The defining characteristic of Antifa is literally opposing fascism, that’s it. There are non-violent anti-fascists, democratic anti-fascists, and yes, anarchistic and violent anti-fascists. To say they’re promoting hate when their one common characteristic is opposing the hateful, genocidal fascism that is undergoing a resurgence, seems pretty silly. In terms of those who define themselves as Antifa, if you oppose fascism and actually act against it in any way, they would also call you Antifa. I saw a bunch of self-proclaimed and vocal Antifa calling Romney Antifa after this tweet. It is purposely inclusive because everyone should be anti-fascist.
On the other hand, someone who wants to take their label and change it to mean a certain subset of Antifa to cast them all as hateful and violent, you won’t be happy with the definition I posted. Fascists are really good at taking advantage of the free speech that they will then suppress if they gain control, which is one of the ways they’ve convinced the US media to call them alt-right instead of the fascist, racist, white supremacist, neo-Confederate, or neo-Nazis that they are.
Philosophically, Antifa may be about “opposing hate.”
But when one reads about, or sees, Antifa hurling piss and excrement at people, and also encouraging stabbings, it requires a very difficult set of mental gymnastics to think, *“Well, they are throwing feces at people and encouraging stabbings, but deep down, they’re all about fighting against hate.” *A set of mental gymnastics that it is unreasonable to expect the American public at large to perform in their mind.
That is the crux of the issue. No matter how much a movement may be, philosophically, about “opposing hate,” if its outward tactics *appear *hateful, the movement will *appear *hateful.
The thing is Antifa can barely be called a coherent movement…if at all.
They have no singular website. No fundraising. No espoused political platform. Antifa is not a coherent entity in any way, shape or form. Anyone can use the term and the term is applied to anyone the right would like to smear.
Because not everyone shares the same belief. “He said X,” is a factual claim. The quote may be displayed to confirm or refute the claim.
“He implied X,” is similarly a clear assertion that you’re arguing an implication; you are going to point to words that say Y and then argue that their meaning is X.
But using “He said X,” when what you’re really claiming is “He said Y and that implies X,” is not supportable. On this very board we’ve had people claim their personal certainty in dog whistles, their confidence that “thug” is a racial slur, and we’ve seen Washington Post columnists solemnly assert their conviction that ‘writing symphonies’ unambiguously means white nationalist exclusion.
So, no chance. “He said X,” should refer to his words," and “He implied X,” should refer to what he didn’t say but what you’re confident he meant.
You are, of course, free to proceed however you wish. Just as I am free to highlight every instance in which you claim something was “said,” and point out that it wasn’t.
Hey, I wonder if Whack-a-Mole was really saying that he secretly wishes he could admit I’m right, but he’d lose so much liberal credibility that he just can’t?
That’s probably what he said.
So when I report this conversation in the future, that’s what I should say. Right? Because words mean what I want them to mean.
I’m not sure how you prove “bigoted” – he made a false and very negative statement about a large group based on their ethnic background… that seems pretty close to the simplest form of bigotry, IMO.
Funny thing about that “widely reported” part. If you read the Washington Post fact check article, they clearly interpreted his statement as meaning that illegal immigrants from Mexico commit crime at a higher (perhaps much higher) rate than US citizens. They do not interpret it to mean that all Mexicans are rapist or even that all illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists.
Now, if you are simply claiming that Trump said some, not all, Mexican immigrants were rapists, then we have no quarrel and I would just wonder why you would be upset about him making a factual statement.
Not the one you are replying at, but I pointed awhile ago that that was indeed the problem, Trump was a cad for not saying that “most” Mexicans were good.
Not at all. But verbal language is the language invoked by the word, “said.”
Trump may have used his skills at interpretive dance or watercolor to convey other messages, but those message would not be described by asserting that Trump said, “I hate CNN,” merely because this was the impression you got from his Rose Garden modern ballet.
Holy bad editing, Batman. I don’t really see much value in continuing this discussion if you’re going to ignore the rest of that post where I asked if you meant something else.
I know I participated in it briefly, but please let’s move away from the Trump statement about Mexican immigrants. Ostensibly this thread is about partisanship, demonizing opponents, equivalence of opposing parties, etc.
You might as well just close the thread, then. Or move it to IMHO. It’s impossible to debate this “in general” without discussing the particulars. Call me guilty for asking someone to “prove it”, but isn’t that what we’re supposed to do in GD? Prove things?
ETA: Oops. That was supposed to be a “report this post” reply, not a post to the thread. Sorry about that.
I think this is the thrust of the OP. I’m trying to ignore some of the other generalizations to not get bogged down in quibbles, like ‘anyone with a brain can see…’ or ‘anyone with objectivity can see’.
I think it really depends on what is meant by “the same”. Obviously people are individuals, so their actions are unique to them and in given metrics, it’s unlikely two people or two actions will be exactly the same level of badness or goodness. I think when people make the claim that both sides are the same, they are saying that both sides engage in behavior sufficiently similar to make trying to distinguish them not worth the effort. This is opposed to the idea that both sides are doing exactly the same thing. Making this type of declaration is not to say that the person making it is non-partisan either.
Because of that, I think it would be critically important to identify what is being compared and saying that they are essentially the same. If one kid steals a car, and the other commits credit card fraud, well, those are different, but both are bad enough that it would be fair to criticize both in similar ways. Your example of feeding puppies vs. stomping them to death would be a situation where saying both are the same is not consistent. When the difference is one of degree, I think it’s fair to generalize at times and say both are the same. When it is a difference in kind, then it would not be fair to generalize about both being the same.
You say that Gingrich was the start of demonizing the opposition. I would say this is a difference in degree, rather than in kind. Politicians have always demonized their opponents to some degree.