It’s neither theoretical or all that new new; it’s just suddenly in the public consciousness. Anti-fascist (and the shorter antifa) is a recent rebranding of one of the major players, the Anti-Racist Action network, in the four decade long violent struggle between white nationalists and violent anti-racist/fascist elements. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report was used the term antifa in [URL=“https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2013/better-way”]this article in 2013 that provides a look at some of the history. That violence hasn’t always been just at the demonstrations. Sometimes the violence is explicitly planned not just a matter of putting two worked up groups in proximity with each claiming the other started it. The opening paragraph of the article I linked two has two examples:
I explained the issue earlier in this thread (post #40).
And 67 incidents versus 14, that comes out in the (white) wash for you, too?
That post makes no sense to me. That’s why I was asking for a response to a question; to clarify the point you’re trying to make.
Let’s not forget that a significant number of so-called “Antifas” posts on social media have turned out to be right wing trolls trying to stir up their own people.
septimus’ quote was about the “dangerous” alt-right. It’s possible that he’s just referring to all members of the alt-right, whether peaceful or violent, because of their “dangerous” ideology, but given the tone of the thread, I took it as a reference to violent members of the alt-right compared to violent leftists. I don’t really know which side has more, and I suspect the ratios shift back and forth based on the time and location, but (and we should be thankful for this) it appears to me that the majority of protesters on both sides are generally peaceful. A significant fraction on both sides are violent, but even then it’s somewhat limited to less-lethal means like hitting with sticks or throwing punches. A miniscule number on each side appear to be willing to engage in really serious violence that is likely to kill, main, or critically injure.
OK, a factor of 2 can be considered “comparable”. But I think we can at least agree that the statement"The KKK in particular has a very inglorious history, but if you look at recent decades, I don’t think they (let alone other “right wing organizations”) have been committing nearly as much organized violence or intimidation as the antifa/black bloc etc." is false, right? 24 is a lot more than “not nearly as much as” 12.
If you’re aware that someone has already addressed something, the proper approach is to acknowledge that fact and point to something that you didn’t understand about that, rather than just ignoring it entirely.
I don’t know what you didn’t understand. To the question “If a Klanner shoots a black person, why do you think that is substantively different than two or more Klanners conspiring to kill the same black person?”, the response would still “The comparison is relevant because both the media and law enforcement focus on groups on an ongoing basis, while individuals become relevant only when they actually have committed some sort of crime”.
So for example, suppose you’re a law enforcement agency looking to prevent crime by investigating violent groups. You might investigate the KKK because they have a history of violence. You might investigate some group connected with an Islamic terror organization. You would not investigate some guy who commented on social media that there are too many black thugs on welfare. Even though that guy may go on to shoot a black guy one day.
So when you’re commenting on how much a concern an organization is to law enforcement, you would consider how much potential violence might emanate from that organization, not from individuals who happen to align ideologically with that organization.
When you’re thinking of antifa violence in that context, you would consider instances when similarly-minded individuals got together and were violent in an organized fashion. You would not consider whether some random left-winger might turn out to be the Unabomber.
Similar for the media. If you’re writing articles or doing features about organizations which have been involved in violence, that would be about violence committed on an organized basis. Not violence by people who happen to agree with the goals of that organization.
In this thread, the discussion has been whether the media coverage of antifa violence has been overblown by comparison with coverage of violent far-right groups. My point is the opposite - that far-right organizations have committed relatively little violence of late, although there may be any number of RW or racist individuals who have committed violence. So as organizational violence goes, the antifa is right up there.
It’s also the proper approach to make an effort to answer good-faith questions, rather than chiding someone who is trying to engage with you.
But that’s not true at all. I think you’re assuming that is the case, and I dispute that this has any relation to reality at all.
For example, see the following links about the FBI:
In the second link, the Special Agent in Charge of the Intelligence Division of the NYC office led a discussion of lone wolf terrorism. He specifically references white supremacist organizations, and even individuals who are expelled from such groups because of having too radical views(!). He isn’t dismissing solo individuals as “not my job” because they are not acting as a group – the whole point of his talk is about law enforcement adapting to terrorist threats whether they come from groups that chatter a lot, or individuals who are loosely, or not at all, related to groups, but may have ideas about things that they may not talk about all that much.
