Great thread from a CUNY professor & historian.
https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/902972639379161092
https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/902972639379161092
They probably would have reflexively opposed the liberation of Auschwitz because the liberators were Communists.
I don't remember any lunch counter sit-in participants covered their faces and bodies all in black and ganged up and beat up their opponents with bats, sticks, and other items.
I don't remember any lunch counter sit-in participants covered their faces and bodies all in black and ganged up and beat up their opponents with bats, sticks, and other items.
I don't remember any lunch counter sit-in participants covered their faces and bodies all in black and ganged up and beat up their opponents with bats, sticks, and other items.
Triggered
The professor's argument was not that the groups behaved in the same manner, or even that the antifa are always justified or correct in what they do. If you bothered to read the thread, you would know that.
This is a good point, and there was also plenty of violence during the civil rights movement of the 60s. The question becomes: do those actions represent Antifa as a whole, even if non violent representatives fail to distance themselves from the violence?
Separately, does anyone have a good source in learning more about Antifa? I really want to learn more.
The professor's argument was not that the groups behaved in the same manner, or even that the antifa are always justified or correct in what they do. If you bothered to read the thread, you would know that.
There's a few problems with that, though. First of all, not all lunch counter sit-ins were nonviolent. Let's take a look...
Today we see the lunch counter sit-ins as uniformly nonviolent. But they weren't, and they weren't seen that way at the time.
So if your view is that any recourse to violence renders a protest movement illegitimate, you would have opposed the lunch counter sit-ins.
If violence isn't the solution, it's the problem, then going to war against Nazis is bad.
The professor is making the following argument.
Violence is what got Civil Rights passed, so we need to use violence again.
Here is the proof.
His argument then is that if people supported Sit-ins, and those were violent, then they should support Antifa because they both use the same methods.
Proof of that as well.
So, we have a professor saying that using violence is the correct thing to do here. The non-violence of sit-ins was actually an illusion because they were actually violent. Nevermind that the people at the sit-ins were not violent, but sometimes people did need to defend themselves, because to the professor, the very fact that sometimes people attacked the protesters makes sit-ins inherently violent.
It's one big false equivalence and that is ALL it is.
If u reflexively oppose antifa today, u probably would have opposed lunch counter sit-ins in 1960
So what, Nazism is a violent ideology at it's very core, it's like ISIS ideology.
They need to be stopped and if they won't leave peacefully I support violence to stop them.
However, I support the same means against the antifa that are equally violent if not more and I support violence to stop them too.
If you can't make your voice heard over these fascist authoritarian arseholes that makes up both the Nazis and the antifa, violence is needed to regain peace.
When you have no reply, just write "triggered"? Where did you learn that from? Did you let them turn you into one of them?
I don't support violent authoritarian fucks no matter what side they are on, that is where you and I differ.
It's one big false equivalence and that is ALL it is.
The professor is making the following argument.
Violence is what got Civil Rights passed, so we need to use violence again.
Here is the proof.
His argument then is that if people supported Sit-ins, and those were violent, then they should support Antifa because they both use the same methods.
Proof of that as well.
So, we have a professor saying that using violence is the correct thing to do here. The non-violence of sit-ins was actually an illusion because they were actually violent. Nevermind that the people at the sit-ins were not violent, but sometimes people did need to defend themselves, because to the professor, the very fact that sometimes people attacked the protesters makes sit-ins inherently violent.
So what, Nazism is a violent ideology at it's very core, it's like ISIS ideology.
They need to be stopped and if they won't leave peacefully I support violence to stop them.
However, I support the same means against the antifa that are equally violent if not more and I support violence to stop them too.
If you can't make your voice heard over these fascist authoritarian arseholes that makes up both the Nazis and the antifa, violence is needed to regain peace.
However, I support the same means against the antifa that are equally violent if not more and I support violence to stop them too.
I know your position. You want to kill people for thoughts. So if people are racist, kill them.
I like how you call anarchists authoritarian. It's like a bright flashing sign over your head that says "Don't listen to me, I'm a dumbass!"
Sure Jan. You got it all figured out so I guess you can leave the thread now.
No, you're completely wrong. He posted that in response to people who were saying that the difference between antifa and the lunch counter sit-ins is violence, and implying that violence is a bright line.
Any semi-organized mass movement like this is going to have violent and non-violent factions. It's inevitable.
No, you either didn't read or understand what he said, or you're deliberately misrepresenting his argument.
Look, I get your disdain for Antifa, and I'm not a fan myself. But that logic is pure crap and is like saying that's all Trump's problem is when he won't condemn literal fucking wannabe Nazis and white supremacists. It also completely dismisses any and all nuance while simultaneously lessening how horribly fucked up the false equivalence that Trump and many like him have been spouting for years. The people calling Black Lives Matter as terrorists are the exact same type of people that condemned the Black Panthers (who absolutely were wrongly called terrorists when they were in fact arming themselves in defense of the outright murder and terror that law enforcement was doing against people of color at the time). That's why the professor is making the point, as just labeling Antifa like that, effectively promotes law enforcement to do horrible shit that is not justified. Not only that but it completely ignores the outright hypocrisy and how the false equivalency does disservice in both directions (makes one group look worse, while also tries to justify the actions of other groups that are doing worse shit and being defended by the same people making the stupid claims). In this case it is the people that support right wing "militias" that have proven to be far far worse and commit outright terrorism and a whole host of other awful things, often in the name of white supremacy or various fucked up insane beliefs that fall in line with that general mentality.
MORE violent? Jesus fucking Christ, liberals are so easily duped by right wing shit lords it's unbelievable.
How many people have antifa killed? Because Nazis killed someone like 3 weeks ago.
The professor is making the following argument.
Violence is what got Civil Rights passed, so we need to use violence again.
Here is the proof.
His argument then is that if people supported Sit-ins, and those were violent, then they should support Antifa because they both use the same methods.
Proof of that as well.
So, we have a professor saying that using violence is the correct thing to do here. The non-violence of sit-ins was actually an illusion because they were actually violent. Nevermind that the people at the sit-ins were not violent, but sometimes people did need to defend themselves, because to the professor, the very fact that sometimes people attacked the protesters makes sit-ins inherently violent.