[almaIV]

Were? The black panthers still exist. They have nothing to do with people calling themselves "anti-fascist" though.

"Do you think that white nationalists don't take guns to their protests and marches?"

I think the kind of person who talks about carrying around baseball bats isn't going to go to these marches.

What you think is hilarious is on you and your weird sense of humor. If you go to a meeting with baseball bats, eventually, the people you're disrupting are going to bring weapons stronger than baseball bats.

[hga]

Hmmm, I wasn't thinking of sdfghjkl34567 and company as cowards, but now that you mention the possibility, maybe it isn't a coincidence that the calm events (not protests and marches) they brought baseball bats (and hammers) to in the US, at least per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Racist_Action#History were in states where their targets couldn't legally carry guns. It would be interesting to check with Google to see if their targets meet elsewhere relatively unmolested.

[sdfghjkl34567]

The wikipedia history for ARA itself is a pretty reductive list of actions compared to all ARA-aligned actions. Again, I mentioned ARA because they popularized the tactic of shutting down meetings by pressuring hotels (which is not to say they invented secondary target activism), not because it was the only group doing so or for any other specific reason.

Anti-racist and anti-fascist organizing happens under the mantle of a thousand different groups all over the world. There are antifa in Russia that have it much harder than antifa in France or the UK or the US.

[amcastillo]

> Anti-racist and anti-fascist organizing happens under the mantle of a thousand different groups all over the world.

And yet we are asked to believe that an obscure blogger flirting with monarchist political thought would introduce a dangerous authoritarian element if allowed to present on a technical topic. Thanks for putting this into context.

[sdfghjkl34567]

I would not call Moldbug obscure; neo-reactionaryism is growing especially in tech circles and legitimizing its source is a dangerous act, not because he will seize power given the platform, but because it communicates a lack of concern with the threat "neo-reactionaryism" or fascism represents.

[anon_adderlan]

> and legitimizing its source is a dangerous act

This thinking, right here, is a problem.

Discussing an individual's technical contributions does not legitimize their political views, let alone their technical ones.

And the big threat today is not neo-reactionaryism, but zealotry in all its forms. Radicals from any group are more dangerous than moderates from a single distasteful group, and they all use exactly the same tactics to win. And if we're going to win by burying bad ideas through threats and intimidation instead of openly dismantling them through rational and ethical thought, then I'm not sure the battle is even worth winning.

[amcastillo]

> neo-reactionaryism is growing especially in tech circles

This will be great news to the neoreactionaries. How do you figure?

> because it communicates a lack of concern with the threat "neo-reactionaryism" or fascism represents.

And what is the threat, if not that they will seize power?

[eli_gottlieb]

Certainly neoreaction is a cancer, but the best cure for these cancers is sunlight.

[sdfghjkl34567]

The "new" black panthers exist, but as a former actual black panther I know says, I don't see their breakfast programs.

Antifa did and do routinely disrupt fascist actions with physical force and frequently got (and get) shot for it. Sometimes the antifa are the ones doing the shooting.

But most of the time the antifa are hilariously underarmed compared to the (as you've pointed out) very well armed rightists and it's a combination of bravado and stupidity that they take the actions they do. The KKK, neo nazis, etc., have all had weapons stronger than baseball bats for a while. There's no "eventually." Do you understand what I'm saying?