You must log in or # to comment.
I 100% agree for the meme, but just warning that this isn’t really a strong argument. I’m going to straw man here, but: “I’m against the Protect the Children Act”, “You’re literally saying you’re against protecting children.” “No, I just disagree that the Act is actually about protecting children and is more about government surveillance and corporate control.” In their heads, they’ve already prepared the argument.
Basically, by them seeing it as a unified organization that stands for more than just being opposed to fascism, they see it as a crafted doublethink instead of realizing they are the victims of a different doublethink, to butcher the use of the term. It’s hard to cut through that.
Most people know better. It’s completely bad faith arguing.
Being against the Patriot Act does not mean you’re not a patriot. Being against Black Lives Matter does not mean you think black lives don’t matter. Same can be said about Antifa’s actions; plenty of reasons to oppose them that do not involve supporting facism.
Also, there’s the common fallacy of composition / division. Being against the Civil Rights Act doesn’t mean you support segregation. Being against the Big Beautiful Bill does not mean you’re against child tax credits.
College educated people know better, but still leverage dishonesty for political points. It’s tiring.
Being against Black Lives Matter does not mean you think black lives don’t matter.
Are you sure about that?
Why would you be for using the death of a young kid for personal gain? That would be one reason to be against the organisation, while not being against equal rights and treatment for black people.
There’s a difference between the movement and the organization going by the same name.
No one specified which it was though, did they? And in any case, it was an example. You present the world as black and white, even though thats never been the case. Like Churchill, big hero against the nazis. But if you were Indian, he saw you the same way Hitler saw Jewish people. Which is a big yikes.
This is the reality of human beings. We are all complicated as fuck.
Absolutely. There are reasons to be against BLM while still believing that black lives matter. Examples:
-
It’s primarily an anti-police movement. Many people believe more police will help save black lives.
-
They made zero effort to reduce gang-related homicides which accounts for the majority of black homicides. So their sincere value for black life is questionable.
-
They engage in lots of riots and non-peaceful methods of protesting, many of which destroy black neighborhoods.
- It’s primarily an anti-police movement. Many people believe more police will help save black lives.
- They made zero effort to reduce gang-related homicides which accounts for the majority of black homicides. So their sincere value for black life is questionable.
Increasing the police presence in black neighborhoods does not help save black lives, and the communities that are affected the most by gang-related homicides know this intuitively because we have increased police presence and budgets in those neighborhoods as a matter of routine and it has made their lives worse, not better.
- They engage in lots of riots and non-peaceful methods of protesting, many of which destroy black neighborhoods.
“A riot is the language of the unheard.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
The majority of BLM protests were peaceful, and the minority that did turn violent were overblown by a media ecosystem biased against them, and do not discredit the aims and methods of the movement.
There is some legitimate criticism to be made of the non-profit organization going by the same name as the movement, but if you care about black lives then the BLM protest movement deserves your support.
Though you might sincerely believe that black lives matter, you clearly seem to think the opinions of those personally affected by police and gang-related violence (not all that different, really) don’t.
Increasing the police presence in black neighborhoods does not help save black lives
More police presence reduces number of homicides. This is well-documented. People’s “intuition” is irrelevant.
Now, it also increase more low-level arrests. So if people are wanting to get away with drug possessions, shoplifting, or other low-level crimes, then they are going to have to deal with higher homicide rates. But if they want that exchange, they don’t really care about black lives.
you clearly seem to think the opinions of those personally affected by police and gang-related violence (not all that different, really) don’t.
I trust people to identify their problems, but not to identify the solutions. Many people have problems partially because they keep trying the wrong solutions (eg. buying lotteries tickets to get out of poverty). Experts are often needed for solutions.
The BLM founders are so far removed from the problem in their $6 million dollar mansion, they cannot be expected to understand the problem let alone come up with solutions.
-
Extremely blessed Lemmy moment of opening the comments to find the hot one is what you opened the comments to post yourself
If those kids could read, they’d be very upset
It’s amazing, the amount of bullshit people say in order to deny the obvious.
Anti antifascist = fascist
I mean, that’s like how Elon wants to call his new party, the America party. And most likely people who are registered to vote for the America party would be called Americans. And so then if you’re against them what, you’re against America? You hate all Americans?
Like yes, in reality the people who are against antifa are fascists. But that can’t be determined from the name of it! The government has played this trick countless times, naming laws and bills the opposite of what they’re really supposed to do. Like someone introduces a bill called the " children’s online privacy protection" act, but really it’s just some mass surveillance garbage and has nothing to do with protecting children. And then if you oppose the act, and someone says " oh so you don’t want children to be safe online?!1!1!1" like, we all know that’s a really horrible argument. Things can be named whatever they want to be named even if it has no underlying relation to the reality of what they stand for.
