So here is the thing I'm struggling with about antifa at the moment

[kaberett]

It is all very well to say "if you are not with the [explicitly violent] antifascists, you're with the fascists" but what these explanations do not seem to include is actual detailed discussion of how or why I can operate on the assumption that these people won't decide that I'm the next target. "Because you're not a fascist!" Okay, right, no, try again. Try again. I have been told, by people still substantively respected and liked in my geographically local community, that being visibly autistic in public is oppressive. I want to know what the fuck system of rules you're working with that means I won't be deemed unacceptable and I won't be deemed an appropriate target.

"Try not being a fascist!"

Yeah, thanks, see above about "me being visibly disabled in public is oppressive". See every interaction I've ever had where my disabilities are an inconvenience to The Cause.

Try again.

I'm really not comfortable with the extent to which people seem to want to shout me down on this one, using that well-known abusive tactic of telling me that if I don't unquestioningly support them in spite of grave reservations rooted in, like, bare minimum historical literacy plus personal experience, I am all that is Bad and Evil.

I am struggling to articulate this any better because of the sheer visceral horror I'm experiencing at a lot of the rhetoric that's happening. But, like, if you want to engage with me on this -- and I am, very definitely, open to being talked to -- please consider starting from a point of "I see your concerns and they're valid, here's why I'm convinced", not "you're a bad person for having doubts".

If, however, you want to ask me how Very Dare I tone-police you on this, I request that you sit this one out.

Comments

Very much my own thoughts here...

[ewt]

I am tending to file a lot of recent unrest under "I wasn't there so I don't know what happened," and refraining from much comment. This may be a cop-out on my part. There are certainly a lot of pictures going around Twitter of alleged Antifa violence in one place or another that turn out to be from other protests, and not necessarily Antifa.

I don't trust any media source that attempts to portray all protesters as Antifa or all anti-fascism as violence. I feel like right now that's a more dangerous and likely problem than Antifa deciding people are fascists who actually aren't, BUT that doesn't mean the latter isn't a serious and immediate problem. Thank you for articulating it as such.

I don't think anyone should support Antifa, or any other group, without question. The world is just not that binary.

I think there are several problems; here are some of the ones I can articulate whilst thinking aloud:

1) Some Antifa are probably just going along to these protests because they want to punch someone and punching a fascist is kindof socially acceptable (for now), and there's no effective way to prevent this in the movement as it currently stands. I don't know how to change this, let alone instigate the kind of cultural change that would make in-person protests safer for the rest of us to attend.

2) Many people in the West have difficulty differentiating between fascism and the cultural trappings of Nazism. We've been conditioned by years of films etc that fascist=Nazi=German and the Allied forces were and are The Good Guys. This is unhelpful in recognising fascism when it isn't wearing jackboots and doing a goose step. But it's also unhelpful in talking about oppression, because oppression and fascism are not necessarily the same thing. My white privilege absolutely means I benefit from white supremacist cultures and systems, but it does not mean that I am myself a white supremacist. Where disability is concerned, everyone who has ever told me that I'm "oppressive" in some way actually meant that I am a nuisance, usually when the nuisance factor to me of not having needed accommodations was probably worse. Are there people who will jump from "nuisance" to "oppressive" to "fascist" faster than I can get away? Absolutely. Are they right? No. I hope that Antifa are better than this on actually identifying fascism; it doesnt seem to me that they're going out and punching random people and then calling them fascist. But they're humans, and you are absolutely right to be wary, because humans do make these category errors.

3) If we say "It's acceptable to punch fascists but only if they are marching in the streets wearing fascist insignia and shouting the fourteen words so we know for definitely sure they are fascists" then activists/resistance/protesters/Antifa are basically going to be running around after the (relatively small) subset of fascists who are going on these marches. This is... possibly not the most threatening group of fascists? Like, I'm more scared of May and Rees-Mogg than I am of the National Front in the immediate future.

4) I tend to see violence as a sign that communication has broken down very badly and the perpetrator(s) should go away and think of a better way of approaching whatever the problem is. It's a skills gap indicator more than anything else. Fascists see violence as a way of getting rid of me. I am not certain that anything other than violence will protect me from a sufficiently determined fascist. (This doesn't mean I believe that I should use violence.) Antifa, or some Antifa, recognise this discrepancy and decide to fight fire with fire; they aren't trying to communicate with the fascists, they just want them to not have power, or to stop being fascists. Sufficiently determined fascists see this as escalation rather than deterrent. Not only is it pretty useless to debate fascism, it's also useless to use insufficient force. (Again: this doesn't mean I think force is right.)

