Indymedia article condones physical violence

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

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

Actually no I didnt. Why did you remove both ? Why not just remove the one where somone is menacing another individual ? On what basis did you remove the one where somone warned others that opposing these ****wits can lead to intimidation ?

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

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?

Jesus... That's an unsettling comment right there.

I can imagine comments like that did the rounds in Nazi Germany; "Unless you are jew, why are you worried about them?"

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

Actually no I didnt. Why did you remove both ? Why not just remove the one where somone is menacing another individual ? On what basis did you remove the one where somone warned others that opposing these ****wits can lead to intimidation ?

It was an anonymous posting by a poster with no track record making serious claims against a group without any evidence whatsoever.

Fairly ironic really when you complain about the standard of verification of other information that you seem to instantly believe such a comment.

ChityWest

Karl Hungus wrote:

Jesus... That's an unsettling comment right there.

I can imagine comments like that did the rounds in Nazi Germany; "Unless you are jew, why are you worried about them?"

Thats exactly what I was thinking It reminded me of that poem about - "first they came for the gypsies"

I think the logic here is that anyone disagreeing with this thuggish behaviour is a nazi or some sort of nazi sympathizer ? This seems to be the gist of the remark. I mean who else would be bothered by it ?

chekov

Karl Hungus wrote:

Jesus... That's an unsettling comment right there.

I can imagine comments like that did the rounds in Nazi Germany; "Unless you are jew, why are you worried about them?"

In that case there would be a perfectly good answer. If there was any evidence that pointed towards AFA attacking people who are not neo-nazis I would be concerned, as there isn't I think it's fair to ask why somebody would express greater worry about the chances of themselves being attacked by AFA than they would be about being attacked by neo-nazis.

the_syco

From reading this thread, it would seem the lefties on Indymedia believe that the Celtic Wolves use violence, which they see as bad, but when they (the lefties) use violence, its good.

[sarc]Oh, and chekov, I'm not a jew, so I'm not going to worry about your vigalanties kicking the crap out of all who oppose them[/sarc]

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

Fairly ironic really when you complain about the standard of verification of other information that you seem to instantly believe such a comment.

Whats ironic is that yet again indymedia remove posts critical of it or it's fellow travellers while deciding to retain posts glorifying violence against those who disagree with their unique far left view point.

The far left behaving like the stereotypical football thug/fascist far right - thats whats ironic here and if you cant see that you need serious psychiatric assistance.

chekov

base2 wrote:

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.

You really do accuracy well don't you. Indymedia organised a centre a few years ago in a warehouse in the north inner city. Several members of the public confronted Justine McCarthy and tore up her notes at which point several indymedia volunteers intervened. We apologised fully as she indicated in her subsequent article, nor did she blame us for the incident.

chekov

the_syco wrote:

From reading this thread, it would seem the lefties on Indymedia believe that the Celtic Wolves use violence, which they see as bad, but when they (the lefties) use violence, its good.

[sarc]Oh, and chekov, I'm not a jew, so I'm not going to worry about your vigalanties kicking the crap out of all who oppose them[/sarc]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Forgive me for shouting.

NEITHER I NOR INDYMEDIA HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH AFA OR THIS ARTICLE

The Corinthian

chekov wrote:

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

The only group I support any form of violence against, such as a custodial sentence, is that group known as convicted criminals. These include paedophiles, thieves and the hooligans - such as the so-called anti-Nazis.

You’ll note I specify convicted too, which denotes dispassionate judgement of culpability in the eyes of a codified law. Not a vigilante group. Otherwise you end up, using your suitably emotive example of paedophiles, with idiocy such as this. This is ultimately what you’re advocating.

These guys were targeted because of a label. To the attackers it was irrelevant that they were personally guilty of any crime (this is not to say they were not, only that the so-called anti-Nazis didn’t really care).

This is what differentiates a just use of force over a simple act of hate. These guys were targeted because they were “the political enemy” not because of any crime they may have committed, which is essentially the same reason that racists will often use (then later rationalise). That’s what makes them the same as the racist they claim to oppose.

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

I’ve been very precise. How about you’re more precise on your definition of what you mean by neo-Nazis as I’ve already asked you?

