just so we're clear: this is why ANTIFA is a thing, this is why you oppose fascism, nazism, and white supremacy, wherever it exists, and this is why you deplatform these people, regardless of...
just so we're clear: this is why ANTIFA is a thing, this is why you oppose fascism, nazism, and white supremacy, wherever it exists, and this is why you deplatform these people, regardless of their "right" to free speech. because when you don't, they rise up and start fucking mass murdering people because the ideology of most of these people is predicated on the extermination of anybody who is non-white.
I generally agree with deplatforming nazis, alt-right, and in general anything with the potential for great social harm (incl things like antivax), but keep in mind there's many shades of...
Exemplary
I generally agree with deplatforming nazis, alt-right, and in general anything with the potential for great social harm (incl things like antivax), but keep in mind there's many shades of "deplatforming" and taking an outright stance like this is dangerous.
Cloudflare willingly hosts the content for both 4Chan and 8Chan. Why the fuck is this still happening, this site should've been deplatformed long ago.
If you're giving @Cloudflare a single penny, move to an alternative. If you work there, quit tomorrow.
I've not bothered answering on Twitter because the medium prevents nuanced discussion, but Cloudflare's neutralness is exemplary. In fact, they only time they've actually kicked someone out of their platform, it was an alt-right outlet (and tech circles were up in arms about this, including very-not-alt-right circles).
I know people at Cloudflare and all of them are fantastic people and the opposite of alt-right. And yet, there's this sentiment I see growing in some misguided people that Cloudflare is pro-all-these-things.
This isn't to mention that 4chan is obviously bigger than its crass alt-right corners and even though I think the entire website is a toxic hellpit to avoid at all costs, it's unfair for a large portion of its users to paint it in that tweet's context.
This is like asking Amazon to stop hosting Reddit because T_D is a popular subreddit. As much as I despise these movements, I do not want Cloudflare, AWS etc to start deplatforming legal shit (be it alt-right, flat earth or whatever). OTOH, YouTube and Twitter are more than welcome to do so -- Social networks are in a different position than hosting providers.
I've had to similarly defend friends at the EFF, who have themselves had to defend some pretty repugnant people. Not because they like those people, but to set clear precedent.
This is the dangerous side of the "deplatform everything" movement. It seems that regardless of political affiliation, a majority of people simply do not understand that the tactics they use against their opponents can and will be used against them too.
You're interpreting my comment as "Nazis must not be stopped", when I clearly said I'm in favor of deplatforming. However I'm also in favor of "dumb pipes", so there's layers at which I believe...
You're interpreting my comment as "Nazis must not be stopped", when I clearly said I'm in favor of deplatforming.
However I'm also in favor of "dumb pipes", so there's layers at which I believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of how much I disagree with or despise their views (unless otherwise required by law enforcement). Including but not limited to: AWS, Cloudflare, ISPs, water/electricity.
Deplatforming on social media is completely fine IMO. But I do not want certain services to start policing content themselves.
In other words, I believe it's fair to tell YouTube: "By giving Nazis access to your platform with millions of users, you're spreading Nazi propaganda". I don't believe it's fair to tell that to Cloudflare, though.
I've written about free speech on Tildes before. In that post, you'll note I very clearly am against "absolute" free speech (and I too, used to be in favour of it). But the principles of it are good, you just have to understand how to apply them.
Emphasis mine; social networks should be the ones to deplatform those open with such mindsets as they are detrimental to society as a whole, opening them opportunities to recruit more into their...
This is like asking Amazon to stop hosting Reddit because T_D is a popular subreddit. As much as I despise these movements, I do not want Cloudflare, AWS etc to start deplatforming legal shit (be it alt-right, flat earth or whatever). OTOH, YouTube and Twitter are more than welcome to do so -- Social networks are in a different position than hosting providers.
Emphasis mine; social networks should be the ones to deplatform those open with such mindsets as they are detrimental to society as a whole, opening them opportunities to recruit more into their agenda and ideologies.
I agree that hosting companies should not be the ones to police, as that opens a new precedent and can of worms.
Yup. A social network by definition is a platform that is created for its users to spread their message. Ergo social networks should take responsibility when they spread bad things, just as they...
Yup. A social network by definition is a platform that is created for its users to spread their message. Ergo social networks should take responsibility when they spread bad things, just as they do when they spread good things.
oh and just so nobody is like "BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WAS A FASCIST?": here are small screens of his manifesto here are more where he literally identifies as a fascist the markings on his weapon...
oh and just so nobody is like "BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WAS A FASCIST?":
he also posted the livestream of his attack to at minimum 4chan and 8chan (and specifically /pol/ at least with 8chan, where his post is still live), which as i'm guessing most of us know are significant hotbeds of far-right bullshit.
Agreed. I don't want to continue a "tag war" on this post (nor do I want to provoke an argument about tags where it does not belong), but it's exceedingly clear what this is and it's a massive...
Agreed. I don't want to continue a "tag war" on this post (nor do I want to provoke an argument about tags where it does not belong), but it's exceedingly clear what this is and it's a massive mistake to represent it as anything else. There's no room for interpretation, this is not even calling someone a fascist for just performing actions that align with fascist goals, this is an attack motivated by the shooter's fascist and anti-Muslim ideology.
A shooting like this is not a politically neutral action.
In addition, if you look at his manifesto (you can find it on Scribd, I'm not going to link it because I don't want to spread his message of hate), the first page has a modified sonnenrad, a...
In addition, if you look at his manifesto (you can find it on Scribd, I'm not going to link it because I don't want to spread his message of hate), the first page has a modified sonnenrad, a neo-Nazi symbol, and the manifesto specifically mentions white genocide multiple times. He also tends to capitalize the word "white" when referring to white people, and to top it all off, there's this wonderful quote on page 6:
What do you want?
We must ensure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.
And if using the 14 words doesn't mean you're a Nazi, then I don't know what does anymore. Anyone who tries to claim this man is not a white nationalist, a fascist, or a Nazi is either extremely misinformed or are themselves a Nazi attempting to downplay the severity of his beliefs. There is no other possible interpretation of these Nazi dogwhistles bullhorns. And that's just from a quick scroll through the first 6 pages, and his manifesto is 73 pages long. I'm sure there is a lot more hatred to go in there.
Edit: a very damning quote I just have to include:
Did you intend to kill police officers or other enforcers of the state?
No.The police force in New Zealand is on overall good terms with the public and, unlike in other European nations such as France, the UK, or Norway they have so far remained loyal to the people.So harming the NZ police officers was to be avoided at all costs unless the state enforcer was from an invaders background.
(I had to manually retype the quote since Scribd messes with copy/paste. Those grammar errors are present in the manifesto.)
Notice the "invaders background" part. Now, who exactly is an "invader" to him? Considering he's calling non-white immigrants invaders throughout the document, I think it's safe to say he'd only kill non-white police officers. People are going to bat on Reddit and Twitter for a man who would readily kill police officers for the crime of not being white enough. This man is a white supremacist, a fascist, a Nazi, and nobody who is informed about his views would defend him unless they themselves shared a fair amount of the same beliefs.
I know I shouldn't be surprised about idiotic hypocrisy from a fucking Nazi, but does he really not see the irony of saying that in New Zealand of all fucking places. It's one of the very few...
Notice the "invaders background" part. Now, who exactly is an "invader" to him?
I know I shouldn't be surprised about idiotic hypocrisy from a fucking Nazi, but does he really not see the irony of saying that in New Zealand of all fucking places. It's one of the very few countries I know of that does at least a somewhat better job of remembering that the white colonisers were the invaders.
I assume this is directed to the world at large. I certainly don't see anyone here trying to claim the alleged attacker is not a white nationalist, a fascist, or a Nazi.
Anyone who tries to claim this man is not a white nationalist, a fascist, or a Nazi is either extremely misinformed or are themselves a Nazi attempting to downplay the severity of his beliefs.
I assume this is directed to the world at large. I certainly don't see anyone here trying to claim the alleged attacker is not a white nationalist, a fascist, or a Nazi.
It is directed to the world at large. I'm seeing a lot of people on Twitter and Free Republic trying to downplay his beliefs. Luckily, this site doesn't seem to have any racist, fascist morons...
It is directed to the world at large. I'm seeing a lot of people on Twitter and Free Republic trying to downplay his beliefs. Luckily, this site doesn't seem to have any racist, fascist morons (yet). I figured I might as well say all this and quote his manifesto so that if anyone does stumble across people downplaying his views or actions, they would be less likely to fall for it.
Edit: clarified wording: "It is" -> "It is directed to the world at large"
I want to elaborate on my earlier comment about why deplatforming is not always good. Germany to make it a crime to run a Tor node/website - Hacker News It's taken to an extreme, but it is the...
I want to elaborate on my earlier comment about why deplatforming is not always good.
It's taken to an extreme, but it is the same mindset that leads to this. Tor hosts some really, really vile shit (Nazis are the least of tor's problems), but at least in tech circles it's uncontroversial to say that it is an extremely useful tool that should not be banned. And tor itself, by its decentralized nature, isn't an organization that can ban specific websites/services. So instead, legislators want to ban the whole thing.
What I'm saying here and in the other post is, just don't be too quick on the draw with these things. The potential in unintended consequences is real.
Its funny, the wikipedia article describes antifa like they would domestic terrorists. But I can get behind the idea. Seriously, fuck these people. This asshole livestreamed the shooting and I...
Its funny, the wikipedia article describes antifa like they would domestic terrorists. But I can get behind the idea. Seriously, fuck these people. This asshole livestreamed the shooting and I dont have to look to know that theres a bunch of evil bastards out there popping popcorn for it.
well, in a strict sense they could probably be constituted as one by the law, since antifa is often quite extrajudicial in its application of direct action and violence and so i can see why they...
Its funny, the wikipedia article describes antifa like they would domestic terrorists. But I can get behind the idea.
well, in a strict sense they could probably be constituted as one by the law, since antifa is often quite extrajudicial in its application of direct action and violence and so i can see why they would--but to treat them as one is ultimately somewhat reductionist, because the reason why antifa tends to be extrajudicial in that way is because the law itself either is incapable or actively refuses to take action for itself, and it turns out people generally aren't willing to let an actively genocidal and universally anti-democratic ideology just peacefully exist in a democratic, multiracial/multicultural/diverse society just because it plays by the rules until it gets into power.
One could say the same about religious freedom fighters, who are often referred to as "terrorists". Or religious people fighting to impose God's Law on Earth. Or even fascists, who have goals they...
Exemplary
the reason why antifa tends to be extrajudicial in that way is because the law itself either is incapable or actively refuses to take action for itself,
One could say the same about religious freedom fighters, who are often referred to as "terrorists". Or religious people fighting to impose God's Law on Earth. Or even fascists, who have goals they want to achieve. All these people are being prevented from achieving their goals by the legal system, so they all have to work extrajudicially.
And there's a reason for that. There's a reason people who want to use violence to achieve their goals are forced to work extrajudicially. It's because violence and terrorism are bad, no matter who is conducting it, and no matter what their motives are. That's why violence is illegal. A person still ends up just as dead, regardless of the motives of their killer.
Killing and violence can't be justified by saying it was done in a good cause, because all causes are good in the eyes of their followers.
Consider the following: Freddie Oversteegen. She sabotaged Nazi efforts during their occupation of the Netherlands in WW2 by disabling bridges and train tracks, went against the law by aiding...
Consider the following: Freddie Oversteegen. She sabotaged Nazi efforts during their occupation of the Netherlands in WW2 by disabling bridges and train tracks, went against the law by aiding Jewish people and smuggling them out of the country and would lure/kill German soldiers.
Was what she did right? She violated the law and was indeed a terrorist by the textbook definition of the word. Yet she also saved many lives from the German occupation and helped people escape concentration camps. I don't want to advocate violence if there are other alternatives to the system, but unfortunately reality is never as clean as we'd want. Antifa is a reactionary effort to the rise of unchecked white supremacy and unless countries start taking serious action against white supremacy we're going to see it become more and more violent.
The difference there is one between insurgency vs terrorism. Even the DoD doesn't call people who plant IEDs to destroy American military convoys and kill US servicemen "terrorists". They're...
The difference there is one between insurgency vs terrorism. Even the DoD doesn't call people who plant IEDs to destroy American military convoys and kill US servicemen "terrorists". They're insurgents; combatants in a war. Their targets are valid military targets, not civilians. They're doing what they do to inflict damage on a hostile occupying force, not to instill fear in a local populace. So no, neither the resistance movements against the Nazis in WW2 and Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists.
That's not making a moral judgement call on either of them, but there's a very stark difference between people who attack strategic and military targets in a war or insurgency, and those who target innocent people who didn't sign up to fight a war in order to instill fear.
It's not a fun fact, but it's sort of interesting and related: The differing nomenclature for that kind of activity was super-politicized in Nazi Germany, and a bit of an obsession for Himmler in...
So no, neither the resistance movements against the Nazis in WW2 and Insurgents and Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists.
It's not a fun fact, but it's sort of interesting and related: The differing nomenclature for that kind of activity was super-politicized in Nazi Germany, and a bit of an obsession for Himmler in particular. "Resisting non-soldier persons in occupied countries" were originally termed partisans, and the Nazi effort to combat them was termed partisanenkämpfung. In autumn of 1941, the Nazis began calling those efforts bandenbekämpfung, and the enemy combatants themselves "bandits", since "partisan" implies that people like Freddie Oversteegen were fighting/killing/sabotaging for a reason. In July 1942 Himmler specifically forbade use of the term "partisan".
Sort of an academic difference, since partisanenkämpfung and bandenbekämpfung both ended up targeting regular civilian populations (notably Jewish ones) as a matter of course, but it's a distinction that they were definitely aware of, having deliberately re-classified "freedom fighters" as "terrorists".
Disabling bridges and train tracks is a far cry from mass shootings or suicide bombings. Most terrorism has to involve injuring and/or killing people, or it won't inspire terror - which, after...
Disabling bridges and train tracks is a far cry from mass shootings or suicide bombings. Most terrorism has to involve injuring and/or killing people, or it won't inspire terror - which, after all, is why it's called "terrorism", instead of "vandalism" or "sabotage".
Smuggling people away from danger is kind of the opposite of terrorism.
Luring and killing soldiers is bad, but it's still not as bad as exploding a bomb in a civilian area or shooting a group of civilians.
But, yes, she did wrong by killing people, even if it was for a supposedly good cause.
Can I gently suggest maybe being a little more careful when you find yourself referring to stopping Nazis as a "supposedly good cause," especially in a thread about a fascist terror attack?
Can I gently suggest maybe being a little more careful when you find yourself referring to stopping Nazis as a "supposedly good cause," especially in a thread about a fascist terror attack?
with respect, this is at best naive and at worst actively ignorant. there is nothing stopping a fascist leader from being elected in most democracies, and in fact many fascists worked themselves...
All these people are being prevented from achieving their goals by the legal system, so they all have to work extrajudicially.
with respect, this is at best naive and at worst actively ignorant. there is nothing stopping a fascist leader from being elected in most democracies, and in fact many fascists worked themselves into power entirely legally or attempted to do so because to play extrajudicially would have been to consign themselves to oblivion.
Killing and violence can't be justified by saying it was done in a good cause, because all causes are good in the eyes of their followers.
it can. if your ideology is predicated on genocide, i have no sympathy if someone kills you and your death is a good thing because it means you cannot act to commit such atrocities. i mean no offense, but i'm categorically not going to shed tears for people whose dream of the world is the mass murder or mass subjugation of non-white people and creation of a subhuman underclass just because hurting or killing them is considered bad morally. in my view they have waived their rights to being peaceably dealt with by associating themselves or supporting an ideology which is entirely contingent on such ideas being realized. there is no such thing as peaceful fascism, or nazism, or white supremacy.
There is also nothing stopping an anti-fascist leader from being elected in most democracies and, in fact, most existing politicians across all western democracies could be considered...
there is nothing stopping a fascist leader from being elected in most democracies, and in fact many fascists worked themselves into power entirely legally or attempted to do so because to play extrajudicially would have been to consign themselves to oblivion.
There is also nothing stopping an anti-fascist leader from being elected in most democracies and, in fact, most existing politicians across all western democracies could be considered anti-fascist.
i have no sympathy if someone kills you and your death is a good thing because it means you cannot act to commit such atrocities.
So, it's bad if they want to kill you, but it's not bad if you want to kill them. I simply can't agree.
there is no such thing as peaceful fascism, or nazism, or white supremacy.
Yes, there is. But it doesn't make headlines across the world.
this is correct, but maybe you should check how the wind is blowing in most democracies. spoiler: it's not with democratically elected anti-fascists. it's with people who more closely resemble...
There is also nothing stopping an anti-fascist leader from being elected in most democracies
this is correct, but maybe you should check how the wind is blowing in most democracies. spoiler: it's not with democratically elected anti-fascists. it's with people who more closely resemble fascists.
and, in fact, most existing politicians across all western democracies could be considered anti-fascist.
hahaha, no. call me when they explicitly oppose the genocidal ideology of fascism in a meaningful legislative way and we can talk about them being "anti-fascist". outside of germany, where it is all but constitutionally illegal to run a fascist campaign or modify the constitution in the ways a fascist would need to, there are really no places where anti-fascism is the law of the land.
So, it's bad if they want to kill you, but it's not bad if you want to kill them. I simply can't agree.
that's on them for holding genocidal beliefs, i'm afraid! maybe if they don't want to open themselves to violence, they should adhere to an ideology which is not inherently genocidal and which seeks the subjugation of non-white people! you sound like one of those liberals who suggests we need to peaceably debate with fascists as if they don't want to fucking murder a large swathe of the human population because they are considered to be racially impure and socially degenerate and therefore must be culled from the gene pool.
Yes, there is. But it doesn't make headlines across the world.
no. there categorically is not, has never been, and will never be in a hundred million fucking years a "peaceful" fascist movement, a "peaceful" fascist ideology, or a "peaceful" fascist person. to argue that there is any such thing as peaceful fascism in fact reeks of such utterly disaffected white liberalism that i cannot take you seriously, because frankly to come to such a conclusion you essentially have to ignore reality. the very nature of fascism as a political ideology begets the violent crushing of opposition, the culling of racial and social inferiors, the disestablishment of liberalism itself, and the establishment of an ethnostate, none of which can by any stretch of the word be done peacefully. this is to say nothing of the genocidal aspects of fascism which are an inherent constant to it as an ideology, or of the fact that many fascist governments actively sought to create an underclass to exploit through coercion by means of violent reprisal, or the countless other facts that contribute to inherent violence in a fascist system.
You were saying that antifa people have to be violent because they can't work within the system. When I explain that they can and do work within the system, you shift the goalposts by saying that...
this is correct, but maybe you should check how the wind is blowing in most democracies.
You were saying that antifa people have to be violent because they can't work within the system. When I explain that they can and do work within the system, you shift the goalposts by saying that fascists are also getting elected. That wasn't the point. The point was why antifa people use violence, and whether that violence is justified.
that's on them for holding genocidal beliefs, i'm afraid!
But, hold on - you're here advocating violence and murder, not them. You're advocating murdering lots of people. If it's not okay for them to advocate mass murder, why is it okay for you to do the same thing? Why is violence acceptable for you but not for them? Where is this double standard coming from?
you sound like one of those liberals who suggests we need to peaceably debate with fascists
I certainly wouldn't advocate mass murder! I don't believe in meeting violence with violence. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If you're trying to take the moral high ground, you can't do that by advocating actions which you are decrying in other people. "You can't kill people because I don't like your reasons for killing people, but I can kill people because I like my reasons for killing people!"
Ok I've read through this thread and unless I missed something, I think you have been unfair in how you've framed this discussion. For starters, antifa is not an ideological movement that is...
Ok I've read through this thread and unless I missed something, I think you have been unfair in how you've framed this discussion.
For starters, antifa is not an ideological movement that is trying to impose a particular set of laws or policies like the fascists or religious fighters that you compared antifa to. Antifa is really just a collection of people representing different political philosophies that are trying to stop the spread of fascism. It's like comparing the defense to the offense and saying that both have the same goals and motivations.
Second, and this is where I really disagree with how you've framed this, antifascist does not mean 'kill the fascists' and antifascism is not centered around violence. Yes, most antifascists (like OP) believe that fascism should be stopped by any means necessary, which could eventually lead to violence if necessary, but that is a last resort, not a starting point. In your posts you've been talking about antifa as if its only act of resistence is violence. Perhaps thats unintentional or a musunderstanding on my part, but either way it's imprtant to remember that antifascist extrajudicial actions go far beyond violence, and the overwhelming majority of antifascist actions are non-violent. Arguing against violence in any circumstance is a fine point of view, but it's very disingenuous to say that antifascist are arguing for ''mass murder.''
Isn't that imposing the particular policy that "fascism is not allowed here"? Please don't mistake me: I do not in any way support or agree with fascists. However, it's disingenuous to argue that...
For starters, antifa is not an ideological movement that is trying to impose a particular set of laws or policies like the fascists or religious fighters that you compared antifa to. Antifa is really just a collection of people representing different political philosophies that are trying to stop the spread of fascism.
Isn't that imposing the particular policy that "fascism is not allowed here"?
Please don't mistake me: I do not in any way support or agree with fascists. However, it's disingenuous to argue that anti-fascist activists aren't trying to impose any laws or policies on their societies. They absolutely are trying to impose their policy, even if that policy is a negatory one like "No fascism!"
Second, and this is where I really disagree with how you've framed this, antifascist does not mean 'kill the fascists'
I don't assume that all anti-fascist activists want to slaughter all fascists. I'm responding to remarks like this, in this very thread:
antifa is often quite extrajudicial in its application of direct action and violence
if your ideology is predicated on genocide, i have no sympathy if someone kills you and your death is a good thing
in my view they have waived their rights to being peaceably dealt with
maybe if they don't want to open themselves to violence,
if it's purely about how "justified" the violence is the answer is very
unless you're going to literally oppose the state and take an anarchist position, violence is sometimes the correct answer and therefore i don't think it's exactly a stretch to extend that idea of it being the correct answer to sometimes violently opposing people who are going to commit mass murder
violence is sometimes a politically viable and potentially politically necessary option,
I'm not addressing an abstract population of hypothetical anti-fascist activists who theoretically might advocate violence as one of their many tactics. I'm discussing the issue with a real live person who is actually advocating violence as a tactic.
Not...really. That's not really something that a democratic government can realistically enforce, and even if so the collateral damage of those hypothetical policies would negatively affect so...
Isn't that imposing the particular policy that "fascism is not allowed here"?
Not...really. That's not really something that a democratic government can realistically enforce, and even if so the collateral damage of those hypothetical policies would negatively affect so many of the people who consider themselves antifascist. There might be some people who fall under the umbrella of antifa that might push for certain narrow policies, but that is a far cry from an actual coherent state-wide antifascist policy. Again, this is the defense vs offense thing. To put it another way, U.S. Republicans might be agaist universal healthcare but that doesnt mean they actually have a policy they want in place.
Please don't mistake me: I do not in any way support or agree with fascists.
Oh, that is definitely not the case! It's a small community here and you are quite active (I might not post often but I lurk all the time). The thought of you being a secret fascist is actually hilarious. Also, and this might be the decade of reddit use talking, but I hope you take my counterpoints as respectful and not angry or snide.
I don't assume that all anti-fascist activists want to slaughter all fascists. I'm responding to remarks like this, in this very thread [quotes] ... I'm not addressing an abstract population of hypothetical anti-fascist activists who theoretically might advocate violence as one of their many tactics. I'm discussing the issue with a real live person who is actually advocating violence as a tactic.
But I think this is the result of how you initially framed the discussion. OP was responding to a comment about how antifa is commonly seen as a violent, terrorist-like organization and in your initial comment you compared them to violent and terrorist organizations. From that moment, the rest of the discussion was about the use of violence in antifascist activism. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're saying antifascists like OP think violence is the best or only solution. I don't think that is fair. OP has defended the use of violence, but that doesnt mean they are in favor of murdering all the fascists.
Yes, it is. Hate speech, discrimination, and violence can all be outlawed - they are outlawed in Australia. The OP started the discussion about antifa in this article she posted about a mass...
