Whether I am or not makes no difference. It's your argument that being anti-fascist is a violation of freedom of expression on the grounds that anti-fascism seeks to stamp out fascism, and therefore fascist expression. — Kenosha Kid

You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. Banning everything just results in fascism going underground and creates a society where there's less transparency and honesty because people know they can't say certain things.

But just keep banning ideas you don't like: fascism, capitalism, maybe throw some religions in there, eh? Hell, even your allies probably have views and opinions that you don't like even they mostly agree with you - you can't let those stay, they'd be poison to the movement.

The logical conclusion of anti-fascism is the end of fascism, meaning no fascists to spout fascist ideas. It is illogical to claim you wish fascism to end but fascist ideas to be freely espoused. — Kenosha Kid

Do you agree with this too?

"The logical conclusion of anti-capitalism is the end of capitalism, meaning no [believers in the capitalist system] to spout capitalist ideas."

You're an anti-capitalist, right?

And we know that is bullshit because of the long, violent, hateful history of the Klan. The raison d'etre of the KKK is violence oppression of black Americans. You'd have to be an especially ignorant person to think it was about fancy dress but, yes, such a person would be exempt. — Kenosha Kid

The raison d'etre of the KKK is white supremacy, not the violent oppression of blacks. Violence happens but it's not a daily thing, you're treating it like it's a daily thing when it's not. A Klan speaker could easily say that they only use violence as a last resort.

Of course this is not me justifying them, just stating the facts. Especially in 2020. A hate group can still be a hate group but not use violence all the time.

Because your argument is that by opposing fascism, we're opposing the right of the fascist to express fascist views. That's trivially true of opposing anything. You can want for something to not exist and yet still express itself. — Kenosha Kid

No it is not trivially true. I oppose fascism, of course, but I don't believe in banning fascist literature or not allowing them to speak.

Do you think I'm pro-Nazi because I don't believe in banning Mein Kampf? So not being massively pro-censorship makes me basically pro-Nazi? Ok, not got it.

But that's precisely what you're not doing when you judge a great many people for criminal activity they are not responsible for. — Kenosha Kid

You realize the KKK often isn't actually physical violent very often, right? Obviously their belief system is straight up toxic and it would explain the actions behind the groups act, but the KKK could also use this argument "oh only bad klansmen commit those acts, we, the organization, do not approve of it!" That's the justification they'll use. They're only sporadically violent, it's not their everyday business.

You could say this about laws. If we take paedophile laws to their logical conclusion, paedophilia would be eliminated, and with it the ability to voice pro-paedophilia propaganda. But paedophilia is a crime, as is racial violence against ethnic minorities, and it's quite right to stamp it out. If that leaves no one left to express in it's favour, so much the better. — Kenosha Kid

Anti-pedophile laws are just rules - no sex with minors. I don't see the "oh well if we extend that logic then..." argument. Voicing pro-pedophilia arguments, while gross, is defending under the first amendment. If we were to outlaw pedophiles (i.e. arresting anyone attracted to children) then we're in a completely different area philosophically. It doesn't follow from anti-pedophile laws (which is really just a prohibition) that anyone who feels sexual attraction to children should be arrested.

If you are serious about antifascism then you are talking about mass censorship, just admit it already. Nothing wrong with being about honest about the implications of ones views.

You're also talking about destroying a liberal arts education and not reading about certain thinkers, or atleast not allowing students to engage with thinkers like Hobbes.

The "neighbourhood watch" wasn't enough, the police didn't care to impede the publicly announced demonstration, sectarian violence ensued because the "last resort" of the ANL weren't there in enough numbers. How would you expect a neighbourhood watch to defend against an organised militia when the police violently protect that militia's right to march through the neighbourhood due to "absolute free speech"? — fdrake

But how do we know that larger numbers of ANL would have stopped the violence? This is a minor point though, because in the situation you describe it is clear that the community needed to call in the ANL as a last resort and I don't have any issue with that.

But the situation in America is basically this one but reversed: You have left-wing protesters destroying stores and "right wing" (really, anti-government boogaloes, not actual fascists) called in or requested to protect small business. I'm against allowing any group to destroy property, left or right.

Ideally the neighborhood watch wouldn't have to defend anything because a strong police presence would deter violence. I don't know about British law but in America you're allowed to have these types of demonstrations as long as they stay peaceful.

