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

Woodsie1

Overheal wrote: »

You seem to be getting angry: just moments ago you felt the need to imply I am a horse?

When have I ever cheered on any Antifa activity? I know my own post history, and it’s not there; if you find something do let me know boss.

:D:D...well thats another moment youve been spectacularly wrong,I implied that youve the blinkers on and explained what blinkers were.

Youre so angry and outraged at your heroes being shown in bad light your comprehension has all but disappeared.

Overheal

I am confused: When was Iron Man portrayed in a negative light on this thread? Not sure what heroes you’re referring to.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Check your local dictionary.

Oxford good enough for you?

a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Analogies can be made referencing things which have little or nothing to do with the situation which the analogy is attempting to bring clarity to. I find it hard to believe that you would not know that.

He stepped down stating it was because he wanted to mitigate legal repercussions. That evidence doesn’t by itself negate the claim he might have been disgusted by the violence.

Hang on now. The claim was NOT that he "might" have been disgusted with Proud Boy violence, it was that he was. Stop moving the goalposts.

.... I just found it very odd that you chose not to simply point out his long history of being more than comfortable with violence, which would have been a solid rebuttal imho.

You mean something like this:

"Hey, how dare you say Gavin stepped down because of Proud Boy violence, Gavin loves violence!"

In your head I bet that made sense too.

I can see where our wires crossed though.

There are no wires crossed. You're defending someone saying Gavin stepped down for reasons he didn't and I'm pointing out that you shouldn't be as there is zero evidence for it.... and that those two things are not mutually exclusive (the truth and the false claim) are neither here nor fcuking there. I hope that's clear enough for you.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oxford good enough for you?



Analogies can be made referencing things which have little or nothing to do with the situation which the analogy is attempting to bring clarity to. I find it hard to believe that you would not know this.



Hang on now. The claim was NOT that he "might" have been disgusted with Proud Boy violence. Stop moving the goalposts.



You mean something like this:

"Hey, how dare you say Gavin stepped down because of Proud Boy violence, Gavin loves violence!"

In your head I bet that made sense too.



There are no wires crossed. You're defending someone saying Gavin stepped down for reasons he didn't and I'm pointing out that you shouldn't be as there is zero evidence for it.... and that those two things are not mutually exclusive (the truth and the false claim) are neither here nor fcuking there. I hope that's clear enough for you.

I wasn’t defending that someone at all, I was criticizing your refutation of their claim which used insufficient evidence.

You were drawing equivalencies in your analogy. Away with that.

James Brown

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Because they have freedom of speech. It is not right in a democracy for people to be beaten up or intimidated for exercising that right regardless of how awful their speech is. This is what Antifa does.

I don't care if they are interested in my civil rights, but I'm interested in theirs, which is why I oppose Antifa who regularly engage in violence.

So you've more issue with antifa because they sometimes violently engage with alt-right hate mongers. Interesting that free speech is your key and all consuming concern, even when hate speech.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Yes I do. A despicable women. I'm knocking them as this thread is about Antifa, and I am opposed to any group who use violence, the threat of violence and intimidation to try and shut other people down when legally exercising their right to freedom of speech.

Me too. I'm more concerned about hate groups over and above the actions of anti hate groups.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No there isn't. The Far-right, KKK and White-nationalists are almost universally derided. As already stated, almost all political ideologies are opposed to Fascism

I believe it's a con perpetrated on social media where we hear 'libtard' 'snow flake' 'sjw' when ever anyone goes against or speaks up about bigots and we hear 'free speech' when it's the socially acceptable racists under the microscope.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Because antifa engage in violence and intimidation to suppress peoples right to freedom of speech and assembly. The fact that you'd be quicker to condemn hate-speech over actual violence says it all really.

Antifa have also targeted conservatives as opposed to Fascists before, as pointed out by the Anti-defamation League

so the idea that they solely attack white nationalists and fascists is simply false.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-antifa

Many racists are also conservatives.
Antifa is a movement, a much needed movement. Any individuals engaging in violence should be arrested IMO.

Woodsie1

Overheal wrote: »

I am confused

Its ok,most of your buddies are too.

jackofalltrades

Brian? wrote: »

When do I defend Antifa? It’s more that I attack the Antifa hate, which I feel is silly.

