Support NeoGAF

[chadtwo]

Again:



Context matters. We can acknowledge it and move on. It was an unfortunate incident in what must have been an incredibly tough situation to be in and is not really worth dwelling on.

Your insistence on quoting yourself whenever anyone brings up the violence against reporters reaaaaallly makes that post look like an excuse.

Saying "this isn't an excuse, but" before giving an excuse doesn't magically make it not an excuse. I say this as someone who is sympathizes with antifa, too. It legitimizes the movement far more if you own up such acts, rather than claiming not to make an excuse and then tacking on some explanation as an addendum.

 

[JeTmAn81]

I don't believe that violence is an acceptable response to peaceful demonstrations of speech, no matter what the contents of that speech may be (this is assuming it's speech that falls within legal limits). What does that say about me?

 

[hobblygobbly]

The view of Antifa will vary from the perspective of European Antifa groups, some are good, some are bad. It's not as simple as it is in the U.S so you will get varying ranges of opinions concerning Antifa. Europe has a lot more active left political ideologies and its representative in Antifa groups as well as party levels, not all left ideologies are necessarily good.

The idea that Antifa groups are automatically good because they oppose fascism is false, there are Antifa groups that don't give a shit about particular social issues and are authoritarian and hostile even against people who aren't nazis, none are automatically good, some of them don't give a shit about social issues right now because issues such as racism are viewed in a very one dimensional manner, the only goal is economic justice because traditional left politics is about achieving social justice through economic justice, so many issues of racism for example is swept under the rug because it's not important because it is believed it'll be solved later through proper means (i.e like economic). That's why a lot of PoC in Europe don't always like some left parties in their country as well.

There are antifa groups in Europe that are filled with people that believe in totalitarianism and support ideologies such as Stalinism, it's a lot more nuanced, it's not just about opposition to neo-nazis, there is a lot of destructive ideology within too. Many hate and oppose the EU, this is something that far-left and far-right have in common. If you look at even the most recent protests in Hamburg the core part of the protest was anti-globalism.

In Germany we have Antifa groups who have a fetish over the Stasi and KGB for example. Just because they fight nazis doesn't always make them good. Hell there's even RAF sympathisers, a former straight up far-left terrorist group in Germany.

Even on a party level, Linkspartei is utter shit in Germany, they may not be Nazis like NPD/AfD, but in no fucking way do I think they are "good" or "better" just because they are far-left and not Nazis.

European anti-fascism is primarily rooted in anti-capitalist (considered a leading factor of the emergence of fascism) as well as anti-American (being the face of capitalism in the world). Many people in Antifa groups here absolutely despise the U.S and also why they like the Kremlin because they're perceived as the only ones who seemingly stand against the U.S, it's also why Linkspartei is pro-Kremlin and why they try to appeal to these groups as well.

Nazism is totalitarian, and so is things like Stalinism or Marxism–Leninism. It's still totalitarian whether it's on the right of left spectrum, this is evident in right and left groups in Europe, it's not always just because they're leftist that they are better, it's a very juvenile view.

Antifa groups in Europe are decentralised, there is no common identity, no common name for each group, each country varies and it varies within the regions of the countries too. Its views vary, some may be a great fit, some may just be a bunch of stalinist fuckers. It's not all the same.

 

[StAidan]

Disagreement about whether groups of people have any right to exist based on race/religion/sexuality and actively working towards that goal.

That was easy!

OK, so even though we have laws for people who cause physical harm to others, vigilante justice is preferred when it comes to preventing people from voicing abhorrent ideas. Got it.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Your insistence on quoting yourself whenever anyone brings up the violence against reporters reaaaaallly makes that post look like an excuse.

Saying "this isn't an excuse, but" before giving an excuse doesn't magically make it not an excuse.

Why bother rewriting it? It’s supplying the context in which that attack really needs to be considered. It doesn’t excuse it but it’s clear that it shouldn’t be used as a tool to discredit the counter protestors. It’s purposely being stated without context in order to make it sound like the dastardly Antifa were going around attacking journalists with no justification, as opposed to a someone dealing with an incident poorly in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

 

[mlclmtckr]

OK, so even though we have laws for people who cause physical harm to others, vigilante justice is preferred when it comes to preventing people from voicing abhorrent ideas. Got it.

