The Philosophy of Antifa

48:06 J.S. Mill here is a bit of a straw-man in that facist propaganda (error and falsehood) didn't actually defeat truth in open rational debate, as you have laid it out. Propaganda wins in a circus of angry self-effacing delusional groupthink. Liberals are wrong to try to engage facists in rational debate: they know they are rationally losers, and morally wrong, but are criminals betting they can still take the prize if they can get a crowd decision to allow cheating.

Jeremy McMillan

23:00 I wish there were a canonical name for the fallacy of drawing criteria into a critical contrast of opposing perspectives which utterly lack any discriminatory power, ergo are irrelevant to evaluating differences. It's like the opposite of equivocation, a false distinction but not "false distinction" (false dilemma).

Jeremy McMillan

<a href="https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/ethics-and-rationalization/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/ethics-and-rationalization/</a> and not only, to hyperbolic applications.

Jeremy McMillan

Hi Olly, I have a question unrelated to this video (which I loved btw): what do you think of ContraPoints engaging with Nazis in a paid event in Canada? I was very disappointed in her as I felt she was providing these disgusting ppl with a platform and an access to her audience as well as contributing to financing these assholes. I understand if you don't want to comment on that but I would really like to hear your opinion on this, as you're her friend and know her personally.

Lou C

Amazing video by the way.

The comments section is amazing. Users with full blown nazi iconography and names littered with HH's, 14's, and 88's are parroting every single one of the propaganda talking points addressed in the video. Are they bots? Are people making nazi bots? A lot of the responses do fail the turing test...

Excellent - thanks Ollie! One question: You say in part 3 that EVERY political group advocates violence against some other group or groups. Is this always true everywhere, or always true only among European/white political groups? Gandhi's and Mandela's groups seem to be exceptions, as well as MLK's and SPLC - or are these not political groups by your definition? Please clarify.

Excellent video Olly! I have been at an Anti-Fascist rally in my city Southampton before as a counter protest to a group of racists wanting to come and demonstrate through the city. I actually thought Antifa was a separate specific group rather than basically being a broad term for anyone who is willing to stop fascism 'by any means necessary'. Beyond that my only knowledge has been through watching American media (which is generally always going to be negative - hence why I've always taken it with a pinch of salt) and listening to thoughts from Noam Chomsky which is where I've generally drawn my opinions from. You're probably aware, but he's described a lot of Antifa's activities as being 'a gift to the right' with regards to shutting down speaking events and their advocation of violence 'if necessary'. I think his argument was to say violence only works for those willing to be the most brutal and we know who that is. Back in the day he also defended a Holocaust denier's right to speak as well which caused a lot of backlash. My bias tends to sit more with him still, which probably fits more with the standard Liberal view despite him being an Anarchist but I'm not sure. You made some interesting counter points about time where violence has actually worked which definitely bears some thought. Thanks for your time on this one geez 👍

Lord Lav