CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
No exaggeration or hyperbole when I say this is one of the wrongest and most ill-informed things I have ever seen put to text. Particularly the first sentence.
Christ alive.
WashingtonPost: "Who are the antifa?"
- Thread starter AuthenticM
- Start date
No exaggeration or hyperbole when I say this is one of the wrongest and most ill-informed things I have ever seen put to text. Particularly the first sentence.
Christ alive.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Counterviolence during attempted displays of fascist force are a-ok with me
Broader violence in service of revolution....ehhh less so
Broader violence in service of revolution....ehhh less so
Psychoward
Banned
"info"
here's the first channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzyycFR6PEv-B90rAiFsQg
and here's the second
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5NmrgqZxY_YFJcXeAYWZYQ/videos
That supposed liberals have no problem linking to extremely racist, far-right, fake news youtube channels to try and prove a point....
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Out of curiosity how many of those standing up for antifa here also supported the Iraq war?
The one where America and the US deposed an actual fascist.
The one where America and the US deposed an actual fascist.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
No one gives a shit about your transparent deflection and this thread isn't going to become about it.
Anyone in America who currently has beef with antifa is either:
1. A Nazi
2. Extremely stupid
3. Soft as grandpa's dick
Some people really don't seem to be grasping the severity of our situation. White supremacists have the executive branch of our federal government. Their party has congress. When push comes to shove, it's been demonstrated time and again that the police are going to target groups toward the left. A hostile foreign power is helping the white supremacists with their propaganda.
This isn't a drill. Shit is getting thoroughly real. These are active, armed, organized white supremacist terror groups that have allies in the highest office. Nazis aren't just some Edward Norton American History X shit anymore. They're "wow look at these cute hateboys, let's do a photo shoot." Even if their active numbers are small, white supremacist groups who don't openly call themselves Nazis are going to find far more sympathy among Republicans (ya know, the party that controls like 70% of our government) than Black Lives Matter. Those people think BLM, antifa, socialists, communists and whatever else Hannity pukes toward them are the real threat.
We are in serious trouble, y'all.
1. A Nazi
2. Extremely stupid
3. Soft as grandpa's dick
Some people really don't seem to be grasping the severity of our situation. White supremacists have the executive branch of our federal government. Their party has congress. When push comes to shove, it's been demonstrated time and again that the police are going to target groups toward the left. A hostile foreign power is helping the white supremacists with their propaganda.
This isn't a drill. Shit is getting thoroughly real. These are active, armed, organized white supremacist terror groups that have allies in the highest office. Nazis aren't just some Edward Norton American History X shit anymore. They're "wow look at these cute hateboys, let's do a photo shoot." Even if their active numbers are small, white supremacist groups who don't openly call themselves Nazis are going to find far more sympathy among Republicans (ya know, the party that controls like 70% of our government) than Black Lives Matter. Those people think BLM, antifa, socialists, communists and whatever else Hannity pukes toward them are the real threat.
We are in serious trouble, y'all.
this is so bad it somehow wrapped around the other side and became amazing
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Go on then, give me an example of how it's transparent deflection.
Do you think I'm a trump supporter or something? It's a genuine question. Or are these not allowed on Neogaf anymore?
Or am I missing something and violence is okay against some fascists but not others?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Just to be clear, "this thread isn't going to become about it" means that we'll delete any posts that continue your attempted derail.
Fenderputty
Banned
StAidan
Member
That's always been my takeaway as well. Antifa aren't actually anti-fascist, they just believe their brand of fascism is OK because their cause is "just."
what is your definition of the political movement known as 'fascism'?
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
No rightminded socialist or communist in the US thinks there will be a legitimate revolution. The revolution will occur quietly and most people won't even know it's happening. Nazi fucks and other regressives like the GOP get in the way, but once all Nazis are dead and the GOP loses standing thanks to being tied to the Human Hindenburg, it'll make things much easier.
Renewable energy/environmentalism
Universal Basic Income
Universal healthcare
State-regulated monopolies
Automation and AI
Justice system reform
Social egalitarianism
Education reform
All tools of the pragmatic state socialist and communist to achieve through democracy that which could never be truly obtained through violent revolution.
It's complicated, because I agree with Antifa in theory but in practice I think you've been proven correct at this point.
Psychoward
Banned
check the sources then re-evaluate
Do you have any idea what fascism actually means or do you think it just means "bad violent thing"
uncelestial
Member
Your "takeaway" sucks.