Literally yes.

 

[sphagnum]

I don't believe that violence is an acceptable response to peaceful demonstrations of speech, no matter what the contents of that speech may be (this is assuming it's speech that falls within legal limits). What does that say about me?

It just means you're a bog standard liberal.

 

[Kthulhu]

I've met a lot of liberals who drink the white-washed Civil Rights Movement kool-aid where MLK solved everything with some good speeches and a march, and Malcom X didn't exist.

That's also because that's what many are taught in school.

MLK is portrayed as a Ghandi like nonviolent protestor with a heart of gold and Malcolm X is largely ignored.

 

[chadtwo]

Why bother rewriting it? It's supplying the context in which that attack really needs to be considered. It doesn't excuse it but it's clear that it shouldn't be used as a tool to discredit the counter protestors. It's purposely being stated without context in order to make it sound like the dastardly Antifa we're going around attacking journalists with no justification.

I don't mean the literal fact that you're quoting yourself, rather than rewriting the same post over and over, is the problem. It just looks a little suspect when the same line of reasoning that begins with "this isn't an excuse" is used pretty much exclusively for the purpose of responding to those who criticize the antifa for their violence against reporters. Using it in that way makes it functionally look a lot like an excuse.

Are you saying that Antifa were attacking journalists with justification? Because you can't simultaneously say that and claim to not be excusing them.

 

[Wrestlemania]

I don't mean the literal fact that you're quoting yourself, rather than rewriting the same post over and over, is the problem. It just looks a little suspect when the same line of reasoning that begins with "this isn't an excuse" is used pretty much exclusively for the purpose of responding to those who criticize the antifa for their violence against reporters. Using it in that way makes it functionally look a lot like an excuse.

I don’t really get what your issue is. It literally isn’t an excuse. I’m explaining why the context means people are foolish to use it as an example to discredit the counter protestors. That doesn’t excuse what the person did and was rightfully arrested for.
I’ll quote it again the next time someone says “B-b-b-but they attacked a reporter!”

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The view of Antifa will vary from the perspective of European Antifa groups, some are good, some are bad. It's not as simple as it is in the U.S so you will get varying ranges of opinions concerning Antifa. Europe has a lot more active left political ideologies and its representative in Antifa groups as well as party levels, not all left ideologies are necessarily good.

The idea that Antifa groups are automatically good because they oppose fascism is false, there are Antifa groups that don't give a shit about particular social issues and are authoritarian and hostile even against people who aren't nazis, none are automatically good, some of them don't give a shit about social issues right now because issues such as racism are viewed in a very one dimensional manner, the only goal is economic justice because traditional left politics is about achieving social justice through economic justice, so many issues of racism for example is swept under the rug because it's not important because it is believed it'll be solved later through proper means (i.e like economic). That's why a lot of PoC in Europe don't always like some left parties in their country as well.

There are antifa groups in Europe that are filled with people that believe in totalitarianism and support ideologies such as Stalinism, it's a lot more nuanced, it's not just about opposition to neo-nazis, there is a lot of destructive ideology within too.

In Germany we have Antifa groups who have a fetish over the Stasi and KGB for example. Just because they fight nazis doesn't always make them good.

Even on a party level, Linkspartei is utter shit in Germany, they may not be Nazis like NPD/AfD, but in no fucking way do I think they are "good" or "better" just because they are far-left and not Nazis.

European anti-fascism is primarily rooted in anti-capitalist (considered a leading factor of the emergence of fascism) as well as anti-American (being the face of capitalism in the world). Many people in Antifa groups here absolutely despise the U.S and also why they like the Kremlin because they're perceived as the only ones who seemingly stand against the U.S, it's also why Linkspartei is pro-Kremlin and why they try to appeal to these groups as well.

Nazism is totalitarian, and so is things like Stalinism or Marxism–Leninism. It's still totalitarian whether it's on the right of left spectrum, this is evident in right and left groups in Europe, it's not always just because they're leftist that they are better, it's a very juvenile view.

Antifa groups in Europe are decentralised, there is no common identity, no common name for each group, each country varies and it varies within the regions of the countries too.

