By David Futrelle
Seems like only yesterday that everyone to the left of Donald Trump was mad at the Nazis. Now for some reasons a lot of these same people are yelling about AntiFa. Nancy Pelosi has officially denounced AntiFa, and a piece in the generally liberalish Washington Post today declared that AntiFa are the “moral equivalent” of the literal Nazis they oppose.
Now I’m not exactly the most militant dude in the world but WHAT IN HOLY CRAP IS GOING ON. We are up against LITERAL NAZIS. One of them LITERALLY MURDERED A WOMAN with a car, and then the rest of them LAUGHED ABOUT IT and SAID IT WAS JUSTIFIED. They go to every so-called “free speech” rally they organize with the intent of doing bodily harm to as many people as possible. and unless we stop them it’s only a matter of time before they kill more people. So fuck this shit. Hug an AntiFa today.
On to the tweets. First, the dumb shit.
Pelosi puts out statement condemning Antifa violence in Berkeley. pic.twitter.com/0RlU6RlWmX
— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) August 30, 2017
Opinion: Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis https://t.co/dt9vInRh1q
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 30, 2017
Now, some rebuttals. First, a good short thread on how the discussion has shifted from ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS to endless hand-wringing about antifas.
I am perpetually amazed at the ability of lockstep, bad-faith arguments on the right to steer and transform national conversations.
— . (@swordsjew) August 30, 2017
And here’s a response to the Washington Post thing by a Mother Jones journalist who was there at Berkeley.
https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/902969494808625152
Some historical perspective:
https://twitter.com/thalestral/status/902614776269955074
Every time I see news coverage of a protest I remember this image pic.twitter.com/ZAL0TwI61R
— Tom Hatfield (@WordMercenary) August 30, 2017
More AntiFa stuff:
https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/902790386619318272
https://twitter.com/daniecal/status/902542063543009280
Antifa dropped a piano on my head and when I popped out of the top moments later I had a lump on my head and had its keys instead of teeth
— Jules (@Julian_Epp) August 29, 2017
I defended the honor of George Orwell against an Alex Jones employee.
Orwell went to Spain to fight the fascists. With guns. He wrote a book about it. https://t.co/vdulXAE58e
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) August 30, 2017
Snopes also has a thing to say about the attempts to portray the fascists and AntiFa as somehow equivalent:
Lmao Snopes dot com is to the left of Nancy Pelosi https://t.co/Pf9aYyNBHR
— Ann 'tifa' Coulter Classic™ (@AntifaCoulter) August 30, 2017
AntiFa may have dealt with a lot of undeserved shit today, but happily our dear leader Donald Trump was also dealing with some richly deserved shit.
https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/903027267940491264
Turns out Trump is not making America great again. Fox News poll finds an 11-point jump in dissatisfaction with the way things are going. pic.twitter.com/YwPvEVxSoB
— Geoff Garin (@geoffgarin) August 30, 2017
Not sure that 58% believing Trump will finish his term when he's just seven months in is quite the accomplishment someone might think it is. https://t.co/QZM073IuaA
— The Darkest Timeline Numbersmuncher (@NumbersMuncher) August 30, 2017
Trump's approval rating among people aged 18-29 has reached a new low of 20% in Gallup's tracking poll. https://t.co/5VWTe33ZFN
— Axios (@axios) August 29, 2017
Huckabee Sanders: Trump was correct to say he'd seen Harvey devastation first hand because he'd been briefed on it pic.twitter.com/y4MmUp0aoZ
— Rhys Blakely (@rhysblakely) August 30, 2017
W. screwed up royally during Katrina but at least he didn't make a speech about how rich people need lower taxes WHILE IT WAS STILL RAINING.
