|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2017 04:33 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 14 2017 04:22 thePunGun wrote:
The main problem with statistics is, you gotta have the right data. I honestly don't believe in polls, because most people will probably say "none of your f***in business" or just lie, when they're being asked. So how do they determine, which data is accurate and will actually represent a credible approval rating? They might aswell roll a D100 and it wouldn't make a difference... ...That's why you conduct multiple polls and have large, representative sample sizes. It sounds like your skepticism would be assuaged if you took a Statistics 101 class  I actually did, twice (involuntarily  ) and I still think it's nonsense. There's also the famous saying: "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics."Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:On August 14 2017 04:22 thePunGun wrote:
The main problem with statistics is, you gotta have the right data. I honestly don't believe in polls, because most people will probably say "none of your f***in business" or just lie, when they're being asked. So how do they determine, which data is accurate and will actually represent a credible approval rating? They might aswell roll a D100 and it wouldn't make a difference... I don't suppose it would help to tell you there is an entire field of study centered around answering that question? There's also an entire field about religious studies dedicated to some imaginary guy in the sky.... I didn't say the science behind it was flawed, I simply don't trust the data...
If you've taken a statistics 101 class, perhaps you'll recall that there are, in fact, ways to test your hypothesis that pollsters might as well roll a d100? You could try it yourself.
|
On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning.
I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country.
|
White Nationalist who attends the University of Reno, Nevada says that he is not the “angry racist” that is portrayed in a viral photo of him carrying a torch at a white nationalist protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Peter Cvjetanovic, 20, told KTVN that he traveled from Reno to Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
The student said that he wanted to attend the rally to support the white nationalist movement.
“I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture,” Cvjetanovic opined. “It is not perfect; there are flaws to it, of course. However I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E Lee is a great example of that. He wasn’t a perfect man, but I want to honor and respect what he stood for during his time.”
Cvjetanovic said that he never expected the frightening photo of him to go viral.
“I did not expect the photo to be shared as much as it was,” he noted. “I understand the photo has a very negative connotation. But I hope that the people sharing the photo are willing to listen that I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.”
Cvjetanovic added: “As a white nationalist, I care for all people. We all deserve a future for our children and for our culture. White nationalists aren’t all hateful; we just want to preserve what we have.”
Source
|
On August 14 2017 04:53 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:33 thePunGun wrote:On August 14 2017 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 14 2017 04:22 thePunGun wrote:
The main problem with statistics is, you gotta have the right data. I honestly don't believe in polls, because most people will probably say "none of your f***in business" or just lie, when they're being asked. So how do they determine, which data is accurate and will actually represent a credible approval rating? They might aswell roll a D100 and it wouldn't make a difference... ...That's why you conduct multiple polls and have large, representative sample sizes. It sounds like your skepticism would be assuaged if you took a Statistics 101 class I actually did, twice (involuntarily ) and I still think it's nonsense. There's also the famous saying: "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics."On August 14 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:On August 14 2017 04:22 thePunGun wrote:
The main problem with statistics is, you gotta have the right data. I honestly don't believe in polls, because most people will probably say "none of your f***in business" or just lie, when they're being asked. So how do they determine, which data is accurate and will actually represent a credible approval rating? They might aswell roll a D100 and it wouldn't make a difference... I don't suppose it would help to tell you there is an entire field of study centered around answering that question? There's also an entire field about religious studies dedicated to some imaginary guy in the sky.... I didn't say the science behind it was flawed, I simply don't trust the data... If you've taken a statistics 101 class, perhaps you'll recall that there are, in fact, ways to test your hypothesis that pollsters might as well roll a d100? You could try it yourself.
That D100 example was just an exaggeration to prove a point, because exaggeration turns the funny up to eleven!