Thank you for this. It's important to understand that not all antifa groups across the globe are the same, or even similar. Antifas in the US are very different than antifas in Canada, and Europe, as you point out. There is no one unifying antifa ideology.

 

[Kinyou]

"info"

here's the first channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzyycFR6PEv-B90rAiFsQg

and here's the second

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5NmrgqZxY_YFJcXeAYWZYQ/videos

That supposed liberals have no problem linking to extremely racist, far-right, fake news youtube channels to try and prove a point....

The channels are shit, but those videos are uncommented clips from the G20 riot.

 

[JeTmAn81]

It just means you're a bog standard liberal.

I certainly don't think of myself as a liberal. But growing up in America I was taught that people should have wide-ranging freedom of speech. That goes for civil rights marchers as well as for Nazis. The point is that it goes for everyone. The Skokie incident was brought up as a demonstration of free speech principles in the face of obviously abhorrent ideas.

 

[AuthenticM]

OK, so even though we have laws for people who cause physical harm to others, vigilante justice is preferred when it comes to preventing people from voicing abhorrent ideas. Got it.

correct

 

[jph139]

Why bother rewriting it? It’s supplying the context in which that attack really needs to be considered. It doesn’t excuse it but it’s clear that it shouldn’t be used as a tool to discredit the counter protestors. It’s purposely being stated without context in order to make it sound like the dastardly Antifa were going around attacking journalists with no justification.

Here's the thing though - you can't say "violence is good and necessary" and then absolve yourself of the negative impact of violence.

If you start throwing punches, and throwing punches becomes part of your toolbox, sometimes the wrong people are going to get punched. That's a fact you have to accept. Can't give credit to antifa for all of the good shit that happened - protecting people and fighting Nazis - then deny their connection to the bad shit - assaults on innocent people.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

People who fight fascists without any kind of violence (unless of course in direct self-defense and according to the principle of proportionality) are just so much more worthy of admiration.They're always heroes whereas people who fight fascists with violence not rarely are just angry young men who see a chance to vent off against at least one of the things that makes them angry about this world.

 

[manfestival]

The view of Antifa will vary from the perspective of European Antifa groups, some are good, some are bad. It's not as simple as it is in the U.S so you will get varying ranges of opinions concerning Antifa. Europe has a lot more active left political ideologies and its representative in Antifa groups as well as party levels, not all left ideologies are necessarily good.

The idea that Antifa groups are automatically good because they oppose fascism is false, there are Antifa groups that don't give a shit about particular social issues and are authoritarian and hostile even against people who aren't nazis, none are automatically good, some of them don't give a shit about social issues right now because issues such as racism are viewed in a very one dimensional manner, the only goal is economic justice because traditional left politics is about achieving social justice through economic justice, so many issues of racism for example is swept under the rug because it's not important because it is believed it'll be solved later through proper means (i.e like economic). That's why a lot of PoC in Europe don't always like some left parties in their country as well.

There are antifa groups in Europe that are filled with people that believe in totalitarianism and support ideologies such as Stalinism, it's a lot more nuanced, it's not just about opposition to neo-nazis, there is a lot of destructive ideology within too.

In Germany we have Antifa groups who have a fetish over the Stasi and KGB for example. Just because they fight nazis doesn't always make them good.

Even on a party level, Linkspartei is utter shit in Germany, they may not be Nazis like NPD/AfD, but in no fucking way do I think they are "good" or "better" just because they are far-left and not Nazis.

European anti-fascism is primarily rooted in anti-capitalist (considered a leading factor of the emergence of fascism) as well as anti-American (being the face of capitalism in the world). Many people in Antifa groups here absolutely despise the U.S and also why they like the Kremlin because they're perceived as the only ones who seemingly stand against the U.S, it's also why Linkspartei is pro-Kremlin and why they try to appeal to these groups as well.

Nazism is totalitarian, and so is things like Stalinism or Marxism–Leninism. It's still totalitarian whether it's on the right of left spectrum, this is evident in right and left groups in Europe, it's not always just because they're leftist that they are better, it's a very juvenile view.

