Remember, Antifa only attacks fascists, right?

[Jarhyn]

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?

Ah yes, spew that bullshit propaganda. Try to fit a complex problem in a simple box. It will not fit in the box you wish to put it into no matter how hard you try. I have pointed out that your goal, of demanding that people make foolish judgements of others in a complex situation is propaganda. You are, really, no better than Ngo. There are hard problems. They are generally falling problems. Problems like "do I let someone use a bullshit framing of an issue to attack people, or do I respond with direct action?"

At the end of the day, this will come to real violence, battles, and war. if you wish this to not become destructive, if you wish it not to become the sorts of decisions that are shaped like "Nuke a city or continue a shooting war", if you don't want to have desperation that leads to actions like "bombing Dresden", YOU have an obligation: fight fascism.

If you will not do that, well, war is messy.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Guilt by association is one problem here. Violence against speech is another. This isn't very complicated.

 

[Jarhyn]

Guilt by association is one problem here. Violence against speech is another. This isn't very complicated.

Violence against "speech". Like Germany commits through turning the government's guns to the enforcement of bans on Nazi and other extreme-right speech and organizing?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Guilt by association is one problem here. Violence against speech is another. This isn't very complicated.

Violence against "speech". Like Germany commits through turning the government's guns to the enforcement of bans on Nazi and other extreme-right speech and organizing?

At least that's the state government doing it, elected by the people, and not a gang of "vigilantes" who think this reporter is evil because he talked to some bad people.

If you are ok with Antifa street violence against a non-violent person who you find guilty by association, then why would you oppose street violence against a non-violent member of Antifa? This can go both ways, and quickly descend into anarchy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Guilt by association is one problem here. Violence against speech is another. This isn't very complicated.

Violence against "speech". Like Germany commits through turning the government's guns to the enforcement of bans on Nazi and other extreme-right speech and organizing?

At least that's the state government doing it, elected by the people, and not a gang of "vigilantes" who think this reporter is evil because he talked to some bad people.

If you are ok with Antifa street violence against a non-violent person who you find guilty by association, then why would you oppose street violence against a non-violent member of Antifa? This can go both ways, and quickly descend into anarchy.

If I were somehow transported to Nazi Germany, standing in front of, say, Joseph Goebles, while holding a shotgun, I would not hesitate to remove his head. I would do the same for any of his subordinates, but of course if I could capture them and dump them into an Allied POW camp if I COULD in the circumstances.

If some shithead starts beating a member of Antifa, regardless of whether they are violent or not, I would likely intervene in behalf of the Antifa in a way I would not for a fascist.

If I were on a battlefield in WWII I would help defend an allied soldier and I would help capture a Nazi.

It is not guilty by association, it is guilt by particular action. Being a propaganda outfit for fascism is being an active and direct adversary to free society.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If I were somehow transported to Nazi Germany, standing in front of, say, Joseph Goebles, while holding a shotgun, I would not hesitate to remove his head. I would do the same for any of his subordinates, but of course if I could capture them and dump them into an Allied POW camp if I COULD in the circumstances.

...

It is not guilty by association, it is guilt by particular action. Being a propaganda outfit for fascism is being an active and direct adversary to free society.

Andy Ngo is not Joseph Goebles. Trump is not Hitler. Enough of this stupidity.

 

[PyramidHead]

At least that's the state government doing it, elected by the people, and not a gang of "vigilantes" who think this reporter is evil because he talked to some bad people.

If you are ok with Antifa street violence against a non-violent person who you find guilty by association, then why would you oppose street violence against a non-violent member of Antifa? This can go both ways, and quickly descend into anarchy.

If I were somehow transported to Nazi Germany, standing in front of, say, Joseph Goebles, while holding a shotgun, I would not hesitate to remove his head. I would do the same for any of his subordinates, but of course if I could capture them and dump them into an Allied POW camp if I COULD in the circumstances.

If some shithead starts beating a member of Antifa, regardless of whether they are violent or not, I would likely intervene in behalf of the Antifa in a way I would not for a fascist.

If I were on a battlefield in WWII I would help defend an allied soldier and I would help capture a Nazi.

It is not guilty by association, it is guilt by particular action. Being a propaganda outfit for fascism is being an active and direct adversary to free society.

That line of reasoning only works if you acknowledge that there is reason to support one side of a conflict over another based on their actual positions, and not just by comparing their tactics.

