You must log in or # to comment.
Bist du anti Antifa, BIST DU FA!
Du kannst sagen was du willst, doch das ist wahr!
Wir könnten uns um schönere Dinge kümmern.
Yea, Antifa were the guys standing up to the Nazi regime.
Yea, Antifa
wereare the guys standing up to the Nazi regime.This too
Yea, trying to give a history lesson and forgot that history is repeating itself.
Sorry, you lost conservatives the moment you asked them to learn something.
Relevant Song: FA by Team Scheiße
It’s in German, but you’ll get the important part: »If you’re Anti-Antifa you’re FA«. And yes, the band name means what you think it means.
The rest of the lyrics contain some banger lines, too: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/fa-fa.html-0
I love how they say they’ll only say it once… and then they go ahead and say it twice.
You think people saying I’m antiantifa has ever paid attention to what’s on a chalkboard?
Removed by mod
We’re pro-life, so disagreeing with us means you must be a murderer
You see the massive flaw in the above, don’t you?
Don’t use the name itself as evidence of virtue. Any collective can name themselves anything. Focus on the actual acts.
You forget one thing. Antifa literally only means exactly that. There is no collective. You are antifa if you say: “I oppose facism.” That’s it. There is no group, no organization, no culture around it.
You forget one thing. Antifa literally only means exactly that.
“Pro-life” also only means exactly that. But that doesn’t mean that whoever adopts that label actually embodies that.
Same goes for antifa. What matters is what they do. Eric Clanton can self-identify as Antifa all he wants as he bashes people with a bike lock, but that doesn’t make it so.
By the same token, someone can do plenty to oppose fascism, without ever identifying as “antifa”.
What matters is what they do, not what they call themselves. Sometimes, the self-label is accurate, but sometimes it’s not, and ultimately, the label is irrelevant.
Language is not math, but I approve of this one.
This is just pedantic and stupid. It’s like the right saying that Nazis are socialist because the party’s name is “national socialism”.
Seriously. While it is pretty much true in this case, if your argument is just “the name means this thing” it’s a terrible argument and you should maybe find actual reasons to support your cause.
It’s literally the etymological fallacy
The dual of a dual is not necessarily the same space as the original… Although I haven’t done maths for long enough to remember what it does imply. I think all the affine relationships that hold in the origin space must hold in the double dual? Probably? I’m gonna go to bed.
I am against fascism, but I also reject violence coming from the radical left. So go on then, what am I?
You used “radical left” and believe that they are the ones with the higher propensity for violence instead of the bog standard right as consistently proven.
So probably a fucking moron.
A viking?
Would you reject violence coming from the general left if fascism continues to advance in America?
Yes. I oppose violence in every form.
Removed by mod
Do you also oppose the police as a concept?
I oppose police violence, not the concept of upholding the lawful order.
Police, as a concept, involves violence. You cannot have police without violence.
Cool, you like the concept of upholding lawful order. How do you expect to implement that concept without violence?
Person A murders person B. It is illegal to murder. So you call the not-police to uphold that law. What is the not-police going to do? Ask A to voluntarily get into the cell and stay in there and learn their lesson?
You should pick up a history book sometime before the end of your life so you can learn something.
Go ahead and let me know what you would do if fascism kept advancing in America and, like every other time in human history, peaceful protest wasn’t enough to make the fascists see the error of their ways and stop enacting their oppressive agenda.
P.S. The answer is you would die without a fight. Not on the wrong or right side of history. Just completely irrelevant. No use to the people on the right side of history and just another dead body to burn for the people on the wrong side.
Removed by mod
Trump is a fascist, but this logic is flawed. You can’t treat linguistics like math. Linguistics is completely batshit crazy under the hood.
Counterexample: I am anti antibiotics (I really think that usage of antibiotics should be limited to the cases where there are no other options). So what happens after applying your logic? I am… bacteria? Nah, shitty meme. Try something cleverer.
You can’t always treat linguistics like math. But sometimes you can. In the case of antifa, it absolutely works.
