1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Gamzee Makara, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. Boss1991

    Boss1991 Hardcore Pokéfan

    You have been brainwashed willingly then. That's even worse. I pitty you guys.

    Anyway, bye bye. I am leaving this far left thread. You three are hopelessly indoctrinated, self hating people and you don't even realize it. That's the scary part.

    PS. Communist dictators have assassinated more innocent humans beings than Fascism and Nazism combined. Know your facts before writing nonsense. But you have proved you only care for the victims of Nazism and don't give a **** for the victims of Communism, because your Antifa masters said so.

    Really? I'm so scared.

    It just shows how butthurt you are, when you keep flagging people for no reason.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
  2. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Bossman, sources please.
     
  3. Boss1991

    Boss1991 Hardcore Pokéfan

    Here you have the sources. Enjoy: (keep in mind that your beloved Antifas adore the communist leaders that killed more people than Hitler, so by supporting Antifa, you support those mass murderers who are actually even worse than Hitler. Shocking, right?)

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com.es/2009/11/who-killed-more-communism-or-naziism.html?m=1

    Not gonna spoonfeed you with information anymore. Internet is free to use. Next time look for the information yourself, lil' miss Antifa.

    Now I am leaving this left extremist thread. Bye!



    Also, one more thing, for all of you brainwashed soviet comrades: Mr. Freeman knows best.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ


    Bye bye now! Don't bother to reply, I am not gonna read it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
  4. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

  5. The Admiral

    The Admiral solid state survivor

    So as a matter of personal interest, why did it take you being asked, like, three times to post your sources?

    Then again, you claim to not be or like fascists and are referring to people as antifascists in an insulting manner, so maybe the ways of Boss1991 are beyond the understanding of mortal men.
     
  6. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    No idea, Scammel. Truth be told, I think you're only arguing for the sake of arguing, as I have no idea what your point is.

    At least I state my views clearly and honestly. I am a Democrat, a Liberal, and proud of both. I believe Trump is a demagogue with ideas that contradict those of our country and that no sane person would consider tolerant.

    I believe he is a liar and madman, that the one true thing he has claimed was that he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone without losing his base. I believe Hillary Clinton was a target of malicious, unfair, and undeserved slander and character assassination, that she was not even close to the "greater of two evils". That the only true problem Republicans had was her gender, just like the only true problem they had with Obama was his skin color.

    But I believe Trump is, indeed, EVIL. I say so without any intent to exaggerate or use hyperbole.

    I also support generosity and charity, which I honestly believe are virtues. I also believe the Republican Party and all those who defend them are motivated by selfishness and greed.

    And I have every right to state this opinion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
  7. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    I asked for his sources regarding racism and he gives me **** about communists. I fear he doesn't have anything. Oh well.
     
  8. The Admiral

    The Admiral solid state survivor

    The post got deleted before I was going to respond. But to answer the question anyway: complacency with fascism is not good, either. I can't really think of a good comparison because of the scope of what fascism wants, though.

    Also the Republicans, as they exist now, are no more concerned with the idea of a republic and having one than any other political party in America, and arguably, are actually less concerned with it. Turns out you can call yourself whatever you want, like how the Nazis called themselves the "National Socialist" party when they quite clearly were not, or how North Korea really wants us to believe it's the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea," when it is provably not three of those things.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
  9. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Three cheers to Boss90s for giving me some sig quotes.
     
  10. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Nazi's did take over a socialist party, but then they kicked out the old party and changed everything about it. So technically they were a socialist party by name, but that's literally it.


    But let's take the topic from another subject than dealing with someone with more alternate accounts than sense, has there ever been a truly leftist government to base judgement on? Most examples I've seen uses are dictatorships passing themselves off as one so heavy capitalist countries can go "See? Look what the alternative is". Also does that mean groups like antifa are just reactionary, and is that a bad thing?
     
  11. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Reactionary typically carries far right connotations, because the reaction in reactionary is to social progress. Radical, yes. Reactionary? No.
     
  12. The Admiral

    The Admiral solid state survivor

    I can't actually think of any offhand, but I didn't take many history classes aside from those related to my philosophy major.

    Tough call; antifascist ideology being given more weight is reactive, because it has no reason to be so in the absence of fascism; if fascism didn't exist, we'd still be opposed to it, but we wouldn't give it much thought (and we would have a harder time wording our feelings on the matter). Uh, wording this is difficult. However: I think this can only be called "bad" insofar as fascism existing is bad.

    We probably need a better word for it. Hence why I said "reactive."
     
  13. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    I'd say we're getting into Luddite territory these days.

    Truth be told, a lot of political terms have lost their meanings. "Conservative" isn't truly a term for someone who is opposed to change of any sort, let alone somebody who wants to turn the clock back to an earlier era. (That would be a reactionary, and such people are actually quite rare nowadays, outside the internet.) . A true conservative merely argues that things should not be changed if it is not absolutely necessary to do so, or that change should come as gradually as possible. Many conservatives in the past have been willing to accept economic reform (and, to a lesser extent, social reform) as long as the cultural norms of civilization itself were left untouched.

