• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WashingtonPost: "Who are the antifa?"

J

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
E

Exis

Member
As a guy who was part of ARA for large chunks of his like (it mostly just makes T-shirts these days) it was good to see them not only mentioned but mentioned accurately.
 
Tal Shiar Agent

Tal Shiar Agent

Banned
sphagnum said:
I would have no moral problem with it but it would realistically cause a huge amount of blowback.

The problem here is that we are talking about how they should be handled within the context of a liberal/bourgeois-democratic state. I don't really care about such a state - it's not really totally legitimate to me, so whether or not they "should" be prosecuted is a pointless question. They will be. My decisions regarding the American state and politics relate to what can actually be done within its bounds and how far we can make those boundaries bulge before it breaks, supposing that breakage would negatively affect the left, the working class, and people who are oppressed and exploited.
Click to expand...
Bingo. It's a challenge to promote egalitarian communism within a functioning (or mostly functioning) "free" "democratic" state where capitalism is the state religion.

It's entirely possible to change from within, but it needs to be done carefully. While the antifa in the scenario you quoted would naturally be morally right to slaughter Nazi scum, it may not be the time for such an action yet.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
sir_kevith said:
I wonder if you would say the same thing about abolitionists back in the day?

If you want less violence from antifa then end the fascists. It goes away that easy.
Click to expand...

Of course he would. Centrists care only about order and possible threats to their livelihood. They'll support Franco, Pinochet, whoever as long as they promise to keep them comfortable.
 
M

Mr Cola

Brothas With Attitude / The Wrong Brotha to Fuck Wit / Die Brotha Die / Brothas in Paris
Was interesting listen to Ben Shapiro today, he thinks Antifa are a terrorist organisation, he also said violence was around back when the Nazis, Mussolini and Franco came to power as ways to stop them and it failed every time. Curious what people think.

Edit:Timing
 
G

Gorillaz

Member
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew said:
And now I realize that antifa stands for anti-fascists. Isn't that like, everyone who's not fascist?
Click to expand...
antifa is pretty much a small militia

anyone can say they are down with them but actually doing some of the stugf pther antifas have done in other regions of the world is a different story

in short not everyone is built for that life but props to those that are
 
J

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
Mr Cola said:
Was interesting listen to Ben Shapiro today, he thinks Antifa are a terrorist organisation, he also said violence was around back when the Nazis, Mussolini and Franco came to power as ways to stop them and it failed every time. Curious what people think.

Edit:Timing
Click to expand...

I think Ben Shapiro is clearly pushing right wing propoganda. I think the people entertaining these notions are giving fuel for the Trump administration's potential search for dissent.

It's a nebulous target for them to get conservatives all scared of.

Nazis are a known quantity and they have all of the blood on their hands to this point. It's honestly disturbing that people are aiding them along in fearmongering about leftist groups when there's goddamn white supremacists in the White House.

EDIT: The guy linking to an article about "black man converts 200 racists by being friendly" is calling other people batshit insane. Goddamn.
 
S

ShironRedshift

Member
Raven117 said:
This is so dangerous.

From a legal perspective, speech does not equal violence. You cannot be arrested for battery by yelling at someone...anything. Assault maybe, battery, no.
Click to expand...
What that means in that case is that the law is currently quite incorrect and in dire need of revision, as it fails to realize the power words and speech can have and their ability to not only serve positive purposes such as to inspire or cause wonder, but the negative power they can wield as well, which includes being able to serve as tools of violence (through such ends as causing fear or lack of security and sense of safety/peace of mind regarding not just oneself, but also one's children--I've seen so many posts about people being scared to either have children or scared for their children's futures as a direct result of Charlottesville. Speak which so fundamentally violates a person's sense of safety not only for one's self but also one's children is not something I can say in anything resembling good conscience actually deserves protecting and such speech would seem to meet the definition of terrorism besides (and it's curious to me why you specifically brought up charges such as assault and battery instead of ones that violent speech very well can classify as from my understanding such as terrorism), that is to say, speech which intends to cause fear in its targets for a political motive and refusing to properly classify and recognize it as such seems incredibly dishonest, disingenuous and serves no practical purpose other than to continue to ensure the existence of such speech completely unimpeded).