Antifa groups in Europe are decentralised, there is no common identity, no common name for each group, each country varies and it varies within the regions of the countries too. Its views vary, some may be a great fit, some may just be a bunch of stalinist fuckers. It's not all the same.

Great post. I think it really brings the picture into perspective. The WaPo article is more about the literally definition of what the ideal is but not the literal translation and your post pretty much highlights ideals when there is no structure behind them.

 

[Wrestlemania]

The channels are shit, but those videos are uncommented clips from the G20 riot.

Riots and protests at the G20 were organised by many different groups. Where is the evidence that the people in those videos are Antifa other than the title of the video?

 

[sphagnum]

I certainly don't think of myself as a liberal. But growing up in America I was taught that people should have wide-ranging freedom of speech. That goes for civil rights marchers as well as for Nazis. The point is that it goes for everyone. The Skokie incident was brought up as a demonstration of free speech principles in the face of obviously abhorrent ideas.

If you mean that you identify as conservative, I meant classical liberal. I tend to default to socialist usage of political terms, which makes things tricky.

 

[Two Words]

Wait, antifa stands for "anti-fascist"?



Ahahahahahahhahahahaha

 

[CHEEZMO™]

 

[JeTmAn81]

People who fight fascists without any kind of violence (unless of course in direct self-defense and according to the principle of proportionality) are just so much more worthy of admiration.They're always heroes whereas people who fight fascists with violence not rarely are just angry young men who see a chance to vent off against at least one of the things that makes them angry about this world.

Isn't there a time for violence, and a time for demonstration? If the fascists are attempting violent overthrow of your continent, you kill every one of them. If they're attempting to take control of your government, you vote them out or bring a revolution. If they're carrying banners and shouting slogans, you show up in greater numbers and shout louder.

 

[chadtwo]

I don’t really get what your issue is. It literally isn’t an excuse. I’m explaining why the context means people are foolish to use it as an example to discredit the counter protestors. That doesn’t excuse what the person did and was rightfully arrested for.
I’ll quote it again the next time someone says “B-b-b-but they attacked a reporter!”

It is, though. You're trying to lessen the severity of what someone did by citing exculpatory factors. What would you call that in any other scenario?

 

[Wrestlemania]

Here's the thing though - you can't say "violence is good and necessary" and then absolve yourself of the negative impact of violence.

If you start throwing punches, and throwing punches becomes part of your toolbox, sometimes the wrong people are going to get punched. That's a fact you have to accept. Can't give credit to antifa for all of the good shit that happened - protecting people and fighting Nazis - then deny their connection to the bad shit - assaults on innocent people.

Sure. But I’m not going to accept people using a tiny number of incidents such as this, removed from any important context such as the exceptional circumstances these occurred in, to discredit the entire group.

 

[Waikis]

Wait, antifa stands for "anti-fascist"?



Ahahahahahahhahahahaha

You are laughing because..?

 

[blackflag]

Out of curiosity how many of those standing up for antifa here also supported the Iraq war?

The one where America and the US deposed an actual fascist.

Well I fought in it whether I supported it or not...and that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Wrestlemania]

It is, though. You're trying to lessen the severity of what someone did by citing exculpatory factors. What would you call that in any other scenario?

I’m lessening the severity in which it should be considered when discussing the actions of the larger group, not the incident itself.

 

[KHarvey16]

I’m lessening the severity in which it should be considered when discussing the actions of the larger group, not the incident itself.

I think the argument though is that these incidents are a direct and predictable consequence of the strategy being employed.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

Isn't there a time for violence, and a time for demonstration? If the fascists are attempting violent overthrow of your continent, you kill every one of them. If they're attempting to take control of your government, you vote them out or bring a revolution. If they're carrying banners and shouting slogans, you show up in greater numbers and shout louder.

I believe in the state monopoly of legitimate force´(and self-defense according to international law, direct and proportional).
If my state only has right-wing asshole police, I emigrate somewhere else.

Edit: The RAF was basically an Antifa group and they certainly weren't the good guys.

 

[chadtwo]

I’m lessening the severity in which it should be considered when discussing the actions of the larger group, not the incident itself.

"it's reasonable to expect tensions to be sufficiently high that someone might react badly to seeing someone filming while people are injured or possibly dead. They weren't going out of their way to find journalists to attack in a normal circumstance."

