Antifa....
- Thread starter IUCrazy2
- Start date
OK, it's just that most folks sorta assume that when something is posted in a forum where lots of people are talking and when there are private options available if you only want to speak to one person, that you're talking to everybody. Usually when you're talking to everybody, you're trying to be understood by everybody.
I didn't understand your point.
I'm just pointing out that many are sloppy with their terminology. Otoh, I'm not sure why someone would want to argue they aren't racist, but are xenephobic instead. It's rather amusing.
So what does someone mean when they call someone a racist? Explain it to me and why it's okay to call someone a racist if you don't believe it?
As far as shouting down conversation. It works with me unless I am tired of it and decide to fight back.
Then I'll ask you the same thing I asked stoll: What do you think people mean by the word "racism" when you think they're being sloppy with it?
Who said they don't believe it?
You'll have to ask them what they mean by the term. Maybe they're being sloppy as toasted seems to think. Maybe they have an explanation that might actually be useful.
I think a lot of people throw around the term racism/racist at non-racial forms of bigotry.
I haven't figured out a response to your point yet, that was more toward Rock's point. To your point, I can see the perception, but look at the thread. No one is defending Antifa. No one is defending Nazis. People are very angry. I think your point about rejection of a contrary viewpoint is good, but I also think there is some good old-fashioned talking past one another happening in all our threads.
by
I'm struck that the proponents of this thread's thesis are strutting and taunting as though they've scored a great victory, when all they've done is knock down a straw man. This tells me that they fundamentally don't (or won't or can't) comprehend the points they imagine they're refuting. Since these points are pretty bleeding obvious and have by now been made many times, the stubborn incomprehension seems notable. What do you think accounts for it?
Maybe we're talking past each other.
I'm struck that the proponents of this thread's thesis are strutting and taunting as though they've scored a great victory, when all they've done is knock down a straw man. This tells me that they fundamentally don't (or won't or can't) comprehend the points they imagine they're refuting. Since these points are pretty bleeding obvious and have by now been made many times, the stubborn incomprehension seems notable. What do you think accounts for it?
Let me see if I can help a little. Start with a concept, and its implications. And explain your position on the concept, including any relevant links/sources to Your take on the concept.
And, seek to understand what the other side is saying, rather than trying to "one up" them.
You've approached this a different way. You've latched on to partisan tactics, namely "whatsboutism". That's an attempt to liken what the other side has done to justify the behavior of your side. Like it or not, but the right owns the white nationalists/alt-right/nazis. And it's largely because of they've been allowed to exist (and even thrive) without condemnation. And minimizing the WN/AR/nazi's behavior (and ideology by extension) isn't a good look. And, on the surface, it makes one look racist.
I don't think you guys are truly racist. But, something is making you dig in on the false equivalency, which makes it appear that you MAY have racist tendencies. Rather than engage what Rock is asking, you take it as an attack on you personally. And, the question then has to be asked. Why do you take it so personally? It's almost as if some of you guys are on a mission to prove that the "left" Anifa group in general is as bad as the WN/AR/Nazis. Which isn't remotely true.
So, it's either you guys have become so partisan that you always have to one up the "other side", or you sympathize with the bad guys. And that would, by definition, make you racist, or at the least have racist tendencies. I tend to believe that the answer is the first option. But, your insistence on arguing for the false equivalency leaves your motives up to interpretation. I also believe that some of us are truly blind when it comes to issues of race (like arguing that confederate statutes are merely about heritage). I think that is why some might think some other here are racist.
Hope all that made sense. If you take a step away from the keyboard/phone and reflect on his a little, I think you'll "get" why the left leaning folks on this board are pissed that you guys keep defending the false equivalency.
In short, this ain't about party. It's deeper than that.
As an aside, I'd recommend that some of you guys check out left wing sources. I regularly read right wing leaning stuff, watch Fox News and generally try to understand where the "other" side is coming from. It's a good exercise- because it makes me realize that sometimes I'm wrong on a position/topic. The more you get sucked into one side's media sphere, the harder it is to engage in civil discourse of ideas- without labels and partisan BS. It's simple human nature. We all have to fight our worst tendencies to be better.
I don't think all of the people throwing around the term always know the difference themselves. People associate racism with all kinds of bigotry. Bigotry based upon ethnicity and nationality is not racist necessarily. Race based bigotry is something like I want to keep black people out. I want to keep brown people down. Discriminating on ethnicity or nationality is not racism. Discriminating based upon religion is also not racism.
I may be wrong here, but like I said above, I'm not sure the folks using the term would agree with your summary. I don't think they're talking about nationality or religion. I think they're talking about matters of race.
I think that, much as Southerners developed an alternative history of the Civil War, some are concocting a de-contextualized understanding of Charlottesville and related events. They can't allow themselves to hear the actual narrative while they're engaged in the act of concoction. This thread reflects the emotional rigors of their cognitive dissonance.
Not in every case, but often racism is thrown in non-racial examples of bigotry. I.e. I think many of the so called racists are bigoted and xenophobic, not racist. They are not actively bigoted based upon race(skin color), but are simply in fear of "others".
Example?
We've been talking about white nationalists and this is in the context of all the Civil War statue removal stuff, so I'm curious particularly about that dialogue. You think most of that wasn't really race-focused, but rather that what was being discussed was some other form of bigotry?
Why is it interjected into so many threads on this forum? I acknowledge the small community I was raised in had racist views. I knew no different when I was young. I went off to IU and met many different folks of all races. I saw racism was wrong. 40 years ago when I had an African American friend and roommate from college be a member of my wedding party in that small community I am sure it was upsetting to some. I taught my son differently than what I experienced in the community I was raised. Not only have I taught it, he saw me live it through our summer travels in AAU ball and my treatment of people in our community and other communities.
It's just a sore spot with me. Butthurt as the Grand One would say.
There is something to the cognitive dissonance. But I suspect the original poster (and I might be wrong) wanted this argument you are providing him. It is less clear in this thread since MTIOTF didn't start this one. Perhaps my reply would be better in his thread where I am more confident the poster only wanted to tweak the other side.
Once again, though, you're not in any way grappling with what was said. You take it in in one way and apply a value to it and apply an interpretation to it. I've encouraged you to dig deeper and see if there's more to that epithet and more to that dialogue. While I appreciate that it resonates with you, you're really not picking up the baton here.
Just a quick note.
One, your meaning isn't clear.
Two, "Is that simple enough for you" comes off as rude.
I give up. If I want to post here I have to accept the name calling. And it's my fault because I don't understand the reason for the constant use of the word.
You and Marvin are good guys. Thanks for attempting to help.
Seriously stoll, this one is worth spending time with. No matter what you think of anybody here, I think spending a little more time would prove valuable to you.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't just characterize it as "fault". It's examining beliefs and assumptions. Lawyers and others get plenty of exercise in their professional lives in using argument and deconstructing positions. Those are actually useful skills and not just puffery and spin. It's truly healthy exercise.
I wish I could convince you to keep digging in. Actually thinking about the questions I posed (and maybe posing similar questions to others) would be a great start.
That's up to you, though. It's just a message board. But so much of this stuff stretches into all of our conversations with family, friends and on a political scale.
I think Rockfish and others feel that the message espoused by nazis and other racist hate groups is so egregious and offensive, that despite the First Amendment which guarrantees their right to assemble to share their ignorant message, they should be prevented from doing so, and by any means necessary.
By putting a lens on the protest in Charlottesville, the media and the leftosphere created the opportunity for all sorts of opposition to arrive, including one particular group called Antifa, who has been judged to have used violent tactics to shut down the vile, but protected speech.
Some of us feel that the best way to deal with such hate groups, since they exist in such small numbers, would be to not give them the publicity they seek, to let their message go unheard and to turn our backs on such divisive and hurtful ideals. Those posters I mentioned previously insist people who would attack ignorance with clubs and chains are the moral equals to the Allied Powers of WWII and Indiana freaking Jones. Furthemore, any criticism of Antifa or their methods is deemed as sympathy to nazi ideals, when NOBODY is on record here any where close to sympathizing with the message of white supremacy.
However, that doesn't stop certain people, who insist on repeatedly declaring their position on the "right side" of the race issue, from painting challengers as racists. We are constantly put in the position to deny being racists, and then dubbed 'not-racist'. These are the tactics of learned intellectuals in a politics forum. It's no wonder people are on edge around here.
Last edited:
OK, I think this is probably a great start and there's plenty of fodder there for discussion, but let me make just a couple observations before (time permitting) I put in more pointed responses, commentary.
You've got four paragraphs there. All but the first paragraph (which really is one sentence) is YOUR view. That's fine, but the challenge we started here (and it goes both ways, by the way) was to articulate the other side's position. And most of the argument here has stemmed from a misunderstanding (for lack of a better term) of what specifically lots of folks object to in "both sides-ism". You didn't grapple with that in your summary view of "the other side's" thinking.
So I'll let Rockfish or others weigh in if they're interested, but I don't think your first sentence really accurately or fully presents what Rockfish and plenty of others (me included) have been saying or thinking.
I'll try to get back to this.
None of that is accurate. No one supports violence, even against racists. What we are complaining about is the insistence by some of you that Antifa and white nationalists are morally equivalent. Some of you have explicitly accused Antifa of being nothing more than the Klan of the left. This is ridiculous. We want you to condemn white nationalism. Full stop. No need to create some leftist bad guy. No both sides-ism. Just do the right thing.
When you refuse, it's no surprise some question your motives.
Well....isn't that the group of people you're defending? The people who just killed someone and plowed over many others...just like in Barcelona? What is it about nazis that you like so much? Their haircuts? Swastikas?
A lot more needs to be said.
I agree with you that there's no basis to support the idea that there are Nazi supporters here and that's what Hoops implied, even if he was being rhetorical. He's certainly not alone in that rhetorical swiping, though. And I don't mean the "lefties".
The Atlantic had a pretty astute article discussing this very subject yesterday.I thought it would make sense to practically anyone,till I read the post article comments slamming it as "liberal hogwash".I think the reality is that the polarization is so complete and the opposing sides of the debate are so entrenched that finding common ground is EXTREMELY difficult,if not downright impossible...From the Atlantic piece comparing/contrasting Antifa,KKK and BLM...
"As protesters clash in occasionally violent street confrontations that spread via online video, provoking emotional conversations that could touch almost anyone on Facebook or Twitter, millions of Americans feel pressure to pick a side, to support or denounce a faction, knowing that whatever they say about white supremacists, Antifa, or Black Lives Matter, they risk being criticized for failing to condemn violence on “their side,” or for suggesting a false equivalence between groups.
How can a conflicted observer find clarity?
One way forward is to distinguish between a group’s ends and its means. Diligently doing so can help anyone to formulate a defensible position, to better understand those who disagree, and to emphasize common ground that too often goes unrecognized."
Start with ends,means,and the name they chose
Is it too simplistic to examine what motivates the groups (resp) and to take a clue from how they define themselves? It strikes me as just plain common sense.There may be some similarity in tactics (in a broad sense),but the differences in goals and motivation for even existing are pretty stark.
Antifa and BLM are both reactionary elements,built to address inequalities and injustices.Anti-fascist describes a battle against Fascism,and has it's origins in the street battles against self defined Fascist elements in Italy,Germany and Spain in the 1930s.Modern day Antifa sprung up as a response to Neo-Nazi elements in both Europe and the US.Antifa is multi-racial and multi-ethnic,there is no intent to subjugate folks based on their race.The ideology is noble,while the tactics may equate on some level with the Fascists and Neo_nazis they despise...
BLM formed as a response to police shootings,and the perceived lack of concern in some government circles.Again the letter M stand for MATTER,as in Black Lives (also) Matter.It's multi-racial,and multi-ethnic,and again there is no underlying desire to subjugate anyone based on their race.I think that far right wing pundits and spokespeople that attack BLM as "racist" actually realize it isn't.But it's politically expedient to apply dog whistle terminology to rally people within their constituency who are easily manipulated and conned.
The KKK,Vanguard,and other elements of the Neo-Nazi,alt right hierarchy.Their underlying principles are racial purity and White SUPREMACY.The KKK was formed as a response to Black people (and Jews) exercising their basic rights (voting,representation,equal citizen status) which of course meant a lessening of the power and privilege others had enjoyed exclusively up until that point in time.They proudly self define as FASCISTS,and define other races as subhuman and inferior.I don't even know how anyone could attempt to argue that point with a straight face-just READ what they say about themselves and others.They're not fighting FOR equality,they are fighting for SUPREMACY.
I fully support violence against Nazis. 100%. I think they should be wiped off the planet, just like they were in Germany in the '40s.
@TheOriginalHappyGoat I've had it explained to me why the I can't post the word that keeps getting posts deleted. Since we have established that offensive words are disallowed I've petitioned the young man running this site to ban calling any other member idiot (that's similar to excuse on other word), Racist, White Nationalist, KKK or any other offensive slur.
Stoll, as I have repeatedly told you, if you think someone calls you something offensive, and the mods miss it, all you need do is report the post, and we'll get to it.
Doc does not represent any other liberal here, and the arguments he's making are unlike any argument made by the rest of us. Blowing the rest of us off on account of Doc would be similar to us refusing to engage any conservative whatsoever because of Ladoga.
Similar threads
