Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
CHOP zone terror
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eight Foot Manchild" data-source="post: 75132765" data-attributes="member: 268751"><p>Scores of unaffiliated and autonomous groups and individuals using the "antifa" descriptor - much in the same way people use "environmentalist" as a descriptor - is completely different a centralized organization called "Antifa". Which categorically <strong>does not exist</strong>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it absolutely is not beside the point.</p><p></p><p>Anti-fascists engage in all kinds of activism. They organize food banks and sit-ins, they use hacktivism to expose politicians and cops with ties to white supremacist groups, they fight voter suppression and corruption...and yes, some of them are violent militants and hooligans, which is true of nearly <strong>every</strong> political movement you can think of.</p><p></p><p>When you label <strong>one </strong>specific category of behavior - that of the hooligans - as capital-A "Antifa", you are painting everyone else with that same brush. You are giving people like Trump and his cult the ammunition to label everything from fighting voter suppression to organizing food banks to any kind of dissenting language as "subversive", so long as it's affiliated with people organizing themselves under the cause of anti-fascism. And if you think stuff like that doesn't happen, I invite you to study the history of civic unrest.</p><p></p><p>So, stop doing it. Please.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That depends.</p><p></p><p>Looking to history, the IWW/labor movement of the late 1800s/early 1900s was a tremendous activist effort, which including many ferociously violent riots, all out battles between activists and cops/union busters, and multiple massacres of activists including the 1913 Christmas panic in Calumet, MI, that killed 73 children of mine workers.</p><p></p><p>But, change did eventually come, and now we have overtime pay, weekends, safety standards, child labor laws, etc. There is still a lot of injustice in that realm, and there are still protests all the time, and occasionally violent scuffles, acts of arson, and property destruction....but neither you nor I have ever seen a full blown riot for worker's rights in our lifetime. For that, we should both be thankful to the activists who gave their lives and forced the hand of the government and industrialist bosses.</p><p></p><p>So...<strong>IF </strong>we see immense changes in law enforcement, and much better accountability to the community for cops messing up as a result of it, and citizens feel like they're being heard, you can probably count on still seeing protests about it, but you are very unlikely to see riots. A riot is the language of the <strong>unheard</strong>, after all.</p><p></p><p>I would like to learn from history, and not have to go through this same dance over and over again. Unfortunately, as long as we hold to the worldview that the proper response to protests is to radicalize them further through violence, we will see the same cycle.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not even a little bit do I think that. I also realize that this isn't math. As in, violent response from police = immediate and radical response from protestors. You can count on there always being <strong>some</strong> kind of response, but you're gambling every time. I don't know about you, but I prefer not to gamble, when it comes to potential matters of life and death.</p><p></p><p>Though Seattle is a special place, in a way. It has a deeper tradition of civic unrest than many other cities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eight Foot Manchild, post: 75132765, member: 268751"] Scores of unaffiliated and autonomous groups and individuals using the "antifa" descriptor - much in the same way people use "environmentalist" as a descriptor - is completely different a centralized organization called "Antifa". Which categorically [B]does not exist[/B]. No, it absolutely is not beside the point. Anti-fascists engage in all kinds of activism. They organize food banks and sit-ins, they use hacktivism to expose politicians and cops with ties to white supremacist groups, they fight voter suppression and corruption...and yes, some of them are violent militants and hooligans, which is true of nearly [B]every[/B] political movement you can think of. When you label [B]one [/B]specific category of behavior - that of the hooligans - as capital-A "Antifa", you are painting everyone else with that same brush. You are giving people like Trump and his cult the ammunition to label everything from fighting voter suppression to organizing food banks to any kind of dissenting language as "subversive", so long as it's affiliated with people organizing themselves under the cause of anti-fascism. And if you think stuff like that doesn't happen, I invite you to study the history of civic unrest. So, stop doing it. Please. That depends. Looking to history, the IWW/labor movement of the late 1800s/early 1900s was a tremendous activist effort, which including many ferociously violent riots, all out battles between activists and cops/union busters, and multiple massacres of activists including the 1913 Christmas panic in Calumet, MI, that killed 73 children of mine workers. But, change did eventually come, and now we have overtime pay, weekends, safety standards, child labor laws, etc. There is still a lot of injustice in that realm, and there are still protests all the time, and occasionally violent scuffles, acts of arson, and property destruction....but neither you nor I have ever seen a full blown riot for worker's rights in our lifetime. For that, we should both be thankful to the activists who gave their lives and forced the hand of the government and industrialist bosses. So...[B]IF [/B]we see immense changes in law enforcement, and much better accountability to the community for cops messing up as a result of it, and citizens feel like they're being heard, you can probably count on still seeing protests about it, but you are very unlikely to see riots. A riot is the language of the [B]unheard[/B], after all. I would like to learn from history, and not have to go through this same dance over and over again. Unfortunately, as long as we hold to the worldview that the proper response to protests is to radicalize them further through violence, we will see the same cycle. Not even a little bit do I think that. I also realize that this isn't math. As in, violent response from police = immediate and radical response from protestors. You can count on there always being [B]some[/B] kind of response, but you're gambling every time. I don't know about you, but I prefer not to gamble, when it comes to potential matters of life and death. Though Seattle is a special place, in a way. It has a deeper tradition of civic unrest than many other cities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
CHOP zone terror
Top
Bottom