5) Even if we decide violence is okay in some cases, we can't tell what is the minimum sufficient violence. I'm going to assume here that more-than-minimum -- being more violent than absolutely necessary -- is undesirable, and not because of efficiency concerns. On a smaller scale this looks like "Is it all right to punch a fascist or will following them around with a sousaphone do the trick with less harm?" (which is actually a Very Complicated Question) but on a large scale it's... much more unpleasant than a punch, and turns into "how many fascists do we have to kill to stop fascism?" which is a question I remember exploring in highschool. I hoped then that it would remain theoretical for my entire lifetime. Ugh. I hope we aren't there yet, I really do. I think some Antifa are probably already there, in their minds, and that does worry me.

6) It's not fair that in the mainstream and/or tabloid media, police violence (for example) is overlooked or praised and self-defence by protesters is demonised (even when it's e.g. property damage, and not violent toward an actual person), but that is the media which we currently have and no amount of pointing out the double standard is going to change it. Insert long rant here about the continued outworkings of the Reformation (no, seriously, ask me about this sometime, it is fascinating).

I don't know if any of this helps at all.

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[recessional]

3) If we say "It's acceptable to punch fascists but only if they are marching in the streets wearing fascist insignia and shouting the fourteen words so we know for definitely sure they are fascists" then activists/resistance/protesters/Antifa are basically going to be running around after the (relatively small) subset of fascists who are going on these marches. This is... possibly not the most threatening group of fascists? Like, I'm more scared of May and Rees-Mogg than I am of the National Front in the immediate future.


Nb: this seems to be collapsing two categories of action: punching and working against.

In this case the former is not metaphorical: what is being discussed is in fact issues of when it is totally morally and ethically acceptable to walk up to someone and punch them in the face. To use targeted, specific physical violence against another person.

So yes in terms of actually punching people, you would in fact be running around after the small subset of fascists/people/whatever you want to call them who actually go into the street and say, in as many words (as Spencer did) "I think the genocide of a kind of people is correct" or other words to the effect of explicit, direct affiliation with these violent genocidal policies. Those are the people it is clearly okay to actually physically attack.

This does not mean standing idly by and allowing any other kind of fascist or authoritarian to do whatever they like. This does not mean you don't, say:

- call the police/otherwise have them charged if appropriate (it often is)
- attempt to block their gatherings and activities
- attempt to deny them a platform
- call in any and all rules or regulations of various spaces against them
- work to have their non-physical attacks addressed in law
- ceaselessly educate others against them
- convene with others to provide protection in numbers when under actual physical threat from them
- convene with others to demonstrate the sheer number of people who think They Are Shit when they try to have rallies
- block their political careers
- any number of other things including shouting FUCK FASCISM on the internet a lot.

These are all things that one is free to do at any point!


But I think the collapsing of "opposing, even vocally and continually, fascist authoritarianism" and "actually physically attacking individuals" is in fact part of the problem here, tbh.

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[ewt]

This is a good point; it wasn't my intention to conflate one kind of activism with other kinds of activism, but I can see that I wasn't at all clear, so thank you for pointing it out.

That said: any one person has limited time and energy. When choosing strategies, there is an opportunity cost to targeted, specific violence against another person. Some of that opportunity cost is going to be about personal costs (punching anyone would almost certainly hurt me more than it would hurt them because I have EDS and no training in throwing punches; for similar reasons I don't feel safe even at peaceful protests and stopped going some years ago), but some of it is also about which people one chooses to challenge, as well as how.

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[recessional]

Okay here’s the thing: the point I quoted seems by a strict reading to say “it is difficult to draw the line here because it would restrict people’s ability to target with violence groups that are not so overt/direct, and this is Wrong/a concern.” Or in other words, “we can’t draw that line because then nobody is allowed to commit actual violence against more ~subtle~ fascists!”

Which like: yes that is exactly why I want to draw the line there, thanks, and this is because I have outright seen people declared as Absolutely Evil by people working under activist pretexts for such horrible things as “disagreeing with them about whether or not a given YA title is so incredibly evil and oppressive that it should not have been printed and the author should never be allowed to publish another book again.” I have watched such sins become the grounds for doxxing, endless harassment and verbal abuse, attempts to destroy people’s careers, and threats of physical violence, and I have watched this “crime” parlayed into being basically proof that the “wrongdoer” is the source of all evil and thus anything that the “activists” in question do is justified because that person is [pick your Ism here] and if you question their methods you, yourself, are A Tool of the Kyriarchy and deserve the same treatment.

I have absolutely and continually watched this turned on the most vulnerable in any community. Particularly when it comes to cognitive disability and mood/anxiety disorders.