— L O L G O P (@LOLGOP) August 30, 2017
Meanwhile, the creator of Pepe is taking the Pepe Nazis to court and winning:
https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/902700195577823232
And here are some animals!
https://twitter.com/awwcuteness/status/902839313276252160
https://twitter.com/CuteEmergency/status/902748977531162625
https://twitter.com/MeetAnimals/status/903024790675611648
https://twitter.com/lordflaconegro/status/902687000544911362
I think they meant they want a state of their very own to be horrible in? Yes, agreeing that genocide would be a potential and likely outcome, whatever they’re claiming to want. Not to mention that their white ethnostate obsession is completely awful in itself. The only difference I think it makes, is to whether they represent such an immediate threat at rallies that any force is automatically self-defence. If they don’t feel comfortable outright calling for genocide even among themselves, and don’t hold political power, then I think that the threat of genocide isn’t immediate. The US can’t build camps tomorrow, the rest of the world would be outraged, and I don’t think that all Republicans -some of whom are PoC, Jewish, disabled, gay-. want this, so the Nazis don’t have as much support as all that, most Republicans don’t seem to like Nazis either. I can understand the argument for using force on the grounds their ideaology leads to genocide, though.
Yes, I know there have been horrible violent attacks, but at protests -which is specifically what’s under discussion here- where they’re busy pretending to be well-intentioned free speech advocates or even where they’re defending racist statues as ‘history’, they might be less likely to do that. There are cameras everywhere, and even if the police are mostly useless at best, they’ve still made the odd arrest of Alt-Righters.
I’m not sure going to rallies with the intent of using force against Nazis and those marching with them will stop Nazis from jumping anyone outside the rally. If the argument is that it will, Ok, I hope it works.
@PeeVee
I’m not intending to hide behind Dali, as it was a specific disagreement (although I can see the point of view) with Dali, although other Antifa have also advocated going out with the intent of using force. With those Antifa not advocating using force other than in immediate self-defence, there is no disagreement. I don’t think it’s whataboutery when, especially at Berkely, this is something that’s really happened, and not an isolated incident.
If here’s something you think I need to understand better about the situation in the US, Ok, can you explain please?
@Still Fiqah
I’ve seen channers try that though, and they’re rubbish at it, mainly because their idea of pulling things to the right is extremely far right. Ach, how can I show I’m discussing in good faith? Ok, you think actual moderates might leave this site in a huff. So, you accept moderates exist, that they might disagree with things said here even to the point they become frustrated. So it’s not implausible someone might disagree in good faith, right?
I’m not even a moderate, I’ve said obviously leftwing things and disagreeing with the use of force except in self-defence is a pretty normal thing to say, not anything outrageous. It’s probably what most people think, even? Outright pacifism (I’m not a pacifist) isn’t uncommon on the far left either, perhaps especially my tree hugger bit of it. I accept that some people might disagree with me on the use of force as a tactic, and expressed no condemnation of Nazi-punching.
@Nina
Any persistence is just wanting to understand what’s being argued for here, to express uncertainty about the suggestion, and to show good faith. I mean, if someone is saying go out, beat up Nazis, it seems reasonable to ask for further details on how it works, even if you’re completely down with that as a tactic. It also seems reasonable to think this is a strategy that has room to go horribly wrong, given Nazis can be armed and violent.
It’s not about the moral high ground, but about tactics. It’s not that the media won’t try to spin it anyway (I was livid seeing the reporting on the anti-Trump protests where police teargassed overall peaceful protesters just because a plastic bottle was thrown), but even the media probably can’t get away with saying you hit someone with a bikelock if you don’t do that. I do think we had seen a difference in reporting depending on the tactics used, especially the peaceful Charlottesville protests/memorials. It’s not about winning over Nazis, but about convincing Dems, so as to hopefully win in the long-term by changing the system that gives rise to Nazis.
Not sure I can say much else, really. I don’t think going out with the intent of using force is a good idea, others do.
@Leo
A pretty white woman was killed in Charlottesville. I think that was a bigger factor than the tactics used.
Unless the alt-reichers decide to claim that they were attacked, that is.
Or unless you’re BLM peacefully marching and getting branded as a riot.
Or unless you’re indigenous protestors against pipeline installation getting blasted with water cannons, and then all the focus is going to be on how disruptive you are.
