I would just like to point out that this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to the american left. Many countries do this, and I would say it is more a feature of the traditionalist right, as they are the most likely to want to preserve such specific facets of their nation's culture, at whatever cost.
I do agree that this is ridiculous, though in the article you linked me below, ESPN can technically do whatever they want when hiring employees.
The Antifa mask protects criminals and cowards, otherwise all sensible protesters (or any controversial person) would wear them.
Several people have been doxxed by 4Chan because they don't have masks.
Protests are protected by law.
Despite what Trump may think, Antifa had a legal counter protest license in Charlottesville
I don't know who you think I am, but I assure you, I'm an independent person with my own beliefs.
This is pre-war. You can find many shameful accounts of support for Nazism, even among respected left and right wing publications. It is fascists and authoritarians who are the largest voice in favour of this.
Cowards often feel they are simply being sensible. But people who act sensibly don't have to worry about who knows it.
You can't fight an enemy who has the modern tools to dox you, and potentially ruin your life. Groups like 4Chan won't act in your best interests if they deem you an enemy.
Active protests? You mean riot. Simply protesting would be the legit route.
Active protests as opposed to inactive protests, where you sit at your computer screen and complain. At least they're out there, taking action, defending your rights.
Sure they are, they sure aren't demanding smaller government.
#notallleftists
Seriously though, I don't support everything done by all left-wingers. This is a debate for another thread though.
Antifa are masked(criminal/sensible) Leftists who support direct action(violence/active protests/demonstations) against Fascists (people who wish for governmental discrimination)
Leftists are not, as a whole, tyrannical. That is a debate for another thread.
Governments can do fuck-all about gay rights offences in other countries. And I think you'll find that governments left or right don't make choices on international intervention based on humanitarian concerns.
> And if you give them the chance to choose baby traits
Oh fuck off. Hardly anybody supports eugenics, and besides, it's not a concept invented by the left.
I agree. Being intolerant enough to want to deport or (at the extreme end) kill your 'opponents' is pretty fascist. What a good thing we have people willing to stand up for our side against these tyrants, huh?
Tendencies are irrelevant. The number of Antifa members who are pieces of shit is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you are a leftist who supports direct action against fascists, you join an Antifa march. Most Antifa members are decent, upstanding people.
To refute one of your earlier points, the reason why they wear masks and bandanas is to protect their identity. Not necessarily to commit a crime (though you are right that there are some who go that route), but to not be identified. Have you seen 4Chan's attempt at doxxing individuals who they have pictures of from the marches? The sane choice is not to risk it, and to join the faceless protest.
Some of them are, absolutely. It also consists of anarchists, liberals, socialists, social democrats, ect. Antifa is just an agreement across these groups to oppose fascism. It's nothing more than a flag to rally under, and is not related to any one ideology.
"The groups' activities have included handing out flyers, organizing demonstrations, direct action, and property destruction".
But because Antifa does not have a central body, these choices come from groups that claim to represent Antifa in their area.
Absolutely, shut down these regional groups of they get out of line. They can be criticized. There's only one shared goal that binds these groups, which is anti fascism. Antifa is nothing more than a shared goal and a flag.
Here's a Wikipedia page listing actual death threats.. This doesn't include idle threats made on social media.
White supremacist goal: A white ethnostate
Antifa goal: No fascist organisations
Antifa is nothing more than an agreement across ideological lines to oppose fascists. White supremacists have a goal of installing a fascist state. Antifa is literally nothing more than an alliance of people who oppose that.
Take Trump supporters. There are absolutely KKK members who support him. There are people who have beaten up leftists. But you can't criticise a movement because of the people who support it, you have to support or criticise their collective goal: In this example, electing Trump.
Even if 90% of people in a political alliance are awful people with despicable views, you have to judge the goals of the alliance on their own merits. Absolutely, criticise the violence. But don't criticise people standing against fascism unless you have a problem with people standing against fascism.
Antifa isn't a cohesive group.
Notice how the biggest Antifa gatherings are against Nazi and White Nationalist gatherings? There are definitely some people who are against Republicans and Libertarians, but they are against those groups because that is their views, not the views of Antifa. Antifa doesn't have views, except a collective dislike of fascists.
The views you are describing do sound like authoritarian anti-capitalist views. Surprise, that's because they likely are. They don't represent the views of the pro-capitalist members, nor the anarchists. (Most anarchists don't give a fuck, you do your thing, they do theirs, as long as you're not a fascist trying to infringe upon their rights.)
You cannot criticise Antifa as an organization, because it's not an organization, it's a collective of people with only one common characteristic: Intolerance of the intolerant. You can criticise any one of their members, you can criticise any one of the left-wing ideologies that those individuals choose to be in. You can even criticise their collective goal, to stop fascists from organizing. But you can't criticise anything that is outside the scope of the goals of the group. Those are an individual's personal prejudices, views, and values.
Neither of us are going to win this argument this way, we're both arguing without sources. I looked, I couldn't find any poll pertaining to whether white people can be racist. Regardless, I still hold to my view that people who think white people alone are capable of racism is an unhappy minority.
So, I'll reframe this debate. Most of the debate over racism comes from differing views on what the term means. The specific brand of progressives of which you are referring define racism as a societal force, and claim that reverse racism is racism, but much less of a problem as it is merely prejudice against their oppressors. Not a definition I agree with, and it is at odds with the dictionary definition (which I will paste below my argument), but it is a view I can understand.
After all (,to play devils advocate), which is worse? An entire system built from slavery, with little to no initial thought to giving your people the advantages their slave drivers had? Or a handful of people getting pissed off at the unfairness of this situation and lashing out at those they deem to be part of the problem.
Of course, it's still harmful discriminatory racism at the individual level, (which is why I don't support this view), but I do sort of understand where they are coming from.
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
The difference is who the two groups choose to suppress. Fascists suppress everybody (or at least their chosen minority group). Anti-fascists try to prevent that from happening by stopping the oppressors from organising.
Antifa have no dispute with groups that don't try to restrict the rights of others. They don't oppress others, they work to prevent others from being oppressed.
Lets flip this situation around. Say a white republican was threatening Obama with violence during his presidency. Would it be unacceptable? Yes. Would it be racism? No, unless they were threatening Obama because of his race.
Back to this situation. Yes, the threats were unacceptable. No, they weren't made because of Trump's racial origin. If they were, it'd be racist.
It's not racist because she wasn't attacking him because of his race. I will concur with you that she was well out of line, but threats of violence are not automatically racism, unless they are directed at someone because of their race.
Her threat was unacceptable and violent. It wasn't motivated by race.
There is a fundamental flaw in your arguments here. You assume that Antifa is a group with it's own cohesive ideology. It's not, it consists of thousands of disparate individuals working for a common cause. The majority is not responsible for the actions of a few.
