Does Antifa need to be "punched into submission"?

Punching Antifa?

  • Yes. As often as possible.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm in.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • False ''pacifism'' doesn't stop Antifa from ruining things, violence against them does.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, violence is never justified.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only if they're Antifa Nazis.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6

Ryika

Lazy Wannabe Artista
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
9,393
Antifa has caused quite a lot of trouble lately. Whenever there is a bigger demonstration, they show up and destroy stuff, and if it's a protest that they're against, they are disruptive and, more often than not, become violent towards the people taking part in that protest.

They claim to be fighting for all the things the left stands for, but in reality, they're just college kids who destroy stuff and attack people they disagree with - people who usually are neither violent themselves, nor calling for violence.

Last week in Berkeley, Antifa showed up to a free speech rally organized by the right, got violent, and then proceed to get beaten up, all while the police stood there and didn't do much.

This has led parts of the right to become rather... well. Enthusiastic of the next confrontation. In certain communities, including some right-wing Subreddits, people are looking forward to the next time Antifa makes a move against a rally. The goal seems to be to show up and counter their violence with violence of their own, because in their mind, it's the way to stop them from what they've been doing a few times now.

While I'm against violence in general, I can see why they think it's an acceptable response. After all, Antifa are the ones initiating the violence, so why not organize and show them how violence is done properly? A part of me is looking forward to the entertainment we might soon be seeing on american streets, because it very much looks like people in both camps are trying to make things spiral out of control.

Anyway. Showing up to a protest just to punch Antifa to stop them from disrupting protests - I wonder whether people think that's acceptable, and if not, what an alternative solution would look like.
 
The pretext that the right is only violent as a response turns my stomach.
In this specific case? Yes, the people who were at the rally only got violent in response after Antifa had been attacking them. They then proceeded to be pretty violent themselves, and both sides didn't look particularly peaceful in the end, I very much agree with that. But Antifa were the ones initiating the violence.

At least that's what I get from looking at the raw footage available on youtube. I'd invite anybody who doesn't take that at face value to look at tho unedited footage-videos themselves.

More generally, that's exactly what I'm asking about. It's clear that the people on the right who want to be violent are using this as a venue to get into a situation where they can be violent, without having to actually "initiate" the violence.
 
Antifa movements has been coopted by black bloc anarchists really. The recent surge of clashes just reminds me of football hooligans who would regularly organize team brawls on dirt roads with each other. (really nasty stuff when you have a hundred guys go at each other with pipes, boxers and everything blunt really) I guess this is the American version.
 
If these thugs want to hide behind their masks and attack people, then I say self-defense is warranted. Unprovoked violence, however, should not be tolerated.
 
I have been attacked by antifa guys once.

What I totally respect about Antifa is that part which monitor neonazis. In Europe police often just take materials from Antifa to have evidences to arrest some neonazi.

The part on the street is often just violent. Some neonazi do not understand anything else, so if its not sucker punchs I have no moral problem with it.
 
In this specific case?

Not in the specific case you want to cite, but in the specific case of you presenting this as some sort of "oh the innocent right is going to rightfully rise, whatcha think" context, yes. In this specific case the pretense that the right isn't violent and is just now being unmercifully incited so is reluctantly responding is stomach turning. Gross. Disgusting. But not unexpected.
 
The whole "punch fascists" rant sounds pretty suspect in terms of being based on any kind of idealism. With that said, there are plenty on the right who look for opportunities to punch people too and have historically jumped on the opportunity. Just go back to the Civil Rights era for some stark examples. Paradoxically enough I think left and right (at their core) share some common values such as appreciation of liberty, equality (depending upon how it's defined) and toleration. It would be great if we could all find that common ground instead of beat each other up over the most hypocritical things. :(
 
Not in the specific case you want to cite, but in the specific case of you presenting this as some sort of "oh the innocent right is going to rightfully rise, whatcha think" context, yes. In this specific case the pretense that the right isn't violent and is just now being unmercifully incited so is reluctantly responding is stomach turning. Gross. Disgusting. But not unexpected.
I don't quite understand how you managed to read my post like that given that I stated that I see parts of the right are planning to use this as an excuse to be violent, and I generally disagree with that, but I guess if it makes sense in your head to see my post as paining the right as innocent angels, then feel free to live in that fantasy world of yours.

In that particular event though... yeah, like I said, I invite everybody to look the raw footage. It's pretty easy to see who got violent first.
 
In that particular event... yeah, like I said, I invite everybody to look the raw footage. It's pretty easy to see who got violent first.

Once again, if you want to slice out a tiny segment of time and say "look who got violent first...the side that was getting violent right after what I declared 'time mark zero'" I can't stop you, but it does turn my stomach. The right has been steeped in violence since before I was born, and pretending they are 'just responding to Antifah' as a way of excusing them is disgusting. But as I said, not surprising.
 
Once again, if you want to slice out a tiny segment of time and say "look who got violent first...the side that was getting violent right after what I declared 'time mark zero'" I can't stop you, but it does turn my stomach. The right has been steeped in violence since before I was born, and pretending they are 'just responding to Antifah' as a way of excusing them is disgusting. But as I said, not surprising.
I have trouble even understanding what interpretations of my post you must have made up in your head that made you write this nonsense. I have in no way tried to make a greater point about history, or even said a word on whether the left or the right is or was more violent in the past.

My post was about whether it is okay to respond to violent extremists - Antifa - by organizing violence of your own.
 
I have trouble even understanding what interpretations of my post you must have made up in your head that made you write this nonsense.

Instead of "made up in my head" consider that I read your post in the existing context of the impression you have left through our previous interactions. It will become much clearer, I'm sure.
 
Ryika said:
Does Antifa need to be "punched into submission"?
Can't we just give him a two-pointer and a stern talking-to from Leoreth?
 
Back
Top Bottom