Remember, Antifa only attacks fascists, right?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Reminder: no official member of the antifa organization has ever broken any law or assaulted anyone

Show

Antifa is not an organization with official members, it's a resistance movement haphazardly and spontaneously formed around the common goal of defending people against fascists

NAAALT.

What is NAAALT?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Even these cops?

Yes. Did you know that the Ordnungspolizei in Germany used to catch bank robbers?

So we should disband the police and allow Antifia to take over? Is that really want you want? It's hard to imagine so-called progressives advocating for vigilantes in a so-called free society.

 

[Jarhyn]

I reject your framing of the issue entirely and think that it is a bad way of looking at any such issue. You are ascribing a positive value of support, when I am agnostic on the issue.

If you were agnostic on the issue you wouldn't see it as tragic. You would not judge it as good or bad.

Casualties are always bad, to be avoided. A casualty to any of us is a wound to all of us. That doesn't mean that all casualties were unavoidable when they happened. The problem is one classes under the header of "falling problems": you find situation is already fucked and there is no good way out. So you take the least-bad option and let the existence of the falling problem be your reason to bring a parachute when applicable.

"Good/bad" axis isn't "support/condemn". They're on different (though often adjacent/intersectional) dimensions of thought.

It doesn't make sense to say 'the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc were acceptable.' they were all terrible tragedies. But neither does it make sense to say they were unavoidable in the moments the decision were made: someone had to make a decision and those were the decisions we got. It was a tragedy. We have no way of knowing if a different course was plausible, or at what point in time. If we view it as "acceptable" or "support it" we say that the next time we are in the situation, the solution is clear: you bomb them again (or beat another shitstain pro-fascist journalist). But that isn't the answer. you forever have to remember the decisions made and ask how to make better decisions in the future, never simply assuming as you would like to do that those decisions were good ones.

 

[PyramidHead]

I reject your framing of the issue entirely and think that it is a bad way of looking at any such issue. You are ascribing a positive value of support, when I am agnostic on the issue.

If you were agnostic on the issue you wouldn't see it as tragic. You would not judge it as good or bad.

Casualties are always bad, to be avoided. A casualty to any of us is a wound to all of us. That doesn't mean that all casualties were unavoidable when they happened. The problem is one classes under the header of "falling problems": you find situation is already fucked and there is no good way out. So you take the least-bad option and let the existence of the falling problem be your reason to bring a parachute when applicable.

"Good/bad" axis isn't "support/condemn". They're on different (though often adjacent/intersectional) dimensions of thought.

It doesn't make sense to say 'the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc were acceptable.' they were all terrible tragedies. But neither does it make sense to say they were unavoidable in the moments the decision were made: someone had to make a decision and those were the decisions we got. It was a tragedy. We have no way of knowing if a different course was plausible, or at what point in time. If we view it as "acceptable" or "support it" we say that the next time we are in the situation, the solution is clear: you bomb them again (or beat another shitstain pro-fascist journalist). But that isn't the answer. you forever have to remember the decisions made and ask how to make better decisions in the future, never simply assuming as you would like to do that those decisions were good ones.

This thread, and others like it, is actually a great example of the difference between idealism about history and politics versus dialectical materialism about history and politics.

 

[PyramidHead]

Swastika and Hammer and Sickle?

The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in their defeat of the Nazis. 27 million. The arrogance and ignorance on display here is staggering, but fits with the tendency I noted in my prior post.

 

[PyramidHead]

No, silly; it's impossible by definition because Antifa isn't a group, it's an ideology opposed to fascism. It's like saying "Well, what if a meat-eater snuck into the ranks of the vegans? It's possible, right?"

What is the central authority clearing house of antifa beliefs that decided that was the definition?

I know you don't understand most of my post, but the "central authority clearing house" is straight from your own posts on the subject.

Who decided that "vegan" means "doesn't eat animal products"? How do you know there are no meat-eating vegans, unless vegans are an official organization with a charter of beliefs? You're not making any sense.

But since you need so much help ... I'm not saying "antifa fails to live up to army soldiers", I'm saying "they think they are the same when they aren't". That's different. Just like making an analogy doesn't mean I'm defending cops. You think that when you are sitting on your couch eating Cheetos and watching antifa on TV that you are the same as the people you see on TV. They think that when they are watching a World War Two documentary and they see the allied troops fighting actual fascists that they are the same as the people they see on TV. In both cases it is more wishful thinking than reality.

