• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Antifa: There are Monsters Everywhere!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
caketastydelish said:
I think Antifa ironically does more harm than good for their own cause. They just give their opponents ammunition to paint themselves as the real victims. And to bystanders not on either side, it makes them think less of the left in general because of the violence and terrorist acts they commit.
Click to expand...

You don't need ammunition when you can manufacture your own, like you just did with this very same comment.
 

Antifa prevented the alt right at the rally from gathering where they had a legal right to do so, after having been given a court order to stage their protest. Antifa used violence to prevent them from having the space that was entitled to them legally, granted by the first amendment. Antifa committed this violent act for a political purpose, which means the classification of terrorism according to US law. "Antifa" might be an idea rather than an organization, but it is undeniable that terrorism has been committed under Antifa politically minded people countless times. All this does is make them feel they are the real victims, and then say they are "more than justified" to kill people and hurt a bunch of others with a car.
 
caketastydelish said:
I think Antifa ironically does more harm than good for their own cause. They just give their opponents ammunition to paint themselves as the real victims. And to bystanders not on either side, it makes them think less of the left in general because of the violence and terrorist acts they commit.
Click to expand...
This is only a real argument if they were counterprotesting something harmless. But they're not. They're counterprotesting neo-Nazis and other kinds of modern fascistic and / or hate groups.

This is why the OP specifically said Proud Boy rallies and the like don't count. Something you ignored in your latest post. Because that's shutting down something that in of itself is harmful. But there's no recognition of that from you (or others). You expect these hateful, violent groups to be defeated in what, exactly? The "marketplace of ideas"? Antifascist groups have arisen out of a common failure in both society and law to tackle these kinds of hateful, often militarised, groups.

What is ironic is your posts put more time into defending such groups right to exist. Free speech isn't absolute. You even liked a post detailing that (which means you at least understand what was written - I try not to guess why folks like posts). Ergo you cannot rely on absolute free speech as a defense for people espousing, for example, white supremacist rhetoric. I don't believe you do this maliciously at all. I believe you have bought into the modern trap of assuming anything goes away if you debate it hard enough.

We have a habit of assuming things "can't be that bad", or that X or Y are solved problems, by dint of living at the forward edge of recorded history (it's actually a mindset I've seen in relation to the current pandemic, too). Things can't be that dire, right? Things can't be that bad, ergo antifascist responses to some things must be overblown.

But that's an assumption. Why don't you put more time into the folks actually running into people with cars, instead of finding a way to blame the victims?
 
Gorbles said:
This is only a real argument if they were counterprotesting something harmless. But they're not. They're counterprotesting neo-Nazis and other kinds of modern fascistic and / or hate groups.

This is why the OP specifically said Proud Boy rallies and the like don't count. Something you ignored in your latest post. Because that's shutting down something that in of itself is harmful. But there's no recognition of that from you (or others). You expect these hateful, violent groups to be defeated in what, exactly? The "marketplace of ideas"? Antifascist groups have arisen out of a common failure in both society and law to tackle these kinds of hateful, often militarised, groups.

What is ironic is your posts put more time into defending such groups right to exist. Free speech isn't absolute. You even liked a post detailing that (which means you at least understand what was written - I try not to guess why folks like posts). Ergo you cannot rely on absolute free speech as a defense for people espousing, for example, white supremacist rhetoric. I don't believe you do this maliciously at all. I believe you have bought into the modern trap of assuming anything goes away if you debate it hard enough.

We have a habit of assuming things "can't be that bad", or that X or Y are solved problems, by dint of living at the forward edge of recorded history (it's actually a mindset I've seen in relation to the current pandemic, too). Things can't be that dire, right? Things can't be that bad, ergo antifascist responses to some things must be overblown.

But that's an assumption. Why don't you put more time into the folks actually running into people with cars, instead of finding a way to blame the victims?
Click to expand...

I'm not a white person myself and live in America, obviously, I disagree with white supremacist/nationalist groups that don't even want me in "their" country (I was born and raised here). But obviously, I don't agree with white nationalists or think they are "good".

If they are violent themselves, then fighting back with more violence in self-defense is one thing. I'm saying even if the white supremacist groups are holding a rally to peacefully protest their rhetoric, then Antifa shows up and violently attacks them despite the fact that the groups are protected under the first amendment and had a federal court order to their right to peaceful assembly. Then when antifa their terrorist activities, the alt-right responds with terrorism of their own.