To quote a post I wrote on this subject elsewhere:
ShironRedshift said:
That would definitely be a huge step forward, but still isn't good enough for me personally if I'm getting that right. That would be saying that it's just the guns and other weapons that are the problem and if they didn't bring them with them or whatever the speech itself is still fine. That only makes sense if on some level one believes "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" to be true when it's in fact quite obviously false on its face. Not only is the pen is mightier than the sword, that words in both spoken and written form can inform and inspire hope and wonder, but they can also inflict tremendous pain, doubt, and fear. And indeed, that's the intent of these assemblies--to attempt to put fear and despair into the hearts of those despise and to more effectively do that as much as they're able to by assembling in numbers to strengthen the impact of those words and acts as much as they can. Permitting such acts intended to cause pain, fear, or any other type of suffering in the mind of another under the guise of "freedom" is simply unacceptable and as nations such as Canada and Germany have proven, unnecessary besides.

No, I offer an alternative premise based on an extension of the bolded statement carried to its logical (and rightful, IMO) end: we each, as individuals, have our freedoms, but our freedoms end where the rights of another begin. That doesn't seem controversial and is generally accepted, correct? That freedoms and rights are great, but when they infringe on the rights or well-being of another, they've gone too far. In this particular case, that of the speech of white nationalists, Nazis, and other hate-groups, their speech by it's very nature is intended to infringe on the rights and well-being of its intended recipients. Their speech is inherently meant to harm and degrade, to cause fear and doubt, pain and suffering, in the hearts of minds of the groups they. At that point, it's gone far beyond an issue of free speech, the rights of the speaker, as such speech inherently violates the rights and well-being of its intended recipients.

And even if one wants to personally believe in the adage of "sticks and stones," despite it being incorrect on its face, even if one believes in it anyway, clearly white nationalists, etc, don't, or else they wouldn't engage in such speech or actions to begin with. Their intent is to cause harm/fear/suffering in their targets by their own admittance. At that point, the rights of the speech of the hate groups and the rights of the well-being of their targets are in conflict. Only one can win out. You have to side with one or the other. There's no way of avoiding that conflict.

Traditionally, we've been siding more with the white nationalists, saying their right to free speech is more important. But I challenge that and turn it on its face. Why side with them in the first place? Only one can win, but why them? Why not side with the rights and well being of their targets, instead? After all, denying the rights of these hate groups to free speech in these particular instances causes them no harm whatsoever, other than mild mental discomfort and frustration due to not being able to spread their hate. On the other hand, letting them speak, and siding with the free speech of the hate group, can cause any of a number of different types of pain and lack of well-being in their targets. And indeed, that's the intent of these groups to begin with! To cause that very thing!

So, since in these situations, it's impossible to avoid an infringement of the rights of one one group or the other, and restricting the rights of free speech to hate groups would cause them no particular pain or suffering, but letting these groups speak will, and indeed that's their intent on top of it all, the only logical conclusion that I can reach is that their rights to speak on these topics should indeed be fully restricted in order to prevent such harm from coming to be. Such speech inherently causes harm in its targets and is its intent as well, and denying the right to that speech causes no such harm in the would-be speakers. Therefore, a conflict between the two groups rights being unavoidable, and to protect the rights and well-being of the victims, such speech must be restricted, in doing so both protecting others from harm and inflicting no particular harm or discomfort on the speakers.