Nor am I saying fascists are mostly in the government. I'm saying that is how they gain control, they go into government. The tattooed street punk with a swastika on his forehead has even less of a chance of taking control than you do, and you don't have that chance.

Anti-fascist protesters can and do protest/disrupt government acts of violence against minorities, such as ICE raids. However, even if they didn't, the fact remains that you don't have to be part of the government to commit violence against minorities, even if that's the most efficient way. And by specifically defunding and disbanding the federal agency tasked with tracking white nationalist terrorism, the Trump administration is abetting their activities when they burn down people's homes, attack them with bludgeons, or kill them in shopping centers. These kinds of things depend upon the fascists who are not in government (which in your Ben Garrison cartoon of reality would be street punks with swastika tattoos) marshaling their forces and intimidating people in public as a show of power, attracting people to their ranks by demonstrating their ability to escape unscathed when they march through town holding signs about wetbacks and Jews.

The fascism you referred to in Germany and Italy did not simply materialize in the government one day. If the popular sentiments that led to their rise were not allowed to thrive in society at the level of ordinary citizens, they wouldn't have gained state power; Hitler himself actually remarked on the complacency and tolerance of the liberals in enabling the ascendancy of Nazi Germany.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Since when did Andy Ngo get a British accent? That alone stretched incredulity. Anyway, considering the very first post is about this turd, I present to you:

The How Stuff Works network presents the Behind the Bastards Podcast with Andy Ngo.

 

[Angry Floof]

Since when did Andy Ngo get a British accent? That alone stretched incredulity. Anyway, considering the very first post is about this turd, I present to you:

The How Stuff Works network presents the Behind the Bastards Podcast with Andy Ngo.

"News grifter," good phrase.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Reminder: no official member of the antifa organization has ever broken any law or assaulted anyone

Show

Antifa is not an organization with official members, it's a resistance movement haphazardly and spontaneously formed around the common goal of defending people against fascists

NAAALT.

What is NAAALT?

"Not All Antifa Are Like That" - the way PH defends Antifa from the bad actions of its members. If you try to pronounce it you can practically hear his whining.

Swastika and Hammer and Sickle?

The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in their defeat of the Nazis. 27 million.

The Soviet Union had a tyrannical government. You defend the Soviet Union and you defend Antifa. It is funny how often you defend tyrannies. The arrogance and ignorance on display here is staggering, but fits with the tendency I noted in my prior post.

So NAAALT whenever any part of the movement does anything bad. And according to that, it is possible to have a fascist in antifa because NAAALT.

No, silly; it's impossible by definition because Antifa isn't a group, it's an ideology opposed to fascism. It's like saying "Well, what if a meat-eater snuck into the ranks of the vegans? It's possible, right?"

What is the central authority clearing house of antifa beliefs that decided that was the definition? Or is it NAAALT?

Who decided that "vegan" means "doesn't eat animal products"? How do you know there are no meat-eating vegans, unless vegans are an official organization with a charter of beliefs? You're not making any sense.

It is YOUR standard that one cannot ascribe any beliefs to Antifa because they don't have a central belief clearing house. Then you say they are by definition anti-fascist. So you aren't aware of it but you are contradicting yourself ... unless you are about to rely on dictionary definitions based on the component words involved in the name.

Which means you then have to deal with the second half of the name "national socialist". Or is it another case of NAAALT?

Anti-fascist protesters can and do protest/disrupt government acts of violence against minorities, such as ICE raids.

Do you approve of or oppose the actions of the individuals who threw Molotov cocktails at ICE centers?

These kinds of things depend upon the fascists who are not in government (which in your Ben Garrison cartoon of reality would be street punks with swastika tattoos) marshaling their forces and intimidating people in public as a show of power, attracting people to their ranks by demonstrating their ability to escape unscathed when they march through town holding signs about wetbacks and Jews.

You seem to think that fascists and Nazis get general societal approval. Here, I want you to do an experiment. Go down the street in a white area and introduce yourself to people saying "Hi, I'm a Nazi" and see what happens. Nobody would ever believe it if I were to do something like that since I'm too brown, but you can do it. Let me know how they react.

