Page 2 of 11

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:02 am UTC
by KnightExemplar
The Great Hippo wrote:It's super important that we talk about Antifa in the wake of Charlottesville, though, right? Because they hit people at rallies.


Yes. And generally speaking, hitting people is wrong, especially if its during an otherwise peaceful protest like what was going on in Berkeley.

There are other rallies aside from Charlottesville ya know. And we should be allowed to discuss those as well.

gmalivuk wrote:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. King was about non-violent protest.

It was Malcom X who was about defending yourself during protests. If you really want to defend Anti-Fa, then you should be quoting the man who agrees with their philosophy instead.

Malcom X wrote:Non Violence is another word for defenceless


Image

Not everyone in the 1960s were peaceful. The reason why Martin Luther King Jr. is so revered today is because of his committment to non-violence, which Antifa stands against. Frankly speaking, the left does NOT need violent offenders fucking up the moral high ground.

-----------

This isn't that fucking hard. Don't hit people at rallies. Is that too much to ask for? And for fucks sake, don't quote the "Nonviolent" Martin Luther King Jr. when defending antifa, unless you seriously expect me to believe that antifa is nonviolent. And yes, striking people during a rally is violence. Its less violent than shooting a gun or running your car into people, but its violence nonetheless.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:20 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
KnightExemplar, rather than telling us who we should and shouldn't quote, do you think you could actually address the content of the quote itself, which remains extremely relevant toward the conversation at hand?
KnightExemplar wrote:Yes. And generally speaking, hitting people is wrong, especially if its during an otherwise peaceful protest like what was going on in Berkeley.
More wrong than murdering people?

I mean, your enemy's behavior doesn't justify your actions, and I 'get' that the fascists Antifa claims to oppose were probably not even at Berkeley -- but that's not the point. The point is that Trump thinks it's important to remember that 'all sides' are guilty of violence -- even when we're talking about one side that punches people at rallies, and another side that literally murders people both at these rallies and outside of them.

Also, I am pretty sure the quote provided here indicates that Martin Luther King is talking about you: The "moderate" who would rather see black people die than a white person get bruised -- than law and order get challenged. It's a bit bewildering to watch you try to lecture people about what MLK was on about when you yourself clearly can't be bothered to read what he was on about.
KnightExemplar wrote:This isn't that fucking hard. Don't hit people at rallies. Is that too much to ask for?
I don't know; is not murdering people at rallies too much to ask for? What about not shooting up churches?

But you're right: Antifa punching people, Neo-Nazis murdering people. On one side, bruised faces; on the other, a pile of corpses. When will people understand that both sides of this conflict are guilty of violence?
Spoiler:
Image

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:41 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
If you're going to quote that letter, pay close attention to this. If you haven't studied this era be careful of the context.

King and the Panthers were two faces of the same people. The Panthers had to exist if King existed. King was the mind, the Panthers were the Lizard. King was controlled and the Panthers were angry. King made sure that people knew that if he failed, the Panthers would be the road nobody wanted to go down.

Modern gangs are an expression of the Panthers. Angry. The Panthers were more focused. The complement of the white supremacist is the black gang member. Antifac takes the role of the abolitionist. Labels like Nazi make you look at the wrong groups. And they won't make sense, because they are out of context.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:13 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
The Great Hippo wrote:More wrong than murdering people?


Who was murdering people at the Berkeley rally?

If the best defense of Antifa at Berkely was "Literally thousands of miles away: someone died because someone unrelated killed somebody", its not a very strong argument.

This is not how you achieve the moral high ground. Fortunately, there are enough people on the left who recognize this is wrong and can pull Antifa off the man. But I don't think Antifa was correct in beating an otherwise peaceful protester.

I don't think you understand the historical issue at hand. Gmal is quoting Martin Luther King Jr, and trying to use it to defend Antifa. That's utterly ridiculous. Dr. King Jr. was against people punching each other, and states so in the damn letter that Gmal was quoting.

KnightExemplar, rather than telling us who we should and shouldn't quote, do you think you could actually address the content of the quote itself, which remains extremely relevant toward the conversation at hand?


Gmal is quoting from "Letters from Birminghand Jail", apparently to defend the violent "People hitting people" motions of Antifa. If you don't understand the shear irony at play here, then I don't think it warrants a response. But how about this, why don't I quote from the same letter, like two paragraphs away?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.