Antifa was at least indirectly responsible for that girl getting killed in Charlottesville, from a practical point of view.
 
Last edited:
antifa not anti commit. That must have been autocorrect or something.
 
You really can‘t blame one side for something the other ones does. So no, anti is NOT responsible for „that girl getting killed in Charlottesville“ and even just suggesting that is horrible.

What I think makes Antifa an especially problematic point is that they are fundamentally about civil disobedience. They firmly believe that the official state doesn‘t do enough against „the fascists“ and so it‘s their human duty to confront them. Antifa is also an idea, not an organization, and as such depends on self-attribution AND external attribution. Who defines who are XY and who isn‘t is always a big topic for how we treat social movements. Historiography takes too long to know, the Media is always about a consensus and in the meantime, conspiracy theories may run wild on Social Media creating a self-fulfilling circle. The members of the social movement then react in either looking for a new term for their group or embracing it in opposition to the mainstream, and the cycle continues. In that way, I don‘t think it‘s a fruitful discussions to ask for examples as the opening post does - at least not in a political debate. The academic discourse on it will be rather boring though and take some time.
 
Antifa targets far right-groups, sometimes incorrectly.
The far right targets people of the wrong race or sexuality.

Deaths due to right-wing violence far exceed those due to far-left violence over the last 25 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifahttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

Those figures don't include this year. although by my count the trend continues of deaths due to far-right violence being far more common.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (not known as a left-leaning organisation) 67% of terrorist attacks in the last year were by the far-right.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifahttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa
 
caketastydelish said:
I'm not a white person myself and live in America, obviously, I disagree with white supremacist/nationalist groups that don't even want me in "their" country (I was born and raised here). But obviously, I don't agree with white nationalists or think they are "good".

If they are violent themselves, then fighting back with more violence in self-defense is one thing. I'm saying even if the white supremacist groups are holding a rally to peacefully protest their rhetoric, then Antifa shows up and violently attacks them despite the fact that the groups are protected under the first amendment and had a federal court order to their right to peaceful assembly. Then when antifa their terrorist activities, the alt-right responds with terrorism of their own.

Antifa was at least indirectly responsible for that girl getting killed in Charlottesville, from a practical point of view.
Click to expand...
This is a false equivalence though. You are assuming a lack of violence (from a violent group that espouses hateful rhetoric) is the natural state when not provoked in any way, shape or form. You have no way of assuming that to be the case. You can't say "if there weren't counterprotestors, the neo-Nazis won't have tried to kill someone". That's not a safe assumption, if there was ever such a thing.

You're attempting to rationalise white supremacist rhetoric by painting it as peaceful. Like I said, I think you buy too much into the idea that things can be debated away. They cannot. Do you live in Charlottesville? Do you have any real idea the threat these groups can pose? Or is it mostly theoretical to you?
 
Kyriakos said:
I don't really believe in counter-protests. And they tend to lead to clashes, either between the two sides, the police, or some combination...
Click to expand...

I actually want to pick up on this. I'm only asking questions here, these are not in bad faith, it is in regards to the malleability of freedom of speech I talked about in my previous post. I'd really like your input:

When you don't believe in counter-protests, do you mean you don't think they are practical, or do you mean, further than that, that it is a freedom of speech that should be restricted?

Also, if you don't think the freedom should be restricted, but you think that counterprotests are counterproductive or dangerous, could you be convinced to restrict freedom to counter-protest?

I refer to my last post here; freedom of speech is already restricted for good reasons, and this is one of the places where it could be, depending on whether the reasons are appropriate. And I haven't seen your point before, so I'm really curious as what you want to say.
 
Even the FBI says it does not do enough to fight right wing terrorists.

Calling breaking up a nazi rally a form of terrorism when nazis to this day walk into synagogues and wal marts and murder dozens of people at a time is insane. Considering how close we are to an authoritarian takeover by the GOP you might want to recalibrate your take on antifa.

So PBS is running a series right now. . .

Rise of the Nazis | PBS

It is interesting in that it has zero to do with the war and everything about how the far right wing took over at the time.
 