Nice try.
Where is the bacteria in your weak linguistic counter?
the op post is correct: being anti-anti-X is not the same thing as pro-x
try this:
Christopher is an anti-theist: he actively believes that all gods and theologies are stupid and wrong, and that God does not exist.
John is an anti-anti-theist.
does that mean that John MUST be a theist?
no.
thankfully we didn’t need linguistic games to recognize Trump as a fascist: his actions make him what he is, regardless of his position on antifa.
Something about semantics and pedantic in a humor comm…
Lemmy…
You want pedantic? Let’s get pedantic.
John may not consider himself a theist, but John is still pro-theism. Theism is not an action, though.
If John is anti-anti-murder, then John is pro-murder.
If John is anti-anti-rape, then John is pro-rape.
If John is anti-anti-torture, then John is pro-torture.
John actively opposes opposition to evil. John is a willing accomplice.
See how that works?
You forgot about being neutral my guy. You’ve chosen extreme examples where people are much more likely to have a strong opinion, but that doesn’t make you right.
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is either pro-swimming or doesn’t care about swimming so long as you don’t try and stop other people.
By your logic every ally is gay. If John (straight man in this example) is anti-anti-gay then he must be gay. You’ve reached a contradiction, thus you are wrong.
exactly
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is pro-swimming. Clearly he cares enough to think that people should not be prevented from swimming. Therefore he is pro-swimming. He supports and enables swimming. If he was neutral, he would not be anti-anti-swimming or have any other for-against opinion on the matter.
This is not difficult logic to grasp.
the logic is simple, but you are ignoring it.
you are providing examples where language is consistent with an algebraic formulation, and ignoring examples where it clearly is not.
if examples of both exist, then you plainly cannot treat language like algebra, because it’s not always correct.
you only need one counter-example to disprove a thesis. instead of discussing the counter examples provided, you think that providing more examples of consistency contributed to the conversation.
sorry, but they don’t. that’s not how logic works.
The annoying thing is, you can treat it like boolean logic, they just aren’t correct when they try to do so.
I have made it clear, and it is not me who is ignoring it.
If you are neutral about pineapple on pizza, then there is no outcome. Maybe you personally dislike pineapple on pizza, and decide for yourself. Maybe you like pineapple on pizza and decide for yourself. But those are not the scenarios we are talking about, and you know it.
Let’s lean into a neutral absurdity to illustrate.
We are talking about a movement that declares “all pizzas must only have pineapple and those that disobey will face prison, torture, and death.” We will call them Pineapplists.
Anti-Pineapplists oppose this movement of forcing pizza to be pineapple-exclusive. So an anti-anti-pineapplist opposes opposition to the pineapplist movement, which is a form of active support for pineapplists forcing their will upon others. This is not a neutral stance because they are assisting pineapplists in quashing dissent.
But let’s assume someone was neutral about pineapplism. In this case they would not take a stance of pro-pineapplist, anti-pineapplist, or anti-anti-pineapplist. Maybe they don’t even like pizza. They stay out of it. That remains neutral as long as the situation remains in stalemate. But let’s say the pineapplists gain power and are facing opposition from anti-pineapplists. Emboldened, pineapplists have doubled down and everyone is very close to being forced to eat pineapple pizza and nothing else. Anti-pineapplists are resisting. In this case, remaining neutral still has an impact and means that whatever the outcome, you are fine with it. In that way you have also made a choice. In situations like that, where force and coercion are involved, there is nothing neutral about neutrality, and taking a stance against an opposition is also not neutral.
Removed by mod
Let me try again because you haven’t gotten it yet. Pro-swimming means he actively wants people to swim. If you are just against stopping people from swimming, that doesn’t mean you want to force everyone to swim.
Removed by mod
Being pro-abortion does not mean someone wants everyone to have an abortion.
Being pro-LGBTQ+ does not mean someone wants everyone to be queer.
Being pro-legalization does not mean someone wants everyone to do recreational drugs.
It means a person believes those things should be permissible.
You don’t know what antibiotics are?
