Categories
trump twitter

AntiFa ate my baby: Today in Tweets

Damn those AntiFa!

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.

Now, some rebuttals. First, a good short thread on how the discussion has shifted from ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS to endless hand-wringing about antifas.

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:

More AntiFa stuff:

https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/902790386619318272

https://twitter.com/daniecal/status/902542063543009280

I defended the honor of George Orwell against an Alex Jones employee.

Snopes also has a thing to say about the attempts to portray the fascists and AntiFa as somehow equivalent:

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

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

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

418 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

ONE PERSON HIT SOMEBODY WITH A BIKE LICK. IT’S NOT A FUCKING “TACTIC”.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

I just don’t think it’s the ideal tactic.

Along with worrying about optics constantly, we need to be worried about whether our tactics are not just acceptable or even good, but whether they are literally ideal.

Look here, Leo, you care so much about optics, but “good optics” is not the actual goal. No Nazis in my backyard and yours is the goal. Whatever achieves or works toward that goal is a positive thing.

Obsessing about optics is just a form of respectability politics. What you are asking for is for the oppressed and allies of the oppressed to act respectably because white people with delicate feelings need to be gently persuaded that minority groups are nonthreatening, and then someday those groups will be generously granted the right to live normally. This doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It serves the interests of emotional white people who don’t want to have to think very hard about how life isn’t peachy-keen for everyone, and serves nobody else. That magical time when disadvantaged groups are lifted up by privileged white people as a reward for being so quiet and meek never fucking happens.

“Allies” who insist on respectability politics are the worst kind of people, so congratulations on being that person, I guess?

Bobbie LobBomb
Bobbie LobBomb
3 years ago

Nah. Leo’s someone with whom I firmly disagree, but they’re not a sea lion. They’re arguing in good faith.

Leo
Leo
3 years ago

@Pee Vee
Going out there with the active intent of using force is a tactic that’s being advocated, that’s the point here. Given Dali has yet to specify precisely how much force is acceptable, or whether that matters, I’m not sure if bike locks are in or out.

If people weren’t advocating going out intending to beat up Nazis/the Alt-Right (the latter will include people pretending to be innocent defenders of free speech), I would not be saying ‘not sure if that’s a good idea right now’. If they were only saying ‘we’ll use force only if we need to in immediate self-defence, or in immediate defence of others’, that’d be fine with me too.

@Policy of Madness
I think ‘not ideal’ is fairly mild. It’s not a condemnation. It’s not an insistence on legality, never mind respectability.

I see the actual goal as changing the underlying system, not just getting rid of these Nazis right now.

@Bobbie LobBomb
Thank you, I’m really glad you can see I’m discussing it in good faith, even if we disagree. : )

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

I think ‘not ideal’ is fairly mild. It’s not a condemnation. It’s not an insistence on legality, never mind respectability.

You can tell yourself that you’re not advocating respectability politics, but that doesn’t make it true. You totally are.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
3 years ago
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

You need to learn a little bit more on what’s happening in the US before you deign to give us your opinion on what you think USians are doing wrong regarding the alt-right/white supremacists/white nationalists/ethno-state advocates, Leo. All I hear from you is whattaboutism, and it’s grsting on my last nerve.

Stop hiding behind Dali to obfuscate your own intent.

Feline
Feline
3 years ago

@Leo:

I know the media will spin it anyway. But I think there’s a difference between acknowledging that they will, and suggesting that therefore there’s no point not going out with the active intention of using force.

But you’re talking about optics!
You are here acknowledging that the optics will be unchanged by actual Antifa actions, but at the same time you’re arguing against thinking there’s “no point not going out with the active intention of using force.”
Optics-wise, that is the exact point you conceded!
So, having left the argument about optics, would you like to present a new argument for letting neo-nazis, oh, sorry, ‘alt-righters’ is it now? For letting ‘alt-righters’ commit violence unopposed?
Now, should you feel dismissed or belittled by me, given that you’ve bought the re-branding of neo-nazi into ‘alt-right’ wholesale, any such feelings would be accurate assessments. As an ally against fascists, you’re about as useful as a pool noodle, given that you’ll accept their framing at the drop of a hat. You’re a hop, skip and a step away from claiming that “the Nazis had Socialist in their name, therefore they were left-wing”. Which, I feel an urgent need to tell you, is an old, well-worn bit of fascist rhetorical chaff that alleged educated adults keep falling for. Mostly American.
Also, when you keep talking about Republican outrage, it never occurred to you that the actual source of outrage was “You weren’t supposed to show those flags in public”? Because I’ve been thinking about shirt-colours and the concept of outliving ones usefulness a lot these last few years.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
3 years ago