 

[PyramidHead]

If I were somehow transported to Nazi Germany, standing in front of, say, Joseph Goebles, while holding a shotgun, I would not hesitate to remove his head. I would do the same for any of his subordinates, but of course if I could capture them and dump them into an Allied POW camp if I COULD in the circumstances.

...

It is not guilty by association, it is guilt by particular action. Being a propaganda outfit for fascism is being an active and direct adversary to free society.

Andy Ngo is not Joseph Goebles. Trump is not Hitler. Enough of this stupidity.

By the time either of them become the people you're saying we're comparing them to, it's too late to do anything about it. Do you want to sit back and let that happen again? It's like condemning someone for dousing a fire in the kitchen because it hasn't consumed the entire neighborhood yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

At least that's the state government doing it, elected by the people, and not a gang of "vigilantes" who think this reporter is evil because he talked to some bad people.

If you are ok with Antifa street violence against a non-violent person who you find guilty by association, then why would you oppose street violence against a non-violent member of Antifa? This can go both ways, and quickly descend into anarchy.

If I were somehow transported to Nazi Germany, standing in front of, say, Joseph Goebles, while holding a shotgun, I would not hesitate to remove his head. I would do the same for any of his subordinates, but of course if I could capture them and dump them into an Allied POW camp if I COULD in the circumstances.

If some shithead starts beating a member of Antifa, regardless of whether they are violent or not, I would likely intervene in behalf of the Antifa in a way I would not for a fascist.

If I were on a battlefield in WWII I would help defend an allied soldier and I would help capture a Nazi.

It is not guilty by association, it is guilt by particular action. Being a propaganda outfit for fascism is being an active and direct adversary to free society.

That line of reasoning only works if you acknowledge that there is reason to support one side of a conflict over another based on their actual positions, and not just by comparing their tactics.

Fair enough. Then again, I reject the use of concentration camps, the taking of political prisoners, the propagandization of less and non-violent resistance to fascism and racism as "the violent left", and resistance to anti-democratic activities engaged in in general, and here specifically, by the far right.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Antifa means anti-fascist action. There is no other shared belief that describes them.

You might want to talk to this guy, he very much disagrees with you.

He did say something accurate though: antifa were communists back in the day, and many are today.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Somehow, Jason has gotten it into his rapidly expanding head that antifa means "a political movement that wants to install a brutal dictatorship", and your use of the word "authoritarian" seems to imply you're not far off. What authority does antifa possibly want to exercise over you? Not to hurt Hispanic and black people, not to provide material aid to those who do? Hell, what even corresponds to authority within antifa? Who is their manager, and what will you say when you speak to this person? No understanding at all.

We all know what they are against. Perhaps YOU should tell us what they are for. They've stated it quite clearly, but their use of negative definitions allows people to ignore it.

Link please?

Here's a link - and a quote - from someone you might actually think is a reliable source.

He did say something accurate though: antifa were communists back in the day, and many are today.

 

[Jarhyn]

Link please?

Here's a link - and a quote - from someone you might actually think is a reliable source.

He did say something accurate though: antifa were communists back in the day, and many are today.

Ah yes. The "they started out as X and some still are X mean that all of them today MUST be X" fallacy. Also known as The Genetic Fallacy. Care to try again?

I mean you are so wrong and so laughably so that there is actually a common name for the specific way you are wrong.

I am not a communist. It has nothing to do today with communism. Granted fascists back in the day were really afraid of communists getting in their biz and taking away outsized control over socially important industries.

But most today, including Antifa, can recognize that humans just aren't capable of handling the transition without getting our hands in the pot so that's generally right out these days.

 

[PyramidHead]

Antifa means anti-fascist action. There is no other shared belief that describes them.

You might want to talk to this guy, he very much disagrees with you.

He did say something accurate though: antifa were communists back in the day, and many are today.

A shared belief of antifa is one that they all hold as a consequence of being antifa. What the person you're quoting said is the other way around: communists are antifa as a consequence of being communists.

It goes without saying, but if every mass movement that included socialists and communists to any appreciable degree were dismissed as a covert operation to install a dictatorship, you'd end up decrying abolitionists, civil rights activists, women's suffrage protests, labor unions fighting for a 5-day workweek, and every anti-war movement in the past 100 years. Is there a word for somebody who claims to care about individual liberty and freedom from oppression, but aligns with the party that has historically opposed all these measures... it's on the tip of my tongue...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah yes. The "they started out as X and some still are X mean that all of them today MUST be X" fallacy. Also known as The Genetic Fallacy. Care to try again?

