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

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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.

Here's what you posted:

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

What does this mean?
When someone claims to be a victim of a crime, it's investigated, on their word. Then likely there'll be a court case. Up to that point everyone is taken at their word, including the person under suspicion of committing the criminal act.

Should we not give women the benefit of the doubt like all people claiming to have had an act of criminality against them? Why use, #ibelieveallwomen like a negative to dismiss antifacism?
Is the idea antifacists only pretend they are antifacists and women only pretend to be victims, theres a similarity here?
Can you explain your comment to me as I seem to be wide of the mark? Thanks.

James Brown

Ironicname wrote: »

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.

I didn't specify women as a special case. We should believe everyone until investigated. Innocent until proven guilty. This goes for the victim too, no?

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

I didn't specify women as a special case. We should believe everyone until investigated. Innocent until proven guilty. This goes for the victim too, no?

No but you brought up mysogyny when someone dared compare blindly believing antifa with the believe all women hashtag.

And no.

rocksolidfat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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.

My, you got defensive quickly. Which is very strange, because at no point did I ever call you or even imply you were a Trump supporter as my post was very expressly and explicitly referring to another poster. Why are you so eager to play the victim card here?

Your second paragraph is entirely incorrect, by the way. The ACLU knew this was a white supremacist rally and outright condemned it for the fact that it was attempting to intimidate others, but as genuine free speech absolutists, they still wanted to see it go ahead, as they seem to have a history of being consistent on this matter. The violence and attempts at intimidation from the white supremacists at Charlottesville did however, cause the ACLU to change their policy to no longer represent hate groups using guns:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence-prompts-aclu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns
“The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” [ACLU Executive Director Anthony] Romero told the Journal. “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,” he added.

While the ACLU have shown consistency however, many other "free speech" advocates, including here on boards.ie, have claimed that free speech should be defended in its entirety - and have been apoplectic people like Alex Jones who have hid behind freedom of speech while defaming the parents of dead children and inciting his supporters to send them endless death threats. Yes, the "free speech" advocates have, do, and will continue to defend the likes defamation, incitement to violence, etc... so long as it is alt-right types committing them.

Yet when it is not some alt right type like Jones, or Tommy Robinson referring to Muslims in Britain as "enemy combatants", they strangely fall incredibly silent. Why is that, exactly?

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.

You know exactly why it is relevant. I posed to Outlaw Pete why he was claiming a white supremacist rally was something else, as he has been very ardent about this point. You then chimed in saying the ACLU had a role in its going ahead, seeming to imply that meant it could not be a far right, white supremacist rally (your words being: "The ACLU helped the 'unite the right' rally happen. I'm sure no-one would call them far-right or whatever."). You also then added a statement they made about the rally, but conveniently left out the part where the ACLU openly acknowledged that this was a white supremacist rally looking to intimidate others.

Pointing out the serious flaws in your argument is, you will find, about the opposite of what a "straw man" is. A little ironic given...

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.

...this is the second thing you are trying to argue against that I never claimed. Please point me to where I said you claimed there were no nazis of whiten supremacists at this rally. If you can't, we can agree you made this up for no good reason, and can carry on.

So moving beyond that, the issue wasn't to do with a few neo nazis and white supremacists being in the rally. The issue was that it was the neo Nazis and white supremacists literally organised the rally.

Yet for some reason Outlaw Pete feels the need to imply that this was not a white supremacist rally and that it was not literally organised by neo Nazi groups. Yet it was, as per the neo nazis who organised it themselves, and as per the ACLU who still defended their right as actual free speech absolutists. You have not disputed neither the ACLUs claim that this was a white supremacist rally, nor the claims of neo Nazis and white supremacists that they organised the rally, meaning you must be in agreement that this was indeed a white supremacist rally.

And then in the aftermath of this neo Nazi rally that spawned a far right terror attack resulting in murder, the President of the USA came out to talk about how there were "very fine people on both sides". Unfortunately, one of those sides was literally white supremacists and neo nazis, who planned and organised the rally, and were waving their swastikas, white supremacist flags and logos etc, chanting the 14 Words, Blood & Soil etc throughout the whole thing. Very fine people indeed.

I want to know how Pete would have felt if you replaced the neo nazis and white supremacists with Islamic terrorists, and Donald Trump with Barack Obama. I hope that clears this whole matter up for you.