Again, at this particular moment in this particular situation, antifa still does really stand against fascism, and the government that hates antifa really does stand for fascism. So we happened to get lucky that the names line up with the reality underneath in this case, but that doesn’t mean that that’s a good line of reasoning in general.
what if your anti-anti-anti-antifascist.
Muskmode enabled!
I agree with the message but the argument is weak, plus drawing Trump with a neck?
I also agree with it, he is fascist. But yeah, the right don’t view “Antifa” as encompassing everyone who is against fascism. Just like how, say, banning Mothers Against Drunk Driving would not ban mothers against against drunk driving. Of course, one of those is an actual legal entity, the other is a vague movement.
deleted by creator
Ok, listen up kids. The anti prefix is not a logical negation. So double anti is not the same as no anti. Let’s give an example.
A gun is a device intended for self defense. So you can call it an anti-murder device. If you are anit-gun, therefore anti-anti-murder device, it does not mean you are pro murder. You may be anti-murder and still believe there are too many disadvantages to a gun.
Idk why I, a non-native speaker have to be explaining this.
Of course, anti-anti-facist are probably just facist. I am just saying double anti is not always the same as no anti, not that it is never the case.
EDIT: Since the example seems to be confusing people, let’s give a different one. If I am anti-anti-LGBTQ, does that make me LGBTQ? Obviously not. Opposing hate does not change my gender or sexual orientation.
So you can call it an anti-murder device.
Yes, but you can also call it a murder device. So when you say “anti-gun” and follow your logic we don’t know if you’ve meant you’re anti-defense or anti-murder. The ambiguity exists because of how you framed your example by attaching an inconsistent purpose for the gun.
The same ambiguity does not exist for anti-fascist.
The same ambiguity does not exist for anti-fascist.
You would be surprised (or not) to learn that this is false
Dam ipitco
Why are you so focused on defending fascists in this whole thread
When did I do so exactly? Criticizing anti-facists doesn’t mean defending fascists
fascists can go fuck themselves
fascists can go fuck themselves
Congratulations, you are antifa.
Your example does not support the point you’re trying to make.
Gun = murder device. Gun <> murder. You can’t just arbitrarily switch between the two concepts.
Anti-anti-murder device = pro-murder device. Double negative
Gun = murder device.
Exactly my point. Gun is a killing device. Which means it is a murder device when used to kill illegally and also anti-murder device when used in self defense to stop a murder. Both are true, because anti is not a negative, like logical not is. That is why you can’t just cross them out without considering what exactly they mean in the given context.
You seem to have missed the bit that came after: Gun<>murder, so you can’t just use the terms interchangeably in the way that you have (category error).
The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
Let’s try a different example. If I am anti-anti-gay, does that make me gay? Obviously not. Which is what the picture in this post says. You change it and say anti-anti = pro, which is neither what we are arguing about nor true. In your interpretation, it make me pro-gay. I don’t want to be pro-gay, as in being gay is superior to being heterosexual. I am just against discrimination. So anti-anti is not pro.
“The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.”
So no refutation of the clear counterexample, just calling it facetious while you are clearly wrong.
Facetious at best.
I was happy to assume your original argument was a genuine mistake and you’d respond in an honest manner. I’m not interested in debating whatever additional, spurious examples and analogies you want to dream up to argue about - they’re irrelevant and this increasingly looks like an attempt to muddy the water of a serious, and plainly evident issue.
You’ve made it obvious enough that your intentions here are dishonest, so don’t expect any further engagement from me.
deepl translation:
t’s annoying to explain
Because it’s actually quite simple
So listen carefully
Because I’ll only say it once
If you’re anti-antifa
you’re fa
You can say what you want
But that’s the truth
And I wish
I didn’t have to constantly be against something
But how is that supposed to work with all these goddamn
Nazi pigs?
And if it annoys you to hear that, it’s not my problem
It’s your problem
It’s not hard to understand
I could take care of beautiful things
We could take care of beautiful things
Instead, we have to take care of this scum
If you’re anti-antifa
you’re fa
You can say what you want
But that’s the truth
And I wish
I didn’t have to be against something all the time
But how is that supposed to work
With all the goddamn Nazi pigs?
How?
How?
How is that supposed to work, please?
