this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
945 points (97.8% liked)
Political Humor
1479 readers
1168 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok, listen up kids. The anti prefix is not a logical negation. So double anti is not the same as no anti. Let's give an example.
A gun is a device intended for self defense. So you can call it an anti-murder device. If you are anit-gun, therefore anti-anti-murder device, it does not mean you are pro murder. You may be anti-murder and still believe there are too many disadvantages to a gun.
Idk why I, a non-native speaker have to be explaining this.
Of course, anti-anti-facist are probably just facist. I am just saying double anti is not always the same as no anti, not that it is never the case.
EDIT: Since the example seems to be confusing people, let's give a different one. If I am anti-anti-LGBTQ, does that make me LGBTQ? Obviously not. Opposing hate does not change my gender or sexual orientation.
Yes, but you can also call it a murder device. So when you say "anti-gun" and follow your logic we don't know if you've meant you're anti-defense or anti-murder. The ambiguity exists because of how you framed your example by attaching an inconsistent purpose for the gun.
The same ambiguity does not exist for anti-fascist.
The ambiguity can exist when people have defined "antifa" as a group that takes violent acts to oppose fascism. It could be interpreted as "Please don't shoot nazis in my streets, because I have to get to work".
Still, I find the cartoon funny, and I have a better counter for any statement about antifa: "Name one."
I can't name any individual, but it's the same for fascism
Most of it comes from my personal experience, where basically anything was called fascist. I blame it on a few individuals, but it was a pain
"Don't agree with our view of life and economy, you're a fascist!" stuff like that. Those people fuck up the meaning of antifa. Same thing for the few loud individual who act violently in protests. The rude words and the "war atmosphere" used against the alleged facists surely don't help with this image
What you are saying just reinforces my point. Anti is not a strict negation like it is with not in logical statements. So a gun can be an anti-murder device in context of responsible legal owners and murder device in hands of criminals. There is no contradiction.
The same and obvious inconsistent purpose for guns does not apply to fascism, which is why your example with guns is a poor example.
Similarly,
See how it works just as well as "negation" so long as you don't attach an inconsistent purpose or meaning to what you're negating?
You can certainly go ahead and assign inconsistency to antifa to make the point that anti-antifa is not equivalent to pro-fascism, but that really has nothing to do with the meaning of the anti- prefix.
Except the word accept does the heavy lifting here. Accept is not the same as support or endorse or being part of. Accepting guns does not mean you are a gun owner. It does not even mean you believe people should own guns. All it means is you don't believe they should be banned or (heavily) regulated.
You would be surprised (or not) to learn that this is false
Dam ipitco
Why are you so focused on defending fascists in this whole thread
When did I do so exactly? Criticizing anti-facists doesn't mean defending fascists
fascists can go fuck themselves
Congratulations, you are antifa.
Your example does not support the point you're trying to make.
Gun = murder device. Gun <> murder. You can't just arbitrarily switch between the two concepts.
Anti-anti-murder device = pro-murder device. Double negative
Exactly my point. Gun is a killing device. Which means it is a murder device when used to kill illegally and also anti-murder device when used in self defense to stop a murder. Both are true, because anti is not a negative, like logical not is. That is why you can't just cross them out without considering what exactly they mean in the given context.
You seem to have missed the bit that came after: Gun<>murder, so you can't just use the terms interchangeably in the way that you have (category error).
The definition of "anti" is "to oppose" or "opposite" and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being "anti-anti" very strongly implies being "pro", and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
Let's try a different example. If I am anti-anti-gay, does that make me gay? Obviously not. Which is what the picture in this post says. You change it and say anti-anti = pro, which is neither what we are arguing about nor true. In your interpretation, it make me pro-gay. I don't want to be pro-gay, as in being gay is superior to being heterosexual. I am just against discrimination. So anti-anti is not pro.
"The definition of "anti" is "to oppose" or "opposite" and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being "anti-anti" very strongly implies being "pro", and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best."
So no refutation of the clear counterexample, just calling it facetious while you are clearly wrong.
Facetious at best.
I was happy to assume your original argument was a genuine mistake and you'd respond in an honest manner. I'm not interested in debating whatever additional, spurious examples and analogies you want to dream up to argue about - they're irrelevant and this increasingly looks like an attempt to muddy the water of a serious, and plainly evident issue.
You've made it obvious enough that your intentions here are dishonest, so don't expect any further engagement from me.
Just admit there is no argument, you are just clearly wrong. Hell, even the word pro was already moving the goalpost since there is no pro in the post or my original comment. Without that goalpost move, you don't have a leg to stand on.
"Listen up kids" is always followed by some contentious, condescending bullshit.
"... is always followed by" sucks as well