I mean that would make sense if Antifa had anything to do with fascism. It’s just one of many movements wearing labels that intentionally misrepresent it’s members.
It’s like being anti-Patriot act and then others claiming that you’re against patriotism.
You’re playing into their hands.
Love this argument.
You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.
And that’s like saying “If Black Lives Matter were actually black” or something. Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea. Much like BLM or Occupy.
The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.
Love this argument.
Me too!
You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.
You’re correct. I wouldn’t. Because I don’t have one.
Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea.
Tell that to it’s supporters.
Much like BLM or Occupy.
Wrong again.
The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.
Well unfortunately this one persists.
Tell that to it’s supporters.
Okay, find me one.
BLM and Occipy aren’t organizations. There is a BLM organization. But that’s like if I created an organization called Feminism. That wouldn’t make Feminism an organization. That just means there’s an organization based on the movement.
Feel free to take a seat.
Antifascism is an idea. There are groups centered around said idea, but “big antifa” isn’t a thing.
Being anti-antifascism is pro-fascism.
I think you are mistaking infiltration for ‘getting spread out too far’.
Nearly all of what you describe can be most easily attributed to planted agitators.
Yes, sure, it can, but I think it’s more of just a sign of the times. I think infiltrating and co-opting an ideology, intentionally, is pretty difficult…unless the infiltrator already has a large platform, they will likely be drowned out. Otherwise I think sabotage is a better (as in more effective) approach to slowing a movement (such as inciting riots).
For one, communication is rampant and anybody can get a platform. This is great for starting and growing a movement, but this makes it really difficult to maintain a movement. A large number of well-meaning people with a pre-existing platform (namely influencers and YouTube personalities these days) that each interpret and redistribute the message just sligntly different than original. From there it spirals into a huge, multi-pronged game of telephone.
For two, a lot of the leftist movements inspire democrats to join into the crowd. The democrat party has become the de facto big tent party. At this point it’s embodying the ideals of like 80% of the political compass. Naturally, this attracts a diverse range of idealogies, who want to interpret and spread the movement slightly differently.
Lastly…it’s fucking tough to lead a movement man. I couldn’t imagine what it takes to essentially corral millions of people around an idea.
The first and third points are probably why we don’t see a lot of celebrity activists these days to the level of MLK or Malcom X. The increased scale and speed must make it incredibly difficult to get and maintain control.
Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.
Unfortunately advocacy journalism is very much a legitimate type of journalism, just ask Glen Greenwald, who I fuckin’ hate.
journalist, which implies some form of neutrality
Oh, my sweet summer child
if they’re not neutral, they’re not journalists. A fascist journalist is just a fascist after all.
In an ideal world you’d be right
In reality that’s not actually a requirement to be one
Fair point. It sucks, but it’s true.
Everybody has some sort of bias towards something. It’s ultimately just an opinion.
Journalistic integrity isn’t about being non-biased, it’s about being upfront about bias and ideally the journalist actively trying to counter their own bias within their work.
The vast majority of journalists work for some sort of publication or news agency, in which they’re beholden to the company owners’ agenda and have to report to an editorial board, which decides what can and can not be published in accordance with their views.
You’re thinking of independent journalists, of which there are very few.
Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.
Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a “firewall” between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.
Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they’ve always been very hands-off. It’s a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn’t care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.
Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You’re completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.
Ah yes, it’s only the evil right wing news outlets that have issues with transparency and corruption, but don’t worry, all the left wing ones are totally honest.
And all billionaires are evil exploiters… unless they own liberal newspapers, then they’re totally ethical and there is no grounds for concern.
And even them have their own biases, no such thing as unbiased journalism.
True, but not for the reasons that most people think.
I believe that’s Andy Ngo, so yes, absolutely a pro-fascist activist. He was caught on camera actively coordinating with Patriot Prayer, a far-right extremist group.
The difference between the extreme wings is miniscule. Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.
In Germany half of the voters of the Ultra-Left Party “Linkspartei” went within one election to the Ultra-Right Party “Alternative für Deutschland”. Even starnger, the AfD is financed by Putin who wants to recreate Stalinism, which is Ultra-Leftist, while the AfD wants to recreate a Führer-Cult which is Ultra-Right. And still both cooperate perfectly.
But don’t think the US is better. While Linkspartei and AfD together are 15% in the US the equally Extremist-Trumpists are close to 50%.
People need to understand that the Extremists on the wings are closer to each other than to the middle. While the middle tries to better things in small steps the Extremists want to burn the house down with everyone inside and then see who survives.
Extreme wings sounds like a crispy chicken dish
Sorry, but this is just horseshoe-theory Enlightened Centrist nonsense.
Methods? No. The far-right relies on terror, fear, and explicit power structures such as a police state to maintain power. Leftists oppose such structures, even on the ultra-left.
Objectives? Absolutely not. Right-wingers seek to maintain Capitalism, the far-right seeks to implement fascism as a reactionary protection of Capitalist hierarchy, complete with racial and gender hierarchy. The extreme left, ie Anarchists and Communists, seek a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society based on horizontal power structures. Completely different.
Goals? Same as objectives.
Horseshoe theory is absolute nonsense, and is used to protect the status quo even if the status quo must be radically changed.
Stalin and Pol Pot and Saddam used mostly the same methods as Hitler and as Pinochet and just like the Taliban.
They wanted total power to reform the society to their day dreams. There is not much difference if you call your Economy Plan “Five Year Plan” or “Maximale Kriegswirtschaft”. In the end everyone gets under the foot of the Big Brother, the Grosser Führer, вождь woschd (Yes, Stalin let himself call Führer as did several other Extremist leaders).
We need to learn that the Extremists are much further away from the middle than the parties of the middle to each other. But also the Extremists are much closer to themselves.
Even Trump and Putin show a lot of those methods and while Trump dreams of US Fascism and Putin dreams of Reviving Stalinism their Objectives are just the same: Total power for themselfes.
Oh, I hear you already screaming “But they weren’t Socialists/Fascists” - well, they were part of the Socialist International, they called themselves Socialists and people travelled there to see Socialism. “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
The Way less extreme people defend themselves from the more extreme people is just “But they weren’t true right/left wing. They were something else!” - Boy, I am so tired of it. If 99% if your ventures into Extremism always end the same then I see a pattern that the results will ALWAYS be the same.
And seeing how easily East Germans nowadays change from Ultra-Left to Ultra-Right and visa versa I say: Proof by Observation in the Wild.
I am not even talking about the US where 90% of the people simply don’t even understand what left, right, middle, liberal and Extremism means. When giving a kid free health care is socialism and people think free voting is disrespectable liberalism.
This is even more bullshit, lmao. The only leftist you listed was Stalin, every single one of the others is a far-right fascist that oversaw a Capitalist economy. That includes Putin, who is reactionary. Even then, many call Stalin red-fash, and they aren’t entirely wrong either.
Additionally, if you think reactionary changes after states fall is because the far left and far right are similar, then again, you don’t understand historical trends or movements. These are reactionary movements to a large-scale failure.
Again, this is nothing but horse-shoe theory nonsense, it’s equivalent to astrology in validity but far more dangerous politically.
Here’s a quick example: which is better, an extreme antiracist, or an extreme racist? In your eyes, both are equally bad. Radicalism is not bad alone, neither is extremism. Each view must be judged on a case by case basis.
Whenever a Left-Extremist does something stupid his buddies just claim “Well, he wasn’t Left anyway. Lets just pretend he was a Nazi instead, haha.”
Brilliant. But easy to see through.
The Right-Extremist takes peoples property and life because they are the wrong race. The Left-Extremists takes peples property without reason and life because we wasn’t left enough.
It would be amazing if you could say something coherent about the left without making shit up, lmao
Feel free to quote and analyse any mistakes I made in detail.
And if you can’t: Then you are lying.
The bit about the left taking peoples property for no reason and fighting people for not being left of them screams “strawman with no actual points against leftism” to me. You’ve got this whole “Enlightened Centrist” thing going on that just proves you don’t actually want to analyze things and instead just fence-sit because the status quo benefits you.
I don’t think Lemmy is ready to hear that kind of thing.
Never compare me to a German again
Finally I understand what antifa means.
I am not American and have been out of the loop for years now.
It was deliberately shortened to antifa and pronounced in a different manner to let conservative news media separate antifa from anti-fascism.
deleted by creator
I thought antiga was some terrorist organization until I read this meme…
Be careful when you punch a fascist. You might hurt your hand/wrist. Best to read up ahead of time.
