Indymedia article condones physical violence

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

That's just not true. Almost everybody supports violence in certain situations depending on what the "victim" has done. There are almost no pacifists in the world and almost everybody realises that violence is justified in certain situations. For example, most people support state-violence against child-rapists, heroin dealers, murderers. This is not remotely hateful.

I find it disturbing that you believe the idea that because most people support criminals being punished in accordance with the law, that this kind of thug behaveour is justified.

What were these neo-nazis doing at the time they were attacked?

chekov

Karl Hungus wrote:

I find it disturbing that you believe the idea that because most people support criminals being punished in accordance with the law, that this kind of thug behaveour is justified.

I find it disappointing that you can't understand my point. I argued that almost everybody supports the use of violence in certain situations, not that this particular event was justified.

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

I find it disappointing that you can't understand my point. I argued that almost everybody supports the use of violence in certain situations, not that this particular event was justified.

Saying that 'Almost everybody' supports the use of violence in certain situations sounds a lot like you are attempting to justify the attack. If that comment didn't have any relevance to the attack, then why did you even post it?

The Corinthian

chekov wrote:

Of course. But you can also despise people on the basis of their views and actions on an entirely rational basis. I pretty much despise neo-nazis, child rapists, heroin dealers. This is not discriminatory as it is based upon a rational analysis of their freely chosen positions and actions rather than an arbitrary characteristic. See the difference?

No, because you’re simply rationalizing hate. Feel free to go over to Stormfront.org and you’ll get the same type of rationalisation. They don’t hate people of another race either, apparently, just that they come to their countries.

So no, I don’t see the difference. If you condone or even encourage violence against any identifiable group you are no different to the neo-Nazis you claim to oppose - maybe worse as you’d be a hypocrite too.

No it's not. Opposition to neo-nazis is a basic moral imperative of anybody who has any sense of decency, in my view. People should more or less do whatever they can to hinder the growth and prevalence of neo-nazi views.

Depends on how you define neo-Nazi really - we’ve already had one clichéd and simplistic definition of it in this thread, would you care to add another? Is it racists alone you would oppose? Or adherents to National Socialism? Or any of the Fascist, neo-Fascist or post-Fascist schools of thought? Perhaps all right wing ideologies should be lumped in together? Just to be on the safe side, mind you.

Which is why I don’t really trust your or Indymedia’s definitions as, the more you examine them, the more they read like “people who disagree with us”.

The_Minister

I would ask Chechov how he can say that dissenting views are not censored. Several times I have written calm, reasonable comments and all but one were gone within 24 hours, as were the comments by people who replyed to me. Those posts did not violate the guidelines that you have posted.

chekov

Karl Hungus wrote:

Saying that 'Almost everybody' supports the use of violence in certain situations sounds a lot like you are attempting to justify the attack. If that comment didn't have any relevance to the attack, then why did you even post it?

I am attempting to factor out the various issues so that the discussion can proceed in a more interesting direction that does not rest upon the conflation of various different principles. Critiques of this action which rest upon the principle that "physical violence is always bad" are pretty much worthless in my view since almost nobody believes this position and such expressions of outrage normally ignore the fact that the outraged one supports the use of violence in other situations.

chekov

Firespinner wrote:

I would ask Chechov how he can say that dissenting views are not censored. Several times I have written calm, reasonable comments and all but one were gone within 24 hours, as were the comments by people who replyed to me. Those posts did not violate the guidelines that you have posted.

If you can point me to the comments, or the public record of the editorial action I might take the time to explain the reasons, otherwise I'm sure you will understand that I can't really comment on things about which I know nothing.

The_Minister

chekov wrote:

If you can point me to the comments, or the public record of the editorial action I might take the time to explain the reasons, otherwise I'm sure you will understand that I can't really comment on things about which I know nothing.

The comments are gone so I'm afraid I can't. two were in the thread on the Afghan hungerstrikers.

chekov

The Corinthian wrote:

So no, I don’t see the difference. If you condone or even encourage violence against any identifiable group you are no different to the neo-Nazis you claim to oppose - maybe worse as you’d be a hypocrite too.

Do you support custodial sentences against paedophiles? If the answer is yes then you support violence against an identifiable group.

Is there any war that you would say that you supported? If the answer is yes then you ....

You really need to be more precise and qualify what you mean or you will continue to make such silly points.

chekov

Firespinner wrote:

The comments are gone so I'm afraid I can't. two were in the thread on the Afghan hungerstrikers.

They are all publicly archived along with a cited reason for their removal at: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland-newswire

John_C

chekov wrote:

I am attempting to factor out the various issues so that the discussion can proceed in a more interesting direction that does not rest upon the conflation of various different principles. Critiques of this action which rest upon the principle that "physical violence is always bad" are pretty much worthless in my view since almost nobody believes this position and such expressions of outrage normally ignore the fact that the outraged one supports the use of violence in other situations.

