So you wouldn't mind a violent response to a KKK rally on the grounds of a university, or would you?

Because they commit violence on college campuses and disrupt college speakers such as Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. Those aren't fascists. — BitconnectCarlos

Wait, now you're back to saying that you have a right to be heard. I thought we'd dispensed with that. You're essentially arguing against the right for people to protest, as long as they're the wrong people.

And these protests are hardly an Antifa issue. No doubt many self-identifying members would protest Jordan Peterson, but the Venn diagram of Antifa and non-Antifa JP-haters has a huge overlap.

As for violence on college campuses, I presume you mean the Berkley protests in which Trump supporters and and anti-Trump protestors, which naturally included Antifa members among their numbers, clashed. That was unambiguously wrong. Few would pause to condemn them.

Is it your view then that the anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-white-supremacist movement as a whole must be considered as such? I ask because you don't seem to have such concerns about far-right groups such as neo-Nazis and the KKK who have a more consistent history of violence (consider Charlottesville, for instance).

Antifa is using violence and intimidation to shut down the rights guaranteed to us. — BitconnectCarlos

Your right is that the government will not pass laws that allow you to express your persona beliefs. Antifa is not a reformist group. How have they then breached your first amendment rights? Explain it, rather than just repeatedly claiming it, because as far as I can see Antifa has resulted in precisely zero government legislation against your freedom of expression.

Neither. An amendment can be added and it's not an attack on the founding principles. Obviously something being passed in the 1970s wouldn't be a founding principle.... — BitconnectCarlos

Okay, so you agree then that an amendment is a change to the founding principles your country was based on. You also seem fine with the founding principles your country was based on changing. It seems now quite a hollow complaint.

What constitutes fascism" is an extremely relevant question. If you believe it's good to punch a Nazi or a racist and violent suppress that type of speech, what about Zionism or capitalism? Can we punch capitalists if capitalism is essentially white supremacy? This is a really important question. — BitconnectCarlos

So you DO think I'm obliged to treat all your points but you are free to shrug off the ones you "didn't feel like" responding to? Do you see how dual standards is endemic throughout your thought?

Good luck even getting a KKK rally on the college campus. Now that'll be the day.

But no I don't believe in violence unless its self defense.

But no I don't believe in violence unless its self defense. — BitconnectCarlos

So you would have been opposed to the American Revolution.

There's a difference between violence for national defense or in the case of a civil war versus violence within a society. It's a very different kind of thing.

There's a difference between violence for national defense or in the case of a civil war versus violence within a society. It's a very different kind of thing. — BitconnectCarlos

The American revolution started out as random violence (against property) culminating in a million dollars worth of tea being dumped into Boston Harbor. There was no self defense to it.

So your line isn't self defense, is it?

So you DO think I'm obliged to treat all your points but you are free to shrug off the ones you "didn't feel like" responding to? Do you see how dual standards is endemic throughout your thought? — Kenosha Kid

If you don't want to address one of my points then fine, but that particular point I thought was a pretty strong one. Our discussions will never end if we insist on responding to every little sidetrack. Like this little sidetrack into the constitution it's not really that relevant to our main argument. Like below.

Okay, so you agree then that an amendment is a change to the founding principles your country was based on. You also seem fine with the founding principles your country was based on changing. It seems now quite a hollow complaint. — Kenosha Kid

I could respond to this but I'm forgetting its relevancy. An amendment could just an addition and it could not contradict the essential founding principles. Freedom of speech is an essential founding principle. Check out the bill of rights. Future amendments can't contradict the bill of rights.

Your right is that the government will not pass laws that allow you to express your persona beliefs. Antifa is not a reformist group. How have they then breached your first amendment rights? Explain it, rather than just repeatedly claiming it, because as far as I can see Antifa has resulted in precisely zero government legislation against your freedom of expression. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, antifa not being a reformist group and instead being a revolutionary group basically means that they have no respect for laws. That is why I do not like them.

Alright, I am blaming antifa for their actions. Even if its not a first amendment issue they are just being thugs. Is that an acceptable explanation?

