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

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

Sure, she'll be fine but others who are subject to the cancel culture, and don't have millions of dollars, won't be.

The Left is now targeting small businesses with their cancel culture. Targets like the oil industry and Chick Fil A will also be fine, but it will destroy small businesses.

Are you sure you aren't imagining all this?
Told you not to listen to the grifters.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Sure, she'll be fine but others who are subject to the cancel culture, and don't have millions of dollars, won't be.

The Left is now targeting small businesses with their cancel culture. Targets like the oil industry and Chick Fil A will also be fine, but it will destroy small businesses.

Chick Fil A is a gay rights issue. Conservatives can be gay, many are. You really put a lot of effort into the lie that there's some big leftest conspiracy out to get whitey just because he might be a little gun happy or folksey racist, as is his right, free speech and all that...
The oil industry is a business, they don't give two f***s about anything but making money. That's fine, but people don't have to kiss their asses as they **** on the planet.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

Are you sure you aren't imagining all this?
Told you not to listen to the grifters.

Nope, and as I said right wing groups are now using the left's use of the cancel culture to target left wing individuals, also. You'll be seeing much more of this to come, from both sides now, I predict.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hypocrisy-right-wing-outrage-mob-gets-liberal-university-of-alabama-professor-jamie-riley-fired

Danzy

To a significant degree this surge on groups opposed to people like ANTIFA types is just a counter culture against the orthodoxy of the time.

The left, a broad term, is as near to a religious group in society today, while not dominant in power, very prominent socially and on many major contentious issues of the time it is on the same page as big business, for different reasons and hope but most importantly the loudest screamers about sin and hunters of heretics.

A counter culture takes place. Not coincidence that there are similarities between the 70s punks , bit of mods etc to groups like alt right.

Danzy

notobtuse wrote: »

Sure, she'll be fine but others who are subject to the cancel culture, and don't have millions of dollars, won't be.

The Left is now targeting small businesses with their cancel culture. Targets like the oil industry and Chick Fil A will also be fine, but it will destroy small businesses.

The right looks for converts the left look for heretics.

An old saying and ultimately the summation of why the left ends up as 30 different groups who often agree/disagree vehemently on things, with a special venom for those aligned to them ideologically but not in the exact same way.

Splitters, to quote the famous parody.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Nope, and as I said right wing groups are now using the left's use of the cancel culture to target left wing individuals, also. You'll be seeing much more of this to come, from both sides now, I predict.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hypocrisy-right-wing-outrage-mob-gets-liberal-university-of-alabama-professor-jamie-riley-fired

What’s one thing worse than left-wing snowflakes? Conservative hypocrites.

Is all you read biased one sided articles from biased vested interests?
The Washington Examiner is a company owned by an oil magnet and right wing media billionaire.

Anschutz supported the Parents Television Council, a group that protests against alleged television indecency

Are you seriously thinking you're fighting for equality and fairness by shilling this kind of persons propaganda?
Your article about cancel culture is owned by a guy who censors himself ffs.
You're being conned my friend.

Still waiting on examples of the leftist hate speech....

James Brown

Danzy wrote: »

The right looks for converts the left look for heretics.

An old saying and ultimately the summation of why the left ends up as 30 different groups who often agree/disagree vehemently on things, with a special venom for those aligned to them ideologically but not in the exact same way.

Splitters, to quote the famous parody.

It's complete bull. The right are puppet masters and put everyone else in a box. The same billionaires are still controlling everything just these days they need fight back against public opinion because of social media.

'C***s are still running the world', to quote the Jarvis Cocker song.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

A chance to defend their case before the court before being treated as a criminal when no actual crime was committed.

That’s fair enough. I agree.

But they get their day on court. To me, confiscating the guns until that day is no different to a person being remanded in custody without bail. Do you object to that?

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is all you read biased one sided articles from biased vested interests?
The Washington Examiner is a company owned by an oil magnet and right wing media billionaire.



Are you seriously thinking you're fighting for equality and fairness by shilling this kind of persons propaganda?
Your article about cancel culture is owned by a guy who censors himself ffs.
You're being conned my friend.

Still waiting on examples of the leftist hate speech....

I also posted an article on the Cancel Culture from The New York Times. I didn't see you complain about that. Or do you think NYT is a right wing propaganda rag, also?

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

That’s fair enough. I agree.

But they get their day on court. To me, confiscating the guns until that day is no different to a person being remanded in custody without bail. Do you object to that?

Our Rights under the US Constitution is near and dear to most of us. Taking away a Right without due process starts a slippery slope to other abuses. When do they get their day in court... A month, a year, after their reputations have been destroyed without any recourse? Do you think it is right to have one's personal property taken away without being told who instigated the process or why in particular they're being taken away?

A person being remanded in custody without bail is for a crime committed. In this case no crime has been committed. Yes, a potential crime might be committed, but some safeguards need to be in place so abuses don't happen. Or do you agree it was proper to intern 100,000 Japanese Americans because some crimes might be committed?

Brian?