Angst said:
I actually want to pick up on this. I'm only asking questions here, these are not in bad faith, it is in regards to the malleability of freedom of speech I talked about in my previous post. I'd really like your input:

When you don't believe in counter-protests, do you mean you don't think they are practical, or do you mean, further than that, that it is a freedom of speech that should be restricted?

Also, if you don't think the freedom should be restricted, but you think that counterprotests are counterproductive or dangerous, could you be convinced to restrict freedom to counter-protest?

I refer to my last post here; freedom of speech is already restricted for good reasons, and this is one of the places where it could be, depending on whether the reasons are appropriate. And I haven't seen your point before, so I'm really curious as what you want to say.
Click to expand...

I think that if the state views the protest as vile, they can send the police. But if it doesn't, having a counter-protest is taking the law into your own hands - at least if it is the kind which easily will seek to clash with the original protest/march.
The right to protest/publicly gather is fundamental in anything which wishes to be called a democracy.
 
Kyriakos said:
I think that if the state views the protest as vile, they can send the police. But if it doesn't, having a counter-protest is taking the law into your own hands - at least if it is the kind which easily will seek to clash with the original protest/march.
The right to protest/publicly gather is fundamental in anything which wishes to be called a democracy.
Click to expand...

So Golden Dawn good for marches and protests in Athens then? yea?
 
Kyriakos said:
In case you haven't noticed, GD has been outlawed and virtually all its ex-mps are jailed. So no, you won't be seeing such marches.
Click to expand...

yea I knew that, but they should still ahve the right to march in a real democracy right?

The US is not a real democracy by any means, which I am sure you are aware of, and I would disagree with the idea that a democratic nation has to tolerate intolerance on these levels to call themselves a democracy. The inevitable Cpt. America post is coming. . .

upload_2020-11-22_9-32-28.jpeg
 
People who have anti-immigrant views can march, sure; though such marches are extremely rare in Greece. They can't be under the banner of GD, cause then their march won't be allowed.
Afaik GD never had any large march anyway - they seemed to have had a base in Megara, which is a small town near Athens.

Imo the actual ban on GD wasn't entirely democratic, fwiw. In that it relied on rather vague ties of its leadership to the murder of some leftist rapper (sic). Not that I am sad they are gone - they had lost their parliament seats in the last election, where they got a bit less than the required 3%.
 
Kyriakos said:
People who have anti-immigrant views can march, sure; though such marches are extremely rare in Greece. They can't be under the banner of GD, cause then their march won't be allowed.
Afaik GD never had any large march anyway - they seemed to have had a base in Megara, which is a small town near Athens.

Imo the actual ban on GD wasn't entirely democratic, fwiw. In that it relied on rather vague ties of its leadership to the murder of some leftist rapper (sic). Not that I am sad they are gone - they had lost their parliament seats in the last election, where they got a bit less than the required 3%.
Click to expand...

so is it okay for them to march in your mind when the Overton Window has been successfully dragged to the right by these right wing extremists? I mean this is the problem from my PoV. I do not support antifa at all until recently. Even now only tacitly, but the issue is the lack of response from normal people from the dragging of the conversation farther and farther right needs to be stopped. I for one would support an FBI task force made jsut for going after these groups and the illegalities they do commit.
 
Estebonrober said:
so is it okay for them to march in your mind when the Overton Window has been successfully dragged to the right by these right wing extremists? I mean this is the problem from my PoV. I do not support antifa at all until recently. Even now only tacitly, but the issue is the lack of response from normal people from the dragging of the conversation farther and farther right needs to be stopped. I for one would support an FBI task force made jsut for going after these groups and the illegalities they do commit.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing why any march should be banned, just cause it is "anti-immigrant". Moreover, at least if we are talking about Greece, the only way anything of the kind could take place would be if it was specifically anti illegal-immigrants. And still it isn't very likely to happen.
But given in theory it can, I don't see why it should be banned, nor why there would have to be a counter-march - rest assured there would be a counter-march, which would force the police to stop both march and counter-march anyway when the inevitable clash would happen.

A far more common example of a "right" march would be on some national issue, eg the fyrom thing. Afaik there always would be some moronic counter-march, which helped the state use the police to disperse everyone (like when Syriza wanted to sign, and did).
The police pigs here have no issue beating up right-wing protesters either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom