US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8504

Prev 1 8502 8503 8504 8505 8506 10093 Next

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.

Lionsguard

0 Posts

August 20 2017 04:46 GMT

#170061

On August 20 2017 13:13 Kyadytim wrote:
Hey, let's not compare one guy who was immediately condemned by basically everyone on both sides to a large group of people who brought shields, guns, and other stuff and displayed evidence of organized training to follow commands in unison. Those things are not equivalent. Also, lest we forget, it wasn't all too long ago (it was a couple of years, but that's not really that long ago) that a white supremacist killed nine black people in a church because they "have to go."

Also, in his online manifesto:

Show nested quote +

And now they're starting to take it to the real world. So yes, antifa go too far sometimes, or hit the wrong targets. But they're also not the side that went to a massive rally with guns and the attitude of "We're not nonviolent. We'll fucking kill these people if we have to," while carrying flags representing slavery and genocide. If you'd rather those people intimidate everyone who would stand up to them with blatant willingness for violence and equipment to commit it, then sure, let's get rid of antifa.

EDIT: To clarify, I'd say that the antifa at Charlottesville came willing, prepared, and expecting violence, but not looking for it, while the kkk, neo-nazis, white supremacists, and associated parts of the alt-right went willing, prepared, and looking for violence. Can you tell me with a straight face that you think there would have been no violence whatsoever if antifa hadn't been present?

Also, I'm pretty sure antifa are mostly anarchists, not communists.

The last time these White Nationalists held their rally in Charlottesville was back in May. They did so without erupting into violence, but ANTIFA was also not present.

ANTIFA shows up deliberately looking for a fight, make no question about it. The Radical Left is not interested in dialogue -- they see it as a weakness of Liberal talking points and thus believe the only way to defeat fascism is by acting like fascists themselves. This of course forces the White Nationalists to show up armed with sticks and shields themselves incase the Police fail to adequately separate both groups (as was the case in Charlottesville).

Doxxing White Nationalists poses another escalatory threat. Not only have vigilantes already targeted the wrong people by mistake, this sort of action only forces them to cover their faces at rallies in response. Currently only ANTIFA does that to shed themselves of any accountability. When both sides do it, you're left with ZERO accountability, a real nightmare scenario especially if either side brings guns.

We have footage from the Boston protests today of ANTIFA dragging an elderly woman face-first through the grass as she desperately clutched to her American flag. If that's not proof enough that ANTIFA deliberately crosses the line, I might suggest you watch some Paris footage from France post-election where these black-clad thugs were literally engulfing police officers in Molotov cocktails while simultaneously threatening any journalists who recorded them. Unlike most chapters of American ANTIFA whom may hover around simple mace attacks or the occasional sucker punch thus far, their European counterparts demonstrate next to little restraint for such murderous intent. (Suffice to say, If you were seen wearing a MAGA hat in the streets of Paris last May, you would not have survived. I fear that climate is already descending upon the US).

Doodsmack

United States7224 Posts

August 20 2017 04:59 GMT

#170062

r.Evo

Germany14081 Posts

August 20 2017 05:09 GMT

#170063

On August 20 2017 13:31 Wegandi wrote:

(If you don't know that's the German Communists (KPD) flag during the 1930s)

It's not.

The flag of the KPD looked like this:

What you're referring to is from the first organisation called "Antifaschistische Aktion" (Antifa) in Germany. That was proclaimed by the KPD in 1932 and held its first rally in July. It was first mentioned in their main newspaper and was mostly an attempt at resurrecting remnants of the Roter Frontkämpferbund ("Alliance of Red Front-Fighters"), which was banned in 1929 because of clashes with Nazi paramilitary.

Basically that while sure, the first Antifa was founded by 'communists' it was formed in response to the paramilitary organizations of the Nazis. Notably it was also banned in 1933 as soon as the Nazis seized power and most of these 'enemies of the state' were moved to prisons or concentration camps. It was quite literally one of the last reasonably well-organized movements that aimed to resist the Nazi takeover.