Dr. King is saying "non-violent tension is good". And I agree with him. Unfortunately, Antifa beating people with sticks does not constitute "nonviolent tension". Gmal is trying to fuck with history by ignoring the "nonviolent" phrases that are stuck throughout the entire fucking letter.

If you don't understand "Letter from Birmingham Jail", then maybe you should read it Great Hippo before responding to me. Because right now, it doesn't seem like you understand the historical context.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:33 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
KnightExemplar wrote:Who was murdering people at the Berkeley rally?

If the best defense of Antifa at Berkely was "Literally thousands of miles away: someone died because someone unrelated killed somebody", its not a very strong argument.
I'm not defending Antifa at Berkeley; I'm pointing out that for Trump to say there was violence on 'all sides' at Charlottesville ignores the fact that the Neo-Nazis are standing on a heap of corpses.
KnightExemplar wrote:I don't think you understand the historical issue at hand. Gmal is quoting Martin Luther King Jr, and trying to use it to defend Antifa. That's utterly ridiculous. Dr. King Jr. was against people punching each other, and states so in the damn letter that Gmal was quoting.
Gmal isn't defending Antifa; Gmal is attacking you. Gmal is using an excerpt from this letter to point at the sort of mealy-mouth moderate who bemoans the 'violent thugs' who punch people while forgetting that the other side is literally murdering people.

Whether or not MLK would support or oppose Antifa is ultimately irrelevant; the excerpt was meant to illustrate the depths to which moderates like yourself will go to try and paint all sides as 'wrong' while ignoring the fact that one side is, again, standing on a heap of fucking corpses.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:36 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
The Great Hippo wrote:
Whether or not MLK would support or oppose Antifa is ultimately irrelevant; the excerpt was meant to illustrate the depths to which moderates like yourself will go to try and paint all sides as 'wrong' while ignoring the fact that one side is, again, standing on a heap of fucking corpses.


Because white supremacists weren't fucking regularly lynching people in the 60s? For fucks sake man.

MLK's dedication to non-violence was exemplary. Today's violence is minor in comparison. And your attempts to change the historical context will continue to be ignored by me.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:44 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
KnightExemplar wrote:Because white supremacists weren't fucking lynching people in the 60s? For fucks sake man.

MLK's dedication to non-violence was exemplary. Today's violence is minor in comparison. And your attempts to change the historical context will continue to be ignored by me.
You were the one who said political violence was 'on the rise' -- effectively ignoring the long and storied history of political violence in America. Now you think otherwise? I'm glad you've finally figured out that yes, this shit has been going on for a while.

Next step: Understand that when you and Trump say that all sides at Charlottesville are 'guilty of violence', you're ignoring the fact that one of those sides is, again and again and again, standing on a heap of fucking corpses. And yes, a lot of those corpses date back to the 60s. A lot go back farther.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:46 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Because white supremacists weren't fucking lynching people in the 60s? For fucks sake man.

MLK's dedication to non-violence was exemplary. Today's violence is minor in comparison. And your attempts to change the historical context will continue to be ignored by me.
You were the one who said political violence was 'on the rise' -- effectively ignoring the long and storied history of political violence in America. Now you think otherwise? I'm glad you've finally figured out that yes, this shit has been going on for a while.

Next step: Understand that when you and Trump say that all sides at Charlottesville are 'guilty of violence', you're ignoring the fact that one of those sides is, again and again and again, standing on a heap of fucking corpses. And yes, a lot of those corpses date back to the 60s. Some go back farther.


I'm not ignoring that fact and I dunno why you assume I am.

I'm simply pointing out a few things:

1. Antifa is violent.
2. Dr. King Jr. was non-violent.

Is that too much for you to handle?

EDIT: And I should note, I'm mostly talking about the Berkeley rally. We've already discussed Charlottesville several weeks ago.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:52 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
KnightExemplar wrote:I'm not ignoring that fact and I dunno why you assume I am.

I'm simply pointing out a few things:

1. Antifa is violent.
2. Dr. King Jr. was non-violent.

Is that too much for you to handle?
No, I got it; that was never a point I was contending. I've merely been responding to this:
KnightExemplar wrote:And I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm simply pointing out that, unfortunately, there is truly violence on both sides as Trump has said.