But Antifa are not that sort of community. There may exist communities of some Antifa members who do so, and some of those might be systematically violent and should be judged as such. — Kenosha Kid

There are also some antifa communes who probably fall somewhere in the middle between non-violence and violence, so again, we investigate the community when the individual commits the crime.

From a broader, ideological standpoint I consider the American antifascist movement quite suspect and video footage and journalism repeatedly reinforces my initial impression. I would not use the word "non-violent" to describe them or their ideology.

EDIT: If we took antifascism to its logical conclusion then we're talking about mass censorship and places certain individuals in charge of managing and determining that censorship. It is a deeply un-American ideal in practice.

The aforementioned activist scrubbing Swastikas off walls is, by your logic, morally culpable for a violent individual she has never heard of shooting a violent fascist. — Kenosha Kid

No, we judge people as individuals. If some dresses in all black and marches alongside antifa that's them choosing to associate themselves with that community.

What would count as sufficient evidence that authorities are "either complicit or unhelpful in stopping hatecrimes"? — fdrake

I'm fine with neighborhood watches. Communities are allowed to defend themselves, but I think its a poor tactical decision to frame a neighborhood watch specifically as an antifascist defense force. It'll have the effect of alienating a portion of the population that isn't particularly political and may be a little confused or alarmed by the ideological bent of their neighborhood watch. Just call it a general neighborhood watch, cast a wide net, and defend your community from whatever crime there is. Everyone can get on board with neighborhood safety, you're going to confuse people when you introduce ideology, especially if this new neighborhood watch is dressed in all black with black masks. Appearance matters.

The same is not true of Trump supporters or Antifa. — Kenosha Kid

It comes down to how close these people are with their respective communities. If people are all living and eating and sleeping together, then that community is going to be under investigation and I don't care whether its a bird loving community. Uniforms are a big indicator. The closer people are with that group the more police should investigate, and investigation does not mean guilt.

I don't even know if the proclaimed MO of the organization is all that relevant. A hippie commune might proclaimed peace, love, and harmony but if they're out slaughtering celebrities they're getting investigated, and that extends beyond the actual perpetrators. Charlie Manson didn't kill anyone and he wasn't at the crime scene.

Chess for humans isn't really about rationality, it's about your ability to envision future positions and calculate. If chess were just about rationality Einstein or Kant or who ever would be the world's greatest chess players. You must be able to visualize future positions and assess all possible counter play. It's about sight and pattern recognition, not rationality.

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. — fdrake

I judge groups as they are now. To me this would be like judging the modern American military like the one it was in WWII.

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. — fdrake

If the police or authorities absolutely refuse to cooperate or help in any manner - then yes, it's on you. In America in 2020 we can absolutely count on our police to go after anti-semitic hate crimes. Vigilante groups are an absolute last resort and I'm sure you see how things can get out of hand very quickly when you have angry citizens enforcing justice. But yes, when the authorities are either complicit or unhelpful in, say, stopping hate crimes then this type of vigilante action becomes more plausible.

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. — fdrake

It can work, but it's not the ideal method. Maybe the anti-semitic thug just learns to prey on weaker communities. It's a last resort. I'm sure you and I must both agree that taking the law into your own hands is a last resort.

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. — fdrake

I'm glad you mention Schmitt here. In my view Schmitt is probably one of the most if not the most persuasive fascist thinker out there. He's an unabashed fascist, no question there. It would seem to me that if we're serious about nipping fascism in the bud then we should ban his works, full stop. If someone seriously engages Schmitt he'll likely feel the pull of fascism. Whenever you seriously engage a thinker they'll pull you into their world for a bit.

After Schmitt I'd also likely go after Nietzsche. Maybe not the entirety of Nietzsche, sure, but definitely certain parts lend themselves to fascist thought. Where exactly do we draw the line? That's a damn good question. But I guess the more important one would be who makes the decision.

We can start going after bands, too, like Rammstein and other heavy metal bands who clearly have fascist undertones and aesthetics. We'll really have quite the work cut out ahead of us. I never read Heideggar but he might be gone too. We'd have to revise the entire concept of a liberal arts education while we're at it.

So if an Antifa member shot randomly into a crowd of fascists, Antifa are in the clear?

And therefore one member's personal decision to kill someone is precisely what makes it not his personal responsibility?

Far-right people really will say absolutely anything m — Kenosha Kid

Any crime gets investigated, that's just how it is. Let the police do their work and draw their conclusions. I don't get why this is so complicated.

