Another Arrest Shows It's Pretty Much Everyone But Antifa Engaging In Anti-Government Violence
from the presidential-conspiracy-theory-suffers-another-setback dept
The DOJ really wants to make El Presidente’s antifa dreams come true. The anti-police brutality protests have been cast by the administration as a leftist conspiracy to… um… demand better policing and better police officers. In addition to sending federal officers to clamp down on unrest in “Democratic” cities, the FBI has been sending analysts to crack phones taken from protesters in hopes of finding some sort of antifa org chart the feds can use to dismantle this “group.”
If you think it’s weird a free world government would be obsessed with tracking down people fighting fascism, you’re not alone. Seems like the time and effort would be better utilized to neutralize the threat posed by homegrown extremists, many of whom align themselves with white supremacist movements. But this is what this Administration is diverting resources to, even when available evidence suggests the antifa movement isn’t filled with dangerous individuals.
More evidence suggests the government might want to focus on another loose assortment of anti-government individuals: the so-called “Boogaloo Bois.” If antifa is a collective in the loosest definition of the word, the Boogaloo Bois are similarly unstructured. Small groups exist but there’s no organizational head to bring down or nationwide structure to dismantle. While the president complains about “violent” BLM/antifa protesters, real violence is being perpetrated by actual anarchists Trump has never criticized publicly.
In the wake of protests following the May 25 killing of George Floyd, a member of the Boogaloo Bois opened fire on the Minneapolis Police Third Precinct with an AK-47-style gun and screamed “Justice for Floyd” as he ran away, according to a federal complaint made public Friday.
[…]
Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Boerne, Texas, is charged with one count of interstate travel to incite a riot for his alleged role in ramping up violence during the protests in Minneapolis on May 27 and 28. According to charges, Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, shot 13 rounds at the south Minneapolis police headquarters while people were inside. He also looted and helped set the building ablaze, according to the complaint, which was filed Monday under seal.
Hunter’s public social media posts helped bring him down. So did posts from other members of the group Hunter associated himself with, including Steven Carillo, who shot and killed a federal officer in Oakland, California and a sheriff’s deputy in Santa Cruz. Hunter apparently traveled all the way from Texas to open fire on a police precinct and help set it on fire.
And, as if everything happening with protests and various self-invited interlopers wasn’t confusing enough, this particular Boogaloo Bois unit managed to mix domestic and international terrorism into a completely incomprehensible blend.
Two members of the Boogaloo Bois, including one from Minnesota, have been indicted on federal charges of attempting to provide material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, the U.S. Justice Department announced Friday.
And this is apparently all it takes to talk a Boogaloo Boi into believing you work for a foreign terrorist organization.
In June, the FBI began receiving information about Teeter, Solomon and other Boogaloo Bois from a confidential source that the Bois believed to be a member of the terrorist organization Hamas. The source, a paid informant, had a Middle Eastern accent.
This isn’t going to stop Trump and Bill Barr from continuing their hunt for an antifa kingpin. There’s really no difference between the two, as far as Trump is concerned. Anti-THIS government is indistinguishable from anti-ALL government when you’re THIS government. But one “group” tends to be composed of white guys with guns wearing Hawaiian shirts while the other is a very loose affiliation of what Trump considers to be “leftists.” And it will always be the “leftists” that are considered more dangerous, even when its actual anarchists killing cops.
Filed Under: antifa, boogaloo bois, doj, fbi, free speech, ivan hunter, protests, violence, william barr
Comments on “Another Arrest Shows It's Pretty Much Everyone But Antifa Engaging In Anti-Government Violence”
Trump will never decry White nationalists/supremacists and their ilk. He needs their votes way too much.
Re: Re:
Also, he’s a white supremacist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No proof of that, but then the left wing operates on lies and disinformation.
It’s all you have.