Danzy wrote: »

The right looks for converts the left look for heretics.

Are you sure you mean heretics? Don’t you mean fanatics? Or else this saying is bizarre

An old saying and ultimately the summation of why the left ends up as 30 different groups who often agree/disagree vehemently on things, with a special venom for those aligned to them ideologically but not in the exact same way.

Splitters, to quote the famous parody.

The left fractures because it encourages freedom of expression and thought. There is no orthodoxy to most left wing groups. They are radical and revolutionary. So laugh all you want, at least they want to move forward and make the world better.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

Are you sure you mean heretics? Don’t you mean fanatics? Or else this saying is bizarre



The left fractures because it encourages freedom of expression and thought. There is no orthodoxy to most left wing groups. They are radical and revolutionary. So laugh all you want, at least they want to move forward and make the world better.

The Left fractures until there is a vote against something proposed by the Right. Then they march in lockstep. The Right does this also, but not as much as the Left.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Our Rights under the US Constitution is near and dear to most of us. Taking away a Right without due process starts a slippery slope to other abuses. When do they get their day in court... A month, a year, after their reputations have been destroyed without any recourse? Do you think it is right to have one's personal property taken away without being told who instigated the process or why in particular they're being taken away?

A person being remanded in custody without bail is for a crime committed. In this case no crime has been committed. Yes, a potential crime might be committed, but some safeguards need to be in place so abuses don't happen. Or do you agree it was proper to intern 100,000 Japanese Americans because some crimes might be committed?

But that person is innocent until proven guilty, yet they can be remanded without bail, a bail can be set so high its unlikely to be paid or they can be put under house arrest.

These happen every day and are fully constitutional.

The government can seize money if it’s believed to be the product of a crime. It’s up to the person it was seized from to prove it fame from legitimate means.

This happens every day and is constitutional.

So why should firearms be different? Red flag laws are constitutional. Get over it. It’s only because it relates to firearms that people get all upset.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

The Left fractures until there is a vote against something proposed by the Right. Then they march in lockstep. The Right does this also, but not as much as the Left.

With respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. To you the Democrats are left wing.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

But that person is innocent until proven guilty, yet they can be remanded without bail, a bail can be set so high its unlikely to be paid or they can be put under house arrest.

These happen every day and are fully constitutional.

The government can seize money if it’s believed to be the product of a crime. It’s up to the person it was seized from to prove it fame from legitimate means.

This happens every day and is constitutional.

So why should firearms be different? Red flag laws are constitutional. Get over it. It’s only because it relates to firearms that people get all upset.

You keep giving examples where a CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. A crime hasn't been committed regarding 'red flag' laws. Don't you see there is a difference?

I am not advocating for mentally ill people to have access to weapons. I am advocating for the burden of proof to be where it is supposed to be, on the accuser so abuses to the system won't happen. Without due process we are enforcing an unconstitutional policy. The Second Amendment was intended to keep a tyrannical government from taking guns away from law-abiding citizens without due process. Now we are advocating for the government to do exactly that? I’m against it.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Our Rights under the US Constitution is near and dear to most of us. Taking away a Right without due process starts a slippery slope to other abuses. When do they get their day in court... A month, a year, after their reputations have been destroyed without any recourse? Do you think it is right to have one's personal property taken away without being told who instigated the process or why in particular they're being taken away?

A person being remanded in custody without bail is for a crime committed. In this case no crime has been committed. Yes, a potential crime might be committed, but some safeguards need to be in place so abuses don't happen. Or do you agree it was proper to intern 100,000 Japanese Americans because some crimes might be committed?

That’s a bit melodramatic: your reputation being damaged by letting cops hold on to your guns?

I’ve previously addressed your internment analogy and argue it is not equivocal to the temporary holding of owned property on reasonable suspicion of a specific individuals intent to use the property to inflict harm. Those people were detained for being Japanese; there aren’t swathes of people having their guns seized for the crime of owning them - if that were true, there would be an actual analogy to argue.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

You keep giving examples where a CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. A crime hasn't been committed regarding 'red flag' laws. Don't you see there is a difference?

I am not advocating for mentally ill people to have access to weapons. I am advocating for the burden of proof to be where it is supposed to be, on the accuser so abuses to the system won't happen. Without due process we are enforcing an unconstitutional policy. The Second Amendment was intended to keep a tyrannical government from taking guns away from law-abiding citizens without due process. Now we are advocating for the government to do exactly that? I’m against it.

Assault is still a crime...

“I have a plan to track down and kill everyone in that group” is not protected speech.

20Cent

This college the students setup an antiracist alert system because armed open carry folks were walking around the campu and the college didn't inform them.


Madness.



https://twitter.com/Move_Silent_Sam/status/1171233072127369218?s=19

Outlaw Pete

20Cent wrote: »

Madness.

Agreed :P

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

This college the students setup an antiracist alert system because armed open carry folks were walking around the campu and the college didn't inform them.

