How do you feel about the following phrase?

[Deleted]

All nonsense. The anti-fascists are every bit as fascist as whoever they're "defending" themselves against.

No they are not. Nazis alone killed 16 million people in cold blood. Antifa organizations have not killed even the tiniest fraction of that number.

Any one trying to pretend there is some kind of equivalence between the groups is deeply suspicous.

- - - Updated - - -

antifa use fascist principles when claiming self defense against fascists. Like when one of them clocked someone over the back of the head with a bike lock because he didn't have the same views as them and then called him a fascist.

Yeah someone hit someone with a bike lock. That sounds like the holocaust.

[Sting]

Nobody with some intellect would generalize like that - it's typical only for right-wing people.

I fucking lold at the irony.

[Deleted]

Well it's completely dumb to say? Nobody with some intellect would generalize like that - it's typical only for right-wing people. Other people just are unable to think like that - it makes no sense. That said it's the same with "self-defense" that's also something (used as in in OP's phrase) only narcissistic people (typical Conservative/right-wing) would say.

You seem not to realize that you are unable to not reflect your mindset even when you try to be cynical.

It's a fact to be fair, something with the bones in the back of the foot tru evolution. You should Google it, I watched some stuff about it a couple years back.

[Sormine]

All nonsense. The anti-fascists are every bit as fascist as whoever they're "defending" themselves against. What saddens me is that some people actually listen to them.

Could you expand your critical thought process just a little bit here? There's a pretty well-defined structure to fascism that you're outright ignoring in order to accuse left-wing groups of it.

[Deleted]

WWII: Smack down some fascists!
2017: Fascists are just expressing an opinion!

Ok then.

Those are your words, not mine. The difference today is that fascism is not a popular movement, it's a fringe element in the population that gets too much attention. But fact of the matter is that your average antifa has views that are equally polarised against those of the average population, just on the other side of the scale.
Neither of them are right, and you shouldn't be able to respond to an idea with violence, only action should be responded with violence.

[schwarzkopf]

Anti-fascism is a non existent thing.

It is on a par to finding anti-anti-static bags.
Or an anti-anti-glare monitor.

[Elim Garak]

Two opposite extremes have always at least one thing in common.

[Doctor Amadeus]

"Anti-fascism is always self-defense". How do you feel about this phrase? Is it true and any actions taken is self-defense or is not true?

Almost nothing is always anything, but as the saying goes if it specifically meant to denote in the face of always being against fascism, then yes. In the face of fascism being against fascism is always self defence.

[Deleted]

Aren't you anti-fascist?

Sure, but that's akin to asking someone who is pro choice why they hate babies. It's a non-sequitur. In the normal world people defend themselves against ideas with information, debate and enlightenment, they don't claim that violence is the answer. And when most people see brawls between the fascists and the "anti"-fascists, they see two equally radicalized groups that are equally representative of the average population's views, that is to say not at all.

[belfpala]

Those are your words, not mine. The difference today is that fascism is not a popular movement, it's a fringe element in the population that gets too much attention. But fact of the matter is that your average antifa has views that are equally polarised against those of the average population, just on the other side of the scale.
Neither of them are right, and you shouldn't be able to respond to an idea with violence, only action should be responded with violence.

It amuses and saddens me that we have people who literally espouse Nazi values on our streets, and people are concerned about them getting punched.

Seriously, fuck off. Edit: No, that wasn't harsh enough. Go die in a fire.

[Mormolyce]

Sure, but that's akin to asking someone who is pro choice why they hate babies. It's a non-sequitur. In the normal world people defend themselves against ideas with information, debate and enlightenment, they don't claim that violence is the answer. And when most people see brawls between the fascists and the "anti"-fascists, they see two equally radicalized groups that are equally representative of the average population's views, that is to say not at all.

I see Nazis driving cars into crowds, yet to see "anti-fascists" kill anyone.

[Deleted]

you shouldn't be able to respond to an idea with violence, only action should be responded with violence.

Which is what happened in Charlottesville. The local police handed the town over to armed men wearing swastikas.

At what point do you people actually get off your backsides and defend your country from armed nazis?

[Deleted]

It's a fact to be fair, something with the bones in the back of the foot tru evolution. You should Google it, I watched some stuff about it a couple years back.

No black people are so many you cannot just say "they are x". Why is that so hard to understand? Donald from p1 saw a handful of people before his eyes who were athletes and were fast - sure they might share some physical attributes but he still only wants to say something about those he sees including few other he has in his mind. Everything else in bad generalization and discriminates people with same sad attributes "black" who are not fast for whatever reason. I mean what pops up first if someone says "pitbulls are aggressive"? Sure they were once breaded to fight and what not - but aren't you upset by the one who just told you that when you only know kind pitbulls?

