Groups like the KKK are their own brand of horrible. I don’t see that there is anything to be gained by equating them to al Qaeda other than inviting the discussion to descend into a rat-hole where folks point out the differences.
I’m afraid this is a phantasy version of Christianity that might only exist in tiny ultra-fringe sects. Like John Mace posted, this is a not helpful post not only because its incorrect but only leads to finger pointing.
You link to Vox’s interview with Mark Bray, who’s broadly sympathetic with Antifa – curious what you thought of it? For one thing, Bray’s work on Antifa suggests that, to generalize, they don’t view violence as “their primary tactic:”
No-platforming is also accomplished through pre-emptive and non-violent means: for example, informing a music venue that the slate of bands they’re hosting this Saturday is all white power bands. Or doxxing people who are involved in fascist organizing.
I think it’s crucial to condemn and eschew political street violence for all kinds of reasons, but I also still see a whole lot of shades of gray on the ethical/moral scale between Antifa and their opponents.
I am worried that we’re going to start seeing acquittals of antifa and KKK folks.
One of the big weaknesses in the American system is non-state political violence. We rely on juries to stop that violence, and they are very unreliable in doing so when the violence has a strong political valence. And because we require unanimous verdicts, all it takes is support for political violence in the double digits to prevent convictions.
How did that play out in the 1960s? There were lots of acquittals of white supremacists in the South. Were there acquittals of leftist violence as well?
If you’re treating all “racists” as a class, yeah sure, it makes sense for antifa to be in the same class. I think at that point, this “class” includes almost everyone in the world.
As a Liberal, I have zero problems with the police arresting Black Bloc people the minute they show up armed and masked at protests. Frankly, I wish they would, because it is pretty damned obvious that they show up with the intent to commit acts of violence.
The oppression of minorities by white supremacists has resonance in the US because it happened in an institutional and organized fashion.
Lameass examples like Kaczynski or some fruitcake in Idaho 100 years ago have no more meaning than the Son of Sam murders.
This is a great set of concerns/questions. One thing to keep in mind when considering how political violence is/isn’t punished judicially is where political power lies. White supremacist violence went unpunished in places and times where white supremacists held political power. Looking to other countries as examples, left-wing violence was treated sympathetically by left-wing regimes.
Taking principled stands against political violence is The Right Thing To Do. But when weighing the relative dangers of different species of political violence, I think it’s very important to take into account relative levels of threat. That’s ultimately a subjective call, informed by political tribalism to some degree, but it can also be looked at semi-objectively. What chance does Antifa have of achieving its goals politically? How about the alt-Right? And what danger does each pose? Are they really equivalent?
It’s an open question, but I’ll point out that one side seems pretty okay with embracing murderous tyrants (Hitler) and another doesn’t (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). Feel free to argue that Che T-shirts demonstrate an equivalence: I don’t buy it.
both harbor extreme views based on their own flawed interpretation of their respective religious texts.
Seconded. Also, letting them get away with shit encourages more of this behavior.
Only because of our particular history – we’d be having a different conversation in Cuba, or Cambodia – but absolutely right.
Not exactly what John Bredin said, but this bunch is close enough…and is no phantasy…Dominion theology - Wikipedia
That said, violence in opposition to violence usually beclouds the situation and allows those in authority to take actions against those they ‘oppose’. There were street battles between Brown shirts and ‘Anti-fascists’ in 1930’s Germany, which led to a large number of people seeking ‘stability’, and so…
Frankly, having huge numbers turn out to peaceably assemble in opposition to Nazism and White Supremacy sends the same message–and indicates what the large majority could do if the Nazis/KKK want to try and start something.
IMHO as always. YMMV.
As far as I can tell, the actual “antifa” types represent a fringe of a sliver. They’re being “pumped up” by the right for the usual reasons. The ability to demonize the entire opposition, the desire for false equivalency, etc. I wonder how much of the internet presence of “antifa” groups is in fact right-wing false-flag material.
There’s been some false-flagging – for example: Is This 'Antifa Manual' Real? | Snopes.com
But the “pumping up” dynamic you refer to is much more prevalent, IMHO. Taking 99% peaceful protests and tarring them because of real but unrepresentative violent acts.
But wait! Can’t you say the same of the alt-right? They were mostly peaceful … with notable exceptions.
This is where nuance comes in, and why the OP’s position is so wrong, yet so seductive to fair-minded people.
He doesn’t compare to “Son of Sam”, but he does compare to Dylan Roof, which is exactly the kind of example you asked for. Don’t blame me if you asked the wrong question. But there are lots of other examples from “modern America”. I just picked an obvious one.
Googling the Weather Underground, Black Liberation Army, FALN, Animal Liberation Front etc. would also be revelatory.
But then we might hear complaints that those groups are not “modern” enough.
“Yeah, but what about this week?” :smack:
But the point was that no one with the Unabomber’s views (or the Weather Underground, etc.) has ever controlled a government within the US. Lots of people with Dylan Roof’s views have. That’s a relevant distinction in the context of this debate, IMO.
Yes when you cherry pick which views you want to represent each group.
A video of Antifa protesters heckling someone for simply holding up a sign that reads: “The right to openly discuss ideas must be defended.”
I thought they were already in the same category: idiots.