Madness.

https://twitter.com/Move_Silent_Sam/status/1171233072127369218?s=19

An antiracist alert system? Give me a break. I guess kids will be kids.

Seems UNC administration and police were right on top of the situation and no alert, which would have started panic, was necessary.

‘A pro-Confederate protester shakes hands with UNC Police officer Timothy Tickle after Tickle explained to protesters the boundaries of UNC's campus. The pro-Confederate group then left campus. Photo courtesy of Daniel Hosterman.’

- - - - -

UNC Charlotte

University Policy: 702

Executive Summary:
It is a violation of State criminal law and University policy to possess or carry any Weapon, as defined below, on the University Campus, except as otherwise specifically provided by law.

I. Policy
It is a violation of State criminal law and University policy to possess or carry any Weapon, as defined below, on the University Campus, except as otherwise specifically provided by law. Violators will be referred for criminal prosecution, and faculty, staff, or student violations are also subject to University disciplinary action.

II. Definitions
Any person who witnesses a violation of this Policy should report such violation immediately to Police and Public Safety. Any violation of this Policy will be referred for criminal prosecution and for appropriate University disciplinary action applicable to faculty, staff, or students.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

I also posted an article on the Cancel Culture from The New York Times. I didn't see you complain about that. Or do you think NYT is a right wing propaganda rag, also?

Never read it. Must have missed it. Never read the NYT ever actually.
My comment stands on your usual go tos and you've yet to supply examples of hate speech from the left, and more of it than the right....

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

An antiracist alert system? Give me a break. I guess kids will be kids.

Seems UNC administration and police were right on top of the situation and no alert, which would have started panic, was necessary.




- - - - -

UNC Charlotte

University Policy: 702

Executive Summary:
It is a violation of State criminal law and University policy to possess or carry any Weapon, as defined below, on the University Campus, except as otherwise specifically provided by law.

I. Policy
It is a violation of State criminal law and University policy to possess or carry any Weapon, as defined below, on the University Campus, except as otherwise specifically provided by law. Violators will be referred for criminal prosecution, and faculty, staff, or student violations are also subject to University disciplinary action.

II. Definitions
Any person who witnesses a violation of this Policy should report such violation immediately to Police and Public Safety. Any violation of this Policy will be referred for criminal prosecution and for appropriate University disciplinary action applicable to faculty, staff, or students.

Timothy Tickle :):):)

All colleges will probably need such alerts unfortunately.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

The Left fractures until there is a vote against something proposed by the Right. Then they march in lockstep. The Right does this also, but not as much as the Left.

How do you explain Trump? He's got support from the evangelicals, racists and various gun nuts. It seems the right are more than happy to put morals and ethics aside once their man is in.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

All colleges will probably need such alerts unfortunately.

SUUUUURE they will. :rolleyes:

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How do you explain Trump? He's got support from the evangelicals, racists and various gun nuts. It seems the right are more than happy to put morals and ethics aside once their man is in.

Did you mean to quote me? Your post has nothing to do with democrats voting in lockstep... and what you posted is pure nonsense.

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

SUUUUURE they will. :rolleyes:

They already do unfortunately.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

They already do unfortunately.

Who is the 'they' you speak of, other than UNC students, that have 'antiracist alert systems?' Somehow I don't think I'll receive a response with any colleges. But I'm sure others will now start them as stupid nonsense seems to be an epidemic on college campuses these days.

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

Who is the 'they' you speak of, other than UNC students, that have 'antiracist alert systems?' Somehow I don't think I'll receive a response with any colleges. But I'm sure others will now start them as stupid nonsense seems to be an epidemic on college campuses these days.

All schools and colleges have active shooter alarms and procedures.
Kids in school do practice drills.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

All schools and colleges have active shooter alarms and procedures.
Kids in school do practice drills.

Of course they do. So does one of the employers I work for. But those active shooter alarms on campuses you speak of were not installed because of active shooters... they were installed because of rape and attacks.

And you know that has nothing to do with what you stated and my followup question. Good try, though. :P

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

An antiracist alert system? Give me a break. I guess kids will be kids.

Seems UNC administration and police were right on top of the situation and no alert, which would have started panic, was necessary.




- - - - -

UNC Charlotte

University Policy: 702

Executive Summary:
It is a violation of State criminal law and University policy to possess or carry any Weapon, as defined below, on the University Campus, except as otherwise specifically provided by law.

I. Policy
It is a violation of State criminal law and University policy to possess or carry any Weapon, as defined below, on the University Campus, except as otherwise specifically provided by law. Violators will be referred for criminal prosecution, and faculty, staff, or student violations are also subject to University disciplinary action.

II. Definitions
Any person who witnesses a violation of this Policy should report such violation immediately to Police and Public Safety. Any violation of this Policy will be referred for criminal prosecution and for appropriate University disciplinary action applicable to faculty, staff, or students.

Cut the bull. Armed confederate flag folk roaming on campus and armed cops....or alert system? hmmm..
When states in your country allow people open carry or carry at all, the normal people need try to defend their sense of freedom in their own country. The US is a basket case.