I can see no flaw in this unless one refuses both premise
a.) that speech can cause harm, in such forms as emotional/mental pain, fear, despair, or self-doubt/self-hate etc.
and premise
b.) that the intent of these groups is to cause that exact type of pain with the speech (among other potential courses of action)

Otherwise, one naturally comes to the conclusion that such speech crosses the line from freedom of speech to illicit action by ceasing to be a mere expression of thought by infringing on the rights and well-being of another, which should be unacceptable and where we draw the line for rights or freedom (unless, that is, one disagrees with that premise and feels we should be able to violate one another's rights which is a huge can of worms that I hope no one would want to open).

(And yeah, I realize this post was long-winded. Just trying to make sure as well as possible any enthymemes don't creep into posts of this nature that might cause confusion.)
Click to expand...
I know you're just arguing the current legal perspective and not what it should or should not be, but what I don't get is why you keep trying to shift the topic to that. Even if what you say is correct (which I don't see why it should be--even if such speech can't be classified under assault, I see no reason why it shouldn't be classified as terrorism, as it's literally speech intended to cause fear for political motives, and thus deserves to lose any protections it might have as such), all that means is that is a current failing of the law which is in dire need of revision. So instead of talking about what the law currently is, why not talk about what the law can and should be and refuse to accept anything less than that? Why is it that all you seem to be interested in in these discussions is your interpretation of the law as it currently stands?

Unless, that is, you want to argue that not only is that the current legal perspectives, such such changes are, for whatever reason, impossible or unethical... at which point you're tacitly admitting that this is a legal matter that the law can't help people on (which I refuse to accept, but assuming that's so for a moment) and have to find some way of addressing their grievances outside of the law. Unless, that is, not only is the law unjust due to people being able to get away with causing harm to another with their being no legal way to deal with that, not only is it impossible to change those laws in a meaningful way, but you want to argue that the people who inflict this harm on others should be able to get away with it no legal consequences because that's how the law currently is, this shouldn't/can't be changed in any meaningful way, but also that those wronged can't even do anything about it outside the law and take it? They just have to sit there and take it, and fear for not only what that means for their own future, but also their children's, and they can't do anything about it either inside or outside of the law, and that's the best possible situation, both now and ad infinitum in the future, and there's no way for it to ever get better, beyond just hoping that this all just magically takes care of itself on its own somehow? Because I for one refuse, absolutely refuse to accept that.

If you don't dispute that this is not the best possible situation and we should indeed work to improve it and change the law and make it better, then talk about that instead of constantly referring to the law as it currently exists and fight to make it better instead of trying to beat down discussion by just focusing on the current laws. If, on the other hand, you do in fact dispute that, even after all of the above and, although recognizing the current situation is in no way good, still feel it's the best we can possibly do and refuse any alternatives (despite counter-examples existing above and beyond it all in countries such as Germany and Canada), then... I just don't know what else to say other than there's just no way that we'll ever see eye to eye and I can't fathom such a point of view that let's other people's rights be trample on in the name of "freedom" and feels that that is what is truly best. I just can't.
 
P

Psychoward

Banned
Massive Duck said:
LMAO

I never thought I'd see the phrase "Ben Shapiro on point".
Click to expand...

when the most cited resources for antifa being bad are tim pool, ben shapiro, chris christie and anonymous racist /pol/ youtube channels

tenor.gif
 
P

Psychoward

Banned
Hellraizah said:
People saying Antifa use of violence is justified, you're batshit insane. Use of violence only make hate and division grow.

You want to know how to "beat the racist people", here's how you do it :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a7489596.html
Click to expand...

You don't get to vote for Trump and then talk down to people who punch neo-nazis for not ending white supremacy in the right way.
 
S

sphagnum

Banned
Mr Cola said:
Was interesting listen to Ben Shapiro today, he thinks Antifa are a terrorist organisation, he also said violence was around back when the Nazis, Mussolini and Franco came to power as ways to stop them and it failed every time. Curious what people think.

Edit:Timing
Click to expand...

It's absolutely true that fascists used brawls with communists to ramp up fears in the middle class about a communist takeover that helped win them votes. It's also absolutely true that the communists were the ones who were correct about the fascists, while the established parties laughed at the fascists as incompetent boobs and jokes, doing little to make themselves seem to be a better option. Sound familiar?