So, if funny was an amp, the joke would actually be 1 louder.
|
On August 14 2017 05:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +White Nationalist who attends the University of Reno, Nevada says that he is not the “angry racist” that is portrayed in a viral photo of him carrying a torch at a white nationalist protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Peter Cvjetanovic, 20, told KTVN that he traveled from Reno to Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
The student said that he wanted to attend the rally to support the white nationalist movement.
“I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture,” Cvjetanovic opined. “It is not perfect; there are flaws to it, of course. However I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E Lee is a great example of that. He wasn’t a perfect man, but I want to honor and respect what he stood for during his time.”
Cvjetanovic said that he never expected the frightening photo of him to go viral.
“I did not expect the photo to be shared as much as it was,” he noted. “I understand the photo has a very negative connotation. But I hope that the people sharing the photo are willing to listen that I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.”
Cvjetanovic added: “As a white nationalist, I care for all people. We all deserve a future for our children and for our culture. White nationalists aren’t all hateful; we just want to preserve what we have.” Source
"Can't you see? I'm too stupid to be racist!?"
|
On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country.
Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it).
Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar.
edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here.
+ Show Spoiler +
Totally fine. It's just policemen, right?
edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some.
|
On August 14 2017 05:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +White Nationalist who attends the University of Reno, Nevada says that he is not the “angry racist” that is portrayed in a viral photo of him carrying a torch at a white nationalist protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Peter Cvjetanovic, 20, told KTVN that he traveled from Reno to Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
The student said that he wanted to attend the rally to support the white nationalist movement.
“I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture,” Cvjetanovic opined. “It is not perfect; there are flaws to it, of course. However I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E Lee is a great example of that. He wasn’t a perfect man, but I want to honor and respect what he stood for during his time.”
Cvjetanovic said that he never expected the frightening photo of him to go viral.
“I did not expect the photo to be shared as much as it was,” he noted. “I understand the photo has a very negative connotation. But I hope that the people sharing the photo are willing to listen that I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.”
Cvjetanovic added: “As a white nationalist, I care for all people. We all deserve a future for our children and for our culture. White nationalists aren’t all hateful; we just want to preserve what we have.” Source
"I care for all people, but I don't want to lose my white heritage."
Right.
|
On August 14 2017 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:White Nationalist who attends the University of Reno, Nevada says that he is not the “angry racist” that is portrayed in a viral photo of him carrying a torch at a white nationalist protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Peter Cvjetanovic, 20, told KTVN that he traveled from Reno to Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
The student said that he wanted to attend the rally to support the white nationalist movement.
“I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture,” Cvjetanovic opined. “It is not perfect; there are flaws to it, of course. However I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E Lee is a great example of that. He wasn’t a perfect man, but I want to honor and respect what he stood for during his time.”
Cvjetanovic said that he never expected the frightening photo of him to go viral.
“I did not expect the photo to be shared as much as it was,” he noted. “I understand the photo has a very negative connotation. But I hope that the people sharing the photo are willing to listen that I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.”
Cvjetanovic added: “As a white nationalist, I care for all people. We all deserve a future for our children and for our culture. White nationalists aren’t all hateful; we just want to preserve what we have.” Source "I care for all people, but I don't want to lose my white heritage." Right.
Maybe something's lost in translation there, but i don't see those two statements as mutually exclusive (at least in a vacuum, not in regards to confed flag/statue of slave drivers etc). Maybe i'm misunderstanding "white heritage" based on limited english knowledge.
|
On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some.
But as stated before, we don't have those extremes on the left in the US as bad as you do in Deutschland. The left here, in extremist views, are tame compared to your country. The right here are pretty violent. I don't care generally by what names they call themselves, the right has more violent acting people than the left. From what I've seen, the left are mostly kids wanting to play anarchy.
I'm not condoning their behaviors when they do do something violent, just stating that they are not nearly as violent as the right, in the US.