...

In today's society, political violence is on the rise. And reasonable people can be concerned about that.
The first of which presents this like the sides involved are at all comparable ("they're both committing violence!" Yes, but one side was, is, and will continue to murder people), and the second which is so patently absurd that it boggles the mind.

Basically, you've just been blathering on about some imagined position you think I had regarding MLK's perspective on non-violence.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:54 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
The Great Hippo wrote:No, I got it; that was never a point I was contending.


Then there's nothing left to discuss. There's no need to drag something out if you agree with the core principles of my words. If you agree with me that Antifa is violent, then everything else is just background noise.

Basically, you've just been blathering on about some imagined position you think I had regarding MLK's perspective on non-violence.


When did I ever attribute the core logic to you?

Gmal quoted MLK to defend the "violent" Antifa (and do you still agree its violent ??), and I posted at Gmal stating the ultimate irony in quoting MLK. Its Gmal's argument. Not yours. But you seem to be defending Gmal for some reason.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:10 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
KnightExemplar wrote:Then there's nothing left to discuss. There's no need to drag something out if you agree with the core principles of my words.
I don't agree that political violence is on the rise, and I don't agree that Trump was right to say that 'all sides' have committed violence (in the same sense that I don't agree it's right to say 'all sides' have committed violence in regards to the Nazi party and those that they persecuted. Yes, that's trivially true, but it's not, as you put it, 'unfortunately' true). But If all you wanted to say was that "Antifa is violent" and "MLK opposed violence", you could have popped in the thread and just posted that. You didn't.

But yeah, if you're going to wriggle your way back to a position as simple as "Antifa is violent" and "MLK opposed violence", you're right -- we have nothing left to discuss.
KnightExemplar wrote:Gmal quoted MLK to defend the "violent" Antifa
As I said, again: No. Gmal quoted MLK not to defend Antifa, but to illustrate the mealy-mouth sort of moderate who's more concerned about white people getting bruised than black people getting killed. IE, "All sides have committed violence" when only one of those sides is killing people.

I don't know if Antifa is violent, and frankly, I kind of don't care? They haven't killed anyone. I'm not terribly interested in defending them, but I am interested in the sort of people who think Trump was right to point out that they engaged in violence.

KnightExemplar wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Basically, you've just been blathering on about some imagined position you think I had regarding MLK's perspective on non-violence.
When did I ever attribute the core logic to you?
KnightExemplar wrote:Dr. King is saying "non-violent tension is good". And I agree with him. Unfortunately, Antifa beating people with sticks does not constitute "nonviolent tension". Gmal is trying to fuck with history by ignoring the "nonviolent" phrases that are stuck throughout the entire fucking letter.

If you don't understand "Letter from Birmingham Jail", then maybe you should read it Great Hippo before responding to me. Because right now, it doesn't seem like you understand the historical context.
KnightExemplar wrote:MLK's dedication to non-violence was exemplary. Today's violence is minor in comparison. And your attempts to change the historical context will continue to be ignored by me.
Is this some sort of thing where you can't remember what you wrote two or three posts ago? Because it's starting to sound like that.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:29 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
I've moved some issues over to PM, but I feel like publicly still discussing this one issue:

The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Then there's nothing left to discuss. There's no need to drag something out if you agree with the core principles of my words.
I don't agree that political violence is on the rise, and I don't agree that Trump was right to say that 'all sides' have committed violence (in the same sense that I don't agree it's right to say 'all sides' have committed violence in regards to the Nazi party and those that they persecuted. Yes, that's trivially true, but it's not, as you put it, 'unfortunately' true). But If all you wanted to say was that "Antifa is violent" and "MLK opposed violence", you could have popped in the thread and just posted that. You didn't.

But yeah, if you're going to wriggle your way back to a position as simple as "Antifa is violent" and "MLK opposed violence", you're right -- we have nothing left to discuss.


If you agree with me that "Antifa is violent", then Trump was right to say that "Violence is on both sides", since Antifa is on the left.

The "unfortunate truth", is that "Antifa is violent" is causing Trump's words "Violence is on both sides" to become true. It perhaps wasn't quite true during the Charlottsville rally, but it is now true in the wake of the Berkeley rally where Antifa attacked nonviolent protesters.

