fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3896 ]

[ SECRET POST #3896 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3896 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Me Before You (film/novel)]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Star Trek TOS]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Persona 5]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Andy Brennan and Lucy Moran from Twin Peaks]

__________________________________________________

06.

[David Bowie, "The Man Who Fell to Earth"]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Broadchurch]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Opinion piece - "Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazis/2017/08/30/9a13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html

Is anyone else surprised to see this in WaPo?

Is anyone else surprised to see this in WaPo?

No.

First of all, and more importantly, I think it's incorrect.

But it's not that surprising that the editorial boards of America would advance those positions or want to make sure they were represented.

"/opinions/"

"Can you believe someone would publish an op-ed with an opinion in it?"

Yes, yes I can. Whether I agree with it or not.

But opinion pages have never actually acted as a universal clearing house for all opinions regardless of their merits. There are lines that are drawn around what kinds of opinions deserve airing, and the choice the Post made was that "Antifa is literally the KKK" was an opinion that deserved airing.

u g h

What the hell is antifa? I've seen it a few times, but I have no clue what that means.

Antifacist

Loosely-organized groups of protesters who try to respond to and oppose far-right protests.

Depending on your perspective they are:

- heroes who only exist to respond to right-wing street violence
- mostly reasonable people making justifiable responses to far right protests with occasional idiots who get too aggressive (imo it's this one)
- a bunch of jackbooted thugs who want to implement a Marxist dictatorship and ban free speech

Nope. This is a country of pseudofacists.

damn. that is hard as hell. no break time?....

I am, but only because I'd expect the WaPo to be on the side of a bunch of masked thugs hitting people with bike locks and setting things on fire in response to words they don't like.

That is not an accurate summation of what is going on here, though

So, wait, they didn't descend on Berkeley, throw a riot, and set things on fire in response to a Milo talk? One of them (a professor, no less) has not been arrested for beating on someone with a bike lock?

If your critique was "their tactics are occasionally more aggressive than they need to be", I would think that was a fair response and criticism.

I don't think that saying that they're a bunch of masked violent thugs animated by a desire for violence against innocents is a fair summation of the situation.

Do you really think a mild "more aggressive than they need to be" is an accurate summation of smashing windows, setting fires, and beating people?

These are not peaceful protesters who get out of hand. These are people showing up intending violence.

smashing windows, setting fires, and beating people?

First of all, whatever you may think of these three things, they are not actually morally comparable to each other. Smashing windows is not actually as bad as beating people up. And classing them together like that is misleading because it allows you to pretend that antifa does all three equally and without provocation which is simply not the case. They shouldn't break windows either but if the worse you have to say about how they threaten free speech is that they break windows, that's a real different narrative.

These are not peaceful protesters who get out of hand. These are people showing up intending violence.

They're radical protesters. Some of them probably show up intending violence. That's, again, not the same as saying that they're all thugs who show up to beat innocent protesters. Again, I'm not defending everything that antifa has ever done. But I don't think it's accurate to pretend that they're thugs inciting violence when that's not the case.

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-03 22:32 (UTC) - Expand

Nayart

To be fair, there are a few plain old anarchists who show up to these things with the sole purpose of causing trouble. They show up any time there's a big rally of any kind and break windows, start fires, and commit other crimes. They don't discriminate between say, small locally owned businesses and corporations, or types of demonstrators. They will break the windows of a mom and pop neighborhood shop like they break the windows of a Starbucks, and they'll suckerpunch a cop like they suckerpunch someone on the opposing side. I've seen it happen. (And when they do get caught and arrested, they're usually bored kids from he suburbs.)

DA - That's how the international press paints them. All I know about Antifa concerns them acting violently. I get that in an umbrella group you're going to have people who don't reflect the values of the majority but it's up to the group to keep those people out of their ranks if they don't want the world to think they're all like that.

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-03 23:23 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-03 23:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-03 23:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-03 23:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

skeletal_history - 2017-09-04 02:13 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-04 02:25 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-04 16:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-04 16:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-04 17:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-04 17:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Washington Post again

diet_poison - 2017-09-04 01:51 (UTC) - Expand

Found the Neo-Nazi.

Found the Communist.

I like how this word is still being used as an insult; do you realize how many self-identified communists there are right now in the US? it's a rapidly growing number

That's dumb as hell as well though because communism cannot and does not work and most communist regimes in history and today turned into oppressive dictatorships.

The sad thing is they're playing right into Putin's narrative.

https://medium.com/@RVAwonk/how-russian-alt-right-twitter-accounts-worked-together-to-skew-the-narrative-about-berkeley-f03a3d04ac5d

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only