Not...really. That's not really something that a democratic government can realistically enforce
Yes, it is. Hate speech, discrimination, and violence can all be outlawed - they are outlawed in Australia.
OP was responding to a comment about how antifa is commonly seen as a violent, terrorist-like organization and in your initial comment you compared them to violent and terrorist organizations.
The OP started the discussion about antifa in this article she posted about a mass shooting in New Zealand. She derailed her own thread. And, when she decided to try to paint antifa violence as somehow morally good, I decided to highlight the hypocrisy in approving of some violence while decrying other violence.
OP has defended the use of violence, but that doesnt mean they are in favor of murdering all the fascists.
I think you need to re-read those lines I quoted. While she is defending violence, she is also advocating it in places, such as here: "if your ideology is predicated on genocide, i have no sympathy if someone kills you and your death is a good thing".
just popping in to point out: and australia has a problem with anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, pro-white rhetoric to a point that--as in america--there are several elected politicians who have openly...
just popping in to point out:
Yes, it is. Hate speech, discrimination, and violence can all be outlawed - they are outlawed in Australia.
and australia has a problem with anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, pro-white rhetoric to a point that--as in america--there are several elected politicians who have openly or covertly support viewpoints such as the ones held by the shooter. so too do the countries of europe, where all those things are also outlawed. just outlawing things will not stop people from organizing against, espousing rhetoric against, and committing violent attacks against minorities and other vulnerable groups. you need to break their ability to organize and break their ability to spread their rhetoric, or else they just come back.
I think you need to re-read those lines I quoted. While she is defending violence, she is also advocating it in places, such as here: "if your ideology is predicated on genocide, i have no sympathy if someone kills you and your death is a good thing".
just to clarify: are you going to try and stake claim to the take that it would have been a bad thing for someone to have killed serbians who would go on to commit horrific atrocities against bosniaks, or for someone to have done the same with hutus who went on to kill tutsis, the burmese who did so against the rohingya, the iraqis who did so against the kurds, the khmer rouge against their own people, and so on before those people could commit such acts simply because killing people is bad (even though those genocidaires went on to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people who would have otherwise not died)?
Fine. I was going to leave you alone and play nice, but you've invited further interaction. So... Let's put this in context. You are talking about killing people before they have killed anyone (or...
just to clarify: are you going to try and stake claim to the take that it would have been a bad thing for someone to have killed [people] before those people could commit such acts simply because killing people is bad?
Fine. I was going to leave you alone and play nice, but you've invited further interaction. So...
Let's put this in context. You are talking about killing people before they have killed anyone (or even hurt anyone). You are talking about killing people who have only said they want to kill people. You want to kill people merely for saying bad things. You're not waiting until they do anything, or until they act on their words. You're not waiting to see if they're all hot air and won't follow through on their threats. You're not waiting to see if someone else stops them from doing what they want, in some other way. Nope. As soon as they start saying "I want to kill all X!", you want to lift your gun and shoot them dead... just for the words they said.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I WILL CONDONE MURDERING PEOPLE JUST FOR THE THINGS THEY HAVE SAID.
Have I made myself crystal clear? Or do we need to drag this out even more?
to be clear: this view is exactly why i think violence if necessary is acceptable if necessary against people who subscribe to genocidal ideologies. what you are essentially saying is that people...
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I WILL CONDONE MURDERING PEOPLE JUST FOR THE THINGS THEY HAVE SAID.
to be clear: this view is exactly why i think violence if necessary is acceptable if necessary against people who subscribe to genocidal ideologies. what you are essentially saying is that people cannot be taken at their word, at their face, or at the history of their ideology that they intend to commit mass murder. so, when these people do take power somewhere, what will happen is that someone like me will be killed by these people for beliefs they hold and who they are, and someone like you will probably not because--judging by your views--you are in a privileged enough position that you will never be targeted, and in any case your views essentially preclude intervention before it's too late to do anything, which they will be just fine with.
ultimately, if people like you won't do anything to stop these people, you simply cannot be surprised when those who inevitably will die at their hands don't shed tears for their deaths or sit down and take it like dogs.
I'm not asking you to sit down and take it like a dog. But there's a wide spectrum of possible actions between "nothing" and "murder". By the way, as a gay man (albeit a white cisgender gay man),...
I'm not asking you to sit down and take it like a dog. But there's a wide spectrum of possible actions between "nothing" and "murder".
By the way, as a gay man (albeit a white cisgender gay man), I'm not exactly at the top of those folks' lists of favourite people, either.
You’re arguing about the Paradox of Intolerance. Which i find some humor in because the concept is talked about as part of the moderating philosophy of Tildes
You’re arguing about the Paradox of Intolerance. Which i find some humor in because the concept is talked about as part of the moderating philosophy of Tildes
There is to me a stark difference between intolerance of fascists in a particular space and moderating to de-platform them. With intolerance of fascists as living people and it thus being O.K. to...
There is to me a stark difference between intolerance of fascists in a particular space and moderating to de-platform them. With intolerance of fascists as living people and it thus being O.K. to extra-judicially murder them as u/alyaza argues above.
oh, then if it's purely about how "justified" the violence is the answer is very because nazis are people who want to commit genocide and it is somewhat becoming of like, every fucking decent...
You were saying that antifa people have to be violent because they can't work within the system. When I explain that they can and do work within the system, you shift the goalposts by saying that fascists are also getting elected. That wasn't the point. The point was why antifa people use violence, and whether that violence is justified.
oh, then if it's purely about how "justified" the violence is the answer is very because nazis are people who want to commit genocide and it is somewhat becoming of like, every fucking decent human being to stop people who want to commit genocide from doing that. this is extremely straightforward, my guy.
But, hold on - you're here advocating violence and murder, not them. You're advocating murdering lots of people. If it's not okay for them to advocate mass murder, why is it okay for you to do the same thing? Why is violence acceptable for you but not for them? Where is this double standard coming from?
because they want to commit genocide? this is also really straight forward and, to be clear, are you saying we need to wait for people to start committing genocide to oppose actively genocidal intentions, which is the inevitable and inexorable goal of all states in which fascism arises and takes power?
I certainly wouldn't advocate mass murder! I don't believe in meeting violence with violence. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If you're trying to take the moral high ground, you can't do that by advocating actions which you are decrying in other people. "You can't kill people because I don't like your reasons for killing people, but I can kill people because I like my reasons for killing people!"
i do like how you kinda completely sidestepped the part where i pointed out fascism is inherently violent so you could act like there's no reason for people to oppose fascism violently but, once again: THERE IS NO PEACEFUL FASCISM. there is no "moral high ground" to be taken. fascists are people who want to commit genocide and this is an inevitable aspect of fascism. anti-fascists want to oppose this before it happens. i will repeat, do we need to wait for people to start committing genocide to oppose actively genocidal intentions? because fuck that, my dude.
To be honest, I just couldn't be bothered getting into a shouting match with you. It's not like either of us is going to convince the other, and this is obviously a very personal and emotive issue...
i do like how you kinda completely sidestepped the part where i pointed out fascism is inherently violent
To be honest, I just couldn't be bothered getting into a shouting match with you. It's not like either of us is going to convince the other, and this is obviously a very personal and emotive issue for you, so I think it's best if I just step away and leave you alone.
But, for context: I'm a total absolute 100% pacifist who doesn't approve of any violence except maybe in the context of defending someone from a direct immediate attack. If there's no direct immediate attack endangering a person's life, there's no possible justification for violence.
let me specify why that is, just so we're clear: it's because if fascists do take power anywhere, people like me are probably going to be the first to get the bullet, and taking a stance of "both...
and this is obviously a very personal and emotive issue for you,
let me specify why that is, just so we're clear: it's because if fascists do take power anywhere, people like me are probably going to be the first to get the bullet, and taking a stance of "both sides are wrong" or "violence is bad and wrong even when directed at fascists" is nice for the conscience and all, but for all the good those stances do someone like me, at that point you might as well be the one pulling the trigger (and you are also indistinguishable from the actual fascists). the reason i take such a strong stance as i do isn't necessarily because i want to so much as because it is a matter of genuine survival for people like me that fascism does not arise anywhere, and the only way to ensure that is to continually combat it where it grows, when it grows through any means available, whether that be peaceful or violent.
I'm not quite sure we're all on the same page here. Clearly, you believe that violent opposition is not off the table, but to what extent? Is it the last resort in which there is no other way to...
I'm not quite sure we're all on the same page here. Clearly, you believe that violent opposition is not off the table, but to what extent? Is it the last resort in which there is no other way to prevent fascists from taking power or would you condone something like an assasination of a fascist leader with a small following as a preemptive measure to prevent the movement from growing? What, hypothetically, do you believe is a justified use of violence?
Are you arguing in favor of moral relativism? Because, otherwise, there are such things as good and bad, the ideology of the person doing them notwithstanding. Would you consider all violence and...
Are you arguing in favor of moral relativism? Because, otherwise, there are such things as good and bad, the ideology of the person doing them notwithstanding.
That's why violence is illegal.
Would you consider all violence and killing done by the state to be just? Laws and morals aren't the same thing, something being conducive to civility isn't always conducive to morality.
Killing and violence is bad when it's done without a good reason, like self-defense--which it could be argued that Antifa is doing so by punching genocidal maniacs and not giving them a platform.
Not really. I'm not making any arguments about moral relativism whatsoever. To me, writing "all causes are good in the eyes of their followers" is merely stating a fact: anyone who supports a...
Are you arguing in favor of moral relativism?
Not really. I'm not making any arguments about moral relativism whatsoever. To me, writing "all causes are good in the eyes of their followers" is merely stating a fact: anyone who supports a cause thinks that cause is good. (Would you support a cause you thought was bad?) That's not saying whether the cause is good, or how we should define it as good. It's just saying that people only follow causes they support.
If anything, I'm arguing for moral absolutism by writing "violence and terrorism are bad, no matter who is conducting it, and no matter what their motives are" and "killing and violence can't be justified by saying it was done in a good cause". I'm implying that killing and violence are bad in an absolute sense. (And, that's a bit of a turn-up for me, considering I'm usually in the pro-relativism camp!)
Would you consider all violence and killing done by the state to be just?
Killing and violence is bad when it's done without a good reason
And who gets to decide what reasons are "good"? (Now we're starting an argument about moral relativism!)
self-defense--which it could be argued that Antifa is doing so by punching genocidal maniacs
If the so-called "maniac" is not currently attacking you personally, then punching them can not be self-defence. ;) Even if we extend the meaning of "self-defence" to include defending other people, an actual attack still needs to be taking place right now for any punching of the "maniac" to be considered defence. Otherwise, if the "maniac" is not currently physically attacking anyone one when someone punches them, that can only be considered a pre-emptive attack, rather than defence.
I might agree with you that terrorism is always bad, but violence? That's an absolutely extreme view. If someone is being beaten to death, it's wrong to stop the attacker? If a country is being...
I might agree with you that terrorism is always bad, but violence? That's an absolutely extreme view.
If someone is being beaten to death, it's wrong to stop the attacker? If a country is being invaded by another, it's wrong for it to defend itself?
If a group of people are running a sex slavery ring, it's wrong for the police to raid them?
I don't pretend that it's not extreme. I've explained more here. None of these scenarios require violence. It is possible to stop a violent attacker without attacking them in turn. It is possible...
I might agree with you that terrorism is always bad, but violence? That's an absolutely extreme view.
I don't pretend that it's not extreme. I've explained more here.
If someone is being beaten to death, it's wrong to stop the attacker? If a country is being invaded by another, it's wrong for it to defend itself?
If a group of people are running a sex slavery ring, it's wrong for the police to raid them?
None of these scenarios require violence. It is possible to stop a violent attacker without attacking them in turn. It is possible to defend yourself without counter-attacking. It is possible to stop criminal behaviour without inflicting violence on them.
That view is frankly ridiculous.
Thank you for your reasoned and rational engagement with my strongly held and very important opinion.
No? You can't think of a single situation that requires violence to solve? I had a friend in college who was seeing a woman. Unbeknownst to him, she was in a relationship with another guy. That...
None of these scenarios require violence.
