Yes, but you can also call it a murder device. So when you say “anti-gun” and follow your logic we don’t know if you’ve meant you’re anti-defense or anti-murder. The ambiguity exists because of how you framed your example by attaching an inconsistent purpose for the gun.
The same ambiguity does not exist for anti-fascist.
The ambiguity can exist when people have defined “antifa” as a group that takes violent acts to oppose fascism. It could be interpreted as “Please don’t shoot nazis in my streets, because I have to get to work”.
Still, I find the cartoon funny, and I have a better counter for any statement about antifa: “Name one.”
I have a better counter for any statement about antifa: “Name one.”
I can’t name any individual, but it’s the same for fascism
Most of it comes from my personal experience, where basically anything was called fascist. I blame it on a few individuals, but it was a pain
“Don’t agree with our view of life and economy, you’re a fascist!” stuff like that. Those people fuck up the meaning of antifa. Same thing for the few loud individual who act violently in protests. The rude words and the “war atmosphere” used against the alleged facists surely don’t help with this image
What you are saying just reinforces my point. Anti is not a strict negation like it is with not in logical statements. So a gun can be an anti-murder device in context of responsible legal owners and murder device in hands of criminals. There is no contradiction.
The same and obvious inconsistent purpose for guns does not apply to fascism, which is why your example with guns is a poor example.
If you are anti-fascist, you reject fascism.
If you are anti-anti-fascist, you accept fascism.
Similarly,
If you are anti-guns, you reject guns.
If you are anti-anti-guns, you accept guns.
See how it works just as well as “negation” so long as you don’t attach an inconsistent purpose or meaning to what you’re negating?
You can certainly go ahead and assign inconsistency to antifa to make the point that anti-antifa is not equivalent to pro-fascism, but that really has nothing to do with the meaning of the anti- prefix.
Except the word accept does the heavy lifting here. Accept is not the same as support or endorse or being part of. Accepting guns does not mean you are a gun owner. It does not even mean you believe people should own guns. All it means is you don’t believe they should be banned or (heavily) regulated.
Yes, but you can also call it a murder device. So when you say “anti-gun” and follow your logic we don’t know if you’ve meant you’re anti-defense or anti-murder. The ambiguity exists because of how you framed your example by attaching an inconsistent purpose for the gun.
The same ambiguity does not exist for anti-fascist.
The ambiguity can exist when people have defined “antifa” as a group that takes violent acts to oppose fascism. It could be interpreted as “Please don’t shoot nazis in my streets, because I have to get to work”.
Still, I find the cartoon funny, and I have a better counter for any statement about antifa: “Name one.”
I can’t name any individual, but it’s the same for fascism
Most of it comes from my personal experience, where basically anything was called fascist. I blame it on a few individuals, but it was a pain
“Don’t agree with our view of life and economy, you’re a fascist!” stuff like that. Those people fuck up the meaning of antifa. Same thing for the few loud individual who act violently in protests. The rude words and the “war atmosphere” used against the alleged facists surely don’t help with this image
You would be surprised (or not) to learn that this is false
Dam ipitco
Why are you so focused on defending fascists in this whole thread
When did I do so exactly? Criticizing anti-facists doesn’t mean defending fascists
fascists can go fuck themselves
Congratulations, you are antifa.
What you are saying just reinforces my point. Anti is not a strict negation like it is with not in logical statements. So a gun can be an anti-murder device in context of responsible legal owners and murder device in hands of criminals. There is no contradiction.
The same and obvious inconsistent purpose for guns does not apply to fascism, which is why your example with guns is a poor example.
Similarly,
See how it works just as well as “negation” so long as you don’t attach an inconsistent purpose or meaning to what you’re negating?
You can certainly go ahead and assign inconsistency to antifa to make the point that anti-antifa is not equivalent to pro-fascism, but that really has nothing to do with the meaning of the anti- prefix.
deleted by creator
Except the word accept does the heavy lifting here. Accept is not the same as support or endorse or being part of. Accepting guns does not mean you are a gun owner. It does not even mean you believe people should own guns. All it means is you don’t believe they should be banned or (heavily) regulated.
deleted by creator