So you try to minimise their actions, down play their use of violence and label legitimate criticism of a violent group as "silly", "hyperbole" and "hate".
But you don't defend them.:rolleyes:
At least 20cent has the honesty to nail his colours to the mast.

Overheal

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Its ok,most of your buddies are too.

Who are my buddies? Name them. Can you quote where they cheered on Antifa? Quote where I cheered on Antifa? Don’t suspect you can given you only seem interested in trolling.

Woodsie1

Overheal wrote: »

Who are my buddies? Name them. Can you quote where they cheered on Antifa? Quote where I cheered on Antifa? Don’t suspect you can given you only seem interested in trolling.

Yours and your buddies posts are all through this thread,easy to find for anybody interested.

Overheal

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Yours and your buddies posts are all through this thread,easy to find for anybody interested.

Afraid not. Not a one of my posts includes cheerleading of Antifa or its activities. Find one and I’ll Venmo you $20

Woodsie1

Overheal wrote: »

Afraid not. Not a one of my posts includes cheerleading of Antifa or its activities. Find one and I’ll Venmo you $20

Its plain to see whos side youre on,if you think im bothered looking through all the drivel youve spouted in this thread,think again.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

I wasn’t defending that someone at all, I was criticizing your refutation of their claim which used insufficient evidence.

So if he said that Gavin stepped down because he had just been diagnosed with cancer, I can't call that a lie either?

This is truly laughable.

Oh and I am not making an equivalence between cancer and disgust with violence by the way.

You were drawing equivalencies in your analogy. Away with that.

Nope, the analogy was made to show that two things merely being mutually exclusive does not justify false claims. I'm embarrassed for you if you think I was drawing an equivalence between being caught with cocaine and stepping down from a group over a disgust with violence.

Again: things being mutually exclusive does not justify false claims.

Overheal

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Its plain to see whos side youre on,if you think im bothered looking through all the drivel youve spouted in this thread,think again.

Hey it’s your loss, I’ll hang on to the $20. :pac:

The only side I’m on is facts boss.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you've more issue with antifa because they sometimes violently engage with alt-right hate mongers. Interesting that free speech is your key and all consuming concern, even when hate speech.

Yes, and as I pointed out not always alt-right hate mongers. Sometimes just run of the mill conservatives.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Me too. I'm more concerned about hate groups over and above the actions of anti hate groups.

Not when that antihate groups specifically exists to engage in violence. Antifa are militants.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe it's a con perpetrated on social media where we hear 'libtard' 'snow flake' 'sjw' when ever anyone goes against or speaks up about bigots and we hear 'free speech' when it's the socially acceptable racists under the microscope.

I don't necessarily disagree. The right are all about free speech until a man bends his knee during the national anthem.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Many racists are also conservatives.

And? How is that a repudiation of what I linked to. Just because a tiny minority of conservatives are racists does not make all conservatives fair game.

A tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, should we treat all Muslims as such?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Antifa is a movement, a much needed movement. Any individuals engaging in violence should be arrested IMO.

Well judging on recent evidence that would be a fair number of antifa members so.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

The only side I’m on is facts boss.

Says the guy who's doing mental gymnastics to try and justify someone saying Gavin McInnes stepped down from a group for reasons there is zero evidence of.

Yeah, you're on the side of facts alright. In a pig's eye.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Antifa is a movement, a much needed movement. Any individuals engaging in violence should be arrested IMO.

And if Antifa is designated as a domestic terrorism organization the whole lot of them giving cover at a protest could be arrested if any of the group initiates violence.

Woodsie1

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Says the guy who's doing mental gymnastics to try and justify someone saying Gavin McInnes stepped down from a group for reasons there is zero evidence of.

Yeah, you're on the side of facts alright. In a pig's eye.

Ah give him a break,he did admit earlier he was confused.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So if he said that Gavin stepped down because he had just been diagnosed with cancer, I can't call that a lie either?

This is truly laughable.

Oh and I am not making an equivalence between cancer and disgust with violence by the way.



Nope, the analogy was made to show that two things merely being mutually exclusive does not justify false claims. I'm embarrassed for you if you think I was drawing an equivalence between being caught with cocaine and stepping down from a group over a disgust with violence.

Again: things being mutually exclusive does not justify false claims.

