No. No it isn’t. Scott is just a moron who happens to also be able to draw (badly) characters that corporate office drones relate to. He’s absolutely trying to attack the current Anti-facist movement in the USA.
I mean yeah, he is, but saying it’s new isn’t why he’s talking bollocks. There was an Antifa that the modern antifa claims ideological descent from, and that is what he is claiming supported Hitler.
The issue is that what Antifa actually is and how the public perceives it are two different things. This is why certain people will believe this as much as NSDAP being socialists because it is in the name which makes them leftists unless you really give a history lesson. And from experience that will end up in that they either say that’s just your opinion, look at you with glassed eyes or never even listened to you into the end.
Yes, both are historically really incorrect and at the level of a glance funny in inaccuracy. But on more deeper level this (insert the right fallacy or tactic as it escapes me) is a lot more insidiously dangerous. How do you efficiently encounter it in a way that most people will come out of the discussion with the most accurate knowledge?
No. No it isn’t. Scott is just a moron who happens to also be able to draw (badly) characters that corporate office drones relate to. He’s absolutely trying to attack the current Anti-facist movement in the USA.
I mean yeah, he is, but saying it’s new isn’t why he’s talking bollocks. There was an Antifa that the modern antifa claims ideological descent from, and that is what he is claiming supported Hitler.
The issue is that what Antifa actually is and how the public perceives it are two different things. This is why certain people will believe this as much as NSDAP being socialists because it is in the name which makes them leftists unless you really give a history lesson. And from experience that will end up in that they either say that’s just your opinion, look at you with glassed eyes or never even listened to you into the end.
Yes, both are historically really incorrect and at the level of a glance funny in inaccuracy. But on more deeper level this (insert the right fallacy or tactic as it escapes me) is a lot more insidiously dangerous. How do you efficiently encounter it in a way that most people will come out of the discussion with the most accurate knowledge?