Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Antifa: Left Wing Militants on the Rise


msommer

Recommended Posts

On 8/15/2017 at 8:18 AM, timschochet said:

Shtick I hope? They don't just fight Nazis, they show up at conservative gatherings, they attempt to shut down free speech, and they are almost always violent. 

I tried to broach this topic in the Supremacists thread but people there had their heads deep in the sand.

ETA: The scary thing is the "What side are you on?" mentality...

Edited by DropKick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More violence from the left.....

 

Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley

An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out — sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.

Hundreds of officers tried to maintain calm in and around Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park before the 1 p.m. “No to Marxism in Berkeley” rally, putting up barricades, searching bags and confiscating sticks, masks, pepper spray and even water bottles. The goal was to head off the type of clashes that sprang from similar rallies in the city earlier this year.

But once again, counterdemonstrators frustrated efforts by police, who numbered about 400. As the crowd swelled to several times that size, officers stepped aside and allowed hundreds of people angered by the presence of the right-wing rally to climb over the barriers into the park, said Officer Jennifer Coats, a spokeswoman for Berkeley police.

The masked counterprotesters, often referred to as antifa or antifascists, significantly outnumbered the people who had come for the rally, many of whom wore red clothing indicating support for President Trump. The anarchists chased away the right-wingers, and in one case four or five pummeled a man with fists and sticks before a radio host for Reveal, Al Letson, jumped in to shield the victim. Anarchists also attacked reporters who documented their actions.

By the time the confrontations wound down in midafternoon, police had arrested 13 people, including one for assault with a deadly weapon, Coats said. Most were accused of bringing banned items into the park. Six people reported non-life-threatening injuries, Coats said, including two taken to hospitals.

In one of many incidents caught on video, police protected Joey Gibson, the leader of the conservative group Patriot Prayer, who had canceled a rally Saturday at Crissy Field in San Francisco after city leaders criticized the event plans as inciting white nationalists.

The footage shows that Gibson backed away from a mob of black-clad aggressors who swore, hit him with a stick and shouted, “Fascists go home!” Gibson leaped over a concrete barrier before being chased into the embrace of riot-gear-clad cops.

The violence in the park remains under investigation, and police asked witnesses to report all injuries and submit any videos. After past protests, videos helped police make arrests, Coats said.

Saturday had been a day of mostly peaceful antihate demonstrations across San Francisco. But Sunday was different in Berkeley.

“We’re just puzzled as to why people consider violence a valid tactic,” said Kristin Leimkuhler, 60, of Berkeley, who with a group of neighbors left the protests when they turned chaotic. “We felt disappointed and surprised by how many people were not in any way discreet about being with antifa — in fact being very bold and prepared to be violent.”

Like Leimkuhler, thousands of people who came out to oppose the right wing rally had no connection to the anarchist mob. Instead, they came to voice opposition to Trump’s policies, which many people said had buoyed white nationalists across the country.

“No Trump, no KKK, no racist USA!” crowds chanted early in the day at Civic Center Park.

Hundreds of mostly local residents converged at Berkeley’s Ohlone Park to oppose hate speech, racism and white supremacy. They carried signs reading “Berkeley stands united against hate,” “Queers against hate” and “End white supremacy.”

“It’s important for people to show up and make it unacceptable for right-wing white supremacists to spew hate and incite violence,” said Jeff Conant, 50, of Berkeley, who helped organize the antihate rally.

He praised Saturday’s “tremendous victory in San Francisco” and said Sunday was about “galvanizing a movement to oppose white supremacy and the structures that support it.”

Berkeley had denied a permit to the organizer of the anti-Marxist rally, Amber Cummings, saying her application had been late and incomplete. Cummings later asked supporters not to show up because she feared violence.

The swamping of right-wing political ideas by left-wing demonstrators has become a recurring theme in Berkeley and other California cities. The tension rose Aug. 12 when a Nazi sympathizer allegedly drove his car into a crowd in Charlottesville, Va., that had been protesting a white supremacist rally, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others. Trump blamed the violence in Charlottesville on “many sides.”

A week later, on Aug. 19, left-leaning demonstrators dwarfed a right-wing rally in Boston.

In Berkeley on Sunday, some observers derived satisfaction from watching far-left protesters beat up and chase off a young man at the rally in apparent support of Trump.