    "Conservative" and "liberal" have come to mean very different things than when the terms were more or less established in the French revolution; les conservateurs were those opposed to the social ideals of the revolution and wanted to "conserve" the monarchy — and, incidentally, sat on the right wing of the French parliamentary chamber — while les libéraux were those intent on "liberating" the people from monarchic rule. In the past few decades, conservatives have been more about binding personal liberties ("conserving" the social order) while disestablishing the state ("liberating" people — in theory, anyway — from rulership), while the liberal side of the equation seems to maintain its intent to open up social freedoms while maintaining (or even increasing) the role of the state. This is the problem with defining a multi-dimensional question on a simple left/right axis. Political theorist David Nolan (creator of the Nolan chart, which corrects for the inconsistencies of the left/right axis) has suggested that "populist" be substituted for what most Americans refer to as liberal - fitting, since American liberalism is usually thought to have split into its "classical" and "modern" wings in the 1890s, when the Democratic party (cautiously) co-opted the People's (or "Populist") party in order to blunt the accusation from socialists and others that they were no different from the Republican party.

    "Classical liberalism" (note the quotation marks) interestingly, is a political philosophy in which the freedom of the individual person is prized over all other ideals — however, the freedom of any individual stops at the point where it begins to infringe upon the freedom of other individuals ("liberal" still has this sense in mainland Europe; in North America "libertarian" is closer, though not quite synonymous). How this intersects with the modern Anglosphere's liberal paradigm, which favors increasing safety regulations (up to and including seat-belt laws), is an interesting question.

    It gets even more complicated, because "conservatism" also is often used in philosophy as a description of behavior based on some non-negotiable principles or values and thus it is more a opposition of "opportunism" or "pragmatism". The values may be of any kind, so it is completely possible to be a "conservative liberal" (this is the description actually used by at least several European libertarian parties) if one considers liberty to be a non-negotiable value. In this vein, a conservative liberal will vote in favor of any solution that maintains liberty at the cost of safety, while conservative securitarian may be eager to forfeit freedom to increase security. The name "conservative" comes from the fact that such people did not wanted to change their values but rather tried to find new applications for them.

    Long story short, people rarely even know what they're fighting for anymore.
     
  14. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    I think people do know which individual policies they're fighting for and which broad causes they support, and that the focus on labels is a misleading rabbit hole. The labels themselves don't have power; Republican policies may not actually be in the best interests of a republic, Democrats may not always be democratic, and Antifa may not always actually be that effective at opposing fascism. It's especially dangerous when people assume those labels are exclusive - many Conservatives have been excellent antifascists.

    I agree that the All The Tropes explanation of the confusion and historical usage is a great one.
     
  15. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    I pasted it from the other Tropes site, thank you very much.
     
  16. Rocxidi

    Rocxidi ס₪₪₪§€ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ7

    lol are people actually using the term antifa as an insult?? that just implies youre not against fascism nor condemn fascist behavior, and if youre okay with that then gtfo

    reminder that all communist regimes in recent history were just fascist governments that were given a label that read "communism" for whatever reason. if you hate communism because the history books said commies killed people then congrats, youve been brainwashed
     
  17. The Admiral

    The Admiral solid state survivor

    this

    Communist regimes were marked so because of either outsiders saying that that's what they were because of a redistribution of wealth from the working class up to the ruling class (which is kind of what we do, except replace "ruling" with "not necessarily ruling but definitely sitting on their lazy duffs all day acting like rulers"), or they called themselves communist because most people who don't have much who read about some basic communist principles -- the abolition of social classes and common ownership of the means of production -- tend to like them. It's easier to get people to go along with your megalomaniacal horseshit if you can couch it in something people think sounds appealing.
     
  18. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    Hell, they use "Liberal" as an insult too for some demented reason.

    As for your statements on Communism, ever hear of the Red Scare? It was kind of like what's happening today with Islam. People are scared and vulnerable, and see one group as the cause of it because immoral political leaders - like Trump - use is as a scapegoat.

    Here's a neat way to learn it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

    (Bet you never knew how fun history could be.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2017
  19. J 6

    J 6 Banned

    That seems extremely disingenuous. If trump were to say nothing about it people would accuse him of condoning their violent outbursts, if he does address the issue he's using it as a scape goat . remember when he issued his official statement on the KKK? People on the left complained that he wasn't decisive enough, even though his message was pretty direct. this just goes to show that when the left says jump you will never be able to jump high Enough.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2017
  20. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Saying there's good people on both sides, then kicking and screaming to clarify a half-assed statement days later after a woman was killed did make things pretty clear.
     

Share This Page