I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across. I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
In that case, I suppose you also oppose the Civil Rights Movement, considering it too was often violent and had a significant amount of property damage.
I would oppose their methods, not the movement (ideology, cause call it what you want)
But their methods were a result of their material conditions, and resulted in the liberation of Black Americans from segregation. Do you not equally take fault with the white moderates who opposed ending segregation and used disapproval of their methods as rhetoric?
Unfortunately, when protests get extreme, there is inevitably some level of violence, whether that be to people or property. It is the responsibility of the state to prevent it from getting this bad. People don’t just think “hmm, today I will do some violence,” violence erupts as a consequence.
violence is inevitable, oh joy
Not what I said. If protests last long enough and are founded on unsustainable material conditions, the State has failed and protests will become Riots. “Riots are the voice of the unheard,” after all.
If you think peacefully asking people to stop being pieces of shit works, then you learned a completely whitewashed version of the Civil Rights Movement. MLK led marches and tried to maintain peace, but alongside the militant Black Panthers there was genuine revolutionary pressure that forced the state to act.
Even that’s a terrible view, politics aside.
I slap someone.
I shank them with a rusty scrap of metal to the neck
One of these is obviously worse. Yes, both are violence. Yet to simply try and paint them as such would show you’re either not arguing in good faith, or, as respectfully as possible, your brain hasn’t fully developed.
But let’s mix it up. I slap someone. But I, a man that’s 6’2" and does physical labor, slapped an infant for crying. Seems a little worse than it did at first, huh?
I am being attacked by a random person who is trying to murder me, and in a panic, I grab something, and attack him with it. Turns out it was a rusty piece of metal. Now we have hints of self defense.
Once again, still violence, but both were to different degrees, and the context changed both of them.
Why can’t the oppressed peacefully get their rights from their oppressors?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
Cooperate wants you to find the difference:
- Storming the capitol
- Violent Antifa protests
One is an attempt to overthrow democracy and install a fascist theocratic dictatorship. The other is protesting directly against that. While you may not agree with their methods, which is frankly childish and placing the responsibility for our social climate in the laps of the oppressed, you cannot in good faith smile smugly and say “same”.
Fuck the liberation of second world war etc
That was a war, the violent resistance was against a hostile occupation, not a social issue.
We live under a hostile occupation by security forces employed by the wealthy class, there are deaths everyday due to the systems maintained by wealth and greed.
That is just delusional mental gymnastics if you think the US is fascist.
I didn’t say the US was fascist, I’m saying our world is controlled by hoards of wealth and nearly all state actions are to protect that wealth and the people that hold it at the cost of the well-being of the proletariat.
Social issues are often hostile occupations.
Especially when it comes to fascists
Aka fascism
I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
“I’m all for trying to protect people and save lives, but you used vandalism!” Clutches pearls in a death grip
What about violence? Murder? Mass Murder? Where would you draw the line, which reaction is out of proportion?
Mass murder is appropriate treatment of fascists who are holding guns. AKA war. The second big one.
Do you think people normally resort to mass murder in protest of, say, slightly decreased toilet paper thickness? If there’s an issue that is so pressing that there’s actually mass murder, then the State is an utter failure for not addressing said issue before it got to that point, and is almost certainly a fascist system.
This is just a strawman.
yes, let’s hope the protestors are well adjusted and their measures are proportional. After all ideologies have never caused anyone to commit a tragedy.
People are driven by their material conditions far more than ideas. Mass protests happen for a reason, there are genuine grievances that are not being addressed. It is the responsibility of the state to properly address protests, and if they fail, they become riots.
No, violence is not good. Nobody is saying it is. However, people are correctly placing the responsibility of the origin of said violence on the oppressor, not the oppressed lashing out.
Please, open a history book.
That’s quite the slippery slope fallacy. I replied to your comment of:
I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across. I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
Which at no point mentions mass murder. “Oh, you support people protesting? What about BLOWING UP THE PLANET IN PROTEST?! Is THAT okay then?”
The fact that you equate property damage with mass murder really says a lot about you.
Whose life got saved by Antifa?
Considering Antifa isn’t a group, the same number of people who have been saved by Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.
If you’re asking whose life has been saved by protests and property damage then I direct you to the Civil Rights movement.
I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across
so, you condemn the boston tea party, right?
I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
what’s your favorite successful social movement from history that didn’t use any vandalism to get a message across?
