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

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

again, where does the piss thing come from? Now it may just be my old ears but i didnt hear any mention of piss in the video.

It comes from years of examples of antifa throwing piss at people.

Personally, if a group of people who I know have a history of throwing piss at people, throw liquid from a bottle at me, I am not going to taste it to verify its content. I will assume it is piss and react accordingly.

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

It comes from years of examples of antifa throwing piss at people.

Personally, if a group of people who I know have a history of throwing piss at people, throw liquid from a bottle at me, I am not going to taste it to verify its content. I will assume it is piss and react accordingly.

so you dont actually know that he had piss thrown on him, you are just assuming he did.

emo72

This thread is depressing. People will get back to normal when the internet gets taken down. Boards is probably bad for your mental health at this stage

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

so you dont actually know that he had piss thrown on him, you are just assuming he did.

Oh FFS. So willing to give the benefit of the doubt to "your side".

Pathetic.

I obviously have not got the testing equipment to verify the liquid, yet I can safely assume that if there was even the remotest possibility that piss is thrown at someone, it will more than likely result in a physical altercation.

With antifa having a track record for throwing piss at people, it would be awful silly to assume it was anything else. Hopefully it wasn't piss, but throwing an unknown substance on people is still indefensible.

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

Oh FFS. So willing to give the benefit of the doubt to "your side".

Pathetic.

I obviously have not got the testing equipment to verify the liquid, yet I can safely assume that if there was even the remotest possibility that piss is thrown at someone, it will more than likely result in a physical altercation.

With antifa having a track record for throwing piss at people, it would be awful silly to assume it was anything else. Hopefully it wasn't piss, but throwing an unknown substance on people is still indefensible.

so is approaching people with the intention of violence but you seem to give that a pass.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

so is approaching people with the intention of violence but you seem to give that a pass.

So you assume that violence was his intention? Also there was no violent approach until after the liquid was thrown

Veritas Libertas

Ironicname wrote: »

but throwing an unknown substance on people is still indefensible.

For me throwing liquid on anyone is indefensible. (except water on people during a festival where people know liquids will be thrown like Songkran in Thailand )

It is a violent act. It is literally the battery part of 'assault and battery'

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

So you assume that violence was his intention? Also there was no violent approach until after the liquid was thrown

you assumed it was piss. we all make assumptions. i dont think he approched the protestor to hug him.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you assumed it was piss. we all make assumptions. i dont think he approched the protestor to hug him.

I assumed it was piss. If it was water it was still indefensible.

Again, the "protester" was not approached until after they threw stuff on people.

Outlaw Pete

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

again, where does the piss thing come from? Now it may just be my old ears but i didnt hear any mention of piss in the video.

Throwing Evian is not Antifa's style, never was.

Boston:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/899011558436737024
Portland:

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/878644020095963136
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/06/23/portland-police-chief-says-antifa-protesters-used-slingshot-to-launch-urine-and-feces-filled-balloons-at-riot-cops/

20Cent

Cops always claim piss was thrown at them. Justifies their violence afterwards.

Veritas Libertas

20Cent wrote: »

Cops always claim piss was thrown at them. Justifies their violence afterwards.

Hold on.. where is the tweet from the cops saying the proud boys threw piss on them?

Outlaw Pete

At this stage the support of Antifa can only be wilful ignorance or they approve of their despicable actions, bit of both perhaps. Footage of them instigating violence for years and even calling black cops coons whilst protecting the public, including them. Wake up ffs, Antifa are scum.

20Cent

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

At this stage the support of Antifa can only be wilful ignorance or they approve of their despicable actions, bit of both perhaps. Footage of them instigating violence for years and even calling black cops coons whilst protecting the public, including them. Wake up ffs, Antifa are scum.

It's evidence of how dumb most consumers of media are.
Zero digital literacy and believe whatever some grifter says.

Veritas Libertas

20Cent wrote: »

It's evidence of how dumb most consumers of media are.
Zero digital literacy and believe whatever some grifter says.

There is only one political pole advocating to believe people because of their identity and not the merits of their argument or their actions.

#believeallwomen has become #believeantifa

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

It's evidence of how dumb most consumers of media are.

You spelled savvy wrong.

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

There is only one political pole advocating to believe people because of their identity and not the merits of their argument or their actions.

#believeallwomen has become #believeantifa

Ah, nice. Funny how pro hate speech and thinly veiled misogyny often go hand in hand.

Personally I give people the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. That goes for people claiming to be victims being such until an investigation concluded and people preaching hate being racists, equally.

