Not talking about what they theoretically could be in a hypothetical space, that’s utterly inane. Talking about what real self-described antifas are and do in real life. Now, if you can come up with examples of self-described antifa groups being violent at anyone not clearly fa and clearly violent themselves, by all means, share with the class.
Same deal.
Okay. I’ll share with the class.
The journalist Andy Ngo may be an odious and obnoxious conservative with some views that are easy to hate, maybe even a right wing troll, but defining that as being a fascist and leaving him bloodied as a result of action against him? He certainly was not clearly violent himself. Or advocating violence.
Not everyone on the Right is a fascist. Not every bigot is even.
Andy Ngo is explicitly Patriot Prayer’s personal Goebbels. He produces bona fide fascist propaganda and deliberately misleading doctored clips trying to paint nazis as victims and hiding their instigating & own violent actions. He’s participated in the planning of and coordinated with their violent actions directly, doxxed people specifically in the knowledge that they’d be harassed or attacked by violent Nazi shitheads (and filmed such attacks). His “work” has even been linked with bloody AtomWaffen, an international neonazi terrorist group with bodies to their name, threatening academics & journalists.
He’s as fa as they fucking come.
Sure and the Police they assaulted? are they nazis? And the guy waving a America flag?
But even if Ngo is a friend to the far right, he is also a bona-fide journalist and he suffered a traumatic brain injury. How is that justified?
There is nothing peaceful about forming a mob and using violence to deprive others of their civil rights. Regardless of how misleading of a label the group assigns themselves.
Funny. Even the second link you give Kobal2 (from a source that proudly promotes itself as being of the radical Left) describes him as a contemptible grifter, a huckster, profiting by creating stories that “play to the bigotry of his audience”, who hangs out with some detestable people with ugly opinions, but nope, nothing in there about him directly calling for violence on people or on groups of people. The worst they claim is that his pandering to that audience works them up.
Really “fascist” does not just mean anyone of the Right whose opinions you dislike and who think are horrible people. It is not even a synonym for Islamophobic or bigoted or anti-Semitic or homophobic or … go down a list … even if many fascists are most of those.
I’m more struck by how Vox agrees that Ngo is far from a blameless victim (and strongly rejects any portrayal of antifa as as bad a the alt-Right) …
Anyway.
No, violence against those who one thinks is expressing violent rhetoric in a general non-direct manner, preemptively, is not justifiable. And violence against someone who is “as fa as they fucking come” because they are known associates of bad people and pander to them for profit without actually calling for any violence against anyone or any group themselves, is not something to defend. Fortunately from the American Left it happens rarely and is recognized as wrong when it does occur mostly. Using violence against those whose opinions are detestable unto you is in our current world much more of the American Far Right than of its Left.
He’s not a journalist. He’s a serial liar and an agitpropagandist. I realize those lines have been extensively blurred over the past decades, particularly on right wing media, but lines there are.
As for whether his catching a beating was justified (it wasn’t a “traumatic brain injury” btw, that’s just Andy being on more of his bullshit. He was discharged from hospital within the day and lying about concrete milkshakes on Fox News the day after), I’m honestly torn. Because yes, he’s not kicking the skulls in himself. And in any event, it’s terrible optics when the milkshaking would have sufficed IMO.
But he is deliberately pushing for and trying to provoke violence, deliberately mainstreaming nazi violence, manufacturing legitimacy for nazi violence, creating conspiracy theories in order to cause nazi violence, drafting up enemy lists in the full knowledge that they will be used for harassment & violence by nazis (and, to the surprise of exactly nobody, it’s exactly what happens)… At what point is the sum total of that not being complicit with the violence ?
The man is fucking dangerous, keeps doubling down on his shit and he’ll get people killed. He’s a poster boy for why hate speech laws make sense.
The comparison with Goebbels was hardly innocent. Goebbels, to the best of my knowledge, never killed a single person himself. I don’t think any of his speeches even contain any direct enjoinments for people to go out and pogrom Jews - but they did lead to many pogroms. And I’m relatively confident that, had that little shit not killed himself first, he would have gotten hanged along with his buddies or at the very least served a long prison sentence.
Links ?
