For a wide variety of reasons, I find the Antifa movement quite troubling in its own right - but it seems just about impossible to mention, and discuss, the problems with Antifa, without immediately leading to a “You’re a both-sides-do-it-er,” “you’re making a false equivalency” backlash that essentially drowns out the original discussion or statement.
This thread isn’t about fascism vs. Antifa solely, (that’s just one example), but rather, just asking - how is one supposed to bring up, “The opposition side has its own problems that should be a cause for real concern” without causing that “This is a both-sides-do-it argument” backlash?
Because ISTM that what’s happening is this: Oftentimes, one side has 100 flaws and the other side has 35 flaws. They are not *equally *flawed, but they are both flawed. But mentioning the flaws of the lesser-flawed side triggers a “false equivalency” backlash in which people think that the person is saying that both sides have 100 flaws apiece. It’s almost as if they want the person to say that one side has 100 flaws and the other side has *zero *flaws.
Not trying to start a fight, just asking a sincere question.
why do you have to compare at all? why cant someone just discuss something solely based on its own merits?
I dont know enough about “antifa” to give a pros and cons type evaluation. But, my own opinion is that any org that tries to prevent anyone from expressing their own views has lost my respect.
and, technically, they are on my “side”
I don’t know that this would succeed, but I would present the material in three stages.
Explain how sectarianism works. Albania may well be the worst place in the world, full of corrupt people, mafioso, human trafficking, etc. But factually, you and me, we’re Americans living in America. We have no control over what Albania does nor plans to do. If we want to make the world a better place, we have to focus on the people who are doing bad things in America and the systems which are bad in America, and work on making those better. Spending our time complaining about Albania is just a way to avoid having to deal with the issues that are actually in our power to change. If you’re a Republican in the South, then you’re beholden to root out and staunch the KKK, because you’re actually in a time and place where you can realistically do something about it. If you’re a Democrat in the North, then your focus is better spent on dealing with Antifa, Anarchists, Eco Terrorists, etc.
The KKK are bad. No one’s denying that. (Repeat as long as seems necessary to mollify your audience.)
Antifa is bad. Here’s why. Here’s what you could do to start convincing people to step back from the edge of that cliff, within your social circles.
The answer is: it’s all a matter of you writing whatever it is you want to write, intelligently and well, and that especially includes taking responsibility for the context you present your views within.
For example: your title (“Discussing “the other side’s” flaws without being a both-sides-do-it-er”), followed immediately by a one-sided statement of your negative reaction to ANTIFA, makes it appear that the “other side” your title refers to, is ANTIFA, and that therefore you are a Fascist supporter yourself. Hopefully, that’s just careless writing on your part.
The way to avoid the appearance that you are declaring “they did it too,” is to not say that, or say it only within the VERY specific context of refuting a claim that only one side supports violence. NEVER EVER as a reason to excuse or ignore the violent acts of “your side.”
In addition, take FULL responsibility for whatever principles you want to claim as support for your declarations. Such as, if you are going to say that ANTIFA is bad because they support the use of violence to oppose Fascism, then you MUST also clearly oppose Fascists, since they ALSO support the use of violence (as we have repeatedly seen).
The number one lame argument technique I see repeated again and again, are people who play that game, where their “principles” aren’t principles at all to them. They are just handy lofty-sounding phrases that a quick-read audience wont realize are just off-the-shelf platitudes to the speaker.
This, to me, is the crux of the problem. Because “antifa” purports to be anti-fascist, if I, or anyone, point out the problems with them or even come right out and say I am against them DOES NOT INFER THAT I AM FASCIST. And until people can get that idea into their heads, there’s really no point trying to discuss things at all.
If A is against B and if I am against (or even just critical) of A then I am with B IS NOT HOW THINGS WORK IN THE REAL WORLD!!
There is a quote - might be by H.L. Mencken - paraphrased: “There is a notion that if you are against something, you must therefore be a supporter of its opposite.”
I would say that there is always an editorial choice in what one chooses to comment on. It takes very careful framing to make sure you set the context for your comments, if you are going to offer suggestions for improvement on something that is arguably on “your side”.
By that I mean emphasizing the magnitude of your complaints about the other side, to establish where you stand, before suggesting that your side may be doing things in a way that you don’t always agree with.
Also, it is wise to avoid falling into the trap of being someone who is always badmouthing your team every time the subject is brought up, else you really do seem to be supporting the opposing side.
#1 - Don’t bring it up in the middle of a conversation about the other side.
When you do, it looks like you’re trying to deflect or to minimize or equalize the two sides. That’s a tactic of everyone who wants to normalize or justify wrongs, hold them up for comparison and show that it really isn’t that bad. Most of us has done it. Everyone recognizes it for exactly what it is.
If you really do want to have a conversation about something, create a space for that conversation (this is trivially easy on a message board). When you do create it, don’t add to the distraction by trying to contrast that thing with something else. Make it very clear that you’re just discussing ____. Not ___ as compared with something else (especially not if you believe the something else is far worse). Do not hijack some other topic’s space. You may still be hit with the accusation of false equivalency, but it is much less likely if you aren’t asking for a comparison.
Why should it make one bit of fuckall difference where I stand on any issue to debate the pros and cons of any other issue or group? Do debating society members have to declare their hatred for nazis before they debate the pros and cons of universal health care? Do movie critics need to declare where they stand on abortion before they discuss the merits of the latest transformer movie? Why should I have to prove my good standing as a liberal before I say anything bad about anything at all?
If I think that the heavy handed tactics some on the left use to shut down dissenting voices are not appropriate and actually counterproductive to the cause (and I do!) then that is ALL I am saying! I am not making any type of political declaration. I didn’t say shit about the tactics the “other side” uses, I am not endorsing anything at all. What is so hard about that concept? there are plenty of other opportunities to discuss other things. Not every thread is about everything.
This thread is explaining a lot, thanks for starting it Velocity. Its gotten to the point that I’ve just stopped having discussions and debates both online and in real life because people just seem to take the worst possible interpretation of anything you say.
Alas, it is how things appear when a debate becomes very highly polarized. I agree with you in principle, but in the context of the debate, no, you really can’t. (ETA: You can, but have to be very careful and explicit.)
“All lives matter” is a perfectly true and valid response to “Black lives matter.” But it’s a response that was used by stinkards, trying to minimize the actual point of BLM, and thus it fails to be a good response.
In the same way, yes, some of the things done with the goal of opposing fascism have been bad, but you have to take extra care to establish the context.
No one (with any brains) wants to fall into the trap of saying “They’re both bad.” That is (in context!) a defense of fascism.
As amarinth says, avoid using a discussion about how A does such-and-such to try to talk about how B does such-and-such too. 9 times out of 10 it has no direct bearing on the discussion at hand, and serves only as an obvious partisan attempt to derail the discussion.
Each of us has a finite amount of time to devote to arguing/discussing morals, political and social issues, and ‘sides’ of the political arena. Any comment about any issue ever carries the implicit footnote “I care more about this than the other things I didn’t bother to talk about.” So, in the case above, bringing up B’s actions in a discussion about A’s actions implies, even if you claim otherwise, that you think discussing B’s actions are more important.
Which may be true. But it’s important to own that. “I just thought this was more important than other things people are talking about.”
Also, keep in mind that someone(s) somewhere will yell at you no matter what you do. It’s not evidence in and of itself that you’ve done something wrong, or that the other side is incapable of rational thought.