Edit: Substitute White Heritage with Southern Heritage. Almost the same, with some caveats.
|
On August 14 2017 05:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On August 14 2017 05:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:White Nationalist who attends the University of Reno, Nevada says that he is not the “angry racist” that is portrayed in a viral photo of him carrying a torch at a white nationalist protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Peter Cvjetanovic, 20, told KTVN that he traveled from Reno to Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
The student said that he wanted to attend the rally to support the white nationalist movement.
“I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture,” Cvjetanovic opined. “It is not perfect; there are flaws to it, of course. However I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E Lee is a great example of that. He wasn’t a perfect man, but I want to honor and respect what he stood for during his time.”
Cvjetanovic said that he never expected the frightening photo of him to go viral.
“I did not expect the photo to be shared as much as it was,” he noted. “I understand the photo has a very negative connotation. But I hope that the people sharing the photo are willing to listen that I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.”
Cvjetanovic added: “As a white nationalist, I care for all people. We all deserve a future for our children and for our culture. White nationalists aren’t all hateful; we just want to preserve what we have.” Source "I care for all people, but I don't want to lose my white heritage." Right. Maybe something's lost in translation there, but i don't see those two statements as mutually exclusive (at least in a vacuum, not in regards to confed flag/statue of slave drivers etc). Maybe i'm misunderstanding "white heritage" based on limited english knowledge.
As someone with a cursory knowledge of American history, one definition of "White Heritage" leaps to mind. If you appeared at a white supremacist rally, were accused of being a racist community figure, and tried to play it off as simply "protecting your white heritage", put it this way, I wouldn't buy it. Nor should anyone with half a brain.
|
On August 14 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. But as stated before, we don't have those extremes on the left in the US as bad as you do in Deutschland. The left here, in extremist views, are tame compared to your country. The right here are pretty violent. I don't care generally by what names they call themselves, the right has more violent acting people than the left. From what I've seen, the left are mostly kids wanting to play anarchy. I'm not condoning their behaviors when they do do something violent, just stating that they are not nearly as violent as the right, in the US.
YET.
They didn't just pop into existence, they were pretty much nurtured by everyone who didn't see it coming miles away. If you give leeway to an extremist group, they'll get bolder. That's not a hard concept to understand, it's literally what's happening in the US currently. There was a huge shift from right wing violence to left wing violence once right wing violence was effectively suppressed (being a Nazi in germany is considerably harder than in the US).
Back in the, i'd say, 70/80s, i would've maybe even joined them (the leftists). The right wing extremists are what they are because you let them get to that point. Because you don't handle right wing extremism the same way you handle islamic extremism, for example. What makes you think that somehow left wing extremism will not go the same way?
As someone with a cursory knowledge of American history, one definition of "White Heritage" leaps to mind. If you appeared at a white supremacist rally, were accused of being a racist community figure, and tried to play it off as simply "protecting your white heritage", put it this way, I wouldn't buy it.
Hm. Well obviously, that's why i said in a vacuum. But i guess the fact that white heritage kinda equals to slaves and stuff makes the statement different in the US. If for example someone would say in germany that he would like to preserve certain values/culture (that's what i thought white heritage includes), that wouldn't make him a racist immediately (to me, not saying that you actually could say that in germany anyway).
|
Canada11369 Posts
On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some.
Yeah, I'm of this view as well. Extremism is bad and will likely get worse, particularly if there are more and more apologists to cover for their actions. There's no need to get partisan and say our extremists are better than yours because it comes from better motivation. You set police on fire or you run over protestors in car, I oppose you regardless of your motivation.
|
On August 14 2017 05:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. Yeah, I'm of this view as well. Extremism is bad and will likely get worse, particularly if there are more and more apologists to cover for their actions. There's no need to get idealogical and say our extremists are better than yours because it comes from better motivation. You set police on fire or you run over protestors in car, I oppose you regardless of your motivation.
