I asked you to state what was wrong with my definition, you did not bother to do so. It is disingenuous to act as though I dogmatically presented a definition which I have suggested is not open to challenge.
I actually addressed the problems with your definitions more than once, I just did it while oozing sarcasm.
I will take your failure to supply an alternative definition as a tacit admission that you can do no better than mine.
Why would I define a thing I don't believe exists? I'm saying the group the alt-right media describes doesn't exist. I don't have my own definition, and don't care what yours is.
So, you are sticking to the absurd idea that I need to provide evidence of terrorist attacks in order to demonstrate that a non-terrorist organisation exists.
You don't need to provide shit. I never asked you to provide anything. But don't you the vigilante thugs should have done some thuggery? Like, a lot, to be getting all this press? (I offer that rhetorically, as a way to say I don't think that would be absurd at all, that's not a request for anything.)
Yes, what a fool I am to believe mainstream media reports from no less than four different sources. The onus is on you to demonstrate why those sources are unreliable, something which you are yet to do. At this point it is beyond clear that you are more interested in cheap shots and than discussing the merits of your erroneous claim.
You know, some animal welfare kids stole a baby cow the other day, and that made the evening news. Antifa hasn't done shit. Tell me, wise one, in what way can I better demonstrate the nothingness that is not happening? Please don't hurt my onus, I need it to meet your demands!
Yet again, you put words in my mouth. I said not all of them have a good grip on what fascism is, I acknowledged that others do. There is a huge difference between saying 'some members of Antifa don't know what fascism is' and 'All members of Antifa don't know what fascism is'. I expect you are well aware of this, and are intentionally twisting what I say in order to make it seem less plausible than it actually is. If your position was on as firm a logical footing as you would like to suggest then I suspect you would not have to misrepresent my claims in order to discredit them.
I didn't know pointing out the problems with your definition, which you said I failed to do, counted as putting words in your mouth. I guess that's a convenient way to get around that.
Militant antifascism is a tactic, Antifa is a decentralised organisation which engages in this tactic. Yes, if a group of people self-identify as Antifa and engage in militant antifascism then my understanding is they more or less meet the definitionof Anitfa. I would appreciate if Spacejunk could clarify the matter for me, since I am sure he has a better grip on an appropriate definition than either of us do.
Tactics. Well, don't tactics have outcomes? Where are the tactical successes or failures? How do you even know they DON"T pass out literature at these things?
I DEMAND AN ANWER
I don't believe anyone should be sucker punched, who is suggesting Nazi's ought to be a protected class? Once again, you are completely fabricating things.
I wish I could fabricate little acrylic doo-dads like I've seen, when parts break. If you can't follow my logic, on how your definitions lead to Nazism as a protected class, then maybe you should reject or rethink this definition of yours. To repeat, it's not my definition. I didn't come up with that idiotic idea.