I do. Oh violence worked in the past ( and we all know how good the past was) sol let’s do it now too, in the 21st century.
Yeah, Hitler would have stopped if somebody just asked him nicely. I don’t like violence either, but you can’t defeat fascism without actions.
Show us on the doll where Aunt Tifa touched you.
Pretty sure that anti-anti-fascism is just straight-up a Nazi trope.
Not really there are anti antifa centrists and leftists that are simply against extremist movements. At least where i live antifa is pretty militant so people basically group it with the fascists which is pretty ironic if you think about it. A long time ago i was also anti antifa but seeing the lenghts that “conservatives” go to fuck up everything we love im also swinging to a more violent leftism.
This is a wording error, a lot of people fell for. Antifa only means you are against fascism and nothing more.
More simpler? If you aren’t a fascist, you are antifa!
You would think so, but the people on my region that call themselfs “antifa” are fasist themselves. No tolerant on who you are or how you look if you are a “white straight male”
How would you define “fascism”?
Where I came from it’s the right wings, who wants you believe antifa is a criminal organisation which is far more extremist and radical than themselves.
This is just propaganda. Sure leftists use the term “antifa” more than the average not extremist people but this has nothing to do with the fact, that everyone who is against fascism is an antifa.
tl;dr: Sorting the “antifa” wording to the “baddies” is rightwing propaganda.
According to Wikipedia (I know, but it is a protected article), antifa is a loose organization of autonomous groups that use both non-violent and violent means. Based on that last part alone, I would say that is perfectly reasonable to NOT identify as antifa even if one generally agrees with their agenda.
As for vilifying the opposition, that does seem like just the thing the right wing would do to avoid taking responsibility for their own stupidity.
Hahaha sure Wikipedia says that lol
I mean, it literally does:
Who is saying it doesnt?
You just say fuck fascists, that is antifa, then you say fuck antifa that means fuck yourself? It is very simple to understand. If you are against fascism you are already antifa. Then stop. No need to fuck any more. You are the fascist and then fuck fascism because anti fascism is bad to your fascism but you hate fascism? Good luck with the self fucking puzzle
At least where i live antifa is pretty militant
You’re full of shit. Show me an article of your “militant antifa”. If it’s as bad as you say someone will be reporting on it.
Mainstream media would kill to get the scoop on this.
An “anti-anti fascist centrist”. What the hell!?
Centrist Nazis, you know, like “I don’t want to kill them all, I just want them to… Not… Be… Here… Anymore…”
Anti-antifa… That’s just fascism with extra steps.
The difference between the extreme wings is miniscule. Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.
In Germany half of the voters of the Ultra-Left Party “Linkspartei” went within one election to the Ultra-Right Party “Alternative für Deutschland”. Even starnger, the AfD is financed by Putin who wants to recreate Stalinism, which is Ultra-Leftist, while the AfD wants to recreate a Führer-Cult which is Ultra-Right. And still both cooperate perfectly.
People need to understand that the Extremists on the wings are closer to each other than to the middle. While the middle tries to better things in small steps the Extremists want to burn the house down with everyone inside and then see who survives.
Never compare me to a German again
I don’t think Lemmy is ready to hear that kind of thing.
Extreme wings sounds like a crispy chicken dish
Sorry, but this is just horseshoe-theory Enlightened Centrist nonsense.
Methods? No. The far-right relies on terror, fear, and explicit power structures such as a police state to maintain power. Leftists oppose such structures, even on the ultra-left.
Objectives? Absolutely not. Right-wingers seek to maintain Capitalism, the far-right seeks to implement fascism as a reactionary protection of Capitalist hierarchy, complete with racial and gender hierarchy. The extreme left, ie Anarchists and Communists, seek a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society based on horizontal power structures. Completely different.
Goals? Same as objectives.
Horseshoe theory is absolute nonsense, and is used to protect the status quo even if the status quo must be radically changed.
Stalin and Pol Pot and Saddam used mostly the same methods as Hitler and as Pinochet and just like the Taliban.
They wanted total power to reform the society to their day dreams. There is not much difference if you call your Economy Plan “Five Year Plan” or “Maximale Kriegswirtschaft”. In the end everyone gets under the foot of the Big Brother, the Grosser Führer, вождь woschd (Yes, Stalin let himself call Führer as did several other Extremist leaders).
We need to learn that the Extremists are much further away from the middle than the parties of the middle to each other. But also the Extremists are much closer to themselves.
