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.
Well yeah Andy Ngo does literally hang out with fascists so that’s a given lol
It was so frustrating watching some people treat him like he was anything close to a real journalist. He’s just the designated propagandist.
I seem to recall seeing a video or reading an article where they mention that the media turned antifa into a sort of separate word to warp its meaning. Instead of saying anti fascist, which has a clear meaning, they shortened it and changed the pronunciation ‘an teefa’ (something to do with which syllable you emphasise) so they could distort its meani g and demonise the word to make people think it was bad.
So now people dont realise antifa means anti fascist which is surely a good thing to be, and instead, they fear antifa as some kind of terrorist group, which is almost the opposite of what it is.
The funny thing is, as an outsider to this, living in the UK, our media doesn’t ever use the term, and when i heard it, my instinct was to look up its meaning. It’s interesting to me that i won’t know if i would have fallen for it if the media were using it in the same way over here to lead my understanding of its definition
They have a constant and desperate effort to invent words they can’t define that categorize their blind rage since they’re not allowed to say one that starts with N. “Woke” is the newest one.
Anti-antifa… That’s just fascism with extra steps.
Someone mentioned antifa at work the other day, and I said, “Antifa? I’m in. Shitting on fascists has been an American pass time for a century or better.”
The looks of shock and horror on my coworkers faces was quite the sight to behold.
deleted by creator
Ignorami. They’ve been propagandized into hating anti-fascists, that’s why they shortened it to antifa.
Among, not with. The difference lies there.
Well, I can tell you, in Europe Extremist Voters switch without thinking twice between far left and far right.
Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.
Both hate the West, especially the US and Israel, both hate the way we live but without offering a better way. Both want to burn down the house just to see who survives. Only the Arguments differ, the left hate the people running their own society, the right hate the people running other society.
And always remember, Hitler was a National-SOCIALIST.
Be careful when you punch a fascist. You might hurt your hand/wrist. Best to read up ahead of time.
I’m anti-anti-antifa.
I get a strong taste of sick everytime I hear someone say “math” in singular/American-English.
I know it’s simplified English but it sounds so fucking lazy and stupid.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Antifa is an ideology centered around opposing fascism. It isn’t an overarching group.
Ouch! You should stop applying logic to anything. Forever.
I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across. I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
In that case, I suppose you also oppose the Civil Rights Movement, considering it too was often violent and had a significant amount of property damage.
I would oppose their methods, not the movement (ideology, cause call it what you want)
But their methods were a result of their material conditions, and resulted in the liberation of Black Americans from segregation. Do you not equally take fault with the white moderates who opposed ending segregation and used disapproval of their methods as rhetoric?
Unfortunately, when protests get extreme, there is inevitably some level of violence, whether that be to people or property. It is the responsibility of the state to prevent it from getting this bad. People don’t just think “hmm, today I will do some violence,” violence erupts as a consequence.
violence is inevitable, oh joy
Not what I said. If protests last long enough and are founded on unsustainable material conditions, the State has failed and protests will become Riots. “Riots are the voice of the unheard,” after all.
If you think peacefully asking people to stop being pieces of shit works, then you learned a completely whitewashed version of the Civil Rights Movement. MLK led marches and tried to maintain peace, but alongside the militant Black Panthers there was genuine revolutionary pressure that forced the state to act.
Even that’s a terrible view, politics aside.
I slap someone.
I shank them with a rusty scrap of metal to the neck
One of these is obviously worse. Yes, both are violence. Yet to simply try and paint them as such would show you’re either not arguing in good faith, or, as respectfully as possible, your brain hasn’t fully developed.
But let’s mix it up. I slap someone. But I, a man that’s 6’2" and does physical labor, slapped an infant for crying. Seems a little worse than it did at first, huh?
I am being attacked by a random person who is trying to murder me, and in a panic, I grab something, and attack him with it. Turns out it was a rusty piece of metal. Now we have hints of self defense.
Once again, still violence, but both were to different degrees, and the context changed both of them.
Why can’t the oppressed peacefully get their rights from their oppressors?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across
so, you condemn the boston tea party, right?
I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
what’s your favorite successful social movement from history that didn’t use any vandalism to get a message across?
I do. Oh violence worked in the past ( and we all know how good the past was) sol let’s do it now too, in the 21st century.
Cooperate wants you to find the difference:
- Storming the capitol
- Violent Antifa protests
One is an attempt to overthrow democracy and install a fascist theocratic dictatorship. The other is protesting directly against that. While you may not agree with their methods, which is frankly childish and placing the responsibility for our social climate in the laps of the oppressed, you cannot in good faith smile smugly and say “same”.
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.