Anti-antifa does not subscribe to the law of the excluded middle, so double negation elimination does not apply.
EDIT: This was a math joke, but I’m proud that it seems to have gone over so many heads.
Is this some enlightened centrism shit? Lmao
It kinda does since, despite GOP talking points to the contrary, Antifa is not a terrorist group or even a group at all. It’s a movement with the sole purpose of opposition to fascism.
At best, being anti-antifa is being pro-fascist and the difference between that and being a fascist is miniscule if existent.
Anti-antifa… That’s just fascism with extra steps.
What’s a fascist mean to you nerds anyways? Like what does it even mean to be anti fascist?
confused tucker carlson face
Here’s a list of The 14 common characteristics of fascism. Note that the GOP and their propaganda outlets such as Faux News exhibit every single one of them.
THAT’S what it means to be a fascist.
Quoting Georgi Dimitrov:
“Fascism is not a form of state power “standing above both classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,” as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not “the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state,” as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations… The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country.”
Hey I recognize you. You show up all over JAQing off and concern trolling.
I’m kind of famous around here thanks
Infamous is the word you’re looking for.
All I see is “There is no record of this comment.”
Pretty weird, considering I only bother blocking fascists. Wonder why they’re interested in this topic.
this is the kind of black and white thinking lemmy does best.
EDIT: i retract this statement. i was wrong
i was severely misinformed about what antifacism is. i was under the impression that “the antifa” was a group by itself instead of a mindset.
You’re not pro-fascist, you’re just against people trying to stop the fascists. Thank god for nuance.
i hate fascists with a passion, but i might not agree with how antifa acts. i do not have any experience with the group itself, i might even agree with them.
for example, i do not like how the last generation glued themselves to streets. that doesn’t make me a climate denier, does it?
EDIT: it seems i misunderstood what antifa is. i always saw it as “the group of violent extremist protesters that throw rocks and light up cars”
again, i am fully for doing everything i can against fascists. but violent protests don’t contribute, all it does is make your movement the next boogeyman.
Is a burning car really worse than fucking over the next 15 generations and the planet
Can’t talk, has leather in his mouth
deleted by creator
I’m not pro Hitler, but did they really have to bully the poor man to suicide?
- @KptnAutismus, probably
but violent protests don’t contribute
There is no alternative to fighting fascists with violence. You can’t have a nice talk with someone who is gunning down Jewish persons. You just shoot them in the face.
Someone supports fascists who want to genocide a group of people? Burning down their car is less than they deserve.
I invite you to learn more about the holocaust. The suffering cannot be put into words. There is no means too drastic to prevent something like it to ever happen again.
let me rephrase. violence not directed at fascists doesn’t contribute.
i was referring to innocent people’s property being destroyed.
if someone arsons a nazi, that’s perfectly reasonable to me.
How is this related to antifascist action?
There is no singular group called “antifa”. It’s a movement of loosely (at best) interconnected but independent, antifascist groups.
Also, we need all these groups. It’s them who usually organize rallies against racism, fascism, antisemitism, inhuman law proposals, et cetera. Also they organize all sorts of other actions against alt right, far right and (neo-)nazis, like disrupting their rallies and standing in the way of goon squads.
Antifa groups are damn important.deleted by creator
Might not agree with how antifa acts
I have no experience
^^^ this pattern shows up right before you make a poorly thought out comment. If you don’t have experience with something I’d expect your comment to be a question for someone who has.
There is no organization Antifa. It’s an ideology. So if you are against the ideology of anti fascism, what are you for?
i am against throwing rocks at police and lighting cars on fire in the name of antifascism. you don’t get taken seriously if you’re the one comitting arson.
Sounds like boot licking, man :(
Never forget the time a bunch of thugs burned officer Chris Dorner alive in a cabin.
Its not “the group”.If you look in left and right wing violence in most countries you’ll see a huge disparity, even after the right wing police has significantly biased the statistics. Most people in Antifa groups just go to demos, organize workshops and put political stickers up.
Thats alle the stuff Fox wants to villify, because they want people to be fascists.
I’m baffled as to what the point of this comment is, besides waffling about the virtues of not picking sides for not picking sides’ sake.
i have picked the side that’s stopping fascists. but the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend. i do not respect movents who are known for committing arson and battery regularly.
