That has literally never happened.
Current Affairs Anti-fascists (antifa), and a nationwide resistance of hate.
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
That has literally never happened.
That wasn't even what we were talking about in the first place, rather we went off topic about Neo-Nazis. We were talking about Antifa violently assaulting people who they consider "Nazis" for no other reason than them having different political views than them.
It literally has though.
I've done plenty of research on Antifa, more than you by the looks of it.
longers
Parcheggia l'autobus
You've done loads of research and yet when I post a video of the most high profile incident Antifa have ever been involved in you say “they don’t attack people like that”.
Great research mate...
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Maybe you should elaborate?
[CITATION NEEDED]
I really am sorry, but this really is laughable. Since the 1970s there has been a comprehensive failure of the left to 'control discussion'. Anyone with even an elementary understanding as to the rise of neoliberal ideology will tell you that the overton window has swung firmly to the right.
As for the "obsession with identity politics", I don't really know how to go about answering this. Part of being "on the left" is that I look at societal issues and how they effect real people and then work with said people to best mitigate the issues using the state as a tool to do so.
So, for example - when the state decided that coal wasn't a feasible long term solution to power concerns, many of the left worked in coalition with the miners (of whom were mainly white, working class, northerners) to ensure that their concerns were heard. Yes, we failed, but we were the only ones sticking up for those people.
When Boris Johnson sits there and writes an article comparing women of whom wear the Burka to postboxes, and then the result of that is that these people feel scared to leave their homes - then the left should play a role in highlighting this issue because, y'know, we live in a society and the only way we can really deal with these issues is through working together.
So, what do you mean by identity politics?
I tend to find that these clips cut the actual context in which brought the reactions.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
this though?
Hahahahaha, great grasping there. I'm sure the wheelchair-bound elderly man was posing an extreme physical threat to this gang of armed masked individuals.
An extreme ideological threat, perhaps.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
I liked your post, mate, because I appreciate thoughtful longform analysis. You've got a decent argument, but there's one or two logic holes which keep me offside to your view:
Online media amplifies everything. Saying that, I agree there is generally an increase in the prominence of far-rightism, and that previously-neutered racists feel more emboldened now.
But what does that mean? You say it will likely result in mass genocide. That's a massive stretch! Where's the evidence for your claim? Remember that link I showed you earlier about genocide-attempts in the 21st-century? There's loads of them, horribly enough, but none from Western societies. We might have racists, but we're still in the main enlightened.
The question as to how can we decrease the influence of far-rightism? We offer the watching world better ideological options. This progressivist identity-politics isn't it. It's not just me saying this, it's a large majority of traditional liberal thinkers.
Ditch identity-politics, return to humanist principles of free open society: we're all human and thus worth the same (not less, not more) as the next man, regardless of one's 'lived experience'. Since 1968, Western society is enlightened (not perfect, not racist-free, but enlightened socially, culturally & humanistically compared to what the world has ever seen before). And we should remain that way. Our future generations will thank us for it. They won't thank us for heading into this fabled culture war.
The use of violence is the use of violence. Whatever reason you may have is coloured by your own ideological views.
I have been, often. I'm dual German/British. My Opa was a prisoner-of-war in Siberia for 4 years before Adenauer managed to free him and many others. My Ur-Opa was SA. My Great-Uncle from the English side died barely out his teens during the 1st World War. My Dad was a Royal Engineer who did Falklands & Northern Ireland. My brother is an army sergeant who's done Iraq, Kosovo and Afghan.
I've turned down a well-paid job because the firm were involved in designing parts for drones stationed in Ramstein (not the rock band!).
I live in the old-DDR. My previous flat looked over where the Wall used to be. Half my colleagues & friends are Ossis (East Germans).
Now I'm aware this recalls a clichéd line, but many of my favourite friends (and old girlfriends) are indeed black, and through them I've learnt quite a bit about what that means. I've also had very close relationships with Muslims, and know quite a bit about that angle too.
I think about historical context when forming my views on serious subjects. It's just that my conclusions are sometimes different to other people's (who will have different life stories & backgrounds). And that's cool, that's why we debate after all...to share our thinking, learn new perspectives, maybe find common ground to meet on.
At the risk of boring just about everyone (soz!), with all the words I write, I really have very simple principles:
- do unto yourself as you do unto others.
- protect, or at least empathise with, victims & the weak.
- damn those who seriously hurt innocent people.
- encourage free-thought & individuality.
and finally, where it gets more nuanced:
- we are all of inherent equal value, and all deserve free will, yet determined common sense must still prevail if we're to protect the peace.
It's that last principle which probably most often gets airplay in big debates (mass immigration, religion, extremism etc), and is oft-misunderstood by black/white-thinkers who only see two sides.
I wouldn't say they blankly deserve a right of platform. Like the Imam earlier, or the ones shouting horrible chants during Jo Cox's murder...there are limits and anyone presenting a clear threat doesn't deserve a platform, they may even deserve a punch in the mouth.
