Ok but in a sense it could just always be elitist, it's just a matter of how much elitism we're talking. The homeless guy isn't going to be able to afford even a $400 down payment and could call those who could "the elites." It's all relative.

The housing market is always going to price out some part of the population, it's just a matter of how big that part it. Even if prices were dirt cheap some still won't be able to afford it, and those with the houses won't be able to accumulate wealth through their homes. I get what you're saying though - it is what it is.

Effectively making housing an investment opportunity meant naturally drawing those with capital to snap it up in large quantities and drive up its price. Housing should not be about making money: it's a basic necessity. — Kenosha Kid

But what do you have against homeowners building equity in their property and gaining wealth through that? That's not only for the upper class, the middle class does it too. Why are you against wealth creation? I know leftists might like it if everyone is poor but equal, but most people don't.

So is the solution to ban renting? Does that really make a lot of sense? You know that renting out part of the house can also make paying off a mortgage easier.

the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying? you can keep paying someone else to do maintenance of that’s what you want. your landlord does anyway. — Pfhorrest

In order to do this you'd have to plop down a significant amount of cash and likely cash out investments. This is often a bad financial move because these investments that you sold have a high yearly return and now that money is basically locked into your house and you're no longer getting those returns.

Your desire to own your home outright is a personal preference, not a universal measure of financial health or optimization. If that's how you want to do your finances, fine, but don't treat it as a universal.

Imagine a forum without right wingers — Maw

All the leftists would be eating each other over the correct interpretation of Marx. You're lucky you have the right-wingers here to serve as the common enemy, it's the closest you'll get to leftist unity.

Do you know the races of the officers involved in the shootings? I'd be interested to know whether this is a white officer problem or not.

One of these days I should just pick a random argument with you and misinterpret everything you say.

Duh, obviously.

It's good that you mentioned that you're a centrist, that will surely de-escalate things.

I don't even know if a forum full of classical liberals/right libertarians would even be sustainable when it comes to talk on philosophy. We'd all probably just end up talking about finances and drugs. I'm sure I have differences with the others on the right it's just not all that important to me, and if there is a difference between, say, me and Judaka we usually just express our own opinions and move on. Left wingers are often vicious with other left wingers.

The word fascism has lost a great deal of its meaning, an already hard-to-understand idea and now it's even more difficult for the average westerner to understand and identify. — Judaka

Yeah.

One thing I gleaned from my discussion with Kenosha Kid was that he essentially views the enterprise of politics as nothing short of war, with the final objective to be to annihilate opposing ideas. I'd really love to trace the roots of this idea because I've heard it before. It reminds me Hobbes' idea of "a war of all against all" but I know the context doesn't quite match. In any case this is a very different from the democratic liberal tradition which views discourse and reconciliation as a normal part of politics.

And as we've already agreed, Antifa is not a reformist organisation. They are not trying to ban anything. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is against cleaning up swastikas from building, but you can't go around punching fascists simply for speaking, sorry.

I'm not asking for absolutes. I'm asking you to detail what convinced you antifa was necessary in the historical example I gave you. — fdrake

First, thanks for the detailed historical write up. I enjoyed learning about this event from your descriptions.

I would say in that instance it was acceptable to call in a militant leftist group as a last resort given that it's reasonable to believe that the community may be in danger from a group with a history of violence, plus the fact that the police can't be entirely relied upon to maintain safety.

So now you're back to saying the ideal of anti-fascism (which is the point in hand) is to drive fascism underground. — Kenosha Kid

No, I'm saying the actual policy of banning fascist speech & expression drives fascism underground. You can't ban fascist thought you can only ban fascist speech and expression.

True, but leftists come in all different flavors and it can be fun to engage with some of them. In particular I've come to like engaging with libertarian socialists and Marx-inspired thinkers who might not be full Marxists yet. It was initially a little difficult for me to deal with hardline leftists, but eventually you just gotta enjoy it and go along with the insanity and play back at them a little.

They don't have the power to do that, but they're free to suggest it. :razz: — frank

yeah it's all fun and games as long as they're not in power.

What kind of fascist did you talk to? Just curious. — frank

haha, as a rule I don't really engage with actual fascists but I gotta say the discussion with kenosha kid was telling. I don't mean to start any beef here but I can't help but notice the similarities between that thinking and some of the fascist thinkers I've read.

We don't even have to personally engage fascists, in fact I usually don't because it's unproductive. What antifa wants is to ban any expression of it including books or blog posts.

Obviously I believe in engagement. — frank

So what are we arguing about?

ut I also recognize when engagement is dangerous. I think you do too, right? — frank

Sure it's dangerous if they pull out a knife...

Right, so this will leave no-one to express fascist ideas. And that's the extent to which anti-fascism censors fascism. No one is invading Klan meetings on private property. If fascists deface property with vile fascist slogans, they get cleaned up. If fascists have public matches, anti-fascists march against them. If fascists respond violently, they are met with violence.

Tbh I think your argument was lost when you described Antifa as systematically violent but the KKK not. That's so divorced from reality and betrays such a bias toward violent right-wing racist murderers as to make your position indefensible. — Kenosha Kid

No, again, the fascists will just be driven underground, like drug use in the war on drugs or alcohol during prohibition.

Well thanks for the post-mortem, I'll try to do better next time, Kenosha. This discussion has been enlightening for me because it's very apparent that you basically consider the enterprise of politics as basically a war of all against all with the end goal of absolutely annihilating the opposition. This actually puts you in good company with thinkers like Hobbes and Schmitt, in complete opposition to the democratic liberal tradition of course. Good discussion.

So you're willing to agree that antifascist actions can be necessary, when they are a "last resort", what is sufficient evidence that the situation is a "last resort"? What made you believe the example that I gave you was a last resort when there was notable police presence at the demonstration? — fdrake

You're just going to have to go by the specific situation and ask yourself questions like how many right-wingers we're expecting to show up, do the right wingers have a history of violence, what is the police presence like, how about the presence of counter-protesters who may provide a "check" but not be antifa themselves? here in boston we had a right wing rally back in 2017 where like 50 right-wingers showed up and tens of thousands of counter-protesters with a strong police presence, do we really need to call in antifa here?

It would be absurd to lay down any absolute philosophical principle for when to call in armed, antifascist groups.

By the way, if you need any more proof that antifa is not fundamentally in the liberal tradition check out my discussion with Kenosha kid. It's just really an interesting example of how a liberal like myself perceives politics as opposed to Kenosha who basically perceives politics as war with the goal of absolutely destroying the opposition permanently. I can't help but notice the frequency of this thought within antifa/the far left.

Is that what you think the aims of anti-fascism are? Just to drive fascism underground? — Kenosha Kid

The "end" of anti-fascism is for there to be no more believers in fascism, but by outright banning fascism you're just driving it underground so that whenever it does resurface it becomes a bigger thing.



Read again the context of what I was saying. I wasn't saying we need to ban Heideggar, I was saying that if we established a governmental committee to ban anything related to fascism they could very well decide to ban Heideggar or anything even remotely related to fascism.

No more fascism, but you're not banning people from thinking it (because no one can) you're only sending the discourse underground. We don't have a holocaust denial problem here in the US and everyone just ignores those people. In Europe it's a bigger deal and holocaust deniers get much more coverage because they're doing something illegal and it gets blown up into this big thing. It's a little silly to think you can just ban it and it goes away; how has banning done when it comes to alcohol and drugs?

Hold up, Chomsky is supporting actually engaging fascists in discussion? He must be a fascist himself, probably a Nazi. /s

Really insightful answer by Chomsky, by the way. I never thought I'd be agreeing with him but you learn something new everyday.

Whether I am or not makes no difference. It's your argument that being anti-fascist is a violation of freedom of expression on the grounds that anti-fascism seeks to stamp out fascism, and therefore fascist expression. — Kenosha Kid

You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. Banning everything just results in fascism going underground and creates a society where there's less transparency and honesty because people know they can't say certain things.

But just keep banning ideas you don't like: fascism, capitalism, maybe throw some religions in there, eh? Hell, even your allies probably have views and opinions that you don't like even they mostly agree with you - you can't let those stay, they'd be poison to the movement.

The logical conclusion of anti-fascism is the end of fascism, meaning no fascists to spout fascist ideas. It is illogical to claim you wish fascism to end but fascist ideas to be freely espoused. — Kenosha Kid

Do you agree with this too?

"The logical conclusion of anti-capitalism is the end of capitalism, meaning no [believers in the capitalist system] to spout capitalist ideas."

You're an anti-capitalist, right?

And we know that is bullshit because of the long, violent, hateful history of the Klan. The raison d'etre of the KKK is violence oppression of black Americans. You'd have to be an especially ignorant person to think it was about fancy dress but, yes, such a person would be exempt. — Kenosha Kid

The raison d'etre of the KKK is white supremacy, not the violent oppression of blacks. Violence happens but it's not a daily thing, you're treating it like it's a daily thing when it's not. A Klan speaker could easily say that they only use violence as a last resort.

Of course this is not me justifying them, just stating the facts. Especially in 2020. A hate group can still be a hate group but not use violence all the time.

Because your argument is that by opposing fascism, we're opposing the right of the fascist to express fascist views. That's trivially true of opposing anything. You can want for something to not exist and yet still express itself. — Kenosha Kid

No it is not trivially true. I oppose fascism, of course, but I don't believe in banning fascist literature or not allowing them to speak.

Do you think I'm pro-Nazi because I don't believe in banning Mein Kampf? So not being massively pro-censorship makes me basically pro-Nazi? Ok, not got it.

But that's precisely what you're not doing when you judge a great many people for criminal activity they are not responsible for. — Kenosha Kid

You realize the KKK often isn't actually physical violent very often, right? Obviously their belief system is straight up toxic and it would explain the actions behind the groups act, but the KKK could also use this argument "oh only bad klansmen commit those acts, we, the organization, do not approve of it!" That's the justification they'll use. They're only sporadically violent, it's not their everyday business.

You could say this about laws. If we take paedophile laws to their logical conclusion, paedophilia would be eliminated, and with it the ability to voice pro-paedophilia propaganda. But paedophilia is a crime, as is racial violence against ethnic minorities, and it's quite right to stamp it out. If that leaves no one left to express in it's favour, so much the better. — Kenosha Kid

Anti-pedophile laws are just rules - no sex with minors. I don't see the "oh well if we extend that logic then..." argument. Voicing pro-pedophilia arguments, while gross, is defending under the first amendment. If we were to outlaw pedophiles (i.e. arresting anyone attracted to children) then we're in a completely different area philosophically. It doesn't follow from anti-pedophile laws (which is really just a prohibition) that anyone who feels sexual attraction to children should be arrested.

If you are serious about antifascism then you are talking about mass censorship, just admit it already. Nothing wrong with being about honest about the implications of ones views.

You're also talking about destroying a liberal arts education and not reading about certain thinkers, or atleast not allowing students to engage with thinkers like Hobbes.

The "neighbourhood watch" wasn't enough, the police didn't care to impede the publicly announced demonstration, sectarian violence ensued because the "last resort" of the ANL weren't there in enough numbers. How would you expect a neighbourhood watch to defend against an organised militia when the police violently protect that militia's right to march through the neighbourhood due to "absolute free speech"? — fdrake

But how do we know that larger numbers of ANL would have stopped the violence? This is a minor point though, because in the situation you describe it is clear that the community needed to call in the ANL as a last resort and I don't have any issue with that.

But the situation in America is basically this one but reversed: You have left-wing protesters destroying stores and "right wing" (really, anti-government boogaloes, not actual fascists) called in or requested to protect small business. I'm against allowing any group to destroy property, left or right.

Ideally the neighborhood watch wouldn't have to defend anything because a strong police presence would deter violence. I don't know about British law but in America you're allowed to have these types of demonstrations as long as they stay peaceful.

But Antifa are not that sort of community. There may exist communities of some Antifa members who do so, and some of those might be systematically violent and should be judged as such. — Kenosha Kid

There are also some antifa communes who probably fall somewhere in the middle between non-violence and violence, so again, we investigate the community when the individual commits the crime.

From a broader, ideological standpoint I consider the American antifascist movement quite suspect and video footage and journalism repeatedly reinforces my initial impression. I would not use the word "non-violent" to describe them or their ideology.

EDIT: If we took antifascism to its logical conclusion then we're talking about mass censorship and places certain individuals in charge of managing and determining that censorship. It is a deeply un-American ideal in practice.

The aforementioned activist scrubbing Swastikas off walls is, by your logic, morally culpable for a violent individual she has never heard of shooting a violent fascist. — Kenosha Kid

No, we judge people as individuals. If some dresses in all black and marches alongside antifa that's them choosing to associate themselves with that community.

