What do you think of Andy Ngo?

Meanwhile, there are, of course, plenty of people openly espousing the following principles:

• Opposition to democracy
• Racial essentialism
• Antisemitism
• Promotion of censorship
• Approval of violence as a political tool

They generally go by names such as "Momentum" or "antifa" or the like, and they love the notion of an ever present fascist threat, as it justifies many of their antisocial activities.

Brilliant

And it is typically thus with violent protest. Some people who identify as being on the left love this, as it allows them to cast themselves and their movements as being freedom fighters, heroically sticking it to the man, and forcibly taking their freedoms from their oppressors. In reality, it's generally it's mostly just idiots taking an opportunity to punch others, and feel good about themselves afterwards.

This.

The goal is anti-fascism surely. There may be other groups, some of whom may share supporters with antifa whose goals are anti-capitalism, or anti-police and engage in physical confrontation on that basis but that doesn't mean they are antifa.

Oh yes, it couldn't possibly be the sainted freedom fighters who identify as Antifa who are doing bad things! Acceptance without exception, jj!

They aren't hiding behind the door they are marching in the street, sieg heiling in some cases in Europe. Fascism didn't disappear in 1945, Oswald Moseley's Union Movement was active in the UK until the late 70s, when groups like the National Front became more prominent eventually developing into the BNP, who eventually splintered into groups like Britain First, the fringes of UKIP, the EDL etc. There are similar stories across Europe and there are groups in the US inspired by these movements and worse with several active neo-nazi groups currently operating. To pretend they don't exist, and have played no role in far right mobilisations here and abroad is either deliberate dishonesty or willful ignorance.

Or just realism. There are a lot of people who clothe themselves in the imagery of fascism, knowing that it is powerful and offensive. There are some people who actually identify as fascism in a meaningful way, but they are a tiny, tiny number of people, and have no significant role in modern society. The fact that Oswald Mosely was still alive in the 1970s, trying to push his fascist dreams does not mean that fascism had any real hold in Britain at the time. And there is certainly no fascist conspiracy, trying to infiltrate modern society.

Meanwhile, there are, of course, plenty of people openly espousing the following principles:

• Opposition to democracy
• Racial essentialism
• Antisemitism
• Promotion of censorship
• Approval of violence as a political tool

They generally go by names such as "Momentum" or "antifa" or the like, and they love the notion of an ever present fascist threat, as it justifies many of their antisocial activities.

You just can't tell some people. even with real world, actual first person examples.

I can never quite work out the logic of raging antisemites accusing everyone they disagree with of being a nazi but it's not uncommon IME.

There is far more evidence that Arun Gupta is a raging racist antisemite than there is evidence that Andy Ngo is a nazi.

I have no doubt that Andy Ngo is right wing and is not a friend to women. I have no doubt that Arun Gupta is a racist antisemite and is also no friend to women.

^ This

Did you actually read my post? I specifically said that fascists work wth MRAs to form the far right movement, not that MRAs are fascists, although somevery likely are.

Yes, I did, but it was blah, blah, blah, fascists hiding behind the door, so was treated with the contempt it deserved.

Fascism is a highly authoritarian and anti-democratic political ideology which supports a rigid segmentation of society into roles serving a nationalist agenda and whose power depends on extreme violence both within and outside of the borders of the state. There are many amongst the far right who quite openly support this ideology.

I think most journalists come across as a bit of a dick on twitter.

I follow loads of journalists on twitter. None of their timelines look remotely like Arun Gupta's.

Are you joking? I'm a bit of a stickler myself for pointing out the difference between highly authoritarian states such as Franco's Spain, or racist states such as the apartheid era in South Africa and Fascist states such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. But fascism didn't end there, it has developed and there are many adherents of fascism both in Europe and in the US - who work together with ultra authoritarians, organised racists, extremist libertarians, men's rights activists, the Klan, internet edgelords and others in a movement that is usually described as the far right.

When MRAs plan an invasion of Russia, to secure territory for the expansion of the master race, then you can call them fascists. Which is not to say that MRA culture is not toxic or dangerous, just that they aren't fascists in any meaningful sense.