Gordon

chekov, if the police asked for the ip addresses of the people that posted on your site that incited violence and hatred towards these "neo-nazis" will you comply with the police's wishes?

bonkey

chekov wrote:

It's still supporting violence.

At most, it is supporting the use of violence by those trained and authorised to use it as a last resort. Said people also being the officially-mandated force charged with enforcing the law.

I don't support violence. I accept that violence may, in certain circumstances, be the least-worst available option, but I don't support it.

I do not accept that allowing people to take the law into their own hands, to use and encourage the use of violence, to applaud the use of such violence etc. is the least-worst available option regardless whether the cause they are championing targets the innocent or the guilty.

That's just not true. Almost everybody supports violence in certain situations depending on what the "victim" has done.

How does this make my statement untrue?

Almost everyone is capable of hate. Simply saying that almost everyone can identify a situation where they would support the use of violence doesn't preclude it from being hateful.

There are almost no pacifists in the world and almost everybody realises that violence is justified in certain situations.

Would you accept this argument had it been the neo-nazis beating the crap out of the AFA etc and then defending crowing about it on Indymedia?

No? I didn't think so.

So you don't fundamentally believe that (almost) everyone believing in the use of violence being justified in certain circumstances means that violence is ok as long as someone/you/the perpetrator feels its justified.

See, the whole point of invoking "almost everyone" is to argue that something is not subjective. You're trying to use it to defend a subjective argument, which doesn't work because I can show that when applied to another subjective argument you won't accept the very reasoning you offered in the first place.

For example, most people support state-violence against child-rapists, heroin dealers, murderers. This is not remotely hateful.

Indeed. State-violence.

Violence carried out by those we have empowered to use it on our behalf and in our defense.

Violence carried out by those to whom we have abrogated any right we may have had to exercise violence ourselves, as part of a greater social contract designed to protect us more than it limits us.

Thats the distinction. Such distinctions are key here, otherwise your argument simply argues that because some violence is acceptable, any violence is acceptable...and I'm pretty sure the violence carried out by the neo-nazis and their like isn't what you're trying to argue is acceptable.

One can go further and also say that most of those who support state-violence will only do so when said violence is used in a manner they consider consistent with the afore-mentioned social contract. For example - that while it may be OK to roughly bring down some rioting scum, its not ok to beat up peaceful protestors.

What you're suggesting appears to be that because people may support this "some violence" notion, they somehow lose the right (or are wrong) to complain about a violation of the very social contract that makes state-violence in any way palatable. At the same time, it is violence and hatred used by others that you feel justified in using these tactics to oppose.

Objectivity is not a major aim of the indymedia editorial policy.
Never has been never will be.

Then I'm at a loss as to what you're defending it for.

You accept that indymedia is biased and does not attempt to identify, minimise or correct that bias and are here defending that stance regarding a piece concerningwanton violence.

We, on the other hand, are saying that this article clearly shows that indymedia is biased, and does not attempt to identify, minimise or correct that bias even to the point of supporting wanton violence.

We do, on the other hand, try to apply our editorial guidelines fairly

From the sbujective viewpoint fo a neo-nazi, what they do is subjectively fair too, I would guess.

Without objectivity, the concept of fairness is meaningless. If you can't or won't apply your editorial policy as objectively as possible, then your policy is de facto unfair.

Opposition to neo-nazis is not hate-mongering.

Peaceful opposition may not be, no. No-one has suggested otherwise. Taking the law into your own hands, encouraging or applauding the same....that most certainly is hatemongering.

Again, its a subjective/objective issue. Subjectively, from your position, you may not be hate-mongering. Then again, subjectively, from a neo-nazi's position, their message isn't hate-mongering either.

So...you still believe subjectivity is the right way to go? They have as much legitimacy in their eyes as you do in yours.

From a more objective posiotion - which is what most people here seem to be taking - you're both wrong because you both fundamentally agree that its ok to take the law into your own hands as long as you believe in what you're doing.

That's just a red-herring. ou are eliding this issue with the separate issue of the justification of extra-state violence.

Are you suggesting that these AFA and AY thugs were acting on the instructions and authorisation of the state? If not, then these criminals were engaged in extra-state violence, so suggesting that their actions be viewed as such is neither a red-herring nor a seperate issue at all.

One cannot judge Indymedia's stance (which is what this topic was about) without judgnig what it is they are taking a stance on.