Yeah, that's kinda what i'm trying to say, i just like to type more words.
edit: underscored happened in germany for way too long. It's going so far now that after G20, politicians went full apologist on what happened, trying to blame the Police for "escalating the situation".
|
On August 14 2017 05:23 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. But as stated before, we don't have those extremes on the left in the US as bad as you do in Deutschland. The left here, in extremist views, are tame compared to your country. The right here are pretty violent. I don't care generally by what names they call themselves, the right has more violent acting people than the left. From what I've seen, the left are mostly kids wanting to play anarchy. I'm not condoning their behaviors when they do do something violent, just stating that they are not nearly as violent as the right, in the US. YET. They didn't just pop into existence, they were pretty much nurtured by everyone who didn't see it coming miles away. If you give leeway to an extremist group, they'll get bolder. That's not a hard concept to understand, it's literally what's happening in the US currently. There was a huge shift from right wing violence to left wing violence once right wing violence was effectively suppressed (being a Nazi in germany is considerably harder than in the US). Back in the, i'd say, 70/80s, i would've maybe even joined them (the leftists). The right wing extremists are what they are because you let them get to that point. Because you don't handle right wing extremism the same way you handle islamic extremism, for example. What makes you think that somehow left wing extremism will not go the same way? Show nested quote +As someone with a cursory knowledge of American history, one definition of "White Heritage" leaps to mind. If you appeared at a white supremacist rally, were accused of being a racist community figure, and tried to play it off as simply "protecting your white heritage", put it this way, I wouldn't buy it.
Hm. Well obviously, that's why i said in a vacuum. But i guess the fact that white heritage kinda equals to slaves and stuff makes the statement different in the US. If for example someone would say in germany that he would like to preserve certain values/culture (that's what i thought white heritage includes), that wouldn't make him a racist immediately (to me, not saying that you actually could say that in germany anyway).
The right extremist groups aren't cracked down on as hard because a lot of the figure heads behind them have a lot of money and pull all over the country. That's how these groups continue. I bet if they were placed on a terrorist group list, things would get a lot harder on them to protest or gather. And race is a factor. That's not going to go away.
I can't say that the left extremist groups won't turn out that way, I don't know the future. But from very limited exposure, the left seems to have more cooler heads and you don't really see that here in the US. The left has more tolerance, so the right surges and gets confronted and beat back to the shadows eventually.
If you say you wanted to preserve Scandinavian heritage, then no one would say anything to you. When you say you want to preserve white heritage in America, it automatically gets a racist connotation, based on the history of that white heritage in the US.
(please note how I confine my left vs right discussion to the US. I don't know enough about Europe/Germany to make any sound argument)
|
On August 14 2017 05:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:23 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. But as stated before, we don't have those extremes on the left in the US as bad as you do in Deutschland. The left here, in extremist views, are tame compared to your country. The right here are pretty violent. I don't care generally by what names they call themselves, the right has more violent acting people than the left. From what I've seen, the left are mostly kids wanting to play anarchy. I'm not condoning their behaviors when they do do something violent, just stating that they are not nearly as violent as the right, in the US. YET. They didn't just pop into existence, they were pretty much nurtured by everyone who didn't see it coming miles away. If you give leeway to an extremist group, they'll get bolder. That's not a hard concept to understand, it's literally what's happening in the US currently. There was a huge shift from right wing violence to left wing violence once right wing violence was effectively suppressed (being a Nazi in germany is considerably harder than in the US). Back in the, i'd say, 70/80s, i would've maybe even joined them (the leftists). The right wing extremists are what they are because you let them get to that point. Because you don't handle right wing extremism the same way you handle islamic extremism, for example. What makes you think that somehow left wing extremism will not go the same way? As someone with a cursory knowledge of American history, one definition of "White Heritage" leaps to mind. If you appeared at a white supremacist rally, were accused of being a racist community figure, and tried to play it off as simply "protecting your white heritage", put it this way, I wouldn't buy it.
Hm. Well obviously, that's why i said in a vacuum. But i guess the fact that white heritage kinda equals to slaves and stuff makes the statement different in the US. If for example someone would say in germany that he would like to preserve certain values/culture (that's what i thought white heritage includes), that wouldn't make him a racist immediately (to me, not saying that you actually could say that in germany anyway). The right extremist groups aren't cracked down on as hard because a lot of the figure heads behind them have a lot of money and pull all over the country. That's how these groups continue. I bet if they were placed on a terrorist group list, things would get a lot harder on them to protest or gather. And race is a factor. That's not going to go away. I can't say that the left extremist groups won't turn out that way, I don't know the future. But from very limited exposure, the left seems to have more cooler heads and you don't really see that here in the US. The left has more tolerance, so the right surges and gets confronted and beat back to the shadows eventually.
An extremist by definition isn't a "cool headed" person. Like i said, you (and others) seem to mistake a "leftwinger" or "leftist" with a "left wing extremist". An extremist throws molotov cocktails and sets policemen on fire. Actively, not accidentally. If you don't have them, good. But i promise you that you'll get them if you don't crack down on them. Again, that's how you got right wing extremists: you don't crack down on them (edit: to be clear, you should, with every resource you have). No opposition equals to condoning - as was clearly shown by right wing extremists after Trumps statements. He condemned both sides, but that only "strengthened" right wing extremists.
If you say you wanted to preserve Scandinavian heritage, then no one would say anything to you. When you say you want to preserve white heritage in America, it automatically gets a racist connotation, based on the history of that white heritage in the US.
(please note how I confine my left vs right discussion to the US. I don't know enough about Europe/Germany to make any sound argument)
Yeah, i understand that now. I guess it's like saying "trying to preserve german heritage", which is something you can't really say without SJW jumping on you trying to beat you to death verbally by equalling german history with nazis and nothing else.
|
On August 14 2017 05:36 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:23 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. But as stated before, we don't have those extremes on the left in the US as bad as you do in Deutschland. The left here, in extremist views, are tame compared to your country. The right here are pretty violent. I don't care generally by what names they call themselves, the right has more violent acting people than the left. From what I've seen, the left are mostly kids wanting to play anarchy. I'm not condoning their behaviors when they do do something violent, just stating that they are not nearly as violent as the right, in the US. YET. They didn't just pop into existence, they were pretty much nurtured by everyone who didn't see it coming miles away. If you give leeway to an extremist group, they'll get bolder. That's not a hard concept to understand, it's literally what's happening in the US currently. There was a huge shift from right wing violence to left wing violence once right wing violence was effectively suppressed (being a Nazi in germany is considerably harder than in the US). Back in the, i'd say, 70/80s, i would've maybe even joined them (the leftists). The right wing extremists are what they are because you let them get to that point. Because you don't handle right wing extremism the same way you handle islamic extremism, for example. What makes you think that somehow left wing extremism will not go the same way? As someone with a cursory knowledge of American history, one definition of "White Heritage" leaps to mind. If you appeared at a white supremacist rally, were accused of being a racist community figure, and tried to play it off as simply "protecting your white heritage", put it this way, I wouldn't buy it.
Hm. Well obviously, that's why i said in a vacuum. But i guess the fact that white heritage kinda equals to slaves and stuff makes the statement different in the US. If for example someone would say in germany that he would like to preserve certain values/culture (that's what i thought white heritage includes), that wouldn't make him a racist immediately (to me, not saying that you actually could say that in germany anyway). The right extremist groups aren't cracked down on as hard because a lot of the figure heads behind them have a lot of money and pull all over the country. That's how these groups continue. I bet if they were placed on a terrorist group list, things would get a lot harder on them to protest or gather. And race is a factor. That's not going to go away. I can't say that the left extremist groups won't turn out that way, I don't know the future. But from very limited exposure, the left seems to have more cooler heads and you don't really see that here in the US. The left has more tolerance, so the right surges and gets confronted and beat back to the shadows eventually. An extremist by definition isn't a "cool headed" person. Like i said, you (and others) seem to mistake a "leftwinger" or "leftist" with a "left wing extremist". An extremist throws molotov cocktails and sets policemen on fire. Actively, not accidentally. If you don't have them, good. But i promise you that you'll get them if you don't crack down on them. Again, that's how you got right wing extremists: you don't crack down on them (edit: to be clear, you should, with every resource you have).
