Are you looking for cites about how destructive conversion therapy is, how pervasive it is, or how irrelevant Antifa is?
This sentence makes zero sense. Fascism clearly has “at least a superficially appealing message”. Was Charlottesville filled with marching communists? Fascist don’t do “a fair amount of carnage” when in power?
Obviously the violence is illegal, I don’t really care. Society is free to arrest and prosecute anti members, of course, but as an antifascist tactic that’s fine.
And I’m sorry, but the violence of antifa and the violence of the far right just isn’t ethically equivalent. You’re not going to agree, but it’s not. The alt-right is fighting to exterminate people based on who they are, attempting to create an ethnostate, attempting to erase peoples existence, and it will continue until those groups are dead or so marginalized and silenced they may as well be. Antifa is fighting to prevent that, and will go back to their lives when the fascist action stops.
Yeah, this is the response I was expecting. The point is, with any ideology the boundaries are fuzzy. Yes, there are litmus tests we can use – for instance, are they advocating for an ethnostate, are they militant nationalists, etc. But my point is there is no surefire way to identify a fascist and never has been. Most of them aren’t exactly going to be eager to identify themselves for optics purposes.
There is no “standard political science definition” that can readily identify any fascist either. Political Science is by its nature a field of study about human behavior that aims to understand ideology and politics. It’s a living field and different political scientists are going to agree with different aspects of definitions, and most are going to agree those definitions are fuzzy and apply different to different times, places, and tactics. For a study of fascism, I’d recommend Robert Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism. If you want a quicker version, which even cites that book, you can watch a segment of this video (I marked the exact timestamp, the section continues for about 12 minutes), which makes the arguments better than I could.
In fact, I’ll yoink his list of signifiers
But again, this isn’t a checklist, these are the signifiers of fascism, and pretty much every modern western fascist ideology fits this, but the point is fascists go through great length to appear to not fit all of them all of them, such as tolerating the rare useful gay or black members to poorly deflect racism accusations. And again, this is why it’s important to get a good amount of intel before engaging in any anti-fascist action. You don’t want to go off half-cocked and act against just anyone, especially not if you’re planning on using violence.
I mean, tanky/authoritarian communists I’m not exactly gonna shed any tears for. But, given my avatar is a mashup of the LGBT and anarchist flags, I’m somewhere on the anarcho-communist/anarcho-syndicalist spectrum so I’m obviously not gonna more broadly agree here.
Besides, as horrible as the atrocities of Soviet Russia, of North Korea, and other far-left authoritarian regimes, and don’t get me wrong they were and are awful, the ideology of Communism on its own doesn’t contain “the mere existence of people of different races, queer people, etc is untenable” within its wheelhouse, nor any other exterminatory ideal. You could argue that Stalinism or Marxism-Leninism, in particular, contain similar viewpoints, and yes, if they were in the streets advocating for that I would absolutely be all for keeping violence on the table as a tactic against them.
Antifa was not “irrelevant” to Sean Stiles. How do you determine that a few thousand heads bashed with bike locks (and the various other incidents of antifa violence multiplied one thousand times) is a smaller social problem than gay conversion therapy?
In fact, if anybody disbelieves me about the intel thing, Hope Not Hate did a year long infiltration of the alt-right in order to determine its key members and meticulously define its ideologies, inner workings, schisms, and culture. You can see it here. Unfortunately, to get the document you need to give your email, which I understand some may be reluctant to do, but if anyone PMs me, I’ll happily send you a link to the document in my Google drive if you want to read it.
The infiltrator in question was at Charlottesville and unfortunately (but with a small twist of grim amusement) got pepper sprayed by counter-protestors. You can read the account here.
Mosier argues that “social phenomenon should only be inserted into the public discourse to the degree in which it actually affects people”. Would you say that the problem of “the alt-right is fighting to exterminate people based on who they are, attempting to create an ethnostate, attempting to erase peoples existence” is a common one that affects lots of people? Are they ‘exterminating’ people at a rate of millions per year? Thousands? Hundreds? Tens? or something less than that?
A few idiots holding a “rally” in a park a couple times a year rates pretty low on my spectrum of ‘social phenomenon which actually affects people’.
For one, these “few idiots” have a disproportionate presence online, and participate in horrible, toxic harassment campaigns and the active marginalization of many people. The problem being especially bad on Twitter. Even if it’s only a few, I’d prefer to not let them be or embolden them in physical spaces, as it’ll certainly only embolden them online as well.