The only red-herring here is the suggestion that condemnation of the attack equates to support for the victim's ideology. I think you'll find that's one of yours.

If it was an effective way to stop it, I wouldn't be complaining.

You know...if the violence you go to great pains to support was effective, I'd say you'd hear far fewer complaints too.

The reason vigilantism and so forth are opposed is because they are not solutions. They do not work. They can, in certain rare circumstances, be the least-worst option, but they do not work.

So what you're basically suggesting is that given two approaches that don't work, you'll support the violent, take-the-law-into-your-own-hands one over the non-violent, ;ega; one. Hardly a ringing endorsement for your position.

Which details in particular are you suspicious of?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my questions?

You have an eye-witness account, and a "fact checking" policy you claim has been satisfied. I've outlined why this is is problematic in general. I've fuirhter outlined how the only way I can see that it could be arguably satisfied rests on a conflict-of-interest.

Asking me for details doesn't alleviate nor mitigate this concern. Rather it heightens it because it suggests you're not going to (or don't want to) answer my concerns.

There is a slight difference between the policy as applied to comments and articles, but I still don't get your point.

My point was clarified in the subsequent paragraphs you didn't quote, not the ones you did. I don't see much point in repeating myself here, especially as I get the feeling that this is like your "details" question above.

Incidentally, I like that having defended your having a transparent editorial policy (and all that), you now tell us that said policy isn't uniformly applied.

Is this subjective transparency, maybe? You know how you apply things, so its transparent to you. Just because we don't know what the differences are between posts and articles, and just because its not even clarified in the editorial policy that this is the case.....thats no reflection on the transparency etc. your policy.

Are you saying that the media should act to protect the identity of those who take part in neo-nazi gangs? If not, what grounds would you have for removing the information, from a news point of view?

I'm saying the media should act responsibly. Thats responsibly from as objective a viewpoint as possible, incidentally Just as with fairness and transparency, subjective responsibility is a meaningless concept.

I do not believe a responsible policy can allow information of the nature discussed to be posted, allowed to remain on the site before its authenticity has been verified etc. Whether or not the information in this case is correct, policy cannot be judged on individual successes, but rather on the risk (or reality) of failure.

All it takes is for one person to see incorrect information before its been fact-checked and removed for being wrong in a post and to act on it, ad indymedia is directly responsible. Given the impossibility of pre-checking such information when you don't run a moderated site, that means that allowing such activity is inherently irresponsible as you cannot guarantee that misinformation will not be broadcase and misused.

The best you can guarantee is that if you agree (subjectively) that its wrong that you might do something about it, hopefully before anything bad is done on the basis of the incorrect information.

And if you thnik thats no big deal....I refer you to Corinthian's coment about the English media's comparably "responsible" take on paedophiles and how well that worked out.

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Forgive me for shouting.

NEITHER I NOR INDYMEDIA HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH AFA OR THIS ARTICLE

But the fact remains that you & indymedia routinely remove posts critical of it or its fellow AFA / RAR fellow travellers. While choosing to retain posts which glorify and encourage violence against those you oppose - even to the point of facilitating the identification of people for targetting of violence and intimidation.

Its this discrepancy which people find hard to accept. You claim not to support it - yet you facilitate it with great ease - while removing anything that you actually dont support whether its true or not.

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

Whats ironic is that yet again indymedia remove posts critical of it or it's fellow travellers while deciding to retain posts glorifying violence against those who disagree with their unique far left view point.

The far left behaving like the stereotypical football thug/fascist far right - thats whats ironic here and if you cant see that you need serious psychiatric assistance.

I told you why the post was removed. You ignored this and repeated for the umpteenth time the untruth that it was removed for being critical. You didn't even argue against my point, you just ignored it.

The Corinthian

chekov wrote:

NEITHER I NOR INDYMEDIA HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH AFA OR THIS ARTICLE

Bullshìt. If you censor other articles and posts but fail to do with this article, then you are supportive and complicit in its sentiments and actions.

To attempt to distance yourselves from it while still publishing it is spineless.

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

I told you why the post was removed. You ignored this and repeated for the umpteenth time the untruth that it was removed for being critical. You didn't even argue against my point, you just ignored it.