Or unless you’re a black person who got shot by the police, and then there will be tons of stories about how you definitely robbed a store before the shooting.
@Leo
I don’t actually give a shit if you’re here in good faith or not, because the outcome is indistinguishable: You rabbiting on about your offended bourgeois sensibilities , prioritizing those sensibilities over the lives of nazi victims. And it’s pissing me off a lot, and a lot of other folks here seem to be getting awful sick of it too. Because literally all you’ve done since you came here has been ‘what about the nazis?’ Your hairsplitting about who’s really a nazi, hypothetical age and gender diversity among nazis, potential bad reactions from other white people to the sight of nazis getting a beating, blah, blah blah what about the nazis?
You’ve completely ignored or brushed off everyone telling you about the inevitability of violence when nazis gather and organize, the active threat to our lives that a lot of us here face when that happens, and the assorted cases where beating nazis has prevented further violence. You’ve trivialized a major and growing problem that has already killed numerous people. You’ve been, in short, a nazi sympathiser, and nobody here has time for quislings.
Blogger Chris Brecheen has summed this up very nicely, without ever once pointing out directly that people like you are actively cheering for white supremacy.
Leo says:
Maybe adjust your tactics to achieve more persuasive optics.
@Leo
Piss off and step on a Lego on your way out.
@Catalpa
They could just use stock footage from some riot some other country and claim it’s from an in reality completely peaceful march or protest,
for example:
violent alt-leftists in Boston disrupt peaceful free speech rally by throwing Molotovs at police and cause thousands in property damage,
In reality that image is from France not Boston but the fake news machine will still run articles with stock images and fabricated events and fox will eventually pick up the story “none of the other channels are willing to report (because Soros)”.
@Leo
Piss off and step on a Lego or twelve on your way out.
You can start by stopping whinging on about “””””optics”””””
Lets see if it works this time.
Hey, @Leo. Hey there. Hey, sugarbeans. Hi.
Lots of people disagree with me and the terrific commentariat here. But that’s not what’s happening. You are on some hot, wild BULLSHIT. Nobody else here is going in the paint for Nazis. And you’re not engaging. You’re goading. So, if 4Chan or one of those other fucknuggetoriums didn’t send you, DARPA must have. And, if THEY didn’t send you, my best guess is that we’re allllllll unwitting participants in an undergrad soc experiment. OR that you’re a tulpa. Whatever the case, you’ve burned my grits, so much so that I wish your comments were people. So that I could slap the purple Nazi cowboy FUCK outta them.
The rest of y’all? High fives and fruit snacks.
@Catalpa
I think it’s relevant that that guy didn’t get away with it, though.
Yes in the case of those other examples, they get away with it then because it’s more directly state sponsored. I’m talking very specifically only about this type of rightwing rally/protest.
@Dali
I’m not bourgeois enough to be able to have any offended bourgeois sensibilities, and I’ve not even said ‘how very dares you be violent, tsk tsk!’ but ‘not sure the use of force in this manner is tactically a good idea’. I’m a socialist who just advocated trying to get more leftwing candidates elected. I’ve talked about white supremacy as being a broader problem, and agreed with you it’s a problem with the Dems as well. People on the left can still disagree with each other on some things. Would it help any if I were an outright pacifist?
It’s not hypothetical hairsplitting when I can see people who were not obviously identifiable Nazis, who were women, minorities, at the protests on the rightwing side. If you don’t consider it an issue to target these people, why would it even matter that I’m pointing out they were there? If on the other hand you only really want to punch identifiable Nazis, Ok. I’m not sure it’s the only way to deal with them, but if you think so, Ok. I haven’t ignored what’s been said at all, given I’ve acknowledged the arguments for use of force in this way.
Contrary to the blog post, I am talking about ‘violence itself’, or rather, a specific use of force as tactic. 100% disarm the police, demilitarise, they’ve shown over and over they can’t be trusted with weapons, and it’s shocking to witness their completely disproportionate reactions even to peaceful protest. I’m British, we don’t like police to have guns usually.