“It’s a good time,” said Tom Martell, 70, of Crockett, who stood in Civic Center Park with his girlfriend, Lisa Argento, 53.

“They’ve got to be chased out,” Argento said. “I moved to the Bay Area and pay good money to live here. I don’t want these people here. They need to leave us the f— alone.”

Argento said she has mixed feelings about ignoring members of the political right who rally to drum up support for their views.

“What are we waiting for?” she asked. “They already hold the White House. They are already dragging people away in the middle of the night.”

But others thought the actions of the masked counterprotesters were shameful.

“What hypocrites,” said Linda Fuentes Rosner, 69, a Spanish-language interpreter from Vallejo, who glared at a group in the park chanting anti-Trump slogans. “They don’t know what they’re talking about. You think it’s OK that a Trump supporter gets beat up? It’s embarrassing. The left has prevented the right from speaking. That’s not American, that despotism.”

A Republican, Fuentes Rosner came to Berkeley for a conservative meet-up that didn’t happen. Organizers told her that the small group left because it felt intimidated.

Jay Pino, 23, said he came to Berkeley from New Mexico to protest the right-wing rally, but peacefully.

“This doesn’t have to be about violence,” he said. “The aggressive people here, I get it. It’s hard to express their anger, and it’s also hard to keep it in. I’m here to try to keep the peace. No matter how bad the other side is, we have to pray for them as well.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

According to the last thread, these are the heroes.  

According to this thread, they are not - nor are everyone a violent basspole. We have agreed that the violent basspoles are as punchable as nazis here.

At least try to keep up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Trump probably does.  He and people like him benefit from a general sense of lawlessness and the breakdown of social norms.

Absolutely.  Also gives Trump some cover for his "on all sides" rhetoric.

Putin is going to be a big fan, too. Incidents like this are clearly desired in Foundations Of Geopolitics.

Edited by Bruce Dickinson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idiots. Even so, it's important to keep reiterating that we're not really a violent society, not at all compared to the 1960s or 1930s for example. 

The way people are behaving in Houston, (generously sacrificing everything to help each other) is much more representative of our society than these few scumbags. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Idiots. Even so, it's important to keep reiterating that we're not really a violent society, not at all compared to the 1960s or 1930s for example. 

The way people are behaving in Houston, (generously sacrificing everything to help each other) is much more representative of our society than these few scumbags. 

I agree. 99% of us get along.  The media chooses to follow the 1%.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2017 at 4:00 PM, TobiasFunke said:

I suspect you may be right, but I really have no idea. That's part of the reason I wanted to see if anyone had any antifa analysis from some sort of expert who was coming at them from a different angle than the one I posted.

I'm not exactly sure what you're after, but think about this for a second.  This group (whether you agree with the argument or not) allows for the "both sides" argument to exist because of their position on violence and it being absolutely acceptable and never off the table.  No positive progress will ever be made using this approach and lands them in the "#### off, we don't need your help" category for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm not exactly sure what you're after, but think about this for a second.  This group (whether you agree with the argument or not) allows for the "both sides" argument to exist because of their position on violence and it being absolutely acceptable and never off the table.  No positive progress will ever be made using this approach and lands them in the "#### off, we don't need your help" category for me.

Not sure what you mean here :whoosh:  In my post I was looking for analysis of the movement from an expert of some kind, like an academic. I posted one I'd found, but noted that it was coming from a perspective favorable for the antifa movement and wanted to read something more balanced to even it out.  Looks like the Beinart article in the Atlantic might qualify, and I'll check it out when I have time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idiots that instigate violence and property damage have been around for a while.  I remember them from my time in Berkeley and Oakland.  I may even agree with some of their politics, but the methods they use to affect change are disgraceful.  These are the people who simply want to destroy and "mess" "stuff" up.  They suck and should be punished for their illegal acts of violence and vandalism.  Those that protest peacefully are welcome to do so, regardless of their viewpoints.  The role of the police and city/state officials should be to minimize the clashes between groups.

Edited by The Z Machine
expounding
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2017 at 2:00 PM, RBM said:
On 8/16/2017 at 1:58 PM, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Yep....what we aren't allowed to protest a protest?? How unamerican

Well you're assuming you know who threw the first punch so to speak. As far as I know we don't have any info on that. 

