Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arx]

I'm not. It's that second part of the sentence that bothers me. The limit there is "none". Any hate that goes further than a person's character is immoral and not based in rationality.

Ah, sorry, I was addressing Iduno, who was claiming the precise opposite of what Nenjin said, not you.

[Gentlefish]

Sorry, must have been channeling some MSH there.

It's alright, it happens.
For this reason specifically, I am very careful in what I call fascist. Specifically, I only call fascists fascists, alongside people who hold fascist beliefs while understanding that the terminology is taboo.

I'm not. It's that second part of the sentence that bothers me. The limit there is "none". Any hate that goes further than a person's character is immoral and not based in rationality.

Ah, sorry, I was addressing Iduno, who was claiming the precise opposite of what Nenjin said, not you.

Haha, fair enough. I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstood here.

I've had racist thoughts and tendencies, specifically against the Chinese. This is due to a traumatic experience during my youth, that ended up shadowing a lot of my development. I acknowledge that I have these tendencies, I recognize where they come from, and I try to overcome them. And it has gotten a lot better.


We're all flawed. It's not impossible for a prejudiced person to try and work through their prejudice, nor is it impossible for them to succeed. I'm not saying Gavin Wossface is or was trying to redeem himself, but I do take issue with the insinuation that someone who's exhibited bigotry at one point is thereby damned forever to remain a despicable person. Or that there aren't varying degrees of it.

I 100% agree with this. However, Mr. McInnes has only taken the action to leave the proud boys. After he left, he filed suit against the SPCL for claiming the proud boys is a hate group, and has taken work under a far-right media outlet in Canada.
(Incidentally, two members of the Proud Boys were recently convicted of assault during one of their public showings)

If he were to come out and say he's made mistakes and honestly tried to undo the damage he's done, I'd be tentatively hopeful and completely supportive. I'm no purist. Hell, I thought Zimmerman did the Right Thing(TM), originally.

[nenjin]

Yeah, as I alluded to, I think McInnes' real deal was that the Proud Boys were about to dial it up a notch and he went "Yeah, I have a career.......I'll support you guys but I can't be your figurehead anymore."

[Dunamisdeos]

This is some hot shit, folks. Great discussion, and I've learned a lot, especially from SalmonGod. Kudos. I wish I could watch some of these videos, but all my posting is generally done from work. I was unaware of the actual stripping of citizenship, for instance.
 
I want to point out that my position is being slightly misunderstood, and I got away from it a bit myself there yesterday.
 
I am not in favor of Antifa because their violence is misdirected. They show up and direct it at people who are specifically hoping for violence to justify their beliefs and use it repeatedly to further their cause. The alt right is showing up to these places with the specific goal of showing others how easy it is to goad the left into violence. Antifa in these circumstances is not preventing the rise of white nationalism. They are not scaring anyone, anywhere, into not supporting fascism. People who go home with bloody heads heal and then get back to it more sure of their position, with a story to tell to potential recruits.
 
If Antifa showed up, to use the unlikely example given before, to a detention center and beat the shit out of an ICE goon stripping someone of their citizenship, I'd say that fucker earned it. I'm not a pacifist. My problem is that Antifa as it stands now is literally growing the alt-right movement with their actions as exemplified in Portland.

If you don't read anything else I have to say, read this: Do not ignore the alt-right. You have to fight them in ways that are effective, as opposed to being not effective. You should also avoid methods that are actively beneficial to the alt-right. I'm not sure how the previous concept is debatable for people who want to fight the alt-right. I'm sort of tired of getting an argument back that says "I EITHER HAVE TO PUNCH EVERYONE I SEE IN FRONT OF ME IMMEDIATELY OR NOT FIGHT AT ALL".

[Gentlefish]

This is some hot shit, folks. Great discussion, and I've learned a lot, especially from SalmonGod. Kudos. I wish I could watch some of these videos, but all my posting is generally done from work. I was unaware of the actual stripping of citizenship, for instance.
 
I want to point out that my position is being slightly misunderstood, and I got away from it a bit myself there yesterday.
 
I am not in favor of Antifa because their violence is misdirected. They show up and direct it at people who are specifically hoping for violence to justify their beliefs and use it repeatedly to further their cause. The alt right is showing up to these places with the specific goal of showing others how easy it is to goad the left into violence. Antifa in these circumstances is not preventing the rise of white nationalism. They are not scaring anyone, anywhere, into not supporting fascism. People who go home with bloody heads heal and then get back to it more sure of their position, with a story to tell to potential recruits.
 