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

Ah, nice. Funny how pro hate speech and thinly veiled misogyny often go hand in hand.

Hahahahaha. It's misogynistic to be opposed to believe all women???

Your posts are beyond parody at this stage

Veritas Libertas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ah, nice. Funny how pro hate speech and thinly veiled misogyny often go hand in hand.

Are you accusing me of 'pro hate speech' and 'thinly veiled misogyny'? Otherwise I don't see the point of your post. Do you disagree with what I said?

Or are you doing the 'woke' thing by attacking the person you disagree with?

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

Personally I give people the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. That goes for people claiming to be victims being such until an investigation concluded and people preaching hate being racists, equally.

You give people the benefit of the doubt??? Apart from the people accused. They are guilty until proven innocent then?

Such contradictory, absolute drivel.

20Cent

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

There is only one political pole advocating to believe people because of their identity and not the merits of their argument or their actions.

#believeallwomen has become #believeantifa

Don't speak altright what are you on about, political pole????

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Are you accusing me of 'pro hate speech' and 'thinly veiled misogyny'? Otherwise I don't see the point of your post. Do you disagree with what I said?

Or are you doing the 'woke' thing by attacking the person you disagree with?

I'm talking about folk dismissing entire sub sections of society or opinions that they've issue with. Equating #believeallwomen to #believeantifa for example, nonsense designed to dismiss points of view you may not like, ironically. Two makey up terms.

I'm accusing you of trying to belittle women who are claiming to be victims and antifacists.

You know what you can do with your 'woke'

rocksolidfat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Well since freedom of speech is a human right according to the U.N. and we're all about human rights around here I'm sure no-one has a problem with a protest or a march.

Not fully true, as freedom of speech is not absolute - incitement towards violence for example, is typically not protected. It seems to be a trend amongst those more supportive of Trump to disdain these restrictions on free speech, yet I don't recall seeing them often, or really ever, have issue with these restrictions when it comes to issues outside of the alt-right or those related. Now I could be wrong on this, but I would need you to point me to the thread with hundreds of posts about how unfair it is that the British government 'silenced' hate preachers like Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza to further prove your point..

The ACLU helped the 'unite the right' rally happen. I'm sure no-one would call them far-right or whatever.
This is what they had to say about the events in Charlottesville.

Claire Gastañaga:

"The situation that occurred was preventable" and the ACLU's lawsuit, which resulted in a federal court granting an injunction allowing the rally to go forward at Lee Park, "did not cause it."
• "The lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counterprotesters on the street was contributing to the potential of violence. [Police] did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an 'unlawful assembly' and clear the area."

How did you forgot to mention that the ACLU openly acknowledged in absolutely no uncertain terms, that this was a white supremacist march, and condemned it as such:

ACLU STATEMENT ON CHARLOTTESVILLE

“We condemn the voices of white supremacy heard in Charlottesville today, and all violence. Our hearts are with those killed and injured.

“Participants like KKK leader David Duke made it clear why white supremacists took to the streets of Charlottesville — they applaud President Trump’s policies and wish to intimidate Americans who are working for equality and liberty in the United States. We, like counter-protesters & others around our country, won't be intimidated. We work daily to fight systems & policies of white supremacy.

“The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy, and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech. For this reason, the ACLU of Virginia defended the white supremacists’ right to march. But we will not be silent in the face of white supremacy. Those who do stand silent enable it. That includes our president.”

Added to that, the ACLU did not organise this rally, the people below did. Careful with these links in the workplace, because some of them will bring you to the official websites of neo Nazi groups:

- Stormer Book Clubs (SBCs) of the neo-Nazi news website The Daily Stormer,
- The Right Stuff,
- Richard Spencer's white-replacement obsessed National Policy Institute,

- Four groups that form the Nationalist Front: the neo-Confederate League of the South and Identity Dixie, the neo-Nazi groups Traditionalist Worker Party, plus Vanguard America (formed by people deemed too extremist for the Holocaust denying National Alliance - Louis Theroux did a doc featuring them), and the swastika-loving National Socialist Movement.

- The Ku Klux Klan (specifically the Loyal White Knights and the Confederate White Knights branches),
- The Poud Boys' (whose founder left them citing far right extremism) Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights,
- Identity Evropa, who openly push for the 'Nazifiaction' of the USA.
- The Southern California-based fight club Rise Above Movement,
- The American Guard,
- True Cascadia,
- Canada-based ARM (Alt-Right Montreal) and Hammer Brothers whose Nazi chats were leaked online.
-Attomwaffen affiliated Anti-Communist Action.