I have to think we have plenty of info if we aren't looking for every opportunity to dismiss.  Take Charlottesville as an example.  This "peaceful" protest was SUPPOSE to be about a monument and it's removal.  During all the coverage, how many chants and/or signs did we see/hear about the monument and keeping it?  Second question is, in a "peaceful" protest is it wise to carry burning torches, nazi flags and/or other symbols of racism while chanting racial chants/slurs as you march down the road?

I think the actions were pretty clear and the gauntlet thrown down if you're willing to look at it objectively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TobiasFunke said:

Not sure what you mean here :whoosh:  In my post I was looking for analysis of the movement from an expert of some kind, like an academic. I posted one I'd found, but noted that it was coming from a perspective favorable for the antifa movement and wanted to read something more balanced to even it out.  Looks like the Beinart article in the Atlantic might qualify, and I'll check it out when I have time.

Sorry...I'll see myself out.  There's a lot out there about them, but I am WAY to lazy to research the individual authors to find the specifics you are looking for :)

I will say though, the conclusions about the group are pretty similar from one article to the next.  They are a group who has no problem with using violence.  They aren't big fans of government or capitalism and would rather deal with things on their own instead of turning to the police.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been beating up Nazis since the 30s.  It's as American as apple pie.

“We got there that evening and found several hundred people dressed in brown shirts. The stage was decorated with a swastika and pictures of Hitler. The speaker started ranting. There were only about fifteen of us, but we went into action.

We attacked them in the hall and threw some of them out the windows. There were fistfights all over the place. Most of the Nazis panicked and ran out. We chased them and beat them up, and some of them were out of action for months. Yes, it was violence. We wanted to teach them a lesson. We wanted to show them that Jews would not always sit back and accept insults.”

... “The Nazi scumbags were meeting one night on the second floor. Nat Arno and I went upstairs and threw stink bombs into the room where the creeps were. As they came out of the room, running from the horrible odor of the stink bombs and running down the steps to go into the street to escape, our boys were waiting with bats and iron bars. It was like running a gauntlet. Our boys were lined up on both sides and we started hitting, aiming for their heads or any other part of their bodies, with our bats and irons. The Nazis were screaming blue murder. This was one of the most happy moments of my life.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Terry McAuliffe has Donald Trump Syndrome: http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/08/959341-asked-denounce-antifa-gov-terry-mcauliffe-denounces-violence-many-sides/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Funny how an "anti-fascist" group acts pretty much exactly like fascists. 

Except for our lovely President, I think conservatives have done a pretty decent job of condemning and specifically calling out the racists/nationalists/violent alt-right. I hope that more of the Left does the same regarding Antifa. Just being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a good person. Stalin fought the Nazis too. Tactics do matter.

Edited by GroveDiesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

Looks like Terry McAuliffe has Donald Trump Syndrome: http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/08/959341-asked-denounce-antifa-gov-terry-mcauliffe-denounces-violence-many-sides/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Funny how an "anti-fascist" group acts pretty much exactly like fascists. 

Except for our lovely President, I think conservatives have done a pretty decent job of condemning and specifically calling out the racists/nationalists/violent alt-right. I hope that more of the Left does the same regarding Antifa. Just being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a good person. Stalin fought the Nazis too. Tactics do matter.

Of course tactics matter, but you're entirely missing the point of what is so troubling about the rise of these alt-right groups and what Trump failed to condemn. The problem is that their ideology makes it impossible for their to be "fine people" involved, not their tactics.  That's obviously not true of the various groups that people put under the Antifa umbrella.

Put it this way: there are almost certainly people who go to these rallies and affiliate themselves with one group or the other who aren't violent and would prefer that these things not turn violent, yes? If you're a non-violent anti-fascist, you can still be a good person. If you're a non-violent white supremacist, you're still garbage.

I don't understand why people continue to make this very basic mistake. As a member of a minority group frequently targeted by white supremacist nazi types it's a little unsettling, to be honest. You would hope that people would instinctively know the difference.

If you define antifa as having an ideology that revolves around violence, that would be worthy of blanket condemnation as well. But it's my understanding that there's a bunch of different groups being placed under that umbrella, so that doesn't seem fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Of course tactics matter, but you're entirely missing the point of what is so troubling about the rise of these alt-right groups and what Trump failed to condemn. The problem is that their ideology makes it impossible for their to be "fine people" involved, not their tactics.  That's obviously not true of the various groups that people put under the Antifa umbrella.

