It's the same basic ideology, if you are not one of us you are one of them. Antifa hides behind anti-fascist slogans to mask their ideology, KKK and other white supremacy groups don't that's the only real difference.To be clear, I have no issue with you or anyone else speaking out against/condemning either group. What I am saying to you is that I disagree with your equation of Antifa and the KKK by removing the history of the KKK so that they become equals.
Yep! Still doesn?t excuse the historical actions of the group. And before we get into it-not saying you did excuse the actions.Would you agree that the KKK is not even remotely as big or as powerful as they used to be?
Funny, I was going to mention communism in my original post about your retort because I know that it hits home with you. To answer your question, surely, you can consider communists and Nazis if you like. But I?m specifically talking about your Antifa/KKK equation.If we're bringing historical white power and Nazism into the picture, then perhaps we should consider the communists of yesteryear as well?
What's your solution? Don't condemn either one?
To echo something Mally said, you can condemn both without erasing the historical context. Context is crucial here. Lev, you can condemn both communists and nazis, but it's important to explain the reasons for each.You don't need to equate Antifa with KKK (I certainly won't) to disavow them their disgusting actions of free speech suppression, and yes, fascism. Just because one ideology doesn't involve a history of genocide or extermination does not mean it should be graded on a curve.
Yes, but until corrected, you were perfectly happy to believe the rhetoric that Antifa are warriors against Naziism. Do you understand the false narrative that is (not) being played out in the mainstream media because of this? Finally, MSNBC and Washington Post shone a negative light only yesterday on these fascist piles of garbage. I hope they continue to do so.To echo something Mally said, you can condemn both without erasing the historical context. Context is crucial here.
linkUC Berkeley chancellor unveils 'Free Speech Year' as right-wing speakers plan campus events said:Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeley?s 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nation?s top public research university, unveiled plans Tuesday for a ?Free Speech Year? as right-wing speakers prepare to come to campus.
Christ said the campus would hold ?point-counterpoint? panels to demonstrate how to exchange opposing views in a respectful manner. Other events will explore constitutional questions, the history of Berkeley?s free speech movement and how that movement inspired acclaimed chef Alice Waters to create her Chez Panisse restaurant.
?Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view,? Christ said in an interview. ?We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.?
The free speech initiative comes after a rocky year of clashing opinions on campus. In February, violent protests shut down an appearance by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, prompting President Trump to question the campus? federal funding. A few months later, conservative commentator Ann Coulter canceled a planned appearance after the campus groups hosting her pulled out.
Yiannopoulos has announced plans to return next month to spend days in a ?tent city? in Berkeley?s iconic Sproul Plaza. Conservative author and columnist Ben Shapiro is scheduled to visit Sept. 14.
The free speech issue drew the biggest spotlight in the new chancellor?s daylong media interviews and welcoming remarks to 9,500 new students. Christ, dressed in blue ceremonial robes, told the new arrivals that Berkeley?s free speech movement was launched by liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to advocate political views on campus.
?Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are,? she said. ?That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with, even of those whose views you find abhorrent.?
She drew loud applause when she asserted that the best response to hate speech is ?more speech? rather than trying to shut down others, and when she said that shielding students from uncomfortable views would not serve them well.
?You have the right to expect the university to keep you physically safe, but we would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious,? she said.
Although everyone wants to feel comfort and support, Christ said, inner resilience is the ?the surest form of safe space.?
But she also emphasized that public safety also is paramount. At a morning news conference dominated by free speech questions, Christ said the February violence triggered by the Yiannopoulos event had underscored the need for a larger police presence. Only 85 officers were on the scene, she said, when a paramilitary group 150 strong marched onto campus with sticks, baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.
Under an interim policy that took effect this week, campus police will provide a security assessment for certain large events that could endanger public safety, and the hosting organizations will be responsible for basic costs. Such organizations will have to give advance notice, preferably eight weeks or longer, and provide detailed timetables ? and contracts with speakers may not be finalized until the campus has confirmed the venue and given final approval. The rules will be applied to all events, regardless of viewpoint.