Wait, now you're back to saying that you have a right to be heard. I thought we'd dispensed with that. You're essentially arguing against the right for people to protest, as long as they're the wrong people. — Kenosha Kid

If someone is in a private forum like a university or a governmental hearing you need to abide by the rules. A public protest is a different matter. If you're in a public protest of course other people can shout you down.

Antifa has also assaulted journalists.

Is it your view then that the anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-white-supremacist movement as a whole must be considered as such? I ask because you don't seem to have such concerns about far-right groups such as neo-Nazis and the KKK who have a more consistent history of violence (consider Charlottesville, for instance). — Kenosha Kid

I obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis, that goes without saying. Obviously I like to judge people more as individuals but I'm most worried about the increasingly violent tendencies of that leftist movement. It's also much more popular and powerful than the right I think and it has roots on college campuses. If it were the other way around the far right was capturing young people's minds on college campuses everywhere I'd be extremely alarmed and I'd go after them, but it's somewhat scary to me when mainstream thinking is increasingly in favor of violent suppression of ideas and rejects traditional liberal values.

The American revolution started out as random violence (against property) culminating in a million dollars worth of tea being dumped into Boston Harbor. There was no self defense to it.

So your line isn't self defense, is it? — frank

The American revolution was a struggle between a colonizer and her colony. I'll certainly condemn some methods that American patriots used against the British though. In any case the American revolution isn't a good comparison to draw to today's situation. I also think the violence that the Americans used was coordinated.

The American revolution was a struggle between a colonizer and her colony. I'll certainly condemn some methods that American patriots used against the British though. In any case the American revolution isn't a good comparison to draw to today's situation. I also think the violence that the Americans used was coordinated. — BitconnectCarlos

As I said, it started as random violence (usually involving fire) in Boston. Any historian would agree that there wouldn't have been a revolution without that chaotic start.

The violence associated with George Floyd protests was exactly like the Boston Tea Party, so you can't say yes to one and not the other.

The George Floyd protests were centered around racial justice and the issue of police treatment of minorities.

The Boston Tea Party happened because wealthy New England merchants like John Hancock were getting their prices undermined by the British who subjected them to unfair economic practices.... the two issues are quite different. The American revolution was violence towards the British government which was the mother colony.

Nobody is really supporting violence against American cops due to George Floyd, at least not sane people.

The Boston Tea Party happened because wealthy New England merchants like John Hancock were getting their prices undermined by the British who subjected them to unfair economic practices.... the two issues are quite different. The American revolution was violence towards the British government which was the mother colony. — BitconnectCarlos

The typical historian says it was caused by an economic downturn that followed the French Indian War. Rather than rich Bostonians, it was dock craftsmen who feared debt. Back then going into debt was to descend into inescapable slavery.

As Boston was being hammered by the closure of Boston Harbor by the British, Jefferson used the event to create solidarity among the colonists.

Nobody is really supporting violence against American cops due to George Floyd, at least not sane people. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree. Most of that violence was directed at property though, not people.

I see you're digging in on this. I was just looking for where your red line really is. It's obviously not self defense, but what? I'm guessing you tend to approve of violence when it's perpetrated by your allies?

I see you're digging in on this. I was just looking for where your red line really is. It's obviously not self defense, but what? I'm guessing you tend to approve of violence when it's perpetrated by your allies? — frank

Where the red line is in terms of when exactly violence is justified? I can't possibly have an absolute answer for that, so I just use the initiation of violence as a rule of thumb, especially within civilization.

It's a really tough subject, and especially when you get into international relations or violence between large civilizations or groups that things get really, really murky. Like it can seem that pre-emptive strikes can be justified, and that's likely the initiation of violence. I supported Israel pre-emptively striking down the Egyptian Air Force in...I believe it was the war of 1973 when it was clear that Egypt & the Arabs were mobilizing to destroy Israel.

However, in normal civilization we don't really face this problem. Ideally, in a functioning society if someone is plotting to hurt you you can report that police and they'll take care of it. If I'm genuinely afraid or I notice someone else is in danger I can call social workers or police. Violence between different civilizations is very different than violence between individuals within a functioning society with a legal system & rules.

I could respond to this but I'm forgetting its relevancy. — BitconnectCarlos

Your entire argument against anti-fascism was that it opposes the founding principles of your country. I'm just trying to figure out the logic behind your position.

