Antifa and Black Lives Matter vs. KKK and Neo Nazis:A battle of false equivalence

[Gamzee Makara]

Antifa and BLM's fringe members are the left's extremists:All Nazis and KKK members are extremists.

See the problem here? Not all BLM members are cop killing, white-hating invividuals that the right has painted them to be. And Antifa have been proven to have been photoshopped into looking bad multiple times. Also, anyone can fake a bloody stab wound with red food coloring, cherry syrup and a knife or stabbing themselves(which recent Nazis on Twitter have been proven to do to frame peaceful protestors) . As for BLM being cop-killers. ever hear of hijacktivists? They have infiltrated every movement from BLM to social justice to Vietnam War protestorseople hijacking a movement in order to steal, kill and lulz under the guise of protesting. Often lone wolves or deliberately placed agitators to mess with peaceful protests that are most likely placed within a crowd in order to frame the protestors for what the protestees are doing themselves. A classic of the established socioeconomic right to keep their vast rotting piles of excessive cash that is holding up the economy by not being spent:Make the centrists lose faith in the side that benefits the left in order to make the right more reasonable...but wait...

Nazis and the KKK WERE NEVER REASONABLE. They are entirely composed of a rebellious fringe of salty war losers who refuse to give up their dreams, and when told that they lost in ANY form, they lie, cheat, steal, kill and lulz in order to defend their hatred under "freedom of speech". You have the freedom to mouth off to the government w/o them inflicting consequences on you. You do NOT have the freedom to advocate killing marginalized, exploited, oppressed people(and anyone else who isn't a clone of you). Nazis LOST. The Confederacy LOST. Nazis were never the norm, and the Confederacy were a bunch of salty white gentlebros who wanted to keep slaves.

Notice the discrepancy here? Antifa's violent fringe(if it even exists) is a fringe in a borderline fringe. BLM just want less racism, not "Black Supremacy" (The racists said the same thing about Martin Luther King Junior). Anyone who kills cops, wounds Nazis or steals is disowned by both groups.

Nazis and the KKK act like a police brotherhood:They never condemn each other(even then, only in a patently false way), they never ostracize fringes in their group, and they NEVER win.

"B-B-B-But hypocrisy on the left!!" News flash:Everyone is a hypocrite. EVERYONE. In some way. That isn't a defense or an excuse:It's just hackneyed and tired.

And there are non-racist/bigoted cops. But they are a brotherhood, and thus are unwilling to change to evolve with the times. Likewise, The viral "Kill Donald Trump" graffiti pic is likely a Hijacktivist, and even if it was honest, its likely it was a shock tactic:no one will do that:It'd just make him a martyr for hateful isms:No one wants to give him that.

In summary:If someone tells you that the extremists on the left are just as hateful as the right, remember: The left doesn't want to kill anyone who isn't their skin color, religion or gender/sexuality or political ideology(if anyone at all), and watch out for hijacktivists:They're pretty obvious when you look for them. There no hijacktivists at right-wing extremist protests, however, because the extreme left does not use such a tactic.

Discuss.

 

[Mordent99]

Donald Trump (I assume that's who you speak of) is a hypocrite whose self-contradiction cannot be more obvious.

On one hand, he called the Boston counter protesters "anti-police agitators", but then turned around and claimed "I want to applaud the many protesters in Boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. Our country will soon come together as one!"

(This is the guy who called for the execution of the Central Park Five, and kept claiming they deserved it after they were acquitted, I should mention.)

 

[Pikachu52]

This is a great summary of why it's a false equivalence to compare antifa protestors to neo-nazis and the KKK. I agree with you entirely.

There's a good article in The Atlantic that examines this question as well: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-trump-gets-wrong-about-antifa/537048/

It makes two additional points. First, political violence by rightwing organisations and individuals both historically and currently is on a much larger scale than by leftwing groups. The KKK for instance formed at the end of the Civil War and has reared it's ugly head several times in American History. Antifa seem to have only been a thing in America since the 1970s.

Second, the far right wields a frightening amount of political power. Trump throughout his campaign and now in office has actively dog whistled to people like David Duke. Steve Bannon, largely responsible for cultivating the band of white nationalists and racists that call themselves the "alt-right", has been an influential figure in the White House. There's no equivalent of that for Antifa or fringe left wing groups.