You were drawing a false equivalence between being accused of having narcotics there was no physical evidence for, and the claim he was disgusted with violence when in his statement he didn’t say that. I’m embarrassed for you too boss.

I’m sure if he had been diagnosed with cancer that probably would have been the reason he would have stated, not “I’m trying to game the legal system.” The outcome would have been the same though, with people rightly calling out he wanted to game the legal system, then you’d swoop in and call them liars because he said he was diagnosed with cancer, etc. - more specifically though, undisclosed health reasons, because who wants to bother with difficult to prove pretenses like cancer when they aren’t true?

Overheal

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Ah give him a break,he did admit earlier he was confused.

Indeed, still confused by your delusions about what is and isn’t in this thread content wise.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Says the guy who's doing mental gymnastics to try and justify someone saying Gavin McInnes stepped down from a group for reasons there is zero evidence of.

Yeah, you're on the side of facts alright. In a pig's eye.

Again, I didn’t make any claim he was disgusted by the violence. Again, I challenged your tangential “evidence” that what they were saying was a lie, because of your video where he resigns for other listed reasons. Again, you could have just said “that’s a lie, he has a long history of glorifying the groups violence” and that would have been that, and we would both be in the same page about the Nazi.

Outlaw Pete

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Pure and utter scutter....heres another clip of Antifa trying to stab somebody who did absolutely nothing to antagonise them

Hadn't seen that before, only had seen two of his clips, cheers for posting.

Fair play to him (and that other guy) for protecting that man like that and risking their own lives in the process.

How anyone can support Antifa and think they are what they claim to be is beyond me.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hadn't seen that before, only had seen two of his clips, cheers for posting.

Fair play to him for protecting that guy and risking his own life in the process.

Staged nonsense tbh. Nobody would actually turn their back on someone they thought was genuinely brandishing a knife with intent to harm and walking behind them in a crowd.

Woodsie1

Overheal wrote: »

Staged nonsense tbh. Nobody would actually turn their back on someone they thought was genuinely brandishing a knife with intent to harm and walking behind them in a crowd.

Why are you so surprised?
By all accounts the Brandon fella was a hard man in his past,not the kind to cower in fear.
Antifa tried to doxx him but all his past history(which is pretty bad in fairness) is public knowledge

ohnonotgmail

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Why are you so surprised?
By all accounts the Brandon fella was a hard man in his past,not the kind to cower in fear.
Antifa tried to doxx him but all his past history(which is pretty bad in fairness) is public knowledge

so hard he is impervious to being stabbed? blimey.

Woodsie1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so hard he is impervious to being stabbed? blimey.

Did i say that?...more exaggerated nonsense from the antifa crowd.

He has no fear of putting himself in harms way to protect somebody being stabbed from behind.

A few in here should take note,cowards.

ohnonotgmail

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Did i say that?...more exaggerated nonsense from the antifa crowd.

He has no fear of putting himself in harms way to protect somebody being stabbed from behind.

A few in here should take note,cowards.

a true hero i'm sure and not just your typical rightwing grifter.

Woodsie1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a true hero i'm sure and not just your typical rightwing grifter.

You dont think protecting an innocent from being stabbed is commendable.
A true coward not just your typical Leftist keyboard warrior.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Staged nonsense tbh. Nobody would actually turn their back on someone they thought was genuinely brandishing a knife with intent to harm and walking behind them in a crowd.

Yeah, all Antifa violence is staged.

Those flag poles he was hit over the head with were really foam and they were all his mates in those masks.

And the Antifa guy that was shot dead outside the ICE facility didn't have a rifle and firebombs either I bet, the racist cops planted them on him.

Overheal

Still not understanding why this Brandon fella would turn their back on someone he believed was carrying a knife with intent to harm or kill. Makes absolutely no sense. Don’t care how hard and grizzly you are or how “tuff” you carry yourself, that’s either the height of Darwinist stupidity or they’ve staged the attack to smear Antifa not unlike the way Project Veritas goes out of its way to falsify videos to advance its political agenda.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, all Antifa violence is staged.

Those flag poles he was hit over the head with were really foam and they were all his mates in those masks.

And the Antifa guy that was shot dead outside the ICE facility didn't have a rifle and firebombs either I bet, the racist cops planted them I suppose.

Gaslighting doesn’t change the peculiarity of exposing your back to a knifer.