Its why Nanci Peloci has issued a statement condeming Antifa a few days ago: http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/82917/

Its important for the left to keep the moral high ground. And they lose it whenever they become violent. Fortunately, Democratic leaders recognize the issue and are condemning Antifa in the wake of recent protests.

Nancy Pelosi wrote:“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.

“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech. Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”


The primary issue Hippo, is that I know this forum. And I know the people who make discussions here. There are people here who do not believe in free speech, who do not believe in "non-violent" protest, and who will stand to defend antifa's actions this past week. I know you aren't making that argument, but I've postured my words for those people.

I know I'm responding to you directly, but I'm speaking with context for the greater forum. I'm not trying to attribute certain beliefs to you, I'm trying to address arguments that will inevitably come down to defend Antifa in the coming days. If you agree with me that antifa violently protested this past week, then I hold no quarrel over you. And that's the truth.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:44 pm UTC
by ucim
KnightExemplar wrote:If you agree with me that "Antifa is violent", then Trump was right to say that "Violence is on both sides", since Antifa is on the left.


No.

Trump might have been (trivially) correct to say so, but he was wrong to say so at the same time. This isn't a child's game of "I'm not exactly touching you"; words have meaning beyond their literal meaning. Words are spoken in context. Words create context. Words carry powerful unstated messages, and sometimes do so by their conspicuous absence. Words are actions when used in the right way.

In the context in which he used those words (under pressure and long after the incident), key subsets of the public are being invited by the President of the United States to realize:

1: The left is just as bad as the Nazis.
2: Nazis who employ violence, even deadly violence, will (wink wink) get a pass.

For the leader of the most powerful country in the free world to say those things, whether explicitly or implicitly, is wrong and dangerous. The first implied statement is also factually incorrect. And while the second statement might become factually correct, it is morally repugnant.

So no, Trump was not right to say that "Violence is on both sides" in the context of the incident to which he referred.

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:13 pm UTC
by DaBigCheez
If a bully is regularly attacking someone on the schoolyard for months, and one day they either throw a punch in return or someone else steps in to intercept a punch aimed at them and return one, a teacher hauling them off to the principal and saying "there was violence on both sides" is:

1) Technically correct.

2) Drawing an equivalence that simply isn't there.

3) Equating aggressive violence with defensive violence.

4) Sending a message that the true wrong isn't being violent - it's fighting back against people who are. Or being noisy enough about it that someone actually has to be bothered to notice what's going on. Whichever.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:25 pm UTC
by SlyReaper
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

I mean, you're saying that what he said was factually accurate, but he shouldn't have said it because the overall message of "Look what the alt right did" is more important than acknowledging all the facts? I question your characterisation of the context being like a kid standing up to a bully after extended torment. As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, Antifa have a history of assaulting people who were clearly not fascists, and who weren't hurting anyone.

If Trump has said anything I take issue with regarding Charlottesville, it was saying there were "very fine people" among the marchers. I don't think there were. They weren't all Nazis, but they were happy to march alongside people who were, and were carrying swastika flags to prove it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:35 pm UTC
by Weeks
SlyReaper wrote:I mean, you're saying that what he said was factually accurate, but he shouldn't have said it because the overall message of "Look what the alt right did" is more important than acknowledging all the facts?
SlyReaper brings up an interesting point here. As we all know, the important thing, is the facts. As a wise man once, said, in the land of lies, the man with one fact, is king. SO I propose to you, fellow threadposters, to look at these facts. Behold the truth, and it will set you free.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:11 am UTC
by Peaceful Whale
Anyone want to make an Antifa(alt-left) vs neo-nazis(alt-right) fora? I feel like that may be a better place to smash this all out. (I understand it's mainly about trumps reaction to the violence, and it's escalated)

(Please leave me out of this, this is just a suggestion)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:52 am UTC
by ucim
SlyReaper wrote:Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

I mean, you're saying that what he said was factually accurate, but he shouldn't have said it because the overall message of "Look what the alt right did" is more important than acknowledging all the facts?
He's not acknowledging all of the facts. He's acknowledging one extra fact, and conspicuously ignoring an entire slew of facts around the fact he is acknowledging, deliberately creating a false impression that sends a message to the Nazis that they are welcome to continue. It's also not a one-off or a slip of the tongue. It was his campaign theme.

