Incredible.
Jack Posobiec references the earliest version of antifa -- the anti-fascists in the Weimar Republic who were opposed to the Nazi Party -- as the bad guys.
I’m going to genuinely try here. They were never trying to actually argue the founding fathers were antifa.
They threw out two possibilities.
A colonial Empire can be considered antifa as long as it fight fascists, even if it does foced labor.
Only anarchists can be antifa, "welcome to the right side of socialism. "
You ignored the last bit, signaling their actual stance, and decided to trash the first possibility as stupid, excluding any state from the definition of antifascist. The followup is the pointing out that China and Russia therefore are not antifascist. You tried to handwave it but then got pushed into defending the American prison system because it’s better than chattel slavery. It’s not an incorrect stance; the systems in China, Russia, US all suck but they’re better than they used to be. I think that’s essentially where wyvern was trying to end up.
Summed up: if you don’t believe China and Russia were/are antifascist simply because they oppose the US, you both agree.
A small correction that I also implied certain Marxists can also be antifa.
Just not the ones running authoritarian, heirarchy driven states.
Also you could certainly argue that the conscripts themselves are still antifa or otherwise on their individual merits, but that breaks nationalist brains.
Yeah I misspoke when I said no state, but I wasn’t gonna put it in my reply to them because… Well you see how hard it is to get tankies to focus on a single line of thought.
It’s really funny you say that because I’ve made that exact point before regarding US conscripts in WWII (on an alt, admittedly).
States in general aren’t “antifa” and I never claimed any were, all I’ve really done is push back against your misinformation and glorification of actual, self-identified nationalist Chiang Kai-Shek.
They were never trying to actually argue the founding fathers were antifa.
Then their comment was irrelevant. That’s what the person I replied to said, so if they disagree with that position, they should’ve simply upvoted my refutation of it and moved on. But y’all are obsessed with infighting and attack anyone you suspect of being in the out-group at every opportunity.
excluding any state from the definition of antifascist.
No, I didn’t. I said that slaving colonial empires are not antifascist, that does not include all states.
The followup is the pointing out that China and Russia therefore are not antifascist.
Which is utterly irrelevant to what we were actually talking about.
You tried to handwave it but then got pushed into defending the American prison system because it’s better than chattel slavery.
“Defending” is liberal’s favorite word, it seems like. If you had straight up asked me, “is the American prison system better than chattel slavery” I would’ve said yes, without any of these games. I don’t consider “better than chattel slavery” to be “defending.”
The followup is the pointing out that China and Russia therefore are not antifascist.
Which is utterly irrelevant to what we were actually talking about.
Yes, correct. It was specifically a “trap” laid for you, not a contribution to the discussion of the founding fathers. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you but you’re determined to debate-bro literally everything, including my explanation of what happened.
I’m going to genuinely try here. They were never trying to actually argue the founding fathers were antifa.
They threw out two possibilities.
A colonial Empire can be considered antifa as long as it fight fascists, even if it does foced labor.
Only anarchists can be antifa, "welcome to the right side of socialism. "
You ignored the last bit, signaling their actual stance, and decided to trash the first possibility as stupid, excluding any state from the definition of antifascist. The followup is the pointing out that China and Russia therefore are not antifascist. You tried to handwave it but then got pushed into defending the American prison system because it’s better than chattel slavery. It’s not an incorrect stance; the systems in China, Russia, US all suck but they’re better than they used to be. I think that’s essentially where wyvern was trying to end up.
Summed up: if you don’t believe China and Russia were/are antifascist simply because they oppose the US, you both agree.
A small correction that I also implied certain Marxists can also be antifa.
Just not the ones running authoritarian, heirarchy driven states.
Also you could certainly argue that the conscripts themselves are still antifa or otherwise on their individual merits, but that breaks nationalist brains.
Yeah I misspoke when I said no state, but I wasn’t gonna put it in my reply to them because… Well you see how hard it is to get tankies to focus on a single line of thought.
It’s really funny you say that because I’ve made that exact point before regarding US conscripts in WWII (on an alt, admittedly).
States in general aren’t “antifa” and I never claimed any were, all I’ve really done is push back against your misinformation and glorification of actual, self-identified nationalist Chiang Kai-Shek.
Then their comment was irrelevant. That’s what the person I replied to said, so if they disagree with that position, they should’ve simply upvoted my refutation of it and moved on. But y’all are obsessed with infighting and attack anyone you suspect of being in the out-group at every opportunity.
No, I didn’t. I said that slaving colonial empires are not antifascist, that does not include all states.
Which is utterly irrelevant to what we were actually talking about.
“Defending” is liberal’s favorite word, it seems like. If you had straight up asked me, “is the American prison system better than chattel slavery” I would’ve said yes, without any of these games. I don’t consider “better than chattel slavery” to be “defending.”
Yes, correct. It was specifically a “trap” laid for you, not a contribution to the discussion of the founding fathers. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you but you’re determined to debate-bro literally everything, including my explanation of what happened.
Ok but that’s worse. You get how that’s worse right?
If you’re going to do sophistry and rhetorical trickery like that, you generally don’t just come out and admit it.