No? You can't think of a single situation that requires violence to solve?
I had a friend in college who was seeing a woman. Unbeknownst to him, she was in a relationship with another guy. That guy found out about my friend's activities with his girlfriend and showed up at his dorm one day. He knocked on the door, and as soon as my friend answered and confirmed that he was, in fact, the person he was looking for, the guy pounced on him. He had about 75 lbs on my friend, and straddled him, half drunk, while pummeling his face into the floor of the dorm over and over again.
My friend had a knife on his desk, and grasped for it as he was being slammed into the ground. He managed to slash the attacker's back badly enough that he stopped pummeling his face before his skull fractured. Obviously the police got involved, but my friend wasn't charged with anything, and spent the rest of our time at college together feeling horrible about the whole thing.
I consoled him at the time, telling him that there was literally nothing else he could have done in that situation. It was either that, or most likely death.
I fail to see how a situation like that could possibly be de-escalated without violence. Committing an act of violence almost certainly saved my friends life.
It just doesn't make any sense at all to me to make such a widespread blanket statement like that when the world is so much more complicated than such a broad, catchall rule can account for.
I'm not responsible for other people's lack of imagination. Could your friend have simply struggled free from the man and run away? Or, like most people, did he believe that running away is...
I fail to see how a situation like that could possibly be de-escalated without violence.
I'm not responsible for other people's lack of imagination.
Could your friend have simply struggled free from the man and run away? Or, like most people, did he believe that running away is cowardly, so he had to stay and face the attack?
Could he have tried pushing the man away?
Could he have shouted for help, so that other people could come and drag the man away?
Could he have clutched the man in a bear hug, so he was unable to swing his arms?
Could he tried any number of other responses? Was a knife the only response he could think of, because he has been taught to meet violence with violence?
Something being illegal means it is opposed with a threat of force. If you do this thing, scary people with guns will do what they can to try and stop you, and will even kill you if it comes to...
Something being illegal means it is opposed with a threat of force. If you do this thing, scary people with guns will do what they can to try and stop you, and will even kill you if it comes to that. You are already promoting violence. If you believe things should be illegal, you already believe that violence should be used to quell violence.
The difference with antifa and the like is that when fascists distribute propaganda, organize, and outright proclaim their desire for genocide, antifascists believe them instead of waiting for terror attacks and genocidal monsters to get their way before doing something.
And if there's no one promoting genocide, anti-fascists aren't out for blood. No one needs to be told that that isn't the case for fascists.
I'm not even going to touch the rest, as "what if someone else thinks differently?" goes nowhere and is just an argument for inaction under the false belief that inaction is neutral.
Not necessarily. Just because I support the concept of laws doesn't mean I support the concept of using violence to enforce those laws. I believe there are other ways to enforce laws that don't...
Something being illegal means it is opposed with a threat of force. If you do this thing, scary people with guns will do what they can to try and stop you, and will even kill you if it comes to that. You are already promoting violence. If you believe things should be illegal, you already believe that violence should be used to quell violence.
Not necessarily. Just because I support the concept of laws doesn't mean I support the concept of using violence to enforce those laws. I believe there are other ways to enforce laws that don't require violence.
just an argument for inaction under the false belief that inaction is neutral.
My criticism of violence as a tool of action is not an argument for inaction: it's a criticism of violence. I'm a pacifist. I support action against fascists, but I don't support violent action.
Of course you support violence to enforce those laws. Unless you believe one person with a gun should be allowed to murder every individual on the planet without being forcably stopped, you do....
Of course you support violence to enforce those laws. Unless you believe one person with a gun should be allowed to murder every individual on the planet without being forcably stopped, you do. You might believe minimizing violence is the way to go, doing everything you can not to kill the shooter in stopping them, but unless you're entirely unhinged and think mass murder should be only stopped by asking nicely, you recognize that violence is at some point necessary. So again, the only difference is if you want to wait for a mass murder or a genocide to do something.
The bit about inaction was not in reference to your attitude toward violence, but the natural conclusion of any conversation about your reasoning about how everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. Like I said, I don't want to touch it.
EDIT: Actually I'm going to back out entirely. I got frustrated and forgot that I didn't want to contribute to filling this thread up with this argument anyway. I don't think this is a good look for us as a community, but I guess I did my part in fanning the flames, sorry. Bye.
I disagree. This thread is full of civil and polite conversation about a very emotive and controversial topic. Anywhere else, this would have devolved to insults and name-calling. I think this is...
I don't think this is a good look for us as a community
I disagree. This thread is full of civil and polite conversation about a very emotive and controversial topic. Anywhere else, this would have devolved to insults and name-calling. I think this is a great look for us.
Well I'm certainly glad it exists. I agree with the other guy that there are unfortunate parallels, but unfortunately, dirty problems and dirty solutions... Calling radical actions against...
Well I'm certainly glad it exists. I agree with the other guy that there are unfortunate parallels, but unfortunately, dirty problems and dirty solutions...
Calling radical actions against fascists terrorism is like saying that shooting a shooter is murder. Its not, theres just similar pieces.
Given the choice, it shouldnt need to escalate to vigilatism, but the fact of the matter is, as put, the establishment should not be giving these people platform to begin with.
luckily for people who dislike antifa, it's effectively self terminating anyways. after world war two for example, the anti-fascist movement all but ceased to exist because fascism was relegated...
luckily for people who dislike antifa, it's effectively self terminating anyways. after world war two for example, the anti-fascist movement all but ceased to exist because fascism was relegated almost totally to individuals and not organizations with institutional power. the only reason it has resurged in recent times because fascism has. without fascism, antifa as a movement is unnecessary, and so in a future optimal world where we don't have to worry about fascism being an actual ideological threat to people, there will be no reason for antifa to exist and people can stop clutching their pearls about how they're the same as fascists or whatever. it actually incentivizes dealing with fascists if you're someone who doesn't like antifa, really. if you make the fascists fuck off, so will antifa.
Well, not precisely, it would be manslaughter, murder is premeditated, ie planned beforehand. You will likely not get into trouble considering you did so to save lives but rarely AntiFa does...
shooting a shooter is murder.
Well, not precisely, it would be manslaughter, murder is premeditated, ie planned beforehand. You will likely not get into trouble considering you did so to save lives but rarely AntiFa does things that are this black-and-white in the eyes of the law and morality.
I don't think there is anything to applying words were they fit. "Radical action against fascists" largely fits some definitions of terrorism, you target an ideological group in effort to eradicate them.
"Terrorism" might have bad connotations but it doesn't, at first, cast a value judgement on the goals of your group. The goal "keep invaders from our holy land" doesn't immediately have an bad parts to it either, there is no violence implication. However, placing IEDs to achieve this goal is seen as bad by most western people.
As a counter point, an ex-Right Wing politician in germany recently talked about her experiences. She mentioned that deplatforming the AfD (right wing party) validates their beliefs, they can play victim. If you physically attack them they can play the victim, they can validate their beliefs that the left wants X. The most effective way to taking away their platform, she argued, is to give them an equal platform, because their platform is precisely the opposite; not having a platform is their entire argument.
Additionally a recent article posted here on tilde told the story of a black man who sat down with Klansmembers and talked several hundred people out of their beliefs. Not with violence, but with understanding, humor and respect.
Shooting a shooter is manslaugher. Talking the shooter down and making them give up isn't manslaughter.
with respect, this is bullshit in the context of internet extremism. we have studies which show not giving these people a platform and taking it away from them entirely fucks up their ability to...
If you physically attack them they can play the victim, they can validate their beliefs that the left wants X. The most effective way to taking away their platform, she argued, is to give them an equal platform, because their platform is precisely the opposite; not having a platform is their entire argument.
with respect, this is bullshit in the context of internet extremism. we have studies which show not giving these people a platform and taking it away from them entirely fucks up their ability to spread a message. we saw this on reddit with the banning fatpeoplehate and we saw it in the broader internet with the deplatforming of alex jones. both of these actions rendered the community and jones respectively almost incapable of effectively spreading their beliefs because they no longer had venues to speak and have their speech amplified. similarly, we have seen direct action by antifascists against speaking tours by alt-righters such as richard spencer render them incapable of propagating their message and led to many of them effectively abandoning it as a means of getting the message out at all.
broadly speaking, the only thing that giving them equal platform does is validates their ideas, and allow them to propagate.
Additionally a recent article posted here on tilde told the story of a black man who sat down with Klansmembers and talked several hundred people out of their beliefs. Not with violence, but with understanding, humor and respect.
and he is an exception, not the rule. there is a time and place for attempting to convert people peacefully, but it was violence and deplatforming that ultimately stopped the british fascists under oswald mosley, black militancy with the black panthers and the nation of islam that forced white segregationists to bend the knee to more moderate MLK and LBJ, and it is currently a campaign of deplatforming and direct action by activists and antifascists that has largely turned back the rising tide of fascism in the US. the reality is that the threat of genuine consequences tends to deter people from holding beliefs that would lead to violence against them a hell of a lot more frequently (and with significantly more staying power) than trying to sit down and talk them out of their beliefs does.
Not giving them a platform also validates their ideas, especially the ones where the elite is trying to kill them all, which would make them much more desperate and willing to take harmful action....
broadly speaking, the only thing that giving them equal platform does is validates their ideas, and allow them to propagate.
Not giving them a platform also validates their ideas, especially the ones where the elite is trying to kill them all, which would make them much more desperate and willing to take harmful action.
the reality is that the threat of genuine consequences tends to deter people from holding beliefs that would lead to violence against them a hell of a lot more frequently (and with significantly more staying power) than trying to sit down and talk them out of their beliefs does.
Consequences can be physical, psychological or social. I don't see any reason to use physical consequences when social ones can be sufficient in a healthy society. Violence is in my opinion never the correct answer, even if it leads to results faster, it's a cheat code getting you to some target, it does not allow you to see and fix problems in society, especially ones that caused the thing you did violence against.
Another counterpoint; in post-WW1 germany people who associated with the NSDAP were deplatformed and faced violence. There are plenty of stories from NSDAP party members who were outcast by their family and friends for their beliefs, it only validated them and strengthned their beliefs. It didn't stop the fascists (although at the time, Italy was still exploring the definition of fascist), it made them more violent.
it really does not the overwhelming majority of the time. can you remind me how well alex jones' personal ideas are faring now that he isn't a staple on literally every major social media...
Not giving them a platform also validates their ideas, especially the ones where the elite is trying to kill them all, which would make them much more desperate and willing to take harmful action.
it really does not the overwhelming majority of the time. can you remind me how well alex jones' personal ideas are faring now that he isn't a staple on literally every major social media platform?
Consequences can be physical, psychological or social. I don't see any reason to use physical consequences when social ones can be sufficient in a healthy society. Violence is in my opinion never the correct answer, even if it leads to results faster, it's a cheat code getting you to some target, it does not allow you to see and fix problems in society, especially ones that caused the thing you did violence against.
i can: it keeps people from subscribing to genocidal ideologies which will lead to the most vulnerable people in society being murdered because for some reason people think it's wrong to "deplatform" them even though deplatforming them literally works and makes their ideology less likely to spread and therefore, to become popular. also, little point of note: violence in both a metaphorical and literal sense is how the state sustains itself so like, unless you're going to literally oppose the state and take an anarchist position, violence is sometimes the correct answer and therefore i don't think it's exactly a stretch to extend that idea of it being the correct answer to sometimes violently opposing people who are going to commit mass murder from taking power and doing so, or to do so in the name of establishing civil rights or putting pressure on apartheid, and so on.
Another counterpoint; in post-WW1 germany people who associated with the NSDAP were deplatformed and faced violence. There are plenty of stories from NSDAP party members who were outcast by their family and friends for their beliefs, it only validated them and strengthned their beliefs. It didn't stop the fascists (although at the time, Italy was still exploring the definition of fascist), it made them more violent.
i mean yeah, sometimes it does that. most of the time and for most people, it does not. there are always exceptions to the rule, but in general deplatforming works, violence is sometimes a politically viable and potentially politically necessary option, and just in general i think a lot of the folks in this thread completely lack any sort of nuance or ability to see why people might not be so inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people whose stated ideology is, as i've stated probably thirty times or so now, actively genocidal.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I can't support violence for political goals in any form or shape and I also do not like how aggressive deplatforming happens these days, even if it...