Yeah, antifa not being a reformist group and instead being a revolutionary group basically means that they have no respect for laws. — BitconnectCarlos

So if you're not reformist, you obviously don't respect the laws. That makes no sense. Are you a reformist then?

If someone is in a private forum like a university or a governmental hearing you need to abide by the rules. — BitconnectCarlos

Okay, so it's nothing constitutional even, you just dislike people who protest on campus, presumably no matter what they're protesting about. It's college. There's going to be protests.

Antifa has also assaulted journalists. — BitconnectCarlos

It's bad also to assault journalists including if you're an Antifa member. But also if you're a Trump supporter. Here's a wager... I'm willing to bet that while you tar all anti-fascists with the actions of a few, you're somewhat more about individual accountability and personal responsibility when it comes to Trump supporters, am I right?

I obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis, that goes without saying. — BitconnectCarlos

No, you DON'T obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis. Your primary concern is that they are not getting the voice you think they should despite the fact that they are systematically violent and intolerant, that evil anti-fascists are denying them their right to expression by exercising theirs. The hypocrisy of far-right argument is always the same. You DO obviously condemn those that fight back, you go out of your way to do so and tar as many on the left-wing with the same brush as often as you can. Condemning the violence of the right is always a last resort when you realise you can't actually judge the left for rare acts of violence and uphold the long and horrendous history of violence of the right. "No, they're bad to but let's back to Antifa..." It's overtly BS dude. The day the likes of you and Nos OBVIOUSLY condemn the violence of the right wing I will have a heart attack.

Freedom of speech does not mean a freedom to occupy whatever platform you choose. You do not have the freedom to take over university spaces — Kenosha Kid

When a right-winger goes through the normal process of reserving a university space, are they "taking over university space"?

When the protest against this right-winger begins disrupting the function of the university to the point that the university is forced to rescind their invitation, are the protesters "taking over university space"?

Seems your definition of terms changes based on who they are applied to.

Good, so you understand that you are not protected in defacing property you don't own — Kenosha Kid

Such as Antifa tearing down statues, confederate flags, and the like.

And presumably you're not going to suggest that fascists should be free to engage in violent acts but Antifa not free to defend themselves. — Kenosha Kid

When an Antifa identifying person punches a right-wing politician and later the police beat up some Antifa protesters, is this self-defense?

Where the red line is in terms of when exactly violence is justified? I can't possibly have an absolute answer for that, — BitconnectCarlos

I would definitely face off KKK ralliers with signs and chanting. Maybe a rotten egg or two. It doesn't help anything to hurt people, but it definitely helps to let everyone hear that the KKK has no business being engaged as a serious point of view.

It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable.

When would you decide it's time to stand up and say something? Melodramatic question, but how would you answer it?

No, you DON'T obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis. Your primary concern is that they are not getting the voice you think they should despite the fact that they are systematically violent and intolerant, that evil anti-fascists are denying them their right to expression by exercising theirs. The hypocrisy of far-right argument is always the same. You DO obviously condemn those that fight back, you go out of your way to do so and tar as many on the left-wing with the same brush as often as you can. Condemning the violence of the right is always a last resort when you realise you can't actually judge the left for rare acts of violence and uphold the long and horrendous history of violence of the right. "No, they're bad to but let's back to Antifa..." It's overtly BS dude. The day the likes of you and Nos OBVIOUSLY condemn the violence of the right wing I will have a heart attack. — Kenosha Kid

You know, you might not know this about me because my username is "Carlos" but I'm actually not hispanic.

I'm actually an Ashkenazi Jew with family from Ukraine, a good portion of which were murdered in cold blood by actual Nazis.

So do you need me to condemn that? Because you never know, I could support it. How many times do I need to condemn that for me to be okay in your book? Should I also condemn the holocaust? I just wanna make sure I'm cool in your book and that I'm one of the good guys.

No but seriously how many times do you need me to say that I condemn right wing aggression, because apparently always mentioning it when you press me isn't enough for you.

Okay, so it's nothing constitutional even, you just dislike people who protest on campus, presumably no matter what they're protesting about. It's college. There's going to be protests. — Kenosha Kid

I don't care if you peacefully protest, but don't disrupt presentations. Protest all you want, I don't care.