Do you actually not see this?

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:59 am UTC
by SlyReaper
No, I don't see it. I think you're imagining it. Trump's campaign theme was certainly not about letting white supremacists or anyone else get away with murder. His campaign theme, broadly speaking, was isolationism / anti-globalism. As for his statement creating some kind of impression, no, that's the impression you got. The impression I got was him describing events as he understood them to be, and signalling his disapproval of everyone who initiated non-defensive violence.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:05 am UTC
by eran_rathan
Pretty sure that punching someone who is claiming that they're going to exterminate you and your family is defensive violence.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:59 am UTC
by Grop
Not really a comment on this article, and I didn't want to say this in the Trump thread, but after talking to with quite a few antifas from my part of the world and seeing them drunk, they were terrible people.

Their fight is good on paper, but they gather as groups and all they talk about is violence. Once drunk, if they can't find nazis, they will beat up random people that they outnumber, for silly reasons.

Maybe some antifas won't do that (and maybe that depends on places, hence my unwillingness to comment on American antifas in the Trump thread), but I am now quite prejudiced against them.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:03 am UTC
by Zamfir
Grop, I have similar experiences, but is that really relevant? The origin of this discussion was a specific series of events: the protest and counter protest in Charlottesville, the lethal car attack that followed, and the responses from Trump, especially his insistence to blame 'both sides'.

And that series of events had actual neo-nazis, with Nazi slogans and Nazis symbols, with references to the KKK and lynching. Not just the typical mealy-mouthed 'nationalistic' wink and nudge. They were armed, and aiming to be intimidating. One to them killed people, right there.

We can then turn attention elsewhere. There was this other occasion, with other people who also called themselves antifa. And there were no clear Nazis at this other occasion, and those other antifa people were needlessly violent, etc.

Which might all be true. It might be a relevant discussion at some other time and place. But it is a weird diversion to hold that discussion in response to a specific event where the specific antifa people were exactly opposing fascists, and one of them was killed for doing so.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:44 am UTC
by Weeks
Grop wrote:antifas from my part of the world
I didn't know there were antifa (labeled as such) in Europe. As I understand it the movement began in the US. Are Nazis popping up over there as well? I didn't think you'd have people with guns and swastikas marching down towns with local armed police idly standing by.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:20 pm UTC
by Grop
Zamfir, when I started writing my post the mods (possibly you) were apparently not finished with moving the posts from the other thread, so that wasn't so explicitly a thread about Charlottesville (although I am following the Trump thread; and I noticed the moved posts before posting so I could have abstained from posting). Not very relevant to the thread indeed, sorry for the diversion.

Weeks, fascists here aren't explicitly nazis and normally don't carry guns (that part would be quite illegal).

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:45 pm UTC
by SlyReaper
Antifa do indeed operate in Europe. Did you hear about the riots in Hamburg when the G20 conference was going on? Antifa.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:40 pm UTC
by Zamfir
Are Nazis popping up over there as well? I didn't think you'd have people with guns and swastikas marching down towns with local armed police idly standing by.

The guns and the swastikas can get you in legal trouble, but they try. A typical picture from the NVU, the Dutch People Union:
Spoiler:
Image


You can see a Celtic cross, popular as swastika-replacement. Dutch flags with an orange band instead of a red band - this is one of those weird things they do. At some point, Norwegian flags were popular ( white people, and flag is same colours as Dutch flag but with a cross). Or Flemish flags (to support the bloodbrothers). In earlier years, they would carry Palestinian flags (because dead Jews), but Muslims are now the central target. Russian flags are gaining in popularity.

Below, the Nordic Resistance Movement in Sweden. Rather different style, with their own pseudo- swastika. In a weird twist, they lost a trademark suit about the name 'Nordfront', against a German freezer manufacturer.
Spoiler:
Image


Below the largest Nazi march in Germany of the last few years, note that these people don't do the pseudo-swastika thing, that doesn't work in Germany. But on close-up, they have "88” tattoos and the like.

Spoiler:
Image

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:45 pm UTC
by speising
"Ruhm und Ehre der Wehrmacht"?
That shirt alone would get him in big trouble here...

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:54 pm UTC
by Grop
Zamfir wrote:You can see a Celtic cross, popular as swastika-replacement.


This is quite surprising, considering that the Netherlands have little to do (in my understanding) with Celtic heritage.

But that illustrates how European fascists behave. They won't openly show you a swastika; but they do show subtler symbols, such as the number 88 (the rumor here says that 8 is 8th letter in alphabet therefore h and that double h would stand for heil hitler) or wear specific clothes brands. The political parties that depend on them aren't openly nazi; they are merely the parties who would want their country to be out of EU. And they can't be openly nazi, because they want moderate people (the ones who don't want to exterminate the Jewish, but are afraid of Muslim or Slavic immigrants) to vote for them.

speising wrote:"Ruhm und Ehre der Wehrmacht"?
That shirt alone would get him in big trouble here...


And indeed that kind of thing makes you think like they regret we aren't occupied by the Germans. This is crazy but fascists are apparently not bothered at that. Like, it's better to be under 1940 German law than having brown people in your place. (Which is also what nazi Americans state, when they show a swastika).

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:16 pm UTC
by orthogon
Grop wrote:... the number 88 (the rumor here says that 8 is 8th letter in alphabet therefore h and that double h would stand for heil hitler).

In the UK there was a group called Combat 18. The 18 is supposed to represent the initials of Adolf Hitler, in the same way. I haven't heard about them for a while, but I suspect that, like rats, they never go away completely.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:17 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Grop wrote:Not really a comment on this article, and I didn't want to say this in the Trump thread, but after talking to with quite a few antifas from my part of the world and seeing them drunk, they were terrible people.

Their fight is good on paper, but they gather as groups and all they talk about is violence. Once drunk, if they can't find nazis, they will beat up random people that they outnumber, for silly reasons.

Maybe some antifas won't do that (and maybe that depends on places, hence my unwillingness to comment on American antifas in the Trump thread), but I am now quite prejudiced against them.
Children talk about who started it. Adults make it stop. Judges look at culpability, The President isn't a judge and he argues like a child. My Grandmother punished both of her sons when they fought. They would say, but Mamma, he started it. She would say, I don't care, and spanked them both. The President either needs to shut up or grow up.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:49 pm UTC
by cphite
eran_rathan wrote:Pretty sure that punching someone who is claiming that they're going to exterminate you and your family is defensive violence.


The problem with the whole punching nazis craze is that very few of the people who end up punched are actually nazis. It quickly devolves into punching anyone who you happen to disagree with, or think you might disagree with. The latest incident in Berkeley is a prime example of this... the people who were attacked weren't nazis, they weren't white supremacists - they weren't even white. They were a bunch of people who are actually quite moderate, who just happen to support free expression and oppose Marxism. But they were called white supremacists by Nancy Pelosi, among others, and as a result of that designation they were targeted by a group of cowardly thugs. Worse, the local police stood by and watched it happen, and the mayor actually defended it happening - all based on the false premise that they were "white supremacists" who were "spouting hate" despite neither of those things being true.

Likewise, also in Berkeley, these same thugs used a threat of mob violence to prevent Ann Coulter from speaking. Now, personally I can't stand Ann Coulter and can't imagine wanting to hear her speak about anything. But as abrasive and stupid as she is, she isn't a nazi and she hasn't threatened to exterminate anyone. The ironic part is, these antifa jackasses probably helped Coulter more than anything else... they turned what would have been a small unremarkable speech into a national thing, and actually gave Ann Coulter the moral high ground, even if just for a moment. Granted, Ann abandoned the high ground like a rat fleeing a garbage fire, but still...

And indeed, if you look at the larger picture whenever these antifa idiots are anywhere, it's actually pretty rare that they're targeting nazis. Mostly they're targeting ordinary people at mainstream political rallies or other events. And these aren't necessarily hard-right events they're targeting, either.

And the really ironic part is, they're hurting the very side they pretend to support. They're actually making Donald Trump seem almost reasonable to a lot of people. Because as awful as Trump is, and as potentially dangerous as he might be, on the other side you have people actually running around in masks assaulting people and setting things on fire.

The reality is, if you actually talk to these antifa idiots, most of them don't even know what they're railing against. Most of them are just assholes looking for an excuse to hurt someone; preferably someone defenseless and outnumbered. Ganging up on an unarmed person doesn't make you a fighter for any cause - it makes you a fucking coward. And the ski masks underline that point.