Leo says:

I know it’s not hypothetical. I’m not sure if all these Alt-Right protesters represent an immediate violent threat, though.

Do you understand how words work? I mean, for fuck’s sake.

I’m not telling anyone what tactics to use, I’m saying ‘I’m not sure this is the best tactic, for these reasons.

I don’t give a flying fuck if you think relentless concern trolling is meaningfully different from outright telling people what to do. The point is, you know so little that you’re worse than useless.

So shut the fuck up.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
3 years ago

Feline says:

So, having left the argument about optics, would you like to present a new argument for letting neo-nazis, oh, sorry, ‘alt-righters’ is it now? For letting ‘alt-righters’ commit violence unopposed?

Leo still hasn’t decided if this totally not-hypothetical violence actually happens, though.

Still Fiqah
Still Fiqah
3 years ago

It’s worth reminding everyone that one of the things /pol/ (4Chan) has been doing for a while now is visiting known “SJW” sites, and attempting to pull the dialogue to the right, typically by posing as political moderates who are “just asking questions.” The idea being that we’ll all continue interacting with them in the comments and say some unthinkable lefty thing so they can go “A-HA! You’re monsters too!” Or that they can poach actual moderates who leave those sites in a huff. Or whatever they want this week.

PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

That morally bankrupt POS Trump ended DACA.

Nina
Nina
3 years ago

@Still Fiqah

Thanks, it’s all starting to make sense now. I was wondering why this person was so persistent.

PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

Still Fiqah, looks pretty suspicious, doesn’t it? Hmmm.

Bobbie LobBomb
Bobbie LobBomb
3 years ago

S.F. Jeez, really? Ugh.
I’d call them losers but clearly this shittiness gets results.

Fabe
Fabe
3 years ago

@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs

lol,asking how to take the ‘high ground’ by not kill nazis in a wolfenstein game. That is brilliant.

Tov01
Tov01
3 years ago

Leo, Fuck your optics.

@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
RE: Wolfenstein and the Moral High Ground

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

This thread. I don’t even know what to say about it. I think this sums it up.

comment image

For the past three pages it’s been

Leo: But, but…optics!

Everyone else: Here’s why worrying too much is ineffective

Leo: I realize all that, but maybe it will effective this time. Because reasons!

Feline
Feline
3 years ago

@A. Noyd:

Leo still hasn’t decided if this totally not-hypothetical violence actually happens, though.

Sure. It reminds me of the neo-nazi anti-feminist attack of 2014-03-08 in Malmö (for any of you confused about the significance, March 8th is the International Women’s Day), where six lefty-type feminists/anti-racists/anti-fascists were hospitalised. A lot of the media bought the neo-nazi explanation that they were on their way home from a bar when they were viciously attacked by a bunch of leftist feminists, and they were forced to defend themselves using the knives they were carrying (in itself criminal acts). Nobody asked whether we should buy and swallow what these (by their own admission) criminal nazi-skins were selling us. Then somebody looked at a map and noticed that while the distance from the bar to ‘home’ was as far as from the bar to where the ‘scuffle’ happened, it was in the opposite direction. Also, they were in fact overheard talking about how they were going out to bash feminists.

To put it another way (I was going to say TL;DR, but I couldn’t shorten it much without eliding something, and managed to add things while trying. I seem to recall an author’s quote amounting to “I did not have time to write you a shorter letter.”):

Neo-nazis went out of their way on International Women’s Day to hunt down and knife feminists (and ideologically adjacents), put six in hospital, one with punctured lung and one in coma with multiple lacerations and fractured skull.
Media bought neo-nazi narrative and described it as a ‘scuffle’/’fracas’/’brawl’ between right-wing extremists (remember the call of the fence-sitter: “Never Nazi”) and extremist leftists jumping them while they were going home, until somebody pointed out that home was the other way.