The fascism you referred to in Germany and Italy did not simply materialize in the government one day. If the popular sentiments that led to their rise were not allowed to thrive in society at the level of ordinary citizens, they wouldn't have gained state power; Hitler himself actually remarked on the complacency and tolerance of the liberals in enabling the ascendancy of Nazi Germany.

So you are starting to have an inkling of how the actual fascists actually rose to power. Continue on this quest Padawan. Here's a clue for your first lesson - the Nazis and the Communists, while both of them were trying to take power and neither of them had, agreed that the liberals had to go.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is NAAALT?

"Not All Antifa Are Like That" - the way PH defends Antifa from the bad actions of its members. If you try to pronounce it you can practically hear his whining.

Swastika and Hammer and Sickle?

The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in their defeat of the Nazis. 27 million.

The Soviet Union had a tyrannical government. You defend the Soviet Union and you defend Antifa. It is funny how often you defend tyrannies. The arrogance and ignorance on display here is staggering, but fits with the tendency I noted in my prior post.

So NAAALT whenever any part of the movement does anything bad. And according to that, it is possible to have a fascist in antifa because NAAALT.

No, silly; it's impossible by definition because Antifa isn't a group, it's an ideology opposed to fascism. It's like saying "Well, what if a meat-eater snuck into the ranks of the vegans? It's possible, right?"

What is the central authority clearing house of antifa beliefs that decided that was the definition? Or is it NAAALT?

Who decided that "vegan" means "doesn't eat animal products"? How do you know there are no meat-eating vegans, unless vegans are an official organization with a charter of beliefs? You're not making any sense.

It is YOUR standard that one cannot ascribe any beliefs to Antifa because they don't have a central belief clearing house. Then you say they are by definition anti-fascist. So you aren't aware of it but you are contradicting yourself ... unless you are about to rely on dictionary definitions based on the component words involved in the name.

Which means you then have to deal with the second half of the name "national socialist". Or is it another case of NAAALT?

View attachment 23567

Anti-fascist protesters can and do protest/disrupt government acts of violence against minorities, such as ICE raids.

Do you approve of or oppose the actions of the individuals who threw Molotov cocktails at ICE centers?

These kinds of things depend upon the fascists who are not in government (which in your Ben Garrison cartoon of reality would be street punks with swastika tattoos) marshaling their forces and intimidating people in public as a show of power, attracting people to their ranks by demonstrating their ability to escape unscathed when they march through town holding signs about wetbacks and Jews.

You seem to think that fascists and Nazis get general societal approval. Here, I want you to do an experiment. Go down the street in a white area and introduce yourself to people saying "Hi, I'm a Nazi" and see what happens. Nobody would ever believe it if I were to do something like that since I'm too brown, but you can do it. Let me know how they react.

The fascism you referred to in Germany and Italy did not simply materialize in the government one day. If the popular sentiments that led to their rise were not allowed to thrive in society at the level of ordinary citizens, they wouldn't have gained state power; Hitler himself actually remarked on the complacency and tolerance of the liberals in enabling the ascendancy of Nazi Germany.

So you are starting to have an inkling of how the actual fascists actually rose to power. Continue on this quest Padawan. Here's a clue for your first lesson - the Nazis and the Communists, while both of them were trying to take power and neither of them had, agreed that the liberals had to go.

So, to help you understand this, There are lots of communities as loosely organized as Antifa. Think about furries, or maybe Anonymous. Nobody gets "admitted" or "inducted". Nobody gets a handbook, or even really instructions. The communities, instead, form organically through self-identification.

Because the community members are self-identified, there can be no culpability for the actions of other members within the group.

Plenty of furries lie, cheat and steal art or commissions for undelivered art. Plenty of furries fuck dogs. Plenty of Anonymous commit cyber crime. But that doesn't make me responsible for that, just identifying as a member of those groups. It doesn't impugn me as a furry when some asshole fucks their dog, it doesn't imply I am a bad person who fucks dogs. It doesn't impugn me as Anonymous that some fuckhead is stealing fulls and doxxing people, because being anonymous doesn't imply I do those things.