James Brown

Ironicname wrote: »

No but you brought up mysogyny when someone dared compare blindly believing antifa with the believe all women hashtag.

And no.

Yes I did when someone brought up and compared blindly believing antifa and blindly believing women.

So the victim is lying until proven otherwise? One would wonder why they investigate anything?

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

So the victim is lying until proven otherwise? One would wonder why they investigate anything?

Presumption of innocence and the presumption of victimhood are very different.

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

So the victim is lying until proven otherwise? One would wonder why they investigate anything?

And no. But blindly saying you believe all women is ridiculous.

Outlaw Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZR7_NrAgd8

Veritas Libertas

rocksolidfat wrote: »

at no point did I ever call you or even imply you were a Trump supporter as my post was very expressly and explicitly referring to another poster.

You were replying to something I said with this:

rocksolidfat wrote: »

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.

No-one disdains the agreed upon limitations to freedom of speech; incitement to violence, slander, causing a disturbance in a public place etc.. Show me proof of where Trump supporters do??? It's not my fault if I interpret what you have incorrectly written.

Your second paragraph is entirely incorrect, by the way. The ACLU knew this was a white supremacist rally and outright condemned it for the fact that it was attempting to intimidate others, but as genuine free speech absolutists, they still wanted to see it go ahead, as they seem to have a history of being consistent on this matter. The violence and attempts at intimidation from the white supremacists at Charlottesville did however, cause the ACLU to change their policy to no longer represent hate groups using guns:

You're talking ****e. Show someone who is grouping incitement to violence together with free speech(that is defending it). You don't know what you're talking about. Only those that attack it are grouping it with slander et al.
Without the ACLU the unite the right rally would never have happened.

You know exactly why it is relevant. I posed to Outlaw Pete why he was claiming a white supremacist rally was something else, as he has been very ardent about this point.

If I quote something you say, and then say 'Obama also often take the position you are taking' is this not me inferring you to be a supporter of Obama? Can you have integrity and at least admit you were inferring me a Trump supporter, or somehow made an error grammatically?

rocksolidfat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You were replying to something I said with this:

No I wasn't, please stop trying to play the victim here. I was explicitly referring to Outlaw Pete, which I have made abundantly clear. His inability to answer how he would react if Obama called a march organised by ISIS to have 'very fine people' on both sides says all it needs to.

No-one disdains the agreed upon limitations to freedom of speech; incitement to violence, slander, causing a disturbance in a public place etc.. Show me proof of where Trump supporters do??? It's not my fault if I interpret what you have incorrectly written.

You're talking ****e. Show someone who is grouping incitement to violence together with free speech(that is defending it). You don't know what you're talking about. Only those that attack it are grouping it with slander et al.

My oh my, touch a nerve did I?

Let's just start out with Gavin McInnes since Outlaw Pete has video dumped him above in an attempt to change subject from why he is so defensive about Trump and the very fine people in Nazi rallies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J_1Wqzqt4I

And some more: https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1051896829246201857?lang=da

And then leaks of McInnes' Proud Boys indeed planning to use violence: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/proud-boys-chat-logs-premeditate-rally-violence-in-leaked-chats_n_5ce1e231e4b00e035b928683

So let's see...

1. Leader of far right group promotes violence, right wingers don't care.
2. Leader of far right group partakes in and brags about violence, right wingers don't care.
3. Followers of said far right group plan further violence, it leaks, right wingers don't care.
4. Social media outlets ban group and leader, right wingers lose their sh*t.

The right wingers didn't care one iota about incitement to violence, and they didn't care one bit about that violence coming to fruition, but my-oh-my were they ever up in arms about "muh free speech" as soon as it got closed down for those very restrictions we are discussing right now.

You agree McInnes and the likes also promoting violence (including right wingers like Alex Jones, and left wingers like Louis Farrakan) should have been banned by Twitter as they were, for promoting extremism and violence, right?

Without the ACLU the unite the right rally would never have happened.

And I have no idea why you are so desperately clinging on to the idea of the ACLU being involved in Charlottesville somehow means it was not a white supremacist rally - which is was. The ACLU, and the rally organisers themselves, were all very clear that it was exactly that. Do you acknowledge that it Unite the Right, for which Donald Trump praised the "very fine people on both sides" was a far right, white supremacist rally?

If I quote something you say, and then say 'Obama also often take the position you are taking' is this not me inferring you to be a supporter of Obama? Can you have integrity and at least admit you were inferring me a Trump supporter, or somehow made an error grammatically?

