Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bran Dawri wrote:
That was very interesting. Cheers for that . So the "socialist" part harkens back to the origins of the party and has nothing to do with what it became. Sort of suspected as much, but good to see it confirmed.

Not a problem. Credit it to you for taking the information on board.

I do lean towards if it looks like a duck..., I'm calling it a duck with regards to the semantics debate. I dunno, I kinda feel like people are arguing a whole lot about nothing of much consequence.
Left-wing jackbooted thugs (antifa? w/e) are despiccable.
Nazi's (right-wing jackbooted thugs) are despiccabler.
Both sides want to shut down opposing viewpoints because they know they can't stand up to the light of reason or common decency.
Once you're in that general zone of despiccableness though, do the actual shades really matter that much anymore?

There's nothing despicable about being anti-Nazi. Plenty of the antifa groups have their own awful ideas, and of course their methods are wrong. But they're not Nazis.

 sebster wrote:


There's nothing despicable about being anti-Nazi. Plenty of the antifa groups have their own awful ideas, and of course their methods are wrong. But they're not Nazis.

What if I told you that being anti-nazi isn't the defining characteristic of Antifa? Can you move onto a real argument instead of strawmanland?

From 1;20

 whembly wrote:
This is continually brought up by those who tend to look at antifa favorably and/or simply don't want to face the violent nature of antifa.

How is it controversial to condemn both the white nationalist and the antifa for their violence last weekend? Saying the antifa crowd were bad doesn't, in anyway shape or form, absolve any violence perpetuated by the white nationalist.

Can we agree on that premise?

There is nothing wrong with condemning political violence, or in recognising that antifa committed political violence at Charlottesville, as they have committed political violence at other rallies.

There is something deeply, deeply wrong with using that as the primary, or only commentary to made on Charlottesville. Because what happened there wasn't abhorrent just because of the violence and the murder of one woman. What happened there was abhorrent because goddamn actual fething Nazis marched in the streets chanting 'blood and soil'.

That is the absolute, number one biggest thing that happened - Nazis feeling emboldened enough to meet in large numbers and openly declare their race hate for all to see. That should be absolutely sickening to everyone involved, even if it never led to any violence.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is continually brought up by those who tend to look at antifa favorably and/or simply don't want to face the violent nature of antifa.

How is it controversial to condemn both the white nationalist and the antifa for their violence last weekend? Saying the antifa crowd were bad doesn't, in anyway shape or form, absolve any violence perpetuated by the white nationalist.

Can we agree on that premise?

There is nothing wrong with condemning political violence, or in recognising that antifa committed political violence at Charlottesville, as they have committed political violence at other rallies.

There is something deeply, deeply wrong with using that as the primary, or only commentary to made on Charlottesville. Because what happened there wasn't abhorrent just because of the violence and the murder of one woman. What happened there was abhorrent because goddamn actual fething Nazis marched in the streets chanting 'blood and soil'.

That is the absolute, number one biggest thing that happened - Nazis feeling emboldened enough to meet in large numbers and openly declare their race hate for all to see. That should be absolutely sickening to everyone involved, even if it never led to any violence.

I guess antifa showing up in mobs and enacting violence everytime someone wants to express free speech isn't morally equivalent.....

 Manchu wrote:
sebster -

White supremacy is unquestionably worse than ___. What? What ideology goes in that blank. Antifa stands for ... it's hard to say, and I think that is the result of happenstance in part (there are certainly a lot of people motivated for personal reasons, including self-deluded radicalization) but I think it is also the result of a political strategy to prevent them from being pinned down.

I'm by no means an expert on antifa, but I believe it is a grab bag of radical leftwing ideologies, most of which have huge amounts of jargon and make no sense. Add in a whole bunch of people with little ideology but an (understandable) hatred of nazis, combined with a (not understandable) romantic ideal of taking on baddies in physical violence.

So now we come back to that blank and why it is so powerful. It is a space for centrists scandalized by radicalization to insert their worst fears. Thus, Antifa plays into Spencer's media strategy. My work colleague who theorized that Antifa is an alt-right conspiracy is ... reaching. But I can see her logic, given how well Spencer has co-opted them as accomplices.

That's an excellent point, and I agree. But note it isn't just Spencer using antifa for a dodge. Everyone on this thread trying to use a 'both sides' condemnation of Charlottesville is motivated quite directly, albeit subconsciously, by a reluctance to place blame on the right wing side of politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.

I'll wait...

You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.

Pretty much the only time I ever hear about (or even heard of) Antifa was in response to something Nazis/White Power/KKK did. It is as if they don't exist on their own but as something to deflect from horrible events and ideologies.

Example:
Person A: White power groups did something terrible recently.
Fool A: Yeah but Antifa!