Look into the anti-mob police cases of the 1980s in New York - organizations can be held responsible for the behavior of their members.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Good, so you understand that you are not protected in defacing property you don't own, or to assemble free from counter-protestors. 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

:100:

What threat do you actually perceive from Antifa then? It can't be their anti-fascist position which, by your own argument, must be as protected as anti-black sentiment. — Kenosha Kid

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

Anyway, it's a non-starter to use the first amendment as an argument against Antifa since they're a direct action group, not a reformist group. The first amendment protects citizens from laws made by the government, and Antifa do not seek to reform those laws. — Kenosha Kid

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

Really? Let's take your right as an 18+ year old American to vote. Your argument is that this amendment, passed in the early 1970s, was one of the founding principles of your country? Or that every amendment since the Bill or Rights is an attack on the founding principles of your country? — Kenosha Kid

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....

And, believe it or not, I didn't feel like getting into a point that wasn't relevant to my argument. It's rather hypocritical to think I was obliged to respond to everything you have to say, yet you are not. — Kenosha Kid

"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.

Meat & potatoes of our discussion is at the bottom.

I'm making the demographic claim that social democratic liberals can be antifascist actors — fdrake

Ok.

and that the majority of contemporary antifascist actors are not smash the state anarchists or revolution now communists; — fdrake

If by "antifascist actors" you mean actual members of antifa or the ones that dress in black and go to protests I'd like to dig a little deeper into this. I'd love to have these statistics.

and that antifascist organisers as a demographic category are (historically) even more likely to have more hard line positions. — fdrake

Absolutely.

I bet you'd like David Hahn's "Physical Resistance: a Hundred Years of Struggle", a history of antifascist movements. — fdrake

Interesting. I've been using Mark Bray's book on antifascism for my main source. Bray himself is very sympathetic to the movement and a leftist himself. I'll look into your source when I get the time.

It strikes me that someone who commits to antifascist praxis does so from a principled place of understanding, study and experience. — fdrake

Wouldn't you say that depends on the person though? We have some antifascists on this site who have made some very violent, gruesome statements towards people like Biden and others. I think it's disingenuous to group in every modern antifascist with, say, a Jewish anti-Nazi fighter around the time of WWII. Even as a Jew not every anti-Nazi fighter was good; there was a famous plot that was foiled when a group of Jewish partisans after WWII sought to poison the German water supply.

I'm sure from their perspective it is actually protecting the liberal rights you hold dear, cf paradox of tolerance. The only conditions under which a "free marketplace of ideas" could exist sustainably are ones with well enforced rules and laws of conduct. When those rules are rejected wholesale or too weak, the fragility of "the free marketplace of ideas" is laid bare; cf "money as speech". Whenever absolute decorum for speech is desired, enforcement of the principles that uphold it is required too. In that context, antifascist action is a democratic check-and-balance. — fdrake

I get what you're saying and you make a good conceptual point here. I don't disagree with what you write here.

A major idea of antifa is "punch a Nazi." For me it's very emotionally satisfying to see a Nazi get punched, but ultimately it's not an effective way to deal with Nazism or racism in a non-emergency environment. I hate to say it, but the antifascism movement, much like the neoconservatives of the Bush years, have a habit of viewing the current era as Germany, 1933 and that it is incumbent on us now to act immediately and decisively (with the neocons it was Saddam in Iraq, today it is the far right in America.) If you believe that America today is basically Germany, 1933 I don't know what to tell you. In war there is no talk, only violence.

It really should be an absolute last resort to start punching Nazis or white supremacists. It's much, much better to try to educate them... not even that but befriending them can make a huge difference. A black guy named Darryl Davis managed to befriend over 200 KKK members and as a result got them to turn away from their beliefs. If someone believes black people are vicious, stupid animals how is them getting punched by a black person going to change that??

Secondly, I believe racism is inherently undemocratic. It makes sense to me that antifascists would want to ban racism/white supremacy just like they'd want to ban fascism. The problem is with the enforcement - what constitutes racism/white supremacy? On today's college campuses they make the argument that Zionism, European cultural pride and capitalism are all manifestations of white supremacy. Do we ban advocacy of those too? Today's white supremacists are much more crafty - they're much more likely to "advocate for white people" or "support a white homeland" than saying that they think blacks or minorities are inferior. I'm okay with informing people's bosses that their workers are doing racist activities, but punching them is ineffectual at best and banning X sort of speech sets a dangerous precedent. How exactly do you define it?

I know that freedom of speech doesn't give the right to whatever platform you want, but you're still allowed to express your ideas verbally and in writing. The first amendment goes far beyond just the right to believe, which is very weak.