What would count as sufficient evidence that authorities are "either complicit or unhelpful in stopping hatecrimes"? — fdrake

I'm fine with neighborhood watches. Communities are allowed to defend themselves, but I think its a poor tactical decision to frame a neighborhood watch specifically as an antifascist defense force. It'll have the effect of alienating a portion of the population that isn't particularly political and may be a little confused or alarmed by the ideological bent of their neighborhood watch. Just call it a general neighborhood watch, cast a wide net, and defend your community from whatever crime there is. Everyone can get on board with neighborhood safety, you're going to confuse people when you introduce ideology, especially if this new neighborhood watch is dressed in all black with black masks. Appearance matters.

The same is not true of Trump supporters or Antifa. — Kenosha Kid

It comes down to how close these people are with their respective communities. If people are all living and eating and sleeping together, then that community is going to be under investigation and I don't care whether its a bird loving community. Uniforms are a big indicator. The closer people are with that group the more police should investigate, and investigation does not mean guilt.

I don't even know if the proclaimed MO of the organization is all that relevant. A hippie commune might proclaimed peace, love, and harmony but if they're out slaughtering celebrities they're getting investigated, and that extends beyond the actual perpetrators. Charlie Manson didn't kill anyone and he wasn't at the crime scene.

Chess for humans isn't really about rationality, it's about your ability to envision future positions and calculate. If chess were just about rationality Einstein or Kant or who ever would be the world's greatest chess players. You must be able to visualize future positions and assess all possible counter play. It's about sight and pattern recognition, not rationality.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a historical continuity between the antifascist actors I'm referring to and the ones which are currently vilified. — fdrake

I judge groups as they are now. To me this would be like judging the modern American military like the one it was in WWII.

When that community organised with antifascist groups - after the police refused to do anything, mind -,they effectively made their own police force to stop hate crimes being committed against them which the police were indifferent to. And it worked. The British fascists stopped bullying that neighbourhood. — fdrake

If the police or authorities absolutely refuse to cooperate or help in any manner - then yes, it's on you. In America in 2020 we can absolutely count on our police to go after anti-semitic hate crimes. Vigilante groups are an absolute last resort and I'm sure you see how things can get out of hand very quickly when you have angry citizens enforcing justice. But yes, when the authorities are either complicit or unhelpful in, say, stopping hate crimes then this type of vigilante action becomes more plausible.

It's not for the person victimised by fear and intimidation, it's to make them afraid and to stop doing whatever they're doing. That was an attempt to control, through fear, someone who's committing hate crimes, or otherwise legitimising violence, the police either cannot or will not intervene in to prevent or stop. — fdrake

It can work, but it's not the ideal method. Maybe the anti-semitic thug just learns to prey on weaker communities. It's a last resort. I'm sure you and I must both agree that taking the law into your own hands is a last resort.

This is a strategic weakness of liberal democracy, as noted by Schmitt. Free speech absolutism provides absolutely no defence against bad faith and subversive actors from within the system, in fact all that is needed to be done to get people on the side of bad faith actors is for them to claim they are being silenced. So long as liberal democracy is willing to hold free speech to such high regard it risks facing the bad conclusion of the paradox of tolerance; erosion of the very norms that were protected. So long as people side with these bad faith actors, antifascist action will be required as a counterbalance to defend liberal norms. An unglamorous job, as everyone hates them for it. — fdrake

I'm glad you mention Schmitt here. In my view Schmitt is probably one of the most if not the most persuasive fascist thinker out there. He's an unabashed fascist, no question there. It would seem to me that if we're serious about nipping fascism in the bud then we should ban his works, full stop. If someone seriously engages Schmitt he'll likely feel the pull of fascism. Whenever you seriously engage a thinker they'll pull you into their world for a bit.

After Schmitt I'd also likely go after Nietzsche. Maybe not the entirety of Nietzsche, sure, but definitely certain parts lend themselves to fascist thought. Where exactly do we draw the line? That's a damn good question. But I guess the more important one would be who makes the decision.

We can start going after bands, too, like Rammstein and other heavy metal bands who clearly have fascist undertones and aesthetics. We'll really have quite the work cut out ahead of us. I never read Heideggar but he might be gone too. We'd have to revise the entire concept of a liberal arts education while we're at it.