Perhaps we should be taking fascists more seriously from the start instead of allowing them entry into legitimate politics.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
TTOOLL said:
Why don't you watch the video and then use arguments against what he says?
Click to expand...

Why don't you summarise his argument/s instead of making people watch a 45 minute video of Ben fucking Shapiro?

Better yet, why not make an argument yourself?
 
D

Dr. Benton Quest

Banned
SG-17 said:
American Antifa isn't inherently anarchist, it's just that American anarchists are inherently anti-fascist (along with anti a lot of other things) so they tend to co-opt the image of antifa and then engage in wanton destruction of the wrong targets.

Most communists I know are practical and pragmatic. We know that there won't be a proletariat uprising in America, we know what the terms communism and socialism and been so thoroughly tarnished by the establishment. We work mostly within the system (and a little bit outside) to incrementally get where we want to go. We know it's going to be a long road and most of us won't live long enough to see the final fruits of our labor.

We take steps towards promoting greater egalitarianism and when those steps are threatened by fascism, especially state sponsored fascism, we know that we can't just "talk it out" or we will lose all of the progress made.
Click to expand...

Give this man a membership.

dhMeAzK.gif
 
TTOOLL

TTOOLL

Member
CHEEZMO™;246378846 said:
Why don't you summarise his argument/s instead of making people watch a 45 minute video of Ben fucking Shapiro?

Better yet, why not make an argument yourself?
Click to expand...

Do your job, I'm not the one criticizing what he says WITHOUT listening to it. I'm not here to make summaries for you, lmao, what kind of nonsense is this?

I'm not making people watching shit, you don't wanna do it? Fine by me, it doesn't give you the right to criticize what you didn't see and even less demand summaries hahahahah
 
P

Psychoward

Banned
TTOOLL said:
Do your job, I'm not the one criticizing what he says WITHOUT listening to it. I'm not here to make summaries for you, lmao, what kind of nonsense is this?

I'm not making people watching shit, you don't wanna do it? Fine by me, it doesn't give you the right to criticize what you didn't see and even less demand summaries hahahahah
Click to expand...
If you post a 45 minute video and not even post a summary that wouldn't fly for creating a thread so why are you getting defensive over it not flying for a post? And again. Ben Shapiro is a piece of shit. Garbage. Revolting. Awful. etc. etc.
 
D

Dr. Benton Quest

Banned
Rudelord said:
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Click to expand...

Antifa is not your enemy.

Unless you're a fascist.

Then oh boy are they your enemy!

The right thinks it has all the strength. They say thing like "you libtards better not hope for a civil war. We've got all the guns!"

We need a show of strength, and leftists have never been afraid of Nazis. Hell, Communists killed literally thousands of them a few decades ago.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
CHEEZMO™;246377412 said:
Yes, liberals and centrists are wont to support the right (and even far-right) in order to crush militant leftism.
Click to expand...

Obama to McCain wasn't a thing.

Obama to Romney wasn't a thing.

Hillary to Trump wasn't a thing.

What is a thing is a small but not insignificant amount of people who voted for the losing candidate deciding to take their ball & vote for the other side.

What is a thing is stealth conservative trolling.

Stop making this is a centrist/liberal hate militant left more than militant right thing.
 
Hellraizah

Hellraizah

Member
Massive Duck said:
Then why are you trying to tell other people what to do
Click to expand...

I don't tell anyone what to do. I said that people promoting violence are batshit insane.

If you want to go and clash with these white supremacists because it's oh so right, I'll wish you good luck. But I suspect you're a keyboard warrior, so my guess is you'll be safe.
 
B

Brat-Sampson

Member
Gorilla Shark said:
Yeah, let's let a large violent crowd of anonymous people hand out justice as they see fit. What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

That would depend entirely on the definition of 'justice'. If it's taken as exclusively meaning acting to prevent the rise of fascism, then... Sounds ok to me.