That's also what the flag aimed to symbolize: That social-democrats, socialists and communists need to unite against the threat of fascism and the Nazi regime. Two red flags united behind each other, symbolizing the KPD & SPD, surrounded by a life belt symbolizing that this unity is the last chance against fascism. In the end, until the very last moment, most of he left was too busy with infighting to be able to organize a proper political resistance.

What is understood as Antifa today, more specifically in Germany, are organizations that formed in the 1990s after the German reunion since that's when Neo-Nazi movements gained prominence again. A good chunk of these various movements are in conflict with German law but calling them "communists" in the sense of the original movement of 1932 is a pretty massive stretch.

Kyadytim

United States886 Posts

August 20 2017 05:11 GMT

#170064

On August 20 2017 13:33 m4ini wrote:
I feel like we need to clear some things up here, looking at some pictures.

This here is great, and has to happen every single time. This is where i would stand.

+ Show Spoiler +

(back to gender discussion)

These are what i call "counter protesters". The good guys.

Now this here:

+ Show Spoiler +

Is not. I obviously don't need to show pictures of Nazis/KKK/WS, we know what they look like, and we know that they're bad.

The last four pictures are not to be thrown in with counter protesters. I certainly would not want to be put in the same category as them in case i go to a rally. The last four pictures are the people most here talk about. In case you haven't noticed: only one category has the "need" to wear facemasks (except the witches, but that's different). Just briefly give that a thought, and you come to the correct conclusion.

Facemasks addressed below.

Anyway, I already said that Antifa go too far sometimes. The difference between antifa and white supremacists is that antifa who aren't being violent are just normal protestors. KKK and Nazis who aren't being violent are still pushing for white supremacy through violence and intimidation. Which one of these needs broad condemnation of the entire movement, and which needs condemnation of individual incidents. Just brieflygive that a thought, and you come to the correct conclusion.

On August 20 2017 13:46 Lionsguard wrote:Doxxing White Nationalists poses another escalatory threat. Not only have vigilantes already targeted the wrong people by mistake, this sort of action only forces them to cover their faces at rallies in response. Currently only ANTIFA does that to shed themselves of any accountability. When both sides do it, you're left with ZERO accountability, a real nightmare scenario especially if either side brings guns.

Oh boo hoo. If they didn't want people to know they were white nationalists, they should have worn hoods.

I'm sure most Antifa wear masks because they don't want to deal with the deluge of harassment and death threats that comes from the alt-right every time something pisses them off, like people naming nazi supporters.

Kyadytim

United States886 Posts

August 20 2017 05:20 GMT

#170065

On August 20 2017 13:46 Lionsguard wrote:This of course forces the White Nationalists to show up armed with sticks and shields themselves incase the Police fail to adequately separate both groups (as was the case in Charlottesville).

This needed to be addressed separately. Do you think their might be any correlation between how heavily the White Nationalists were armed, and the unwillingness of the police to step in? Police departments really like saying that officers are not required to risk their lives unnecessarily when explaining why another black person was shot by police. Do you think this policy might also come into play when it comes to stepping between angry AK carrying white nationalists and people they're angry at?

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

August 20 2017 05:22 GMT

#170066

On August 20 2017 13:06 Wegandi wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 20 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:

On August 20 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:

On August 20 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
@m4ini - come on. In this hour of increasingly reductive discussions, really feel that you could infer I didn't want anyone to die or be crippled. All things being equal(aka, the fight not going either way), I feel safe in assuming the Nazi was as fault because they are the Nazi. I don't want them to die, but I also don't want the "not a Nazi" to be hurt. I'm not going to watch the Nazi get beaten to death.

This is the type of discussion that these false equivalences bring out. Where we all trying to make an if/went flow charts for violent encounters.

Dude you literally said "if i come to a fight ima help whoever is not the nazi", the fuck?

Oh and btw, no, it really isn't me that has to guess how much violence is "good enough" for a Nazi according to you. Apart from the obvious problem that your statement was dumb (if i come to a fight, i stop it, instead of joining/helping) in the first place.

If you're willing to hurt people for having an idiotic ideology, boy. Maybe Trump is your guy after all.