Your entire argument against anti-fascism was that it opposes the founding principles of your country. I'm just trying to figure out the logic behind your position. — Kenosha Kid

I recanted on the first amendment argument. I said that I don't like them because they're thugs.

It's bad also to assault journalists including if you're an Antifa member. — Kenosha Kid

Good to hear we're on the same page. There are numerous antifa members or antifa sympathizers here who support it, just so you know. You need to educate your compatriots.

So if you're not reformist, you obviously don't respect the laws. That makes no sense. Are you a reformist then? — Kenosha Kid

Antifa doesn't seek to work within the system, antifa seeks to destroy the system. That's the difference between reformers and revolutionaries.

You know, you might not know this about me because my username is "Carlos" but I'm actually not hispanic. — BitconnectCarlos

What an odd thing to say. The only meaning I can extract is that you think it's possible that, if you were Hispanic, it would be understandable that you might pro-fascist.

No, I never thought you were Hispanic.

So do you need me to condemn that? Because you never know, I could support it. How many times do I need to condemn that for me to be okay in your book? Should I also condemn the holocaust? I just wanna make sure I'm cool in your book and that I'm one of the good guys. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, you tell me. You condemn the entirety of Antifa if one of its members punches a journalist, but you swerve the question of right-wing Trump supporters punching journalists. You believe that fascists have the right to protest even though their systematically violent and hateful, but you disregard anti-fascist expression for being disruptive. Does this sound in any way decent and fair to you?

Antifa doesn't seek to work within the system, antifa seeks to destroy the systematic violence of fascist and racist groups. — BitconnectCarlos

Fixed your typo.

I recanted on the first amendment argument. I said that I don't like them because they're thugs. — BitconnectCarlos

Btw this seems to be another constant in right-wing arguments: the argument itself is disposable, only the conclusion matters and is constant. Constitutional arguments for your conclusion no longer workin for ya? No need to abandon that conclusion: simply switch argument! It brings to mind far-right Facebook posters throwing up IT'S ABOUT SPACE, NOT RACE images a week after posting anti-Polish bilge.

What an odd thing to say. The only meaning I can extract is that you think it's possible that, if you were Hispanic, it would be understandable that you might pro-fascist. — Kenosha Kid

You're so close!

Nah man, being Ashkenazi Jewish gives me a direct and deeply personal relationship with Nazism that no other racial/ethnic group, with the exception of gypsies, can match.

You were so close. This isn't about hispanics being pro-fascist.

You condemn the entirety of Antifa if one of its members punches a journalist — Kenosha Kid

Have you talked with Streetlight, by any chance? Are you at all familiar with the more militant side of the movement? If I remember correctly antifa has assassinated people and tried to commit terrorist acts.

It goes without saying that I condemn anyone punching journalists. Do I need to tell you this 1000 times?

but you disregard anti-fascist expression for being disruptive. Does this sound in any way decent and fair to you? — Kenosha Kid

Peaceful protests are fine, I condemn shouting down speakers in private venues and disruptions of public hearings.

I'd be totally fine with antifa if they just peacefully protested, but that's just not the reality.

Are you at all familiar with the more militant side of the movement? If I remember correctly antifa has assassinated people and tried to commit terrorist acts. — BitconnectCarlos

There it is again. If an Antifa supporter who is a violent asshole with a gun shoots into a crowd, it is Antifa who has "assassinated" someone, despite the group having no centralised responsibility.

During the 2020 election, some Trump supporters protested the vote and shot and knives people. Are all Trump supporters responsible for this, or just the individuals who did it?

I'd be happy to revise my opinion on the demography of ideas in antifacist actors given present data about it! — fdrake

My sources are mostly interviews, and I know that Mark Bray has interviews with antifa members and he was able to get this access because he's a leftist and sympathetic to the movement. I've been meaning to get access to his book since it would be a great source of info for the sake of our discussion. No need for me to go to fox news for this one.

I think since we're never going to get actual statistics interviews are the best we can do. Ideally interviews with important, informed members.