I said that where?
I mean yeah, you are biotic, unless you’re an LLM or something
I prefer semantics over weak anecdotes too!
I’ll feed the troll…… you’re right that “bad guy” can be subjective, but please, tell how how facism isn’t bad? That’s the difference. One is subjective the other is quite objective.
They’re not saying fascism isn’t bad, they’re saying that any group can call themselves whatever they want; the name itself means literally nothing, and so shouldn’t be the foundation of any argument about why opposing it is bad.
In other words, ‘they’re fascist because they’re against the group that calls themselves anti-fascist’ is a moronic argument, and should be replaced with the more direct, and more accurate, ‘they’re fascist because they do XYZ fascist acts’. Forget the name, focus on the acts.
After all, you understand that opposing someone who self-labels as “pro-life” doesn’t make you “anti-life”, right?
The label could be accurate, or could be inaccurate, but the bottom line is that the name does not define the group, and every group that names itself is going to choose a name that makes them look/sound like the good guys—both benevolent and malevolent groups.
Removed by mod
You see, it works like this: First I say you’re a fascist. Then I imprison or kill you. I’m antifascist, hooray!
Facism has a clear definition. “Bad guy” does not.
fascism /făsh′ĭz″əm/
noun
-
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
-
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
-
A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; – opposed to democracy and liberalism.
-
An authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism
-
A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.
Okay. Does your leftist movement NOT fit all of these? Depending on which flavor you are, it probably either easily does, or fits close enough with some twisting.
After all, its not like even maimstrema media is above lying to pressure judges/the public to imprison or kill people. Remember when The Independent reported that Kyle Rittenhouse shot three black people?
Have you ever even looked into anarchism once? Or did you mean to call out a specific authoritarian leftism? Cause right now you are generalizing too hard to be saying anything.
Removed by mod
All three people who attacked him first, and got killed for it in self defense, were white. Including the child rapist.
This is the easiest thing in the world to look up, go do it now. You’ve labored under the misinformation that Rittenhouse attacked black people but that was an actual, easily verified lie. You need to start thinking about what you think you know and where it came from.
-
Removed by mod
If youre a citizen, isn’t your wife legal by marriage? Are you in the US illegally?
Removed by mod
Oh no! The Latinos are deporting the Latinos!
I don’t disagree with the message but with linguistic implications. There ain’t nothing with with double negatives (see what I did there?). Many languages and dialects have it as default or even mandatory. This doesn’t apply to the example but making it about double negative is classiest
This doesn’t apply to the example
If it doesn’t apply, then can’t you just let us have the meme and move on? Is it that important that you have to well actually us on a stupid meme?
- Upload a Political Cartoon to Political Humor.
- Title it ‘Semantic is Pedantic’.
- Wait for comments.
- Self-fulfilling IRONY!
Nailed it!
The thing is that “double negative bad” is a pedantic talking point. Sorry for making you aware of that.
I’m at a loss as to where in the meme it suggests that double negatives are bad?
What I see is someone demonstrating to someone else on how to convert a specific double negative into its simplest and most direct form.
I’m sure this will be interpreted as being pedantic on my side but either way: It’s a pedantic talking point that double negatives cancel each other out. “I don’t see nobody” would mean that I see someone. This is empirical and demonstrably false. Since the head line is “double negatives”, it is heavily implied that the logic on the board applies to all double negatives which is wrong. Of cause you could construct a scenario where the teacher will show other examples where the negative doesn’t cancel each other out but the negation is expressed in multiple ways. This is a very unlikely reading
Honestly, some things don’t require as much thought as you’re putting into this. That’s the beautiful (and yes, confusing/conflicting) thing about language: it’s flexible when you need it to be.
In the meantime, just enjoy the meme! 😊
Sorry for failing at making you aware of that.
ftfy
personally, I think it’s always fair game to “well actually” something which itself has “well actually” energy.
Let the mob decide.
i am one with the mob
I think the more important criticism is really that they don’t care if they’re fascist anyway
Yeah, true.
