IMHO, it very much matters what methods you use to fight fascism and who you call a fascist. As has been noted by others, since roughly the late 40s, fascist means whatever the speaker wants it too. Usually, people I don't like.
Same with 'communist' and 'socialist' (even though they all have pretty complete and comprehensive definitions) and don't think for a moment that all of this isn't done very deliberately by the corporate/state propagandists.
What did you expect? It's not like any significant republicans support neo Nazis.
Yes, they do. New terms like 'alt-right' and 'white nationals' were again deliberately created in order to do this very thing but right out in the open where they believe that a little plausible deniability ("no significant repubs support NATZEES!! lol") will go a long way.
I repeat somebody is looking an Antifa through rose colored glasses.
I don't think so, but even if true, it's better than looking through blurred and broken ones.
I believe the former, if you replace 'terrorism' with violence, intimidation, threat, etc. I don't believe they see themselves as terrorists. There are many peaceful anti-fascist groups out there that people can and do join. The choice to profess allegiance to Antifa in preference to any of these others proves to me that the decision has been made to embrace fascism and violence.
I'm sure this will have to be repeated ad nauseum, but FASCISM ≠ VIOLENCE period. Fascism has as one component, violence.
Calling something which is violent as fascism is wrong and misleading. Fascism has many components which are easily met by the current conservative and alt-right movement but which are not met by Antifa. This only is logical because Antifa is nothing but "anti-fascist."
When the fascists go away, so will Antifa.
Nowadays there's usually a "yes, but...".
If Nazis are bad, opposing Nazis must be good. If the Nazis bring violence, using violence against them must be morally right, yes?
Because the Nazis are violent by definition, there must therefore be moral justification to be violent towards Nazis.
Now, about that middle ground. How about we say "Nazis are bad" and end it there with a full stop. We don't go "but... Antifa something something". That makes it look like you're apologizing for Nazis, who, as we've agreed, are bad.
Thank you! QFT.
"Violent by definition" sounds dubious to me. Sounds like an excuse to be violent against them at any point you wish to be.
Do you not know of the concept of "nuance?"
Look, this stuff isn't difficult.
<snip>
Thank you! I'm baffled why people don't seem to get this.
I'm gobsmacked when people label the American Democratic Party as liberal and/or leftist. The Democratic National Committee is, politically, about as leftist as mainstream Republicans were during the Reagan years. Obama is demonized by the right but he was despised as a turncoat by the real left for things like drone strikes, deportation rates of illegal aliens, being way too corporate friendly, needing to "evolve" on gay marriage, etc. There is no major liberal party in the US. That's why Bernie Sanders energized so many people in 2016.
Again, as someone who identifies as far left in the US, the democrats are not very left-leaning and you're absolutely right. I have much disgust and scorn for Obama too and his time in office and the continuing infringements he kept going (as a good lap-dog of the moneyed corporations should, naturally).
And what would you replace the evil Captilaist system with?
Why should he answer? He was just explaining a concept, it doesn't mean he advocates for it.
What is scary is how many "progressives" here seem all on board with attacking anybody they deem is a "fascist".
Huh. Interesting. What I see is scary is how many "centrists" and "democrats" who are supporting people who are displaying fascistic tendencies.
You can't deal with the fact that antifa is a bunch of marginal idiots functionally no different than the marginal idiots they claim to be "protecting" us from.
Just be honest enough to admit it. You're in favor of vigilante mob violence with the proviso that you approve of who the victims are. I know plenty of right wing idiots that agree with you.
And I know plenty of right-wing idiots who agree with you — that as long as the government has the monopoly of force you are defending a corrupt and bigoted system.
Like at Tiananmen Square?
You do know that once that poor man was out of sight, he was disappeared? By the government? Sure, he held up the tank parade for a while but paid for it with his life shortly thereafter.
It should also be noted that free speech applies - even in the US - only to government suppression of speech. In the case under discussion, it appears to have been private actors acting against other private actors. Free speech doesn't apply.
This is one thing I don't understand. Especially in America. The government isn't allowed to infringe but corporations are totes free to stamp all over peoples' rights. USA! USA! USA!
As far as I'm concerned, anybody convicted of using violence in the street over politics and speech - on both sides of the question - can be hung from the same tree.
People that want to march and act like complete idiots without any violence? Any issue? Have at it.
Oh, yeah, you're a cop/ex-cop so I'm unsurprised at your stance here but let's make this clear: you don't mind at all at using force or killing "complete idiots" as long as it's done by the government.
IOW, as long as the state has complete monopoly on violence, it's all fine by you. Got it.