Dangansona
Member
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Always knew Antifa were just a diet fascist thanks GAF for getting me woke.
dont know if its been posted already but this case for AntiFa in germany is translated from german:
I think you dont know the communist history and Groups. Who makes part of antifa is usualy, anarchists, trotskists, anarcho comunists. Historicaly and to these Days trotskists and stalinists dont get along to well. There's trotskists Groups and stalinists groups, they have different international groups. Trotskists are bigger today i think after krushev.
Its a little big of a history. Stalin Won the election, Trotsky made oposition. Stalin exilated Trotsky on Mexico. Trotsky continued to makes oposition, Stalin was not satisfied then he killed Trotsky with an Ice pick on Mexico.
So to say that all comunists like Stalin is an ideological and historical mistake.
StAidan
Member
I'm primarily referring to the totalitarian/authoritarian attitude of forcibly, violently suppressing opposing views. Their behavior is pretty comparable to Brown Shirts, regardless of any other aspects of their ideology.
Well don't forget to share your grievances on Twitter. You guys are saving the world one non-action at a time.
lol
HerbertBirdsfoot
Member
Maybe high 90's? One of them punched a journalist in Charlottesville and got arrested.
Psychoward
Banned
No, it's not even close.
I've met a lot of liberals who drink the white-washed Civil Rights Movement kool-aid where MLK solved everything with some good speeches and a march, and Malcom X didn't exist.
Fenderputty
Banned
Ideology is the only thing we can use to ascertain which side is morally correct when violence between two parties happens.
Funny that. Many Nazis beat the shit out of non-violent protestors with weapons and they're out and about being Nazis today.
It's almost like the police are not going to be helpful with this situation.
Wrestlemania
Banned
Yes, violence against fascists, not destruction of private property, not violence against journalists. Those are rogue elements acting out in ways that are not representative of the movement as a whole. This happens with pretty much every movement. Idiots use the movement for their own personal goals. My point is it's not indicative of the movement itself.
Fenderputty
Banned
lol the edginess in this post is palpable.
Chie Satonaka
Member
Propaganda works.
Im cool with violently/forcibly suppressing white supremacy, especially when it is ascendent.
"John Brown, what a fascist for wanting to violently suppress the opposing views of slaveholders!"
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I knew as soon as Antifa started mobilising to oppose Trump that liberals (many of who probably hadn't heard the term this time 2 years ago) would join in and attempt to co-opt it, as liberals are wont to do with that become en vogue. The same liberals that spent a century "both sides"-ing Antifa with literal fash (at best), or allying with the state and the right in repressing and discrediting them.
There's a reason Antifa colours are red and black and it's not because the original designer was an edgelord with no sense of colour harmony.
There's a reason Antifa colours are red and black and it's not because the original designer was an edgelord with no sense of colour harmony.
Reading through this article and other sources I've read, I get the sense that the antifa are a reactionary force. Their methods are not necessarily welcome, and escalation in a conflict is an issue.
However, historically the fascists on the right are the ones to start the fight. They work toward the breakdown of civil discourse in society so that their methods of brute force seem more appealing and have less opposition through discourse or argument. They create the conditions which then encourage reactionary groups to resort to violence as a last resort.
That's one major reason I've been so dismayed and angry over the Republicans' efforts to destroy civil public discourse through their propaganda and other means. Because when civil discourse breaks down, you open the flood gates to shit like this. But they know they can't survive in an environment where facts, evidence, and reason are respected.
I don't like that antifa and related groups resort to violence against extremists on the right, but I see it as inevitable once civil discourse breaks down. I'm all for protecting civil discourse no matter what, because what comes after is never good. But I also agree with the antifa groups arguing that after that point, stopping the right wing extremists with whatever means possible as a last resort makes sense. As we've seen in history, the cost of allowing them to continue unabated can be devastating.
My ultimate position: don't let idiots break down civil discourse to begin with and you'll avoid the reactionaries resorting to violence and other means. Yet, in most cases, it seems to be the right wing extremists that start this shit by breaking down civil discourse. I don't care what side someone is on, but it's best for everyone if civil discourse is protected at all costs. Otherwise, things just break down from there.
However, historically the fascists on the right are the ones to start the fight. They work toward the breakdown of civil discourse in society so that their methods of brute force seem more appealing and have less opposition through discourse or argument. They create the conditions which then encourage reactionary groups to resort to violence as a last resort.
That's one major reason I've been so dismayed and angry over the Republicans' efforts to destroy civil public discourse through their propaganda and other means. Because when civil discourse breaks down, you open the flood gates to shit like this. But they know they can't survive in an environment where facts, evidence, and reason are respected.
