the other hand, you have racists still marching openly with nazi flags like Charlottesville and La Meute. Sure, that's largely thanks to Trump emboldening them, but clearly those people are not scared of antifas. To clarifY: I am not against the use of violence per se, but I think antifas need to get better at organizing and picking their targets.

So if you beat the shit out of these people in the streets, you force them back into their sad grubby basements and cut off their political power. If you can make fascists feel like they aren't safe spreading their views in public, they're fucked, because the public is never going to actually be on their side - at worst, the media will spend all of its energy whining about antifa instead of fascists.

Maybe.

Sometimes, though, it backfires spectacularly.

Fascists are never going to have a Gandhi moment where they convince people of the justice of their cause through nonviolent action. They're not going to convince people to turn to fascism by getting punched in the face by antifa kids on television. No one is going to flip on CNN and see some neonazi getting his nose broken and think "wow, the neonazis seem like the good guys here, I should probably look into this whole fascism thing."

Not as such, no. Not for the swastika-carrying openly nazi shitstains. But for those using dog-whistles like "anti-illegal-immigration and anti-radical-Islam" like La Meute, yeah, that can, and does happen.

So antifa takes the heat and get called far-left violent radicals and communist guerillas and whateverthefuck else. Trevor Noah whines about how people will see antifa as vegan ISIS. Liberals get to feel very clever that they recognize and condemn 'extremism' on both sides of the political spectrum. Meanwhile, the fascists are back to cowering in their basements, and the world is a better place. They haven't gained power through public sympathy and they haven't been allowed to gain power by coalescing into a legitimate public movement.

In other words, antifa is actually extremely good.

Yeah well, I find it telling that you completely ignored the part of my post that talks about those times antifas go after the wrong targets.

How do you defend that?

La Meute etc. are organized, but antifas are not. I don't think this is a good thing. If antifas were more organized, they would likely be more effective, and would cause less collateral damage.

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.

Yep.

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

Yeah, that's a fair point.

edit:

But we just talked about how their explicit goal is to forcibly remove fascists from the mainstream political conversation. It's certainly not violence for the sake of violence. If they were into that they'd be with the fascists.

They're not a political movement. They're not about catchy hash tags and favourable headlines and getting internet commenters like us on board with some narrative.

I know that in 2017 we're all used to political actors trying really hard to be our friend and always being concerned with 'optics' and media coverage and celebrity-style fandom. But antifa are not playing the same game as Democrats and Republicans and fucking Politico or whoever.

They're antibodies. They're a necessary reaction to the infection. They, as a coalition, have one goal and that is to oppose fascism.

Getting the media or the average member of the public on board is not part of antifa's purview, but that doesn't mean they don't have goals or that they're committing violence for its own sake. They're just not concerned with getting you - you, specifically - to like them. That doesn't make them irrational or directionless.

In that case, that only means they are acting as a band-aid with no long-term plan. If groups like La Meute start to sway the public negatively towards leftism because ignorant masses might think "they have valid concern, also the leftist extremists are the violent disorganized ones", even if they won't ever go as far as sympathizing with open swastika-carrying nazis, that could be bad for future elections.

I sure as shit don't want ignorant idiots in my province and my country to start sympathizing with the right wing and contribute to electing a nationalist, right-wing government. Like

 

[smisk]

Seems like his message is that violence is bad optics for most people, who are likely more moderate than them. I don't necessarily disagree.

 

[excelsiorlef]

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."

I mean other than all the other violence the literal Nazis committed including lynching a black kid

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Has even one person explained what attacking journalists has to do with fighting nazis?

 

[jtb]

But we just talked about how their explicit goal is to forcibly remove fascists from the mainstream political conversation. It's certainly not violence for the sake of violence. If they were into that they'd be with the fascists.

They're not a political movement. They're not about catchy hash tags and favourable headlines and getting internet commenters like us on board with some narrative.

I know that in 2017 we're all used to political actors trying really hard to be our friend and always being concerned with 'optics' and media coverage and celebrity-style fandom. But antifa are not playing the same game as Democrats and Republicans and fucking Politico or whoever.

They're antibodies. They're a necessary reaction to the infection. They, as a coalition, have one goal and that is to oppose fascism.

Getting the media or the average member of the public on board is not part of antifa's purview, but that doesn't mean they don't have goals or that they're committing violence for its own sake. They're just not concerned with getting you - you, specifically - to like them. That doesn't make them irrational or directionless.