Please see post #104 - I am not refferring to indymedia removing a single post as well you know - but several and as a matter of routine policy - while at the same time deciding to keep those which glorify organised violence towards people indymedia disapprove of for whatever reason.

Crash

Chekov wrote:

In that case there would be a perfectly good answer. If there was any evidence that pointed towards AFA attacking people who are not neo-nazis I would be concerned, as there isn't I think it's fair to ask why somebody would express greater worry about the chances of themselves being attacked by AFA than they would be about being attacked by neo-nazis.

I mistrust any group that uses vigilante justice, generally because not only are they attacking people on their own moral grounds (whether i share them or not is immaterial) but the simple fact that vigilantism seems to breed a certain with us or against us attitude, which is dangerous to everyone.

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

In that case there would be a perfectly good answer. If there was any evidence that pointed towards AFA attacking people who are not neo-nazis I would be concerned, as there isn't I think it's fair to ask why somebody would express greater worry about the chances of themselves being attacked by AFA than they would be about being attacked by neo-nazis.

Again you fall back on trying to justify attacks on those deemed to be neo-nazis. You however, fail to miss the point: The idea that because I'm not a neo-nazi I shouldn't be concerned.

First of all, by that logic, no white leftist should be concerned by a racist attack on a black person, for example.

Second of all, a friend of mine in Dublin was attacked by two people who called him a nazi, which he wasn't. He's the heavy metal type, has a shaved head, which seemed provocation enough for these two people to attack him. They never said they were AFA, but going by most of the comments on indymedia, I think it's a very safe assumption.

meditraitor

I think the Garda Síochána should pay these thugs(AFA) a visit,

fly_agaric

chekov wrote:

No I don't think that.

Thank heavens for that.

Its just you seemed to be defending attacks on neo-nazis gathering for a drink and chewing the racist fat who are not actually committing any crimes by saying:

(1) sometimes violence is justified [can't disagree with that at all TBH]
and further
(2) if the violence is comitted in response to something not currently illegal (so the state won't offer violence) but "ethically wrong" (like committing the "thoughcrime" of having neo-nazi views) then it is also justified.

About (2), thoughts should not be illegal IMO so I don't see how you could offer any defence of the anti-fascists actions here.

Anyway, was it proportionate violence in this case?

If the NN's had been out spreading the word/engaging in hatemongering at the time they got attacked maybe you'd have some point [even in that case wouldn't it be better to get the guards involved?].

meditraitor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Fascist_Action

Irish AFA
There was also an AFA in Ireland, which appeared to be modelled on the British group, but had a greater emphasis on supporting Irish Republicanism.

Anti facist republicans , holy jebus, I'll get my coat

chekov

bonkey wrote:

... Indeed. State-violence. ...

You completely miss my point. I was not defending the action, I was responding to arguments which held that all violence is "hateful". Read my words carefully, I try to be precise. I was simply trying to move away from the really silly place which the argument had got into.

bonkey wrote:

What you're suggesting appears to be that because people may support this "some violence" notion, they somehow lose the right (or are wrong) to complain about a violation of the very social contract that makes state-violence in any way palatable. At the same time, it is violence and hatred used by others that you feel justified in using these tactics to oppose.

No. I was trying to move the debate off the sad violence=hate spot in which it was finding itself. Your assumptions about my beliefs on violence arising out of this fairly simple point are all wrong.

bonkey wrote:

You accept that indymedia is biased and does not attempt to identify, minimise or correct that bias and are here defending that stance regarding a piece concerningwanton violence.

Articles and comments on indymedia are self-published and are not normally objective. The editorial guidelines contain various value judgments and as such are not objective. Their application is objective to the greatest degree possible.

bonkey wrote:

We, on the other hand, are saying that this article clearly shows that indymedia is biased, and does not attempt to identify, minimise or correct that bias even to the point of supporting wanton violence.

This is just crazy. People keep claiming that indymedia supports wanton violence. You could similarly say that boards.ie supports racism, defamation, etc if you were so silly as to confuse the message with the messenger on such self-publishing sites.

As far as I can see, the only argument of any substance that concerns indymedia is that the article should have been removed since it reports favourably on an instance of extra-state violence. Since we do not have a policy against such points of view, we aren't going to remove it. We similarly allow all the dissident republican groups to post, the various supporters of the illegal invasion of Iraq, etc, etc. Why do you think that this one particular example of violence should be particularly censored?