 

[Baba Yaga]

It should also be noted that whatever violence that can be confirmed by Antifa in particular is a response to the threatening gestures and violence of the alt-right. If I threaten you or punch you and you respond by striking me, we are not on the same playing field. You can argue from a pacifistic perspective that responding with violence makes things worse or escalates the situation (Something I find true some of the time though not all the time. Antifa has been pretty effective in detering Nazi protests), but even then that doesn't make it equal.

I agree with senator Warren that causing "necessary trouble" is well, necessary sometimes. Unilaterally condemning all violence as the same is morally obtuse.

 

[Sadib]

We should start treating Trump supporters as Nazis.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

We should start treating Trump supporters as Nazis.

This I can totally agree with.

 

[Scammel]

The enemy of my enemy certainly isn't my friend. Nazis are despicable and should be thoroughly discredited at every opportunity, but let's not pretend that Antifa have a monopoly on opposition to such forces and let's doubly not pretend that they don't have a big problem with a minority of violent idiot tankies amongst their numbers. I'd rather a nonviolent white supremacist than any shade of leftwing thug. The attempts in this thread to handwave away attacks on innocent people and their property could have sprung from the mouth of Alex Jones.

It should also be noted that whatever violence that can be confirmed by Antifa in particular is a response to the threatening gestures and violence of the alt-right.

Nah. The violent minority can take responsibility for their thuggery. It just highlights what utter cretins they are if they're so stupid they don't know how to intellectually combat Nazism.

Antifa has been pretty effective in detering Nazi protests

A symptom of a sick society. No-one should be deterred from political assembly for fear of their own safety.

We should start treating Trump supporters as Nazis.

Or we could make a clear distinction to help devise solutions to appropriately deal with both. Antifa have quite successfully inculcated the notion that assaulting people for political views is morally acceptable; it's hardly wise to widen their net.

Tl:dr - It's perfectly possible to loathe both the ideology of Nazism and the violence instigated by Antifa fringes.

 

[lemoncatpower]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-far-right-la-meute-1.4254792

I've never been more proud of Canada. We lock them up in garages and they take it like the little *****es they are. They can say victory but I'm glad we don't even want to give them a platform
People can cry about "equal voices" but if you are on the alt-right side I don't really care. (I just edited this but I totally had leftist here by accident instead of alt-right lmfao)

 

[Mordent99]

The enemy of my enemy certainly isn't my friend.

Actually, Churchill assumed differently, and he was right. He hated Communism with a passion, but he figured Hitler was worse. That's the reason he and FDR were willing to ally with Stalin.

 

[Scammel]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-far-right-la-meute-1.4254792

I've never been more proud of Canada. We lock them up in garages and they take it like the little *****es they are. They can say victory but I'm glad we don't even want to give them a platform
People can cry about "equal voices" but if you are on the leftist side I don't really care.

Great article, I love this particular bit:

The violence that marred Sunday's counter-protest stands in stark contrast to demonstrations held a day earlier in Vancouver and Boston. In both instances, planned rallies by the far-right were vastly outnumbered by peaceful anti-racism demonstrations...

"As long as nobody gets hurt and there is no violence, it's completely legit that you counterprotest events such as this one, because there is no way we can stand for racism and intolerance in Canada."

Actually, Churchill assumed differently, and he was right. He hated Communism with a passion, but he figured Hitler was worse. That's the reason he and FDR were willing to ally with Stalin.

Yes, but he didn't proceed to pretend that Soviet atrocities were staged with cherry syrup. Regardless, reductive truisms are reductive, I only used the phrase for illustrative purposes.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I'd rather a nonviolent white supremacist than any shade of leftwing thug.

Then you're a fool. Nazi's who non violently protest still stoke violence because the ideology that they follow is inherently violent. When a car rammed into three innocent people at Charlottesville, the majority of the right wing protesters there were peaceful, but what they were saying while carrying torches creates an atmosphere that beckons violence. To put retaliatory violence on the same level shows bankrupt ethical clarity.

Nah. The violent minority can take responsibility for their thuggery. It just highlights what utter cretins they are if they're so stupid they don't know how to intellectually combat Nazism.

It isn't a question of responsibility. You've never seen anyone punch a nazi that didn't own up to the fact that they punched a nazi. It's a question of whether they're justified.

Also see: Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. (I only learned about it yesterday because of a viral facebook meme, but still, super relevant. )

 

[bobjr]

MLK's White Moderates speech and testimony from several Holocaust survivors shows that you can't just ignore things, especially if you're not the main target.