Even Trump and Putin show a lot of those methods and while Trump dreams of US Fascism and Putin dreams of Reviving Stalinism their Objectives are just the same: Total power for themselfes.
Oh, I hear you already screaming “But they weren’t Socialists/Fascists” - well, they were part of the Socialist International, they called themselves Socialists and people travelled there to see Socialism. “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
The Way less extreme people defend themselves from the more extreme people is just “But they weren’t true right/left wing. They were something else!” - Boy, I am so tired of it. If 99% if your ventures into Extremism always end the same then I see a pattern that the results will ALWAYS be the same.
And seeing how easily East Germans nowadays change from Ultra-Left to Ultra-Right and visa versa I say: Proof by Observation in the Wild.
I am not even talking about the US where 90% of the people simply don’t even understand what left, right, middle, liberal and Extremism means. When giving a kid free health care is socialism and people think free voting is disrespectable liberalism.
This is even more bullshit, lmao. The only leftist you listed was Stalin, every single one of the others is a far-right fascist that oversaw a Capitalist economy. That includes Putin, who is reactionary. Even then, many call Stalin red-fash, and they aren’t entirely wrong either.
Additionally, if you think reactionary changes after states fall is because the far left and far right are similar, then again, you don’t understand historical trends or movements. These are reactionary movements to a large-scale failure.
Again, this is nothing but horse-shoe theory nonsense, it’s equivalent to astrology in validity but far more dangerous politically.
Here’s a quick example: which is better, an extreme antiracist, or an extreme racist? In your eyes, both are equally bad. Radicalism is not bad alone, neither is extremism. Each view must be judged on a case by case basis.
Whenever a Left-Extremist does something stupid his buddies just claim “Well, he wasn’t Left anyway. Lets just pretend he was a Nazi instead, haha.”
Brilliant. But easy to see through.
The Right-Extremist takes peoples property and life because they are the wrong race. The Left-Extremists takes peples property without reason and life because we wasn’t left enough.
It would be amazing if you could say something coherent about the left without making shit up, lmao
Feel free to quote and analyse any mistakes I made in detail.
And if you can’t: Then you are lying.
The bit about the left taking peoples property for no reason and fighting people for not being left of them screams “strawman with no actual points against leftism” to me. You’ve got this whole “Enlightened Centrist” thing going on that just proves you don’t actually want to analyze things and instead just fence-sit because the status quo benefits you.
By that logic people who are against Focus on the Family are against families. You don’t get to own a concept just by putting it in your name.
Ouch! You should stop applying logic to anything. Forever.
You don’t get to own a concept just by putting it in your name.
Nobody put it in their name. There is no “antifa” group. “Antifa” is a boogyman so that the far right can ignore what people are saying by labeling it “antifa”.
Focus on the family is a hate group that burns down cities.
They don’t care about any families, even if it’s in their title.
I hate Focus on the Family, but…they burned down a city?
Yea, actually like 6 cities. And then they stole the election at gunpoint before opening the border or something idk.
I’m against Mothers Against Drunk Driving but I’m anti drunk driving.
Against x vs
Against what x do vs
Against what x targets vs
Against ideology x vs
Against what may happen if x vs
Against organisation x and so on
These are not identical things
Being against fascism is not the same as being against some organisation that does bad things
Antifa is not an organisation. It’s an idea Just neatly contained to being against fascism
Antifa is an ideology centered around opposing fascism. It isn’t an overarching group.
Someone mentioned antifa at work the other day, and I said, “Antifa? I’m in. Shitting on fascists has been an American pass time for a century or better.”
The looks of shock and horror on my coworkers faces was quite the sight to behold.
You work with fascists then?
Among, not with. The difference lies there.
Ignorami. They’ve been propagandized into hating anti-fascists, that’s why they shortened it to antifa.
Well, I can tell you, in Europe Extremist Voters switch without thinking twice between far left and far right.
Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.
Both hate the West, especially the US and Israel, both hate the way we live but without offering a better way. Both want to burn down the house just to see who survives. Only the Arguments differ, the left hate the people running their own society, the right hate the people running other society.
And always remember, Hitler was a National-SOCIALIST.
The “Socialist” in the NSDAP is only a honeypot so they could claim ground and voters who leaned socialist without much thought (“I’m a mill worker like my father before me, we have always voted socialist. Buuut that National-Thing sounds nice”). Same with the “A” which stands for “Arbeiter” (Workers).