If Antifa showed up, to use the unlikely example given before, to a detention center and beat the shit out of an ICE goon stripping someone of their citizenship, I'd say that fucker earned it. I'm not a pacifist. My problem is that Antifa as it stands now is literally growing the alt-right movement with their actions as exemplified in Portland.

If you don't read anything else I have to say, read this: Do not ignore the alt-right. You have to fight them in ways that are effective, as opposed to being not effective. You should also avoid methods that are actively beneficial to the alt-right. I'm not sure how the previous concept is debatable for people who want to fight the alt-right. I'm sort of tired of getting an argument back that says "I EITHER HAVE TO PUNCH EVERYONE I SEE IN FRONT OF ME IMMEDIATELY OR NOT FIGHT AT ALL".

Ye, we dumped a lot of videos and texts to read. Lots of good information, but there really is a lot. PhilosophyTube in general's a worthwhile listen.

And while my definition of violence is a sociological one (learned from a sociologist), it stands strong as ways to shut down the alt-right and fascists. Ostracizing, deplatforming, censoring, and deprogramming are all integral parts of the fight.
Not just physical violence. Though a milkshake or egg here and there serve to embarrass, and remind them there will be resistance.

In something entirely unrelated, this annoyed me way more than it should have. Some were easy, and others were... definitely not easy.

Aw yeah, I got 69.

[Dunamisdeos]

Ya see, all of those things are important. Antifa is 100% acting against the interest of fighting the alt-right when they behave the way they have been. Therefore, I'm not on board with them.

I'm gonna make it a point to hop on when I get home tonight and read/watch some of the stuff you guys are posting.

[Iduno]

Apologies. I misread that, Nenjin.

[MrRoboto75]

I feel that antifa's nazi-punch squad and say, a random disorganized mob punching and pillaging everything is a very small and often fleeting distinction.

Honestly, the conspiracy theorist deep inside me thinks antifa is just another far right group that fights far right groups to sow further violence and breed a persecution PR for actual far right groups.  Or even to shift blame for half the punching and pillaging a far right mob might do.

[SalmonGod]

If you don't read anything else I have to say, read this: Do not ignore the alt-right. You have to fight them in ways that are effective, as opposed to being not effective. You should also avoid methods that are actively beneficial to the alt-right. I'm not sure how the previous concept is debatable for people who want to fight the alt-right. I'm sort of tired of getting an argument back that says "I EITHER HAVE TO PUNCH EVERYONE I SEE IN FRONT OF ME IMMEDIATELY OR NOT FIGHT AT ALL".

I'm not sure who's saying anything of the sort.  I'm arguing for the spirit of nazi-punching to be on the table as an option, and it's exhausting to have this constantly framed as a hyperviolent impulse to assault anyone over any shade of disagreement.  I'm not arguing in favor of every instance of people in masks beating someone. 

I've also pointed out repeatedly that the violent behavior of antifa is ridiculously exaggerated.  There are exceptions but they are few.  As I already said, counter-protesters generally show up ready for a fight, because they have to be by nature of the situation they're putting themselves in, but few show up wanting a fight. 

Almost every claim of excessive violence gets debunked as bad faith framing of the encounter or agent provocateurs.  In other words, propaganda.  They rely on the fact that most will see a headline or a 20 second video clip and retain their first-impression reaction indefinitely without digging any deeper.  The same thing the conservative side of politics does in general.  And I know that part of this argument is that fighting them gives them that propaganda material.  But maybe we should be more concerned about the fact that some are participating in spreading their propaganda while making that argument?

And I'm tired of seeing "Yeah, ok, but you shouldn't fight the alt-right in ways that benefit them" without any further explanation, which may not be explicitly stating "never fight", but when you put all the wordplay going on from everyone saying this together without any further explanation, that's what it amounts to in practice. 

If you want to get anywhere with expressing the idea that something should be done in ways that are effective vs not-effective, then you need to explain what is effective and what isn't.  Nobody is explaining what is effective.  The only thing put forward has been "do all the same things but more cold and emotionless".  And.... ok....  Besides this, I don't know what to make of the anti-nazi punching crowd's stance other than "ignore them" or "rational debate".  Both haven't been said explicitly very much in this round of this debate in this thread, but this has come up dozens of times around here and I'm pulling some continuity from previous rounds in order to make sense of things.  Because if I don't do that, it's like... "Don't confront them because they just feed off that but nobody's saying don't confront them just do it in ways that are effective."

I feel that antifa's nazi-punch squad and say, a random disorganized mob punching and pillaging everything is a very small and often fleeting distinction.