You know what, you are right. I have no idea what I would do. Because making an if/when flow chart for a fight is stupid. A lot of these discussions are stupid. Because Danglars comes in here and makes his thread stupid with this whataboutism that he constantly does. What about violent democrats/liberals? Lets debate if a group of people yelling racial slurs at counter protester are the bad people or not. Or maybe the other side that threw a punch because of the racial slurs. And then we all start talking about which is worse, the liberals or the KKK/Nazis. I mean sure, the KKK hung black people from trees, but whatever. This is where our political discussion take us now. Do I feel sufficiently bad when people advocating for genocide are responded to with violance? Not bad enough, ok, well I guess I should have voted Trump.

This shit is stupid. Violence is terrible, it shouldn't happen at peaceful assembly. People shouldn't be able to bring AR-15s to peaceful protesters either, because that is stupid and not peaceful. If 20K people protest and only a few are violent, then there are likely a lot of them tried to stop it too. But the Nazis and racists are still Nazi racists. End of story.

The highlighted viewpoint is a dangerous one. It's a failure to view the issues and world in the lens of those who have differing views. When someone flies a plane into the IRS building, their justifications are the same. You may disagree, but to that person they view the situation just as you do with this. I am sure the people who have blown up abortion clinics view this the same way - they believe hundreds of thousands of babies have been killed, so they take action. When someone advances political violence based on subjective viewpoints it opens pandora's box. You might not like what comes out the other end.

Do you really expect anything less from the left at this point? This is what happens when you give lip service to the rule of law and adopt a political philosophy where the ends always justify the means. The truly scary part is that the left doesn't even understand how untethered from our legal traditions and notions of rights that they have become.

If nothing else, some of the leftists around here should wise up if for no other reason than it is too easy people like Danglars or me to fuck with y'all on this stuff.

Wegandi

United States2455 Posts

August 20 2017 05:44 GMT

#170067

On August 20 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 20 2017 13:06 Wegandi wrote:

On August 20 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:

On August 20 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:

Yeah, sure, but it's not limited. I'm sick of the "right" sticking up for stuff like Patriot Act, gutting the 4th Amendment, not recognizing police abuse and mission creep, the fealty to a bloated and work program like Pentagon, etc. So, it's not right to talk only about one "side" abridging liberties. If I only had to fight against "one side" it'd be much easier. These things also flip flop all the time, largely with whoever has the R or D behind their name in the Presidency. Like who the fuck supports stuff like paper checks within the US, but that's the rah-rah zero-immigration standards of the "right". I suppose you can say I am an equal opportunity cynic of both sides. :p

Kyadytim

United States886 Posts

August 20 2017 05:46 GMT

#170068

On August 20 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 20 2017 13:06 Wegandi wrote:

On August 20 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:

On August 20 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:

Will it disturb your worldview any to learn that I agree with you and Wegandi about that one statement by Plansix expressing a dangerous viewpoint? I might be okay with Antifa meeting violence with violence, although I'd really prefer it if they made an effort to wait until they have video evidence of the people they're opposing initiating the violence. However, meeting ideology with violence isn't good. People are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. They're even allowed to express it, however distasteful that is.

The only protection for speech is that as long as it's not something like shouting fire in a crowded theater, you can't be punished by the law for saying it. You're not protected from 20,000 people showing up to express that they think your ideas have no place in society or getting driven off the internet by corporations that don't want to face boycotts.

The latter is something of a problem, because the internet is basically all corporations that can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they have a sufficiently rigorous terms of service. People are okay with them chasing The Daily Stormer around. I am, too. The idea of Nazis running to Russia for sanctuary from the mean corporations makes still makes me laugh out loud. Anyway, given that the internet is basically how people communicate on any scale that matters these days, it might be that free speech isn't sufficiently free if you're only able to express your ideas to people within a few miles of you. That's something that probably deserves to be discussed without the baggage of the current discussion, which I don't see happening right now.