I don't like that antifa and related groups resort to violence against extremists on the right, but I see it as inevitable once civil discourse breaks down. I'm all for protecting civil discourse no matter what, because what comes after is never good. But I also agree with the antifa groups arguing that after that point, stopping the right wing extremists with whatever means possible as a last resort makes sense. As we've seen in history, the cost of allowing them to continue unabated can be devastating.
My ultimate position: don't let idiots break down civil discourse to begin with and you'll avoid the reactionaries resorting to violence and other means. Yet, in most cases, it seems to be the right wing extremists that start this shit by breaking down civil discourse. I don't care what side someone is on, but it's best for everyone if civil discourse is protected at all costs. Otherwise, things just break down from there.
StAidan
Member
Do you believe that ideology is a proper justification for punching someone in the face? If so, what level of disagreement is required to scale up from civilized argument to bloody altercation?
PetriP-TNT
Member
Does that make males who are against abortion non-abortion?
There's really no middle of the road with fascism. You cannot be like "Well, I don't want to kill all black people, but I do want to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Do you know what the word "reactionary" means? Antifa are as far from reactionary as you can get.
Antifa are fine, unless they attack reporters and people who have nothing to do with Nazism. Jake Tapper was tweeting about reporters that got assaulted by them recently, so it's worth acknowledging that there are scumbags in their ranks.
Psychoward
Banned
Why haven't you looked at the sources posting the "bloody altercations" yet lol
and there is no civilized argument with neo-nazis, it by definition cannot exist. You can argue with them but it won't be civil.
Wrestlemania
Banned
Yes
Disagreement about whether groups of people have any right to exist based on race/religion/sexuality and actively working towards that goal.
That was easy!
HerbertBirdsfoot
Member
The non-violent movement in the South got lots of shit accomplished but it wasn't just about speeches and marching. It was about provocation and taking hits.
Willingness to go to jail and get beaten. Some damn good organizing. I know a lot more about King than I do about Malcolm and others in the northern cities and I have some gaps to fill. Reading ahead.
Yes King's legacy gets whitewashed but don't underestimate the success of his and other's work in the non-violent southern part of the movement.
CHEEZMO;246367424 said:
I guess a better way to explain how I see it is as reacting to reactionaries. The right wing extremists are utlimately the reactionaries. This article gave me the sense that the antifa are dedicated to keeping their reactionary actions to a minimum/causing minimum amounts of damage.
I was trying to address the people opposing some of the antifa's more violent methods. I see their resorting to violence as a last resort. But it's the right wing extremists who end up creating the conditions for the violence to begin with.
I don't think it's a bad thing to react to reactionaries. But I do see them as a reactionary force trying to keep this evil in check. So... yeah. Reacting to reactionaries.
There have always been anti-fascists. Basically peaceful demonstrators who sometimes get loud. The term "antifa" is recently new to me. So this is now the more violent protesters? Or just everybody else?
What the right wing seems to do with these labels is negatively apply them to all that oppose them. Fascists now have Antifa. Alt-Right now has the ridiculously labelled Alt-Left. Basically trying to negatively portray all that oppose their extreme views with an equally extreme view that doesn't really exist.
It's not always that black and white. There is not a liberal equivalent to a nazi. Labelling all liberal leaning and even centrist thinking people with a negative name is ridiculous. It's not "both sides" equal because they are not equally extreme.
Labels are stupid.
What the right wing seems to do with these labels is negatively apply them to all that oppose them. Fascists now have Antifa. Alt-Right now has the ridiculously labelled Alt-Left. Basically trying to negatively portray all that oppose their extreme views with an equally extreme view that doesn't really exist.
It's not always that black and white. There is not a liberal equivalent to a nazi. Labelling all liberal leaning and even centrist thinking people with a negative name is ridiculous. It's not "both sides" equal because they are not equally extreme.
Labels are stupid.
No it isn't. And in any case there are lots of groups and movements that get into ideological street fights. Are they all fascists now?
Fascism is a very real and pretty fucking scary thing in the world right now, it's important to be clear about what it actually is.
I guess for me it's somewhere right around "advocates for genocide"
Wrestlemania
Banned
Again:
Context matters. We can acknowledge it and move on. It was an unfortunate incident in what must have been an incredibly tough situation to be in and is not really worth dwelling on.
Neither would have succeeded without the other. The white establishment would have had no reason to compromise with the movement if there was no muscle they were afraid of in the first place. Not too discredit King of course I'm just saying both were necessary.