There’s the same with the conservative party (CDU = Christdemokratische Union, Christ-Democratic Union) today. Lots of old people say “I’m a christian and that party has a C for ‘Christianity’ in its name.” In fact, their regional party in Bavaria, the CSU is more conservative. And you have three guesses what their “S” is for.
I mean that would make sense if Antifa had anything to do with fascism. It’s just one of many movements wearing labels that intentionally misrepresent it’s members.
It’s like being anti-Patriot act and then others claiming that you’re against patriotism.
You’re playing into their hands.
Love this argument.
You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.
And that’s like saying “If Black Lives Matter were actually black” or something. Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea. Much like BLM or Occupy.
The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.
I think you are mistaking infiltration for ‘getting spread out too far’.
Nearly all of what you describe can be most easily attributed to planted agitators.
Love this argument.
Me too!
You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.
You’re correct. I wouldn’t. Because I don’t have one.
Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea.
Tell that to it’s supporters.
Much like BLM or Occupy.
Wrong again.
The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.
Well unfortunately this one persists.
BLM and Occipy aren’t organizations. There is a BLM organization. But that’s like if I created an organization called Feminism. That wouldn’t make Feminism an organization. That just means there’s an organization based on the movement.
Feel free to take a seat.
Tell that to it’s supporters.
Okay, find me one.
Antifascism is an idea. There are groups centered around said idea, but “big antifa” isn’t a thing.
Being anti-antifascism is pro-fascism.
It’s more than just “fascist journalist”. Journalists report facts (at least that is what they’re supposed to do), any “blah blah journalist” is just “blah blah”
Also, fuck this guy, he doesn’t fear for his life, it’s just a made up story so they can again shit on those they hate.
He doesn’t fear for his life? There could have been deadly cement in that milkshake!
It’s crazy how many people just on this meme think antifa is an actual organization. 🤦
It’s a movement, isn’t it? That’s still a form of organization.
People are just nitpicking the meaning of the word Organization. Antifa is an organization in a very loose definition of the word. If you want to be more accurate, you’d call it a Network. Organizations (in the stricter sense) has a single leader and has a very tree-like structure with more power on top (like Corporations!), which Antifa obviously is not.
Though you’re correct in that Antifa is a “movement”.
No it’s not. It has no members. It had no leaders. It’s just an idea. What do you think an organization is?
A movement can have members and leaders even without formal organizational hierarchy. It just won’t look the same as something like a corporation, nonprofit, or government. The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader. The people who show up on a cold rainy Saturday instead of staying indoors with a warm cup of tea? Members. Just because membership and leadership is more amorphous doesn’t mean it isn’t there in some form.
The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader
Nahh you got that wrong. What usually happens is that a lot of people who are into politics (which left-extreme people often are) hear about this at the same time (through some press release, some proud boys twitter account who’s rallyin their followers, etc.).
From that point the information spreads over friendsgroups, small discords, tweets, whatsapps, in person, slowly but steadily.
Any left-extreme person who hears this immediately thinks “I’m mad, I wanna show those guys that they’re not welcome”. Granted, some of us think about much more extreme things, but back to the point. The first reaction from that thought is often “is there a counter protest?”. People are then doing the same thing but the other way around, as now everyone is trying to find some tweet, event, whatsapp message screenshot, whatever, of someone saying where the meeting point for an event would be. If none are found, someones gonna create something, which is usuqlly someone who’s got a lot of connections with other left-extremists. Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
Worst case you just have a bunch of friends groups going to the meeting spot of wherever the initial event is happening.
That’s “the antifa”. A massive network of friends and friends of friends of friends who are all pretty aligned in their political views (which is “fuck Nazis”) but who often don’t know more then 5 other antifacists.
Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
This is kind of my point, in a way. It was maybe simplistic to use one person. There is leadership, but there are many leaders, and they don’t have a badge with “Antifa CEO”. Though someone really needs to make stickers with “Antifa CEO”. One of my former managers came from activist circles like antifa. She will always be my favorite manager because she is so great at making sure even shy people feel heard.
The NAACP?
In my opinion it would be a movement if facism was the status quo. Given most people are discussing Western nations, which while adopting facism at an alarming pace; are not yet facist. Antifa is not a movement nor an organization. Since not being facist is the status quo and antifa means that you’re not going to support facism, in my opinion antifa is the current “establishment” and being facist is an effort to move the status quo. Aka a movement.