It’s not just white people who might respond negatively to the intent of use of force by Antifa, as it’s gone so far. Whether you agree with that type of response or not, it doesn’t make the people who feel that way necessarily useless politically – Antifa aren’t a large enough group to get a better candidate elected by themselves, and they probably wouldn’t be able to carry out a successful revolution by themselves. I think trying to persuade people in order to achieve political aims still matters, if not, why not go with all-out revolution?
Again, what else can I say? We can agree to disagree, but I hope you can see good faith is intended.
Apparently I suck at posting images on here but I literally googled riot for an image and fabricated a headline saying it was from the Boston counter protest,
despite being from another country, taking place at night (Boston having happened during the day), and most importantly no one was set on fire in Boston,
fox has been known to report stories doing the same thing or even use stock footage of riots during live coverage.
@Leo
What makes you think either good faith or intent matters? Cos it really doesn’t…
That particular guy didn’t get away with it, but he’s demonstrated that there are people among them who are completely happy to lie in order to smear the antifa. Chances are that there are others.
How exactly am I supposed to provide an example of a liar getting away with lying? If they get away with it, then I’m not going to be able to point out the lie, am I? And if the lie gets spotted, then, hey, look, that only proves that the media can’t get away with taking Nazi’s lies for truth. There’s no way for me to disprove your claim, how convenient for you.
@Ogglyboogles
Yes, that may likely have been the bigger factor, and also that the Nazis were far more obvious.
@Still Fiqah
I don’t even know what most of those are! Looking DARPA and tulpa up didn’t even help. I’m a British Labour/Green supporter. That’s not the kind of person I would expect to think using force is always the best tactic.
How is it possibly going all in for the Nazis to suggest it might not be a good idea to go to rallies with the intent of using force, not because of a moral issue with punching Nazis, but tactically? I have engaged with what’s been said, I’ve said I can see the arguments for it, I’ve said Ok to punching identifiable Nazis if that’s what’s felt necessary, I didn’t condemn anyone for it.
@Axe
I would think it matters because some seemed to think it couldn’t possibly be a view held in good faith, despite that regular commentators have also expressed reservations on use of force?
Otherwise, honestly I give up, agree to disagree, I still don’t think it’s the best tactic.
@Catalpa
Absolutely not intending to claim they couldn’t possibly get away with lying, which yes, they’re totally willing to attempt to do. Just that since that guy didn’t get away with it on that occasion, hopefully others won’t.
And yeah, agreeing with those saying that the media’s willingness to use images from elsewhere intentionally to mislead is an issue. At least social media helps highlight it, but…
Leo says:
Every “argument” you make is steeped in bad faith. No one really cares how intentional that is. The best you can hope for at this point is that we’ll forget you quickly when you finally shut the fuck up and leave.
Social media has created a world where disputing the existence of events inconvenient to the nazi agenda is only uncommon,
and a world where the president can publicly condemn a nonexistent riot.
Those are our “optics” school shootings are fabricated communist propaganda and peaceful protests are really communist riots covered up by Jews,
there is nothing that we can or can not do to change that but we can stop nazis in the field.
@A. Noyd
Ok, do you think it’s a good tactic to hit people who aren’t obviously identifiable as Nazis, with sticks, with a bike lock, to throw fireworks into a crowd? Because literally all I’m saying is that I don’t think it is, it’s not something I would advocate.
Do you think anyone who feels that way should shut up and leave? I disagree on this one specific thing, which isn’t something that contradicts the point of the site as far as I can see.
@Tree Person
I know. : / It’s horrible, and you’re right that social media can be a serious hindrance, not just a help. It’s mostly Republicans who believe that stuff though, I think? I have seen Dems fall for some propaganda -which is what it is- but it seemed possible to explain to them that it wasn’t true, at least in some cases. I’ve been successful before in explaining for them that the far right are not really just protesting about free speech, and that it’s not appropriate or acceptable to invite far right speakers to Universities, for instance. While we can try to explain why the media narrative is biased and misleading, it’s not going to be as easy to say that Antifa are not advocating violence, if Antifa are using force as a tactic against those who are not clearly identifiable as Nazis.