I can never quite work out the logic of raging antisemites accusing everyone they disagree with of being a nazi but it's not uncommon IME.

There is far more evidence that Arun Gupta is a raging racist antisemite than there is evidence that Andy Ngo is a nazi.

I have no doubt that Andy Ngo is right wing and is not a friend to women. I have no doubt that Arun Gupta is a racist antisemite and is also no friend to women.

Why is one of these men 'well worth reading' and the other not?

Do you think women are so stupid that we are unable to read the full range of political opinion without becoming brainwashed by what some bloke reckons?

It doesn't claim to be a statistical analysis. It's a political analysis of how white privilege shapes institutions and the law and perpetuates racism and racist policies.

Clearly. Because it makes claims based upon pseudo-statistical analysis, which form the foundation of the theory, without an understanding of how and why statistics might matter.

What specifically about critical race theory is laughable and stupid?

How can I possibly answer that in a way that you can understand? There is no truth, objectivity, or rationality. The only reality is my 'lived experience' which tells me that CRT is laughable.

The goal is anti-fascism surely. There may be other groups, some of whom may share supporters with antifa whose goals are anti-capitalism, or anti-police and engage in physical confrontation on that basis but that doesn't mean they are antifa.

Unless they have travelled in time back to the 1930s, they are not actually fighting any fascists. So, it is reasonable to ask as to whom they are actually targeting and why.

What specifically about critical race theory is laughable and stupid?

A very basic issue (and I'm not even going so far here as to call it stupid) is that it conflates between group difference and within group difference, which is a fairly straightforward flaw in statistical analysis. It also conflates class analysis with individual experience. The end result is that you get superficially meaningful conclusions based on a foundation of sand.

I didn't know antifa had a water cannon.

What a dishonest and disingenuous thing to say.
I am entiely not surprised.

You are still refusing to acknowledge that for at least those cretins calling themselves antifa here, there is no goal, there are no lofty political aims, just wrecking things mindlessly, violence, broken glass, throwing stones.

You really don't have a clue.

I think the goal of preventing fascism in the US, and of structural racism and ending police violence against black people is as worthy as the Suffragette cause, whose violence incidentally was relentless for a number of years, highly targetted and killed 4 people. I don't agree with everything either group did, but there is no doubt that the violence of the Suffragettes was part of the story of women winning the vote and that violence carried out against fascists has been part of the story of preventing the spread of fascism.

There is something deeply unsettling about the fetishisation of people who think they are left-wing. If you properly look at, say, the history of the campaign for female suffrage, you might actually see a complex series of events, in which ideas are contested, and concepts of suffrage are rearranged to allow women to vote. It takes a total of 58 years between the election of the first female politicians in 1870, and full female suffrage in England and Wales in 1928. That's not that long in terms of political change.

So, we have a significant political change, driven by the input of a lot of people, mostly involved in peaceful political campaigning. Those people, however, get their important contributions marginalised, and instead the people who only think that they are left-wing fixate on the small and terribly unproductive women who sent out bombs in what was arguably a counter-productive contribution to the cause.

And it is typically thus with violent protest. Some people who identify as being on the left love this, as it allows them to cast themselves and their movements as being freedom fighters, heroically sticking it to the man, and forcibly taking their freedoms from their oppressors. In reality, it's generally it's mostly just idiots taking an opportunity to punch others, and feel good about themselves afterwards.

calling critical race theory a dangerous extremist ideology

Yeah, that’s unfair. It’s a laughable, stupid ideology. And no, can’t provide evidence for that because reality is a social construct, isn’t it?

It's not a 'pro alt right thread', it's a thread about whether Andy Ngo has anything interesting and informative to say about antifa.

It's a thread of people apologising for alt-right poster boys like Ngo, claiming anti-fascists are a bigger threat to society than fascists, supporting the Heritage Foundation, saying Momentum equals cancer, calling critical race theory a dangerous extremist ideology and Trump style fearmongering about' anteefah'. Sounds pretty alt right to me.