Honestly, the conspiracy theorist deep inside me thinks antifa is just another far right group that fights far right groups to sow further violence and breed a persecution PR for actual far right groups.  Or even to shift blame for half the punching and pillaging a far right mob might do.

Agent provocateurs are a classic strategy employed against the left.  Police have even been forced to admit to doing it in court.  Identifying and mitigating them is something that comes up in any review of direct action protocol with experienced left-wing activists.

[nenjin]

If you want to get anywhere with expressing the idea that something should be done in ways that are effective vs not-effective, then you need to explain what is effective and what isn't.  Nobody is explaining what is effective.  The only thing put forward has been "do all the same things but more cold and emotionless".  And.... ok....  Besides this, I don't know what to make of the anti-nazi punching crowd's stance other than "ignore them" or "rational debate".  Both haven't been said explicitly very much in this round of this debate in this thread, but this has come up dozens of times around here and I'm pulling some continuity from previous rounds in order to make sense of things.  Because if I don't do that, it's like... "Don't confront them because they just feed off that but nobody's saying don't confront them just do it in ways that are effective."

Not saying what is effective does not translate to "Well fuck it, violence." That is equally just as lazy, and arguably more detrimental. As I said elsewhere, when the pendulum swings again, I don't want to be on the side that is covered in blood because "we had no other choice." That is exactly the same kind of shit the people you rail against are ok with.

[Il Palazzo]

You don't need to have an alternative at hand to realise that pouring petrol on fire goes against the purpose of putting it out.

[Gentlefish]

You don't need to have an alternative at hand to realise that pouring petrol on fire goes against the purpose of putting it out.

A more apt metaphor would be fighting fire with fire, literally. Controlled burns to starve the wildfire and prevent it from reaching important infrastructure.

[nenjin]

You don't need to have an alternative at hand to realise that pouring petrol on fire goes against the purpose of putting it out.

A more apt metaphor would be fighting fire with fire, literally. Controlled burns to starve the wildfire and prevent it from reaching important infrastructure.

Yes, because nothing defines vigilante street violence like "Controlled."

[SalmonGod]

And I'm not saying "Well fuck it, violence"

I'm opposing a violent characterization of antifa, because they are not on the whole as violent as made out and they engage in a much wider range of actions than just violence.  This is not something unique to antifa, but a type of reactionary hysteria I've seen regarding leftist activism for the entire 18 years I've been paying attention to leftist activism.

And I'm defending violence being on the table as an option, while not blanket condoning every act of violence.

The claim put forth is that antifa helps the alt-right grow.  I'm debating the credibility of this claim.  I don't understand how this claim can be seen as credible when the people making it

• Fail to characterize antifa's activity correctly
• Hyperfocus exclusively on a small selection of events that provide confirmation bias with disregard to proportionate and contextual comparison to the full tapestry of actions on both sides
• Refuse to address the growth of fascism that was happening before antifa became large and controversial
• Do not have any constructive input to offer that demonstrates an understanding of the reasons and methods by which fascism grows

I'm debating this because at a time when fascism is already powerful and on the rise, mischaracterizing and condemning those who are engaging in anti-fascist activity (of all sorts - not just violence) is directly beneficial to fascists.  If you want to condemn reckless violence, then ok.  I agree with that.  What I disagree with is the claims of "antifa is bad because they're just an angry mob engaging in reckless violence".

Yeah, not having an alternative doesn't make someone wrong.  But it also doesn't inspire confidence that they know what they're talking about, and aren't just reacting without putting any effort into having a complete perspective.

[Dunamisdeos]

Ok, let's start here then. Because I think we're both starting to speak the same language.

Let's find some specific common ground.

My problem with Antifa is their use of violence in inappropriate situations. I don't think it's something that either side of the table here disagrees on when I say that those specific incidents empower the right when they occur.

Your position, and feel free to rephrase or correct, is that Antifa also takes other actions that effectively fight the rise of fascism in America, and that these actions outpace the negative influence of their comparatively small violent outbursts. I'm aware of some of these positive incidents, such as the protection of the Methodist Church in Charlottesville. I believe they've also been responsible for doxxing some members of the alt-right.

If we can agree on this as a starting point, let's then bring to light some non-violent examples of Antifa taking action against fascism and discussing the effect of those. What have we got?

EDIT: I'm actually like, super sick and heading to bed. So I might not contribute much more tonight. But this is a great discussion. Maybe we can all come to a better understanding of the best ways to fight what's going on in America.