From: Razer <g2s AT riseup.net>
>Antifa hit the big-time in 2017 when an
as-yet-unidentified inauguration protester punched 38-year-old
professional fascist cheerleader Richard Spencer in the face on
camera. The clip went viral, and the Internet memed it to
death—now you can even punch Spencer in a mobile game!
Naturally, the Democrats and leftists considered that abusive, and decried it immensely.
Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, Razer talks up 'punching Spencer', as if that's somehow a new and innovative concept. Is Razer merely pretending to not know about "Slap Hillary", or is he just displaying his immense ignorance?
>"As the video spread, interest in anti-fascism spiked,"
I could also say, "As Germany invaded Poland and France, interest in Naziism spiked". Hint: "Interest" is not necessarily a positive point of view. But you knew that, right? You weren't trying to mislead anybody, right?
>and I can
say, based on personal experience, that the attitude at
demonstrations has changed."
Yes, we now see them as "rioters", and not mere "protestors".
>" Where masked and black-clad antifa
used to get wary glares, now it’s thumbs-up and “right on!” from
In the area of sales, this kind of statement is called "puffery". If there were even only two "kid-toting parents" somewhere in the country that "thumbs-up'd" and "right on!"d such riots, technically you could say your statement is correct. But it would still be extremely misleading...as you no doubt intended.
> Former congressman and Michigan institution
John Dingell tweeted “When I was a pup, punching Nazis was
encouraged. Hell, some of my Army buddies won medals for it.”
Except that the definition of "Nazis" that Dingell used when he was young had virtually nothing to do with the sloppy and overbroad brush that you, Razer, paint with. Dingell's "Nazis" actually CLAIMED to be Nazis, were proud of that characterization, they invaded countries, gassed people, etc, and were not merely people who wanted the country to break with its 8-year path of Obama's policies, and another 8 of Clinton's. (Not to mention 8 years of Bush 43's invasion of Iraq; Don't forget him!)
Full disclosure: Since my discovery of the idea I labelled, "Assassination Politics", I have been an anarchist Libertarian. Thus, I have no particular objection to GENUINE anarchists protesting Trump's policies, or Milo Yiannopoulis' speeches, etc, __IF__ they are consistently objecting to ALL government, at least in proportion to its size and level of intrusiveness. Did they protest, and riot, against Obama's administration? To Hillary Clinton's proposals? Bernie Sander's ideas? Bill Clinton's administration? Or even George Bush 43?
The problem is, I suspect that the large majoriity of "anarchists" we are recently (weeks, months) hearing about are actually not objecting to government in general: They are just complaining that the existing government is changing in control to people who they don't like. Some (most?) of them may actually like, or even love, government, but only if the kind of people and philosophies they like are controlling it. But it's much more convenient for them to drop any overt association with government, because if they didn't they'd actually have to defend that position, and not merely object to the policies of the new Administration.