There's a clear and obvious difference between violent thugs and those who would protect the innocent from violent thugs by intimidating violent thugs.
 
Rudelord

Rudelord

Member
Dr. Benton Quest said:
Hell, Communists killed literally thousands of them a few decades ago.
Click to expand...

And a couple million non-desirables in their own countries and those they subjugated, but those were just acceptable loses for the Greater Good of the cause I'm sure.

No, still definitely not my friend.
 
M

Massive Duck. C.M.

Banned
Hellraizah said:
I don't tell anyone what to do. I said that people promoting violence are batshit insane.

If you want to go and clash with these white supremacists because it's oh so right, I'll wish you good luck. But I suspect you're a keyboard warrior, so my guess is you'll be safe.
Click to expand...

Lol at calling someone a keyboard warrior in a message board post

I know it makes you feel good and above it all to not care about white supremacists hurting Americans from your safe space in Canada and that you think everyone should do what a retired senior citizen did and risk their lives repeatedly to try to talk down KKK members, but check this out

America is a country that runs on white supremacy so expecting that to be overturned by playing nice is what's batshit insane. You being condescending when you haven't experienced shit is what's batshit insane.

Hell, me even humoring your nonsense is insane so lemme quit
 
J

jtb

Banned
violence is bad. extralegal violence is dangerous and bad. undermining the legitimacy of the state is bad (unless you want the destruction of the state itself). that is my lukewarm take.
 
S

sphagnum

Banned
Rudelord said:
And a couple million non-desirables in their own countries and those they subjugated, but those were just acceptable loses for the Greater Good of the cause I'm sure.

No, still definitely not my friend.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't acceptable. And we constantly flagellate ourselves for that despite what people outside the movement tend to think because of tankies.

We don't want another Stalin. They do want another Hitler.
 
D

Dr. Benton Quest

Banned
Rudelord said:
And a couple million non-desirables in their own countries and those they subjugated, but those were just acceptable loses for the Greater Good of the cause I'm sure.

No, still definitely not my friend.
Click to expand...

I mean, I don't really want to get into whataboutism, or derail this thread, but how many have died because of the spread of "western democracy"?

You don't have to answer. Just know that when the Nazis have you on the ropes, I'll be there with a bat after you've handed them some flowers.

sphagnum said:
No, it wasn't acceptable. And we constantly flagellate ourselves for that despite what people outside the movement tend to think because of tankies.

We don't want another Stalin. They do want another Hitler.
Click to expand...

And aaaaallll of this.
 
D

Dopus

Banned
Rudelord said:
And a couple million non-desirables in their own countries and those they subjugated, but those were just acceptable loses for the Greater Good of the cause I'm sure.

No, still definitely not my friend.
Click to expand...

How many Communists have you spoken to?
 
W

Wallach

Member
So many people desperate to find some acceptable standing room for fucking Nazis. I guess it's easier when the Nazis only want to kill your neighbors and not you.

You get to be a Nazi or part of human society. Pick one.
 
B

Brat-Sampson

Member
If Antifa folks were predominantly going around punching or intimidating people flying ISIS flags in public or chanting about death and Jihad to the West on US soil, would people be clutching as many pearls? I mean, do you want ISIS? Because that's how you get ISIS.

It just turns out that right now, there are more Swastikas flying freely than ISIS flags in the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Game Curious Montréal is organizing an antifa game jam
5
923
zenspider replied
  • Locked
Videogames are white supremacist.
Drama
14
4K
Hudo replied
  • Poll
‘Unmasking Antifa Act' includes 15-year prison term proposal
2
82
5K
gunslikewhoa replied
  • Locked
Neo Nazis and antifa clash in Appalachia
15
4K
Herr Schwarz replied
Daily Show host Trevor Noah says people see Antifa as "Vegan Isis"
21 22 23 24 25
1K
125K
shawnbuddy replied
Top Bottom