A lot of people believe that it's not up to the individual to decide if physical violence is needed in any given situation. The poliece and army have a mandate for what they do, private organisations do not.

The difference between a vigilante and a policeman is quite clear and most people oppose vigilanteism, which is why it's illegal.

chekov

John_C wrote:

A lot of people believe that it's not up to the individual to decide if physical violence is needed in any given situation. The poliece and army have a mandate for what they do, private organisations do not.

The difference between a vigilante and a policeman is quite clear and most people oppose vigilanteism, which is why it's illegal.

That's sort of the point that I'm getting at. It makes some sense to criticise the action for being outside the law, it makes no sense to criticise it for being violent per se.

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

I am attempting to factor out the various issues so that the discussion can proceed in a more interesting direction that does not rest upon the conflation of various different principles.

I don't believe that's the case at all.

Bonkey has said:

Bonkey wrote:

People applauding the use of violence against a group for no other reason than because they don't like the victim are expressing hateful views.

To which you reply:

Chekov wrote:

That's just not true. Almost everybody supports violence in certain situations depending on what the "victim" has done. There are almost no pacifists in the world and almost everybody realises that violence is justified in certain situations. For example, most people support state-violence against child-rapists, heroin dealers, murderers. This is not remotely hateful.

As it is a direct reply to Bonkey's assertion of the arcticle on indymedia, it looks like a clear cut attempt to justify the attack in question.

chekov wrote:

Critiques of this action which rest upon the principle that "physical violence is always bad" are pretty much worthless in my view since almost nobody believes this position and such expressions of outrage normally ignore the fact that the outraged one supports the use of violence in other situations.

Feel free to correct me, but didn't Mahatma Gandhi secure indipendance for India without using physical violence?

I'd hardly consider that worthless.

And I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that anyone here is under any illusion as to what the Celtic Wolves' view on violence in other situations are, the point is that they should be dealt with by the law, if they do use violence, and that the thuggery used by AFA is equally as shameful.

अधिनायक

chekov wrote:

Critiques of this action which rest upon the principle that "physical violence is always bad" are pretty much worthless in my view since almost nobody believes this position and such expressions of outrage normally ignore the fact that the outraged one supports the use of violence in other situations.

I'm sure the fascists would agree with these sentiments. You should meet up for a drink sometime and compare notes.

Meanwhile, in this country, violence is reserved for situations where a clear and present danger to the safety of another has arisen and for the army and the police as directed by the public representatives as elected by the people.

I can see why you are so scared of fascist opinions to the extent of censorship, they are no different from your own.

The_Minister

chekov wrote:

They are all publicly archived along with a cited reason for their removal at: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland-newswire

Thanks. Is there any kinda search engine for that? I'm not sure how to find my way through the lists.

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

That's sort of the point that I'm getting at. It makes some sense to criticise the action for being outside the law, it makes no sense to criticise it for being violent per se.

Chekov - you seem to be trying to say that this violence was justifiable ?

Can you just clarify your position on this ?

Do you actually support the violence that was done to these people - who were after all engaged in nothing more than meeting in a bar at the time (going by indymedia's own reportage of the incident)?

base2

What a pack of scumbags. They deleted my addition to the 'debate'. Great job defending free speech lads.

ChityWest

Just to recap - here is the current state of play over at indymedia :

"Be careful those of you criticising
author by mistaken victim of AFA thugspublication date Wed Jun 07, 2006 13:40Report this post to the editors

Just a word of warning to those criticising AFA on Indymedia. I did this before when they beat up Justin Barrett at a debate in UCD. I don't agree with his views but I didn't see the point of violent action against him.

Still, AFA came after me and sent emails to my employer and threatened violence against me and accused me of being involved in right wing politics.

They are a bunch of violent thugs who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner. Obviously, from the tone of this article you can see they get off on the violence - justifying it because these right wing idiots are probably scum. But sometimes they get it wrong, so if you're criticising them, do NOT leave any clues to your true identity.

Pacifist left-winger.
mistaken victim of AFA thugs

author by Zorropublication date Wed Jun 07, 2006 13:44Report this post to the editors

Still got your details michael. Will be in touch."

So Chekov - after you clarify your position above - care to give the indymedia position /comment on this ?

Does this fall within your editorial policy ?

ie menacing somone who is clearly taking a non violent approach to disagreeing with thuggish behaviour ?

fly_agaric

Checkov wrote:

People should more or less do whatever they can to hinder the growth and prevalence of neo-nazi views.

So, do you think "people" should seek out all those with "neo-nazi views" [as defined for the rest of us by the great sages at Indymedia Ireland maybe] and then proceed to ... do what... "reeducate" them, "disappear" them or merely give them a punative hiding because of how they think and what they believe rather than what they've actually done?

So because some "people" are unhappy that we don't have a totalitarian state with dictatorial laws against "fascists" that happen line up with their views they think its okay to go around and dish out "justice" themselves ouside the law?