There is no meaningful distinction between a “sincere fascist”, an opportunistic fascist and somebody who pretends to be a fascist at all times. And as the old joke goes, the difference between a Nazi and a Nazi sympathizer is the latter takes a bit longer to say.
Just because Ngo doesn’t directly, openly, or plain-speakly call for violence doesn’t mean he isn’t responsible for violence. He’s *very *transparently crypto. Take care not to get rhinoceros’d.
*Four officers arrived at the scene and called to van Spronsen, who they claim was also wearing satchel and carrying flares, before reporting “shots fired”. According to the statement by the Tacoma Police Department, Van Spronsen who was reported to have been carrying a rifle “attempted to ignite a large propane tank and set out buildings on fire”, and “continued throwing lit objects and firebombs at the buildings and cars”.[4][2][5] Friends of van Spronsen received farewell letters from him.[2] They describe him as an anarchist and anti-fascist.[2] The Washington Post describes von Spronsen as an anarchist who claimed to be associated with antifa.[6]
Police search warrant documents state that van Spronsen was carrying an AR-15 style rifle and was in possession of a cellphone that contained “surveillance-type” videos of the ICE detention facility when he was shot and killed.[7]
A security video now in the possession of the police is said to show van Spronsen blowing up a vehicle and throwing Molotov cocktails at buildings.[7]…In the earlier incident he had a physical altercation with a police officer during an effort to free a protester who was detained.[1] Police have alleged that van Spronsen was armed with a baton and a folding knife.[1] According to the Washington Post, van Spronsen was an anarchist who claimed to be associated with antifascists.[6]*
Agreed! This doesn’t conflict with my point, but sounds good to me.
You sound more and more like Trump here on both counts.
And so we descend.
I haven’t read whole thread but it has indeed veered off IMO at least in two ways:
-argue about ‘hate speech’ as if it’s just applies to (direct) calls for people’s deaths, but in reality ‘hate speech’ is defined much more broadly in everyday non-legal use, in the US. Therefore a proposal for a ‘hate speech’ law in the US is reasonably interpreted as applying to all those other cases and not just differently defining the current boundary line on directly calling for killing or violence, which can also be illegal in the US now, depending the specifics.
-taking the convenient comparison of the otherwise relatively similar US and Canadian societies and making it all about comparing those two countries’ legal approaches to ‘hate speech’. But proponents of a US ‘hate speech’ law would not necessarily match it to what’s done practically in Canada, or elsewhere in the democratic West with ‘hate speech’ laws, which can also differ from Canada. What exactly happens in Canada practically isn’t the main thing to focus on necessarily in a thread about proposal for US ‘hate speech’ laws.
IOW if everyone agreed that the ‘problem’ was just US-legal ‘hate speech’ calling for killing but which doesn’t exceed the threshold of specificity and imminence established in US case law to justify govt intervention (prior restraint as well as punishing people), that would be one thing. But a reasonable person IMO would associate ‘let’s have a hate speech law’ with the far broader definition of ‘hate speech’ used all the time in the US.
Are you under the impression that Prohibition didn’t reduce alcohol consumption? 
Ah, yes, *that *guy. There is that guy, of course. Few things of note :
He was, in fact and indeed a member of a proper, organized antifa group… which did not take part in his plan at all, nor seemed to have had any idea of what he was planning on doing. Which is why I specified “antifa groups”, not lone nuts. More on that later. While his group did not exactly condemn his action in the press release they issued afterwards, they didn’t glorify it either nor encouraged others to follow suit - which, you know, nobody has. Mostly it read like they were shocked and sad.
while he did bring explosives and guns, he didn’t actually *hurt *anyone. Considering he was part of a shooting club, one assumes he knew which end of the gun does the ouch ; and since he had the element of surprise he would have been trivially able to shoot at ICE people if such had been his wish. He demonstrably did not, nor did he use his incendiaries at ICE goons. He destroyed property, sure - but I really don’t rate destruction of property on the level of violence against people.