Put it this way: there are almost certainly people who go to these rallies and affiliate themselves with one group or the other who aren't violent and would prefer that these things not turn violent, yes? If you're a non-violent anti-fascist, you can still be a good person. If you're a non-violent white supremacist, you're still garbage.

I don't understand why people continue to make this very basic mistake. As a member of a minority group frequently targeted by white supremacist nazi types it's a little unsettling, to be honest. You would hope that people would instinctively know the difference.

If you define antifa as having an ideology that revolves around violence, that would be worthy of blanket condemnation as well. But it's my understanding that there's a bunch of different groups being placed under that umbrella, so that doesn't seem fair. 

The alt-right is a bunch of different groups all loosely tied together as well.

Sorry, but the bottom line is that political violence has been a core tactic of antifa for decades. They are largely socialists or anarchists, anti-capitalists and many are anti-US. They are not peaceful activists and this is very well known and documented. Anyone that affiliates themselves with them does so knowing that.

If you want to protest peacefully and uphold the values that we are built on, there is no excuse for not condemning antifa and their fascist tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Quote

If you define antifa as having an ideology that revolves around violence, that would be worthy of blanket condemnation as well. But it's my understanding that there's a bunch of different groups being placed under that umbrella, so that doesn't seem fair. 

I think some on the left ignore that antifa itself is committed to a communist\anarchist ideology even when antifa’s representation says so. People on the right see them as a threat to the constitution and American values and they seem to have support from the local governments in certain areas of the country (Berkeley, Charlottesville, San Fran). I see that as a very dangerous trend and it needs to be confronted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

The alt-right is a bunch of different groups all loosely tied together as well.

Sorry, but the bottom line is that political violence has been a core tactic of antifa for decades. They are largely socialists or anarchists, anti-capitalists and many are anti-US. They are not peaceful activists and this is very well known and documented. Anyone that affiliates themselves with them does so knowing that.

If you want to protest peacefully and uphold the values that we are built on, there is no excuse for not condemning antifa and their fascist tactics.

I would have no problem with someone saying that some alt-right types aren't that bad. I mean I would probably disagree, but their perspective wouldn't be controversial. And if there was an alt-right gathering where violence erupted that was the fault of both sides and someone blamed both sides I would have no problem with that either.  But that's not what happened.  What happened is that a bunch of Nazi types marched through the streets of Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us" and then the next morning they beat up minorities and one of them ran people over with his car and then the president said both sides were equally to blame and some of the marchers were "very fine people."  Sorry, but if your buddies light up torches and start chanting "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us" and you stick around, you're a POS.  That's simply not true about the other side- in fact I've asked repeatedly for evidence of counter-protestors (some of whom would probably call themselves antifa) inciting violence in Charlottesville and haven't gotten a single reply.

As for the bolded, I don't agree. There's no official organization or "core value" beyond opposing fascism. Your second sentence, which uses four words to describe them none of which are actually pro-violence positions and two of which aren't even remotely troubling, is pretty telling. 

Yes, many of them are too violent or destructive in pursuit of those aims, and that sucks. Those people should be condemned. But this nonsensical "whataboutism" has to stop.  Falsely comparing antifa to actual Nazis is inexcusable, and running around trying to play "gotcha" with politicians who don't say the right things about antifa is silly. If one of them refuses to condemn the violent tactics, you've got a fair point.  But McAuliffe didn't do that.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TobiasFunke said:

If you define antifa as having an ideology that revolves around violence, that would be worthy of blanket condemnation as well. But it's my understanding that there's a bunch of different groups being placed under that umbrella, so that doesn't seem fair. 

At it's core, Antifa is "any means necessary, including violence".  If one isn't ok with violence, they shouldn't be placed under the umbrella of Antifa.  So it sounds like you have it backwards sort of.  It is absolutely legit to blanket condemn Antifa.  IMO.  Because there are other groups being falsely lumped in with them shouldn't prevent that blanket condemnation.

Education is key here.  There might be non-violent groups associating themselves with Antifa (for what reasons I have no idea).  When they are lumped in with Antifa, hopefully it's a red flag to them that they need to understand what they are REALLY associating themselves with and/or they need to make clear that they are NOT part of that group and do their best to disassociate with the group.