I find this comment thread horribly ironic, and I hope I can show you why without starting an argument because this is genuinely kind of funny.
Fascism is when a state achieves (or attempts to achieve) totalitarianism through corporatization. All corporations are chartered and controlled through the state, and private industry becomes corporatized.
One of the ways they did this was through legitimizing specific channels of distribution, and labeling all who take a more independent route as illegitimate. Farmers, for example, were coerced into selling their products to state distributors, and pressured out of independent channels. Likewise, farmers who weren’t part of the state organization were often treated with suspicion and derision.
Basically, if you were a _____ and did _____ things, but were not part of the _____ organization, then you weren’t a real ______ no matter how good you are at _____.
Anyway, antifa is a real thing that exists, and that’s the thing people here are talking about. They’re a group that has identifiable goals, and they work together under the label. It’s really funny to me that so many here are appealing to “they’re not even a real org” in the face of dissent, because that’s one of the most fascist mind sets that exist commonplace today.
There is a huge overlap between people who would participate in Antifa and Anarchists, so you can imagine the problems getting a structured organization setup and keeping on task and purpose.
I’m sure that’s part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.
Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they’re not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn’t use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he’s trying to investigate and see what they’re about.
It’s a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don’t mind me asking, if you don’t think the word organization is appropriate, what’s better? I mean I just say group, can’t really be wrong going that general but it also doesn’t say much. Like, when you said “people who participate in Antifa…”, what type of thing are those people participating in?
It’s more of a cause or a movement than an organization. I guess I don’t know why that should be difficult to understand.
Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are “organizing” even if no one is in charge. You don’t need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don’t not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don’t understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It’s like saying that the Deadheads aren’t a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.
Oh so now you are arguing that deadheads were an organization too? Really? In what universe?
How else they are paying their demonstrators money for each demonstration?
Soros, Bill Gates and the Bilderbergs, I guess? Probably also that Davos guy who Alex Jones et al TOTALLY aren’t fixated on for antisemitic reasons either, nuh-uh!
Lol you saying they are not? You are funny
Would you like to tell me the name of the official antifa organisation?
Obviously its Antifa© inc. Everyone learns that in first grade🙄
What’s a fascist mean to you nerds anyways? Like what does it even mean to be anti fascist?
Quoting Georgi Dimitrov:
“Fascism is not a form of state power “standing above both classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,” as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not “the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state,” as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations… The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country.”
confused tucker carlson face
Hey I recognize you. You show up all over JAQing off and concern trolling.
I’m kind of famous around here thanks
All I see is “There is no record of this comment.”
Pretty weird, considering I only bother blocking fascists. Wonder why they’re interested in this topic.
Here’s a list of The 14 common characteristics of fascism. Note that the GOP and their propaganda outlets such as Faux News exhibit every single one of them.
THAT’S what it means to be a fascist.
Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.
I believe that’s Andy Ngo, so yes, absolutely a pro-fascist activist. He was caught on camera actively coordinating with Patriot Prayer, a far-right extremist group.
journalist, which implies some form of neutrality
Oh, my sweet summer child
if they’re not neutral, they’re not journalists. A fascist journalist is just a fascist after all.
In an ideal world you’d be right
In reality that’s not actually a requirement to be one
Fair point. It sucks, but it’s true.
Everybody has some sort of bias towards something. It’s ultimately just an opinion.
Journalistic integrity isn’t about being non-biased, it’s about being upfront about bias and ideally the journalist actively trying to counter their own bias within their work.
The vast majority of journalists work for some sort of publication or news agency, in which they’re beholden to the company owners’ agenda and have to report to an editorial board, which decides what can and can not be published in accordance with their views.
You’re thinking of independent journalists, of which there are very few.
Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.
Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a “firewall” between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.
Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they’ve always been very hands-off. It’s a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn’t care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.
Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You’re completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.
Ah yes, it’s only the evil right wing news outlets that have issues with transparency and corruption, but don’t worry, all the left wing ones are totally honest.
And all billionaires are evil exploiters… unless they own liberal newspapers, then they’re totally ethical and there is no grounds for concern.
And even them have their own biases, no such thing as unbiased journalism.
“Fascist journalist fears for life.” I fail to see where the problem is. People would have been cheering this in 1945.
One problem is that what they’re calling him is completely inaccurate. “Journalist” implies impartiality, of at least content with a non-zero amount of truth.
Real fascist are anti-antifa ? 🧐
There are two separate equations. The third panel shows the negatives cancelling.