Again, this is completely contradictory to how law enforcement and intelligence agencies are approaching the issue. I can provide lots of cites about government trying to do better with terror attacks that are inspired, rather that directed, by a particular organization, very often with no direct communication between the group and the perpetrator. Can you cite what you’re suggesting here?
Seems like you have a double standard at work here. On one hand, if people take inspiration from the KKK or whatever, and carry out acts of violence, it doesn’t count in your opinion. But antifa isn’t directing members to carry out violence. Antifa, in a certain respect, is sort of like Al Qaeda-inspired groups in that there are general principles that bind the followers together, but they aren’t really an organization to issue orders and whatnot… but you suggest that antifa violence counts in this discussion.
The impact of the incidents, to me, is more important than the raw number.
He said over decades and the numbers we are talking about are for the last couple of years.
And you’d also find that the vast majority of the left have zero problems with the police busting up and arresting Black Bloc thugs.
I have seen no evidence of an “antifa” presence in my community.
I have seen swastikas, and vandalized synagogues, Confederate flags flying, and racial slurs spray painted on schools.
So I say who cares if “antifa” is real? Whether or not they exist as a real organization, they are largely irrelevant and have almost zero impact. They are a “gotcha-ya” of the right.
The argument that “antifa” is somehow an equally relevant, meaningful violent movement of the left is laughable.
Assuming that person himself is asking in good faith.
I’ve not seen the video, but based on your own summary here, it’s about people who have or had a connection to these organizations.
The point is that the earlier stats did not differentiate between people who had or didn’t have such connections. For example, someone earlier cited Dylann Roof, and I assume he would be featured prominently in any stats about deaths attributable to the “far right”, but AFAIK he was never connected in any way to the KKK or any such organization.
What antifa is doing is saying “hey let’s all go down to this RW gathering and show these fascists they can’t get away with that type of thing here”. That’s acting as a group. If some antifa guy randomly assaults a guy he encounters with a MAGA cap on, that’s something else, and more analogous to the racial attacks your stats are based on.
Ah. So when the police arrested a right-winger this week for plotting to use a large car bomb in Oklahoma City, that doesn’t matter to you. Especially as compared to, say, an animal rights whacko punching a guy, since the impact is worse.
Speaking of good faith, do you have cites for anything you’ve argued in this thread? Because you keep making these factual assertions – less right-wing violence, how police do their job, etc – and I see nothing to back up anything that you’ve posted.
Now, yes. But they used to protect them. Not anymore.
As for left vs right wing violence, i would guess that Right wing violence is “in the middle of the night” stuff, which a lot of left wing is during protests that turn violent?
That divide is more recent.
The long running eco-terror bombing (overwhelmingly fire bombing) campaign basically disappeared by 2012 after peaking at 163 incidents in 2001. That was mostly a “middle of the night” style of attack that sought to destroy property rather than cause casualties. Whether it’s got explicit lessons for the current domestic terror threats, it is an interesting case of an anti-terror campaign that succeeded. The 16 year time frame (1996 through 2011 inclusive) to reduce the threat to background noise might give some hints to the time frames that might be necessary for other threats.
I presume that we’re ignoring the fact that there was a right-wing terror attack in “recent decades” with a death toll higher than all other acts of terrorism on American soil combined?
Did you miss a “domestic” in there somewhere?
My personal thinking is that Antifa is being pumped up as the ultimate fall guy for some major false-flag operation. Oh, that’s not to say that there aren’t people sincerely acting on the espoused principles but when you’re dealing with an outfit so amorphous anything is possible. My suspicion is that the operation will occur around the time of the 2018 midterms or possibly 2020.
Sound crazy? Maybe, but it’s crazy people I’m talking about. “The question isn’t are you paranoid. The question is are you paranoid enough?”