It seems to take a perceived stage of emergency, as you say, to generate common approval of antifascist action among liberals. — fdrake

I have no problem with antifa in theory, my concern is tactics, tactics, tactics. And the fact that they may be a little overzealous in some cases. Oftentimes we're just dealing with ideas that relate to fascism so that creates a bit of a grey zone.

A person's reasons depend on the person. I don't think "a persons reasons depend on the person" is an allowed move in the game of ideological/demographic generalisation we've engaged in so far. It destroys all generalisation. — fdrake

Maybe we should ditch this game of ideological generalization then? We seem to be on a very different page. Your inspirations for antifascism seem to be Jewish partisans while mine are black-clad, weaponized young men who have murdered cops and obstruct ambulances trying tor reach hospitals. These aren't the "bad apples" either - street obstruction is a common tactic.

I don't mean to convince you that the emergency is as great as it was back in WW2, I mean to convince you that it's reasonable to conclude that the current state of things is a growing state of emergency. — fdrake

I'm keeping an eye on it. If Trump somehow manages to stay in office we'll be in a very, very different place politically obviously. I expect him gone in a few weeks. No more.

Antifascist action is a preventative measure in the same way that education is on a societal level. — fdrake

I'm with you 100% that widespread antifascist education would be a good thing for society, though. It just seems that there's no way to educate the knives out of those protesters' bodies. — fdrake

Antifa and strong social/racial justice movements are going about it in a very tactically questionable way. I mean does it really make sense to you that a fascist is going to recant his views after getting punched? The fascist already thrives on violence.

Have you ever seen Scared Straight? They take a bunch of juveniles and send them prison so the prisoners can scare and intimidate them into being good. The program was shut down because I don't think it had any sort of positive effect on the kids. It also shows a complete lack of knowledge of a young person's psyche. What did they think would happen when you've got a 15 year old juvenile who's got a rough life and now he's got all these prisoners telling him that he's not tough enough to make it?

Come on.

It's the same with racists, you got to acclimate them slowly, don't bombard them with in-your-face anti-racism material. Introduce them to decent, socially well adjusted minorities. Show them a bit of personal support. Bond over some hobbies. Daryl Davis managed to convince over 200 klansmen to denounce and leave the klan through this approach. Proven results. We both want the same thing, we just disagree on how to best go about it.

There it is again. If an Antifa supporter who is a violent asshole with a gun shoots into a crowd, it is Antifa who has "assassinated" someone, despite the group having no centralised responsibility.

During the 2020 election, some Trump supporters protested the vote and shot and knives people. Are all Trump supporters responsible for this, or just the individuals who did it? — Kenosha Kid

There are plenty of antifa communes where they live and eat together and I'd suspect that at least some coordinate together. There is actually a group of people to investigate if antifa does something highly illegal like attempting to a terrorist act.

There are 70 million Trump supporters, plenty of them who are not tied to any group. If a Trump supporter is a terrorist and is tied to a group like the KKK then we can absolutely investigate that group and go after that group.

If there's no group attached I don't know what to tell you.

I’ve read the Doctrine of Fascism. The illiberal, collectivist and statist sentiments rendered it completely useless, even as a historical curiosity, and I immediately lost interest in anything related to it. What else can be said of Italian Fascism besides how it once manifested and quickly failed in Europe?

I would definitely face off KKK ralliers with signs and chanting. Maybe a rotten egg or two. It doesn't help anything to hurt people, but it definitely helps to let everyone hear that the KKK has no business being engaged as a serious point of view.

It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable.

When would you decide it's time to stand up and say something? Melodramatic question, but how would you answer it? — frank

What exactly do you mean when you say "It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable."?

In terms of when it's time for me personally to stand up and say something, well, personally I don't really go to protests. I'd probably just ignore the klan. I'd probably look them up and down since they're a rare sight here in Massachusetts and walk right on by. I'm really not one to attend protests and start yelling at other people because I don't like their views. I actually don't like dealing with people in large groups, I prefer dealing with individuals.

If you want to change a klansman's mind you're not gonna do it by debating him. his hatred is in his heart, it's personal. check out daryl davis, he's a black man who has befriended over 200 klansmen and got them to renounce the klan. it's a billion times better than punching them. that's how you gotta do it.