Wulfey_LA

932 Posts

August 20 2017 05:57 GMT

#170069

I think the guy getting knocked over in the Nazi charge is antifa. The guy in the red hat tries to talk reason. The Ex-Con leads a Nazi charge. Now I ask conservatives, what do you think about the right of self defense? Everyone here keeps rambling about violence meeting violence. But that is bullshit. Someone always throws the first punch. Here we have the nazis with clubs launching a charge. Can those who receive the charge punch back and defend themselves? If the antifa guy that gets bowled over swings his stick in defense, is that him being violent in violation of IMPORTANT NORMS AGAINST VIOLENCE FROM LIBERALS? That looks like self defense to me when he tries to not get hit in the head by the charging Nazis.

+ Show Spoiler +

EDIT: if self defense means anything, then any Antifa who stood in the way of this charge should be free to defend themselves as necessary and proportionate to the threat.

EDIT2: does this VIOLENT ANTIFA TERRORIST havea right of self defense as the nazi punches her? Is she allowed to retaliate in some way to defend herself? If she does, is she WRONGLY MEETING VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE? EDIT3: spoilered for size.

+ Show Spoiler +

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

August 20 2017 06:22 GMT

#170070

On August 20 2017 14:57 Wulfey_LA wrote:
I think the guy getting knocked over in the Nazi charge is antifa. The guy in the red hat tries to talk reason. The Ex-Con leads a Nazi charge. Now I ask conservatives, what do you think about the right of self defense? Everyone here keeps rambling about violence meeting violence. But that is bullshit. Someone always throws the first punch. Here we have the nazis with clubs launching a charge. Can those who receive the charge punch back and defend themselves? If the antifa guy that gets bowled over swings his stick in defense, is that him being violent in violation of IMPORTANT NORMS AGAINST VIOLENCE FROM LIBERALS? That looks like self defense to me when he tries to not get hit in the head by the charging Nazis.

https://twitter.com/josh_emerson/status/897614009117134849

EDIT: if self defense means anything, then any Antifa who stood in the way of this charge should be free to defend themselves as necessary and proportionate to the threat.

EDIT2: does this VIOLENT ANTIFA TERRORIST havea right of self defense as the nazi punches her? Is she allowed to retaliate in some way to defend herself? If she does, is she WRONGLY MEETING VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE?

https://twitter.com/BanditRandom/status/898377512828284929

See, this is exactly what I was referring to when I said that y'all were making it easy for us to fuck with you. You're so wound up over this idea that Nazis could possibly be in the right on something or otherwise be deserving of protection that you have to go make a post like this, which is really apropos to nothing. No one is arguing against the right of self-defense. If a Nazi assaults an Antifa member, then the Antifa member gets to protect himself and even hurt or potentially kill the Nazi in self-defense.

What you need to understand is that the position being advocated by Danglars and me is firmly tied to, and in accordance with, the law. Emotional outbursts like the above aren't going to get you anywhere.

KwarK

United States44265 Posts

August 20 2017 06:31 GMT

#170071

I'm pretty sure that the most you can say about any situation with a Nazi in it is that they're both in the wrong. You either condemn the Nazi or you condemn both of them. There's never any "the Nazi was in the right there".

Kyadytim

United States886 Posts

August 20 2017 06:49 GMT

#170072

EDIT: On second thought, this is probably better off asked in a private message.

ZerOCoolSC2

9064 Posts

August 20 2017 07:03 GMT

#170073

On August 20 2017 15:31 KwarK wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the most you can say about any situation with a Nazi in it is that they're both in the wrong. You either condemn the Nazi or you condemn both of them. There's never any "the Nazi was in the right there".

What if that Nazi saved a child from a burning car? But then antifa showed up thinking that the nazi stole the child? Who's in the wrong?

ChristianS

United States3304 Posts

August 20 2017 07:58 GMT

#170074

On August 20 2017 11:10 Danglars wrote:

Show nested quote +

So condemning both sides is sufficient for you now? I applaud your new outlook.

