Clashes between right-wing protesters and Antifa turned violent on the streets of Portland this weekend. Right-wing groups such as Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys planned demonstrations for this Saturday and Sunday and were met by Antifa counter-protesters. The confrontations quickly became violent and several were injured.
The basic arguments can be summed up into three points. (1) Antifa isn't actually that violent, (2) white supremacists are much more violent so we should only be paying attention to them, and (3) those who are attacked by Antifa have opinions that I believe to be disgusting, so violence against them is justified.
The first argument can be debunked fairly easily. Antifa's violence this weekend was caught clearly on camera. It was not just milkshakes and silly string. It was fists, crowbars, and mace.
The second argument utilizes the completely intellectually dishonest strategy of "whataboutism". The argument goes like this: Antifa may be bad, but not nearly as bad as white supremacists! Therefore, we must completely disregard Antifa's violence because we can only condemn one group at a time!
This type of reasoning is just a way to attempt to divert focus away from the group that you are more uncomfortable condemning. You can recognize that white supremacist violence has done great harm and also acknowledge that violence is still bad when committed by Antifa.
The notion that conservatives jump to condemn Antifa while giving white supremacists a pass is also dishonest. The vast majority of conservatives have been quick to denounce white supremacy as evil. As a conservative myself, I have no problem saying that every act of violence committed by white supremacist or fascist groups is disgusting and should be punished. The same applies to Antifa. That's what intellectual consistency looks like.
The third argument is the most insidious and is the kind of reasoning that motivates violence like this in the first place. It's the idea that disagreeable opinions are justification for violence. It is the belief that speech can be violence in and of itself.
It's the perspective that Andy Ngo got what was coming for him because he has opinions that some people find oppressive or bigoted, and the men beaten with crowbars deserved it because they were possibly members of a group with extremist and possibly fascistic beliefs. The attackers were not physically provoked, but they were acting in self-defense against what they perceived to be a dangerous set of ideas.
Andy Ngo is not a white supremacist or a fascist, he is a journalist that was doing his job. It seems obvious that disagreeing with his opinions on certain issues does not make him deserving of physical harm. The two men were potentially members of one of the two right-wing groups. It is possible that the members of Antifa would have found their views incredibly disagreeable. This would still not be justification for violence against the men.
Militant Antifa believes that offensive opinions and speech are so inherently dangerous that they can only be combatted with brutality. They believe that this tiny, fringe group of people must be silenced with violence in order to prevent their ideas from prevailing. The truth is, there is a much more effective way to combat white supremacist fascism. Allow them to voice their ideas. Give them the opportunity to expose the toxicity of their beliefs. Force them to defend their position. The open exchange of ideas is very effective at exposing disgusting ideas for what they really are.
When ideas and beliefs are conflated with violence, it seems appropriate to meet them with violence. However, beliefs are not violence. Speech is not violence. In a civilized society, you must combat ideas that you vehemently despise with other, better ideas.
If we live in a world where ideas are fought for through streetfighting, the prevailing idea will be the one backed by the people who are best at streetfighting. If we live in a world where ideas are fought for through debate and discussion, the prevailing idea will be the one that can stand up to scrutiny.
Which world would you rather live in?
Andy Ngo, an editor at Quillette, a platform that supports free expression and the exchange of ideas, was attacked while reporting on the protests. Ngo was hit by fists, milkshakes, eggs, and cement, and had his camera equipment stolen by members of Antifa. He was hospitalized and suffered a brain hemorrhage.
Videos surfaced this morning of Antifa brutally beating an elderly man with a crowbar. As another man attempted to help, he was hit in the head with a crowbar and maced by Antifa.
While the circumstances surrounding these violent acts are still murky, there has been no claim made that Antifa was acting in self-defense. The evidence currently supports the idea that Antifa attacked these people largely unprovoked.
It seems like the condemnation of these acts of violence would be fairly uncontroversial. Regardless of how someone feels about Andy Ngo's political views or the political views of the other men who were attacked, violence in response to non-violence is unacceptable. Disagreement is never a justification for brutality.
This seems obvious, so why is it so difficult for some people to stop defending Antifa?