So you go right on ahead and cheer these assholes, and watch them basically ensure the re-election of Trump. Because that is what they're ultimately doing.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:50 am UTC
by gmalivuk
Antifa aren't hurting the side they want to support, Nazi-sympathizer propaganda is doing that.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:25 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
As someone firmly on the left, I would strongly prefer it if the bullshit that right-wingers spewed about my side was entirely bullshit with no basis in reality, so when people identifying as on the same side as me actually say and do the kind of things that right-wingers like to claim to make us look bad, it annoys me.

I've been hearing right-wingers whining about Antifa all year and just dismissed it as overblown hysteria and looked into it no further, until I've more recently started hearing about them from more reputable sources and I'm terribly disappointed to find out that the bullshit was not such bullshit after all.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:43 am UTC
by KnightExemplar
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone firmly on the left, I would strongly prefer it if the bullshit that right-wingers spewed about my side was entirely bullshit with no basis in reality, so when people identifying as on the same side as me actually say and do the kind of things that right-wingers like to claim to make us look bad, it annoys me.

I've been hearing right-wingers whining about Antifa all year and just dismissed it as overblown hysteria and looked into it no further, until I've more recently started hearing about them from more reputable sources and I'm terribly disappointed to find out that the bullshit was not such bullshit after all.


And that's mostly my viewpoint as well, although I generally consider myself on the right rather than the left.

The good news is: the "left" as a whole seems to recognize the issues that Antifa's unnecessary violence brings. IE: Nansi Pelosi's statements, Washington Post reporting, etc. etc. But it is troubling that the denouncement isn't as widespread as I feel like it should be.

I think that its clear that with all of the religious leaders holding peaceful rallies and whatever, the majority of the "Left" is trying to make peaceful protests. Ultimately: Antifa is the same black-stain on the left as Blac Block, and other previous violent protest groups have been. Its probably the same people we've been seeing since Occupy and even further back.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:40 am UTC
by gmalivuk
And some of those nonviolent religious leaders thanked Antifa for protecting their lives in Charlottesville.

Just because mainstream media and centrist politicians have picked up a narrative, doesn't mean that narrative didn't start as right-wing propaganda.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:21 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Eh, the far right (and far left) has always had some small of truth behind it, even if that truth has been obfuscated and twisted into an unrecognizable form. It's important to never lose sight of the bigger picture. Sure, there are violent antifas, but there are violent anything, and antifa doesn't have the stated goal of ethnically cleansing the US while neo Nazis do, even if nazis claim that antifa has it as a seekrit mishun.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:59 pm UTC
by Peaceful Whale
The best lies mix in truth with the lies, and a little salt or sugar.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:15 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
US News and World Report wrote:Nonviolence won universal praise only once it could be used to discredit other forms of activism. Which is not to say Americans who have a moral commitment to nonviolence are insincere in their beliefs, but rather that the embrace of nonviolence is also the result of less laudatory political calculations — especially noticeable when praise for nonviolence goes hand in hand with absolutism on gun rights or empathy toward the Bundy militia or unquestioning faith in the righteousness of the police.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:35 pm UTC
by cphite
gmalivuk wrote:And some of those nonviolent religious leaders thanked Antifa for protecting their lives in Charlottesville.


Right. In this specific incident, antifa actually traded blows with some really awful people who are just about as deserving of an ass-kicking as people can be. However, in numerous other incidents, antifa has assaulted ordinary people who just happened to be at political rallies or other events. And actually, some of the same religious leaders at Charlottesville you're referring to also talked about how they very nearly found themselves under attack by antifa, because antifa mistakenly assumed they were there protecting the nazis. They just barely managed to talk the situation down.

The point is, far more often than not, the people who are being assaulted by antifa aren't nazis, or white supremacists, or anything of the sort. The vast majority of the time it's just people who happen to be attending, or in the same proximity of, an event that they don't agree with - often, as we just recently saw in Berkeley, having no idea of what the event they're "protesting" is even about.

Even if they got one right in Charlottesville doesn't justify the dozens that they've gotten wrong.

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:40 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
cphite wrote:far more often than not, the people who are being assaulted by antifa aren't nazis, or white supremacists, or anything of the sort
[citation needed]