So yes. I absolutely am saying this line should be there and it should be there because in a situation where violence is normalized against those you identify as “more threatening fascists” (aka cases where there can be any debate because they’re NOT out there doing these things), I have zero faith that I won’t become a target because, for example, I don’t think Atomic Blonde is a horrific and terrible example of homophobic racist violence in film form. (Something for which I have in fact been called “a white supremacist”.)

And actual physical violence having been normalized, I likewise have no faith in not having relative levels of social and psychological violence against People We Don’t Like hiked up.

So actually yes I absolutely think we should say “it is acceptable to punch fascists but only if they are marching in the streets wearing insignia/otherwise being Very Clearly and Actively Part of this Ideology”. Yes, this will limit the people who are Valid Targets of Violence to a small group. I strongly feel this is appropriate, and am horrified by the implications of it being seen as somehow unfair or untenable.

My charitable reading would reinterpret the point I quoted into the context of blurring the distinction between actual physical violence as activism and all the other ways in which one can oppose fascist policies; reinterpret it so that what is being discussed is the vehement opposition, up to and including protesting and identifying as fascist/white supremacist/etc, of individuals and policies that fall short of Being A Neo-Nazi/KKK March, and doing all that is short of violence to thwart them. And I would also be concerned about this blurring, because it muddies the water hardcore.

However, if it’s actually meant to say “we can’t draw that line because then antifa can’t beat up people who haven’t crossed that obvious line” - hell, yes, that’s why we can draw that line, ye gods. That’s why I want the line there. And I want it there because I have lived through experiences in activist spaces where asking for accommodation for a severe anxiety disorder is treated like you’re demanding everyone sacrifice their firstborn to you. Have witnessed the temerity of wanting to have the Magen David on your pride flag being compared to being a Nazi, being declared fascist behaviour. So. Yes, here is where I feel the line can be safely drawn. I do not for one micrometre trust my fellow humans far enough to be anything but terrified by it being drawn anywhere else.

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[ewt]

Too tired to make a proper response, but I absolutely did not mean that we can't or shouldn't draw that line. Rather, I am not sure that the fascists on matches are the ones we should be most worried about. That absolutely does not mean I think violence is an acceptable solution for the other ones.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, which is probably my fault. If you like, I can try to explain myself better tomorrow.

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[recessional]

Fair - words are hard! And I totally understand Tired. And any emphaticness on my part is not meant to convey anger (sorry if it came across that way), I was just....very baffled/shocked at what the words seemed to be saying?

So I'd be interested in reading stuff tomorrow, but also if it's an undue burden or stress I'm also cool with just going with no, you weren't meaning to convey that, without further explanation needed?

(Hope you have a good night.)

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[ewt]

Thanks, appreciated.

Okay here’s the thing: the point I quoted seems by a strict reading to say “it is difficult to draw the line here because it would restrict people’s ability to target with violence groups that are not so overt/direct, and this is Wrong/a concern.” Or in other words, “we can’t draw that line because then nobody is allowed to commit actual violence against more ~subtle~ fascists!”

Yeah, this is... totally a valid paraphrase of what I wrote, and absolutely not what I meant to say. Oof. My bad.

I think if I were to rephrase that point it would say something more like:

3) If we encourage people who want to fight fascism to do it primarily by punching the (relatively small) subset of fascists who are easily identified as such because they are marching around and so on -- if that's The One True Model Of How To Fight Facism -- then we're probably going to have some difficulties working against fascism in forms that aren't so easily punched, and in ways that aren't physically violent, because of the opportunity cost. This is bad both because those manifestations of fascism (or even just oppression) are allowed to go unchecked and also because it encourages violence as a first response to anything which is deemed fascist (which I thnk is the main thing kaberett is concerned about in the initial post).

I hope that this is clearer.

More on opportunity cost: it feels like the people who are saying "either you 100% support [directly violent] antifa or you are with the fascists" are not only making the mistake of thinking fascism exists on a spectrum, but missing a chance to educate people about non-violent ways of working against fascism. I suspect there are a lot of people newly aware in the last year or so that fascism is a thing to be fought, and anything that says "this is the only valid response" and accepts no argument is massively unhelpful in that context.

This doesn't mean "never punch a Nazi" and it certainly doesn't mean "never gather in large numbers to stand against fascists who are marching around being intimidating". Sometimes those things are, alas, what is required. (I'm not sure punching is required yet, but that's a different topic.)

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[recessional]

Ah, okay, that makes much more sense particularly when combined with the rest, yes. Thank you for clarifying; I appreciate it. (And words ARE hard, so I totally sympathise there.)

Re: Very much my own thoughts here...

[steorra]

I am curious about your thoughts about 'the continued outworkings of the Reformation'.