Furthermore, and in stark contrast with the fa, his main goal wasn’t to harm people - he wanted to free people he saw as unjustly imprisoned. Surely, as an American, and as one of the forum’s most prominent gun rights guy to boot, you can possibly see how some action in the service of “noble” causes or against perceived tyranny and oppression could be justifiable. Liberating people from bondage seems to me like a more noble cause than refusing to pay one’s taxes, at any rate ;). To say nothing of preventing the Grand Judeo-Feministo-Muslimo-Mexican White Genocide Plot… **All **of politics is ultimately about deciding when violence is legitimate and when it is not, for what reasons and to which degree.
from what I understand, his ostensible plan was to set things on fire in the parking lot to draw out ICE agents and thus give the migrants inside a chance to book it. It wasn’t a good plan, and it was a dangerous plan even for the very people he was ostensibly trying to break out. I don’t approve, FTR, and I haven’t run across much approval of his methods in the few legit RadSoc circles I hang around either.
That being said, my own take on it (which is worth what it’s worth - it’s not like I had a beer with the guy) was that it was a case of a sad old man committing suicide-by-cop for personal reasons and trying to maybe have his death achieve or mean something besides. It’s pretty sad and head-shake worthy, but I really wouldn’t call it hate nor equate what he did in any way, shape or form with e.g. the Christchurch shooting or that fuckwit plowing his car into counter-protesters at Charlottesville. That’s absolutely the far-right narrative highlighted in DSeid’s rather good Vox article of trying to prop up false equivalences and throwing shapes in order to comparatively minimize or even legitimize fash violence.
Fuck that shit. For real.
Of further note, Trumpism is a form of fascism according not just to serious funnyman Cody Johnson but also to many academics who study fascism, living or dead. Even if Trump himself possibly doesn’t even understand himself to be the fascist leader of a fascist movement, he nevertheless stumbled onto (or, let’s be fair, was probably suggested) most of the historical greatest rhetorical hits of fascist regimes, Mussolini’s in particular. The only aspect of Eco’s Ur-Fascism Trump hasn’t really touched upon is “appeal to a distant historico-mythical golden age” ; but that’s because America doesn’t really have one of those - or, to the extent that it has one in the form of pre-Columbian civs it doesn’t exactly mesh well with white nationalism, exactly. Which hasn’t prevented him from appealing to the revival of a hazy, wholly undefined golden age instead - that’s what MAGA means of course. When you think about it, that slogan is possibly even more ur-fascistic in its utter meaninglessness than Mussolini’s callbacks to the Roman Empire as every Trumpist is thus free to define their own preferred meaning and time of “greatness” without it ever having to come into conflict with another Trumpist’s preferred representation. Not sure how it’d be defined as. Solipsistic syncretism, maybe ? 
But anyway, yes, there is that.
And while we can agree to disagree, I wouldn’t really characterize Trump’s openly half cruelty, half profit-driven concentration camps as entirely un-fashy, nor absolutely unevil. Certainly not in a “banality of evil” sense.
The automatic centrist response to that will, of course, be “but the solution is to vote him out in 8/4/3/2/1 year(s) !” … which tacitely condones his practices for the time being and does nothing whatsofuckingever to alleviate the very real, very right now suffering of those detained, separated or straight up dying in dismal conditions under sometimes violent ICE custody, for no real reason besides opportunistic and callous scapegoating. So there’s certainly a part of me that understands wanting to do a little more, a little quicker than that.
Not sure what exactly, and Naruto running at the nearest ICE facility alone clearly isn’t it… but I do live an ocean away, so my opinion is of fairly little practical consequence, ultimately.
Oh, come off your nonsense. Ngo doesn’t do any more “journalism” than James O’Keefe or Jacob Wohl do. He wouldn’t know a set of basic journalistic ethics if they bit him in the nose, and his entire business model is producing fake news. Like, really *really *fake news, as opposed to Trump’s “this isn’t laudatory ergo fake”.
For example, Ngo recently claimed protestors had thrown a hammer at a bus full of Proud Boys, illustrated his claim with a short clip depicting just that and used it as a prop to make his usual “totally unprovoked violent mob assault” BS claims.
The only problem (for Ngo) is that other people were also filming the event and conclusively proved that the hammer had been produced by a Proud Boy, which he’d used to hit people with through one of the bus’ windows. He was then relieved of his hammer, which was dynamically returned at the bus as it drove away some time later.