My :2cents: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

At it's core, Antifa is "any means necessary, including violence".  If one isn't ok with violence, they shouldn't be placed under the umbrella of Antifa.  So it sounds like you have it backwards sort of.  It is absolutely legit to blanket condemn Antifa.  IMO.  Because there are other groups being falsely lumped in with them shouldn't prevent that blanket condemnation.

Education is key here.  There might be non-violent groups associating themselves with Antifa (for what reasons I have no idea).  When they are lumped in with Antifa, hopefully it's a red flag to them that they need to understand what they are REALLY associating themselves with and/or they need to make clear that they are NOT part of that group and do their best to disassociate with the group.

My :2cents: 

Can you provide a link backing up your claims about Antifa?  Because it's my understanding that there's no centralized "Antifa" to provide such a message.  Nor is there an organization for non-violent groups to associate or not associate themselves with.  The labels are mostly created by observers, as far as I can tell. So I'd say maybe you kind of have it backwards- we shouldn't be painting every counter-protestor who opposes fascism with the broad brush of the subset of them that are prone to violence.

Also, I'm totally fine with a blanket condemnation.  If you don't agree with the ideology of opposing fascism (and apparently opposing capitalism, that also seems to be fairly universal) you should condemn them. I'm certainly not a fan of anarchy and communism, and even though I don't see much evidence that initiating violence is part of their ideology I still hate that violence seems to be part of the package far too often. I just disagree with the notion that a politician who refuses to do so- but who clearly condemns violent tactics- is doing something akin to what Trump did in response to the white supremacists in Charlottesville. That's what Grove and the article he linked were attempting to do, and that's totally unfair and IMO kinda undermines the awfulness of white supremacists and Trump's response to Charlottesville by trying to devolve it into the usual bothsidesism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I don't see much evidence that initiating violence is part of their ideology

It is very much part of their ideology. What happened in Berkeley this Sunday is a great example of how they use violence to achieve their goals with the support of the local government. Reports beat up for filming them, no fascists present and the violence didn't start till antifa showed up with weapons and masks and the police left.

Reporter tells his story

Antifa beating up Trump supporters Berkeley 8/20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Can you provide a link backing up your claims about Antifa?  Because it's my understanding that there's no centralized "Antifa" to provide such a message.  Nor is there an organization for non-violent groups to associate or not associate themselves with.  The labels are mostly created by observers, as far as I can tell. So I'd say maybe you kind of have it backwards- we shouldn't be painting every counter-protestor who opposes fascism with the broad brush of the subset of them that are prone to violence.

Also, I'm totally fine with a blanket condemnation.  If you don't agree with the ideology of opposing fascism (and apparently opposing capitalism, that also seems to be fairly universal) you should condemn them. I'm certainly not a fan of anarchy and communism, and even though I don't see much evidence that initiating violence is part of their ideology I still hate that violence seems to be part of the package far too often. I just disagree with the notion that a politician who refuses to do so- but who clearly condemns violent tactics- is doing something akin to what Trump did in response to the white supremacists in Charlottesville. That's what Grove and the article he linked were attempting to do, and that's totally unfair and IMO kinda undermines the awfulness of white supremacists and Trump's response to Charlottesville by trying to devolve it into the usual bothsidesism.

"Antifa" as we see it in the United States is a group of groups if you will.  torchantifa.org is probably one of your best shots at understanding these groups and what's on/off the table in their minds.  The violence in "Antifa" globally is well documented over many many many years.  They don't shy away from it at all.  They're happy to sink to the level of violence if the perception is that's what it takes to get what they want.  

To the bold....You know by now, or should anyway, I see no reason to compare Antifa to anyone else.  Their actions speak for themselves.  I look at them in their own silo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Question for you guys.  When is political violence necessary?  Is it ever justified?

"Over the side with the tea" would be the classic response...

Are the protesters lobbing stones at riot police in Venezuela justified?

How about the youth in Ramallah during the Intifadah?

ZANU vs Ian Smith's Rhodesia? How did that turn out?

ANC vs Apartheid?

ISIS vs Assad. Al-Nusra vs Assad. What about the Peshmerga vs Assad?

There's a ton of grey in there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GroveDiesel said:

Looks like Terry McAuliffe has Donald Trump Syndrome: http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/08/959341-asked-denounce-antifa-gov-terry-mcauliffe-denounces-violence-many-sides/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Funny how an "anti-fascist" group acts pretty much exactly like fascists. 