Re: Re: Re:
What proof do you need? They vote for him, and make it clear that they do. And he needed, and does need, all the votes he can get. That’s just logic. On the claims side, well, he has so far refused to admit that any group of which he is aware is white nationalist (even when it says it on their tin), and refuses to say anything against them no matter how many times he is made aware.
Pretty fucking straightforward. One doesn’t need to be a "leftist" to see that. And a hell of a lot of conservatives knew he was a complete jackass before he won a primary and the presidency, and a few have yet to brainwash themselves out of that reality, even if they themselves might agree with some or much of the result of his presidency (or separately, even white nationalism).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What proof do you need?"
No proof would be enough for the alt-right. Trump could walk down 5th avenue singing Die Fahne Hoch while wearing a full SS uniform and waving a swastika banner and his cultists would still claim the evidence only meant a million smartphone cameras were lying leftists.
Think about it – he’s described a horde of neo-nazis and open KKK’ers as "Very Fine People". He’s refused to condemn white supremacy – the plushiest softball question possible – and the only time he’s ever addressed white power supremacy it was with the direct message of "Stand Back and Stand by" which is NOT in any way, shape or form anything other than a call to prepare for action.
Before his presidency he was in hot water over outright racist practice and commentary plenty of times – from his outright policy of turning away renters exclusively based on skin color to his comments about refusing to employ black people since he didn’t want a black person anywhere near his money.
And yet the alt-right will only desperately scream about lying leftists when this is pointed out. And no wonder. You think the very people ordered to stand back and stand by will go on a forum and be honest?
You won’t get an honest appraisal of the president’s racism by talking to the racists who support him.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Uh no? The established procedure is that Trump denies knowing who Horst Wessel is and what his historical role is (even while he kept Hitler’s speeches as bedtime literature) and that he does not know what that song is about but it has a catchy tune and he appreciates that and it should be taught in school, that he thinks the tailors of the uniform someone who appreciates what he does for the U.S. did a fine job, and that the banner has as nice a fabric as he has seen any and he thinks it would make a good addition to the star spangled banner.
No need to deny anything. The hysterical leftists try to pin some political correctness silliness on him when it’s clear that everything is above board and perfectly well-natured. There will be some colored person testifying that he was even paid above going rates for sewing the flag, another one that she forgives the overexcited fans of the president for breaking her arm after she carelessly touched the flag and so on.
Fine persons everywhere, and Trump is an honorable man, like all his folks are honorable.
There just is no need to deny an atrocity when you can instead move the discussion to your next one.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"There just is no need to deny an atrocity when you can instead move the discussion to your next one."
Yeah. That’s about the size of it. Trump is like a bullshit rocket who keeps himself away from inconvenient questions by just floating right past them on a steady stream of expelled feces. By the time you get to the point of asking one question about the horrible thing which he just said or which happened he’s already proposed half a dozen new eyecatchers and written at least two XO’s which has everyone dropping what they were just asking about in stunned disbelief.
Re: Re: The ISS called, something about cutting down on the projection?
Other than that time recently that he was asked point blank to do so and hemmed and hawed and kinda maybe said he condemned them… right before he told a group of them(The Proud Boys) to make sure to ‘watch the voting’?
Re: Re: Re:
Sir you people say you freed the slaves but all you have on your trucks is the flag of the people who made sure they could not leave lol
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Today’s Republicans did not free the slaves. The Republican party back in the 1800s looked nothing like the Republican party of today does. If anything, the Republicans and Democrats swapped titles.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That’s not an ‘if anything’ scenario, that’s almost literally what happened, as during the 1950’s and on the parties basically swapped places, with the democrats going from the part of racism to supporting civil rights, and the republicans going through the opposite.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And the Republican Party did so on purpose.
They called it "the Southern Strategy".
Re: Re: Re:
"If you can’t beat them, join them." How many lies have come from Fox News this year?
Re: Re:
In 2016, Trump refused to condemn the Ku Klux Klan and disavow an endorsement from David Duke: “Certainly I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong.”
