What Trump Gets Wrong About Antifa

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you punch someone for waving a banner, you're the bad guy.

Didn't you get the memo? Now, you just have to call them a nazi first, and then you can punch whoever you want.

 

[KeepTalking]

When the Crips fight the Bloods, nobody says "If you're not a Blood that means you're with the Crips. If you hate the Crips that means you're a Blood." If someone actually does say it, nobody takes it seriously.

How would you know? Ever been in a gang fight? Regardless, if the Crips and Bloods are fighting like the gangs in West Side Story, which is the way you apparently think gangs still fight, given your example, I think it is reasonable for them to assume that anyone else involved in the fight who is not in their gang is a member of the other gang. But it is far more likely that the sentiment you are reaching for is "if you are not for us, you are against us" used as a recruiting tool for gangs.

Gang members are not known for their ability to reason, and "if you are not for us, you are against us" is a common refrain for those who are trying to coerce others to their side. I think a prospective gang member would be exactly the kind of person that might fall for that.

When it is Fascists and Antifa on the other hand, people actually believe that absurd "logic".

First, what is absurd is the notion that the notion "if you are not for us, you are against us" is never used by gang members attempting to coerce others to join their gang. Now that is out of the way, please provide evidence of antifas using that logic. I won't say it hasn't happened, but I would prefer to see evidence than to simply take your word for it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Using either of the above may serve to confuse the issue, as they are terms that are less likely to be recognized by the average person than the term 'Nazi'. So why would you use it? Are you trying to confuse the issue, or are you just trying to show off your intimate knowledge of the nomenclature used by actual Nazis?

Maybe to show that the Nazis actually grew out of a socialism and worker oriented leftist party, to become what is probably the opposite of what the original founders of that party intended.

Probably? So you don't know it?

If people cling to labels and tribal division, they can become everything that they say they oppose. Antifa does this on a smaller scale as well.

Yeah, compared to the Nazis, at a scale that is almost unnoticeable.

Preach tolerant and peaceful society and say you are against fascism, and then viciously attack people for not adhering to their views, while calling them a label to dehumanize them.

Viciously? Dehumanize?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When the Crips fight the Bloods, nobody says "If you're not a Blood that means you're with the Crips. If you hate the Crips that means you're a Blood." If someone actually does say it, nobody takes it seriously.

How would you know? Ever been in a gang fight? Regardless, if the Crips and Bloods are fighting like the gangs in West Side Story, which is the way you apparently think gangs still fight, given your example, I think it is reasonable for them to assume that anyone else involved in the fight who is not in their gang is a member of the other gang. But it is far more likely that the sentiment you are reaching for is "if you are not for us, you are against us" used as a recruiting tool for gangs.

And for Antifa, yet another similarity.

As for the comparison to West Side Story, I'm sure that when gangs rumble they do it with a lot less dancing and singing.

Gang members are not known for their ability to reason, and "if you are not for us, you are against us" is a common refrain for those who are trying to coerce others to their side. I think a prospective gang member would be exactly the kind of person that might fall for that.

Just like Antifa again.

When it is Fascists and Antifa on the other hand, people actually believe that absurd "logic".

First, what is absurd is the notion that the notion "if you are not for us, you are against us" is never used by gang members attempting to coerce others to join their gang. Now that is out of the way, please provide evidence of antifas using that logic. I won't say it hasn't happened, but I would prefer to see evidence than to simply take your word for it.

Give me a little time to dig up the quotes from PyramidHead. I'll get back to you soon.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's a few.

Ted Cruz submits resolution to designate antifa as terrorists

You're conflating "anti-fascist" and "antifa" again.

They are synonyms my dude. You, Trump, and Ted can look for a difference all you want, like when corporate asked Pam to find the differences between the two identical pictures in that one episode of The Office. Your bedfellows in this search should give you pause about the premise that there is a difference to be found.

You lose any moral capacity you might have to criticize violent people while you advocate violence yourself.

I see those people as bad. And your equivalent.

Yes, and again, does the following text not read like something Pyramidhead could have posted in this thread?

"We will be holding a rally in Portland in response to the city of Portland allowing domestic terrorists (nazis) to run their city and endanger American citizens (minorities and liberals). Free speech was fought for and paid for with blood, it will not be lost for anything else"

"Get your weapons ready. Be ready because the

isn't playing around anymore, and neither should we"​

You're so, so close. You're almost there. You've identified that there are two forces: neo-Nazis and those who are opposed to neo-Nazis. They both want to fight each other because they both think the other is a terrorist. They both are willing to use violence. Now... here's the part where you need to actually consult something called a moral compass. Between these two otherwise equivalent forces (well, actually not equivalent since one side brings guns and the other usually brings food), can you identify anything about their ideology that might make one of them worth calling a terrorist but not the other? Anything? I'll give you a hint: it's something about wanting the genocide of an entire population of people based on their skin color. I know it's a lot to ask for you to independently make an ethical judgement between "nazis" and "minorities and liberals". I know that it must be confusing when both sides say mean things about each other; who am I supposed to support, the Nazis who want to stop antifa from hurting other Nazis, or the antifas who want to stop Nazis from harming minorities? What a head-scratcher!!​

Can you explain the many people who are anti-fascist who would be offended if you said they were part of antifa?