Remember, y’all, these are the neo-nazis who never like to be named for what they are. “White supremacist” is a harsh name they’d deny if possible, “alt-right” is their choice of name, and there are others that we all know… Most of us know, and we should never allow them any, because it normalises the brutal kicking to death/drowning of a 15-year-old because he wouldn’t cleave to the tenets of National Socialism.

So, Leo, how many dead children does it take to escape your disapproval. Do we have to start measuring them in ‘Breivik’s before you’d allow us to treat them as an imminent danger (and do recall that anybody who buys the description of Breivik as a ‘lone wolf’ is about as worth listening to as somebody who buys the whole “we’re not neo-nazis, we’re alt-right” schtick… oh, yeah, nevermind then).

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
3 years ago

BLM frequently marches peacefully, and for their trouble, get labeled as riotous thugs. Mainstream media outlets will blithely say “law enforcement officials say that the protest was non-violent and peaceful” while showing clips of screaming protestors throwing rocks and getting pelted with tear gas.

We do not control the optics. Establishment media does. Patriarchy does.

(And yes, lurking trolls, you don’t control the optics either. Your agenda moves at the whim of those who would profit from it. Your operations succeed only when they are useful in earning rich people a whole lot of money on the backs of the vulnerable and poor.)

If they wish to paint Antifa as villains, they will, regardless of the actual events. If they want to make Antifa heroes, they will, regardless of the actual events.

It’s one of the biggest hurdles in white-person activism, in my opinion. The first hurdle is understanding the problem at all. The second one is understanding that the social systems that have silently supported you all your life are now working against you, and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.

I take heart in this new perspective. It fills me with determination.

Antifa have been doing this awhile, they’ve got a good understanding of what it takes to halt fascistic violence and spread. Please consider the possibility that they may understand the “optics” issue, and have come to the conclusion that it’s either not viable or not useful to consider what you’re suggesting.

<3 my ducks. Stay dry out there.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
3 years ago

oh, and:

someone up there suggested that the neo-nazis don’t advocate literal genocide. I’m not sure if that was replied to – apologies if it was! I don’t want to pile on. But, well. They don’t want genocide, but they do want a “White ethno-state”, whatever that is. They advocate mass deportations, and concentration camps, and they don’t particularly care about the well being of these people, to put it lightly.

This is as close to genocide as to be indistinguishable. Their claims of not wanting genocide are semantic games – they eagerly want to commit genocide, in the exact same way as their 1930’s forebearers.

Bobbie LobBomb
Bobbie LobBomb
3 years ago

S.U., You may be reacting to me, when I said that some (claim) they want peaceful relocation. I also, elsewhere, pointed out that ‘moderate’ Nazis back in Germany said that too…. that they first planned to relocate non-‘Aryans’ to Madagascar, then the idea was to create a U.S. style reservation in Poland, then it basically became ‘too hard, too expensive. Killing is more pragmatic’. That’s why it was known as the final solution. So if you are reacting to what I said, please know that my greater point is that any engineering to create an ‘ethnostate’ will always turn to genocide regardless of what that group’s stated intentions may be. I was not in any way trying to suggest that we can take such claims seriously, or give credence to the notion that there could ever be a ‘peaceful’ solution to these reprobates. Genocide is always the endgame. If that was unclear, the failure was mine in not communicating the idea clearly.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
3 years ago

Scildfreja says:

But, well. They don’t want genocide, but they do want a “White ethno-state”, whatever that is. They advocate mass deportations, and concentration camps

Oh, but golly! How could merely Acting to Remove certain people be considered genocide? It’s not like we’ll find any sort of precedent in US history or anything.

Bobbie LobBomb
Bobbie LobBomb
3 years ago

(When I say ‘reprobates’, I mean the Nazis, of course. No peaceful solutions to the engineering effort they yearn for. Sorry, I do have difficulty communicating clearly sometimes.)

