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

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.)