zlacker

>>aspenm+(OP)
Blaming the boogy man of White Nationalists, Russia, or outside outside agitators is a way to shift blame by politicians and an easy scapegoat. Amusingly the governor of Minnesota, and a big city MN mayor blamed vandalism & lootingrioters as being the work of people who were all from out of state, thereby parroting Trump's same line (or he theirs).

They (not Trump of course) had to walk it back when it turned out not to be true.

Is there some outside groups posing as others, possibly, but to blame a majority of problems on them is just BS.

>>bruceb+K5
The problem is antifa has become the new boogy man for the GOP, and they've been pushing this narrative extremely hard. It's apparent they've identified their enemy, but this approach has me worried that "First they came for the antifa..." might not be far off.

I see a lot of mischaracterization of what is a category, not a group. From what I can tell antifa is anti-fascism, and somewhat characterized by people willing to take direct action.

>>epakai+ho
It's literally not an organization. There are lots of people that have anti-fascist stickers or flags or whatever in europe that explicitly exist to stand up for people when nazis/neo-nazis show up to protests, or to their squats, or to their homes... they exist to save peoples lives from right-wing violence.

It's pitiful that this is the best boogeyman the right can come up with in 2020 and it's extra pitiful that - like everything else they project - it's just them telling on themselves.

>>astron+Zo
its even more pitiful how many are cheerleading this shit on HN

>>throwa+Pq
I don't think you're allowed to point it out here, but there is a large audience here that is a massive part of the problem. rich, influential people with power (whether they use it or not) riding this generation's wave of prosperity with no knowledge of or interest in the people that are affected by their jobs and lifestyles.

smart enough to learn to code or to polish a pitch to a vc, but lacking any critical thinking skills or morality that would cause them to reflect on their position in society.

flocking to the right at the first hint of something that does reflect these truths.

supporting fascists because you're scared or uncomfortable is even worse than supporting fascists because you're a bigot imo

>>astron+ys
Antifa literally exist to use violence upon people who don't share their politics, which is one of the hallmarks of fascism.

Naming yourself "the good guys" doesn't mean anyone who opposes you is bad. It's like if someone said disliking 'Make America Great Again' means you don't want America to be great. Or opposing the Patriot Act makes you not a patriot.

You know this, everyone else reading this knows this, stop pretending we don't.

>>nailer+kv
no, they don't! what are you talking about? I have been to places where people have to defend themselves from neo nazis coming to beat them up for being gay. it is a label that indicates reactive protection from fascist violence, period

>>astron+Lv
I think my post was pretty clear.

The fact that nazis exist doesn't invalidate it. Again you probably know this so I'm not going to bother replying further.

>>nailer+hx
Equivocation between literal facicts and people who want to fight literal facists doesn't make a lot of sense.

So no, I really, truly have no clue what you're getting at. Like as far as I can tell you're saying "being willing to punch a Nazi makes you a Nazi". Which, like, no.

>>joshua+8y
My post:

>> Naming yourself "the good guys" doesn't mean anyone who opposes you is bad. It's like if someone said disliking 'Make America Great Again' means you don't want America to be great. Or opposing the Patriot Act makes you not a patriot.

Your reply:

> Like as far as I can tell you're saying "being willing to punch a Nazi makes you a Nazi".

ok

>>nailer+fK
Yes, I'm still confused by the equivocation between facists and antifacsists, and your dodging that question doesn't help.

Please elaborate. Please don't just re-quote yourself. You know, follow the guidelines and engage in good faith. I did, it why I asked a genuine clarifying question which you seemed to ignore.

>>joshua+Oi1
> Which, like, no.

No, you did not address GP in good faith. And GP did address your question by quoting himself: the problem is not "fighting against the bad guys", the problem is whom you consider the bad guys. Anti-fascists calling themselves such in no way means that everyone they oppose is actually a fascist.

>>julian+FB1
> No, you did not address GP in good faith.

I did. Please don't presume to know my thoughts.

> Anti-fascists calling themselves such in no way means that everyone they oppose is actually a fascist.

This doesn't address my comment, nor is it what GP said. Id suggest you reread their comment. And mine.

I'll break it down:

> Antifa literally exist to use violence upon people who don't share their politics

This is overbroad. Many people don't share antifa politics. I don't. They don't threaten me with violence. Something is missing here.

> which is one of the hallmarks of fascism

So this is only sensical in an overbroad generalization of antifa to mean "violent left wing people who are violent towards anyone not suitably left wing", which isn't antifa under any reasonable definition, and is an entirely circular argument.

So yes, please: explain.