There is no way Ngo didn’t know all that. But he chose to not only omit the whole “oh yeah we brought the hammer” part, but furthermore claim protestors had, and thus premeditated the attack. A fallacious claim predicated on a straight up lie.
That is not journalism. Journalism is and has to be rooted in facts. You can present facts along with opinions, even bias and spin and that’s still journalism. When you’re knowingly presenting false or deliberately misleading facts to begin with, that’s not journalism. That’s lying in service of an agenda.
:rolleyes:. Do tell me, ô wise one, what the practical difference is ? Am I less hurt by the baseball bat if the guy swinging it at my head is only *pretending *to be a nazi in front of his friends, or just really likes the aesthetic but is a really sweet and innocent boy in his heart of hearts ?
If it talks like a fascist, acts like a fascist and materially supports other fascists… it’s not a duck, I tell you what.
The problem with your “It’s violence based on their being fucking Nazis” view is that the people you guys end up attacking are so rarely actual Nazis “with all the skulls on their uniforms”. AFAIK, Steve Scalise didn’t have a single skull on his Congressional baseball uniform when he got shot by a leftist. The ICE facility that got attacked by Willem van Spronsen in Tacoma was staffed by people with a conspicuous lack of skulls on their uniforms. When Micah Xavier Johnson shot up the Dallas PD, there wasn’t a skull on a uniform in sight.
That’s what happens when you (falsely) equate Republicans, ICE officers, and police officers with “Nazis”: You get whackadoodle leftists who think they’re committing violence “based on their being fucking Nazis”, but in reality it’s just violence based on their “political beliefs” (or employer in some cases).
By most accounts it did not or at most reduced it fairly modestly, as stated, “fairly ineffective.”
I’ve read elsewhere that the sustained per capita decrease was possibly as much 30%. Admittedly it is hard to really know though as no one was reporting out the amount or potency of illegal products they were selling.
There is no reason to believe that binge drinking or alcohol dependence decreased and thousands died from toxicity associated with so called “bathtub gin”. Culturally there was if anything an increase in the appeal of drinking to excess (and a decrease of having two or three drinks a weeks).
To stay on point however - a discussion about how much Prohibition actually meaningfully decreased alcohol abuse, the harms of it (other than moral) and with what consequences, whatever you may think the data does or does not show, would be the right discussion to have, not debating whether or not alcohol is an evil. Is there evidence prohibiting hate speech (however one defines it) actually reduces hate speech, let alone hate crimes, and what would be the unintended consequences of changing our Constitution to allow for it (as seems would be required)? What are the likely unintended consequences of being the side to call for greater speech restrictions on what people we disagree strongly with can say?
Kobal2 journalism is not defined by whether or not you like his reporting or if you think he is good at his job or even does it irresponsibly. He gets published in news outlets reporting on news stories and makes money doing it. Maybe you don’t think Fox reporters count as journalists either but they are.
If you do not see a difference between someone who actively calls for violence on other people and someone who you, as self-appointed judge for a mob, conclude agrees with those people but has said nothing of the kind, then I don’t know how to proceed further. That you would even consider that violence against someone might be justified because of what you believe they believe is depressing.
We are explicitly talking about “you” swinging the bat … because someone has friends who you think of as fascist. I think the functional fascist here is as much those who would do that, even if they are not Right wing.
Not antifa, not claiming to be antifa.
Addressed (and condemned) upthread.
Not antifa, not claiming to be antifa, not even a leftist FFS.
Good thing I’m not doing that in any way, shape or form, then. I’m calling the Proud Boys violent nazis. I’m calling AtomWaffen violent nazis. Because that’s what they are.
But as always, thanks for your on point and meaningful contribution, my dude. Not sure about the rest of the board, but I for one appreciate your dutiful reminder that it’s not helpful to make overly sweeping generalizations and false equivalences. You know, like *leftists *do.
I applaud you trying to correct this, but that’s exactly how “fascist” gets used by leftists on a regular basis.
You condemned it somewhere?
I saw you say this:
“I really don’t rate destruction of property on the level of violence against people.”
and
“his main goal wasn’t to harm people - he wanted to free people he saw as unjustly imprisoned.”
I guess you expressed some mild disapproval here: “I don’t approve, FTR”. Is that what you meant by “condemned”?