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

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

In a world where violence can mean anything from murder to just nasty words, then yes, protesting by the act of physically preventing people from hearing words you don't agree with is a valid example.

A valid example of what? Fascism, no. Being a bit of bollocks, yes.

These people shouldn't be allowed dictate what ideas can and can't be heard.

They aren't.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

They aren't.

Good, so you disagree with them physically preventing people to enter the talk?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good, so you disagree with them physically preventing people to enter the talk?

Absolutely. I disagree with any acts of violence.

I disagree with sensationalist nonsense calling them fascists. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be.

1800_Ladladlad

Ironicname wrote: »

In a world where violence can mean anything from murder to just nasty words, then yes, protesting by the act of physically preventing people from hearing words you don't agree with is a valid example.

These people shouldn't be allowed dictate what ideas can and can't be heard.

They want different rules and laws for themselves in which they do not wish to abide by. This will, of course, be ignored by those who live in an alternate reality that struggle to think

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely. I disagree with any acts of violence.

I disagree with sensationalist nonsense calling them fascists. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be.

Well that's fair enough so. I agree that calling them fascist is silly, unless the word is being used somewhat disingenuously to highlight the people who represent Anti-fa's repeated misuse of the word and their propensity for labelling anything they oppose as fascist

Brian?

Deleted User wrote: »

Well that's fair enough so. I agree that calling them fascist is silly, unless the word is being used somewhat disingenuously to highlight the people who represent Anti-fa's repeated misuse of the word and their propensity for labelling anything they oppose as fascist

I don't understand this post. You seem to be saying it's ok to misuse the word fascist to highlight the repeated misuse of the word by Antifa. Is that correct?

I think we should remove the silliness completely. If it's wrong when Antifa do it, it's wrong when people opposed to Antifa do it.

Brian?

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

They want different rules and laws for themselves in which they do not wish to abide by. This will, of course, be ignored by those who live in an alternate reality that struggle to think

I'm struggling to understand this post.

They want different rules and laws for themselves - possibly, but I don't think they do.

"In which they do not wish to abide by" - what?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

I don't understand this post. You seem to be saying it's ok to misuse the word fascist to highlight the repeated misuse of the word by Antifa. Is that correct?

I think we should remove the silliness completely. If it's wrong when Antifa do it, it's wrong when people opposed to Antifa do it.

Yes, to intentionally call someone a fascist incorrectly to highlight and lampoon/parody who use the word incorrectly without a hint of irony, is acceptable.

And if the people using the word fascist incorrectly are doing so on behalf of a "movement" supposedly against fascism, it's much more important for them to actually have the definition nailed on.

Brian?

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, to intentionally call someone a fascist incorrectly to highlight and lampoon/parody who use the word incorrectly without a hint of irony, is acceptable.

But that's not what's happening here. Pete and others have vehemently defended their usage of the word "fascist" as being a correct description of Antifa.

And if the people using the word fascist incorrectly are doing so on behalf of a "movement" supposedly against fascism, it's much more important for them to actually have the definition nailed on.

agreed.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

But that's not what's happening here. Pete and others have vehemently defended their usage of the word "fascist" as being a correct description of Antifa

Well if that is the case then I agree with you. I read it as if they were judging Antifa by Antifa's own standards (i.e improper use of fascist).

If anyone genuinely thinks that it is a correct term to use for such a small incident, the world is even more ****ed than I thought. It's the same as using the word "violence" or the term "hate crime" for any speech that offends you.

notobtuse

Antifa strikes again! Violence and arrests at an Ann Coulter college speech. Lovely bunch of coconuts.

What was that, again, about Antifa not protesting and committing violence at mere conservative functions?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/several...t-at-berkeley/

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

Antifa strikes again! Violence and arrests at an Ann Coulter college speech. Lovely bunch of coconuts.

What was that, again, about Antifa not protesting and committing violence at mere conservative functions?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/several...t-at-berkeley/

Page does not exist.

James Brown

Ironicname wrote: »

In a world where violence can mean anything from murder to just nasty words, then yes, protesting by the act of physically preventing people from hearing words you don't agree with is a valid example.

These people shouldn't be allowed dictate what ideas can and can't be heard.

If it's fascism, yes they should. If someone is preaching hate how ever thinly veiled it should be closed down. It's on us all to do so.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Good, so you disagree with them physically preventing people to enter the talk?

What talk was this, the one where no antifa were involved? The one regarding a right wing politician?
Is every protest against the right an automatic Antifa protest?
If it's the one I'm thinking of they shouldn't have blocked the elderly Alt-Right lady, but they wasn't Antifa and one of the lads publicly apologised after it...then his family had to close their cafe because of death threats, y'know from the decent also not antifa folk.

James Brown

20Cent wrote: »

Page does not exist.

Also...