He said "and many are today". He didn't say they were therefore they are, he said simply that they are. That fails to meet the standard for the genetic fallacy.

A shared belief of antifa is one that they all hold as a consequence of being antifa. What the person you're quoting said is the other way around: communists are antifa as a consequence of being communists.

And there go those goalposts.

Is there a word for somebody who claims to care about individual liberty and freedom from oppression, but aligns with the party that has historically opposed all these measures... it's on the tip of my tongue...

The word you're looking for is "Antifa".

 

[PyramidHead]

He said "and many are today". He didn't say they were therefore they are, he said simply that they are. That fails to meet the standard for the genetic fallacy.



And there go those goalposts.

Is there a word for somebody who claims to care about individual liberty and freedom from oppression, but aligns with the party that has historically opposed all these measures... it's on the tip of my tongue...

The word you're looking for is "Antifa".

Antifa aligns with Republicans?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He said "and many are today". He didn't say they were therefore they are, he said simply that they are. That fails to meet the standard for the genetic fallacy.



And there go those goalposts.

Is there a word for somebody who claims to care about individual liberty and freedom from oppression, but aligns with the party that has historically opposed all these measures... it's on the tip of my tongue...

The word you're looking for is "Antifa".

Antifa aligns with Republicans?

You align with Republicans?

 

[Jarhyn]

He said "and many are today". He didn't say they were therefore they are, he said simply that they are. That fails to meet the standard for the genetic fallacy.



And there go those goalposts.

Is there a word for somebody who claims to care about individual liberty and freedom from oppression, but aligns with the party that has historically opposed all these measures... it's on the tip of my tongue...

The word you're looking for is "Antifa".

Ah, the classic "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

"Many are" does not translate to "all" or even "most". It is at best "some, but more than merely a few".

This is the classic example of Non Sequitur, possibly something in the neighborhood of 'poisoned well': it does not follow that because some are, all are.

 

[PyramidHead]

Antifa aligns with Republicans?

You align with Republicans?

You're just making random noises now, it's embarrassing

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Philly restaurant owner accuses antifa of vandalism after Proud Boys allegation

A Philadelphia restaurant was vandalized in the early hours of New Year's Day, and the owner has accused antifa of being responsible for the damages.

Vandals spray-painted "F--- piss boys" on the side of Millcreek Tavern and broke a number of windows. The restaurant is owned by retired police officer Jack Gillespie, and he told the Washington Examiner that there was approximately $20,000 worth of damage.

Gillespie blamed antifa for the vandalism. The two parties have a tenuous relationship after a November incident in which Millcreek Tavern was accused of allowing the Proud Boys, a right-wing group that has violently clashed with antifa activists, to recruit members in the restaurant.

The owner claims that a conservative group called the restaurant to see if they could accommodate a party of approximately 20 people, which they said they could do. While he said they had a file with them labeled "Proud Boys," Gillespie maintained the group was connected to Turning Point USA, a conservative organization.

"The night ended without any incidents," Millcreek Tavern wrote on their Facebook page at the time. "The group had no meeting that have knowledge of, no 'recruitment' nor any interaction with other patrons. On Saturday 11/16/19 something came over on FB that caught my attention. 'Millcreek allows Proud Boys as a recruitment haven'. I was confused because I had no idea who/what this meant. After doing some research, I was appalled."

West Philadelphia bar owner target of vandalism after allegations of hosting Proud Boys

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) -- The new year got off to a rough start for West Philadelphia bar owner Jack Gillespie. His business was vandalized.

It's the latest and most heinous act of vandalism Gillespie said he's encountered. He believes the incident stems from a gathering at Millcreek Tavern in November.

The backlash began after being alerted the group of people was likely affiliated with the Proud Boys, a far-right organization, who self-identify as "western chauvinists."

"There was no meeting. There was no solicitation. They acted like normal people at a bar," Gillespie said.

Gillespie said he did not know of the Proud Boys at the time, saying the group entered the bar with some swag, but he didn't see it as offensive.

So, if you are a restaurant owner, and a group connected with Turning Point USA has an event there, then you are guilty of being a Nazi and should be attacked.