It is not correct. There is a movement in Germany that is called Anti-Deutscher (anti German) they refuse to call themselves Germans and refuse identify themselves as such. As you all can think there are many people that doesn’t like them (main reason being, that they are toxic but that is besides the point) I’d also call myself anti-anti-Deutscher, only that doesn’t make me German. You can extend this example, just because you do tolerate something doesn’t make you part of it.
That said it is not a secret that Maga is a fascist group. I say it based on their own slogans. I don’t know if they are even deny it.
The lyrics are not about Antideutsche (or anti-X in general) though. They are specifically about anti-antifascists.
Tolerance of hatred is endorsement of hatred, that’s what the paradox of tolerance is all about. “Germanism” doesn’t inherently negatively impact anyone and is largely a matter of circumstance, whereas “fascism” is an objectively evil ideology one must continually choose to follow. Tolerance of Germanism doesn’t hurt anyone, tolerance of fascism hurts everyone. Your argument is valid, being against a protest movement doesn’t necessarily make you a supporter of whatever the movement is protesting. But in the case of fascism, it absolutely does.
Tolerance of hate, is the price you pay for freedom. You would do well to remember that when you pick your next leaders, after murdering the last lot that didnt agree with you…
This is bullshit. Tolerance is no moral imperative, it’s a social contract. Members of a society tolerate one another to keep things moving freely; to avoid conflicts between people of different races/genders/political views/backgrounds, etc. We are under no obligation to respect the views of someone who wishes to upend the social contract of tolerance by not tolerating those around them. It’s called the tolerance paradox.
No thats a fact. Because anyone who is not a spoon eating cunt knows that it wont always be the right kind of people at the top. I mean, you were all told repeatedly for years that Row was a weak piece of law. But you just shouted those warnings down as being repressive, and sexist. Maybe if you had all taken the warning, it wouldnt have been so easy to pull down.
You dont set up your stall with the best people in mind. You set it up with the worst. That way, you know they cant fuck you over later.
I went to a parade earlier that was celebrating anti fascism. They even had some spitfires flying over.
deleted by creator
Mussolini in desguise.
Here is my post showing ANTIFA members.
except that an “anti-fascist” doesn’t just mean “I don’t like fascism”
so, no.
Image description: The meme of Captain Jean-Luc Picard from Star Trek TNG facepalming.Correct, it also means “I’m actively fighting against fascism.” Hence why fascists don’t like them.
that’s precisely what it means?
Then you’re pro-life I take it?
Being against pro-life position is anti-life… ?
Or perhaps, antifa and pro-life actually mean something a bit more?
No, because it is prolife that’s the polemic misnomer used disingenously for political gain, exactly for the reason you describe, because it creates a false dichotomy.
Antifaschistische Aktion was founded in direct response to the Weimar republic’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.
Then, as now, there are actual fascists, there aren’t any serious major anti-life movements.
Pro-life people would certainly call their opponents anti-life. Is this different than people on the left calling their opponents fascist? Almost nobody being called fascist today actually supports authoritarianism, at least not in the mainstream.
And as far as Antifa is concerned, it clearly means more than anti-fascism. A big clue: their logo has the flags for anarchism and communism.
So, are people who oppose anarcho-communism all fascists? If not, then opposing Antifa does not make one a fascism supporter.
They may call them that. it doesn’t make it true.
It is different because intent matters. Accusation vs false accusation are different things.
I sincerely disagree that nobody supports authoritarianism. Many many people unironically cheer the armed forces, domestic military action, imprisonment of political opponents. Trump, Putin, Bibi… Hitler himself have many vocal proponents and supporters.
Also, ontologically speaking, if every group inherits as a property every element via synecdoche of its symbols you’re saying there is no difference between a GOP senator and a literal elephant the animal.
Antifa are clearly antifascist while clearly not all Stalinists, while clearly leaving room for discussion of edge cases of what may or may not be fascism.
Similar, many “prolife” people support capital punishment and eat meat without being call hypocrites because words clearly, evidently and sensibly have context.
They may call them that. it doesn’t make it true.
That’s my point. Most people called a fascist and Nazi today are not actually either of those.
I’m not implying that antifa symbolism alone makes them anarcho-communistic. It’s their actual actions, messaging, and organizing. They do black bloc and they promote a “classless society” on their websites along with anti-capitalist messaging.
My only point on antifa here is that it clearly is not merely “anti-fascist.”
As someone from England, a class-free society is a good thing. People should not have special privileges (with heavy emphasis on the etymology: “private law”) due to their birth.
Anti-capitalist messaging is also a good thing. And in a society built on free speech absolutely necessary. If you can’t criticise how people generate money if they do it in an evil way, you don’t live in a free society.
Its all about branding
I thought it was all about Brandon.
They know