In the aftermath of Charlottesville, Trump said that “very fine people” were on “both sides” of the protests/counter-protests that day (and, most tellingly, “the night before”). One of those “sides” was made up of White nationalists/supremacists such as the Proud Boys — people who marched “the night before” the Charlottesville tragedy while holding tiki torches and shouting “you will not replace us”.
Days later, Trump did finally condemn racists and White supremacists, but not without equivocating their violence with “leftist” violence — something he continues to do every time he has been asked to condemn White supremacy. He has never unequivocally condemned White supremacy, and right-wing violence in general, on its own.
During the first debate with Joe Biden, Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” — an implicit message (which they picked up on) that he wants them to wait for some future moment when he’ll need their “help” in some way. He later condemned the Proud Boys, but did so in that “what about leftist violence” way where he cannot explicitly condemn only a group of violent racist White nationalists.
His election hopes rest on the voter base of the Republican party in general — which, at this point, is both overwhelmingly White and dominated by conservative evangelical Christians — to turn out in greater numbers than Democrat voters. To that effect, he has recycled his initial campaign for the sake of appealing to the same groups that voted him into office the first time: racist assholes who think “the browning of America”, so to speak, needs to be stopped by any means necessary.
And that’s not even getting into his policies while in office — which include the separation of migrant children from their families at the border (regardless of whether those families tried to enter the country legally), his continued (and thus far failed) promises to have Mexico pay for the wall on the southern U.S. border, and his continued attacks against Muslims/people of Middle Eastern descent. Nor have I mentioned that his family has a history of racism, which includes the 1973 racial discrimination lawsuit that credibly alleged Trump and his father of refusing to let Black people rent Trump-owned properties.
How much more proof do you need that Donald Trump is, at a bare minimum, a racist piece of trash who thinks the world was better when n⸺rs weren’t allowed to marry White people and had to drink from separate water fountains?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the marched shouting "Jews will not replace us" and other nazi slogans, like "Blood and Soil". "You will not replace us" is what the nazi’s tried to spin the chants as.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you all think your so smart.
38 times Trump has condemned all of it.
https://youtu.be/Bd0cMmBvqWc
Re: Re: Re:2 Stand back and stand by?
No toon can resist the old shave-and-a-haircut trick!
Re: Re: Re:3 Stand back and stand by?
Proud Boys are not racists or white supremacists. There are plenty of non-white PBs. Their leader is clearly not white. They are libertarians. Libertarians are, by definition, the exact opposite of fascists/communists/nazis.
Re: Re: Re:4 "Proud Boys are not racists or white supremacists"
Says the lad who dismissed Wikipedia and the SPLC
How do you feel about the ADL’s take? Want to dismiss them too?
Feel free to cite your own sources.
Re: Re: Re:4 Proud boys as an example.
Following the original conversation (which only incidentally involves Proud Boys)
Trump during the debate only had to say I explicitly condemn white supremacy. or something to that approximate effect.
And he could not do that.
Re: Re: Re:5 Proud boys as an example.
Yeah, as you may have noticed, after I have very clearly denounced right wing extremism and some hostile person without justification starts pushing me to denounce them again but this time obediently conform to the way they want me to denounce it, I too am not very eager to submit to such UNJUSTIFIED demands nor be insulted like that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Stand back and stand by?
Proud Boys are not racists or white supremacists. There are plenty of non-white PBs. Their leader is clearly not white. They are libertarians. Libertarians are, by definition, the exact opposite of fascists/communists/nazis.
Re: Re: Re:4 Stand back and stand by?
Did you think it would be more convincing the second time?
Re: Re: Re:5 ?
What are you talking about?
Re: Re: Re:4 Stand back and stand by?
Once again, you appear to be posting in bad faith.
Should I just assume you’re a troll and poorly practiced at it? I get it sucks to be a child in the current US public education system with two working parents, but there are better ways to vent your frustrations than joining white nationalists.