 44Ronin wrote:
The irony of people here spamming out 'moral equivalency' and trying to use the 'not as bad as' equivocation is just pathetic and irrelevant non-argument.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Nope, you've missed the point entirely. There is nothing wrong with saying what antifa did was wrong. That is what everyone should do - condemn all political violence, by anyone, against anyone.

But there is something deeply wrong with trying to reduce the events in Charlottesville down to nothing but the violence, as if people marching under swastikas and chanting 'Jews won't replace us' wouldn't be utterly sickening even without the violence that followed. Trying to talk past that and just focus on the violence is an attempt to dodge the ugly reality of nazis now feeling bolder and freer to act than at any point in decades.

Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?

 Manchu wrote:
Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?

I'm not 100% sure but I believe that the Nazis think Jewish people want to do away with 'white' people. It is a sense of insecurity that white males may no longer be at the top of the food chart and thus are lashing out in the belief that there is a conspiracy to replace them, either through the government or miscegenation.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.

I'll wait...

You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.

It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Pretty much the only time I ever hear about (or even heard of) Antifa was in response to something Nazis/White Power/KKK did. It is as if they don't exist on their own but as something to deflect from horrible events and ideologies.

Example:
Person A: White power groups did something terrible recently.
Fool A: Yeah but Antifa!

Dude... antifa rose to prominence right after Trump won the election last year.

Did you miss all those riots??

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.

I'll wait...

You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.

It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.

It is your problem though that you wrote it so poorly that others could easily see it as something else and then doubled down on goofiness by trying the "I didn't use those exact words" kind of defense.

 Manchu wrote:
Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?

No idea... maybe that ol' jewish conspiracy who runs the globalist/banking world?

 whembly wrote:
Dude... antifa rose to prominence right after Trump won the election last year.

Did you miss all those riots??

I didn't say they didn't exist I said the way people treated them was as if they only existed as some sort of counter to Nazisim, essentially.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.

I'll wait...

You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.

It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.

It is your problem though that you wrote it so poorly that others could easily see it as something else and then doubled down on goofiness by trying the "I didn't use those exact words" kind of defense.

No, it isn't. So instead of jumping down my throat believing that I'm equating the two... maybe the first question ought to be "whem... are you suggesting they're the same?".

Wouldn't that foster better dialogue than do what ya'll just did?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Dude... antifa rose to prominence right after Trump won the election last year.

Did you miss all those riots??

I didn't say they didn't exist I said the way people treated them was as if they only existed as some sort of counter to Nazisim, essentially.

AH... I got ya. m'bad.

Oh so the idea isn't that Jewish white people will step into the places of non-Jewish white people but that Jewish white people will replace non-Jewish white people with non-white people? Seems confusing. And nonsensical.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.

I'll wait...

You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.

It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Pretty much the only time I ever hear about (or even heard of) Antifa was in response to something Nazis/White Power/KKK did. It is as if they don't exist on their own but as something to deflect from horrible events and ideologies.

Example:
Person A: White power groups did something terrible recently.
Fool A: Yeah but Antifa!

Dude... antifa rose to prominence right after Trump won the election last year.

Did you miss all those riots??

Riots in which they killed no one.

you can't say the same for your Nazi's, klan, or the confederates, who make up todays republican party. Whos idea of a "peaceful" march is the hallmark picture of a angry mob.

 Manchu wrote:
Seems confusing. And nonsensical.

You just summed up the white nationalist movement.

Also, I am not sure what "blood and soil" is supposed to mean in the 21st-century, American context.

 44Ronin wrote:
What if I told you that being anti-nazi isn't the defining characteristic of Antifa? Can you move onto a real argument instead of strawmanland?

What? Who said they were purely anti-nazi? The post of mine you are quoting states the opposite quite clearly.

Please read what you're responding to.

Also, Ben Shapiro is a liar and a hack, and by following him you make yourself dumber.

 44Ronin wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is continually brought up by those who tend to look at antifa favorably and/or simply don't want to face the violent nature of antifa.

How is it controversial to condemn both the white nationalist and the antifa for their violence last weekend? Saying the antifa crowd were bad doesn't, in anyway shape or form, absolve any violence perpetuated by the white nationalist.

Can we agree on that premise?

There is nothing wrong with condemning political violence, or in recognising that antifa committed political violence at Charlottesville, as they have committed political violence at other rallies.

There is something deeply, deeply wrong with using that as the primary, or only commentary to made on Charlottesville. Because what happened there wasn't abhorrent just because of the violence and the murder of one woman. What happened there was abhorrent because goddamn actual fething Nazis marched in the streets chanting 'blood and soil'.

