Source:The New Democrat
“When Hitler and Mussolini rose to power, antifascists organized to resist them. Now that populist demagoguery is surging and Trump is president, antifa is active around the world and recently opposed white supremacists in Charlottesville. Bray’s primer recaps the history of this vital movement, taking it from the 1920s to today. A historian of human rights, terrorism, and political radicalism in Modern Europe as well as one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street, Bray has talked to antifascists in several different countries. He outlines the philosophy and tactics of groups including the Black Bloc, who believe that they are justified in using nearly any means to stop the alt-right message before it destroys democracy itself. Politics & Prose.”
From Politics & Prose
If you’re going to label yourself anti-fascists, then at the very least that means you’re implying that you’re not fascists. That you don’t believe in fascism and that you believe in free speech and freedom of thought. That people who disagree with you and even have beliefs that may offend you, have the same right to believe what they believe and say what they want, as people you respect and agree with. People that you consider to be political allies. And that you’re not going to try shut up speech and speakers, simply because you disagree with them, or are even offended by them.
If ANTIFA really were ant-fascists and opposed not just Nationalists, but Christian-Nationalists, Christian-Theocrats, Neo-Nazis, all on the Far-Right, but Communists and other Socialists on the Far-Left, who don’t believe people who they disagree with and are offended by have the same right to speak and believe that they do, but believed these political factions have the same right to free speech as people that agree with them meaning ANTIFA, then I could probably respect them.
As a Liberal I love free speech and probably would even consider myself to be a free speech fundamentalist. But not just for people who share my liberal democratic values. But for people who are way to left of me like Communists who are part of ANTIFA and people who are to the right me. Conservative-Libertarians on the Center-Right and Christian-Nationalists and Neo-Nazis on the Far-Right.
But that is not what ANTIFA is about. They call themselves anti-fascists even though they believe in fascism and to use fascism to shut up Far-Right speakers and political activists, that they don’t like, disagree with, and are even offended by.
ANTIFA are hypocrites at best. They are like so-called Conservatives who claim to hate big government, but are only talking about big government as it relates to taxes, spending, centralization, that has to do with the economy. But leave out that they actually want big government in people’s personal lives. And tell people what they can and can’t do in their homes and want consensual activities between adults should be legal or not.
ANTIFA believes in using fascism to shut down and eliminate what they call fascism. So a more accurate name for this group would be ANTIFA-INO: Anti-Fascists In Name Only, because that is what they are.
Do you agree that there is an issue with tolerating any view, even the ones who are intolerant of your tolerance?
What is your solution to this issue?
I think Antifa’s solution to this dilemma is nonsensical, but I understand their frustration, and I suspect that I understand what they are trying to achieve.
Tolerating even hateful views is not the same as agreeing with them. In a liberal democracy with free speech like America, the best weapon against hateful and ignorant speech is always more speech. Win the argument with the public with the facts for why the haters are wrong and hateful. Instead of trying to protect people from having to hear ignorant information and even facts about them, because you think you know better than then what they should have hear or not.
I completely agree with your point.
Would you argue that there is no basis on which any opinion or speech can be forbidden to utter publicly? The question is usually answered with a statement pertaining to incitement of violence or other unconstitutional action, which is illegal and can thus be persecuted.
However, I find that to be somewhat of a lazy argument. It is incredibly complicated to identify where to draw the line.
What is your take on this? Is there a point at which a tolerant society falls victim to its own tolerance?
I go with the U.S. Supreme Court. Their exceptions are harassment.
You can’t leave rude messages on someone’s voice mail or email , without the victim I guess not being able to take legal action against you.
You can’t blindly libel people without any credible evidence that someone might be guilty of whatever your’e accusing them of.
You can’t incite violence in public either on purpose or accidentally.
But personal opinions and speech are just that. We can believe and say whatever we want, except for the exceptions that I just gave you. But then everybody has the same free speech rights to tell you what they think about what you said.