PJ Media (originally known as Pajamas Media) is a conservative opinion and commentary collaborative blog that was founded in 2004. Its majority owner was technology entrepreneur, billionaire,[1] and angel investor Aubrey Chernick.[2] Salem Media Group bought the company in 2019.

I mean if a billionaire can't be trusted

He gets all his 'facts' from biased far right christian opinion pieces.

Outlaw Pete

20Cent wrote: »

The "but Obama" post.

You shoehorn 'kids in cages' into the debate and cite Trump as a means of having an off-topic dig at me, suggesting that he was the one responsible them, and when I post something which makes it clear that he was not the one who built those cages, you label that a 'But Obama' post? lol

Course you're not the first to do this. Happens all the time that people, when trying to smear Trump, will cite things which his predecessor was responsible for. In fact just the other day this Tweet had to be deleted for that very reason:

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1196897651423358976

Bernie Sanders tweeted out: "This is immoral" but then deleted the tweet once it became clear the stats were referring to a time when the Orange man was not in the Oval. The left ladies and gents.

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

If it's fascism, yes they should. If someone is preaching hate how ever thinly veiled it should be closed down. It's on us all to do so.

Absolute bollocks good sir. That would all depend on what the individuals ascertain as "hate" which is very subjective. You have no right to decide that

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

What talk was this, the one where no antifa were involved? The one regarding a right wing politician? Is every protest against the right an automatic Antifa protest? If it's the one I'm thinking of they shouldn't have blocked the elderly Alt-Right lady, but they wasn't Antifa and one of the lads publicly apologised after it...then his family had to close their cafe because of death threats, y'know from the decent also not antifa folk.

You are full of contradictions.

Is antifa a movement or people? No antifa were involved? It wasn't antifa?

It's a little bit preposterous that defenders of antifa can't decide what it is.

Kind of like how antifa can't decide what a fascist is.

****ing idiots

1800_Ladladlad

Antifa member arrested a year after viral video shows attack on a lexus as it drove through demonstration

Portland police arrested a man suspected of using a metal baton to smash a luxury sedan as the car pushed through a throng of demonstrators more than a year ago in an encounter that blossomed into a national news story.

Shaun Clancy, 37, was booked Wednesday into the Multnomah County jail on a felony allegation of first-degree criminal mischief stemming from the Oct. 6, 2018, dustup.

Officers found a pair of brass knuckles on Clancy when they arrested him as well as a stun gun with an “Antifa” sticker pasted on it, according to police. Clancy now faces an additional allegation of carrying a concealed weapon.

Im sure he feels oppressed.

Brian?

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Antifa member arrested a year after viral video shows attack on a lexus as it drove through demonstration





Im sure he feels oppressed.

Another Antifa member arrested in Portland. Are people still going to try to argue they are given carte Blanche by the police?

B0jangles

Brian? wrote: »

Another Antifa member arrested in Portland. Are people still going to try to argue they are given carte Blanche by the police?

Antifa are savagely violent thugs who are too wimpy to even leave their mothers basements, which is a very good thing because if they did come out, the police (who are their allies) would only cover all their crimes, as this link to an arrest report demonstrates.


Shush, my logic is impeccable

Brian?

B0jangles wrote: »

Antifa are savagely violent thugs who are too wimpy to even leave their mothers basements, which is a very good thing because if they did come out, the police (who are their allies) would only cover all their crimes, as this link to an arrest report demonstrates.


Shush, my logic is impeccable

You missed the part about them being anti Semites

Harvey Weinstein

Tasfasdf

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Wow, Antifa Ireland lmao. Any the Antifa member here care to explain this BS?

kevovek

This is the AFA Ireland page, no idea what page that image is from but I suspect its fake
https://www.facebook.com/afaireland/

Brian?

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Can you link to that on Facebook? I can’t find it on Antifa Ireland. I’d like to comment on it’s stupidity

Edit: not even the Antifa Ireland emblem is real on that picture. The one on the Facebook group has a blue, red and black flag.

20Cent

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

There are hundreds of fake antifa accounts setup by right wingers to discredit them. Bet a lot of what the obsessed alt right folks think is antifa is actually other alt right types trolling them.

There was a case last year where a fake antifa Twitter said they were going to vandalise a military graveyard. Loads of alt right Muppets turned up to protect it, one of them shot himself in the foot.

ohnonotgmail

20Cent wrote: »

There are hundreds of fake antifa accounts setup by right wingers to discredit them. Bet a lot of what the obsessed alt right folks think is antifa is actually other alt right types trolling them.

There was a case last year where a fake antifa Twitter said they were going to vandalise a military graveyard. Loads of alt right Muppets turned up to protect it, one of them shot himself in the foot.

Literally or figuratively?

ohnonotgmail

Tasfasdf wrote: »

Probably was an antifa member who made the page, you haven't a clue. You talk as if your the administrator for antifa.

so link the page then? any eejit can doctor a screenshot.

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so link the page then? any eejit can doctor a screenshot.

I can’t even find the alleged page or the post.