Hang in there, kid.
Re: Re: Re:5 Stand back and stand by?
Why do you think I am posting in bad faith?
Do you think I am not factually correct about something?
If so, what am I incorrect about?
Re: Re: Re:6 Why do you think I am posting in bad faith?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t intend to repeat your post a second time. Maybe it was a server error.
In that case my position regarding the Proud Boys is here.
Re: Re: Re:7 Why do you think I am posting in bad faith?
It is a mistake to do what Trump did with regard to the Proud Boys. He lumped them in with the far right like the corporate commercial media generally does. The corporate commercial media is not trustworthy, especially about controversial things like the Proud Boys.
I personally have had arguments with some Proud Boys over stuff. I have publicly criticized specific stupid things this or that Proud Boy have done. I have disagreed with Enrique Tarrio about something the last time we spoke. But that doesn’t mean I am going to lie about them. That’s wrong.
I suggest that you take just a little time to look into who the Proud Boys actually are and what they actually do as well as what their professed political positions are. If you can read some SPLC and ADL claims, you can check out the Proud Boys websites themselves, maybe read/watch what Enrique puts out and, most of all, watch some UNEDITED videos of Proud Boy events and see how they actually behave.
Re: Re: Re:8 The Return of Proud Boys
The Proud Boys war against political correctness reads to me as a dog whistle for bigotry. Political correctness is a disparaging term for sensitivity.
As someone who grew up under the boots of bullies I read it as a war against kids like me. I was sensitive. I needed more political correctness than I got, and the abuse I suffered from my peers was, all in all, just another brick in the wall.
It’s kinda like tough on crime which really comes down to assuring that poor and marginalized people get convicted and harshly sentenced, often for crimes they did not commit, because our court system doesn’t allow them to muster a fair defense.
So, Justin Trouble it sounds like you find their rhetoric convincing, and that’s either due to ignorance — you don’t fully understand what it is to be marginalized and preyed on by marauders; or agreement — in the end you’re a bully just like them, and figure the weak and strange should be disregarded as human beings and purged.
There was a quote that recently came up that seems appropriate here:
Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is Nazi.
So I guess, Justin Trouble, you got to be compared to one after all.
Re: Re: Re:
" No proof of that, but then the left wing operates on lies and disinformation. It’s all you have."
Show me a politician of any party in any country on any planet that does not lie.
You have nothing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi there waves
I’m right over here. Have been for a few years.
Re: Re: Re:
Projection from the right: The other Cinemark.
Re: Re: Re:
It may be true that the left wing has little if anything but lies and disinformation. The same applies in equal measure to the right wing. However, unless I am drastically misreading you, most of those you label as "left wing" are no such thing. Most voting against Trump, whom I’m guessing is your number one political hero, would be better labelled centrist and are quite rationally responding to the fact of Donald Trump’s many public racist statements and his widely demonstrated incompetence in office.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"However, unless I am drastically misreading you, most of those you label as "left wing" are no such thing."
Ironically much of the alt-right keeps pushing for a political agenda which is decidedly left-wing. Hell, as soon as social media and freedom of speech comes up they start quoting lines they might as well have copied from "The communist manifesto".
Our very own Baghdad Bob is on record as claiming that corporations obly exist to serve the public and need to justify their existence. You won’t find that mode of thought anywhere to the right of Lenin on the political scale.
Re: Re: Re:
"No proof of that…"
Aside from him being on record plenty of times making his "views" on black people very well known, over a great many years just before his presidency?
Let me guess, he also never said anything about grabbing pussies?
I don’t think it’s the left operating so much on lies as it’s the right denying factual reality.
I’m so old I remember when Trump quit the Reform Party, because David Duke was a member.
Re: Re:
I’m so old I remember the Plaza Hotel.
Re: Re:
But too young to remember David Duke praised Trump.