I see your edit above, i see the comments you posted after said edit, and I’m not sure you now actually got what antifa means. Especially the part about it not being a single, coherent organization doesn’t seem to get to you.
it did. but these smaller, unorganized groups are regularly holding violent protests around my area. and they identify with antifa.
i probably identify with the core values of what it means to be antifascist, but again, i don’t want to be seen as extremist and/or violent.
Yeah, sounds about true. All of the groups in your area are only about violence. Sure, bro.
Well, only classically
Isn’t this the asian guy who doesn’t understand that white supremacists only like white people and claimed to be suing the CEO of Antifa for damages that never actually happened?
“the CEO of Antifa” lmao
I thought this was Asian Elon Musk
I’m guessing that means this is also the dude who claimed people threw cement at him, when it was a milk shake.
Then they claimed the milkshake had cement in it, so people pointed out things like sugar would keep cement from hardening.
Then the cops said they had no reason to assume it was concrete, and no one suggested it was, despite them and the guy being the ones who said it was concrete.
Eyup, that’s the guy. It was also around the time others on the right claimed that people were pouring gasoline into bags in order to make “Makeshift Molotv Cocktails”
When
- the whole point of a Molotov Cocktail is that it’s a makeshift weapon that the proletariat will always have access to as it’s just alcohol and fire
B) A plastic bag wouldn’t make for a good molotov cocktail as it would just fucking disintegrate and couldn’t be thrown that far of a distance, if any at all
Also, the cloth hanging over on to the side of the bag could melt the plastic, and then catch fire
Or it might just not break and spread
I get the point of misinformation isn’t that it needs to make sense, but some times I hear this stuff and wonder fucking why? At least try.
It just needs to be simple and easy to repeat, in as few words as possible.
removed by mod
Well you are at least right about fascists thinking they are always right. Which explains why you would think your first statement is right even though it couldn’t be more wrong if you tried lol.
Youre right about one thing; the opinions of a fascist is worth less than worm shit
removed by mod
Antifa is antifascist.
Antifa opinion: fascism is bad and must be opposed at every opportunity.
Fascist opinion: extreme Nationalism, the state and the populace must be as one living organism, the enemy must be powerful enough to unite against and weak enough to feel superior, extreme statist Capitalism must take place, all rights and freedoms must be curbed in the name of an almighty state, and the state is absolute.
These do not match up in any way.
You can be anti something without supporting its polar opposite
That’s true in some cases, like being anti-microsoft doesn’t mean I love Linux. But when you are against an ideology that opposes the othering of groups of people to the point of mass suffering and murder that’s different.
Choosing not to support a fight against Fascism is inherently in support of Fascism. The ideology uses manipulation and violence to oppress people, the end goal being a hyper capitalistic ethno state. So opposing the force which seeks to overcome fascism makes it easier for fascism to prevail.
If you are against people who are against fascists, wouldn’t that indirectly say you don’t care about fascism? And that’s how fascism gets a foothold. And with that logic, you indirectly support fascism.
Are you against fascism? Then you are antifa. It’s not a special group, it’s a movement.
I hate people that are against fascism
…Totally not a fascist though
By that logic people who are against Focus on the Family are against families. You don’t get to own a concept just by putting it in your name.
Focus on the family is a hate group that burns down cities.
They don’t care about any families, even if it’s in their title.
I hate Focus on the Family, but…they burned down a city?
Yea, actually like 6 cities. And then they stole the election at gunpoint before opening the border or something idk.
I’m against Mothers Against Drunk Driving but I’m anti drunk driving.
Ouch! You should stop applying logic to anything. Forever.
You don’t get to own a concept just by putting it in your name.
Nobody put it in their name. There is no “antifa” group. “Antifa” is a boogyman so that the far right can ignore what people are saying by labeling it “antifa”.
Antifa is an ideology centered around opposing fascism. It isn’t an overarching group.
Against x vs
Against what x do vs
Against what x targets vs
Against ideology x vs
Against what may happen if x vs
Against organisation x and so on
These are not identical things
Being against fascism is not the same as being against some organisation that does bad things
Antifa is not an organisation. It’s an idea Just neatly contained to being against fascism
deleted by creator
Real fascist are anti-antifa ? 🧐
There are two separate equations. The third panel shows the negatives cancelling.
