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

20Cent

Unfortunately I think this guy is right.
Infestations, rats etc words used by the president to dehumanise others.
People hear this and some of them are bound to act. With such easy access to heavy firepower it's going to keep happening.



This is going to get worse’: Former neo-Nazi warns mass shootings are part of an uprising

Former neo-Nazi Christian Picciolini, who created The Free Radicals Project, explained on CNN Sunday that these mass shootings from white supremacists are just the beginning.

He explained that the white supremacist manifesto the El Paso shooter left is something that he’s heard before.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/this-is-going-to-get-worse-former-neo-nazi-warns-mass-shootings-are-part-of-an-uprising/

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Anti-fascism movements include social democrats, nationalists, liberals, conservatives, communists, Marxists, trade unionists, socialists, pacifists and centrists. You could always get behind some of them and denounce Antifa who primarily utilize violence to get their way.

I am behind them as well. Antifa don't primarily utilise violence.

Your reasoning is rather bizarre. It would be like saying one agreed with the Nazi's goal because it was started to bring people of Germany out of poverty.

Absolute false equivalency again. The aim of the Nazi party was clearly stated as the furtherance of the German people as the master rave above all others. There was a founding doctrine, Mein Kampf, and they were clear about their bigotry against non Aryans.

So how is that in any way equivalent to Antifa?

notobtuse

Midlife wrote: »

Firstly, didn't you suggest looking at mental illness as a cause? My point is that tackling mental health issues that lead to these situatiions woudl involve a revamp of mental health services. Also, so we can now spot a young male who needs help. Are you saying we can't also stop them getting a gun?

Secondly, no you don't have to agree. That's my point. Are you saying there's no number of gun deaths that would make you consider allowing people to try some form of standardised national set of gun laws. You're so sure you're 100% correct.

I didn't understand your mental health comment. And you're right a revamp of mental health services is needed.

Well then, you aren't going to like my answer if you absolutely need one... Zero... as we DO have about 270 federal gun statutes. Here's a question for you... If we put in more gun control laws would you be okay with repealing them, and others, if the mass shootings don't decrease in say three years... as apparently gun control laws didn't work as intended?

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

I am behind them as well. Antifa don't primarily utilise violence.

In the US they do.

Absolute false equivalency again. The aim of the Nazi party was clearly stated as the furtherance of the German people as the master rave above all others. There was a founding doctrine, Mein Kampf, and they were clear about their bigotry against non Aryans.

Yes there were horrid things the Nazi’s did and believed in, but it was the failed 1929 German referendum (brought on by the levels of poverty caused by the market crash if 1929) which introduced a 'Law against the Enslavement of the German People'. The legislation, proposed by German nationalists, would formally renounce the Treaty of Versailles and make it a criminal offense for German officials to co-operate in the collecting of reparations. That is what primarily helped bring them into power.

20Cent

Andy Ngo was reporting that antifa intended a "siege" in El Paso. In reality they have nothing to do with the event which was being organised by  immigration advocacy groups and there was no intention of holding a siege or anything like that. A hoax intended to enflame the far right. They killer drove 9 hours to El Paso to kill Mexicans soon afterwards.

Ironicname

Brian? wrote:

Is saying “actually Antifa aren’t as bad as they’re made out to be†supporting them?

Brian? wrote:

Again, I support the underlying ideal of anti fascism.

Brian? wrote:

The Proud Boys etc are actual bigots.

I've heard that bandied about. What makes the proud boys bigots?

I'm completely 100% behind you with regards to fascists. I just don't see how anyone can't see the ironic glaring similarity between antifa and fascists.

It would be like Samuel l Jackson heading a KKK meeting.

Midlife

notobtuse wrote: »

I didn't understand your mental health comment. And you're right a revamp of mental health services is needed.

Well then, you aren't going to like my answer if you absolutely need one... Zero... as we DO have about 270 federal gun statutes. Here's a question for you... If we put in more gun control laws would you be okay with repealing them, and others, if the mass shootings don't decrease in say three years... as apparently gun control laws didn't work as intended?

Completly.

I'd argue to completly de-politicise the issue and let the sociologists get to work researching.

Looking at Ireland, it was found through research that a campaign targetting young men and speed would result in reduced road deaths. It's gone from over 400 to under 200. That's effective targetting of a de-poloticised issue.

I'm not saying ban guns. Clearly that's not workable or desirable for many americans. Just allow fcuking legislation to happen in a sensible way. So yeah, if whatever legilation that comes out doesn't work, then leave it go.

I mean obviously 270 federal gun statutes is not clear joined up thinking.

Just ****ing let it happen, that's all I'm saying.

It seems to me as though many just won't countenance the issue being considered so that's my question, when would you let people look at it, what would it take?

You're saying never?

20Cent

Why does any civilian "need" one of these?

Ironicname

20Cent wrote:

Why does any civilian "need" one of these?

Why does anyone "need" anything?

Sweetemotion

20Cent wrote: »

Why does any civilian "need" one of these?

This guy wanted his to go to war with Trump if he touched his mothers food stamps.

notobtuse

Midlife wrote: »

Completly.

I'd argue to completly de-politicise the issue and let the sociologists get to work researching.

Looking at Ireland, it was found through research that a campaign targetting young men and speed would result in reduced road deaths. It's gone from over 400 to under 200. That's effective targetting of a de-poloticised issue.

I'm not saying ban guns. Clearly that's not workable or desirable for many americans. Just allow fcuking legislation to happen in a sensible way. So yeah, if whatever legilation that comes out doesn't work, then leave it go.

I mean obviously 270 federal gun statutes is not clear joined up thinking.

Just ****ing let it happen, that's all I'm saying.

It seems to me as though many just won't countenance the issue being considered so that's my question, when would you let people look at it, what would it take?

You're saying never?

Back in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault-weapons ban that lasted 10 years. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines... carry no more than 10 bullets. The ban expired because it was determined it did not curb gun violence.

If at first you don’t succeed in gun control, try, try, again?

20Cent

Sweetemotion wrote: »

This guy wanted his to go to war with Trump if he touched his mothers food stamps.

Yeah they should ban those things for a start.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Back in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault-weapons ban that lasted 10 years. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines... carry no more than 10 bullets. The ban expired because it was determined it did not curb gun violence.

If at first you don’t succeed in gun control, try, try, again?

You know the GOP have blocked every effort to allow the CDC investigate gun deaths?

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

You know the GOP have blocked every effort to allow the CDC investigate gun deaths?

Pants on Fire Alert!

Congress hasn’t banned research on gun violence. The Dickey amendment does not ban research; it bans the CDC from advocating gun-control policies. It assures legislators that funds appropriated for research will be used only for research.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Pants on Fire Alert!

Congress hasn’t banned research on gun violence. The Dickey amendment does not ban research; it bans the CDC from advocating gun-control policies. It assures legislators that funds appropriated for research will be used only for research.

If that’s true, I was wrong, not lying.

20Cent

Sound advice from Obama.
Always shows insight and class.
Unlike numbnuts who can't even get the city right.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Pants on Fire Alert!

Congress hasn’t banned research on gun violence. The Dickey amendment does not ban research; it bans the CDC from advocating gun-control policies. It assures legislators that funds appropriated for research will be used only for research.

Turns out I was right. The GOP repeatedly voted against funding CDC research on gun violence. My pant remain unburnt

p1akuw47h5r3it

20Cent wrote: »

Sound advice from Obama.
Always shows insight and class.
Unlike numbnuts who can't even get the city right.

They need him, or someone like him, more now then in a long time.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

If that’s true, I was wrong, not lying.

Accepted. The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) would be better suited to a public-health approach to preventing gun violence that can help us understand the problem and lead us to solutions that will offer dramatic reductions in deaths and injuries. Advocating gun control id not within there purview. Mental health is. There is nothing stopping other and private entities from doing research on the effects of gun control. The problem is approaches to gun control is more of a subjective matter rather than an objective one, and it seems you can't get bias out of it.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

Turns out I was right. The GOP repeatedly voted against funding CDC research on gun violence. My pant remain unburnt

The ban on the CDC advocating for gun control policy has been included ever since, even when democrats controlled that chamber of congress. Put the flames out.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

Unlike numbnuts who can't even get the city right.

Give Biden a break... he's old. Houston and Michigan are somewhat close to the two cities. :P

Ironicname

Brian? wrote:

If that’s true, I was wrong, not lying.

In fairness, I've read through the whole thread today (yay bank holibop) and have found Brian to be the left version of how I see myself. I would be right leaning but I am willing and prepared to be corrected.

There's an awful lot of people on both sides who aren't willing to listen to the other side and that is sad.

People on "my side" are delighting in antifa connections to a mass shooting?

Feck off. I don't care who did it. I just know I abhor it. I want to know WHY he did it to avoid it happening again but if he was a white supremacist, an incel, a black panther or a scientologist, I wouldn't care.

The families of the victims are not giving any shades of ****. Shame on anyone trying to score points over this

20Cent

Ironicname wrote: »

In fairness, I've read through the whole thread today (yay bank holibop) and have found Brian to be the left version of how I see myself. I would be right leaning but I am willing and prepared to be corrected.

There's an awful lot of people on both sides who aren't willing to listen to the other side and that is sad.

People on "my side" are delighting in antifa connections to a mass shooting?

Feck off. I don't care who did it. I just know I abhor it. I want to know WHY he did it to avoid it happening again but if he was a white supremacist, an incel, a black panther or a scientologist, I wouldn't care.

The families of the victims are not giving any shades of ****. Shame on anyone trying to score points over this

The classic centerist approach.
Have a chat with the nazi's while they are killing you.

lawlolawl

20Cent wrote: »

Sound advice from Obama.
Always shows insight and class.
Unlike numbnuts who can't even get the city right.

I see St. Barry still won't use the term "Islamic/Muslim terrorism".

notobtuse

In the wake of the two mass shootings, Trump has called for bipartisan cooperation to strengthen the nation’s gun laws. Trump said he wants legislation providing “strong background checks” for gun users.

So it seems there will be more gun control. And I'm okay with strong background checks. I just hope whatever measures do come out they will be reasonable and effective, and not politics as usual to get votes from each of the parties extremes.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Ironicname wrote: »

There's an awful lot of people on both sides who aren't willing to listen to the other side and that is sad.

People on "my side" are delighting in antifa connections to a mass shooting?

Noone was delighted. A poster a number of pages back insinuated that the attack in Ohio followed the same pattern as the one in Texas i.e. it was carried out by a far-right, white supremacist, and also that anti-fa are/were no threat to life.

This was found to be patently false.

20Cent

Write manifestos naming influences, quoting right wing grifters, explaining rationale and intended consequences. Mental issues nothing to do with the far right


An alleged Twitter account liked some tweets that could be seèn as left wing and a crime that bares no relation to anything antifa advocate.
100% anitfa did it.

p1akuw47h5r3it

20Cent wrote: »

Write manifestos naming influences, quoting right wing grifters, explaining rationale and intended consequences. Mental issues nothing to do with the far right

The killer in Texas was without doubt far right, whose said otherwise?

20Cent wrote: »

An alleged Twitter account liked some tweets that could be seèn as left wing and a crime that bares no relation to anything antifa advocate.
100% anitfa did it.

Midlife

notobtuse wrote: »

Back in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault-weapons ban that lasted 10 years. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines... carry no more than 10 bullets. The ban expired because it was determined it did not curb gun violence.

If at first you don’t succeed in gun control, try, try, again?

Yes. Why not?

I mean what's so wrong with it.

Set out two clear provisos.

1: Gun owenrship is a part of US culture. it must remain the case that responsible gun owners and collectors can continue owning and collecting guns.

2: There are a lot of guns currently in circulation in the US and doing anything about those will be difficult and provoke many people.

Then you just make it harder to buy a gun. Keep a central register of all new firearms made and link them to stores and then owners. Adopt a scaling system so maybe you can't just go and buy military grade weapons until you've spent a few years owning regular rifles/handguns and proven you're responsible.

It's done with cars everywhere and car-enthuasists have no problem.

20Cent

Where are these mass shooters getting the idea that they are being invaded by foreigners?

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1158535325746159621?s=19