Thread by @apark2453

Notably absent from this is “debunking or refuting their justifications” much less “interrogating whether their rhetoric matches their actions”.

Ryan, buddy, this isn’t a math problem you leave as an exercise for the listener.

1/

https://twitter.com/ryanjhaas/status/1440347298173644803

So let’s take a listen, dudes are juxtaposing a whole lot of discussion about the violent clashes between Antifa and police (episode 1) with the Joey Gibson hour. The closest they got in the first episode to the ideology of Antifa is “they think they’re fighting fascism”

2/

If @ryanjhaas and @MrOlmos are being at all honest about the intent, at minimum this needs a more critical eye to his ideology and actions than that.

Taking “Gibson says it was strange people who the police were harassing wore masks” at face value ain’t it chiefs.

3/

Referring to an unprovoked attack by Joey Gibson and his thugs as “brought these groups together, it was the right mix to make this bomb explode” also ain’t it.

Referring to a fascist going “toe to toe” with antifascists “covering their faces” doesn’t seem to “demystify”

4/

Oh good! I got to the first both sides at 6 minutes in. That’s a good sign that the goal is to undermine Gibson and his ilk’s narratives.

Though I did just notice @ryanjhaas referred to “extremists” having absurd justifications, so maybe he does think they’re equivalent.

5/

And then a whole long bit of just taking Gibson at his word. Cool guys. Very coo!

This is that investigative journalism I’ve heard so much about. Taking a fascist at face value with zero investigation.

Also the constant reference to “with his face covered” doesn’t seem relevant except to help cement “Antifa scary”.

Real demystifying, guys.

7/

“This is like bonding between two groups… and I didn’t feel an ounce of hatred”.

You seriously let Joey goddamned Gibson say that with zero pushback on your air @MrOlmos? You didn’t figure maybe to edit out a lie from a dude who fomented a riot @ryanjhaas?

8/

Oh, but it’s okay, the “people who came with Gibson” wanted violence, and then the “violence escalated”. Totally wild how the violence itself chose to increase without anyone *doing it*.

Way to give the exoneration tense to goddamned Joey Gibson.

9/

Oh. It “became” a full on riot when “a man” swung a baton which hit an anti fascist.

Y’all couldn’t suss out what side that assault came from? Whether the person who hit an antifascist with a baton was on Gibson’s side? Totally stumped these investigative journalists?

10/

“All these different personalities and reasons for being at a protest”.

Oh… they’re just different reasons. Protesting police violence and looking for footage of fights with antifacists. White nationalism and opposition to white nationalism.

Just different personalities.

11/

Oh. And I guess we’re done with Joey Gibson. No questioning of his ideology, notes about what his organization supports or who it allies with. He said he didn’t hate anyone and… I guess we’re done demystifying him.

12/

Jesus this framing is bad. “This was well before an antifascist counter-protest in Charlottesville Virginia would put a car attack into public consciousness”.

Fucking *what*? That implies the attack was done as part of the counter-protest.

13/

Oh… good. Referring to an antifascist protester: “he said he didn’t want to sing we shall overcome; he said he was pissed. And now he had an *army* behind him who felt the same way”.

14/

Compare to how @MrOlmos described people with Gibson during a conflict he led them to and initiated. Not “an army” just “people with him” or “on his side of the political divide”

Cool. Very cool.

15/

And we’re into the “here’s how the murder victim was radicalized into… opposing police violence and fascism”. After framing the conflict with patriot prayer fascists as just different personalities clashing.

16/

It really does make it seem like the initial “extremists” rather than “these fucking fascists” from @ryanjhaas was not inadvertent. This really does present a murdered antifascist kid as “extremist” and “radical” on par with Gibson.

17/

It also explains my disquietude about the name of the show. “Dying for a fight” is a phrase that implies the subject was looking for violence, but the pun indicates it’s about Kealiher in particular. That *he* died for a fight.

18/

Now you can’t independently verify @MrOlmos? Not when you couldn’t figure out what side the dude who beat the shit out of a woman at Cider Riot was on? Not when you let Gibson say whatever he wanted? Only when it’s the dead kid saying what happened to him as it happened?

19/

“We don’t know if Kealiher was at this protest but by god will we go into detail about how the anarchists were violent and broke shit. What does that have to do with him? Nothing, I sure can’t independently verify if he did. But the implications!”

20/

In case you were worried they wouldn’t bring Joey Gibson back to play us out, they just play two minutes of a speech from him accusing antifa of beating grandmas.

Which apparently @MrOlmos can independently verify because he doesn’t say he can’t.

21/

Then this

“If you ask Joey Gibson why he led patriot prayer to confront people at cider riot he’d say it’s because he didn’t like what he saw”

Cool. Maybe don’t take fascists at face value Mr. Investigative Journalist?

22/

The last line:

“Gibson didn’t need to be in the streets but like Sean and like Gregory he felt he had to be”.

Cool, cool. @ryanjhaas if you’re curious why people think you’re going easy on the far right it’s because you goddamned did.

23/23