Leftists on Twitter pulled out every excuse in the book to defend a group that sent multiple people to the hospital in a single day.
I see #AntifaTerrorists is trending.— Av (@avarant) June 30, 2019
They must've killed people... They must've...
Oh.. They got milkshakes on people... They used silly string?
I'm going to need you to look up terrorists...
I see the far right are playing the equivalency card again after Andy Ngo - he of the Muslim no go zones in London bollocks - went looking for a fight and got one.— GOU Limiting Factor (@Sleeper_Service) June 30, 2019
Yeah? Let me know when the #AntifaTerrorists (lol) are getting life sentences for murder by automobile, lads.
white supremacists call for genocide, organize and carry out multiple assaults and murders...— Jesse Benn (@JesseBenn) June 30, 2019
antifascists throw a milkshake at a shitbag posing as a journalist...
mainstream media: these things are the same and equally threatening to social order#antifa
BTW, Andy Ngo is a hard-right racist whose whole shtick is lying. He's the one who made up that infamously stupid story about supposedly Muslim-controlled "no-go" areas in the UK, which you can see being comprehensively debunked here by a local:https://t.co/2QrkJXv2UU#antifa— My imaginary cement milkshake brings all the Fash (@TeamSJW) June 30, 2019
The basic arguments can be summed up into three points. (1) Antifa isn't actually that violent, (2) white supremacists are much more violent so we should only be paying attention to them, and (3) those who are attacked by Antifa have opinions that I believe to be disgusting, so violence against them is justified.
The first argument can be debunked fairly easily. Antifa's violence this weekend was caught clearly on camera. It was not just milkshakes and silly string. It was fists, crowbars, and mace.
The second argument utilizes the completely intellectually dishonest strategy of "whataboutism". The argument goes like this: Antifa may be bad, but not nearly as bad as white supremacists! Therefore, we must completely disregard Antifa's violence because we can only condemn one group at a time!
This type of reasoning is just a way to attempt to divert focus away from the group that you are more uncomfortable condemning. You can recognize that white supremacist violence has done great harm and also acknowledge that violence is still bad when committed by Antifa.
The notion that conservatives jump to condemn Antifa while giving white supremacists a pass is also dishonest. The vast majority of conservatives have been quick to denounce white supremacy as evil. As a conservative myself, I have no problem saying that every act of violence committed by white supremacist or fascist groups is disgusting and should be punished. The same applies to Antifa. That's what intellectual consistency looks like.
The third argument is the most insidious and is the kind of reasoning that motivates violence like this in the first place. It's the idea that disagreeable opinions are justification for violence. It is the belief that speech can be violence in and of itself.
It's the perspective that Andy Ngo got what was coming for him because he has opinions that some people find oppressive or bigoted, and the men beaten with crowbars deserved it because they were possibly members of a group with extremist and possibly fascistic beliefs. The attackers were not physically provoked, but they were acting in self-defense against what they perceived to be a dangerous set of ideas.
Andy Ngo is not a white supremacist or a fascist, he is a journalist that was doing his job. It seems obvious that disagreeing with his opinions on certain issues does not make him deserving of physical harm. The two men were potentially members of one of the two right-wing groups. It is possible that the members of Antifa would have found their views incredibly disagreeable. This would still not be justification for violence against the men.
Militant Antifa believes that offensive opinions and speech are so inherently dangerous that they can only be combatted with brutality. They believe that this tiny, fringe group of people must be silenced with violence in order to prevent their ideas from prevailing. The truth is, there is a much more effective way to combat white supremacist fascism. Allow them to voice their ideas. Give them the opportunity to expose the toxicity of their beliefs. Force them to defend their position. The open exchange of ideas is very effective at exposing disgusting ideas for what they really are.
When ideas and beliefs are conflated with violence, it seems appropriate to meet them with violence. However, beliefs are not violence. Speech is not violence. In a civilized society, you must combat ideas that you vehemently despise with other, better ideas.
If we live in a world where ideas are fought for through streetfighting, the prevailing idea will be the one backed by the people who are best at streetfighting. If we live in a world where ideas are fought for through debate and discussion, the prevailing idea will be the one that can stand up to scrutiny.
Which world would you rather live in?
Comments
Post a Comment