> Denying affiliation is a classic strategy in psyops. The alt-right and manosphere have established entire PR strategies based on that.
The same is true for attributing tainted characteristics to your ideological opponents - just call them "nazi" or "fascist" and anything goes. If they deny that they are nazis or fascists, well, that just proves they are nazis or fascists. This is called a Kafka trap. It is the same tactic used by so-called anti-fascists to legitimise physical assault on ideological opponents, they just simply call them "nazi" and start a "punch a nazi" campaign. It is also the tactic used by Ibram Henry Rogers (who took up the nom-de-guerre "Ibram X. Kendi") to be able to label people racist by stating that those who deny they are racist thereby confirm their racism. What all these tactics have in common is that they do not actually aim to confirm or refute the presence of a given trait, instead they are used to force another trait upon the accused - whether that be "anti-fascism" (which you referred to) or "anti-racism" (which Rogers refers to). Those forced traits tend to carry the name of the thing they supposedly refute while often encompassing elements of the refuted trait: so-called anti-fascists act like fascists, so-called anti-racists call for racism like the following quote from Rogers' "How to be an anti-racist": "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination".
This can be generalised: the opposite of an extreme opinion is another extreme opinion, the opposite of an extremist is another extremist.
> I'd be more inclined to trust a person/collective declaring they anti-nazi (or antifascist if you will), than a person/collective declaring they're "not a nazi" then leaving traces of nazi symbolism everywhere.
Honest question: would you be more inclined to trust a person or collective declaring themselves to be, say, anti-communist than one declaring not to be communist? I have seen a glaring discrepancy between the trust put in so-called "anti-fascists" (who more often than not are all too happy to use the same tactics as the original brownshirts used to spread their ideology) and that put in those calling themselves "anti-communist" with the former being given the benefit of the doubt while the latter are watched with suspicion since they may be "right-wingers". Well, yes, they might lean to the right, just like those "anti-fascists" most likely lean to the left. Whether that makes the one better than the other depends solely on your ideological standpoint and as such is subjective, not objective.
FYI, I vouched for tofu's dead reply to my question on whether he'd be inclined to trust anti-communists. I might not agree with his stance on this subject but I think he should be able to answer the question - which he did. From reading his comment history I get the idea that we agree on many points related to technology but disagree on many political subjects. I'd much rather have an honest discussion on all subjects out in the open, without labelling or epithet throwing than to suppress parts of that discussion while allowing other parts of it to thrive. The former might lead to some useless political discussions but those can simply be ignored - just collapse the thread [1]. The latter inevitably leads to some politics getting through while other politics is killed.
[1] this could even be an option in personal settings, something like 'Show dead [ ]', 'Show politics [ ]'). It would also make the job of policing the forum easier since anything political can simply be flagged as such by moderators or users, just like users can flag posts and replies.
The same is true for attributing tainted characteristics to your ideological opponents - just call them "nazi" or "fascist" and anything goes. If they deny that they are nazis or fascists, well, that just proves they are nazis or fascists. This is called a Kafka trap. It is the same tactic used by so-called anti-fascists to legitimise physical assault on ideological opponents, they just simply call them "nazi" and start a "punch a nazi" campaign. It is also the tactic used by Ibram Henry Rogers (who took up the nom-de-guerre "Ibram X. Kendi") to be able to label people racist by stating that those who deny they are racist thereby confirm their racism. What all these tactics have in common is that they do not actually aim to confirm or refute the presence of a given trait, instead they are used to force another trait upon the accused - whether that be "anti-fascism" (which you referred to) or "anti-racism" (which Rogers refers to). Those forced traits tend to carry the name of the thing they supposedly refute while often encompassing elements of the refuted trait: so-called anti-fascists act like fascists, so-called anti-racists call for racism like the following quote from Rogers' "How to be an anti-racist": "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination".
This can be generalised: the opposite of an extreme opinion is another extreme opinion, the opposite of an extremist is another extremist.
> I'd be more inclined to trust a person/collective declaring they anti-nazi (or antifascist if you will), than a person/collective declaring they're "not a nazi" then leaving traces of nazi symbolism everywhere.
Honest question: would you be more inclined to trust a person or collective declaring themselves to be, say, anti-communist than one declaring not to be communist? I have seen a glaring discrepancy between the trust put in so-called "anti-fascists" (who more often than not are all too happy to use the same tactics as the original brownshirts used to spread their ideology) and that put in those calling themselves "anti-communist" with the former being given the benefit of the doubt while the latter are watched with suspicion since they may be "right-wingers". Well, yes, they might lean to the right, just like those "anti-fascists" most likely lean to the left. Whether that makes the one better than the other depends solely on your ideological standpoint and as such is subjective, not objective.