Alright, time to stop ignoring the J6 discourse...

It is necessary to confront the Proud Boys because the Proud Boys are only coming to DC to fight "antifa," and if there are no antifascists there, they will simply assault whoever they determine is "antifa."

Because the Proud Boys are racist, sexist homophobes, this generally ends up being racial, ethnic, or sexual minorities.

This happens and the police allow this to happen. Some form of pushback is necessary.
The Proud Boys exist only to create violence. They are not a drinking club, they are a militant political wing of the Republican Party, and their mission is to generate a cultural notion of right wing immunity.
This is the violent obverse of the same coin that has the Republican Party's other immunities on the reverse: the ability to tamper with elections, engage in financial fraud, ignore the Constitution, and in general participate in corruption.
However, while the Proud Boys must be confronted, we must also recognize that their entire raison d'être is that antifa also shows up to face this confrontation.
Therefore, we can hold two positions simultaneously:

- that it is necesssary to confront the acute, instantaneous threat the Proud Boys represent;
- that the sustained, cumulative threat is not mitigated by these instantaneous confrontations.
For the past three+ years people have been fighting the Proud Boys from Charlottesville to Portland and everyplace in between.

While this helps safeguard those communities in those moments, there is no outcome-based lens in which this represents sustained progress
Progress is not represented as a sum of parts. Fighting off the Proud Boys one day does very little to discourage them from coming back another day, despite it being necessary to fight them off in the first place.
Proud Boys and their affiliates have been fought, arrested, stabbed, shot, and killed at events, but this has not dampened their enthusiasm to commit more violence.

And, as I said, not showing up will also not dampen that enthusiam, either.
What we need is a more comprehensive strategy for addressing the threat of fascist street violence that exists in the moments in between their actions.

Some of this exists--doxing campaigns and other activism does have some effect, but it is not enough.
So we cannot claim the threat is gone if antifascists don't show up. That would be catastrophic.

But also we cannot claim that showing up is winning, even when that moment is won.
The Alt-Right was devastated partly because people showed up to oppose them in the streets, but also partly because of numerous arrests, doxes, and immense lawsuits.
The Alt-Right also found the idea of dominating their enemies fun, but it turned out a bunch of pencil-neck twenty-somethings couldn't dominate so much in the street.
It stopped being fun for them when their crows of 12 attendees didn't meet their vision of grandeur AND they went and got their asses kicked anyways and then got arrested for doing a terrorism, and then got sued to oblivion.
For the Proud Boys, they enjoy the street combat. So to fight the Proud Boys we need not just a strategy for J6, but a strategy for J7 and beyond.
Anyhow, the Proud Boys have changed very little since I covered them and their violence a couple years ago for PRA:

https://t.co/bgSaceID4i

More from Emily of the State

Ok so there’s a conspiracy theory going around that this woman was faking her injury with an onion.

This is likely false. Onions are a folk remedy for pepper spray.


The theory, which has some merit, is that since onions make you cry, it helps flush the irritants from your eyes with natural tears.

However, this is not recommended as a treatment for pepper spray and is ultimately not very effective.

Pepper spray, tear gas, mace, CN, HC, and other agents are best removed with a flush of water or, if you have the proper mixture, saline. Nothing else.

We do not do chemistry in our eyeballs. We are not putting chemicals in our eyes. We are not putting produce in our eyes. We are removing the chemicals with safe, neutral water.

More from Society

Hi @officestudents @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equality and Diversity section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

However...

1/15


However, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.

2/15


You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

3/15


Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

4/15


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

5/15

You May Also Like