Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Since 1896 Cracker Jack is an American brand of snack consisting of molasses-flavored, caramel-coated popcorn and peanuts, that comes in a box and is packaged with a prize of trivial value inside. Very young kids loved the small prizes and learned things from them. It is a standard joke here that if you think you know something you don’t really know you must have learned it from the prize in a box of Cracker Jack.

Sounds disgusting. But at least I understand the reference now.

Please show me proof that the Robert E Lee statue was put up during the Jim Crow era to remind blank people who was in charge. Cracker Jack prizes do not count.

I can’t show you proof you’d accept. I’m stating ng an opinion that most civil war statues were erected during the Jim Crowe era to remind black people who was in charge. If you look at the timeline for when these statues are put up it peaks around the times when there was moves forward in civil rights.

If you’re a proud American, why would you put up a statue to someone who was a traitor? I don’t understand how you can be a flag waving patriot and proud of a confederate general at the same time.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh I have, I have...

That's the 'Unite The Right' poster that had silhouettes of all the confederate statues on it which were targeted for removal (one of which was Jefferson Davis) and it was laughingly said in the Politics forum (while attempting to make the same argument you are now) that Jefferson was clearly giving the old Sieg Heil salute. A man who died in 1865! :P


Yeah, you're gonna have to do better than that I'm afraid.

The eagle motifs don’t bother you at all?

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Wasn't Rommel accused of partaking in the plot to kill Hitler, and given the option to take his own life?

Yeah he was. In late 1944 or early 45 as far as I remember. Right after he realised that Germany was going to lose the war. The only reason some German generals plotted to remove Hitler was the make it easier to negotiate peace with the USSR. They were fine with the mass genocide, they couldn’t face another humiliating surrender though.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

I thought so, but it seems according to Brian great military leaders should be shunned.

Not all. The most important thing is what they were fighting for. Was it a moral or just cause.

If it was the right to own other people, they shouldn’t be lauded as “great military leaders”. Study their tactics in military colleges all you want, but putting up statues is a bit much.

Ironicname

https://youtu.be/SgA7Eom0mIc

A good piece from Steven Crowder regarding why antifa should be classified as a terrorist group.

Sonny noggs

Ironicname wrote: »

You must be trolling at this stage.

Has been from day one.

Ironicname

Brian? wrote: »

Not all. The most important thing is what they were fighting for. Was it a moral or just cause.

Any soldiers or Amy generals who fought in Iraq shouldn't be celebrated so. They should be vilified in your eyes?

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

Any soldiers or Amy generals who fought in Iraq shouldn't be celebrated so. They should be vilified in your eyes?

Soldiers, no. Their leaders, yes.

We’re talking about leaders here, not individual grunts.

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

https://youtu.be/SgA7Eom0mIc

A good piece from Steven Crowder regarding why antifa should be classified as a terrorist group.

Starts with calling a group of communists and anarchists fascists. Is there any point in watching any more?


Why do American men on YouTube feel they need to shout so much.

Billy Mays

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh I have, I have...

That's the 'Unite The Right' poster that had silhouettes of all the confederate statues on it which were targeted for removal (one of which was Jefferson Davis) and it was laughingly said in the Politics forum (while attempting to make the same argument you are now) that Jefferson was clearly giving the old Sieg Heil salute. A man who died in 1865! :P

Yeah, you're gonna have to do better than that I'm afraid.

That's the very one

Mad, though not in the least bit surprising, that you only mention the silhouettes of the confederate statues and completely ignore the who's who of neo nazi and white supremacist speakers listed on it. Maybe you can explain (though I doubt it) what the black eagle symbols are meant to represent cos to me they look very similar to an emblem of the nazi party minus the swastika underneath.

And if you're so sure I'm making the argument that Davis is giving a seig heil salute in the image find a quote of mine anywhere on these boards where I've ever made such a claim. Hint: you won't

Look, it's obvious by now that you feel you have to defend Daddy every time he puts his foot in it but sticking up for protests organized by neo nazis/white supremacists isn't really a good look

Ironicname

Brian? wrote: »

Starts with calling a group of communists and anarchists fascists. Is there any point in watching any more?


Why do American men on YouTube feel they need to shout so much.

Probably not for you. It won't change your mind but it is interesting for people who hold the same views as it articulates it well.

There's just as many women and men from different countries that shout on YouTube

Tony EH

Brian? wrote: »

Yeah he was. In late 1944 or early 45 as far as I remember. Right after he realised that Germany was going to lose the war. The only reason some German generals plotted to remove Hitler was the make it easier to negotiate peace with the USSR. They were fine with the mass genocide, they couldn’t face another humiliating surrender though.

This is incorrect.

It's doubtful that any of the July plotters were actually seeking a true end to the war with Russia and none of the them were "fine with mass genocide" either. In fact, it was one of the driving factors in their decision to try and assassinate Hitler in the first place, even though few of them had actually witnessed any of the Third Reich's genocidal policies in effect first hand. Von Stauffenberg, himself, had only heard of stories from Von Tresckow. But, it was enough to convince him. Other members had been opposed to the more outrageous of Nazi excesses, since the 30's and the war in Russia had further solidified their opinions.