The fact is, some asshole beating up pro-fascist journalists doesn't make me a person who beats up journalists even though I am Antifa. It was a tragedy that things came to that in the wider fight against fascism. I believe people have a right and even something approaching an obligation to be Antifa. How to accomplish those goals will be something that people disagree over. Decisions were made, and there should be a long look inside as to how to avoid those decisions needing to be made, to let a fascist report biased coverage in an attempt to support fascism or to maybe beat them up? Both alternatives there suck: It's the worst kind of falling problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, you can make a reasonable case for ignoring the "Socialist" in "Nazi". In practice when you see when government and party names contain governmental or economic systems in their names it's almost always wrong. "Republic" is basically the only such word that's accurate.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The fact is, some asshole beating up pro-fascist journalists doesn't make me a person who beats up journalists even though I am Antifa. It was a tragedy that things came to that in the wider fight against fascism. I believe people have a right and even something approaching an obligation to be Antifa. How to accomplish those goals will be something that people disagree over. Decisions were made, and there should be a long look inside as to how to avoid those decisions needing to be made, to let a fascist report biased coverage in an attempt to support fascism or to maybe beat them up? Both alternatives there suck: It's the worst kind of falling problem.

NAAALT.

 

[Politesse]

Actually, you can make a reasonable case for ignoring the "Socialist" in "Nazi". In practice when you see when government and party names contain governmental or economic systems in their names it's almost always wrong. "Republic" is basically the only such word that's accurate.

For instance, "United" is always a lie in politics.

 

[Arctish]

Since when did Andy Ngo get a British accent? That alone stretched incredulity. Anyway, considering the very first post is about this turd, I present to you:

The How Stuff Works network presents the Behind the Bastards Podcast with Andy Ngo.

That's a very interesting podcast.

I had heard of some of the incidents and a little bit about Ngo himself, but didn't really understand the events leading up to Ngo being so widely recognized and disliked that Portlanders throw milkshakes at him.

I'll definitely be paying attention to him in the future, and not as a fan.

 

[Enigma]

Because the community members are self-identified, there can be no culpability for the actions of other members within the group.

Plenty of furries lie, cheat and steal art or commissions for undelivered art. Plenty of furries fuck dogs. Plenty of Anonymous commit cyber crime. But that doesn't make me responsible for that, just identifying as a member of those groups. It doesn't impugn me as a furry when some asshole fucks their dog, it doesn't imply I am a bad person who fucks dogs.

Indeed: If you are a furry, the fact that you are a furry doesn't make you culpable because of some other assholish furry that fucks his dog.

What does potentially make you culpable is if, when asked your opinion about that assholish furry that fucks his dog, you answer something along the lines of:

"It's tragic when dogs get fucked by furries. I believe everyone has the right to be a furry and how one gets in touch with their underlying animal nature as a furry is something that varies from person to person and people disagree over. Some furries have apparently decided that they need to fuck a dog to feel like a furry. There should be some reflection by those furries as to how to avoid situations where they are forced to make the decision between either fucking a dog or denying their underlying nature as they see themselves being a furry. Having to make that decision sucks and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone."

as opposed to the more standard answer of:

"People shouldn't fuck dogs. Those that do are fucked up."

The fact is, some asshole beating up pro-fascist journalists doesn't make me a person who beats up journalists even though I am Antifa. It was a tragedy that things came to that in the wider fight against fascism. I believe people have a right and even something approaching an obligation to be Antifa. How to accomplish those goals will be something that people disagree over. Decisions were made, and there should be a long look inside as to how to avoid those decisions needing to be made, to let a fascist report biased coverage in an attempt to support fascism or to maybe beat them up? Both alternatives there suck: It's the worst kind of falling problem.

If only we lived in a society where people could openly talk about how public and quasi-public figures are liars who create falsehoods and publish evidence for such claims in a way that makes it available to any interested parties. If we lived in a society like that, an alternate path out of the dilemma would be obvious.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because the community members are self-identified, there can be no culpability for the actions of other members within the group.

Plenty of furries lie, cheat and steal art or commissions for undelivered art. Plenty of furries fuck dogs. Plenty of Anonymous commit cyber crime. But that doesn't make me responsible for that, just identifying as a member of those groups. It doesn't impugn me as a furry when some asshole fucks their dog, it doesn't imply I am a bad person who fucks dogs.