So to summarise: this was a neo nazi March. It was organised by Neo Nazi white supremacists. The neo Nazi's who organised it are typically very proud of their white supremacist and neo Nazi outlooks - many flaunt them, rather than even attempt to hide them, and will not deny it for a moment. The ACLU also does not hide the fact that the organisers of this march were white supremacists, and has outright said as much. You are not claiming that these people are all wrong, are you?




EDIT: I see Pete has been back in the thread, and has chosen to ignore my questions, which really says all it needs to.

James Brown

20Cent wrote: »

Don't speak altright what are you on about, political pole????

It's 'newspeak'.

Veritas Libertas

Not fully true, as freedom of speech is not absolute - incitement towards violence for example, is typically not protected. It seems to be a trend amongst those more supportive of Trump to disdain these restrictions on free speech, yet I don't recall seeing them often, or really ever, have issue with these restrictions when it comes to issues outside of the alt-right or those related.

Well done calling me a Trump supporter woke brownie points for your virtue signalling.

Even the most ardent supporters of freedom of speech believe the principle is rooted first in not harming others, defamation, incitement to violence etc.. no-one is arguing for. Not even the 'free-speech absolutists'. Only those looking to suppress opinion are trying to lump these things in with free-speech defenders. Just look at how the ACLU are treated by the left today, its absolutely sickeningly disgraceful.

How did you forgot to mention that the ACLU openly acknowledged in absolutely no uncertain terms, that this was a white supremacist march, and condemned it as such:

What relevance would that have? My post was first in reply to 'would you be in support of extremist Islamists marching in the streets' to which I replied I would if they got the proper permit. So I don't see why you are trying so fervently to strawman my argument as it just won't work.

So to summarise: this was a neo nazi March. It was organised by Neo Nazi white supremacists. The neo Nazi's who organised it are typically very proud of their white supremacist and neo Nazi outlooks - many flaunt them, rather than even attempt to hide them, and will not deny it for a moment. The ACLU also does not hide the fact that the organisers of this march were white supremacists, and has outright said as much. You are not claiming that these people are all wrong, are you?

You're strawman of my argument, that somehow I'm claiming there were no neo-nazi involved in the unite the right rally is absurd.

My actual argument is that I would be in support of anyone's right to protest anything. It is not just for the well-being of those who are protesting, but the ones they are protesting also get to sharpen their arguments.

Let me just add that protesting does not include de-platforming or silencing or throwing piss.

Veritas Libertas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm accusing you of trying to belittle women who are claiming to be victims and antifacists.

That is quite the accusation trying to belittle women who are claiming to be victims. Got any proof? Or is this just your feelings?

You are clearly denigrating me and not the contents of my posts. But I guess we all know how hypocritical woke people are.

James Brown

Ironicname wrote: »

You give people the benefit of the doubt??? Apart from the people accused. They are guilty until proven innocent then?

Such contradictory, absolute drivel.

You missed or ignored the "until an investigation concluded".
You know that's how it works right? He's innocent and she's to be believed too, until it's concluded? They've a whole court thing and everything...

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

That is quite the accusation trying to belittle women who are claiming to be victims. Got any proof? Or is this just your feelings?

You are clearly denigrating me and not the contents of my posts. But I guess we all know how hypocritical woke people are.

My apologies, you support and give weight to #believeallwomen and #believeantifa. I misunderstood. It read like you were dismissing women claiming victimhood and antifacists as being disingenuous, not what they claim.

It's hard to keep up with all these alt-right pop subculture terms.

Veritas Libertas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My apologies, you support and give weight to #believeallwomen and #believeantifa. I misunderstood. It read like you were dismissing women claiming victimhood and antifacists as being disingenuous, not what they claim.

It's hard to keep up with all these alt-right pop subculture terms.

What read like I was dismissing women claiming victimhood? It's hard to keep up with you honestly. You first accuse me of some pretty serious accusations, now you are getting sarcastic and underhanded without ever making a real argument.

What the hell are you arguing? Or can you even make a coherent argument. I'm wasting my time with you I feel.

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

You missed or ignored the "until an investigation concluded". You know that's how it works right? He's innocent and she's to be believed too, until it's concluded? They've a whole court thing and everything...

So you believe everyone???

What a pointless statement to make.

And you do realise that sometimes accusations are made and the "whole court thing" doesn't happen as the "victim" doesn't press charges. Who do you believe then? Should we still just believe all women? Sounds a little sexist if you ask me.