And who is seeking to destroy liberal democracy and the rule of law? There's an argument the highest-office in politics may be doing that. He's been debated to death (and back) in his own thread. My answer to that is the same as above: we need to present the public with a better alternative so that in 2020 things may improve, for it is the public who decide the direction a democratic society moves in. Fighting against it in the form of #resist is plainly not working, even if say for argument's sake Trump is forced to resign. That wouldn't solve the problem, because the #resist faction would then set their sights on a Pence administration, repeating the cycle of polarisation.
Online media amplifies everything. Saying that, I agree there is generally an increase in the prominence of far-rightism, and that previously-neutered racists feel more emboldened now.
But what does that mean? You say it will likely result in mass genocide. That's a massive stretch! Where's the evidence for your claim? Remember that link I showed you earlier about genocide-attempts in the 21st-century? There's loads of them, horribly enough, but none from Western societies. We might have racists, but we're still in the main enlightened.
The question as to how can we decrease the influence of far-rightism? We offer the watching world better ideological options. This progressivist identity-politics isn't it. It's not just me saying this, it's a large majority of traditional liberal thinkers.
Ditch identity-politics, return to humanist principles of free open society: we're all human and thus worth the same (not less, not more) as the next man, regardless of one's 'lived experience'. Since 1968, Western society is enlightened (not perfect, not racist-free, but enlightened socially, culturally & humanistically compared to what the world has ever seen before). And we should remain that way. Our future generations will thank us for it. They won't thank us for heading into this fabled culture war.
The use of violence is the use of violence. Whatever reason you may have is coloured by your own ideological views.
I have been, often. I'm dual German/British. My Opa was a prisoner-of-war in Siberia for 4 years before Adenauer managed to free him and many others. My Ur-Opa was SA. My Great-Uncle from the English side died barely out his teens during the 1st World War. My Dad was a Royal Engineer who did Falklands & Northern Ireland. My brother is an army sergeant who's done Iraq, Kosovo and Afghan.
I've turned down a well-paid job because the firm were involved in designing parts for drones stationed in Ramstein (not the rock band!).
I live in the old-DDR. My previous flat looked over where the Wall used to be. Half my colleagues & friends are Ossis (East Germans).
Now I'm aware this recalls a clichéd line, but many of my favourite friends (and old girlfriends) are indeed black, and through them I've learnt quite a bit about what that means. I've also had very close relationships with Muslims, and know quite a bit about that angle too.
I think about historical context when forming my views on serious subjects. It's just that my conclusions are sometimes different to other people's (who will have different life stories & backgrounds). And that's cool, that's why we debate after all...to share our thinking, learn new perspectives, maybe find common ground to meet on.
At the risk of boring just about everyone (soz!), with all the words I write, I really have very simple principles:
- do unto yourself as you do unto others.
- protect, or at least empathise with, victims & the weak.
- damn those who seriously hurt innocent people.
- encourage free-thought & individuality.
and finally, where it gets more nuanced:
- we are all of inherent equal value, and all deserve free will, yet determined common sense must still prevail if we're to protect the peace.
It's that last principle which probably most often gets airplay in big debates (mass immigration, religion, extremism etc), and is oft-misunderstood by black/white-thinkers who only see two sides.
I wouldn't say they blankly deserve a right of platform. Like the Imam earlier, or the ones shouting horrible chants during Jo Cox's murder...there are limits and anyone presenting a clear threat doesn't deserve a platform, they may even deserve a punch in the mouth.
And who is seeking to destroy liberal democracy and the rule of law? There's an argument the highest-office in politics may be doing that. He's been debated to death (and back) in his own thread. My answer to that is the same as above: we need to present the public with a better alternative so that in 2020 things may improve, for it is the public who decide the direction a democratic society moves in. Fighting against it in the form of #resist is plainly not working, even if say for argument's sake Trump is forced to resign. That wouldn't solve the problem, because the #resist faction would then set their sights on a Pence administration, repeating the cycle of polarisation.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
horrible bunch, i wouldn't give them the time of day...calling them Nazis is fair game. Violently assaulting them all is not. No one wants another civil war.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Without writing another wall of words, which'll only repeat what I've said many times over the years anyway, I'll link you some pieces from The Guardian which should answer your question. I criticise this paper a lot but also still have much respect for it as it hasn't completely abandoned publishing common sense. Sort these article's comments via most-recommended to get a feel what the majority of Graun-types are thinking.
Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left
Identity politics has veered away from its roots. It's time to bring it back - A misuse of identity is not just a conservative problem – it affects well-meaning people on the left, too
How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division
In a society too short of common goals, identity politics are an imperfect answer - Liberal politics have taken a narcissistic turn according to an explosive new book.
In this grim age of Trump and Brexit, online fury is a dead end for the left
- Status