Ah yes, I too conflate bills written by organized lobbyists with a loosely affiliated group that says American shouldn't be ran by Nazi's. The Nazi's running America get very mad about that and ensure to flood the airwaves with how cities in the US are mile wide smoking craters due to people who don't like authoritarians.
The point GP was making, which holds as a general rule, is that simply adopting a moniker does not necessarily mean that it accurately describes you. Your argument pre-supposed that just because Antifa self-describes as antifascist, it inherently is, and that the CEO was expressing an opposition to the concept of antifascism, rather than simply expressing opposition to the specific group.
If Antifa’s record speaks for itself, then you don’t need to play these kinds of word games. If some CEO spoke unflatteringly of The Red Cross or Habitat For Humanity, that would say more about them than anything, not because they have virtuous sounding names (though they admittedly do) but because they’ve established a specific track record of public service.
I don't even know what antifa _is_ anymore, honestly. I only see it used as a boogie man by the right in discourse online.
But I _do_ know that when someone tags someone as "antifa" they are making a political statement and aligning themselves with a certain group that perceives "antifa" a certain way. "See, I hate those damn' antifa terrorists, I'm in the same camp as you! Please help my company make money!"
I've read your comment twice, and I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say.
> If some CEO spoke unflatteringly of The Red Cross or Habitat For Humanity,
Those are organizations. "Antifa" is a descriptive term that many people and organizations use, whether they have connections to one another or not. What is the comparison you are trying to draw here?
> If Antifa’s record speaks for itself, then you don’t need to play these kinds of word games.
You are using the possessive here, "Antifa's", in a way that seems grammatically incorrect to me.
"Antifa" is usually an adjective, but sometimes a known, like "vegan" or "blonde". Saying "if blonde's record speaks for itself", it seems like obviously broken English.
Usually you'd use this phraseology to describe a person or organization, "Joe's record", "Nabisco's record", etc.
What is the entity or entities whose record(s) you are trying to describe?
>Those are organizations. "Antifa" is a descriptive term that many people and organizations use, whether they have connections to one another or not. What is the comparison you are trying to draw here?
How's this different than say how "alt right" is pejoratively used by the left?
It's very much the same thing, there is no single unifying "Alt-Right" central headquarters, subscription fees amd newsletter, just as there is no specific Antifa organisation, just many people and a few groups that self identify as being against facism.
On the AltRight side people might point to, say, Steven Miller and his Nazi adjacent statements, or to Nick Fuentes and the Groypers, or to Andrew Anglin and The Daily Stormer for more trad. Nazi views.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what the leading antifa groups in central north america might be.
In terms of the silliness / uselessness, you're right that they're similar - nobody compares "The alt-right" to the Red Cross, as if they had an office and an accountant on staff.
But plenty of people will say that they are traditional conservatives, and say "I'm not alt-right". Virtually nobody describes their own political views by saying "I'm not anti-fascist."
> The point GP was making, which holds as a general rule, is that simply adopting a moniker does not necessarily mean that it accurately describes you.
I'm deeply curious why you think someone would identify as an anti-fascist if they were not, in fact, anti-fascist. Do you think they just really like the flag logo or...?
> Approximately nobody is against "antifa" because they're fighting "fascists".
So, I will say that far right, comservatives and fascists are against anti-fascism of any kind. Whether it is the boogeyman antifa or anything else. And there are a lot of people like that. Including in goverment.
They do take issue with anyone who openly opposes fascism.
I know we're not supposed to talk about it, but what in the world is happening to this site? Mistaking 'Antifa' for 'the concept of opposing fascism' is not the kind of failure mode I expect here. And this kind of thing has become endemic lately- emotive noise and sarcastic dunks drowning out substance in every thread, especially since the beginning of December. Or am I just imagining this?
Fighting fascist is the primary way to oppose them. The fighting bit often requires violence. That's what it takes, because it involves fighting a group of people that are not a peaceful bunch and have very violent intentions.
Yes, exactly my point. And once you are picking targets and taking violent actions, you can no longer excuse your aim and your violence by saying your heart is in the right place. Antifa has, for many decades, done wrong actions with good intentions. You can oppose them without being fascist.
Hm. Have you actually read that wikipedia page? I don't think it serves to validate your claims.
It does say that the Trump administration and one police department claims that they are like you say. On the same page it also mentions that the Trump administration has been involved on several hoaxes trying to incorrectly portray it.
Most of all the other groups paint it in a positive light.
> [g]iven the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions.
I would not mind being associated with the group portrayed on that page.
The article from Freddie deBoer is from 2021. He writes:
> The association of antifa with violence stems from the fact [in Europe] that these fascists or neofascists would often prowl the streets [...] Though many people would love to pretend that this isn’t the case, we are not in fact living in an America where Proud Boys wander through Chelsea randomly beating up gay people without resistance from the police
I think he would write something very different today. He does mention one case were a journalist was shot paint and mace and was thrown on the group by a group that could have been antifa. Or not.
Third link is from 2017. Black-clad anarchists swarm "anti-hate" rally in California, says the title. But it was an "anti-marxist" and "pro-trump" rally, which was cancelled(?). But people showed up anyway(?). And then:
> officers were told not to actively confront the anarchists
Come on. That reeks of being staged. The people in black were almost certainly proud boys. The wikipedia page mentions their leader employing this exact tactic:
> In posts on Parler, leaders of the Proud Boys had disclosed plans to attend the rally wearing "all black" clothing associated with antifa activists and arrive "incognito" in an apparent effort to shift blame for any violence on antifa
I did this analysis in a bit more than 10 minutes, no LLMs used.
You mention the years a few times- the claim I was asked to cite was in the past tense and I deliberately sought sources from before the current regime. This is your sole criticism of the deBoer article. Antifa was still called Antifa and it was still short for anti-fascist in 2017 and 2021.
Wiki says:
>Some on the political left and some civil rights organizations criticize antifa's willingness to adopt violent tactics, which they describe as counterproductive and dangerous, arguing that these tactics embolden the political right and their allies.
>Both Democratic and Republican politicians have condemned violence from antifa
>CNN describes antifa as "known for causing damage to property during protests."
Among many other similar statements; I think your summary is inadequate.
I can't argue with false flag conspiracy theories, so I'll leave it at that.
If they genocided German citizens, yes! We still argue today about whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified; nobody argues they weren't antifascist.
Of course I'm not saying this! There's no way to read what I said and get this out unless you put it in! You're supposed to be charitable here and you are actively doing the opposite.
If you punch John Doe in the face becaune you think he's Hitler; if you torture Hitler's parents just to stick it to him, yes, you are in the wrong.
By physically opposing fascism, I assume you mean they are taking specific practical actions rather than becoming one with the platonic concept of opposition to fascism.
It may seem an obvious or insignificant point, but it is critical here. If they physically oppose fascism by following and filming ICE, I'm very much on board. If they oppose it by molotoving innocent local government buildings, I am against. If both of these actions are the concept of opposing fascism, what does it mean to be against that?
Antifa are belligerants. They undermine protests by having the maturity to die for a cause but not to live for one. One can be against that without being fascist.
So your contention is that people who are following and filming ICE cannot be considered 'antifa' because you have decided that 'antifa' means 'people engaging in bad violence'.