He's underplaying it anyways, which is kind funny to read. To essentially deny the existence of "left-wing violence" (if we are going to contrast with "right-wing violence" as these phrases are being used) in this country is ludicrous.
|
On August 14 2017 05:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:36 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:23 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. But as stated before, we don't have those extremes on the left in the US as bad as you do in Deutschland. The left here, in extremist views, are tame compared to your country. The right here are pretty violent. I don't care generally by what names they call themselves, the right has more violent acting people than the left. From what I've seen, the left are mostly kids wanting to play anarchy. I'm not condoning their behaviors when they do do something violent, just stating that they are not nearly as violent as the right, in the US. YET. They didn't just pop into existence, they were pretty much nurtured by everyone who didn't see it coming miles away. If you give leeway to an extremist group, they'll get bolder. That's not a hard concept to understand, it's literally what's happening in the US currently. There was a huge shift from right wing violence to left wing violence once right wing violence was effectively suppressed (being a Nazi in germany is considerably harder than in the US). Back in the, i'd say, 70/80s, i would've maybe even joined them (the leftists). The right wing extremists are what they are because you let them get to that point. Because you don't handle right wing extremism the same way you handle islamic extremism, for example. What makes you think that somehow left wing extremism will not go the same way? As someone with a cursory knowledge of American history, one definition of "White Heritage" leaps to mind. If you appeared at a white supremacist rally, were accused of being a racist community figure, and tried to play it off as simply "protecting your white heritage", put it this way, I wouldn't buy it.
Hm. Well obviously, that's why i said in a vacuum. But i guess the fact that white heritage kinda equals to slaves and stuff makes the statement different in the US. If for example someone would say in germany that he would like to preserve certain values/culture (that's what i thought white heritage includes), that wouldn't make him a racist immediately (to me, not saying that you actually could say that in germany anyway). The right extremist groups aren't cracked down on as hard because a lot of the figure heads behind them have a lot of money and pull all over the country. That's how these groups continue. I bet if they were placed on a terrorist group list, things would get a lot harder on them to protest or gather. And race is a factor. That's not going to go away. I can't say that the left extremist groups won't turn out that way, I don't know the future. But from very limited exposure, the left seems to have more cooler heads and you don't really see that here in the US. The left has more tolerance, so the right surges and gets confronted and beat back to the shadows eventually. An extremist by definition isn't a "cool headed" person. Like i said, you (and others) seem to mistake a "leftwinger" or "leftist" with a "left wing extremist". An extremist throws molotov cocktails and sets policemen on fire. Actively, not accidentally. If you don't have them, good. But i promise you that you'll get them if you don't crack down on them. Again, that's how you got right wing extremists: you don't crack down on them (edit: to be clear, you should, with every resource you have). He's underplaying it anyways, which is kind funny to read. To essentially deny the existence of "left-wing violence" (if we are going to contrast with "right-wing violence" as these phrases are being used) in this country is ludicrous.
I haven't seen anybody denying the existence of violence, but the intent and quality of violence is relevant. To somehow only zoom in on the violent act itself without paying attention to the motive is the same stunt nazis pull when they describe the allied forces as "evil" because they bombed Dresden, nuked Japan or relativise the crime of fascist regimes by pointing towards starvation in the British empire or whatever.