Such people think they are anti-fascist, but in practice they are the first to defend fascists and will never categorically repudiate them. To be anti-fascist, you have to actually oppose fascism, which means you support the movements that mount an opposition to it, flawed and messy as they are, rather than slobbering all over the boots of every cop, troop, white nationalist, isolationist, and race realist who Joe Rogan invites to vomit directly into his mouth.

Apparently if you are against fascism but would be insulted if someone called you antifa, it makes you a fascist apologist. Your two choices are fascist (or apologist) or antifa.​

 

[Derec]

Using either of the above may serve to confuse the issue,

How is using the actual name of a group "confusing" the issue. If anything, using an overused term like "Nazi" is more likely to confuse the issue.

Are you trying to confuse the issue, or are you just trying to show off your intimate knowledge of the nomenclature used by actual Nazis?

I drink and I know things. That's what I do.

actual fucking Nazis.

As opposed to what? Celibate Nazis?

Yeah, sure, bad guys can oppose other bad guys. Now present your evidence that the German Antifa of the 1930s were actually bad guys (hint: just because they were communists doesn't make them bad guys),

I beg to differ.

and while you are at it why don't you go ahead and present that direct line of succession between them and the current antifas in the USA that you claimed earlier.

Well for one they use the same name and symbols. Which means that they see themselves as the successors of the KPD (aka "Commie Party") Antifas.

No. They were anti-fascists, meaning they oppose fascists, without fascists to oppose they would not have existed. This is elementary reasoning, Derec.

Too elementary. Whether or not fascism had emerged, the Communists would still need a paramilitary goon squad to violently oppose the enemies of the revolution. And modern leftists would also need a goon squad to fight those they oppose. They would not have the neat invective "fascist" to hurl at people, but they'd come up with something else.

We are discussing antifas in the USA,

Antifas, like communists, tend to emphasize internationalism.

and what Trump gets wrong about them. Your bringing up unrelated groups

Except they are not unrelated. They are part of the same far left movement that opposes the capitalist West.

Why do you repeatedly post things that seem to be deliberate attempts to confuse the issue when it comes to antifa?

Trying to dissociate European from American Antifas is confusing the issue.

 

[marc]

Proud Boys leader admits their rallies are for fighting and wasting money

“We’ve wasted all their fucking resources to make this rally,” Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio said in video captured during the latest extremist rally held Saturday in Portland. “We want them to waste $2 million and we’ll do it again in two months.”
.....
“This is a pure optics operation,” Tarrio said in front of a group of Proud Boys. “If you’re looking for fourth degrees this is not the event to do it.”

Leaked Proud Boys Chats Show Members Plotting Violence At Rallies

“All I want to do is smash commies too. Actually I’m lying, I’m way past just hitting them. When the time comes I will stop at nothing to fully eradicate them all!”

I’d say Antifa is a mixed bag, On one hand crazy groups like this need to be stood up to. On the other if they are not smart they can play right into the propaganda these assholes want to make by giving into provocation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All they have to do is show up and wave some banners. Antifa will show up to oppose them. When the Proud Boys leave without confrontation, that leaves Antifa there with nothing to do.

That's when Antifa really gets in trouble, both legally and optically.

 

[Politesse]

All they have to do is show up and wave some banners. Antifa will show up to oppose them. When the Proud Boys leave without confrontation, that leaves Antifa there with nothing to do.

That's when Antifa really gets in trouble, both legally and optically.

What event has this organization ever attended just to wave banners? You have the evidence right in front of you that they fully intend to commit and incite violence at their events.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Proud Boys leader admits their rallies are for fighting and wasting money

“We’ve wasted all their fucking resources to make this rally,” Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio said in video captured during the latest extremist rally held Saturday in Portland. “We want them to waste $2 million and we’ll do it again in two months.”
.....
“This is a pure optics operation,” Tarrio said in front of a group of Proud Boys. “If you’re looking for fourth degrees this is not the event to do it.”

Leaked Proud Boys Chats Show Members Plotting Violence At Rallies

“All I want to do is smash commies too. Actually I’m lying, I’m way past just hitting them. When the time comes I will stop at nothing to fully eradicate them all!”

I’d say Antifa is a mixed bag, On one hand crazy groups like this need to be stood up to. On the other if they are not smart they can play right into the propaganda these assholes want to make by giving into provocation.

Why do they need to be stood up to? They are like a shit sail boat. Give them wind and attention - and they soar. Don't give them the attention, they'll die out. Let the police stand up to them. But we should shun their opinions, uphold people's right to their speech, and walk away.

 

[marc]

Let’s see if this link works

Video has come out in lawsuit showing Andy Ngo laughing with Patriot Prayer members as they plan an attack.

The tweet thread also shows that he edited his videos to make them look better, editing out some of their violence, cutting out who started a fight.

 

[ZiprHead]

Let’s see if this link works

Video has come out in lawsuit showing Andy Ngo laughing with Patriot Prayer members as they plan an attack.

The tweet thread also shows that he edited his videos to make them look better, editing out some of their violence, cutting out who started a fight.

That's pretty conclusive proof Ngo isn't the choirboy some here have tried to make him out to be.