I avoided your first point because it was wrong but I didn't feel like getting into it because your second point was more more egregious.

but the first amendment protects your right to personal belief: it does not protect your perceived right to make the world a platform for those beliefs, and it certainly does not protect your perceived right to act to make a world that is violently hostile to others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Take your undemocratic trash elsewhere. Very convenient of you to avoid my second point, as well.

I was saying that what antifa is doing is contrary to our first amendment. In any case it sets an extremely dangerous precedent as more and more ideas could under some interpretations fall under the banner of "white supremacy" - zionism, european cultural pride, capitalism.

I suspect you're using liberal in the "classic liberal" sense and not the sense I meant it; by a liberal social democrat I intended a reformist believer in the institutions of liberal democracy. Someone who broadly approves of the way things are set up fundamentally, but criticises/protests flaws when they see them. Those people who will act against resurgent nationalism, political oppression and systemic issues without wanting to overthrow states (anarchism) or the world order of capitalism (communism) [or both]. — fdrake

Yeah, this was the sense of liberalism that I was using. I wasn't talking about classical liberalism. I don't believe that a liberal social democrat would fit in in the modern antifascist movement in the US, or the black bloc elsewhere. Antifa fundamentally seeks to stifle certain views, and I get it - in Europe they do this but in America it's against the principles our country was founded on and moreover it sets a dangerous precedent.

An important part of a liberal arts education is genuinely exploring views which we don't like. Antifa is not fundamentally a movement about discourse and the free exchange of ideas; it is about stifling any potentially dangerous idea before it is allowed to spread. It is a fundamentally illiberal movement.

it a hodgepodge of liberal social democracts, anarchists, communists and others; doctrinally mixed; the united front politics of Stalinism was notorious for its commitment to doctrinal purity (whatever the doctrine was at the time). — fdrake

While there may be social democrats in antifa, the ideology of the group is not liberal in the least. A liberal who wants to join the antifa movement in america and maintain their liberalism honestly has no idea what's going on. Look at some of the users on this forum who are actually antifa/black bloc members and ask yourself whether you are really the same.

Nice post. I'm also a chess player (around 2000/2100 on chess.com) and I agree with you in some respects and disagree in others. I agree that life is not really like chess; chess to me is basically war, especially under short time controls. The more calculated, careful player does not always win. Chess really ought to be played under some sort of time control, it's just a matter of what time control we're talking about. One absolutely must manage their thinking and calculation time efficiently/treat it as a resources, and resources are not endless and require proper management.

I am not too sure that there is an objectively best move in every situation. I remember Hikaru Nakamura commented on his stream one time that there's typically 3-4 'good' moves in a normal, non-sharp position and my own thinking more lends itself to pragmatism so until that "objectively" best move is demonstrated I'll probably remain a little skeptical. I would also ask what makes a certain move in a non-sharp normal middle game superior to another when considering 2-3 candidate good moves. I think perfect chess on both sides would just always result in a draw. We're really just talking about the ability to navigate a game tree and hoping your opponent screws up, but if your opponent is perfect then he'll navigate the game tree perfectly and so will you... so draw.

Anyway your points about Tal and Tarkatower were spot on - how chess has evolved!

I tend to agree with Mr. Carlos, that suffering and tragedy are simply part of life, and that having to endure them can be beneficial; but it seems liberal democracy has no taste for this, as there are always public awareness campaigns being waged in them against one or another of the societal ills that exist and will always exist despite our most strenuous efforts to eliminate them, for example, “the war against poverty”, or against homelessness, or hunger or racism, the call for world peace, etc, etc, each of which hopes to put an absolute end to the evil it strives against, rather than simply diminish it. — Todd Martin

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding in terms of what I was saying here. I am not against fighting poverty or homeless and I don't view these as inevitable parts of society. When I wrote that life is suffering I wasn't saying that certain social conditions are inevitable; I was saying that even if we managed to eliminate these social problems suffering is still intrinsic to the human experience.

No matter what your background is you're going to have to go through the deaths of your grandparents as well as parents, unless you die first. You're going to outlive your pets. We all have peers: What, are we going to be better than our peers in everything imaginable? That would probably be its own form of suffering. We're all deeply connected with the welfare of your families and communities, so any misfortune there has ripple effects. Freak accidents happen and they always will happen. Nobody - and I don't care what the society is - is coming out of life without a scratch.