So what you're basically suggesting is that given two approaches that don't work, you'll support the violent, take-the-law-into-your-own-hands one over the non-violent, ;ega; one. Hardly a ringing endorsement for your position.

You're just making any old stuff up. I don't think that and I certainly didn't suggest it.

chekov

Karl Hungus wrote:

Again you fall back on trying to justify attacks on those deemed to be neo-nazis. You however, fail to miss the point: The idea that because I'm not a neo-nazi I shouldn't be concerned.

First of all, by that logic, no white leftist should be concerned by a racist attack on a black person, for example.

There are a couple of reasons why that is wrong - firstly because everybody should be concerned when innocent people are attacked and secondly because the far right don't just attack immigrants, leftists, gays, etc are also high up the target list.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Second of all, a friend of mine in Dublin was attacked by two people who called him a nazi, which he wasn't. He's the heavy metal type, has a shaved head, which seemed provocation enough for these two people to attack him. They never said they were AFA, but going by most of the comments on indymedia, I think it's a very safe assumption.

I am completely against attacking people because one might think they are nazis. That's just thuggery.

chekov

The Corinthian wrote:

Bullshìt. If you censor other articles and posts but fail to do with this article, then you are supportive and complicit in its sentiments and actions.

To attempt to distance yourselves from it while still publishing it is spineless.

That's ridiculously poor logic. We remove articles that are against the editorial guidelines, we do not remove ones that are not. This does not make us in any way complicit or supportive of the sentiments of any of the posts that we publish.

Crash

chekov wrote:

I am completely against attacking people because one might think they are nazis. That's just thuggery.

...but if you KNOW they're nazi's its something to be lauded?

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

I am completely against attacking people because one might think they are nazis. That's just thuggery.

This seems to be a subtle way of saying it IS ok to physically attack people who DO hold those viewpoints.

I disagree.

I dont think you or anyone else has the right to make those decisions - ie who gets to hold an opinion contrary to your own without getting their faces kicked in and who doesnt.

You either agree that people are allowed to hold differing opinions while remaining within the law - or you dont.

Its not a matter of picking and choosing here whenever it suits.

chekov

fly_agaric wrote:

Its just you seemed to be defending attacks on neo-nazis gathering for a drink and chewing the racist fat who are not actually committing any crimes by saying:

(1) sometimes violence is justified [can't disagree with that at all TBH]
and further
(2) if the violence is comitted in response to something not currently illegal (so the state won't offer violence) but "ethically wrong" (like committing the "thoughcrime" of having neo-nazi views) then it is also justified.

About (2), thoughts should not be illegal IMO so I don't see how you could offer any defence of the anti-fascists actions here.

Anyway, was it proportionate violence in this case?

If the NN's had been out spreading the word/engaging in hatemongering at the time they got attacked maybe you'd have some point [even in that case wouldn't it be better to get the guards involved?].

I haven't attempted to justify it. You don't even know if I would attempt to justify it or not. I've been defending indymedia from the wild claims that indymedia can be said to be supportive of it by virtue of carrying it.

chekov

&#231 wrote: »

...but if you KNOW they're nazi's its something to be lauded?

It depends doesn't it. For example, I applaud those who fought against the European fascists in the 1930's, in Spain, Italy and Germany and I applaud those who fought against them in the second world war. As I said above, I do not currently think it is a good strategy for opposing fascism today.

the_syco

chekov wrote:

You could similarly say that boards.ie supports racism, defamation

The mods here remove that sort of stuff. On indymedia the photo's are left there, and the people in them are named.

meditraitor

chekov wrote:

I haven't attempted to justify it. You don't even know if I would attempt to justify it or not. I've been defending indymedia from the wild claims that indymedia can be said to be supportive of it by virtue of carrying it.

There is no virtue in carrying that story

http://www.indymedia.ie/about_us

The Independent Media Centre Network is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media's distortions and unwillingness to cover the efforts to free humanity

And these efforts to "free humanity" include giving a soap box to an organisation that is no better than the scum it opposes. It doesnt even have the intellect to approach the problem of racism and bigotry without the need for violence!

What would be free about humanity if this attitude became the norm?