This sounds remarkably like you were focusing on those going after the journalists, not the protesters as a whole.

 

[FiggyCal]

After seeing the white nationalists rally, I say good. I don't care if they get hurt or their property gets damaged, wtf? They have an evil ideology.

 

[jph139]

Sure. But I’m not going to accept people using a tiny number of incidents such as, removed from any important context such as the exceptional circumstances these occurred in, to discredit the entire group.

This isn't an isolated incident, though. Look at any antifa protest. Look at any black bloc. These things almost inevitably get out of hand and result in innocent people getting hurt.

In Charlottesville you can make the argument that this is acceptable - that if antifa weren't there, more innocent people would have been hurt. And that the overflow of violence is an unfortunate consequence, but ultimately the good outweighs the bad. That's fine. Do that. I'd probably even agree with you.

But if you're pro-violence you have to own it. Good and bad. That's a consequence you know going in.

 

[StAidan]

correct

Yeah, the prevailing attitude here is a descent into madness. I realize freedom of speech is out of fashion these days, but unfortunately the necessary consequence is that violence is the only remaining option when it comes to resolving differences. And since disagreement is an inevitability of living in a society, the violence will never end.

 

[Two Words]

You are laughing because..?

Because I was always seeing racists use that term as if it was a slant against those against them.

 

[JustenP88]

For every anecdote of a journalist being punched there's several reports of "antifa" members stepping in between Nazis and people who felt threatened by Nazis.

We're kinda past the point where negative consequences can be avoided. We're rapidly reaching the point where "Jim got punched at the rally today" isn't going to register as news.

 

[Kinyou]

Riots and protests at the G20 were organised by many different groups. Where is the evidence that the people in those videos are Antifa other than the title of the video?

Do you think the people who did this would not identify themselves as antifa?

 

[Wrestlemania]

I think the argument though is that these incidents are a direct and predictable consequence of the strategy being employed.

I mean, if it turned out that the acceptance of violence as a way to defeat fascism results in countless numbers of innocent people being attacked by anti-fascists then sure, we should really examine whether we should disavow any use of violence.

As it stands the examples given are a tiny number which occurred in fairly extreme circumstances where some shit people on the right side reacted poorly, and there’s little to suggest that the overarching tactics of Antifa led to them.

 

[KHarvey16]

For every anecdote of a journalist being punched there's several reports of "antifa" members stepping in between Nazis and people who felt threatened by Nazis.

We're kinda past the point where negative consequences can be avoided. We're rapidly reaching the point where "Jim got punched at the rally today" isn't going to register as news.

Is the argument that additional violence will slow this progression or embrace it?

 

[FiggyCal]

Because I was always seeing racists use that term as if it was a slant against those against them.

Like this guy?

 

[Psychoward]

The channels are shit, but those videos are uncommented clips from the G20 riot.

I'm sorry I don't take anything from those channels at face value and you shouldn't either. If you have evidence from credible sources pointing out antifa violence at g20 I'd be willing to take it in to account. But again I think it's been covered in this thread already that the European and American branches differ.

 

[KHarvey16]

I mean, if it turned out that the acceptance of violence as a way to defeat fascism results in countless numbers of innocent people being attacked by anti-fascists then sure, we should really examine whether we should disavow any use of violence.

As it stands the examples given are a tiny number which occurred in fairly extreme circumstances where some shit people on the right side reacted poorly, and there’s little to suggest that the overarching tactics of Antifa led to them.

I don't believe the word "countless" was ever used or implied.

Luckily these incidents remain exceptions because, by and large, violence isn't a socially or culturally accepted strategy to address the issue.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Do you think the people who did this would themselves not antifa?

In the way that almost anyone in the world would consider themselves anti fascism, I suppose. Is there evidence they consider themselves to be actual Antifa and were rioting as a way of demonstrating their opposition to fascism?

 

[JustenP88]

Is the argument that additional violence will slow this progression or embrace it?

Eh, I dunno. I'm of the opinion that the fringe on the right wants to be violent. That the black dude who got ganged up on in the parking garage got beat up because Nazis wanted to beat up minorities, not because antifa made them mad/scared. I don't think the car murder man did what he did because of antifa, I think he did what he did because he's a Nazi terrorist.

