I liked that he uses the methodical approach for finding clarity in complicated issues.
One way forward is to distinguish between a group’s ends and its means. Diligently doing so can help anyone to formulate a defensible position, to better understand those who disagree, and to emphasize common ground that too often goes unrecognized.
This helps when talking to your friends and relations who put you in a position where you have to “choose sides”, and it helps diffuse tensions.
different groups can choose equally objectionable means without becoming equivalent, because assessing any group requires analyzing their ends, not just their means.
this all brings it to
If you disagree with any of my characterizations about the means and ends of those groups, we are at odds over facts, not values, and I am open to seeing evidence that challenges my assessment of a complicated matter. Bearing that in mind can make hashing out the truth less fraught and more likely to proceed constructively and profitably.
he then goes on to analyzing and comparing BLM, Antifa and neo-Nazis (with conclusions that are unsurprising, but satisfying to read nonetheless), but the main conclusion to take away is the most laudable:
So come to whatever conclusions accord with your reason and conscience. But when expressing them, consider drawing as many distinctions as possible.
How to Distinguish Between Antifa, White Supremacists, and Black Lives Matter
tinfoilparachute 