Of course it does. You keep ignoring the single most important actor in this equation: the state. The state is the only entity authorized to use violence against citizens - whether or not the are properly using that violence (how they use that violence, and against which parties) is not some sideshow, it's the only question worth asking. If the state is functioning properly, Antifa violence is redundant at best and outright dangerous to the vast majority of innocent bystanders at worst.

The only reason to constantly disregard the state's critical role in combating white supremacy and prosecuting fascists is if you think the state has no role to play in this at all. Or if you want Antifa to replace the state itself.

 

[Oppo]

BLM would be labelled hate speech is red states all over the country. YOu'd need really strict judicial oversight on what is and is not hate speech.

Ok but again, we have BLM in Canada, they protest.

if you're interested in how it's defined here, the section is not long:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#The_Criminal_Code_of_Canada

 

[moondoggerr]

It appears to me that almost everyone here is on the same side. The reality is that everyone is gonna do them. Squishy peaceniks like me are gonna show up non-violently, and Antifa people will show up and behave on a spectrum, from completely non violent to destroying property and beating helpless people. Nothing I do is going to stop them. And vice-versa. They want to resist in the way they want to resist.

And even though I personally disagree with their methods I agree with them that fascism is the biggest challenge this country faces.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Has even one person explained what attacking journalists has to do with fighting nazis?

Or cancelling metal concerts, vandalizing Starbucks, etc.

 

[Skilletor]

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.

Thank you.

 

[Osahi]

Yeah hitler decided to end himself after realising the error of his ways after enlightening fire side chats with Iosf and Winston. He never would have made that decision when just confronted with Soviet armies murdering their way through his peaceful ethnostate utopia.

Maybe his seed discussions with N Chamberlain finally sprouted and he had an realisation, "yes peace in our time, I see now my English friend, I see."

Ah, classical strawman. You take my argument, blow it up to ridiculousness to try to discredit it.

Problem is, your comparison doesn't make sense at all, as you are talking about a war situation. Offcourse you are allowed to answer violence with violence. That's called selfdefence. The allied didn't start the war, they acted with violence on violence.

So please, don't compare the current situation with WWII. It's not because there are Nazi's that there is a war. If your antifacist, I assume you defend democratic values. Well, act like it then, and fight them with democratic ways in stead of resorting to violence.

Again, the violent fringe of the anti-fascist movement causes a lot of damage to a good cause. You know why? Because the moment you resort to violence in a non-self defence way, you say to the world you are out of arguments.

 

[theCalamity]

Ah, classical strawman. You take my argument, blow it up to ridiculousness to try to discredit it.

Problem is, your comparison doesn't make sense at all, as you are talking about a war situation. Offcourse you are allowed to answer violence with violence. That's called selfdefence. The allied didn't start the war, they acted with violence on violence.

So please, don't compare the current situation with WWII. It's not because there are Nazi's that there is a war. If your antifacist, I assume you defend democratic values. Well, act like it then, and fight them with democratic ways in stead of resorting to violence.

Again, the violent fringe of the anti-fascist movement causes a lot of damage to a good cause. You know why? Because the moment you resort to violence in a non-self defence way, you say to the world you are out of arguments.

I don’t see how he made a straw man. You want people to debate fascists who want to kill minorities. There shouldn’t be a debate on someone’s existence.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Of course it does. You keep ignoring the single most important actor in this equation: the state. The state is the only entity authorized to use violence against citizens - whether or not the are properly using that violence (how they use that violence, and against which parties) is not some sideshow, it's the only question worth asking. If the state is functioning properly, Antifa violence is redundant at best and outright dangerous to the vast majority of innocent bystanders at worst.

The only reason to constantly disregard the state's critical role in combating white supremacy and prosecuting fascists is if you think the state has no role to play in this at all. Or if you want Antifa to replace the state itself.

Or you think that in specific instances, the state is not equipped to deal with a problem, so the law has to be broken to effect change.

Like, yes, western liberal democracy is really quite bad at resisting fascism by itself. Look at who's in the White House.

So for antifa the state is in fact not effectively resisting fascism. That doesn't mean they want to destroy the state and plunge into some antifa-led dystopia.

Martin Luther King Jr didn't want to destroy America and set himself up as some kind of dictator, just because he believed in breaking the law to achieve his political goals.

It's so bizarre to me that you can think that any political action that steps outside the law is somehow inherently a revolutionary act.