Basically, I'd rather have someone there willing to fight because I think it's pretty clear we're going to get violence regardless and I think it's insanely foolish to just assume the police are going to handle it. If they can beat some fear into the alt-right manchildren, then maybe some of them will come to the conclusion that they're better off sticking to 4chan and we'll be back to only Nazis that can't hide their Nazi in public. The thought of clandestine Nazis terrifies me.

 

[Social]

I'm so done with everything and everyone needing a label.

 

[KHarvey16]

Eh, I dunno. I'm of the opinion that the fringe on the right wants to be violent. That The black dude who got ganged up on in the parking garage got beat up because Nazis wanted to beat up minorities, not because antifa made them mad/scared. I don't think the car murder man did what he did because of antifa, I think he did what he did because he's a Nazi terrorist.

Basically, I'd rather have someone there willing to fight because I think it's pretty clear we're going to get violence regardless and I think it's insanely foolish to just assume the police are going to handle it. If they can beat some fear into the alt-right manchildren, then maybe some of them will come to the conclusion that they're better off sticking to 4chan and we'll be back to only Nazis that can't hide their Nazi in public. The thought of clandestine Nazis terrifies me.

I don't think anyone argues against violence used in immediate self defense. If someone is being beaten by all means fight them off.

Does the violence from these bigots dissuade you or anyone on this side of the issue? I'd say the opposite. Why would it dissuade them? Why wouldn't they also feel more motivated, like we do?

 

[.J.]

I'm so done with everything and everyone needing a label.

lol right? Fuck knowing what's in the package. Everything is the same! Labels are for tools! I'm with you. Most of the problems we have in this country are a direct result of having language to outline and define concepts, activities, objects, political leanings, or anything else.

Down with labels!

Up with meaninglessness!

 

[TTOOLL]

I think you dont know the communist history and Groups. Who makes part of antifa is usualy, anarchists, trotskists, anarcho comunists. Historicaly and to these Days trotskists and stalinists dont get along to well. There's trotskists Groups and stalinists groups, they have different international groups. Trotskists are bigger today i think after krushev.

Its a little big of a history. Stalin Won the election, Trotsky made oposition. Stalin exilated Trotsky on Mexico. Trotsky continued to makes oposition, Stalin was not satisfied then he killed Trotsky with an Ice pick on Mexico.

So to say that all comunists like Stalin is an ideological and historical mistake.

I know history too, man. Communists are as bad as Nazis, both regimes are SHIT, they killed millions of people. I really don't know why one of the gets a pass.

 

[squallheart]

The problem is that because the group is not centralized and they have no overarching organization, it causes problems as certain groups use the antifa movement to represent their own ideals. Here in Philly recently there's been a problem with professed antifa members who hold anarcho-capitalist beliefs going through working class neighborhoods and vandalizing cars, homes, and businesses.

Generally I renounce violence when it comes to protest movements, though I'm fine with defending yourself and others directly from attacks. But when people carry antifa banners and vandalize neighborhoods and act violently it's pretty ridiculous, especially in an extremely liberal city where a large majority of residents are minorities, not white supremacists.

This. It's a slippery slope which is why I don't care for them.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I don't believe that violence is an acceptable response to peaceful demonstrations of speech, no matter what the contents of that speech may be (this is assuming it's speech that falls within legal limits). What does that say about me?

Hate speech is violence. If you find it acceptable, there's your answer..

I'm so done with everything and everyone needing a label.

Social
Member
Today, 05:42 PM

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Hate speech is violence. If you find it acceptable, there's your answer..

This is the disconnect, right here.

For some reason, people don't think speech can be violence, including speech that is the same speech used by previously universal bad guys, Nazis.

People have been propagandized to the point where they think that literally ALL SPEECH is acceptable within the boundaries of "free speech", which isn't correct.

I should take that back. It's not just propaganda, it's also apathy. The majority of the majority population is ultimately fine with the status quo as it relates to oppressed groups. And as I keep saying, this includes "liberals", many of who are actually right leaning moderates who want to be recognized for having left leaning opinions on some social issues.