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I can't support violence for political goals in any form or shape and I also do not like how aggressive deplatforming happens these days, even if it would happen in acceptable margins, it can do more harm than good. Society can fix these problems just as well, it just needs more time. In my opinion, violence will always remain the cheat card, the "Draw 4 cards" card of politics, it doesn't actually solve problems it only achieves goals.
and just in general i think a lot of the folks in this thread completely lack any sort of nuance or ability to see why people might not be so inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people whose stated ideology is, as i've stated probably thirty times or so now, actively genocidal.
I don't think it's about "giving the benefit of the doubt". If you'd ask anyone here if they support these ideologies, they'd say "no", including me. I can't speak for others but personally I also don't support violence, as I've previously explained and I don't like deplatforming, believing it to be an ineffective and crude tool, like a wooden club.
Ultimately, violence is not the status quo in our society, thankfully, which means that you'll have to convince everyone else that your violence is necessary and justify the actions that follow, regardless of how much you think you shouldn't have to.
see i get that, but at the same time, i think most leftists would tell you in response to that (and i really cannot fault them for this) that you're pretty much giving them the benefit of the...
I don't think it's about "giving the benefit of the doubt". If you'd ask anyone here if they support these ideologies, they'd say "no", including me. I can't speak for others but personally I also don't support violence, as I've previously explained and I don't like deplatforming, believing it to be an ineffective and crude tool, like a wooden club.
see i get that, but at the same time, i think most leftists would tell you in response to that (and i really cannot fault them for this) that you're pretty much giving them the benefit of the doubt in taking that position--even if you oppose them--because by opposing efforts to deplatform them or push them violently out of the mainstream, you're still giving them basically unfettered access to entire groups of people to radicalize instead of just people they already have mostly radicalized. after all, if exposing them for who they are really was effective, even simple alt-right or alt-right adjacent figures like ben shapiro and jordan peterson and youtubers like blackpigeonspeaks and sargon of akkad would have likely withered or begun to by now, no?--and yet instead they've been keeping on or growing in influence, and so too have fascist and white supremacist and white nationalist etc. etc. movements.
Ultimately, violence is not the status quo in our society, thankfully, which means that you'll have to convince everyone else that your violence is necessary and justify the actions that follow, regardless of how much you think you shouldn't have to.
i mean, i think if most people did genuinely have a bone to pick with antifa violence, they'd have presumably done something meaningful about it by now (like lobby congress) given that the bulk of it in america is past tense most of such violence happened under a republican government. that nothing has happened despite comments from even the president on it from time to time does suggest that most people at the minimum see it as a push where nothing is gained or lost by the existence of antifa chapters (and whatever violence comes of opposing fascists), and you could perhaps make a case that more people are sympathetic to antifa than are against it, although i'm pretty sure data on that is scant.
You probably misunderstood; Any violence, antifa or not, must be justified to other members of society, that doesn't mean people will go to the government if they disagree. It likely also means...
i think if most people did genuinely have a bone to pick with antifa violence
You probably misunderstood; Any violence, antifa or not, must be justified to other members of society, that doesn't mean people will go to the government if they disagree. It likely also means that most people see antifa violence for too inconsequential to be something you go talk to the government about. People aren't sympathetic they are apathetic, they do not care enough.
i think most leftists would tell you in response to that (and i really cannot fault them for this) that you're pretty much giving them the benefit of the doubt
I would disagree with that. "Benefit of the doubt" has a clear definition; you wait for more information before casting judgement, innocent until proven guilty. I do not do that. I have sufficient information, I know that the deep alt-right is a vile and repulsive ideology, and I have cast judgement, you just disagree with it.
I'll agree to disagree. I agree that there are other options. I disagree that giving the platform what it ultimately wants (recognition and growth) is one of them, or that most others (basically...
I'll agree to disagree. I agree that there are other options. I disagree that giving the platform what it ultimately wants (recognition and growth) is one of them, or that most others (basically talking the problem down) will ever be effective enough to counter their rise - at least, not in our generally complacent society.
That is to say, I appreciate the idealism but that very level of tolerance is whats allowee the problem to appear.
The point about connotation is useless semantics. My point is that antifa is being portrayed like an extremist alternative to fascism, when it isnt - its moderate by any definition, its just the appropriate caliber of response for an extreme scenario.
This is really all I have to say on this. As time goes on, and especially during our next election cycle, I expect groups like amtifa will only become more and more relevent as other options fail.
Should go without saying, but be very careful looking up info about this, it's too easy to accidentally stumble upon the livestream. Don't make that mistake like me. Avoid Twitter in particular,...
Should go without saying, but be very careful looking up info about this, it's too easy to accidentally stumble upon the livestream. Don't make that mistake like me.
New Zealander here. This is so fucked. We have no room for these sort of hateful sub-human scum here. We have absolutely zero need for guns either. We already have fairly strict laws, but it's...
New Zealander here. This is so fucked. We have no room for these sort of hateful sub-human scum here. We have absolutely zero need for guns either. We already have fairly strict laws, but it's time we banned them completely.
NZ has always been fairly insulated from the global nonsense. My blood is boiling that we're now involved. U.S.-style, far-right extremism has no place in the world, let alone New Zealand.
I don't support the death penalty, as a pacifist, but these people need to be permanently locked up and removed from nearly all human contact. Good job to the New Zealand police for apprehending them without further bloodshed. Throw away the key.
I expect there will be near-unilateral agreement from most large political parties regarding this. Hopefully this makes the end of handguns & anything military-esque in this country.
I expect there will be near-unilateral agreement from most large political parties regarding this. Hopefully this makes the end of handguns & anything military-esque in this country.
the confirmed death toll appears to now stand at 40, according to ABC (the australian ABC). just an obscene fucking number of people, and might rival the las vegas shooting in lethality if there...
the confirmed death toll appears to now stand at 40, according to ABC (the australian ABC). just an obscene fucking number of people, and might rival the las vegas shooting in lethality if there are still outstanding major injuries that turn fatal or fatalities gone unreported.
As sad as it is, I'm really not surprised by how prepared he was. He had at least 6 different guns, dozens of magazines, knew how to handle the weapons effectively, and only seemed to care about...
As sad as it is, I'm really not surprised by how prepared he was. He had at least 6 different guns, dozens of magazines, knew how to handle the weapons effectively, and only seemed to care about killing as many people as he could. The man is a disgusting monster.
It seems to be more than just an individual: Source
It seems to be more than just an individual:
Authorities said they had four people in custody — three men and one women — but later clarified that only three were believed to have been involved in the violence. Police also deactivated a number of improvised explosive devices that had been attached to vehicles used by the suspects. Counterterrorism forces were activated across New Zealand and Australia.
There are descriptions of the video in these articles: Christchurch mosque shootings: Man claims responsibility for shootings, records assault on video Christchurch shooting: Gunman's chilling...
There are descriptions of the video in these articles:
The articles are safe for reading and the linked videos are safe viewing; there's nothing graphic in them. But the write-ups are quite shocking, and even the non-violent parts shown in the videos are quite disturbing.
here are a few relevant little pieces about the general climate/implications/considerations this morning as the american press stakes out its thoughts: A Mass Murder of, and for, the Internet, The...
I lurk around some forums out of morbid curiosity for the people who post there, kind of like a psychologist studying patients in a sanatorium. Kiwi Farms is one of them. They have notices posted...
I lurk around some forums out of morbid curiosity for the people who post there, kind of like a psychologist studying patients in a sanatorium. Kiwi Farms is one of them. They have notices posted at the top of each page:
The Kiwi Farms is a non-violent autistic shitposting forum. It is not associated in any way with New Zealand. The operators of this website have never been to New Zealand. The operators of this website are not white nationalists. We believe in free speech and proliferation of information. [link]You can't stop the signal.[/link]
I didn't include the link and I'm not clicking on it just in case it's the video.
Another notice:
If you are looking for the video of the [link]New Zealand Mosque Shooting[/link], please consider downloading and seeding [link]this torrent file (updated!)[/link]. The Kiwi Farms does not have the bandwidth to meet several thousand people downloading a 64MB file. The site is going down because of traffic. Please play [link]this song[/link] while reading. Our matrix server for emergency comms [link]are here[/link].
Kiwi Farms is hosted on Cloudflare. They have a thread where they're mocking people complaining about Cloudflare hosting the forums. Some members claim the livestream is a historical document and needs to be preserved.
Bet it'd be a different story if their loved ones's deaths were captured on film.
When something like this happens, it is easy to lose focus of individuals in favour of considering the impact on the zeitgeist - but please keep your Muslim friends and colleagues in your thoughts...
When something like this happens, it is easy to lose focus of individuals in favour of considering the impact on the zeitgeist - but please keep your Muslim friends and colleagues in your thoughts today. I am not Muslim, but I do have friends who are, and I have let them know if they want to vent or process with me in any way they can.
A group I am a member of was the target of a mass shooting in the last few years. Having a couple people check in on me was a sliver of hope in what was otherwise a difficult, hopeless day. If you have friends who you think may appreciate a quick word or message from you, consider reaching out.
just so we're clear: this is why ANTIFA is a thing, this is why you oppose fascism, nazism, and white supremacy, wherever it exists, and this is why you deplatform these people, regardless of their "right" to free speech. because when you don't, they rise up and start fucking mass murdering people because the ideology of most of these people is predicated on the extermination of anybody who is non-white.
I generally agree with deplatforming nazis, alt-right, and in general anything with the potential for great social harm (incl things like antivax), but keep in mind there's many shades of "deplatforming" and taking an outright stance like this is dangerous.
This is an example from someone generally well-respected in my twitter feed: https://twitter.com/paulcbetts/status/1106433183195684864
I've not bothered answering on Twitter because the medium prevents nuanced discussion, but Cloudflare's neutralness is exemplary. In fact, they only time they've actually kicked someone out of their platform, it was an alt-right outlet (and tech circles were up in arms about this, including very-not-alt-right circles).
I know people at Cloudflare and all of them are fantastic people and the opposite of alt-right. And yet, there's this sentiment I see growing in some misguided people that Cloudflare is pro-all-these-things.
This isn't to mention that 4chan is obviously bigger than its crass alt-right corners and even though I think the entire website is a toxic hellpit to avoid at all costs, it's unfair for a large portion of its users to paint it in that tweet's context.
This is like asking Amazon to stop hosting Reddit because T_D is a popular subreddit. As much as I despise these movements, I do not want Cloudflare, AWS etc to start deplatforming legal shit (be it alt-right, flat earth or whatever). OTOH, YouTube and Twitter are more than welcome to do so -- Social networks are in a different position than hosting providers.
I've had to similarly defend friends at the EFF, who have themselves had to defend some pretty repugnant people. Not because they like those people, but to set clear precedent.
This is the dangerous side of the "deplatform everything" movement. It seems that regardless of political affiliation, a majority of people simply do not understand that the tactics they use against their opponents can and will be used against them too.
You're interpreting my comment as "Nazis must not be stopped", when I clearly said I'm in favor of deplatforming.
However I'm also in favor of "dumb pipes", so there's layers at which I believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of how much I disagree with or despise their views (unless otherwise required by law enforcement). Including but not limited to: AWS, Cloudflare, ISPs, water/electricity.
Deplatforming on social media is completely fine IMO. But I do not want certain services to start policing content themselves.
In other words, I believe it's fair to tell YouTube: "By giving Nazis access to your platform with millions of users, you're spreading Nazi propaganda". I don't believe it's fair to tell that to Cloudflare, though.
I've written about free speech on Tildes before. In that post, you'll note I very clearly am against "absolute" free speech (and I too, used to be in favour of it). But the principles of it are good, you just have to understand how to apply them.
Emphasis mine; social networks should be the ones to deplatform those open with such mindsets as they are detrimental to society as a whole, opening them opportunities to recruit more into their agenda and ideologies.
I agree that hosting companies should not be the ones to police, as that opens a new precedent and can of worms.