Yeah well, I find it telling that you completely ignored the part of my post that talks about those times antifas go after the wrong targets.

How do you defend that?

La Meute etc. are organized, but antifas are not. I don't think this is a good thing. If antifas were more organized, they would likely be more effective, and would cause less collateral damage

Collateral damage is extremely unfortunate and the people who caused it deserve to be held accountable... but this is the fever. This is the price. The whole point is that they're not an organised monolith.

 

[hiim_haz]

I kind of get what he's saying but it's a poor choice of words

 

[shamanick]

Or you think that in specific instances, the state is not equipped to deal with a problem, so the law has to be broken to effect change.

Like, yes, western liberal democracy is really quite bad at resisting fascism by itself. Look at who's in the White House.

So for antifa the state is in fact not effectively resisting fascism. That doesn't mean they want to destroy the state and plunge into some antifa-led dystopia.

Martin Luther King Jr didn't want to destroy America and set himself up as some kind of dictator, just because he believed in breaking the law to achieve his political goals.

It's so bizarre to me that you can think that any political action that steps outside the law is somehow inherently a revolutionary act.

Collateral damage is extremely unfortunate and the people who caused it deserve to be held accountable... but this is the fever. This is the price. The whole point is that they're not an organised monolith.

Lot of folks here would prefer the absence of tension to the presence of justice

 

[theCalamity]

Lot of folks here would prefer the absence of tension to the presence of justice

Obviously order > justice duh

 

[stupei]

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.

I'm kind of amazed that you could express that, were it not for opposition, Nazi rallies would only be a minor thing we could all ridicule from a distance and then talk about some kind of strawman activist that imagines change is immediate. As much as you keep expressing that you understand where I'm coming from, I find this perspective utterly baffling. Just because people might behave with a sense of urgency, that does not mean anyone imagines change happens overnight.

I really don't know how you could infer that, or why you would refer to "entitlement culture" when what we're talking about is a desire to keep Nazis from saying they want to eliminate entire categories of people, including myself and the vast majority of my friends. Damn millennials, I guess?

 

[Osahi]

I don’t see how he made a straw man. You want people to debate fascists who want to kill minorities. There shouldn’t be a debate on someone’s existence.

I don't say debate them, because then you legitimise their opinions. I wouldn't give this fucks a forum if I had the power, and I firmly believe America can use some anti-hatespeech laws. What I say is you don't go about punching them, or destroying property (because that's what extreme antifa does too: random violence because everybody who's not a lefter then left communist is a neonazi for some). I say it is a bad idea to resort to violence in any other context then self defence.

You shun those fucks, counterprotest them, laugh at them, ridicule them. And you use any democratic means you have to fight their 'allies' in politics who pander to them for political gain. When you resort to violence you hurt your own case.

 

[Nokterian]

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

FBI and DHS are calling antifa "domestic terrorists." Not the white supremacist groups in Charlotesville though.

So yeah let nazi's do there thing then...we know how what happend 70 years ago let's see history repeat itself.

 

[commedieu]

FBI and DHS are calling antifa "domestic terrorists." Not the white supremacist groups in Charlotesville though.

How many people have anti fascists killed?

I work with a black dude. Didn't vote. We were talking about getting in shape. He said he has to for antifa...


I said "well you won't have a problem unless you're a white supremacists?"

Him?

"It doesn't matter to them!"

They are getting smeared like BLM. it's buzzard to see so much pearl clutching, when nazis ran over people leaving an event.

 

[jtb]

It's so bizarre to me that you can think that any political action that steps outside the law is somehow inherently a revolutionary act.

First, I've already repeatedly explained that - as you admit - Antifa only exists/has a justification because the state has failed. So we agree that this is the base justification for Antifa. You don't think that, in order to fix this problem of white supremacy running rampant, we need to, then, fix the problem of a non-functioning state??? That holds literally no importance to you?

And now you're telling me that a group called "anti-fascists"... that commits violence in the name of political ideology.... isn't political violence? That it's not a "political movement." I mean, "revolutionary act" (which I don't believe I ever said) would be me being generous. Most people would define that as "domestic terrorism."

It's not political violence. It's not a political movement. It's not fixing any root causes. It's not creating sustainable change. What the fuck is it then, because right now it looks like it's just a way for you to inflate your own ego and self-importance, and sneer at the millions of people who are protesting and advocating for actual change.

Lot of folks here would prefer the absence of tension to the presence of justice

I want a system that is capable of providing justice in the first place. You'll have to forgive me for not trusting a few self-appointed vigilantes to decide.