Have any of you guys read any real fascist work? — Bertoldo

I’ve read What is Fascism by Mussolini, and Technique du Coup d’Etat by Malaparte, written when he was still a fascist. One thing you gotta give to Mussolini is a certain intelligence, a certain brilliance with words. Logical coherence and consistency were not his thing (Malaparte ended up calling him Monsieur Cameleon) but he had studied Hegel and others, and Fascism was in essence an attempted hegelian synthesis between socialism, nationalism and religion.

Mussolini could write, his rhetoric was powerful, a bit overdone for today’s taste, but it worked. Of course it is easy today to see that behind the glittering rhetoric hides a egotic, opportunistic mind, ready to use whatever argument that works for him. But back then many smart folks fall for him and his skillful way with words.

If Trump had been half as smart and energetic as Mussolini, the US would look very different today... in a bad way I mean. Luckily, Trump was more of a douche than a Duce.

There are plenty of antifa communes where they live and eat together and I'd suspect that at least some coordinate together. — BitconnectCarlos

There are plenty of autonomous groups generally. The question was: are all or even one of those groups responsible for what one individual does? Your answer seems to be, yes: all of Antifa is responsible for what one Antifa individual does. The next question is: are all Trump supporters responsible for what one Trump supporter does? Your answer is no, it's the fault of the individual.

This is another of the hypocrisies one sees endemic in right-wing thought. If it was one of our guys, that's just him, but if it's one of their guys it's all of them. This is, for instance, the logic of racism: a white guy commits a crime, and he's bad; a black guy commits a crime and blacks are bad.

Maybe we should ditch this game of ideological generalization then? We seem to be on a very different page. Your inspirations for antifascism seem to be Jewish partisans while mine are black-clad, weaponized young men who have murdered cops and obstruct ambulances trying tor reach hospitals. These aren't the "bad apples" either - street obstruction is a common tactic. — BitconnectCarlos

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a historical continuity between the antifascist actors I'm referring to and the ones which are currently vilified.

Have you ever seen Scared Straight? — BitconnectCarlos

We could be talking about how the majority of the time antifascist actors are not violent towards people except in self defence. But I think the more interesting discussion is about violence as a political strategy; the police are violent all the time, that's how they work.

So we should distinguish between antifascist actors at protests as a check against violent actors (and police!) and violent antifascist tactics outside of the protest. Self defence against police action like this excerpt from an antifascist actor at Red Lion Square:

There were two or three rows of police who were pressed up against the crowd and they had their truncheons drawn, although as I said, this was when things had quietened down a bit. Behind these rows of coppers were a number of police on horseback. There was one particular copper there, he was in the second row, and he was frothing at the mouth trying to get at people. He was hurling all sorts of abuse and urging the other coppers to attack us. I then felt a push behind me, and I turned around and saw that someone had fallen over. I didn’t have a clue who it was at the time but I now know of course that it was Kevin Gately. I heard afterwards that he had fainted due to the crush of the crowd. There was a shout that somebody had fallen and I shouted “Ease back, ease back.

Give him room.” This evil little copper then started shouting “One of the bastards is down. Quick let’s “rush them. Trample him.” I looked at him and said quite calmly “You vicious bastard. I’ve got your number.” I could see he wanted to get at me, but the coppers in the front row were inadvertently blocking his way.

...

I’ve been asked many times if I think the police killed Kevin Gately. I can’t say for certain that they did but if someone is charging into a packed crowd, waving around a truncheon and saying “Let’s trample the bastard” then, well, I’ll leave it for you to judge. — Dave Hann, Physical Resistance

From an act like tailing a man who was writing antisemitic slogans and threats over houses of Jewish Londoners home then beating the shit out of them with the threat (paraphrased) "If the slogans come back, we do" - the slogans did not come back. The affected community went to the police before this, the police said (paraphrased) "Your lot aren't liked around here" and refused to act.

When that community organised with antifascist groups - after the police refused to do anything, mind -,they effectively made their own police force to stop hate crimes being committed against them which the police were indifferent to. And it worked. The British fascists stopped bullying that neighbourhood.