 

[Mordent99]

Scammel, there is nothing you can say or do to convince me and the majority of America that Trump was justified by equating anybody with the protesters with torches chanting "Blood and Soil" while making Nazi salutes .

Some things are just not done and not acceptable, and this is one of them.

 

[lemoncatpower]

Then you're a fool. Nazi's who non violently protest still stoke violence because the ideology that they follow is inherently violent. When a car rammed into three innocent people at Charlottesville, the majority of the right wing protesters there were peaceful, but what they were saying while carrying torches creates an atmosphere that beckons violence. To put retaliatory violence on the same level shows bankrupt ethical clarity.



It isn't a question of responsibility. You've never seen anyone punch a nazi that didn't own up to the fact that they punched a nazi. It's a question of whether they're justified.

Also see: Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. (I only learned about it yesterday because of a viral facebook meme, but still, super relevant. )

I used to really think about the paradox of tolerance, as my Dad used to always say it to me, but I'm starting to think that people who choose to hate when they have the option not too, and the knowledge, should not be tolerated and that toleration has it's limits and to deem someone unjust for running out of a limit thus makes me wonder what is just and unjust in the first place if people can just go around pushing limits like that and then call intolerance.


Just to point out, I meant alt-right and not left in my earlier post

 

[chess-z]

I'm going to head off something preemptively; White supremacist and Nazi rhetoric is tantamount to incitement of imminent violence, and therefore not protected under First Amendment rights. The very philosophy is a call for violence, plain and simple, and we have seen people die because they are allowed to continue to spout this reprehensible ****.

The only logical equivalent between Antifa and BLM and the KKK and neo nazis si that they are all people who hold beliefs. That's entirely where it stops.

 

[Scammel]

Scammel, there is nothing you can say or do to convince me and the majority of America that Trump was justified by equating anybody with the protesters with torches chanting "Blood and Soil" while making Nazi salutes

That's not OP's argument, though, is it? OP's argument is that not only are the stated aims of both movements not morally equitable, but that Antifa is effectively beyond reproach and that numerous documented attacks on innocent people, their property and journalists are the creation of what I can only presume is a large, shadowy cabal with extensive manpower and supplies of cherry syrup.

Here's a list of things that can all be true:

- Nazism is the most repugnant ideology on the face of the Earth.
- Neo-Nazi and far-right movements have an alarming tendency towards violence and intimidation.
- The broad stated aims of white supremacy and the Antifa movement are not morally equitable.
- There is no monopoly on opposition to Nazism and has been combatted by many ordinary and extraordinary people from across the political spectrum throughout history.
- The Antifa movement also has an alarming tendency towards violence and intimidation, though on a lesser scale.
- Many Antifa members are far too comfortable with the notion of political violence even if they are nonviolent themselves (see the 'punch a Nazi' trope).
- Innocent bystanders and journalists have been attacked at Antifa events by activists.
- Nonviolent Nazis and white supremacists should have the right to advocate their views without fear for their own safety.
- Anyone who feels the need to use violence against a nonviolent Nazi is openly advertising the fact that they are a glue-eating chimp without the faculties to intellectually challenge Nazism.

Not a mote of contradiction in any of that. Opposition to Nazism is such an easy, such a fundamentally human thing to do, that we should all be able to expect much, much better from this movement.

White supremacist and Nazi rhetoric is tantamount to incitement of imminent violence, and therefore not protected under First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[chess-z]

You'll notice I said imminent violence. If you didn't, reread what I said. Incitement to imminent violence is not protected.

 

[Scammel]

I read it perfectly well.

White supremacist and Nazi rhetoric is tantamount to incitement of imminent violence

The Supreme Court disagrees that this is the case. White supremacist advocacy is not incitement of imminent violence: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html

Funnily enough, it's exactly the same principle that protects 'Punch a Nazi' speech: 'the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.'

 

[Mordent99]

Scammel, if a book was released where the cover-art depicted a character that was clearly an American punching a known Nazi in the kisser, you think anyone would object?

Before you reply:

http://marvel.com/comics/issue/7849/captain_america_comics_1941_1

The answer is "no".

 

[Scammel]

So what? I don't care about what makes people feel nice and fuzzy inside. Besides, Richard Spencer and his ilk haven't annexed the Sudetenland.