Secondly, while I don’t believe our current administration is alt-right, it’s certainly considering policies in the direction of it. It’s also using rhetoric which is far enough in the direction that makes alt-right rhetoric seem more normal.
Thirdly, these things can happen pretty fast. Hitler and Mussolini started with only a small group and achieved control within a decade.
Finally, I don’t agree with Mosier.
Besides the fact that there is NO moral equivalence, that IS important, we have tried to point out that the "antifa’ bogeyman you are trying to drum up, doesn’t exist.
You say that “a few idiots holding a rally in a park a couple times a year…”. Well those idiots actually killed someone while holding their little “rally” in Charlottesville.
Sean Stiles was hit by a craven coward wearing a mask. That was totally wrong and the person who did it should go to jail. But the fact is The far right is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of murders over the past decade (cite) while antifa is responsible for none (I think).
You know that this “antifa” menace that Fox news is using as its latest “They are as bad as us” mostly shows up in response to little "rallies. That means if the far right would quit trying to support white power movements, the problem would be even less of an issue than it already is.
One of the bigger problems, as I see it, as that your Antifa friends are absolute shit at identifying “fascists”. In Oregon a couple of weeks ago some Antifa goons cracked open the head of a Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton-supporting leftist Dem because he was carrying a “fascist symbol” at the rally. The symbol? An American flag.
The Oregonian: He brought an American flag to protest fascism in Portland. Then antifa attacked him
Misfires happen, and it’s awful and unfortunate. If the people attacking were independent actors, they’re shitheads and need to get their act together. If they were part of a local antifascist group, that group needs to get their shit together, get better intel, give their counter-protesters much clearer rules of engagement, and kick out or at least do something with the chucklefucks that did that.
But I’m not seeing how that’s really a counterargument. It’s not like state violence is any better. The police have been notorious in going off half-cocked recently, hence BLM being a thing. Hell, it’s like we didn’t get in a, y’know, war about two decades ago over catastrophically bad intel either.
No it doesn’t. Not to the vast majority of people. A few basement dwelling, toothless hillbillies isn’t all that appealing.
Communists aren’t marginalized to the same extent. You probably can get a university job as a communist. Wear a sickle and a hammer shirt and I doubt anyone raises on eyebrow. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the counter protesters had more than a few communist sympathizers in their ranks.
Of course they do. Millions dead is a fair amount of carnage by any measure.
But anyways all this irrelevance aside should a hideous ideology such as communism subject its followers to a beating?
If you want to talk about communism vs. fascism, start a thread.
The ADL report which is your actual source says this:
Do you find that tidbit of any interest?
Once violence is justified as a legitimate response to political differences it’s not going to be isolated to the original target. That’s how weaponized language works. You identify a concept that is taboo to speak about and then you punish those who do. Over time you use that label more broadly and more frequently in order to punish and suppress a greater range of ideas.
Even the identification of the tactic is taboo.
No. I’m talking about the subject of the thread which is political violence being justified.
Someone admitted to be willing to assault Nazis. I was asking if that behavior would be extended to other genocidal ideologies. That’s completely relevant.
I agree 100%. “Antifa” calls anyone they don’t like “fascist” or “Nazis” and use those labels as an excuse to initiate violence against the people they don’t like. Once someone lets the violence-against-political-opponents-is-acceptable genie out of the bottle, it’s awfully hard to put it back in again.
White supremacy is not a “political difference”.
Once again, you are saying that white supremacy is a “political difference”.
Are you now going to defend that?
So you claim. I’m not going to get pedantic.
You either are for or against assaulting people over ideology. I think it’s a huge mistake. You want to justify extra-judicial violence? Be very careful. That’s a hard thing to restrain once people start retributions. Someone gets punched. Then someone gets stabbed. Then someone gets shot. Then the bombings start.
The best thing to do is let the lunatic fringe stay the lunatic fringe instead of encouraging mob violence.
Oh, and I missed your edit. But I see the veiled attacks are starting. How predictable.
I think it would be accurate to call it an ideology, not all that unlike black nationalism or Chicano nationalism. Ideologies are fairly often the basis of “political differences”.
If you’re asking if I’m interested in defending that ideology, no, I am not. I find it, and its other ideological cousins I mentioned above, to be quite distasteful.