Yup. A social network by definition is a platform that is created for its users to spread their message. Ergo social networks should take responsibility when they spread bad things, just as they do when they spread good things.
oh and just so nobody is like "BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WAS A FASCIST?":
Agreed. I don't want to continue a "tag war" on this post (nor do I want to provoke an argument about tags where it does not belong), but it's exceedingly clear what this is and it's a massive mistake to represent it as anything else. There's no room for interpretation, this is not even calling someone a fascist for just performing actions that align with fascist goals, this is an attack motivated by the shooter's fascist and anti-Muslim ideology.
A shooting like this is not a politically neutral action.
In addition, if you look at his manifesto (you can find it on Scribd, I'm not going to link it because I don't want to spread his message of hate), the first page has a modified sonnenrad, a neo-Nazi symbol, and the manifesto specifically mentions white genocide multiple times. He also tends to capitalize the word "white" when referring to white people, and to top it all off, there's this wonderful quote on page 6:
And if using the 14 words doesn't mean you're a Nazi, then I don't know what does anymore. Anyone who tries to claim this man is not a white nationalist, a fascist, or a Nazi is either extremely misinformed or are themselves a Nazi attempting to downplay the severity of his beliefs. There is no other possible interpretation of these Nazi
dogwhistlesbullhorns. And that's just from a quick scroll through the first 6 pages, and his manifesto is 73 pages long. I'm sure there is a lot more hatred to go in there.Edit: a very damning quote I just have to include:
(I had to manually retype the quote since Scribd messes with copy/paste. Those grammar errors are present in the manifesto.)
Notice the "invaders background" part. Now, who exactly is an "invader" to him? Considering he's calling non-white immigrants invaders throughout the document, I think it's safe to say he'd only kill non-white police officers. People are going to bat on Reddit and Twitter for a man who would readily kill police officers for the crime of not being white enough. This man is a white supremacist, a fascist, a Nazi, and nobody who is informed about his views would defend him unless they themselves shared a fair amount of the same beliefs.
Edit 2: AHS is doing a roundup of all the people celebrating this attack. This is why I hate reddit.
I know I shouldn't be surprised about idiotic hypocrisy from a fucking Nazi, but does he really not see the irony of saying that in New Zealand of all fucking places. It's one of the very few countries I know of that does at least a somewhat better job of remembering that the white colonisers were the invaders.
I assume this is directed to the world at large. I certainly don't see anyone here trying to claim the alleged attacker is not a white nationalist, a fascist, or a Nazi.
It is directed to the world at large. I'm seeing a lot of people on Twitter and Free Republic trying to downplay his beliefs. Luckily, this site doesn't seem to have any racist, fascist morons (yet). I figured I might as well say all this and quote his manifesto so that if anyone does stumble across people downplaying his views or actions, they would be less likely to fall for it.
Edit: clarified wording: "It is" -> "It is directed to the world at large"
Thanks for clearing that up.
It has had one or two. They didn't last long.
I want to elaborate on my earlier comment about why deplatforming is not always good.
Germany to make it a crime to run a Tor node/website - Hacker News
It's taken to an extreme, but it is the same mindset that leads to this. Tor hosts some really, really vile shit (Nazis are the least of tor's problems), but at least in tech circles it's uncontroversial to say that it is an extremely useful tool that should not be banned. And tor itself, by its decentralized nature, isn't an organization that can ban specific websites/services. So instead, legislators want to ban the whole thing.
What I'm saying here and in the other post is, just don't be too quick on the draw with these things. The potential in unintended consequences is real.
Its funny, the wikipedia article describes antifa like they would domestic terrorists. But I can get behind the idea. Seriously, fuck these people. This asshole livestreamed the shooting and I dont have to look to know that theres a bunch of evil bastards out there popping popcorn for it.
well, in a strict sense they could probably be constituted as one by the law, since antifa is often quite extrajudicial in its application of direct action and violence and so i can see why they would--but to treat them as one is ultimately somewhat reductionist, because the reason why antifa tends to be extrajudicial in that way is because the law itself either is incapable or actively refuses to take action for itself, and it turns out people generally aren't willing to let an actively genocidal and universally anti-democratic ideology just peacefully exist in a democratic, multiracial/multicultural/diverse society just because it plays by the rules until it gets into power.
One could say the same about religious freedom fighters, who are often referred to as "terrorists". Or religious people fighting to impose God's Law on Earth. Or even fascists, who have goals they want to achieve. All these people are being prevented from achieving their goals by the legal system, so they all have to work extrajudicially.
And there's a reason for that. There's a reason people who want to use violence to achieve their goals are forced to work extrajudicially. It's because violence and terrorism are bad, no matter who is conducting it, and no matter what their motives are. That's why violence is illegal. A person still ends up just as dead, regardless of the motives of their killer.
Killing and violence can't be justified by saying it was done in a good cause, because all causes are good in the eyes of their followers.
Consider the following: Freddie Oversteegen. She sabotaged Nazi efforts during their occupation of the Netherlands in WW2 by disabling bridges and train tracks, went against the law by aiding Jewish people and smuggling them out of the country and would lure/kill German soldiers.
Was what she did right? She violated the law and was indeed a terrorist by the textbook definition of the word. Yet she also saved many lives from the German occupation and helped people escape concentration camps. I don't want to advocate violence if there are other alternatives to the system, but unfortunately reality is never as clean as we'd want. Antifa is a reactionary effort to the rise of unchecked white supremacy and unless countries start taking serious action against white supremacy we're going to see it become more and more violent.
The difference there is one between insurgency vs terrorism. Even the DoD doesn't call people who plant IEDs to destroy American military convoys and kill US servicemen "terrorists". They're insurgents; combatants in a war. Their targets are valid military targets, not civilians. They're doing what they do to inflict damage on a hostile occupying force, not to instill fear in a local populace. So no, neither the resistance movements against the Nazis in WW2 and Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists.
That's not making a moral judgement call on either of them, but there's a very stark difference between people who attack strategic and military targets in a war or insurgency, and those who target innocent people who didn't sign up to fight a war in order to instill fear.
It's not a fun fact, but it's sort of interesting and related: The differing nomenclature for that kind of activity was super-politicized in Nazi Germany, and a bit of an obsession for Himmler in particular. "Resisting non-soldier persons in occupied countries" were originally termed partisans, and the Nazi effort to combat them was termed partisanenkämpfung. In autumn of 1941, the Nazis began calling those efforts bandenbekämpfung, and the enemy combatants themselves "bandits", since "partisan" implies that people like Freddie Oversteegen were fighting/killing/sabotaging for a reason. In July 1942 Himmler specifically forbade use of the term "partisan".
Sort of an academic difference, since partisanenkämpfung and bandenbekämpfung both ended up targeting regular civilian populations (notably Jewish ones) as a matter of course, but it's a distinction that they were definitely aware of, having deliberately re-classified "freedom fighters" as "terrorists".
Disabling bridges and train tracks is a far cry from mass shootings or suicide bombings. Most terrorism has to involve injuring and/or killing people, or it won't inspire terror - which, after all, is why it's called "terrorism", instead of "vandalism" or "sabotage".
Smuggling people away from danger is kind of the opposite of terrorism.
Luring and killing soldiers is bad, but it's still not as bad as exploding a bomb in a civilian area or shooting a group of civilians.
But, yes, she did wrong by killing people, even if it was for a supposedly good cause.
Can I gently suggest maybe being a little more careful when you find yourself referring to stopping Nazis as a "supposedly good cause," especially in a thread about a fascist terror attack?
Thank you, but my faux pas are my own. :)
with respect, this is at best naive and at worst actively ignorant. there is nothing stopping a fascist leader from being elected in most democracies, and in fact many fascists worked themselves into power entirely legally or attempted to do so because to play extrajudicially would have been to consign themselves to oblivion.
it can. if your ideology is predicated on genocide, i have no sympathy if someone kills you and your death is a good thing because it means you cannot act to commit such atrocities. i mean no offense, but i'm categorically not going to shed tears for people whose dream of the world is the mass murder or mass subjugation of non-white people and creation of a subhuman underclass just because hurting or killing them is considered bad morally. in my view they have waived their rights to being peaceably dealt with by associating themselves or supporting an ideology which is entirely contingent on such ideas being realized. there is no such thing as peaceful fascism, or nazism, or white supremacy.
There is also nothing stopping an anti-fascist leader from being elected in most democracies and, in fact, most existing politicians across all western democracies could be considered anti-fascist.
So, it's bad if they want to kill you, but it's not bad if you want to kill them. I simply can't agree.
Yes, there is. But it doesn't make headlines across the world.
this is correct, but maybe you should check how the wind is blowing in most democracies. spoiler: it's not with democratically elected anti-fascists. it's with people who more closely resemble fascists.
hahaha, no. call me when they explicitly oppose the genocidal ideology of fascism in a meaningful legislative way and we can talk about them being "anti-fascist". outside of germany, where it is all but constitutionally illegal to run a fascist campaign or modify the constitution in the ways a fascist would need to, there are really no places where anti-fascism is the law of the land.
that's on them for holding genocidal beliefs, i'm afraid! maybe if they don't want to open themselves to violence, they should adhere to an ideology which is not inherently genocidal and which seeks the subjugation of non-white people! you sound like one of those liberals who suggests we need to peaceably debate with fascists as if they don't want to fucking murder a large swathe of the human population because they are considered to be racially impure and socially degenerate and therefore must be culled from the gene pool.
no. there categorically is not, has never been, and will never be in a hundred million fucking years a "peaceful" fascist movement, a "peaceful" fascist ideology, or a "peaceful" fascist person. to argue that there is any such thing as peaceful fascism in fact reeks of such utterly disaffected white liberalism that i cannot take you seriously, because frankly to come to such a conclusion you essentially have to ignore reality. the very nature of fascism as a political ideology begets the violent crushing of opposition, the culling of racial and social inferiors, the disestablishment of liberalism itself, and the establishment of an ethnostate, none of which can by any stretch of the word be done peacefully. this is to say nothing of the genocidal aspects of fascism which are an inherent constant to it as an ideology, or of the fact that many fascist governments actively sought to create an underclass to exploit through coercion by means of violent reprisal, or the countless other facts that contribute to inherent violence in a fascist system.
You were saying that antifa people have to be violent because they can't work within the system. When I explain that they can and do work within the system, you shift the goalposts by saying that fascists are also getting elected. That wasn't the point. The point was why antifa people use violence, and whether that violence is justified.
But, hold on - you're here advocating violence and murder, not them. You're advocating murdering lots of people. If it's not okay for them to advocate mass murder, why is it okay for you to do the same thing? Why is violence acceptable for you but not for them? Where is this double standard coming from?
I certainly wouldn't advocate mass murder! I don't believe in meeting violence with violence. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If you're trying to take the moral high ground, you can't do that by advocating actions which you are decrying in other people. "You can't kill people because I don't like your reasons for killing people, but I can kill people because I like my reasons for killing people!"
Ok I've read through this thread and unless I missed something, I think you have been unfair in how you've framed this discussion.
For starters, antifa is not an ideological movement that is trying to impose a particular set of laws or policies like the fascists or religious fighters that you compared antifa to. Antifa is really just a collection of people representing different political philosophies that are trying to stop the spread of fascism. It's like comparing the defense to the offense and saying that both have the same goals and motivations.
Second, and this is where I really disagree with how you've framed this, antifascist does not mean 'kill the fascists' and antifascism is not centered around violence. Yes, most antifascists (like OP) believe that fascism should be stopped by any means necessary, which could eventually lead to violence if necessary, but that is a last resort, not a starting point. In your posts you've been talking about antifa as if its only act of resistence is violence. Perhaps thats unintentional or a musunderstanding on my part, but either way it's imprtant to remember that antifascist extrajudicial actions go far beyond violence, and the overwhelming majority of antifascist actions are non-violent. Arguing against violence in any circumstance is a fine point of view, but it's very disingenuous to say that antifascist are arguing for ''mass murder.''
Isn't that imposing the particular policy that "fascism is not allowed here"?
Please don't mistake me: I do not in any way support or agree with fascists. However, it's disingenuous to argue that anti-fascist activists aren't trying to impose any laws or policies on their societies. They absolutely are trying to impose their policy, even if that policy is a negatory one like "No fascism!"