You seem confused about when to condemn protesters, so I drew up a handy color-coded chart for you. You're welcome to study it if you want, or print out a copy as a "cheat sheet" next time you're unsure:

+ Show Spoiler [I worked really hard on this] +

A few people in the thread (notably Nebuchad) disagree with putting "yes" in the bottom right if the violence is against Nazis, but most people seem to pretty much on board with this. (I'd probably toss in an extra "very very" on the "yes" any time someone actually died as a result of the violence, but I thought adding too many variables might overcomplicate the chart).

If you're seriously unsure why Trump not condemning Nazis specifically and P6 not condemning Boston protesters specifically aren't remotely similar, consider that 1) P6 is not POTUS, 2) to my knowledge nobody died, and 3) they weren't Nazis. If you were never unsure and were just trying to get a rise out of liberals in the thread, carry on I suppose.

Wegandi

United States2455 Posts

August 20 2017 08:10 GMT

#170075

On August 20 2017 16:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Show nested quote +

What if that Nazi saved a child from a burning car? But then antifa showed up thinking that the nazi stole the child? Who's in the wrong?

I'm sorry, but this post made me really lol. Carry on.

ninazerg

United States7291 Posts

August 20 2017 08:18 GMT

#170076

On August 20 2017 16:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Show nested quote +

What if that Nazi saved a child from a burning car? But then antifa showed up thinking that the nazi stole the child? Who's in the wrong?

But what if that child...

...is baby Hitler?

GreenHorizons

United States24297 Posts

August 20 2017 09:16 GMT

#170077

I honestly don't know what's worse, the hand-wringing over violence against Nazis from the left (center) or the advocating of white supremacy from the right?

Just so we're clear, the folks thinking the Nazis rights are being unfairly restricted, you would all equally defend the counter protesters rights if instead of being anti-racism, they were calling for the extermination of anyone wearing Nazi garb/rocking memorabilia/espousing ideology, so long as they didn't act on it right?

Furikawari

France2522 Posts

August 20 2017 10:51 GMT

#170078

It's 2017 and it's just amazing what people can write/think these days. Only in Murica I guess.

User was warned for this post

plated.rawr

Norway1676 Posts

August 20 2017 11:50 GMT

#170079

On August 20 2017 11:55 Mohdoo wrote:
Danglar's logic reminds me of this:

Show nested quote +

The irony of this statement is a perfect comparison, I feel.

If we go to Charlottesville, there's no "both sides are equally bad" there. One side's there to intimidate, threaten, and "rough up" non-supporters of the movement. The other side's there as a reaction to the violent action of the first side. Without the first, there would be no second. Equating the second side's violence towards the first as equal, then, would be completely ignoring the actual point of the violence - that of self-defense.

As it's been described previously in this thread, it's a used tactic of gatherings of white supremacists to crowd or single out weaker looking protesters or bystanders, then attempt to intimidate or abuse them verbally or physically, in which police rarely intervenes.

When the state and law fails to protect its citizens, they are required to defend themselves.

Obviously that last statement could be used by white supremacists, who feel metaphysical concepts are under attack by a nebulous "enemy", however I feel there's a vast difference of having your ideas attacked (which is a required part of a free speech and free thought society) and being physically abused.

Edit: While I don't condone initiation of violence, I very much advocate responding violence with violence. Normally the state through police would do this, but if they fail, it's up to the citizens to respond to the violence of other citizens.

Trump's response to Charlottesville is a perfect example of failure of the state. In addition to emboldening white supremacists, he's basically also told counter-activists on the left that the state won't be helping. This will only breed more clashes, unless local police takes proper responsibility in spite of the presidental response.

Biff The Understudy

France8176 Posts

August 20 2017 11:51 GMT

#170080

I would like to ask people who consider antifas to be the problem (or a big part of it): if you read in a history book that in 1925, in Germany, nazis held a march and clashed with protesters that were potentially violent, and that one of the nazis performed a terror attack leaving a protesters dead, would you look at it thinking "well the nazis were bad but those protesters were wrong too and it's partly their fault"?

Or does it sounds like an absurd, disturbing and twisted reasoning to you? It certainly does to me.

I am still baffled at how mild some of you guys are against supporters of hitlerism.

Prev 1 8502 8503 8504 8505 8506 10093 Next

Please or register to reply.

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8504

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming