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

JohnMc1

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hahaha :P

https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1149445662062403584

Probably because most of those Bikers for Trump members are Military vets and Antifa would get curbstomped with the quickness if they tried to start something with them. This is why they don't venture their safe spaces like Portland with sympathetic that side with them and have gun bans so they never have to face the consequences of their terrorism.

The Late Late Show

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hahaha :P

https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1149445662062403584

Would love to see Antifa go after Toecutter Bikers for Bolton Trump. Let them eliminate each other. 2 sets of dunces enter, no dunce leaves!!!

The Late Late Show

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Probably because most of those Bikers for Trump members are Military vets and Antifa would get curbstomped with the quickness if they tried to start something with them. This is why they don't venture their safe spaces like Portland with sympathetic that side with them and have gun bans so they never have to face the consequences of their terrorism.

Let Bolton's Bikers and Antifa fight to the death and do the world a favour. The less of this scum on both sides, the better the world will be. Better never means better for all, and means worse for some. Let the some be Bolton's Bikers and Antifa.

Kimsang

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Let Bolton's Bikers and Antifa fight to the death and do the world a favour. The less of this scum on both sides, the better the world will be. Better never means better for all, and means worse for some. Let the some be Bolton's Bikers and Antifa.

If it were as simple as that I'd be with you.

But these types of situations are appearing in the US's most liberal places. They are owned and run by Antifa, and there is a worrying trend of both media and law enforcement to play down their antics.

There simply is no rise of the far right, there is no political support for them, and no right-wing media writes about them favourably.
All of a sudden anyone who holds dissenting opinions like free speech, men's rights, pro life, individualism or anti-identity politics is labelled as far right.

The Late Late Show

Kimsang wrote: »

If it were as simple as that I'd be with you.

But these types of situations are appearing in the US's most liberal places. They are owned and run by Antifa, and there is a worrying trend of both media and law enforcement to play down their antics.

There simply is no rise of the far right, there is no political support for them, and no right-wing media writes about them favourably.
All of a sudden anyone who holds dissenting opinions like free speech, men's rights, pro life, individualism or anti-identity politics is labelled as far right.

The main problems with the current regime (post-9th April 2018) is their obnoxious foreign policy. After that, the media are to blame for a lot: rise of this, rise of that, sensationalism. Various groups then appear (Antifa, PEGIDA, the hijacked Tea Party, Occupy) both now and before whipping up fervor based on fake issues.

Those 5 opinions (or any other ones for that matter) you mention are of course not in themselves far right (or far left for that matter either). A lot of the time, far right and the like are meaningless terms anyway (racist, sectarian, misogynistic, homophobic or bigoted may be better words to describe it). It of course is all about how extreme people are about their opinions: are they willing to kill for them or wreck a street for them? A person can respect free speech but condemn irresponsible hate speech, can be pro-men's rights without being a misogynist, can be individualist yet respect society, etc. On the other more negative side, someone can be pro-life when it comes to abortion yet support the horrid foreign policy of dictators such as Bolton or MBS.

Sadly, the media are responsible for furthering toxic misinformation. As vile as Antifa on one side or the Bolton regime is on the other, I believe both get their misinformed and twisted world view from unreliable media sources.

20Cent

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hahaha :P

https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1149445662062403584

The dementia really is obvious there.
They don't go after bikers for trump because they aren't fascists. The amount of times in this thread its claimed they go around attacking random people who "think differently " it's clear from the name anti fascist.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

If it were as simple as that I'd be with you.

But these types of situations are appearing in the US's most liberal places. They are owned and run by Antifa, and there is a worrying trend of both media and law enforcement to play down their antics.

There simply is no rise of the far right, there is no political support for them, and no right-wing media writes about them favourably.
All of a sudden anyone who holds dissenting opinions like free speech, men's rights, pro life, individualism or anti-identity politics is labelled as far right.

You've been asked for proof that Antifa are protected by city governments and haven't provided it. So why repeat the lie?

20Cent

20Cent wrote:

The dementia really is obvious there. They don't go after bikers for trump because they aren't fascists. The amount of times in this thread its claimed they go around attacking random people who "think differently " it's clear from the name anti fascist.

Who THEY label a fascist. Hugely different.

Especially when their policy is that you aren't allowed publicly criticise their actions.

A pertinent question would be what exactly do people class as "far-right" and are antifa justified in your mind to attack these people for holding the opinion?

Brian?

Deleted User wrote: »

A pertinent question would be what exactly do people class as "far-right" and are antifa justified in your mind to attack these people for holding the opinion?

I don't think anyone is justified in attacking anyone physically, ever. I'm a bit strange that way though.

Violence is wrong.


I don't defend Antifa's methods in any way shape or form. What I strongly object to is people labeling them as fascists, because they dress in black and use violence to support their political aims. I also strongly object to the idea that they get support from law enforcement that right wing groups don't get.

Antifa have been made into a bogeyman by the right, even soft right. When realistically their ethos is to oppose the rise of far right movements. I feel that the right should stronger in their condemnation of the far right.

I believe the left should be stronger in their condemnation of the political violence Antifa perpetrate. Their core value of opposing fascism is not worthy of condemnation though, it should be done peacefully though.

I don't accept that the responsibility for the violence is entirely the fault of Antifa or entirely the fault of far right groups. To twist a phrase, there are bad people on both sides, on both sides.

However I find the ideas of most far right groups abhorrent, regressive and worthy of opposition. But then I find that also to be true of most centerist and right groups as well, so I am probably not a good barometer.


As for what groups are "far-right". Apart from the obvious Neo-Nazis, the KKK etc. . I would also add groups who are right wing identarians. White nationalist groups, chauvanist groups etc. .

Ush1

Brian? wrote: »

I don't think anyone is justified in attacking anyone physically, ever. I'm a bit strange that way though.

Violence is wrong.


I don't defend Antifa's methods in any way shape or form. What I strongly object to is people labeling them as fascists, because they dress in black and use violence to support their political aims. I also strongly object to the idea that they get support from law enforcement that right wing groups don't get.

Antifa have been made into a bogeyman by the right, even soft right. When realistically their ethos is to oppose the rise of far right movements. I feel that the right should stronger in their condemnation of the far right.

I believe the left should be stronger in their condemnation of the political violence Antifa perpetrate. Their core value of opposing fascism is not worthy of condemnation though, it should be done peacefully though.

I don't accept that the responsibility for the violence is entirely the fault of Antifa or entirely the fault of far right groups. To twist a phrase, there are bad people on both sides, on both sides.

However I find the ideas of most far right groups abhorrent, regressive and worthy of opposition. But then I find that also to be true of most centerist and right groups as well, so I am probably not a good barometer.


As for what groups are "far-right". Apart from the obvious Neo-Nazis, the KKK etc. . I would also add groups who are right wing identarians. White nationalist groups, chauvanist groups etc. .

Did that journalist belong to any of those groups?

Saying you are anti-facist is a completely meaningless term at this stage.

Danzy

20Cent wrote: »

The dementia really is obvious there.
They don't go after bikers for trump because they aren't fascists. The amount of times in this thread its claimed they go around attacking random people who "think differently " it's clear from the name anti fascist.

They won't go for the bikers because they are big working Class Men, and they look as tough as ****.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

I don't think anyone is justified in attacking anyone physically, ever. I'm a bit strange that way though.

Violence is wrong.


I don't defend Antifa's methods in any way shape or form. What I strongly object to is people labeling them as fascists, because they dress in black and use violence to support their political aims. I also strongly object to the idea that they get support from law enforcement that right wing groups don't get.

Antifa have been made into a bogeyman by the right, even soft right. When realistically their ethos is to oppose the rise of far right movements. I feel that the right should stronger in their condemnation of the far right.

I believe the left should be stronger in their condemnation of the political violence Antifa perpetrate. Their core value of opposing fascism is not worthy of condemnation though, it should be done peacefully though.

I don't accept that the responsibility for the violence is entirely the fault of Antifa or entirely the fault of far right groups. To twist a phrase, there are bad people on both sides, on both sides.

However I find the ideas of most far right groups abhorrent, regressive and worthy of opposition. But then I find that also to be true of most centerist and right groups as well, so I am probably not a good barometer.


As for what groups are "far-right". Apart from the obvious Neo-Nazis, the KKK etc. . I would also add groups who are right wing identarians. White nationalist groups, chauvanist groups etc. .

I agree with a large part of your post.

I think the definition of Fascist is very important though. I don't think that the majority of people who Antifa are opposed to as fascist. For example, the Proud Boys, are they fascist?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree with a large part of your post.

I think the definition of Fascist is very important though. I don't think that the majority of people who Antifa are opposed to as fascist. For example, the Proud Boys, are they fascist?

I think the definition of “fascist” has crept the same way the definition of “liberal” has. They’ve both become broader catch all terms. It’s a pity, it makes discussing actual fascists difficult.

I don’t know if the Proud Boys are fascist. Honestly I don’t know enough about them to say.

Brian?

Danzy wrote: »

They won't go for the bikers because they are big working Class Men, and they look as tough as ****.

Or because they don’t fit their definition of fascist?

Brian?

Ush1 wrote: »

Did that journalist belong to any of those groups?

I don’t think so. I don’t really know.

Saying you are anti-facist is a completely meaningless term at this stage.

Why? I’m anti fascist. I’d say the majority of people are. The problem is calling too many people fascists.

Ush1

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t think so. I don’t really know.



Why? I’m anti fascist. I’d say the majority of people are. The problem is calling too many people fascists.

Lets be honest, there's very little threat of impending doom from "facists" in Portland and progressive cities in America.

Lets call this what it is, bored, middle class white kids who are angry and want to feel part of a group. Some of the lads are probably trying to get the leg over the larger purple haired women but joined Antifa because they were crap at sports. They like wearing all black and having masks and going around in a gang.

By and large people wouldn't care if they weren't breaking the law.

Danzy

Brian? wrote: »

Or because they don’t fit their definition of fascist?

If they were a small fat gay Asian man, they'd make it fit the definition and a dozen activists would surround one and flake the tar out of them.

Different when they are nearly all working class lads who look like their 6' 6" and twenty stone and tough as nails. Antifa will go shopping that day.

When did the definition ever matter before to them?

Danzy

Ush1 wrote: »

Lets be honest, there's very little threat of impending doom from "facists" in Portland and progressive cities in America.

Lets call this what it is, bored, middle class white kids who are angry and want to feel part of a group. Some of the lads are probably trying to get the leg over the larger purple haired women but joined Antifa because they were crap at sports. They like wearing all black and having masks and going around in a gang.

By and large people wouldn't care if they weren't breaking the law.

This is it in a nut shell.

20Cent

Conservative bikers lol.
Retired hedgefund managers who go around on a Harley at the weekends.

Danzy

Brian? wrote: »

I think the definition of “fascist” has crept the same way the definition of “liberal” has. They’ve both become broader catch all terms. It’s a pity, it makes discussing actual fascists difficult.

I don’t know if the Proud Boys are fascist. Honestly I don’t know enough about them to say.

This is true.

mynamejeff

Danzy wrote: »

They won't go for the bikers because they are big working Class Men, and they look as tough as ****.

tried it once , didnt work out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Ce38hKNw0

Mr Karadzic

mynamejeff wrote: »

tried it once , didnt work out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Ce38hKNw0

"Disarm the NYPD"

I wonder what genius came up with that one

mynamejeff

20Cent wrote: »

Conservative bikers lol.
Retired hedgefund managers who go around on a Harley at the weekends.

ill post it again just for you


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Ce38hKNw0


so you can come up with a nonsense response

Danzy

20Cent wrote: »

Conservative bikers lol.
Retired hedgefund managers who go around on a Harley at the weekends.

Maybe that is why they won't fight them.

Their fathers are in the bike club.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

I don't think anyone is justified in attacking anyone physically, ever. I'm a bit strange that way though.

Violence is wrong.

So your opinion has changed?

Brian? wrote: »

Punching people is wrong. Seeing a neo nazi punched, hilarious.

I mean, why else you find someone being assaulted 'funny' unless you felt it was in some way justified?

What I strongly object to is people labeling them as fascists, because they dress in black and use violence to support their political aims.

They're labelled as fascists because they try to shut down anyone who is expressing views that they don't agree with and they do it on a regular basis, quite often using violence.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of fascism in English:
1.1 (in general use) extreme authoritarian, oppressive, or intolerant views or practices.

You see this is the thing with the left, they think they have the monopoly on who they can claim is being intolerant or behaving in fascistic way, well, you can't. Antifa behave in an authoritarian, oppressive, and intolerant way and so there is ample justification for anyone labelling them fascists.

When realistically their ethos is to oppose the rise of far right movements

Oh come on. Half the time they're harassing Trump supporters and trying to steal their hats, or trying to shut down conseratove speakers. They're as much trying to stop the rise of conservative republican views in the states as they are the far the right.

I feel that the right should stronger in their condemnation of the far right.

I see nothing but condemnation of white supremacists and neo nazis from anyone with conservative views. Trump has condemned them multiple times, as has Ben Shapiro, Candace Owen, Jordan Peterson. In fact I find it hard to think of anyone on the right with a high profile that hasn't condemned white supremacists.

I don't accept that the responsibility for the violence is entirely the fault of Antifa or entirely the fault of far right groups. To twist a phrase, there are bad people on both sides, on both sides.

You're not twisting a phrase as Trump made it clear that he also believed that there was bad people on both sides, just that the media only ran with one quote, the one they could manipulate to suggest he had said that neo nazis were good people. He clearly said nothing of the sort.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So your opinion has changed?


I mean, why else you find someone being assaulted 'funny' unless you felt it was in some way justified?



They're labelled as fascists because they try to shut down anyone who is expressing views that they don't agree with and they do it on a regular basis, quite often using violence.

Oxford English Dictionary:



You see this is the thing with the left, they think they have the monopoly on who they can claim is being intolerant or behaving in fascistic way, well, you can't. Antifa behave in an authoritarian, oppressive, and intolerant way and so there is ample justification for anyone labelling them fascists.
Oh come on. Half the time they're harassing Trump supporters and trying to steal their hats, or trying to shut down conseratove speakers. They're as much trying to stop the rise of conservative republican views in the states as they are the far the right.



I see nothing but condemnation of white supremacists and neo nazis from anyone with conservative views. Trump has condemned them multiple times, as has Ben Shapiro, Candace Owen, Jordan Peterson. In fact I find it hard to think of anyone on the right with a high profile that hasn't condemned white supremacists.



You're not twisting a phrase as Trump made it clear that he also believed that there was bad people on both sides, just that the media only ran with one quote, the one they could manipulate to suggest he had said that neo nazis were good people. He clearly said nothing of the sort.

Very good post

Kimsang

Its hilarious the contrast in discourse between a liberal arguing vs a group of conservatives in say, CA forum, as opposed to the level of discourse of a conservative person arguing with a group of liberals in lets say the politics forum.

Here is a genuine debate with facts, reason; in politics its just accusations flying around and inflammatory posts because feelings are hurt.

notobtuse

Kimsang wrote: »

Its hilarious the contrast in discourse between a liberal arguing vs a group of conservatives in say, CA forum, as opposed to the level of discourse of a conservative person arguing with a group of liberals in lets say the politics forum.

Here is a genuine debate with facts, reason; in politics its just accusations flying around and inflammatory posts because feelings are hurt.

I agree. Might be because a conservative's lifespan is about one-two months in Politics anymore before actions by liberals are taken against conservatives in order to silence their viewpoints.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So your opinion has changed?


I mean, why else you find someone being assaulted 'funny' unless you felt it was in some way justified?

I clearly stated that punching was wrong. I can’t help if I found it funny that a faux hardman like Spencer got punched.

They're labelled as fascists because they try to shut down anyone who is expressing views that they don't agree with and they do it on a regular basis, quite often using violence.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Selectively quoting the dictionary. Classy.


1. an extreme right-wing political system or attitude which is in favour of strong central government and which does not allow any opposition

You see this is the thing with the left, they think they have the monopoly on who they can claim is being intolerant or behaving in fascistic way, well, you can't. Antifa behave in an authoritarian, oppressive, and intolerant way and so there is ample justification for anyone labelling them fascists.

This isn’t the thing with the left. Because, and this might surprise you, we don’t all agree on everything.

This is the thing with you, you’re changing the definition of fascism to suit yourself.

It’s exactly what you claim to object to, labelling people fascists you don’t agree with. It’s lazy.

Oh come on. Half the time they're harassing Trump supporters and trying to steal their hats, or trying to shut down conseratove speakers. They're as much trying to stop the rise of conservative republican views in the states as they are the far the right.



I see nothing but condemnation of white supremacists and neo nazis from anyone with conservative views. Trump has condemned them multiple times, as has Ben Shapiro, Candace Owen, Jordan Peterson. In fact I find it hard to think of anyone on the right with a high profile that hasn't condemned white supremacists.

Some of these people coddle far right groups and are happy to have them as cheerleaders.

You're not twisting a phrase as Trump made it clear that he also believed that there was bad people on both sides, just that the media only ran with one quote, the one they could manipulate to suggest he had said that neo nazis were good people. He clearly said nothing of the sort.

I don’t think you understand what twisting a phrase means.