[billy99k]

"anti-fascists" have many of the same characteristics as Nazis. Authoritarian in nature and willing to use violence to suppress the opinions of people they dislike. It's not surprising that the grandson of an actual Nazi has become one.

update: The truth hurts. You can't support violence and not get called out for it.

[logicprog]

The only way you can get away with this equivocation is by using vague phrases like "willing to use violence to suppress the opinions of people they dislike" to hide the differences, and assuming that all uses of violence are morally equivalent. Back here in reality, the crucial difference between fascists and anti-fascists is that fascists seek to suppress the rights (not just speech) of races they consider inferior and people they consider degenerate and a drag on society who have done nothing wrong and not instigated anything, through violence, whereas anti-fascists retaliate against people who explicitly hold bigoted views because of the beliefs espoused by them. Possibly using violence in retaliation to those who hold a deeply dangerous and bigoted ideology is very different then holding a deeply dangerous and bigoted ideology and targeting people just based on that bigotry.

[graemep]

Fascists also used violence to suppress what they considered to be dangerous ideology.

[logicprog]

Again, you're taking refuge in vagueness to erase meaningful difference. What did they consider dangerous ideology, and what do anti fascists? Furthermore, that was far from the only thing they did or believed. The fascists considered different people just existing and being themselves and taking part in society and doing art "dangerous ideology." Anti fascists target an actual group of ideologies that's been proven to do harm.

[_chu1]

Agree. Saw recently that ANTIFA was trying to protest a comedian's appearance at a venue in Portland and some members were threatening violence if they appeared. That's certainly pro-censorship and in the vein of not allowing people who disagree with you to have the same rights as you, but I don't know if it fits the textbook definition of fascism.

[Drakim]

It's actually a pretty tricky situation, often called the Paradox of Tolerance.

Presumably you'd not be in favor of censoring somebody merely for disagreeing with you on a political topic.

But what if those political views and stated goal was to remove your right to vote in democracy? Obviously you'd speak up against that view with your own voice, but what if that's not enough? Do you just cross your fingers and hope they don't get enough traction?

What if escalates even more, what if they actively want to impose the death penalty on you, and have the state execute you? Would you actively fight against censorship of the people whoms stated goal is to have you dead? Would you call people evil fascists if they wanted to censor those who want actively want them dead?

For a lot of people, these aren't hypothetical. It actually has happened before in history 77 years ago in Nazi Germany, and it's hopelessly naive to think that it's just impossible for something similar to ever happen again. There is a sizable part of the world who thinks that gay people deserve the death penalty for being gay, right now, today.

[enterprise_cog]

Yeah, protesting a comedian and randos threatening violence on the internet is totally the same as mudering millions to stop Judeo-Bolshevism or cultural Marxism or whatever garbage fascists are spewing.