They wanted Hitler out of the way, because they realised he was a madman and not the great leader they once believed him to be and his actions were probably going to lead Germany to complete destruction. But, as German conservatives, they still held a great animosity toward the Soviet Union and were not opposed to continuing the war, if they could secure a peace in the West. Although the actual plans of the plotters are extremely vague and what they were actually going to do once Hitler was dead remains a mystery, there are some who believe that their ultimate aim was to keep peace with the Western Allies, draw some sort of negotiation with Russia, and hold onto the territory that had already been annexed.

But, they were living in a fantasy if they thought that that was going to happen, even with Hitler out of the way.

As for Rommel, he was never really in or out of the July plot and it's difficult to pin down where his conviction actually lay. It's true that by 1944, the scales had fallen from his eyes, as it were, and the situation regarding Hitler, Nazi policy, and the precarious nature of Germany's future had become very clear to him. All of which had been obscured when he was campaigning in North Africa. Rommel had never been on the Eastern Front and had never witnessed the ferocity of the war there and thus his experience was limited to stories he'd been told.

Rommel's actual reason for disillusionment (or lucidity to be precise) with Hitler, a man he once admired, was due to Hitler himself, who had displayed his true nature once too often in front of the Field Marshal.

But even the investigation into Rommel's activities by the Nazi's couldn't truly link him with the likes of Stauffenberg et al. Even so, mere association was enough. His only grace was that he was allowed to commit suicide in October 1944 and save face.

The other plotters received no such mercy.

20Cent

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wait a minute.... earlier you were saying:



So out of one side of your mouth you say they are "weak cowards" when confronted and then out of the other side of your mouth you applaud them getting done for fighting Antifa after they confronted them ... which is it man? :P



Seems to me it was Antifa acting like cowards, throwing bottles (of piss apparently) and then running away (according to the prosecution).

Did some members of the Proud Boys react to harshly? Perhaps, but masked thugs coming at another group of men, goaded them, throwing bottles at them, generally doesn't end too well.

Antifa also had broken the windows in the club the talk was being held in that night, vandalising the door, breaking the windows, supergluing the door's security keypad, and even mugged some guy and stealing his

End of the day, antifa clearly wanted to confront the Proud Boys, and went out of their way in order to do so, and then when they did, they yet again got their arses handed to them, and so it's kind hard to have much empathy for them for that reason. Anyone who goes looking for a row and finds one, kinda deserves an ass kicking if one comes their way.


Anyway, in other news, see this Antifa chick recently got 20 days in jail for slapping a Trump supporter two years back.

Can only be a good thing that these kind of assaults are resulting in people being brought to court more and more. End of the day violence is only justifiable if it's in self defense, and even then, as long as it can reasonably be considered to be a proportionate response.

The judge thought otherwise I'd say he or she knew more about it than us.

20Cent

Ironicname wrote: »

https://youtu.be/SgA7Eom0mIc

A good piece from Steven Crowder regarding why antifa should be classified as a terrorist group.

Crowder worked for the Young Turks a left wing youtube channel. He found out he could make much more money grifting the far right so totally changed his viewpoint. Makes loads of money grifting the right. Fair play to him actually just don't expect anyone to take him seriously.

Woodsie1

20Cent wrote: »

Crowder worked for the Young Turks a left wing youtube channel. He found out he could make much more money grifting the far right so totally changed his viewpoint. Makes loads of money grifting the right. Fair play to him actually just don't expect anyone to take him seriously.

This is all bull...sure he's demonitized on YouTube.

20Cent

Woodsie1 wrote: »

This is all bull...sure he's demonitized on YouTube.

When was he demonised?
Answer a few weeks ago.

Why, homophobic and bigoted videos.
He salls "Socialism is for f*gs" t shirts.
Despite being homosexual himself. The ultimate sellout.

Woodsie1

20Cent wrote: »

When was he demonised?
Answer a few weeks ago.

Why, homophobic and bigoted videos.
He salls "Socialism is for f*gs" t shirts.
Despite being homosexual himself. The ultimate sellout.

It's longer than a few weeks ago...more made up bull

Ironicname

20Cent wrote: »

When was he demonised?
Answer a few weeks ago.

Why, homophobic and bigoted videos.
He salls "Socialism is for f*gs" t shirts.
Despite being homosexual himself. The ultimate sellout.

Wow. That'll be news to his wife.

Ironicname

20Cent wrote: »

Despite being homosexual himself.

You strike me as the kind of person who would be upset at the purposeful misgendering trans people yet it's ok for you to accuse someone of homosexuality when they are on record saying they are straight.

Funny that.

20Cent

Ironicname wrote: »

You strike me as the kind of person who would be upset at the purposeful misgendering trans people yet it's ok for you to accuse someone of homosexuality when they are on record saying they are straight.

