zlacker

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+(OP)
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+r
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+X1
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+O2
Demonising your enemies as racists or fascists, ie nazis and employing mob tactics to "no platform" them or otherwise shut them up as in "no free speech for racists", strike me as exactly the sort of tactics the real fascists employed in the 1930s. So in that sense, yes, Antifa groups/coalitions/collectives/networks frequently behave like fascists. Which is no surprise really if you subscribe to the horseshoe model of the political spectrum.

>>joshua+O2
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+(OP)
Using violence to achieve political goals is not in itself a "hallmark of fascism". From the Gordon Riots, to union riots, to militant suffragettes, history is littered with examples of political change that was expedited by violence.

In the UK, the British Union of Fascists organised a march in London in 1936 and were countered by ten times as many people organised by anarchist, communist, socialist and Jewish groups. The ensuing violence sent an extremely clear message that fascism is not welcome in the country.

>>n4r9+Xe
My post:

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

Your reply:

> Using violence to achieve political goals is not in itself a "hallmark of fascism".

Agreed. But I didn't write that it was.

You live in the UK. How would you compare the IRA of the 1920s with the provos in the 1980s? Would you say they're the same group? They have the same name.

>>nailer+(OP)
Honestly, I'm not even sure that Antifa exists. I'd never heard anything about such a group being worthy of concern in America until the current president started trying to make white supremacists sound like regular folks. I view rhetoric about Antifa as propaganda from apologists for right-wing extremism. It's their way of saying "he started it!" Any time their culture war comes to blows.

>>nailer+Rf
I'm a bit confused about your argument, then. Antifa aren't violent against just anyone that doesn't share their politics. It's not a single organisation with a uniform political ideology, so that wouldn't make sense. It's more like the practise of aggressive confrontation specifically against authoritarian, right-wing movements, especially those which have some level of support from the state and/or police.

>>nailer+Ve
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+uN
> 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.

>>n4r9+Zx
> Antifa aren't violent against just anyone that doesn't share their politics.

In my experience (as a mainsteam left person) Antifa consider anyone not on the hard left to be either 'fascists' or 'bootlickers'. Everyone else I know who has had any contact with Antifa has had the same experience. Many Antifa people would say this is an accurate view of anyone who does not share hard left political views.

>>julian+l61
> 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.

>>nailer+Q91
They don't tend to protest engage in violence against soft-left events like democrat rallies, unless I'm mistaken? The vast majority of the time it's against alt-right or white supremacist events.