 

[Nokterian]

When nazis held a "Pro-America" rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, the US press focused on the "violent" "anti-nazi" protesters

https://twitter.com/thalestral/status/902614776269955074

Gee history does repeat itself does it?

 

[uncelestial]

He makes a very solid argument. Not sure what the issue is. Fox News is a racist bigoted network and platform but they can't be overtly racist am bigoted (all the time). So they frame things in a way that creates a new boogeyman to distract from the very real ideology or physical threat. Unfortunately they are the leading cable news network so it's worth pointing out to Antifa that whatever they do this shitbag network will be working overtime to vilify them.

Wow. Imagine thinking that Antifa should be worried what Fox News thinks of them?

I honestly can't!

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

FBI and DHS are calling antifa "domestic terrorists." Not the white supremacist groups in Charlotesville though.

So yeah let nazi's do there thing then...we know how what happend 70 years ago let's see history repeat itself.

The FBI goes after right-wing terrorist groups often.

Some of you need to get off this binary thinking trap. The FBI makes one comment about antifa and suddenly they're letting the Timothy McVeighs of the world walk free? It's ridiculous.

 

[shamanick]

https://twitter.com/thalestral/status/902614776269955074

Gee history does repeat itself does it?

I mean this shit keeps repeating over and over, every few decades, and the sensible moderates keep picking the wrong side

#NotAllAntifa

Do you think this is clever?

 

[ironmang]

Has even one person explained what attacking journalists has to do with fighting nazis?

#NotAllAntifa

 

[Jezbollah]

Wow. Imagine thinking that Antifa should be worried what Fox News thinks of them?

I honestly can't!

They should be if any kind of popular opinion could be swayed by media's portrayal of them.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

How many people have anti fascists killed?

I work with a black dude. Didn't vote. We were talking about getting in shape. He said he has to for antifa...


I said "well you won't have a problem unless you're a white supremacists?"

Him?

"It doesn't matter to them!"

They are getting smeared like BLM. it's buzzard to see so much pearl clutching, when nazis ran over people leaving an event.

Like they said, it doesn't matter in the end. Some parts of the media were trying to smear the women's march because women wore those pink pussy hats. One of the biggest non-violent protests in recent history. Here's a good search of "Women's march terrorists": https://www.google.com/search?q=women's+march+terrorists&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

They will try to smear the name of ANY type of protest that goes against their narrative. There were a ton of 'so-called' centrists who tried to say the Women's March was just a bunch of people causing trouble for no good reason. People need to stop caring what these people are saying, because nothing will change their narrative.

 

[Nafai1123]

The FBI goes after right-wing terrorist groups often.

Some of you need to get off this binary thinking trap. The FBI makes one comment about antifa and suddenly they're letting the Timothy McVeighs of the world walk free? It's ridiculous.

The FBI often treats right-wing terrorists as a lone wolf, completely writing off the group and idealology around them that caused them to be that way. They do NOT treat right wing terrorists and Islamic terrorists the same.

 

[aeolist]

They should be if any kind of popular opinion could be swayed by media's portrayal of them.

why do you think they care about media portrayals?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

https://twitter.com/thalestral/status/902614776269955074

Gee history does repeat itself does it?

Damn...


...that's not the company you want to be associated with.

 

[Nokterian]

The FBI goes after right-wing terrorist groups often.

Some of you need to get off this binary thinking trap. The FBI makes one comment about antifa and suddenly they're letting the Timothy McVeighs of the world walk free? It's ridiculous.

Did you forgot trump stopped this?

https://motleynews.net/2017/02/04/d...supremacist-groups-from-terror-watch-program/

 

[Lunar15]

Islamic terrorist groups: Death to Americans!

KKK: Death to Americans!

They should be treated the same, but they're not. It's frustrating.

 

[theignoramus]

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.

Talk that talk,family.

 

[thepotatoman]

This is exactly how white supremacy will get the "both sides" normalization. When you have every single media outlet and people like Pelosi bringing attention to it and framing the whole national discussion around it, it just makes it look like trump was right when he did the "both sides" for charlottesville.

When bad optics is the primary argument against something, you need to step back and think about who are the ones that are really creating those optics. Places like The Daily Show don't have to draw attention to it, and if their biggest worry is optics then they need to look in the mirror here.

Every large political movement will have its kooks that does bad things in its name. What's important is what the movement represents.