I am extraordinarily frustrated by about 80% of people (from all directions) treating it as some pedantic thing to reserve the term "antifa" for actual antifa groups.

But now here we are. And where else could we be from being so near-universally careless about something this serious? 15/15

So then you get things like J. D. Vance using his time on the Charlie Kirk show to insinuate that liberal NGOs were behind the Kirk murder. And if this executive order is acted upon seriously, it will basically *criminalize dissent.*

The discursivd conditions here are *tailor-made* for that. 14/15

Now you have people saying "we're antifa" in connection to innocuous left phrases / imagery, making those identifiers of "antifa membership."

And what's "antifa?" The group who brought riots and assassinations.

There's no such group, you say? But here are several groups named "antifa!" 13/15

The danger should be apparent with this executive order. It collides with the right-wing fever dream image of antifa as all-purpose left-wing paramilitary to create an image of a bunch of innocuous left or even liberal groups as involved in organized mass political violence. 12/15

This is often done either by low-info hyperpolarized progs or by people defending antifa as it actually exists via obfuscation, so they don't have to seriously confront the very obvious problems with violence against speech and assembly. This is both nauseatingly annoying and dangerous. 11/15

And then there's the other loose use of the term, which has been left-of-center people saying braindead things like "antifa just means anti-fascist," and then outright identifying with "antifa" in that insanely tedious way, or saying this or that left-coded thing "is antifa" *positively.* 10/15

And if you think there are highly organized groups deliberately planning all kinds of political violence (and now assassinations!), *of course* you're going to want that sharply dealt with.

How could a normie who believes this *not* be demanding an executive order like this? 9/15

In other words, there's just no way to reasonably expect this loose use of language to *not* result in a lot of low-information people sincerely developing a belief in highly organized all-purpose left-wing paramilitary groups, as well-parodied at the end of Eddington. 8/15

And this isn't pedantic.

It matters: if you see a bunch of *actual, organized groups* that are self-labeled as "antifa" with members, meetings, etc, and *also* that "antifa rioted" etc, this *invites* the perception of a deliberate organized plan from actual antifa groups. How could it not? 7/15

It is no more reasonable or accurate, for example, to say that the Summer 2020 riots involved "antifa rioters" than it would be to say that January 6th involved "Tea Party rioters" or even "NRA rioters."

Words refer to particular things, and an overlap of member support =/= an org acting. 6/15

First, a lot of people have used it to just mean all left militants with a vaguely black bloc aesthetic. Some people, to my extreme frustration, do this *knowingly*, thinking it's "close enough" or whatever.

But it's simply not true: antifa is a *particular* network of orgs. Not a vibe. 5/15

But my very strong substantive disagreements with antifa as it actually exists feel a bit beside the point in our surreal political environment.

There are two ways that people have carelessly used the term insanely loosely, which are about to collide horrifically. 4/15

Two clarifications:

1. Re not as bad as popular imagination, I've *never* seen a truly confirmed instance of an actual antifa group labeling, e.g., Ben Shapiro or whatever a fascist.

2. Re Boogs, I also have (strong) issues with them, but the "they're fascists" thing was just bullshit.

3b/15

(The video linked is from a major Boogaloo figure discussing the murder of Garrett Foster, a BLM protester who was murdered in Texas while defending his disabled wife. Foster was also a Boogaloo Boy.

They simply are not fascists. No serious inquiry suggests that they are.)

youtu.be/NddN1vmlvPA?...

I am also very critical of antifa as it actually exists in terms of their ability to identify actual fascists / near-fascists. It's not as bad as popular imagination of them, but their consensus was *confidently* flatly wrong about the Boogaloo Boys.

3/x

And the elaboration in each of these:

c4ss.org/content/50217

c4ss.org/content/50349

c4ss.org/content/50498

2b/15

I think antifa's acceptance of aggressive violence for disrupting fascist speech and assembly is both morally unacceptable and a truly horrific strategic blunder (as seen, incidentally, by this and other recent events).

For more on that, see this: c4ss.org/content/50169

2/15

Antifa exists, and it's a pretty small number of groups narrowly tailored to frustrating organization by perceived fascists.

I am *very* critical of antifa as it actually exists, but this is awful for the usual reasons + two loose uses of the term that make this even worse. 1/15