Most of the rules already exist but have not been laid out in a unified, consistent policy known to all, Christ said. She said the student group hoping to host Coulter, for instance, offered her a date and time without checking with campus administrators that a venue was available; none was. Berkeley did not cancel the event, as has been reported, Christ said.
Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said, ?We want to eliminate all gray areas ? and make sure there?s clarity about what people need to do so we can help support safe and secure events.?
The campus is accepting public comments on the interim policy until Oct 31.
Christ?s focus on free speech heartened Alex Nguyen, a sophomore studying molecular cellular biology. She said she took the issue especially to heart because her parents were born in Vietnam, where criticizing the government could lead to imprisonment.
?I want her to really protect free speech because there?s really high political tensions here,? Nguyen said of the chancellor. ?We?re at the university to learn new things and disprove our ideas.?
Why even bother with the bait&switch at this point? We have repeated incidents and video evidence that they hate and are willing to violently attack anyone who disagrees with them (or merely gets in their way).Antifa - we hate nazis
No, we allow both to continue to speak.Okay, good - I agree with you here. But as I asked in the post above, is condemning both enough? We've been condemning the KKK for decades, but they still exist. Condemning both perpetuates the status quo and allows both to continue to act.
Publicly claiming to be reasonable and support free speech is nice, but talk is cheap. She'll have credibility when right wing speakers are able to hold their events as scheduled, the attendees are able to come and go unmolested, and the police don't "stand down" when the leftists show up to smash&burn the place and violently assault everyone.
So that's a mainstream leftist TV show, comedy site (the Onion), and national politician condemning extremist violence on both sides. Some polling must have come back that most of America sides with Trump on this.Nancy Pelosi said:Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
No, it does not, because of the reasons outlined before. You can and should condemn both, but without equating the two as equally bad. Each of them is bad for specific reasons that need to be explicated.So that's a mainstream leftist TV show, comedy site (the Onion), and national politician condemning extremist violence on both sides. Some polling must have come back that most of America sides with Trump on this.
I think you overestimate the number of people who care about a group's stated political aims once they've seen it get preemptively, premeditatively violent. That goes for its enablers too; it's why Trump also called out the press for its misleading (or just missing) coverage. IMO most Americans have zero tolerance for political violence, and they're (rightly) shocked and appalled that any group in this country can somehow regularly go out and attack the public while the police and press look the other way.No, it does not, because of the reasons outlined before. You can and should condemn both, but without equating the two as equally bad. Each of them is bad for specific reasons that need to be explicated.
What?? Members of both are pieces of human waste and the world would be better off without them... but for different reasons. Happy?You can and should condemn both, but without equating the two as equally bad. Each of them is bad for specific reasons that need to be explicated.
Why does that matter? If I hate both Coke and Pepsi, why does it matter why? Here, on the right you have violent assholes with stupid ideas, and on the left you have violent assholes with stupid ideas. I feel like you're trying to subtly defend antifa by saying "yeah they aren't great BUT THE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE!!11!". Stop that.Did you explicate the different reasons? No.
Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but in the past you rejected comparisons between Trump and Hitler, because despite some similarities in their governing styles, the historical context was important. Same here, when you equate the two groups as if they are Coke and Pepsi, you are erasing the historical context of the KKK and the nazis.Why does that matter? If I hate both Coke and Pepsi, why does it matter why? Here, on the right you have violent assholes with stupid ideas, and on the left you have violent assholes with stupid ideas. I feel like you're trying to subtly defend antifa by saying "yeah they aren't great BUT THE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE!!11!". Stop that.
I'm kind of with Lev here why does it matter? It's like hating killers and rapists, sure they are different but do I really have to bother explaining that?Did you explicate the different reasons? No.
In your examples of rapists vs. killers, the nuance matters when it comes to punishment. One can apply similar logic as to how one deals with antifa vs. the alt-right, they're both bad sure but they deserve different responses.I'm kind of with Lev here why does it matter? It's like hating killers and rapists, sure they are different but do I really have to bother explaining that?