|
On August 14 2017 05:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:36 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:23 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. But as stated before, we don't have those extremes on the left in the US as bad as you do in Deutschland. The left here, in extremist views, are tame compared to your country. The right here are pretty violent. I don't care generally by what names they call themselves, the right has more violent acting people than the left. From what I've seen, the left are mostly kids wanting to play anarchy. I'm not condoning their behaviors when they do do something violent, just stating that they are not nearly as violent as the right, in the US. YET. They didn't just pop into existence, they were pretty much nurtured by everyone who didn't see it coming miles away. If you give leeway to an extremist group, they'll get bolder. That's not a hard concept to understand, it's literally what's happening in the US currently. There was a huge shift from right wing violence to left wing violence once right wing violence was effectively suppressed (being a Nazi in germany is considerably harder than in the US). Back in the, i'd say, 70/80s, i would've maybe even joined them (the leftists). The right wing extremists are what they are because you let them get to that point. Because you don't handle right wing extremism the same way you handle islamic extremism, for example. What makes you think that somehow left wing extremism will not go the same way? As someone with a cursory knowledge of American history, one definition of "White Heritage" leaps to mind. If you appeared at a white supremacist rally, were accused of being a racist community figure, and tried to play it off as simply "protecting your white heritage", put it this way, I wouldn't buy it.
Hm. Well obviously, that's why i said in a vacuum. But i guess the fact that white heritage kinda equals to slaves and stuff makes the statement different in the US. If for example someone would say in germany that he would like to preserve certain values/culture (that's what i thought white heritage includes), that wouldn't make him a racist immediately (to me, not saying that you actually could say that in germany anyway). The right extremist groups aren't cracked down on as hard because a lot of the figure heads behind them have a lot of money and pull all over the country. That's how these groups continue. I bet if they were placed on a terrorist group list, things would get a lot harder on them to protest or gather. And race is a factor. That's not going to go away. I can't say that the left extremist groups won't turn out that way, I don't know the future. But from very limited exposure, the left seems to have more cooler heads and you don't really see that here in the US. The left has more tolerance, so the right surges and gets confronted and beat back to the shadows eventually. An extremist by definition isn't a "cool headed" person. Like i said, you (and others) seem to mistake a "leftwinger" or "leftist" with a "left wing extremist". An extremist throws molotov cocktails and sets policemen on fire. Actively, not accidentally. If you don't have them, good. But i promise you that you'll get them if you don't crack down on them. Again, that's how you got right wing extremists: you don't crack down on them (edit: to be clear, you should, with every resource you have). He's underplaying it anyways, which is kind funny to read. To essentially deny the existence of "left-wing violence" (if we are going to contrast with "right-wing violence" as these phrases are being used) in this country is ludicrous.
To me there's no difference between right wing and left wing violence.
But, that's not an american problem, it's a general one. People like Nyxisto are the majority in germany in regards to left wing violence. They don't even realise how retarded it is to argue with a sentence like "well they only set fire to policemen and things".
|
On August 14 2017 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
there's a difference between setting cars on fire or attacking the police, which I think is fucking stupid, and attacking people because you think you're part of the master-race and you want to see everybody else purged.
Any equivalence here is wrong.
What exactly about those acts of violence makes you not draw equivalence? They're not equivalent because of their motivations? Because we already talked left wing and right wing as being different ideologies ...
The only difference I've been seeing is left wing violence has its thread apologists.
|
On August 14 2017 05:28 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:25 Falling wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. Yeah, I'm of this view as well. Extremism is bad and will likely get worse, particularly if there are more and more apologists to cover for their actions. There's no need to get idealogical and say our extremists are better than yours because it comes from better motivation. You set police on fire or you run over protestors in car, I oppose you regardless of your motivation. Yeah, that's kinda what i'm trying to say, i just like to type more words. edit: underscored happened in germany for way too long. It's going so far now that after G20, politicians went full apologist on what happened, trying to blame the Police for "escalating the situation".
Oh c'mon. No sane german politician is defending the acts of the "black block" during G20. It's actually a good thing that politicians challenge the questionable actions of the police besides that it would be easy to hide behind "look at the left terror, everything was justified".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1136145-860_poster_16x9-hmpt-1136145.jpg)