Indeed: If you are a furry, the fact that you are a furry doesn't make you culpable because of some other assholish furry that fucks his dog.

What does potentially make you culpable is if, when asked your opinion about that assholish furry that fucks his dog, you answer something along the lines of:

"It's tragic when dogs get fucked by furries. I believe everyone has the right to be a furry and how one gets in touch with their underlying animal nature as a furry is something that varies from person to person and people disagree over. Some furries have apparently decided that they need to fuck a dog to feel like a furry. There should be some reflection by those furries as to how to avoid situations where they are forced to make the decision between either fucking a dog or denying their underlying nature as they see themselves being a furry. Having to make that decision sucks and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone."

as opposed to the more standard answer of:

"People shouldn't fuck dogs. Those that do are fucked up."

The fact is, some asshole beating up pro-fascist journalists doesn't make me a person who beats up journalists even though I am Antifa. It was a tragedy that things came to that in the wider fight against fascism. I believe people have a right and even something approaching an obligation to be Antifa. How to accomplish those goals will be something that people disagree over. Decisions were made, and there should be a long look inside as to how to avoid those decisions needing to be made, to let a fascist report biased coverage in an attempt to support fascism or to maybe beat them up? Both alternatives there suck: It's the worst kind of falling problem.

If only we lived in a society where people could openly talk about how public and quasi-public figures are liars who create falsehoods and publish evidence for such claims in a way that makes it available to any interested parties. If we lived in a society like that, an alternate path out of the dilemma would be obvious.

No. You're still wrong. You are trying to paint Antifa with the attack of a journalist. I think I've made it pretty clear: actions during the pursuit of a just goal don't generally fall on that axis, and there is no value in trying to measure them except in the pursuit of one of two unethical goals: to give license to a lack of consideration of future action, or to generate propaganda against a group over a past one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, you can make a reasonable case for ignoring the "Socialist" in "Nazi". In practice when you see when government and party names contain governmental or economic systems in their names it's almost always wrong. "Republic" is basically the only such word that's accurate.

For instance, "United" is always a lie in politics.

"United" is neither a governmental system nor an economic system.

 

[Politesse]

Actually, you can make a reasonable case for ignoring the "Socialist" in "Nazi". In practice when you see when government and party names contain governmental or economic systems in their names it's almost always wrong. "Republic" is basically the only such word that's accurate.

For instance, "United" is always a lie in politics.

"United" is neither a governmental system nor an economic system.

You should study fascism, you may find it an interesting philosophy. So many paradoxes.

 

[ZiprHead]

So I'd say we've pretty much established that Andy Ngo was certainly acting for the cause of fascist white supremacists so the OP is bullshit.

 

[Enigma]

No. You're still wrong. You are trying to paint Antifa with the attack of a journalist.

No, as established earlier Antifa is a collection of individuals all operating to achieve a goal. Assaulting a journalist as being an evil right-wing propagandist who has the audacity to show up at Antifa events and report on them unfavorably reflects poorly on the individuals who did it, assuming that one opposes assaulting people in general and assaulting members of the press in particular.

Being largely unwilling to condemn those individuals beyond just being tactically unwise, and failing to provide a reasonable justification for why such an action was the "lesser of two evils"/"the least evil of all reasonably available options, given knowledge at the time" is what reflects poorly on the portion of Antifa that refuses to condemn this action.

I think I've made it pretty clear: actions during the pursuit of a just goal don't generally fall on that axis, and there is no value in trying to measure them except in the pursuit of one of two unethical goals: to give license to a lack of consideration of future action, or to generate propaganda against a group over a past one.

Ah, the ends justify putting the means inside a moral Schrodinger box because failure to do otherwise threatens the great and righteous ends.

Exactly what sort of "consideration" for future actions do you believe that a leaderless decentralized group such as Antifa can undertake if most are generally silent or publicly approving on the morality of any given action taken by members of Antifa? How does this do anything other than provide a default rubber stamp of approval (or at best "I don't know and have no opinion." which effectively amounts to the same lack of objection) for any action taken by any member of Antifa ostensibly for the goal of fighting fascism, regardless of how destructive, counter-productive, immoral, or otherwise generally fucked up that action is?