If I say "your rally was a white supremacist rally" then I mean your rally was a white supremacist rally. This is what Charlottesville was, and this is what the ACLU said about it too. It is also what the organisers of it said, from Jason Kessler to Matthew Heimbach to the David Duke and the KKK. The attendees took the same position over something, namely race, because they were white supremacists at a white supremacist rally.

If I see you wearing a at Anfield wearing a Liverpool jersey in the Kop end I don't think "well I wonder how that guy got there, strange coincidence he seems to have something in common with the people around him, eh?" I think "there is a Liverpool fan, in Liverpool's stadium, wearing a Liverpool fit, during a Liverpool match, singing Liverpool fan songs. Must be a Liverpool fan."

I also think the same of white supremacists, with white supremacist clothing and flags, surrounded by other white supremacists, also in white supremacist clothing, singing white supremacist songs, in events organised by white supremacists for white supremacists... which is exactly what Charlottesville was, and why I am so curious as to why Outlaw Pete is so eager to claim otherwise.

Veritas Libertas

rocksolidfat wrote: »

No I wasn't,

You have proven a liar repeatedly. You are lost in your own little world where words don't mean anything. You posted an entire essay in response to my one line comment and I cannot believe how anyone can so spectacularly miss the mark of my argument in good faith. Hence why I will stop responding to you from now on.
This is just one example of how demented your strawmans are:

rocksolidfat wrote: »

And I have no idea why you are so desperately clinging on to the idea of the ACLU being involved in Charlottesville somehow means it was not a white supremacist rally - which is was.

I never made this argument you demented madman. Seriously? Where do you get off putting words into people's mouths? Its not even possible to misinterpret what I said genuinely to mean that.

rocksolidfat wrote: »

My oh my, touch a nerve did I?

Yes if you lie about someone that is not nice. What if I called you a paeodophile would you like it? Would that touch a nerve?

rocksolidfat wrote: »

please stop trying to play the victim here. I was explicitly referring to Outlaw Pete, which I have made abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by rocksolidfat
As a matter of interest... if Al Qaeda organised a pro-Jihad march in the US and were allowed to go ahead with it, what would your opinion be?

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.

Woke people when caught out on lies, just keep doubling down. Just like you're doing.

Veritas Libertas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What does this mean?

Should we not give women the benefit of the doubt like all people claiming to have had an act of criminality against them? Why use, #ibelieveallwomen like a negative to dismiss antifacism?
Is the idea antifacists only pretend they are antifacists and women only pretend to be victims, theres a similarity here?
Can you explain your comment to me as I seem to be wide of the mark? Thanks.

I'm glad you've gone from calling me names to asking me questions. That's progress.

It means that the only side of the political aisle advocating to believe people based on their identity, rather than their character or actions, is coming from the left. Would you disagree with this?

Men are neither 'believed' in court. For the same crimes men get more prison sentence when convicted in court than women. I would never advocate to believe someone because of the genitalia that they have.

I'm saying antifascists aren't only antifascists they're also morons causing trouble and not fighting fascists.
I'm saying all women aren't only telling the truth all the time. Sometimes they lie. Just like everybody else.

But we know this is no major revelation, so why the shock when we oppose something like
#believeallwomen??

20Cent

See Milo has been barred from a Furry convention and is threatening to gate crash it now.

De platforming works.

Tasfasdf

20Cent wrote: »

See Milo has been barred from a Furry convention and is threatening to gate crash it now.

De platforming works.

Wrong thread,

Probably barred for his own safety those people are liberal weirdos.

Tasfasdf

Tasfasdf wrote: »

Wrong thread,

Probably barred for his own safety those people are liberal weirdos.

In fairness, the threads are very similar.

I think it's fair to say that "most" liberals would class the furries as weird too.

Although I'm sure there are some here that would defend their right to identify as furries and demand that we accept it as a legitimate way of life.

Those are the people whose opinion mean absolutely nothing to me.

20Cent

Tasfasdf wrote: »

Wrong thread,

Probably barred for his own safety those people are liberal weirdos.

Statement from the organisers:

“Hate is not welcome at Midwest FurFest. We are dedicated to providing a safe, harassment-free convention experience for all, regardless of age, race, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, or personal beliefs,”

They don't want him bullying attendees.

Seems like there are furry nazi's though maybe he could go to their convention.

This is not the first time a furry convention has had a brush with neo-Nazis. In 2017, Fur Con, a furry convention in Denver, Colorado, was cancelled after a group of far-right furries known as Furry Raiders reserved a block of hotel rooms at the event.

Milo Yiannopoulos Banned From Furry Convention
https://www.thedailybeast.com/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-furry-convention

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Statement from the organisers:

“Hate is not welcome at Midwest FurFest. We are dedicated to providing a safe, harassment-free convention experience for all, regardless of age, race, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, or personal beliefs,”

They don't want him bullying attendees.

Seems like there are furry nazi's though maybe he could go to their convention.

This is not the first time a furry convention has had a brush with neo-Nazis. In 2017, Fur Con, a furry convention in Denver, Colorado, was cancelled after a group of far-right furries known as Furry Raiders reserved a block of hotel rooms at the event.

Milo Yiannopoulos Banned From Furry Convention
https://www.thedailybeast.com/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-furry-convention

Is this the hill you are prepared to die on? Protecting furries from furry Nazis as if that's an actual thing?

randd1

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this the hill you are prepared to die on? Protecting furries from furry Nazis as if that's an actual thing?

Despite the fact that that statement can actually be considered these days, my genuine worry in all this is that I don't actually think humanity has hit its nadir in terms of blatant stupidity it now inflicts upon itself.

I thought the invention of the internet was supposed to advance human intelligence collectively, not return us to amoeba levels?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this the hill you are prepared to die on? Protecting furries from furry Nazis as if that's an actual thing?

why does anybody need to die on any hill? 20Cent was merely introducing some facts into the discussion and correcting your mate.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this the hill you are prepared to die on? Protecting furries from furry Nazis as if that's an actual thing?

Just providing information, think it is funny how he is being rejected from almost everywhere.

It does seem to be a real thing though!



"Hill to die on" change the narrative alt right trick #426

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Just providing information, think it is funny how he is being rejected from almost everywhere.

It does seem to be a real thing though!



"Hill to die on" change the narrative alt right trick #426

It's not even remotely like a narrative change. It was a genuine question. You are now claiming there are Nazi furries and presenting them as a problem.

You seem to be like the child from the sixth sense but instead of seeing dead people where most people can't, you see Nazis.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not even remotely like a narrative change. It was a genuine question. You are now claiming there are Nazi furries and presenting them as a problem.

You seem to be like the child from the sixth sense but instead of seeing dead people where most people can't, you see Nazis.

the description of far right furries came from the convention organisers. I suggest you take it up with them.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not even remotely like a narrative change. It was a genuine question. You are now claiming there are Nazi furries and presenting them as a problem.

You seem to be like the child from the sixth sense but instead of seeing dead people where most people can't, you see Nazis.

When you are being led into the gas chamber it doesn't make any difference if the guard is wearing a furry costume.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

When you are being led into the gas chamber it doesn't make any difference if the guard is wearing a furry costume.

hahahaha. Is that what is happening?

Christ on a bike. Hyperbole central in the Cent household.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the description of far right furries came from the convention organisers. I suggest you take it up with them.

I'd rather not thanks.

A furry convention organiser is exceptionally high on my list of people who I don't want to speak to. Up there below actual Nazis and Antifa.

Tasfasdf

This thread gets funnier every time I visit. Now the Pro Antifa are telling us there are Nazi furrys. Seriously lads when you posting that crap its time to go outside or at least open the window blinds.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

hahahaha. Is that what is happening?

Christ on a bike. Hyperbole central in the Cent household.

No, furry run concentration/death camps would would have made the news.

This lot use nazi imagery so if they being provocative, ironic or actual nazi's is immaterial, the organisers can decide who they want at their events.

ohnonotgmail

Tasfasdf wrote: »

This thread gets funnier every time I visit. Now the Pro Antifa are telling us there are Nazi furrys. Seriously lads when you posting that crap its time to go outside or at least open the window blinds.

again, 20Cent was quoting the organisers of the convention. But why would you be surprised that the far right have kinks as well?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

again, 20Cent was quoting the organisers of the convention. But why would you be surprised that the far right have kinks as well?

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I am surprised that 20cent said "When you are being led into the gas chamber it doesn't make any difference if the guard is wearing a furry costume"

SexBobomb

20Cent wrote: »

When you are being led into the gas chamber it doesn't make any difference if the guard is wearing a furry costume.

LOL, I don't think anyone expected to ever see such a sentence.