I can’t think of any reason such a Power would find suffering to have any purpose. And if it did I could not accept a world like from such a Power. — Brett

IMO suffering often does have a purpose and it can teach us important lessons. That's one of the reasons children are so naive; a lot of them haven't really struggled with making ends meet or experienced tragedy either. Often growth comes from suffering or struggle.

Tragedy is a part of life, no way around it. Your parents are probably (hopefully) going to die before you and that's gonna suck. If you want an existence with absolutely no suffering you're talking about non-existence, and you're in the same boat with one of our users named schopenhauer who always argues it would be better if humans never existed but continues to exist himself.

I’m not sure if that’s your question or if it’s addressed to me. — Brett

The question.

Not because it’s the God of Abraham, because a true Higher Power would be total, no cultural interpretations. — Brett

Apparently he just doesn't reveal himself. I don't know, maybe he thinks its more fun that way, who knows.

If my choice is a Higher Power then the suffering must continue, which I could not agree to. So I reject my possible choice of a Higher Piwer. — Brett

This is just the question that I'd like to know the answer to the most. The abrahamic God either exists or he doesn't, no choice to it besides me just choosing to ask the question.

I still have a problem with the suffering that has always existed which is not caused by the folly of man, like children being born with health problems, or anyone for that matter. — Brett

I get what you're saying. A lot of things don't make sense to us, but maybe when you consider the bigger picture things change a bit. Sure a baby might die a terrible death, but who knows that baby could be spending an eternity in eternal bliss. Maybe his death was necessary, who know are you to say it wasn't? Even a long, 100 year life full of suffering is nothing compared to eternity. I mean even if this universe had basically no suffering except that people got paper cuts sometimes we could still ask God why he would allow for something like that. The God of the Old Testament never gives us the message that we can really understand him and this frustrates a lot of people.

The Christians make God into a heavenly father full of infinite love, but Christianity has its roots in the old testament, and one should never forget their roots.

"Does the God of Abraham and Isaac exist?"

I read "Political Theology" some time ago, but I believe that Schmitt did not synthesize the very foundations of Italian Fascism, and I think it is clear that German fascism was pretty different. — Bertoldo

Yeah, I wouldn't have expected Schmitt to draw on Italian fascism, but interestingly in his major works - Political Theology and Concept of the Political - he doesn't push for fascism along racial lines despite being an anti-Semite personally. I'm utterly uninterested in any sort of racial justification for fascism. It's when philosophers make the case for fascism in their own abstract terms that things become interesting. You can still see echoes of some of Schmitt's thoughts, particularly the emphasis on friend/enemy distinction, in later neoconservative thinkers like Strauss.

But yeah when it comes to the Italians I'm lost. I was never assigned any of them in undergrad nor is it my cultural background.

I haven't read any Italian fascism, but I did read Carl Schmidt years ago so if we're talking German fascism I might have something to contribute but I'd have to jog my memory a bit.

Should we seek to overcome attachment, to what extent, and can it be achieved ? Whether or not one adopts these worldviews, we can ask whether attachment is a problem and, should we seek to overcome our attachments at all? — Jack Cummins

Lets assume you reach some sort of Nirvana state if you manage to sever all forms of attachment - is that something most of us would even want? It would mean abandoning family, love, friendships. It would just be you, and, I guess, the universe.

Here's the thing: We're situated whether we like it or not (i.e. we have a family, a community, sexual/romantic bonds or desires, etc.). However, we can't let that situated-ness dominate our every action. As humans we're split between a universalism and this "situated-ness" and its up to us to make a healthy balance. It's not easy, I get it. Go too far in any one direction and it's not good. The human mind naturally drifts towards certainty or extremes and we need to be careful with that. We like things black and white - good and bad, it makes the world more intuitive.

As far as I'm concerned a life without love or music isn't one with living, nirvana or not. In life you're naturally intimately connected with a network of people or a community and we should be extremely careful about throwing that all away to pursue absolute perfection. I don't believe in perfection in this world.

I don't know about beheading specifically but on more than a few occasions he's wished death on political opponents. Also of note is that he flat out refuses to engage the other side in discussion, which I think certainly speaks volumes. I know he's going to see this post and a snarky remark is coming, but I don't really have anything against the guy I just wish he'd get some help.

And that might be reasonable, were I doing that. But is there anyone you wouldn't shorten by a head? if not, then you're not especially reasonable. — tim wood

Come on Tim, that's a silly question, we both surely know that there would be at least........ five people still left with their heads attached if Streetlight took power.