So if an Antifa member shot randomly into a crowd of fascists, Antifa are in the clear?

And therefore one member's personal decision to kill someone is precisely what makes it not his personal responsibility?

Far-right people really will say absolutely anything m — Kenosha Kid

Any crime gets investigated, that's just how it is. Let the police do their work and draw their conclusions. I don't get why this is so complicated.

Look into the anti-mob police cases of the 1980s in New York - organizations can be held responsible for the behavior of their members.

There it is again. If an Antifa supporter who is a violent asshole with a gun shoots into a crowd, it is Antifa who has "assassinated" someone, despite the group having no centralised responsibility.

During the 2020 election, some Trump supporters protested the vote and shot and knives people. Are all Trump supporters responsible for this, or just the individuals who did it? — Kenosha Kid

There's a difference between second degree and first degree crimes that's really important here. Did the crime have prior planning or not? If yes, we investigate the group behind the crime if there is one.

I would definitely face off KKK ralliers with signs and chanting. Maybe a rotten egg or two. It doesn't help anything to hurt people, but it definitely helps to let everyone hear that the KKK has no business being engaged as a serious point of view.

It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable.

When would you decide it's time to stand up and say something? Melodramatic question, but how would you answer it? — frank

What exactly do you mean when you say "It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable."?

In terms of when it's time for me personally to stand up and say something, well, personally I don't really go to protests. I'd probably just ignore the klan. I'd probably look them up and down since they're a rare sight here in Massachusetts and walk right on by. I'm really not one to attend protests and start yelling at other people because I don't like their views. I actually don't like dealing with people in large groups, I prefer dealing with individuals.

If you want to change a klansman's mind you're not gonna do it by debating him. his hatred is in his heart, it's personal. check out daryl davis, he's a black man who has befriended over 200 klansmen and got them to renounce the klan. it's a billion times better than punching them. that's how you gotta do it.

There it is again. If an Antifa supporter who is a violent asshole with a gun shoots into a crowd, it is Antifa who has "assassinated" someone, despite the group having no centralised responsibility.

During the 2020 election, some Trump supporters protested the vote and shot and knives people. Are all Trump supporters responsible for this, or just the individuals who did it? — Kenosha Kid

There are plenty of antifa communes where they live and eat together and I'd suspect that at least some coordinate together. There is actually a group of people to investigate if antifa does something highly illegal like attempting to a terrorist act.

There are 70 million Trump supporters, plenty of them who are not tied to any group. If a Trump supporter is a terrorist and is tied to a group like the KKK then we can absolutely investigate that group and go after that group.

If there's no group attached I don't know what to tell you.

I'd be happy to revise my opinion on the demography of ideas in antifacist actors given present data about it! — fdrake

My sources are mostly interviews, and I know that Mark Bray has interviews with antifa members and he was able to get this access because he's a leftist and sympathetic to the movement. I've been meaning to get access to his book since it would be a great source of info for the sake of our discussion. No need for me to go to fox news for this one.

I think since we're never going to get actual statistics interviews are the best we can do. Ideally interviews with important, informed members.

It seems to take a perceived stage of emergency, as you say, to generate common approval of antifascist action among liberals. — fdrake

I have no problem with antifa in theory, my concern is tactics, tactics, tactics. And the fact that they may be a little overzealous in some cases. Oftentimes we're just dealing with ideas that relate to fascism so that creates a bit of a grey zone.

A person's reasons depend on the person. I don't think "a persons reasons depend on the person" is an allowed move in the game of ideological/demographic generalisation we've engaged in so far. It destroys all generalisation. — fdrake

Maybe we should ditch this game of ideological generalization then? We seem to be on a very different page. Your inspirations for antifascism seem to be Jewish partisans while mine are black-clad, weaponized young men who have murdered cops and obstruct ambulances trying tor reach hospitals. These aren't the "bad apples" either - street obstruction is a common tactic.

I don't mean to convince you that the emergency is as great as it was back in WW2, I mean to convince you that it's reasonable to conclude that the current state of things is a growing state of emergency. — fdrake

I'm keeping an eye on it. If Trump somehow manages to stay in office we'll be in a very, very different place politically obviously. I expect him gone in a few weeks. No more.

