• Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I seem to recall seeing a video or reading an article where they mention that the media turned antifa into a sort of separate word to warp its meaning. Instead of saying anti fascist, which has a clear meaning, they shortened it and changed the pronunciation ‘an teefa’ (something to do with which syllable you emphasise) so they could distort its meani g and demonise the word to make people think it was bad.

    So now people dont realise antifa means anti fascist which is surely a good thing to be, and instead, they fear antifa as some kind of terrorist group, which is almost the opposite of what it is.

    The funny thing is, as an outsider to this, living in the UK, our media doesn’t ever use the term, and when i heard it, my instinct was to look up its meaning. It’s interesting to me that i won’t know if i would have fallen for it if the media were using it in the same way over here to lead my understanding of its definition

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They have a constant and desperate effort to invent words they can’t define that categorize their blind rage since they’re not allowed to say one that starts with N. “Woke” is the newest one.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think Antifa actually started in the UK even before the Nazi’s. Eh actually not but they did fight against fascists in the UK as early as 1930.

      The reason why we need antifa and why it’s hated by the mainstream is because the establishment is notoriously bad at stopping fascism. There is a long history of it. So besides liberal antifa that uses legal means like suing the KKK out of existence, the autonomous antifa is actually needed for the continued working of our democracy.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Antifa (Antifaschistische Aktion) under that name started in 1932 as action by the KPD to organise widest possible front against the nazis, in the face of SPD as a party being very reluctant to act against nazis. Many SPD members did joined, but as we know, their own party in reichstag made that futile.

        Of course antifascist resistance is about as old as fascism or even older considering protofascists activity even before Mussolini coined the term, but the name itself is from 1932 KPD.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Afaik, the first Antifa were a coalition of left wing groups in Italy fighting fascists in the 1920s. They didn’t necessarily use the term but they were the first active anti-fascists so that counts in my book 🤷

        As a side note, they were left to fight both the fascists and the royalists alone, since the Italian Liberals refused to get involved until it was clear who would win and then joined the fascists.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think that is the lesson, liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests (bourgeois). So we actually rely on antifa as a social force. Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it. At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests

            Absolutely 100% correct.

            So we actually rely on antifa as a social force.

            We need to, yes.

            Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it.

            Right you are again!

            At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.

            Seems to me you understand it perfectly but yeah, the mainstream media is for-profit and owned by billionaires who are often friends with or at least have common interests with the fascists, so they have very logical, if despicable, reasons to be hands-off about it.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah that’s bullshit. There isn’t some secret cabal that’s in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there’s a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.

      You have a similar problem in the UK but it’s not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it’s far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.

  • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The difference between the extreme wings is miniscule. Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.

    In Germany half of the voters of the Ultra-Left Party “Linkspartei” went within one election to the Ultra-Right Party “Alternative für Deutschland”. Even starnger, the AfD is financed by Putin who wants to recreate Stalinism, which is Ultra-Leftist, while the AfD wants to recreate a Führer-Cult which is Ultra-Right. And still both cooperate perfectly.

    People need to understand that the Extremists on the wings are closer to each other than to the middle. While the middle tries to better things in small steps the Extremists want to burn the house down with everyone inside and then see who survives.

    • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sorry, but this is just horseshoe-theory Enlightened Centrist nonsense.

      Methods? No. The far-right relies on terror, fear, and explicit power structures such as a police state to maintain power. Leftists oppose such structures, even on the ultra-left.

      Objectives? Absolutely not. Right-wingers seek to maintain Capitalism, the far-right seeks to implement fascism as a reactionary protection of Capitalist hierarchy, complete with racial and gender hierarchy. The extreme left, ie Anarchists and Communists, seek a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society based on horizontal power structures. Completely different.

      Goals? Same as objectives.

      Horseshoe theory is absolute nonsense, and is used to protect the status quo even if the status quo must be radically changed.

      • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Stalin and Pol Pot and Saddam used mostly the same methods as Hitler and as Pinochet and just like the Taliban.

        They wanted total power to reform the society to their day dreams. There is not much difference if you call your Economy Plan “Five Year Plan” or “Maximale Kriegswirtschaft”. In the end everyone gets under the foot of the Big Brother, the Grosser Führer, вождь woschd (Yes, Stalin let himself call Führer as did several other Extremist leaders).

        We need to learn that the Extremists are much further away from the middle than the parties of the middle to each other. But also the Extremists are much closer to themselves.