That is the absolute, number one biggest thing that happened - Nazis feeling emboldened enough to meet in large numbers and openly declare their race hate for all to see. That should be absolutely sickening to everyone involved, even if it never led to any violence.

I guess antifa showing up in mobs and enacting violence everytime someone wants to express free speech isn't morally equivalent.....

Lolwut? Every time someone wants to express free speech? That sure is an impressive bit of dishonest exaggeration.

 Manchu wrote:
Also, I am not sure what "blood and soil" is supposed to mean in the 21st-century, American context.

I think it is mainly in reference to the German Nazi saying. They also talked about how American land was theirs all along, ignoring that it was already inhabited of course, but now it is being taken by minorities and Jews so we are back to the delusion of being marginalized.

 44Ronin wrote:
I guess antifa showing up in mobs and enacting violence everytime someone wants to express free speech isn't morally equivalent.....

You aren't even responding to my post. I said that the violence from both sides was terrible, but looking only at the violence and not the race hate of one side is deflecting from the major issue. You respond to this by talking about the violence again.

That is not how discussion works.

 Manchu wrote:
Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?

Bonus round!

The talk of "Deep State resisting the administration" ... that wasn't invented whole cloth.

It comes from Brietbart complaining about the State Department... and, more exactly, the bankers and financiers of New York who influence it. (IE, "The Jews are fighting back!" but in new code.)

The Nazis really, really don't like Jewish people.

 Manchu wrote:
Oh so the idea isn't that Jewish white people will step into the places of non-Jewish white people but that Jewish white people will replace non-Jewish white people with non-white people? Seems confusing. And nonsensical.

The idea is that Jews are not "white". Regardless of genetics or skin color, their culture makes them Jews and therefore not white. Races are defined oddly and narrowly in white supremacist ideology compared to the usual definitions.

 Manchu wrote:
Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?

Replacement ideology is a fear common among racists, though not only among racists, that you, your culture, or your way of life is going to be replaced. It can be anxiety over one's job being taken by robots, or by one's town being swamped by other cultures.

How Jews fit in to this I'm not too sure. They're a small ethnic group that's been in the US a long time and they're not growing. But then a lot of racist stuff makes little sense. It is believed and understood on an emotional level, not a logical one.

Note that in the constructed reality of the vanilla Nazi's, "Aryan" (a very poorly understood concept of the anthropological reality that is) was the ideal human.

In America it is a bit more convoluted. While termed as "race" and heavily associated with skin color there is always an underlying subtext of "proper" whites being the only real whites. In this sense "proper" is a mix of cultural and assumed biological traits. The term "white trash" originates among white supremacists in turn of the century America to differentiate proper white society from "garbage" whites. During the US' brief foray into eugenics in the 20s, poor whites were a secondary target of proposed programs in Texas, Virginia, and Alabama solely on the grounds that they weren't the right kind of white and damaged the image of what a proper white should be. Much like Islamic extremists, white power has habitually created a division between what is and isn't the right kind of white with the wrong kind of white being determined to not really be white at all.

"No true whiteman" if you will.

 whembly wrote:
It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.

whembly is a long time poster on dakka.
sebster is a long time poster on dakka.

Any person reading that would take it is the intent of the writer to show equivalence between the two. If the author was to later claim he wrote each line as its own distinction, and it was the reader's mistake to believe the two were equivalent, no-one would believe the author.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.

whembly is a long time poster on dakka.
sebster is a long time poster on dakka.

Any person reading that would take it is the intent of the writer to show equivalence between the two. If the author was to later claim he wrote each line as its own distinction, and it was the reader's mistake to believe the two were equivalent, no-one would believe the author.

You've cherry picked two lines of that entire post in order to make your point.

Stop that Seb... you're not having an honest dialogue here.

 whembly wrote:
No, it isn't. So instead of jumping down my throat believing that I'm equating the two... maybe the first question ought to be "whem... are you suggesting they're the same?".

Wouldn't that foster better dialogue than do what ya'll just did?

If you were otherwise taking steps to focus on nazism as the primary concern of what happened in Charlottesville, then yeah I think such questions would be warranted. But all you've done is focus on the violence from a 'both sides' angle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Also, I am not sure what "blood and soil" is supposed to mean in the 21st-century, American context.

That one is pretty straight forward. It is claiming an area of land for people of common descent. They're claiming the US belongs to white people, basically.

I don't understand a lot of this convo about one side was peaceful. Here's an actual video recorded showing that if anything antifa actually started the violence with the neo nazis. Nice job antifa. You escalated a situation for no reason. Not saying the neo nazis weren't bad. They did worse since one killed somebody but i mean come on they both did wrong.

The video includes cursing so it may not be safe for work to listen to.