Antifascist action is a preventative measure in the same way that education is on a societal level. — fdrake

I'm with you 100% that widespread antifascist education would be a good thing for society, though. It just seems that there's no way to educate the knives out of those protesters' bodies. — fdrake

Antifa and strong social/racial justice movements are going about it in a very tactically questionable way. I mean does it really make sense to you that a fascist is going to recant his views after getting punched? The fascist already thrives on violence.

Have you ever seen Scared Straight? They take a bunch of juveniles and send them prison so the prisoners can scare and intimidate them into being good. The program was shut down because I don't think it had any sort of positive effect on the kids. It also shows a complete lack of knowledge of a young person's psyche. What did they think would happen when you've got a 15 year old juvenile who's got a rough life and now he's got all these prisoners telling him that he's not tough enough to make it?

Come on.

It's the same with racists, you got to acclimate them slowly, don't bombard them with in-your-face anti-racism material. Introduce them to decent, socially well adjusted minorities. Show them a bit of personal support. Bond over some hobbies. Daryl Davis managed to convince over 200 klansmen to denounce and leave the klan through this approach. Proven results. We both want the same thing, we just disagree on how to best go about it.

What an odd thing to say. The only meaning I can extract is that you think it's possible that, if you were Hispanic, it would be understandable that you might pro-fascist. — Kenosha Kid

You're so close!

Nah man, being Ashkenazi Jewish gives me a direct and deeply personal relationship with Nazism that no other racial/ethnic group, with the exception of gypsies, can match.

You were so close. This isn't about hispanics being pro-fascist.

You condemn the entirety of Antifa if one of its members punches a journalist — Kenosha Kid

Have you talked with Streetlight, by any chance? Are you at all familiar with the more militant side of the movement? If I remember correctly antifa has assassinated people and tried to commit terrorist acts.

It goes without saying that I condemn anyone punching journalists. Do I need to tell you this 1000 times?

but you disregard anti-fascist expression for being disruptive. Does this sound in any way decent and fair to you? — Kenosha Kid

Peaceful protests are fine, I condemn shouting down speakers in private venues and disruptions of public hearings.

I'd be totally fine with antifa if they just peacefully protested, but that's just not the reality.

No, you DON'T obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis. Your primary concern is that they are not getting the voice you think they should despite the fact that they are systematically violent and intolerant, that evil anti-fascists are denying them their right to expression by exercising theirs. The hypocrisy of far-right argument is always the same. You DO obviously condemn those that fight back, you go out of your way to do so and tar as many on the left-wing with the same brush as often as you can. Condemning the violence of the right is always a last resort when you realise you can't actually judge the left for rare acts of violence and uphold the long and horrendous history of violence of the right. "No, they're bad to but let's back to Antifa..." It's overtly BS dude. The day the likes of you and Nos OBVIOUSLY condemn the violence of the right wing I will have a heart attack. — Kenosha Kid

You know, you might not know this about me because my username is "Carlos" but I'm actually not hispanic.

I'm actually an Ashkenazi Jew with family from Ukraine, a good portion of which were murdered in cold blood by actual Nazis.

So do you need me to condemn that? Because you never know, I could support it. How many times do I need to condemn that for me to be okay in your book? Should I also condemn the holocaust? I just wanna make sure I'm cool in your book and that I'm one of the good guys.

No but seriously how many times do you need me to say that I condemn right wing aggression, because apparently always mentioning it when you press me isn't enough for you.

Okay, so it's nothing constitutional even, you just dislike people who protest on campus, presumably no matter what they're protesting about. It's college. There's going to be protests. — Kenosha Kid

I don't care if you peacefully protest, but don't disrupt presentations. Protest all you want, I don't care.

Your entire argument against anti-fascism was that it opposes the founding principles of your country. I'm just trying to figure out the logic behind your position. — Kenosha Kid

I recanted on the first amendment argument. I said that I don't like them because they're thugs.

It's bad also to assault journalists including if you're an Antifa member. — Kenosha Kid

Good to hear we're on the same page. There are numerous antifa members or antifa sympathizers here who support it, just so you know. You need to educate your compatriots.

So if you're not reformist, you obviously don't respect the laws. That makes no sense. Are you a reformist then? — Kenosha Kid

Antifa doesn't seek to work within the system, antifa seeks to destroy the system. That's the difference between reformers and revolutionaries.