Except for our lovely President, I think conservatives have done a pretty decent job of condemning and specifically calling out the racists/nationalists/violent alt-right. I hope that more of the Left does the same regarding Antifa. Just being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a good person. Stalin fought the Nazis too. Tactics do matter.

I disagree.  Most conservatives here and in the media view condemning the white nationalists as a box-checking exercise, just like Trump.  Once they have said they condemn them they are off the hook and and can start redirecting blame to Antifa and BLM.  When a white nationalist terrorist drives through a crowd of pedestrians please save your Antifa condemnation for another time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, schaef2k said:

This is post for talking about antifa correct? Seems like the appropriate place to me.

I'm not talking specifically about posting in this thread.  Have you not seen a spike in conservatives talking about Antifa since Charlottesville?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I'm not talking specifically about posting in this thread.  Have you not seen a spike in conservatives talking about Antifa since Charlottesville?

Of course because that brought attention to antifa also when most people hadn’t even heard of them. So naturally now that more people are aware of them they’re talking about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, schaef2k said:

Of course because that brought attention to antifa also when most people hadn’t even heard of them. So naturally now that more people are aware of them they’re talking about them.

Explain why Nazis and the KKK marching with torches and driving a car over pedestrians would bring attention to Antifa?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Explain why Nazis and the KKK marching with torches and driving a car over pedestrians would bring attention to Antifa?

Because they were fighting with the kkk and nazis on the major news channels? Not sure where this is going........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, schaef2k said:

Because they were fighting with the kkk and nazis on the major news channels? Not sure where this is going........

I've asked for evidence of Antifa initiating violence in Charlottesville several times and haven't gotten any replies. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, and even if it does that doesn't change the basic point about bothsidesism.  But first things first- can you give me any evidence? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I've asked for evidence of Antifa initiating violence in Charlottesville several times and haven't gotten any replies. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, and even if it does that doesn't change the basic point about bothsidesism.  But first things first- can you give me any evidence? 

I’m not talking about who started what in Charlottesville. I stated they were fighting with the kkk and I don’t think there is any dispute about that. There is already a post about Charlottesville, this one is about antifa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, schaef2k said:

I’m not talking about who started what in Charlottesville. I stated they were fighting with the kkk and I don’t think there is any dispute about that. There is already a post about Charlottesville, this one is about antifa.

And you don't find it odd this is what drew attention and outrage to Antifa from the right?

Edited by Dickies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

If you don't agree with the ideology of opposing fascism (and apparently opposing capitalism, that also seems to be fairly universal) you should condemn them.

 

1 hour ago, Dickies said:

Once they have said they condemn them they are off the hook and and can start redirecting blame to Antifa and BLM. 

Not directing this at you two, just using parts of your posts to wonder about something.

It seems to me our culture has become obsessed with analyzing condemnations: "Was it soon enough, was it strong enough, was it unambiguous enough, has it been made frequently enough, etc."  I'm starting to think a lot of people need these condemnations, not to clarify the speaker's position on a certain event, individual or group, but to reinforce their own belief of the position they want the speaker to take, or the depth with which they should convey it.  Most politicians speak out against the things they should speak out against, but sometimes not with the passion or conviction we require to take them seriously.  We're free to reject those condemnations at face value, weigh them against the speaker's history of other words and actions, or say ,"he's right but he's still a jerk." 

Just my :2cents:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dickies said:

And you don't find it odd this is what drew attention and outrage to Antifa from the right?

For me personally, I’ve been paying attention to antifa for a year and a half now so it’s tough to answer that. Are you saying that the right is trying to point to the boogie man on the other side to excuse the violence from the kkk in Charlottesville? Are you saying that antifa is getting an undeserved reputation for violence? Are defending what they did in Berkeley on Sunday?
 

Edited by schaef2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, schaef2k said:

I’m not talking about who started what in Charlottesville. I stated they were fighting with the kkk and I don’t think there is any dispute about that. There is already a post about Charlottesville, this one is about antifa.

Right, but why are they suddenly in the news and such a prominent topic of discussion? They're not new, and their tendency to use violence is not new. IMO it's disingenuous to pretend it's about that one recent protest in Berkeley. I think it's pretty clear that they're in the news because people are trying to defend Trump's response to Charlottesville. Or, worse, to deflect some of the condemnations of the white supremacist groups because they're often associated with the far right.  Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...