It's inhumane to even refer to statistical numbers because "majority" has a certain trait. It's not okay to generalize even with that statistical "fact". In Germany we have §1 of our constitution say "The dignity of men is unimpeachable." Meaning there is zero difference between the value of one human and trillions of humans. And that's something even I am "proud of" for it should be the most normal thing in the world.

[Deleted]

I see Nazis driving cars into crowds, yet to see "anti-fascists" kill anyone.

What does that have to do with it? Did I somehow say that nazis are just a-okay and get a free pass? I'm simply saying that violence should never be a reasonable response to speech or ideas no matter who is involved, only to action and only towards the particular individuals involved in that action. Both sides are guilty of "believe as I do, or I'll get violent."

[Doktor Faustus]

A load of old cobblers.

[Deleted]

Which is what happened in Charlottesville. The local police handed the town over to armed men wearing swastikas.

At what point do you people actually get off your backsides and defend your country from armed nazis?

So what do you suggest? That we ago around shooting people who hold other opinions? Sure, that won't be a slippery slope and surely nothing bad could come of that.
Laws are laws, and they're not open to interpretation - everyone has the right to assemble and demonstrate with the permission of the local authorities, everyone has the right to bear arms (where applicable), nazis or antifa alike. What we don't have the right to do is to assault people who believe differently, nazi or antifa alike.

- - - Updated - - -

It amuses and saddens me that we have people who literally espouse Nazi values on our streets, and people are concerned about them getting punched.
Seriously, fuck off. Edit: No, that wasn't harsh enough. Go die in a fire.

Nah, I'll stay here with the reasonable part of the population who actually care about the laws we have regarding silly things like violence.
If you want to join the "believe like I do or I'll get violent"-crowd, either side of it, go right ahead. Oh wait, I see you're already there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[belfpala]

Nah, I'll stay here with the reasonable part of the population who actually care about the laws we have regarding silly things like violence.
If you want to join the "believe like I do or I'll get violent"-crowd, either side of it, go right ahead. Oh wait, I see you're already there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nah, I'm not violent, and have no history nor intention of being violent. But I am seriously concerned that literal Nazis are on my streets, and people are concerned about their safety. Free speech is great, I love it, I use it every day, but the reason a great country like Germany fell to such a regime is because nobody spoke out.

I said in some post (maybe this thread, I don't feel like looking), that sometimes actions are speech.

[Deleted]

Nah, I'm not violent, and have no history nor intention of being violent. But I am seriously concerned that literal Nazis are on my streets, and people are concerned about their safety. Free speech is great, I love it, I use it every day, but the reason a great country like Germany fell to such a regime is because nobody spoke out.

I said in some post (maybe this thread, I don't feel like looking), that sometimes actions are speech.

Well, "go die in a fire" does advocate a certain amount of violent mindset, doesn't it? "You don't agree, so you should just die"... I mean, come on.

And by all means. Speak out. Shout at the top of your lungs, make signs, buy a page in every major newspaper, buy add time at the Super Bowl, arrange demonstrations, sure. That's speech. Punching someone in the face, shoving, grabbing, kicking, isn't - no matter how much you disagree with them and their ideas. That's just violence and assault, no matter who does it to whom.

[belfpala]

Well, "go die in a fire" does advocate a certain amount of violent mindset, doesn't it? "You don't agree, so you should just die"... I mean, come on.

And by all means. Speak out. Shout at the top of your lungs, make signs, buy a page in every major newspaper, buy add time at the Super Bowl, arrange demonstrations, sure. That's speech. Punching someone in the face, shoving, grabbing, kicking, isn't - no matter how much you disagree with them and their ideas. That's just violence and assault, no matter who does it to whom.

Hundreds of thousands, or millions, died because we were metaphorically "punching a Nazi" during WWII. History has born that out to be completely justified. Disagree?

[Deleted]

Hundreds of thousands, or millions, died because we were metaphorically "punching a Nazi" during WWII. History has born that out to be completely justified. Disagree?

While it's a pretty big oversimplification of America's reason for entering the war and Germany's willingness to go along with the national socialistic movement, I don't really disagree. But the difference is that whatever nazi movement there is today in any part of the western world is simply a fringe element that poses no danger to the structure of society nor the population at large. They've been there for decades, same as the KKK, same as the black activists spouting the "kill whitey" nonsense, and they have no political influence at all. They're shitty, hateful people, and they'll always exist, but the law still applies. And if we change the law to make it legal to punch someone for one set of ideas outside of a war, it sets a precedent, and what ideas will it be legal to punch people for next? It's not like America lacks divisive issues that people would like to punch each other for, right?