Have I ever been scared straight? No, but I have been stopped from doing things because I was afraid of the consequences. And the latter is the point. So: I don't think education is the purpose of intimidation and fear strategies like that. It's not for the person victimised by fear and intimidation, it's to make them afraid and to stop doing whatever they're doing. That was an attempt to control, through fear, someone who's committing hate crimes, or otherwise legitimising violence, the police either cannot or will not intervene in to prevent or stop.

It's very prescient to remind ourselves of how Oswald Mosley vilified the antifascist actors back then - he defended what he did under free speech.

We have reached a point in this country in which free speech is a thing of the past, organised bands of "Reds", armed with sticks, bottles and razors, attend all important meetings which threaten their position... The reason our Fascist Defence Force has been organised (is to protect free speech) — Oswald Mosley

An organisation with the purposes of populist race baiting, encouraging and committing hate crimes, defending its own aggression and racism through freedom of speech. Of course, if someone defends someone's right to say something, you never have to defend what they say!

This is a strategic weakness of liberal democracy, as noted by Schmitt. Free speech absolutism provides absolutely no defence against bad faith and subversive actors from within the system, in fact all that is needed to be done to get people on the side of bad faith actors is for them to claim they are being silenced. So long as liberal democracy is willing to hold free speech to such high regard it risks facing the bad conclusion of the paradox of tolerance; erosion of the very norms that were protected. So long as people side with these bad faith actors, antifascist action will be required as a counterbalance to defend liberal norms. An unglamorous job, as everyone hates them for it.

What exactly do you mean when you say "It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable." — BitconnectCarlos

Silence keeps people down, whether it's victims of sexual molestation or assault, racial discrimination, or economic hardship.

So even if marching and protesting does nothing to change the system, it helps oppressed people to lift that veil of silence.

In terms of when it's time for me personally to stand up and say something, well, personally I don't really go to protests. I'd probably just ignore the klan. I'd probably look them up and down since they're a rare sight here in Massachusetts and walk right on by. I'm really not one to attend protests and start yelling at other people because I don't like their views. I actually don't like dealing with people in large groups, I prefer dealing with individuals — BitconnectCarlos

I think this might be why you have so little sympathy for antifa. You haven't imagined a point where you would become a ”thug” to stand against injustice.

For whatever reason, I've thought a lot about it, about how that kind of volatility is uncontrollable once it starts, how it can end up hurting innocent bystanders, how it becomes a reason to live for some people, but how there comes a point when there's no other way.

If you want to change a klansman's mind you're not gonna do it by debating him. his hatred is in his heart, it's personal. check out daryl davis, he's a black man who has befriended over 200 klansmen and got them to renounce the klan. it's a billion times better than punching them. that's how you gotta do it. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, you're thinking about how it affects the klan. I'm thinking about how their rhetoric affects kids.

There it is again. If an Antifa supporter who is a violent asshole with a gun shoots into a crowd, it is Antifa who has "assassinated" someone, despite the group having no centralised responsibility.

During the 2020 election, some Trump supporters protested the vote and shot and knives people. Are all Trump supporters responsible for this, or just the individuals who did it? — Kenosha Kid

There's a difference between second degree and first degree crimes that's really important here. Did the crime have prior planning or not? If yes, we investigate the group behind the crime if there is one.

This is a strategic weakness of liberal democracy, as noted by Schmitt. Free speech absolutism provides absolutely no defence against bad faith and subversive actors from within the system, in fact all that is needed to be done to get people on the side of bad faith actors is for them to claim they are being silenced. So long as liberal democracy is willing to hold free speech to such high regard it risks facing the bad conclusion of the paradox of tolerance; erosion of the very norms that were protected. So long as people side with these bad faith actors, antifascist action will be required as a counterbalance to defend liberal norms. An unglamorous job, as everyone hates them for it.

I don’t think it’s the case that one is “on the side of bad faith actors” when defending their right to speak, though guilt by association is almost inevitable (see Chomsky and the Faurisson affair, for instance). One can defend a person’s right to speak without endorsing any of their views.

But more, the paradox of intolerance is that we should not tolerate the intolerant, those that refuse to listen to argument and thus resort to bigotry and violence, for instance the latest iteration of American Antifa. When I am unable to distinguish this species of "antifascist action" from violent bigotry, I must oppose it, with violence if necessary.