I think it’s about more than stopping Nazis in the field, though certainly that needs doing.
So antifa can only use none violent force (what is that even?) against nazis wearing swastikas?
So if nazis showed up wearing maga hats instead and still planned to burn down a synagogue antifa should let them for the sake of optics?
If antifa can identify nazis so can you.
If anything nazis with out swastikas should be treated as war criminals as they are un-uniformed enemy combatants engaged in combat operations (and before you say it antif’s masked all black look would count as a uniform).
@ treeperson
We had a bit of a discussion about all this sort of thing over on Varalys’ blog in case you’re interested.
Because that’s what the comments on a comicbook needs, me quoting the Geneva Conventions. 😀
http://thoughtsofaworkshyfop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/dmz-book-9-mia-50-54-part-one.html?m=0
Antifa’s masks and flags essentially make them a resistance group, like the Maquis.
Make no mistake, Leo. This is not leading to a war, the war has already begun. What’s left to see is how big it gets before A) The Nazi win, or B) The Nazi lose.
When the governor of the state says “We did not use as many police or national guard to keep peace because the Unite the Righters were heavier armed than we were”, that’s a fucking clue there is a war on. That one side came heavily armed in full combat gear to the point that citizens thought *they were the national guard* should point to what it’s goals, tactics, and impetus were.
These are facists and white supremacists. They have shouted their slogans, raised their salutes, beaten their non-whites. What, exactly, is there left to argue semantically about who they are?
To be taken in good faith, you’d have to address the things people have rebutted you with instead of continuously repeating the same thing over and over but with more different words.
Leo says:
I think anyone who refuses to engage with facts and instead blithers on and on about the “optics” of hypotheticals in which fascists could be insufficiently deserving victims should shut the fuck up and leave.
So shut the fuck up. And leave.
Leo, couple of quick questions.
So are you arguing that antifa are committing violence against those that aren’t nazis? (You march with those chanting “blood and soil” you’re a nazi full stop. You march with them you are one of them, based stick granny included.)
or are you arguing that the amount of force is more than the marching nazis need?
because this:
is some remarkably fucked up shit. So what’s too far? Keep in mind the nazi side, if they get what they want, and they already have support from the white house, will kill me and everyone I love. You seem to think one dude with a bike lock is going to far?
@TreePerson
Sorry I was unclear, that was maybe a clumsy way to express it. I intended to distinguish between violence, which is maybe a more pejorative term, and force used as a form of resistance.
If Antifa can explain to me how they are identifying Nazis, that might help, I did ask earlier. The response seemed to be that identifiable Nazis/Alt-Righters and anyone with them is a legitimate target, please correct if wrong. I would have thought this method would be too error prone, personally, lots of Trump supporters have MAGA hats, and some types of force such as thrown objects don’t allow for that much specific targeting.
I’ve stated that I think it’s justified and tactically Ok to use immediate self-defence, and to defend others, so protecting a synagogue that was under attack would come under that.
@Tashilicious
I can completely see that concern, they looked extremely intimidating in that riot gear, and I’m sure that was their intention. I do still hope that civil war is avoidable, I don’t think the Nazis have as much support as they hoped.
Not every rally has gone like Charlottesville, however. I have tried to address and acknowledge the points raised, if there’s anything else let me know. Maybe people could acknowledge my view at least, even if they strongly disagree? It doesn’t seem an illegitimate viewpoint to question use of force.
@A. Noyd
Specific examples, which I have given, aren’t hypotheticals, they are facts. Nor is it about whether they deserve it or not, though them not being fascists and not deserving it would seem possible if it’s ostensibly a free speech protest. Could be wrong but not every rightwinger at Berkeley really seemed like a Nazi, rather than just a typical Trump supporter.