Funny that.

Whataboutery.

Mixed him up with another grifter Dave Rubin hard to keep track.

Ironicname

20Cent wrote: »

Whataboutery.

Mixed him up with another grifter Dave Rubin hard to keep track.

Hardly whataboutery. You said Steven Crowder was gay. You knew about the t-shirts he sold, you knew of his past work with TYT, you knew about him being demonitised. You seemed to do your homework.

Dave Rubin is a "grifter" too now?

It seems like any commentator who speaks ill of Antifa is a "grifter" to you.

20Cent

Ironicname wrote: »

Hardly whataboutery. You said Steven Crowder was gay. You knew about the t-shirts he sold, you knew of his past work with TYT, you knew about him being demonitised. You seemed to do your homework.

Dave Rubin is a "grifter" too now?

It seems like any commentator who speaks ill of Antifa is a "grifter" to you.

Like I said mixed him up with Rubin, who yes is a grifter definitely.

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

Hardly whataboutery. You said Steven Crowder was gay. You knew about the t-shirts he sold, you knew of his past work with TYT, you knew about him being demonitised. You seemed to do your homework.

Dave Rubin is a "grifter" too now?

It seems like any commentator who speaks ill of Antifa is a "grifter" to you.

Saying someone is gay isn't accusation, that implies there’s something wrong with being gay. I seriously doubt 20c thinks there’s anything wrong with being gay.

I’ll tell you what, Steven Crowder is an idiot who peddles nonsense to simple minded people.

Eric Cartman

Brian? wrote: »

Ironicname wrote: »

Hardly whataboutery. You said Steven Crowder was gay. You knew about the t-shirts he sold, you knew of his past work with TYT, you knew about him being demonitised. You seemed to do your homework.

Dave Rubin is a "grifter" too now?

It seems like any commentator who speaks ill of Antifa is a "grifter" to you.

Saying someone is gay isn't accusation, that implies there’s something wrong with being gay. I seriously doubt 20c thinks there’s anything wrong with being gay.

I’ll tell you what, Steven Crowder is an idiot who peddles nonsense to simple minded people.

So was karl marx but sure theres a lot of aimple minds out there

Ironicname

Brian? wrote: »

Saying someone is gay isn't accusation, that implies there’s something wrong with being gay. I seriously doubt 20c thinks there’s anything wrong with being gay.

Saying someone is gay is a statement when referring to a gay man.

Saying someone is gay when they are openly straight is an accusation.

20cent accused Crowder of being gay and said because of that fact he was the ultimate hypocrite.

How was I to know 20cent isn't able to tell two completely different people apart?

20Cent

Ironicname wrote: »

Saying someone is gay is a statement when referring to a gay man.

Saying someone is gay when they are openly straight is an accusation.

20cent accused Crowder of being gay and said because of that fact he was the ultimate hypocrite.

How was I to know 20cent isn't able to tell two completely different people apart?

Explained already.
Nothing wrong with being gay, do you think there is?


Alt right technique number 26 sealioning.

Ironicname

20Cent wrote: »

Explained already.
Nothing wrong with being gay, do you think there is?


Alt right technique number 26 sealioning.

Of course I don't.

You "explained" after I used the word "accuse".

At that time of the conversation, you making specific references to Steven Crowder and then called him a homosexual.

I had no reason to believe you were referring to Dave Rubin. That's why I said accuse.

FFS. I'm alt right now? Ask my hole.

Sealioning? I didn't ask you for any ****ing further explanation. I pointed out you were wrong, you said you were mixed up and accused me of whataboutery, then Brian chimed in to defend you even though I was right to initially say accused.

Now for some reason you are asking ME if I think there is something wrong with homosexuality?

Absolutely despicable way to debate.

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

Saying someone is gay is a statement when referring to a gay man.

Saying someone is gay when they are openly straight is an accusation.

20cent accused Crowder of being gay and said because of that fact he was the ultimate hypocrite.

How was I to know 20cent isn't able to tell two completely different people apart?

Saying someone is gay is never an accusation. The word implies wrong doing.

Ironicname

Brian? wrote: »

Saying someone is gay is never an accusation. The word implies wrong doing.

That is patently wrong. 20cent was accusing Steven Crowder (albeit erroneously) of being gay in order to frame him as being the ultimate hypocrite.

If someone says they are straight, and you are saying that they aren't you are accusing them of being gay.

You are trying to frame it that there is something sinister in my wording. There is not.

20Cent

Ironicname wrote: »

That is patently wrong. 20cent was accusing Steven Crowder (albeit erroneously) of being gay in order to frame him as being the ultimate hypocrite.

If someone says they are straight, and you are saying that they aren't you are accusing them of being gay.

You are trying to frame it that there is something sinister in my wording. There is not.

Got the two grifters mixed up so what.
They are both massive hypocrites imo anyway.

Accuse sounds like it's a bad thing. Of course it's not no one cares except homophobes.