I don't assume that all anti-fascist activists want to slaughter all fascists. I'm responding to remarks like this, in this very thread:
I'm not addressing an abstract population of hypothetical anti-fascist activists who theoretically might advocate violence as one of their many tactics. I'm discussing the issue with a real live person who is actually advocating violence as a tactic.
Not...really. That's not really something that a democratic government can realistically enforce, and even if so the collateral damage of those hypothetical policies would negatively affect so many of the people who consider themselves antifascist. There might be some people who fall under the umbrella of antifa that might push for certain narrow policies, but that is a far cry from an actual coherent state-wide antifascist policy. Again, this is the defense vs offense thing. To put it another way, U.S. Republicans might be agaist universal healthcare but that doesnt mean they actually have a policy they want in place.
Oh, that is definitely not the case! It's a small community here and you are quite active (I might not post often but I lurk all the time). The thought of you being a secret fascist is actually hilarious. Also, and this might be the decade of reddit use talking, but I hope you take my counterpoints as respectful and not angry or snide.
But I think this is the result of how you initially framed the discussion. OP was responding to a comment about how antifa is commonly seen as a violent, terrorist-like organization and in your initial comment you compared them to violent and terrorist organizations. From that moment, the rest of the discussion was about the use of violence in antifascist activism. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're saying antifascists like OP think violence is the best or only solution. I don't think that is fair. OP has defended the use of violence, but that doesnt mean they are in favor of murdering all the fascists.
Yes, it is. Hate speech, discrimination, and violence can all be outlawed - they are outlawed in Australia.
The OP started the discussion about antifa in this article she posted about a mass shooting in New Zealand. She derailed her own thread. And, when she decided to try to paint antifa violence as somehow morally good, I decided to highlight the hypocrisy in approving of some violence while decrying other violence.
I think you need to re-read those lines I quoted. While she is defending violence, she is also advocating it in places, such as here: "if your ideology is predicated on genocide, i have no sympathy if someone kills you and your death is a good thing".
just popping in to point out:
and australia has a problem with anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, pro-white rhetoric to a point that--as in america--there are several elected politicians who have openly or covertly support viewpoints such as the ones held by the shooter. so too do the countries of europe, where all those things are also outlawed. just outlawing things will not stop people from organizing against, espousing rhetoric against, and committing violent attacks against minorities and other vulnerable groups. you need to break their ability to organize and break their ability to spread their rhetoric, or else they just come back.
just to clarify: are you going to try and stake claim to the take that it would have been a bad thing for someone to have killed serbians who would go on to commit horrific atrocities against bosniaks, or for someone to have done the same with hutus who went on to kill tutsis, the burmese who did so against the rohingya, the iraqis who did so against the kurds, the khmer rouge against their own people, and so on before those people could commit such acts simply because killing people is bad (even though those genocidaires went on to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people who would have otherwise not died)?
Fine. I was going to leave you alone and play nice, but you've invited further interaction. So...
Let's put this in context. You are talking about killing people before they have killed anyone (or even hurt anyone). You are talking about killing people who have only said they want to kill people. You want to kill people merely for saying bad things. You're not waiting until they do anything, or until they act on their words. You're not waiting to see if they're all hot air and won't follow through on their threats. You're not waiting to see if someone else stops them from doing what they want, in some other way. Nope. As soon as they start saying "I want to kill all X!", you want to lift your gun and shoot them dead... just for the words they said.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I WILL CONDONE MURDERING PEOPLE JUST FOR THE THINGS THEY HAVE SAID.
Have I made myself crystal clear? Or do we need to drag this out even more?
to be clear: this view is exactly why i think violence if necessary is acceptable if necessary against people who subscribe to genocidal ideologies. what you are essentially saying is that people cannot be taken at their word, at their face, or at the history of their ideology that they intend to commit mass murder. so, when these people do take power somewhere, what will happen is that someone like me will be killed by these people for beliefs they hold and who they are, and someone like you will probably not because--judging by your views--you are in a privileged enough position that you will never be targeted, and in any case your views essentially preclude intervention before it's too late to do anything, which they will be just fine with.
ultimately, if people like you won't do anything to stop these people, you simply cannot be surprised when those who inevitably will die at their hands don't shed tears for their deaths or sit down and take it like dogs.
I'm not asking you to sit down and take it like a dog. But there's a wide spectrum of possible actions between "nothing" and "murder".
By the way, as a gay man (albeit a white cisgender gay man), I'm not exactly at the top of those folks' lists of favourite people, either.
You’re arguing about the Paradox of Intolerance. Which i find some humor in because the concept is talked about as part of the moderating philosophy of Tildes
There is to me a stark difference between intolerance of fascists in a particular space and moderating to de-platform them. With intolerance of fascists as living people and it thus being O.K. to extra-judicially murder them as u/alyaza argues above.
oh, then if it's purely about how "justified" the violence is the answer is very because nazis are people who want to commit genocide and it is somewhat becoming of like, every fucking decent human being to stop people who want to commit genocide from doing that. this is extremely straightforward, my guy.
because they want to commit genocide? this is also really straight forward and, to be clear, are you saying we need to wait for people to start committing genocide to oppose actively genocidal intentions, which is the inevitable and inexorable goal of all states in which fascism arises and takes power?
i do like how you kinda completely sidestepped the part where i pointed out fascism is inherently violent so you could act like there's no reason for people to oppose fascism violently but, once again: THERE IS NO PEACEFUL FASCISM. there is no "moral high ground" to be taken. fascists are people who want to commit genocide and this is an inevitable aspect of fascism. anti-fascists want to oppose this before it happens. i will repeat, do we need to wait for people to start committing genocide to oppose actively genocidal intentions? because fuck that, my dude.
To be honest, I just couldn't be bothered getting into a shouting match with you. It's not like either of us is going to convince the other, and this is obviously a very personal and emotive issue for you, so I think it's best if I just step away and leave you alone.
But, for context: I'm a total absolute 100% pacifist who doesn't approve of any violence except maybe in the context of defending someone from a direct immediate attack. If there's no direct immediate attack endangering a person's life, there's no possible justification for violence.
Bye for now.
let me specify why that is, just so we're clear: it's because if fascists do take power anywhere, people like me are probably going to be the first to get the bullet, and taking a stance of "both sides are wrong" or "violence is bad and wrong even when directed at fascists" is nice for the conscience and all, but for all the good those stances do someone like me, at that point you might as well be the one pulling the trigger (and you are also indistinguishable from the actual fascists). the reason i take such a strong stance as i do isn't necessarily because i want to so much as because it is a matter of genuine survival for people like me that fascism does not arise anywhere, and the only way to ensure that is to continually combat it where it grows, when it grows through any means available, whether that be peaceful or violent.
I'm not quite sure we're all on the same page here. Clearly, you believe that violent opposition is not off the table, but to what extent? Is it the last resort in which there is no other way to prevent fascists from taking power or would you condone something like an assasination of a fascist leader with a small following as a preemptive measure to prevent the movement from growing? What, hypothetically, do you believe is a justified use of violence?
Are you arguing in favor of moral relativism? Because, otherwise, there are such things as good and bad, the ideology of the person doing them notwithstanding.
Would you consider all violence and killing done by the state to be just? Laws and morals aren't the same thing, something being conducive to civility isn't always conducive to morality.
Killing and violence is bad when it's done without a good reason, like self-defense--which it could be argued that Antifa is doing so by punching genocidal maniacs and not giving them a platform.
Not really. I'm not making any arguments about moral relativism whatsoever. To me, writing "all causes are good in the eyes of their followers" is merely stating a fact: anyone who supports a cause thinks that cause is good. (Would you support a cause you thought was bad?) That's not saying whether the cause is good, or how we should define it as good. It's just saying that people only follow causes they support.
If anything, I'm arguing for moral absolutism by writing "violence and terrorism are bad, no matter who is conducting it, and no matter what their motives are" and "killing and violence can't be justified by saying it was done in a good cause". I'm implying that killing and violence are bad in an absolute sense. (And, that's a bit of a turn-up for me, considering I'm usually in the pro-relativism camp!)
No.
And who gets to decide what reasons are "good"? (Now we're starting an argument about moral relativism!)
If the so-called "maniac" is not currently attacking you personally, then punching them can not be self-defence. ;) Even if we extend the meaning of "self-defence" to include defending other people, an actual attack still needs to be taking place right now for any punching of the "maniac" to be considered defence. Otherwise, if the "maniac" is not currently physically attacking anyone one when someone punches them, that can only be considered a pre-emptive attack, rather than defence.
I might agree with you that terrorism is always bad, but violence? That's an absolutely extreme view.
If someone is being beaten to death, it's wrong to stop the attacker? If a country is being invaded by another, it's wrong for it to defend itself?
If a group of people are running a sex slavery ring, it's wrong for the police to raid them?
That view is frankly ridiculous.
I don't pretend that it's not extreme. I've explained more here.
None of these scenarios require violence. It is possible to stop a violent attacker without attacking them in turn. It is possible to defend yourself without counter-attacking. It is possible to stop criminal behaviour without inflicting violence on them.
Thank you for your reasoned and rational engagement with my strongly held and very important opinion.
No? You can't think of a single situation that requires violence to solve?
I had a friend in college who was seeing a woman. Unbeknownst to him, she was in a relationship with another guy. That guy found out about my friend's activities with his girlfriend and showed up at his dorm one day. He knocked on the door, and as soon as my friend answered and confirmed that he was, in fact, the person he was looking for, the guy pounced on him. He had about 75 lbs on my friend, and straddled him, half drunk, while pummeling his face into the floor of the dorm over and over again.
My friend had a knife on his desk, and grasped for it as he was being slammed into the ground. He managed to slash the attacker's back badly enough that he stopped pummeling his face before his skull fractured. Obviously the police got involved, but my friend wasn't charged with anything, and spent the rest of our time at college together feeling horrible about the whole thing.
I consoled him at the time, telling him that there was literally nothing else he could have done in that situation. It was either that, or most likely death.
I fail to see how a situation like that could possibly be de-escalated without violence. Committing an act of violence almost certainly saved my friends life.
It just doesn't make any sense at all to me to make such a widespread blanket statement like that when the world is so much more complicated than such a broad, catchall rule can account for.
I'm not responsible for other people's lack of imagination.
Could your friend have simply struggled free from the man and run away? Or, like most people, did he believe that running away is cowardly, so he had to stay and face the attack?
Could he have tried pushing the man away?
Could he have shouted for help, so that other people could come and drag the man away?
Could he have clutched the man in a bear hug, so he was unable to swing his arms?
Could he tried any number of other responses? Was a knife the only response he could think of, because he has been taught to meet violence with violence?
Something being illegal means it is opposed with a threat of force. If you do this thing, scary people with guns will do what they can to try and stop you, and will even kill you if it comes to that. You are already promoting violence. If you believe things should be illegal, you already believe that violence should be used to quell violence.
The difference with antifa and the like is that when fascists distribute propaganda, organize, and outright proclaim their desire for genocide, antifascists believe them instead of waiting for terror attacks and genocidal monsters to get their way before doing something.
And if there's no one promoting genocide, anti-fascists aren't out for blood. No one needs to be told that that isn't the case for fascists.
I'm not even going to touch the rest, as "what if someone else thinks differently?" goes nowhere and is just an argument for inaction under the false belief that inaction is neutral.
Not necessarily. Just because I support the concept of laws doesn't mean I support the concept of using violence to enforce those laws. I believe there are other ways to enforce laws that don't require violence.
My criticism of violence as a tool of action is not an argument for inaction: it's a criticism of violence. I'm a pacifist. I support action against fascists, but I don't support violent action.
Of course you support violence to enforce those laws. Unless you believe one person with a gun should be allowed to murder every individual on the planet without being forcably stopped, you do. You might believe minimizing violence is the way to go, doing everything you can not to kill the shooter in stopping them, but unless you're entirely unhinged and think mass murder should be only stopped by asking nicely, you recognize that violence is at some point necessary. So again, the only difference is if you want to wait for a mass murder or a genocide to do something.
The bit about inaction was not in reference to your attitude toward violence, but the natural conclusion of any conversation about your reasoning about how everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. Like I said, I don't want to touch it.
EDIT: Actually I'm going to back out entirely. I got frustrated and forgot that I didn't want to contribute to filling this thread up with this argument anyway. I don't think this is a good look for us as a community, but I guess I did my part in fanning the flames, sorry. Bye.
I disagree. This thread is full of civil and polite conversation about a very emotive and controversial topic. Anywhere else, this would have devolved to insults and name-calling. I think this is a great look for us.
Well I'm certainly glad it exists. I agree with the other guy that there are unfortunate parallels, but unfortunately, dirty problems and dirty solutions...
Calling radical actions against fascists terrorism is like saying that shooting a shooter is murder. Its not, theres just similar pieces.
Given the choice, it shouldnt need to escalate to vigilatism, but the fact of the matter is, as put, the establishment should not be giving these people platform to begin with.
luckily for people who dislike antifa, it's effectively self terminating anyways. after world war two for example, the anti-fascist movement all but ceased to exist because fascism was relegated almost totally to individuals and not organizations with institutional power. the only reason it has resurged in recent times because fascism has. without fascism, antifa as a movement is unnecessary, and so in a future optimal world where we don't have to worry about fascism being an actual ideological threat to people, there will be no reason for antifa to exist and people can stop clutching their pearls about how they're the same as fascists or whatever. it actually incentivizes dealing with fascists if you're someone who doesn't like antifa, really. if you make the fascists fuck off, so will antifa.
Well, not precisely, it would be manslaughter, murder is premeditated, ie planned beforehand. You will likely not get into trouble considering you did so to save lives but rarely AntiFa does things that are this black-and-white in the eyes of the law and morality.
I don't think there is anything to applying words were they fit. "Radical action against fascists" largely fits some definitions of terrorism, you target an ideological group in effort to eradicate them.
"Terrorism" might have bad connotations but it doesn't, at first, cast a value judgement on the goals of your group. The goal "keep invaders from our holy land" doesn't immediately have an bad parts to it either, there is no violence implication. However, placing IEDs to achieve this goal is seen as bad by most western people.
As a counter point, an ex-Right Wing politician in germany recently talked about her experiences. She mentioned that deplatforming the AfD (right wing party) validates their beliefs, they can play victim. If you physically attack them they can play the victim, they can validate their beliefs that the left wants X. The most effective way to taking away their platform, she argued, is to give them an equal platform, because their platform is precisely the opposite; not having a platform is their entire argument.
Additionally a recent article posted here on tilde told the story of a black man who sat down with Klansmembers and talked several hundred people out of their beliefs. Not with violence, but with understanding, humor and respect.
Shooting a shooter is manslaugher. Talking the shooter down and making them give up isn't manslaughter.
with respect, this is bullshit in the context of internet extremism. we have studies which show not giving these people a platform and taking it away from them entirely fucks up their ability to spread a message. we saw this on reddit with the banning fatpeoplehate and we saw it in the broader internet with the deplatforming of alex jones. both of these actions rendered the community and jones respectively almost incapable of effectively spreading their beliefs because they no longer had venues to speak and have their speech amplified. similarly, we have seen direct action by antifascists against speaking tours by alt-righters such as richard spencer render them incapable of propagating their message and led to many of them effectively abandoning it as a means of getting the message out at all.
broadly speaking, the only thing that giving them equal platform does is validates their ideas, and allow them to propagate.
and he is an exception, not the rule. there is a time and place for attempting to convert people peacefully, but it was violence and deplatforming that ultimately stopped the british fascists under oswald mosley, black militancy with the black panthers and the nation of islam that forced white segregationists to bend the knee to more moderate MLK and LBJ, and it is currently a campaign of deplatforming and direct action by activists and antifascists that has largely turned back the rising tide of fascism in the US. the reality is that the threat of genuine consequences tends to deter people from holding beliefs that would lead to violence against them a hell of a lot more frequently (and with significantly more staying power) than trying to sit down and talk them out of their beliefs does.
Not giving them a platform also validates their ideas, especially the ones where the elite is trying to kill them all, which would make them much more desperate and willing to take harmful action.
Consequences can be physical, psychological or social. I don't see any reason to use physical consequences when social ones can be sufficient in a healthy society. Violence is in my opinion never the correct answer, even if it leads to results faster, it's a cheat code getting you to some target, it does not allow you to see and fix problems in society, especially ones that caused the thing you did violence against.
Another counterpoint; in post-WW1 germany people who associated with the NSDAP were deplatformed and faced violence. There are plenty of stories from NSDAP party members who were outcast by their family and friends for their beliefs, it only validated them and strengthned their beliefs. It didn't stop the fascists (although at the time, Italy was still exploring the definition of fascist), it made them more violent.
it really does not the overwhelming majority of the time. can you remind me how well alex jones' personal ideas are faring now that he isn't a staple on literally every major social media platform?
i can: it keeps people from subscribing to genocidal ideologies which will lead to the most vulnerable people in society being murdered because for some reason people think it's wrong to "deplatform" them even though deplatforming them literally works and makes their ideology less likely to spread and therefore, to become popular. also, little point of note: violence in both a metaphorical and literal sense is how the state sustains itself so like, unless you're going to literally oppose the state and take an anarchist position, violence is sometimes the correct answer and therefore i don't think it's exactly a stretch to extend that idea of it being the correct answer to sometimes violently opposing people who are going to commit mass murder from taking power and doing so, or to do so in the name of establishing civil rights or putting pressure on apartheid, and so on.
i mean yeah, sometimes it does that. most of the time and for most people, it does not. there are always exceptions to the rule, but in general deplatforming works, violence is sometimes a politically viable and potentially politically necessary option, and just in general i think a lot of the folks in this thread completely lack any sort of nuance or ability to see why people might not be so inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people whose stated ideology is, as i've stated probably thirty times or so now, actively genocidal.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I can't support violence for political goals in any form or shape and I also do not like how aggressive deplatforming happens these days, even if it would happen in acceptable margins, it can do more harm than good. Society can fix these problems just as well, it just needs more time. In my opinion, violence will always remain the cheat card, the "Draw 4 cards" card of politics, it doesn't actually solve problems it only achieves goals.
I don't think it's about "giving the benefit of the doubt". If you'd ask anyone here if they support these ideologies, they'd say "no", including me. I can't speak for others but personally I also don't support violence, as I've previously explained and I don't like deplatforming, believing it to be an ineffective and crude tool, like a wooden club.
Ultimately, violence is not the status quo in our society, thankfully, which means that you'll have to convince everyone else that your violence is necessary and justify the actions that follow, regardless of how much you think you shouldn't have to.
see i get that, but at the same time, i think most leftists would tell you in response to that (and i really cannot fault them for this) that you're pretty much giving them the benefit of the doubt in taking that position--even if you oppose them--because by opposing efforts to deplatform them or push them violently out of the mainstream, you're still giving them basically unfettered access to entire groups of people to radicalize instead of just people they already have mostly radicalized. after all, if exposing them for who they are really was effective, even simple alt-right or alt-right adjacent figures like ben shapiro and jordan peterson and youtubers like blackpigeonspeaks and sargon of akkad would have likely withered or begun to by now, no?--and yet instead they've been keeping on or growing in influence, and so too have fascist and white supremacist and white nationalist etc. etc. movements.
i mean, i think if most people did genuinely have a bone to pick with antifa violence, they'd have presumably done something meaningful about it by now (like lobby congress) given that the bulk of it in america is past tense most of such violence happened under a republican government. that nothing has happened despite comments from even the president on it from time to time does suggest that most people at the minimum see it as a push where nothing is gained or lost by the existence of antifa chapters (and whatever violence comes of opposing fascists), and you could perhaps make a case that more people are sympathetic to antifa than are against it, although i'm pretty sure data on that is scant.
You probably misunderstood; Any violence, antifa or not, must be justified to other members of society, that doesn't mean people will go to the government if they disagree. It likely also means that most people see antifa violence for too inconsequential to be something you go talk to the government about. People aren't sympathetic they are apathetic, they do not care enough.
I would disagree with that. "Benefit of the doubt" has a clear definition; you wait for more information before casting judgement, innocent until proven guilty. I do not do that. I have sufficient information, I know that the deep alt-right is a vile and repulsive ideology, and I have cast judgement, you just disagree with it.
I'll agree to disagree. I agree that there are other options. I disagree that giving the platform what it ultimately wants (recognition and growth) is one of them, or that most others (basically talking the problem down) will ever be effective enough to counter their rise - at least, not in our generally complacent society.
That is to say, I appreciate the idealism but that very level of tolerance is whats allowee the problem to appear.
The point about connotation is useless semantics. My point is that antifa is being portrayed like an extremist alternative to fascism, when it isnt - its moderate by any definition, its just the appropriate caliber of response for an extreme scenario.
This is really all I have to say on this. As time goes on, and especially during our next election cycle, I expect groups like amtifa will only become more and more relevent as other options fail.
Oh my god, I've never heard a stupider quote in my whole life (and please, don't link me to stupider ─ this' bad enough for me)
Should go without saying, but be very careful looking up info about this, it's too easy to accidentally stumble upon the livestream. Don't make that mistake like me.
Avoid Twitter in particular, it's a minefield.
New Zealander here. This is so fucked. We have no room for these sort of hateful sub-human scum here. We have absolutely zero need for guns either. We already have fairly strict laws, but it's time we banned them completely.
NZ has always been fairly insulated from the global nonsense. My blood is boiling that we're now involved. U.S.-style, far-right extremism has no place in the world, let alone New Zealand.
I don't support the death penalty, as a pacifist, but these people need to be permanently locked up and removed from nearly all human contact. Good job to the New Zealand police for apprehending them without further bloodshed. Throw away the key.
Yes.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stated "our gun laws will change"
I expect there will be near-unilateral agreement from most large political parties regarding this. Hopefully this makes the end of handguns & anything military-esque in this country.
My local newspaper did a helpful summary of NZ's gun laws.
the confirmed death toll appears to now stand at 40, according to ABC (the australian ABC). just an obscene fucking number of people, and might rival the las vegas shooting in lethality if there are still outstanding major injuries that turn fatal or fatalities gone unreported.
death toll is 49 now.
As sad as it is, I'm really not surprised by how prepared he was. He had at least 6 different guns, dozens of magazines, knew how to handle the weapons effectively, and only seemed to care about killing as many people as he could. The man is a disgusting monster.
It seems to be more than just an individual:
Source
What's extremely concerning is that New Zealand has fairly restrictive gun laws. How did he manage to get them into our country?
The fucker even live streamed it... What an absolute fucking shitty fucking asshole of a human. Disgusting.
There are descriptions of the video in these articles:
Christchurch mosque shootings: Man claims responsibility for shootings, records assault on video
Christchurch shooting: Gunman's chilling live stream of the mosque attack[article deleted at source]The articles are safe for reading and the linked videos are safe viewing; there's nothing graphic in them. But the write-ups are quite shocking, and even the non-violent parts shown in the videos are quite disturbing.
Your second link appears to be broken, FYI.
The newspaper appears to have deleted that article. Understandable.
here are a few relevant little pieces about the general climate/implications/considerations this morning as the american press stakes out its thoughts: A Mass Murder of, and for, the Internet, The Shooter’s Manifesto Was Designed to Troll, and White Nationalism’s Deep American Roots
I lurk around some forums out of morbid curiosity for the people who post there, kind of like a psychologist studying patients in a sanatorium. Kiwi Farms is one of them. They have notices posted at the top of each page:
I didn't include the link and I'm not clicking on it just in case it's the video.
Another notice:
Kiwi Farms is hosted on Cloudflare. They have a thread where they're mocking people complaining about Cloudflare hosting the forums. Some members claim the livestream is a historical document and needs to be preserved.
Bet it'd be a different story if their loved ones's deaths were captured on film.
When something like this happens, it is easy to lose focus of individuals in favour of considering the impact on the zeitgeist - but please keep your Muslim friends and colleagues in your thoughts today. I am not Muslim, but I do have friends who are, and I have let them know if they want to vent or process with me in any way they can.
A group I am a member of was the target of a mass shooting in the last few years. Having a couple people check in on me was a sliver of hope in what was otherwise a difficult, hopeless day. If you have friends who you think may appreciate a quick word or message from you, consider reaching out.