Great.:(

lostexpectation

I think alot of people including particularily chitywest were banging on about the Afghans being taliban and rapist and killers, would that be what you put to the site?

you can see where hes coming from. :rolleyes:

chekov

base2 wrote:

What a pack of scumbags. They deleted my addition to the 'debate'. Great job defending free speech lads.

Unlike most bulletin boards, we do not allow people to post smears which we know to be false.

base2 wrote:

You people are not right in the head. I'd be far more worried with these indymedia types who have a track record in violence and intimidation than a few sad neo-nazis.

What "indymedia types" have a track record in violence? That's just a smear. AFA might have such a track record but unless you are a neo-nazi (or unless you think that AFA randomly attack people who aren't neo-nazis) why are you worried about them?

ChityWest

lostexpectation wrote:

I think alot of people including particularily chitywest were banging on about the Afghans being taliban and rapist and killers, would that be what you put to the site?

you can see where hes coming from. :rolleyes:

Thats not exactly how I would describe it. I think what was mentioned (re the boards.ie thread ) was that one of them (the afghan hunger strikers) had admitted to being a rapist and a murderer. Slightly different when its put that way isnt it?

As to which exact comments were removed - I cant actually remember - I do remember seeing it at least once personally and hearing about it from at least 2 different people. It all smacks of total 100% hypocrisy - that they can leave menacing comments as above, comments praising thug violence and attempts to identify individuals for violence and intimidation - while at the same time removnig comments critical of the afghans - all based on some magical mystical 'editorial policy'

chekov

fly_agaric wrote:

So, do you think "people" should seek out all those with "neo-nazi views" [as defined for the rest of us by the great sages at Indymedia Ireland maybe] and then proceed to ... do what... "reeducate" them, "disappear" them or merely give them a punative hiding because of how they think and what they believe rather than what they've actually done?

So because some "people" are unhappy that we don't have a totalitarian state with dictatorial laws against "fascists" that happen line up with their views they think its okay to go around and dish out "justice" themselves ouside the law?

Great.:(

No I don't think that.

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

Thats not exactly how I would describe it. I think what was mentioned (re the boards.ie thread ) was that one of them (the afghan hunger strikers) had admitted to being a rapist and a murderer. Slightly different when its put that way isnt it?

Once again, we try our hardest to make sure that indymedia is not used to spread unsubstantiated smears such as the above.

base2

Chekov,
Do you not just see that you represent bigots and violent bigots at that. You think you're right, no debate and then intimidate and attack those that do not agree with you. Scumbag in other words.

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

Just to recap - here is the current state of play over at indymedia :

"Be careful those of you criticising
author by mistaken victim of AFA thugspublication date Wed Jun 07, 2006 13:40Report this post to the editors

Just a word of warning to those criticising AFA on Indymedia. I did this before when they beat up Justin Barrett at a debate in UCD. I don't agree with his views but I didn't see the point of violent action against him.

Still, AFA came after me and sent emails to my employer and threatened violence against me and accused me of being involved in right wing politics.

They are a bunch of violent thugs who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner. Obviously, from the tone of this article you can see they get off on the violence - justifying it because these right wing idiots are probably scum. But sometimes they get it wrong, so if you're criticising them, do NOT leave any clues to your true identity.

Pacifist left-winger.
mistaken victim of AFA thugs

author by Zorropublication date Wed Jun 07, 2006 13:44Report this post to the editors

Still got your details michael. Will be in touch."

So Chekov - after you clarify your position above - care to give the indymedia position /comment on this ?

Does this fall within your editorial policy ?

ie menacing somone who is clearly taking a non violent approach to disagreeing with thuggish behaviour ?

Thanks for pointing these out. Both have been removed. Did you post them yourself?

chekov

base2 wrote:

Chekov,
Do you not just see that you represent bigots and violent bigots at that. You think you're right, no debate and then intimidate and attack those that do not agree with you. Scumbag in other words.

I don't represent any bigots. Furthermore your claim that I have intimidated and attacked people is simply a lie, a libelous one at that. If you want to make that charge against AFA, go for it, making it against me or indymedia is simply defamatory and untrue.

Why on earth do you think that indymedia has a duty to distribute your smears?

Crash

Thats a bit of an overly harsh comment chekov. can't just assume that because he noticed them that it was him that did it.

chekov

&#231 wrote: »

Thats a bit of an overly harsh comment chekov. can't just assume that because he noticed them that it was him that did it.

My apologies. I did not mean it like that. I was trying to highlight the fact that neither he nor myself had any way of knowing who wrote those comments nor what their motivation was. The initial claim has been removed pending verification.

base2

I've heard plenty of stories about Indymedia in the past. There was one report where a journalist when to vistit your HQ. The details of the incident escape me but I'm sure you can remind me. Suffice to say that at the time I can remember t reflected very badly on yourselves.