Support NeoGAF

[Dopus]

Needs an '/s' bud. Especially with all the centrist liberals in here.

Personally, I'm a Posadist. Nuclear war is the only way to bring about FALGSC.

I'll add the /s in here this time

 

[jtb]

what is the Antifa argument for not assassinstong Donald Trump then? or any political agent? seems to me that would be more effective politically, no?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Chomsky says antifa is a gift to the militant right.

https://twitter.com/AndrewKirell/status/898334986859798528

No source in the tweet

 

[sphagnum]

If Antifa folks were predominantly going around punching or intimidating people flying ISIS flags in public or chanting about death and Jihad to the West on US soil, would people be clutching as many pearls? I mean, do you want ISIS? Because that's how you get ISIS.

It just turns out that right now, there are more Swastikas flying freely than ISIS flags in the USA.

Of course not, but they'll gladly cheer them while they fight ISIS in Syria.

 

[Brat-Sampson]

I'm not down with either side. They're all about destroying shit and harming one another.

Entirely untrue. Group A is about harming all non-white/hetero/cis/able citizens. Group B is exclusively about harming group A.

 

[Psychoward]

what is the Antifa argument for not assassinstong Donald Trump then?

I'm not sure if this or the open fire on neo-nazis with assault rifles is the more inane hypothetical in this thread.

Think for 2 seconds,

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

I'm not down with either side. They're all about destroying shit and harming one another.

Come on.

 

[Muffin1611]

While the antifa in the scenario you quoted would naturally be morally right to slaughter Nazi scum, it may not be the time for such an action yet.

Jfc, some people just love to take it too far

 

[Dopus]

what is the Antifa argument for not assassinstong Donald Trump then? or any political agent? seems to me that would be more effective politically, no?

And just what do you think that would do to Anarchist and Communist movements? The state still has all the power. It does nothing.

 

[Undubbed]

I have an extremely hard time trusting the self identified 'antifa' people. Mostly cause they tend to spout communist/anti-captilist rhetoric. Yeah, they fight nazis that hardly means that's a group I want to throw down with. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union fought nazis too. Just because they're doing some good every once in a while doesn't mean they're an overall good group quite frankly. It's just that given communism's track record, I'm afraid the violence used will inevitably turn around on the very people they claim to fight for.

Also, I really need to comment on people saying that "Hey, antifa means ANTI-FASCIST! What's so bad about that"? I mean isn't this incredibly lazy and shallow thinking? With that, just about ANYONE can call themselves some kind of flowery name and defend their actions based on that. And please note that when people refer to antifa their talking about a very specific group of people, not just any person that just so happens to be literally anti-fascist

So, with that said, I have nothing against the counter-protesters in Charlottesville and I wouldn't identify even close to all of them as 'antifa'. It's all 100% white supremist's fault in that case. And violence against ACTUAL fascists I think is fine in my book. Trouble is, communists don't know when to stop the violence.

 

[sphagnum]

what is the Antifa argument for not assassinstong Donald Trump then? or any political agent? seems to me that would be more effective politically, no?

It's politically effective if you want to bring about a legit dictatorship with martial law being declared, sure

 

[jtb]

I'm not sure if this or the open fire on neo-nazis with assault rifles is the more inane hypothetical in this thread.

Think for 2 seconds,

It's a conversation about extralegal political violence? Or do you only prefer extralegal political violence that is pointless and ineffective? I'm confused

And just what do you think that would do to Anarchist and Communist movements? The state still has all the power. It does nothing.

Eh? Political assassinations are incredibly destabilizing!

It's politically effective if you want to bring about a legit dictatorship with martial law being declared, sure

This is an argument I can get behind.

 

[One Eyed Willy]

I'm not down with either side. They're all about destroying shit and harming one another.

Fucking this

 

[TTOOLL]

Chomsky says antifa is a gift to the militant right.

https://twitter.com/AndrewKirell/status/898334986859798528

Gaf's leftist god has spoken. Fuck that Ben Shapiro guy for saying the same thing!!!

 

[XAL]

Nazi. Would. Still. Kill. Minorities. Without. Antifa.

So the violence that Antifa uses is not constructive activism, that people should be non-violent. Essentially that their existence and presence allows for a false equivalency to exist, ie: "the alt-left is just as bad or worse".

Is that what he's saying?

 

[hwy_61]

I feel like a complete dumbass for even saying this, but we can all agree nazis are disgusting, immoral people, right? Ok. Here's the thing though, when your movement is "punch a nazi", doesn't it allow the nazi to play the victim, therefore getting people to sympathize with them, because all they're trying to do is "have a peaceful rally"?

I don't know, I'm of the belief of just ignoring the fucks and only attacking when attacked. Is that naive of me?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Here's the thing though, when your movement is "punch a nazi", doesn't it allow the nazi to play the victim, therefore getting people to sympathize with them, because all they're trying to do is "have a peaceful rally"?

Only if you're the kind of person who would sympathize with a Nazi in the first place...?

There's no such thing as a "peaceful" Nazi rally because it's a Nazi rally lol

 

[Psychoward]

Gaf's leftist god has spoken. Fuck that Ben Shapiro guy for saying the same thing!!!

lol, not sure who Gaf is but sometimes people can be wrong

I disagree with Chomsky (if that was him, it's not sourced) and it was a in a few sentence form instead of listening to shapiro ramble on about confederate statues and cite false data

It's a conversation about extralegal political violence? Or do you only prefer extralegal political violence that is pointless and ineffective? I'm confused

well at the surface punching people who are waving swastika and confederate flags or beating up black people is a lot easier and more defensible than fucking killing somebody

then there's the fact that the US's line of succession would mean that pence would be the president and now the right would have a martyr and an excuse for martial law

then there's the fact that assassinating the president would probably be pretty fucking hard

then there's the fact that you'd get the death penalty or a life in jail

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Here's a hot take: If the government cracked down on White Supremacy and Nazisim like they do radical Islam then we wouldn't need Antifa to fight them

 

[Riposte]

It seems the more predisposed to violence an ideology or group is, the more resistant it becomes to the idea of criticism. A shame, given those who wield violence are the ones who need criticism and self-doubt the most.

 

[Brat-Sampson]

I'm of the belief of just ignoring the fucks and only attacking when attacked. Is that naive of me?

It's true, the antifa concept relies on a kind of pre-emptive strike. But in the absence of MAD, and when faced with the kind of enemy you describe, and their history, and so long as the targets are accurate... it's not that unreasonable of a game plan. Like, their end goals are pretty damn explicit, y'know? It's not like the Ask Questions Later side of the equation is going to tell us anything we don't already know.

Separately, yeah, fuck Nazi sympathy. 'All I did was express an explicit White Supremacist ideology and reverence towards Adolf Hitler,and some Leftist Meanie punched me. :'(' Cry me a sewer. Try that shit in Germany and see what happens.

 

[Hierophant]

Gaf's leftist god has spoken. Fuck that Ben Shapiro guy for saying the same thing!!!

Ben Shapiro wrote for breitbart Idk why u like this guy so much

 

[Nafai1123]

Here's a hot take: If the government cracked down on White Supremacy and Nazisim like they do radical Islam then we wouldn't need Antifa to fight them

This is what I've been saying. It's not like antifa was a major issue in this country until the last few months. Most people had never heard of them until these nazis started mobilizing and becoming emboldened.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Ben Shapiro wrote for breitbart Idk why u like this guy so much

Think his referring to Chomsky as "Gaf's leftist God" tells you all you need to know

 

[HellforLeather]

If the dictionary definition is as far as you're willing to think then so be it.

and I have no argument...lol

 

[jstripes]

I have an extremely hard time trusting the self identified 'antifa' people. Mostly cause they tend to spout communist/anti-captilist rhetoric. Yeah, they fight nazis that hardly means that's a group I want to throw down with. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union fought nazis too. Just because they're doing some good every once in a while doesn't mean they're an overall good group quite frankly. It's just that given communism's track record, I'm afraid the violence used will inevitably turn around on the very people they claim to fight for.

Also, I really need to comment on people saying that "Hey, antifa means ANTI-FASCIST! What's so bad about that"? I mean isn't this incredibly lazy and shallow thinking? With that, just about ANYONE can call themselves some kind of flowery name and defend their actions based on that. And please note that when people refer to antifa their talking about a very specific group of people, not just any person that just so happens to be literally anti-fascist

The whole communist leaning of Antifa doesn't bother me that much because I know they're very unlikely to achieve that specific goal. They're a rag-tag bunch of college-aged kids and most grow out of it after a few years, and they're replaced by more wide-eyed youth who will grow out of it too.

Antifa appear when fascists appear, and then they disappear back into their campus hangouts to hand out leaflets when the day is done.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

It's politically effective if you want to bring about a legit dictatorship with martial law being declared, sure

Didn't happen the last time an American president was assassinated.

 

[Gorilla Shark]

Ben Shapiro wrote for breitbart Idk why u like this guy so much

Didn't Antifa try preventing Ben Shapiro from speaking at Berkeley? Or am I thinking of something else? I mean, Ben Shapiro isn't a Nazi, right?

 

[Raven117]

What that means in that case is that the law is currently quite incorrect and in dire need of revision, as it fails to realize the power words and speech can have and their ability to not only serve positive purposes such as to inspire or cause wonder, but the negative power they can wield as well, which includes being able to serve as tools of violence (through such ends as causing fear or lack of security and sense of safety/peace of mind regarding not just oneself, but also one's children--I've seen so many posts about people being scared to either have children or scared for their children's futures as a direct result of Charlottesville. Speak which so fundamentally violates a person's sense of safety not only for one's self but also one's children is not something I can say in anything resembling good conscience actually deserves protecting and such speech would seem to meet the definition of terrorism besides (and it's curious to me why you specifically brought up charges such as assault and battery instead of ones that violent speech very well can classify as from my understanding such as terrorism), that is to say, speech which intends to cause fear in its targets for a political motive and refusing to properly classify and recognize it as such seems incredibly dishonest, disingenuous and serves no practical purpose other than to continue to ensure the existence of such speech completely unimpeded).

To quote a post I wrote on this subject elsewhere:

I know you're just arguing the current legal perspective and not what it should or should not be, but what I don't get is why you keep trying to shift the topic to that. Even if what you say is correct (which I don't see why it should be--even if such speech can't be classified under assault, I see no reason why it shouldn't be classified as terrorism, as it's literally speech intended to cause fear for political motives, and thus deserves to lose any protections it might have as such), all that means is that is a current failing of the law which is in dire need of revision. So instead of talking about what the law currently is, why not talk about what the law can and should be and refuse to accept anything less than that? Why is it that all you seem to be interested in in these discussions is your interpretation of the law as it currently stands?

Unless, that is, you want to argue that not only is that the current legal perspectives, such such changes are, for whatever reason, impossible or unethical... at which point you're tacitly admitting that this is a legal matter that the law can't help people on (which I refuse to accept, but assuming that's so for a moment) and have to find some way of addressing their grievances outside of the law. Unless, that is, not only is the law unjust due to people being able to get away with causing harm to another with their being no legal way to deal with that, not only is it impossible to change those laws in a meaningful way, but you want to argue that the people who inflict this harm on others should be able to get away with it no legal consequences because that's how the law currently is, this shouldn't/can't be changed in any meaningful way, but also that those wronged can't even do anything about it outside the law and take it? They just have to sit there and take it, and fear for not only what that means for their own future, but also their children's, and they can't do anything about it either inside or outside of the law, and that's the best possible situation, both now and ad infinitum in the future, and there's no way for it to ever get better, beyond just hoping that this all just magically takes care of itself on its own somehow? Because I for one refuse, absolutely refuse to accept that.

If you don't dispute that this is not the best possible situation and we should indeed work to improve it and change the law and make it better, then talk about that instead of constantly referring to the law as it currently exists and fight to make it better instead of trying to beat down discussion by just focusing on the current laws. If, on the other hand, you do in fact dispute that, even after all of the above and, although recognizing the current situation is in no way good, still feel it's the best we can possibly do and refuse any alternatives (despite counter-examples existing above and beyond it all in countries such as Germany and Canada), then... I just don't know what else to say other than there's just no way that we'll ever see eye to eye and I can't fathom such a point of view that let's other people's rights be trample on in the name of "freedom" and feels that that is what is truly best. I just can't.

I want to give this post all of the credit its due. It is smart, well written and well informed. I will try and find the time to respond to it with the respect it deserves and not some half-assed answer. You raise some excellent excellent points. This is the absolute best post I've read on NeoGaf in quite sometime.

I want to try and at least address this line, because I think it is an unfair characterization.

at the people who inflict this harm on others should be able to get away with it no legal consequences because that's how the law currently is

Absolutely not. There can and should be many consequences to anyone who speaks hate. (Do note that the First Amendment does not protect True Threats and some of the things you are describing do fall into that category and are thus not protected.)

CONSEQUENCES of speech, is decidedly different from the right to say it all. I truly, truly believe that the government cannot (except under exceedingly limited circumstances like true threats) be given one iota of power to determine what speech is and is not allowed purly on its face. Especially now. There are other avenues of law to take to hold these people accountable for their speech...

Once you brand Nazis speech as banned, what's next? BLM? ANTIFA? Anyone in power who doesn't like their opponents? Hate speech. Banned. Not allowed. Republicans would effing have LOVED to have banned Occupy, ANTIFA, BLM, name it. What you are proposing allows to game the system and we will be less free.

I don't trust authority at all. I dont' trust the government due to their susceptibility to change. I don't want to give them any...any more power than they already have. It will end in abuse and whatever comforts some folks may enjoy by banning one type of speech, could be changed in the next...or limited in the next...and there will still be suffering, but now without the ability to speak.

 

[Psychoward]

Didn't happen the last time an American president was assassinated.

the modern gop wasn't in power when jfk was assassinated

and fwiw I don't think it would turn in to a dictatorship but it wouldn't be pleasant either

 

[hwy_61]

Didn't Antifa try preventing Ben Shapiro from speaking at Berkeley? Or am I thinking of something else? I mean, Ben Shapiro isn't a Nazi, right?

Lol no, Shapiro isn't a nazi.

 

[Psychoward]

Didn't Antifa try preventing Ben Shapiro from speaking at Berkeley? Or am I thinking of something else? I mean, Ben Shapiro isn't a Nazi, right?

You're thinking of someone else but "not a Nazi" isn't a very high bar to be crossing. He's still a piece of shit who despite being Jewish wrote for what might as well be a neo-nazi website.

 

[Ozigizo]

Once you brand Nazis speech as banned, what's next? BLM? ANTIFA? Anyone in power who doesn't like their opponents? Hate speech. Banned. Not allowed. Republicans would effing have LOVED to have banned Occupy, ANTIFA, BLM, name it. What you are proposing allows to game the system and we will be less free.

There's 0 evidence of this slippery slope, and frankly, everyone is sick of this fallacy.

 

[Hierophant]

Didn't Antifa try preventing Ben Shapiro from speaking at Berkeley? Or am I thinking of something else? I mean, Ben Shapiro isn't a Nazi, right?

Ben Shapiro cut his chops with Breitbart writing about Black crime and then moved to his new garbage can "the daily wire" to continue writing about black crime, he may not be a nazi but he still is a piece of shit

 

[jtb]

Lol no, Shapiro isn't a nazi.

He's a despicable person. Distinction without a difference.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Once you brand Nazis speech as banned, what's next? BLM? ANTIFA? Anyone in power who doesn't like their opponents? Hate speech. Banned. Not allowed. Republicans would effing have LOVED to have banned Occupy, ANTIFA, BLM, name it. What you are proposing allows to game the system and we will be less free.

*Looks over at Europe*

I don't find your argument persuasive.

 

[The Main Event]

Didn't Antifa try preventing Ben Shapiro from speaking at Berkeley? Or am I thinking of something else? I mean, Ben Shapiro isn't a Nazi, right?

Ben Shapiro's jewish.

You probably had Milo Yiannopoulos in mind.

 

[Raven117]

There's 0 evidence of this slippery slope, and frankly, everyone is sick of this fallacy.

I don't care whether you are sick of it or not. Its not a fallacy. Anyone who trusts the government enough with the power to deem what they think hate speech is a fool.