Bobbie LobBomb
Bobbie LobBomb
3 years ago

Ah. I could be wrong about why it was called the final solution, but here it is: The Madagascar Plan:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-madagascar-plan-2
http://www.history.com/news/nazi-germanys-madagascar-plan-75-years-ago

tl;dr Don’t believe them, even if they’ve pulled the wool over their own eyes. Genocide will always be the endgame.

Also, read Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt. It’s essential reading in moral philosophy, especially in demonstrating that autocracies arise through the banality of unquestioned aphorisms and an unexamined status quos.

Leo
Leo
3 years ago

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

It’s worth reminding everyone that one of the things /pol/ (4Chan) has been doing for a while now is visiting known “SJW” sites, and attempting to pull the dialogue to the right, typically by posing as political moderates who are “just asking questions.” The idea being that we’ll all continue interacting with them in the comments and say some unthinkable lefty thing so they can go “A-HA! You’re monsters too!” Or that they can poach actual moderates who leave those sites in a huff. Or whatever they want this week.

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.

Leo
Leo
3 years ago

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.

Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@Leo
A pretty white woman was killed in Charlottesville. I think that was a bigger factor than the tactics used.

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

even the media probably can’t get away with saying you hit someone with a bikelock if you don’t do that

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.

Dalillama: Irate Social Engineer

@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.

Let’s make sure something is clear: for the most part we’re not actually having a conversation about violence itself. Conversations about violence itself involve examining this country’s bloody history, calling for the disarming of police, and serious conversations about reducing our military to a defensive force.

In terms of people hurt, punches thrown, or property damage we would be just as upset about bar room brawls or biker gangs as anything that happened in Berkeley. And we would be triaging our concern about the violence of white supremacist groups far higher than that of antifa considering that people from their groups murder folks on the regular and threaten entire demographics with genocide as a matter of open, stated objectives.

Sports fans have literally destroyed more things and hurt more people in one night than antifa has since they got on people’s radars months ago, but strangely we don’t see very many mainstream think pieces calling for their classification as a gang or terrorist group.

What we are having for the most part is a conversation about who has the moral authority to engage in and/or threaten violence, both as a group or in a moment under their own acumen and assessment of a situation. And our country continues (mostly unconsciously of the double standard and what it represents) to have a tremendous discomfort with people pushed towards the margins of our society–who are not in the service of institutions that serve the social order like cops or military–making that judgement call for themselves.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
3 years ago

Leo says:

Ach, how can I show I’m discussing in good faith?

Maybe adjust your tactics to achieve more persuasive optics.

PaganReader - Misandrist Spinster

@Leo

If in the beginning, when the Hitler bands were still weak, the workers’ parties had answered them blow for blow, there is no doubt their development would have been hampered. On this point we have the testimony of the National Socialist leaders themselves.

Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.”

And goebbels: “If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly…. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work.”

Piss off and step on a Lego on your way out.

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

@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)”.

PaganReader - Misandrist Spinster

@Leo

If in the beginning, when the Hitler bands were still weak, the workers’ parties had answered them blow for blow, there is no doubt their development would have been hampered. On this point we have the testimony of the National Socialist leaders themselves.

Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, The nucleus of our new movement.”

And goebbels: “If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly…. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work.”

Piss off and step on a Lego or twelve on your way out.

Ach, how can I show I’m discussing in good faith?

You can start by stopping whinging on about “””””optics”””””

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

Lets see if it works this time.

Still Fiqah
Still Fiqah
3 years ago

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.

Leo
Leo
3 years ago

@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.

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

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.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Leo

I hope you can see good faith is intended

What makes you think either good faith or intent matters? Cos it really doesn’t…

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

I think it’s relevant that that guy didn’t get away with it, though.

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.

Leo
Leo
3 years ago

@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…

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
3 years ago

Leo says:

I hope you can see good faith is intended.

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.

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

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…

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.

Leo
Leo
3 years ago

@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.

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

, it’s not going to be 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.

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).

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
3 years ago

@ treeperson

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).

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

Tashilicious
Tashilicious
3 years ago

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.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
3 years ago

Leo says:

Do you think anyone who feels that way should shut up and leave?

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.

CleverForAGirl - microprostitute
CleverForAGirl - microprostitute
3 years ago

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:

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.

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?

Leo
Leo
3 years ago

@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.