Come on. I get what you're going for, William the 6th. An intro that reads as a statement of support which (hopefully) softens the blow off telling Antifa to get their shit together, and stop tripping over their ideological shoelaces. It's a worthy attempt, coming from the benevolent editorlord of the most Pro-Antifa publication in PDX. And long overdue, said by someone who who is certainly more anti, than pro, on the "Fa" scale.

But seriously. I mean, SERIOUSLY.

It's called a false dichotomy. Or a false dilemma. But whatevs, it's Ethics & Debate 101. I can 100% be against Antifa as an organization (I'm not) and still be 100% against political leaders, groups, movements, and policy that are fundamentally fascist (I am). Just like a "Democratic" politician can pass a bill via fundamentally un-democratic means (big & small "d" is intentional, btw), and a registered Republican taxpayer can vote, run a business, and have worldviews that are fundamentally antithetical to republicanism.

Or I can be 63% against Antifa. Or I can can not even know who they are, and still not fall into your shitty logical jungle tiger trap pit of being "Profa".

Side note - I think I was most disappointed that you didn't make a proplylactic pun in that article. I know it was in you, somewhere. I've been reading you for longer than my now-defunct marriage, and I know you know how to make a dirty dad joke.

I do applaud your effort. But... I guess... for us poor, suffering liberal arts majors out there, don't set the whole thing up, right out of the gates, on the laziest logical fallacy in the book? Please?

Sirlicksalot literally said "i can be a neo Nazis and still be a democrat" and then proceeded to use an incredibly failing argument that "ican be oreange and still be purple". No dipshit. You either are against white Christian identity extremists, or you're not. You creating this ridiculous "on the fence" argument only further validates the original article. Hired? Maybe at Quillette...

So, you're either with us or against us? You don't get to define other people's opinions for them. In this ridiculously simplistic dichotomy you propose I would have to say I'm against you, then. I oppose thugs who seek to control the thoughts and speech of others, because fascists are defined by their actions, not whatever silly name they puck for their "group". And Auntie Fay are some serious fascists.

it's the "either/or" fallacy and it's been used as a rhetorical device by third rate interlocutors since socrates was a baby. e.g.: george w. bush:" you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."