        Even Trump and Putin show a lot of those methods and while Trump dreams of US Fascism and Putin dreams of Reviving Stalinism their Objectives are just the same: Total power for themselfes.

        Oh, I hear you already screaming “But they weren’t Socialists/Fascists” - well, they were part of the Socialist International, they called themselves Socialists and people travelled there to see Socialism. “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

        The Way less extreme people defend themselves from the more extreme people is just “But they weren’t true right/left wing. They were something else!” - Boy, I am so tired of it. If 99% if your ventures into Extremism always end the same then I see a pattern that the results will ALWAYS be the same.

        And seeing how easily East Germans nowadays change from Ultra-Left to Ultra-Right and visa versa I say: Proof by Observation in the Wild.

        I am not even talking about the US where 90% of the people simply don’t even understand what left, right, middle, liberal and Extremism means. When giving a kid free health care is socialism and people think free voting is disrespectable liberalism.

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is even more bullshit, lmao. The only leftist you listed was Stalin, every single one of the others is a far-right fascist that oversaw a Capitalist economy. That includes Putin, who is reactionary. Even then, many call Stalin red-fash, and they aren’t entirely wrong either.

          Additionally, if you think reactionary changes after states fall is because the far left and far right are similar, then again, you don’t understand historical trends or movements. These are reactionary movements to a large-scale failure.

          Again, this is nothing but horse-shoe theory nonsense, it’s equivalent to astrology in validity but far more dangerous politically.

          Here’s a quick example: which is better, an extreme antiracist, or an extreme racist? In your eyes, both are equally bad. Radicalism is not bad alone, neither is extremism. Each view must be judged on a case by case basis.

          • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Whenever a Left-Extremist does something stupid his buddies just claim “Well, he wasn’t Left anyway. Lets just pretend he was a Nazi instead, haha.”

            Brilliant. But easy to see through.

            The Right-Extremist takes peoples property and life because they are the wrong race. The Left-Extremists takes peples property without reason and life because we wasn’t left enough.

            • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              It would be amazing if you could say something coherent about the left without making shit up, lmao

                • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The bit about the left taking peoples property for no reason and fighting people for not being left of them screams “strawman with no actual points against leftism” to me. You’ve got this whole “Enlightened Centrist” thing going on that just proves you don’t actually want to analyze things and instead just fence-sit because the status quo benefits you.

  • olbaidiablo @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    “Fascist journalist fears for life.” I fail to see where the problem is. People would have been cheering this in 1945.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      One problem is that what they’re calling him is completely inaccurate. “Journalist” implies impartiality, of at least content with a non-zero amount of truth.

  • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Anti-antifa only means you’re against the people claiming to be anti-fascist. It doesn’t mean you like fascism. Nor does being antifa mean everything you’re against is fascism.

    • pifox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think it should be noted, the difference between antifa the organization and antifa the philosophy.

      I am very much ideologically anti-fascist and I believe I would take up arms against a fascist government, however antifa the org has made some questionable calls in the past.

      • odium@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        There is no overarching antifa organization though. Try looking for a website/forum/etc of antifa. There are websites for random local activist groups which call themselves <city name> antifa, but there is no leader or comittee overseeing these groups. There is no process to join antifa, any activist group or individual can call themselves antifa.

        So there are no calls made by antifa, good or bad. There are only calls made by individuals or local groups that call themselves antifa.

        • pifox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Fair. I think you can understand them as a group still, similarly to how you can see anonymous as a group.

          I don’t think I’m educated enough to say anything against the group as a whole, as I haven’t sat down to do a lot of research on them (I’m realizing now that my comment was made from a BS bias that I had picked up from when I was a conservative).

          however I don’t think the logic of the source meme on it’s own shows someone as fascist just because they oppose the antifa orginization.

          • odium@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            I do agree that someone isn’t a fascist if they disagree with antifa. I was just talking about the part where you talked about antifa the organization.

          • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            I don’t think I’m educated enough to say anything against the group as a whole, as I haven’t sat down to do a lot of research on them (I’m realizing now that my comment was made from a BS bias that I had picked up from when I was a conservative).

            You should do more research :)

            Unless you’re talking about this one, referring to “the antifa organization” makes as little sense as saying “the conservative organization”. There are many organizations with variously overlapping goals and strategies for achieving them, but there hasn’t been a singular “antifa organization” since 1933.

          • can@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            (I’m realizing now that my comment was made from a BS bias that I had picked up from when I was a conservative).

            Damn that’s refreshing to read.

  • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    By that logic people who are against Focus on the Family are against families. You don’t get to own a concept just by putting it in your name.

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Focus on the family is a hate group that burns down cities.

      They don’t care about any families, even if it’s in their title.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You don’t get to own a concept just by putting it in your name.

      Nobody put it in their name. There is no “antifa” group. “Antifa” is a boogyman so that the far right can ignore what people are saying by labeling it “antifa”.

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Against x vs

      Against what x do vs

      Against what x targets vs

      Against ideology x vs

      Against what may happen if x vs

      Against organisation x and so on

      These are not identical things

      Being against fascism is not the same as being against some organisation that does bad things

      Antifa is not an organisation. It’s an idea Just neatly contained to being against fascism

    • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Antifa is an ideology centered around opposing fascism. It isn’t an overarching group.

  • Aaron@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I mean that would make sense if Antifa had anything to do with fascism. It’s just one of many movements wearing labels that intentionally misrepresent it’s members.

    It’s like being anti-Patriot act and then others claiming that you’re against patriotism.

    You’re playing into their hands.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Love this argument.

      You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.

      And that’s like saying “If Black Lives Matter were actually black” or something. Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea. Much like BLM or Occupy.

      The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.

      • Aaron@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Love this argument.

        Me too!

        You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.

        You’re correct. I wouldn’t. Because I don’t have one.

        Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea.

        Tell that to it’s supporters.

        Much like BLM or Occupy.

        Wrong again.

        The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.

        Well unfortunately this one persists.

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Antifascism is an idea. There are groups centered around said idea, but “big antifa” isn’t a thing.

          Being anti-antifascism is pro-fascism.

        • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          BLM and Occipy aren’t organizations. There is a BLM organization. But that’s like if I created an organization called Feminism. That wouldn’t make Feminism an organization. That just means there’s an organization based on the movement.

          Feel free to take a seat.

      • Moira_Mayhem@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think you are mistaking infiltration for ‘getting spread out too far’.

        Nearly all of what you describe can be most easily attributed to planted agitators.

  • Pavidus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Someone mentioned antifa at work the other day, and I said, “Antifa? I’m in. Shitting on fascists has been an American pass time for a century or better.”

    The looks of shock and horror on my coworkers faces was quite the sight to behold.

    • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Well, I can tell you, in Europe Extremist Voters switch without thinking twice between far left and far right.

      Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.

      Both hate the West, especially the US and Israel, both hate the way we live but without offering a better way. Both want to burn down the house just to see who survives. Only the Arguments differ, the left hate the people running their own society, the right hate the people running other society.

      And always remember, Hitler was a National-SOCIALIST.

      • ElmarsonTheThird@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The “Socialist” in the NSDAP is only a honeypot so they could claim ground and voters who leaned socialist without much thought (“I’m a mill worker like my father before me, we have always voted socialist. Buuut that National-Thing sounds nice”). Same with the “A” which stands for “Arbeiter” (Workers).

        There’s the same with the conservative party (CDU = Christdemokratische Union, Christ-Democratic Union) today. Lots of old people say “I’m a christian and that party has a C for ‘Christianity’ in its name.” In fact, their regional party in Bavaria, the CSU is more conservative. And you have three guesses what their “S” is for.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It was so frustrating watching some people treat him like he was anything close to a real journalist. He’s just the designated propagandist.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Isn’t this the asian guy who doesn’t understand that white supremacists only like white people and claimed to be suing the CEO of Antifa for damages that never actually happened?

    • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m guessing that means this is also the dude who claimed people threw cement at him, when it was a milk shake.

      Then they claimed the milkshake had cement in it, so people pointed out things like sugar would keep cement from hardening.

      Then the cops said they had no reason to assume it was concrete, and no one suggested it was, despite them and the guy being the ones who said it was concrete.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Eyup, that’s the guy. It was also around the time others on the right claimed that people were pouring gasoline into bags in order to make “Makeshift Molotv Cocktails”

        When

        1. the whole point of a Molotov Cocktail is that it’s a makeshift weapon that the proletariat will always have access to as it’s just alcohol and fire

        B) A plastic bag wouldn’t make for a good molotov cocktail as it would just fucking disintegrate and couldn’t be thrown that far of a distance, if any at all

        • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Also, the cloth hanging over on to the side of the bag could melt the plastic, and then catch fire

          Or it might just not break and spread

          I get the point of misinformation isn’t that it needs to make sense, but some times I hear this stuff and wonder fucking why? At least try.