 

[MUnited83]

Gaf's leftist god has spoken. Fuck that Ben Shapiro guy for saying the same thing!!!

Most people won't agree with Chomsky on this either so way to just make random bullshit as you usually do.

Fuck Ben Shapiro for being a piece of shit with no good arguments, yes.

Why the fuck do you keep on bringing up fucktards that are dumb motherfuckers that cannot make a solid point in 45 minutes? Why the fuck can't you make your own arguments?

 

[Raven117]

*Looks over at Europe*

I don't find your argument persuasive.

Good thing you dont' have to. The law isn't going to change on this unless by Constitutional amendment.

This was EXACTLY the point of what it was written and the case law is what it is.

 

[TTOOLL]

Didn't Antifa try preventing Ben Shapiro from speaking at Berkeley? Or am I thinking of something else? I mean, Ben Shapiro isn't a Nazi, right?

He's a Jew. Antifa is not anti Nazi only, they are an extreme left group, they are communists and socialists. They attack and shut down anybody who thinks different from them. They are as intolerant as your next door nazi. See the reaction to Ben's video I posted here, pure bigotry.

 

[Ozigizo]

I don't care whether you are sick of it or not. Its not a fallacy. Anyone who trusts the government enough with the power to deem what they think hate speech is a fool.

Ok buddy.

I think you need to provide evidence and not hypotheticals.

 

[sir_kevith]

There's 0 evidence of this slippery slope, and frankly, everyone is sick of this fallacy.

It's so ridiculous.

People really just want to defend Nazi's. A pride rally isn't the same as a fuckin Nazi rally. Who the hell is gonna ban a peaceful protest because of violent Nazi rallies?

 

[Hierophant]

He's a Jew. Antifa is not anti Nazi only, they are an extreme left group, they are communists and socialists. They attack and shut down anybody who thinks different from them. They are as intolerant as your next door nazi. See the reaction to Ben's video I posted here, pure bigotry.

Did I become an anti-semite for attacking Ben Shapiro lmao what the fuck is this argument

I didn't even know he was Jewish I just knew he was a shit bag lol

 

[SummitAve]

I think antifa is why BLM is so disliked in my state. They kept showing up in all black with their faces covered with the intent to turn peaceful protests violent or to escalate the tensions between two protesting groups. Every single time it ended up with one side being heavily generalized because of antifa actions. I really can't support that even if we share enemies.

 

[Raven117]

Ok buddy.

I think you need to provide evidence and not hypotheticals.

I think you need to read the Constitution and then look at every totalitarian state including Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Then comeback here and tell me you want the government involved at all with speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union

https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007677

 

[Ozigizo]

I think you need to read the Constitution and then look at every totalitarian state including Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Then comeback here and tell me you want the government involved at all with speech.

No, I don't. Do you have any evidence of this slippery slope?

Lol at those links.

Europe currently has these restrictions in place, and I don't see a dictatorship forming, do you?

 

[Hierophant]

I think antifa is why BLM is so disliked in my state. They kept showing up in all black with their faces covered with the intent to turn peaceful protests violent or to escalate the tensions between two protesting groups. Every single time it ended up with one side being heavily generalized because of antifa actions. I really can't support that even if we share enemies.

BLM is disliked because people are scared of seeing a large amount of black people standing up for themselves and their communities

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Anyone who trusts the government enough with the power to deem what they think hate speech is a fool.

Thankfully Antifa are almost exclusively Libertarian Socialists of one form or another (sans influx of liberals in the US post-Trump), so they don't trust the government full stop. Which is exactly why they engage in and advocate non-state direct action.

 

[Psychoward]

He's a Jew. Antifa is not anti Nazi only, they are an extreme left group, they are communists and socialists. They attack and shut down anybody who thinks different from them. They are as intolerant as your next door nazi. See the reaction to Ben's video I posted here, pure bigotry.

You don't know what a bigot is dude. Or what a nazi is seemingly if you think people protesting against Milo coming to harass people is as intolerant as people who vow to kill anyone who looks different than them or has a different religion.

And no, American antifa aren't exclusively communists or socialists, my interaction with the New Orleans branch was that they're all left-leaning to various degrees but the main purpose is to try and prevent the alt-right/white supremacy.