And Richard Spencer gave lots of "Hail Trump"s with a Nazi salute.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah. He fell for the media’s lies about Trump being a white supremacist. Then, after 3+ years of Trump doing nothing white-supremacist-y, he announced that Trump had "betrayed" their cause and that he was voting for Biden now, and told all his followers to vote for Biden too.
He went back home. From Jim Crow and the KKK to redlining under FDR to "superpredators" and welfare traps, to Biden calling Obama the first clean and articulate black man ever to appear in the public consciousness, the Democrats have always been the party of white supremacy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you’ll always have Strom Thurmond to look up to.
Re: Re: Re: Poe rating 3
I’m 0.3% sure this is a sincere comment and not sarcastic.
Stand back and stand by.
Re: Re: Re:
If we ignore the creation of the Southern Strategy and everything that the Republican party has done since then, including but not limited to…
…then yeah, we can call the Democrats “the party of White supremacy”. But last time I checked, the Democrats haven’t been blatantly on the side of White supremacy since, oh, the parties switching alignments in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement and the Dixiecrat exodus. While the Dems might be implicitly on the side of White supremacy — it’s not like the party is extraordinarily diverse unless you compare it to the Republican party — they know enough to know that being explicitly for White supremacy is a losing proposition.
But sure, tell us again how Republicans aren’t racist~.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ve seen lots Confederate and Trump flags together…odd none with Biden.
Re: Re: Re:
So many examples of human garbage praised Trump that the Oval Office is going to need Kilz and the Resolute Desk will be a Superfund site.
'They're white, they can't be a problem'
Naturally, when you’re trying to draw in people by telling them about the big scary black men and how they’re rioting for absolutely no reason and therefore the public needs protection that can only be provided by you then it kinda throws a wrench in the narrative if you acknowledge that the people who pose much more of a threat to lives and property happen to look a whole lot like the people you’re trying to convince to vote for you.
Re: 'They're white, they can't be a problem'
And the "scary" white people who are protesting right alongside the black and coloured people.
And the people who aren’t protesting, but do hand out water and such to the protesters who are supposedly rioting. Maybe they were "radicalized by the "Law Enforcement" who ran roughshod through their neighbourhoods and peppershot people who were watching from their own front porches? Or maybe they’re just tired of things like police assaults on peaceful vigils held for innocent violinists that were killed by police for being black — and not held to meaningful account?
When the very people being "protected" by the authorities are sympathizing with the allegedly rioting protesters, rather than with the police allegedly protecting them and quashing the alleged "rioters", something has gone badly wrong.
It is becoming more than obvious what we have here is a slow motion train wreck of a coup.
Since they like to project, I imagine it will not be too long before they start looking to lock up those who tried to over throw the Trump monarchy just like Erdogan did. How dare the libs try and govern, that’s not what we are here for – I imagine them saying.
Re:
Oh, the GOP is absolutely not in government to govern. Trump has made that 100% clear, regardless of whether the GOP wanted him to do that.
Boogaloo boys are a Soviet Communist plot
Obviously they’re a false flag put up by the Deep State to divert attention from Antifa.
Does that need an /s? ????
Re: Boogaloo boys are a Soviet Communist plot
"Does that need an /s?"
Yeah, sadly. That’s exactly the scenario tossed around in alt-right circles.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Q: What does this story have to do with tech?
A: Nothing.
Let CNN and Fox News report this crap.
Re: Re:
The magic coding strikes again, ensnaring yet another poor victim and forcing them to read an article they didn’t want to…
Re: "Let CNN and Fox News report this crap"
Oooh someone doesn’t like the news being reported.
Re: Re:
Q: What does this story have to do with dirt?
A: Nothing.
Let Farm & Garden report this crap
Re: Re:
Q: What does the Anonymous Coward understand about the article?
A: Nothing.
Let the adults talk in peace, kid.
so antifa infiltrated the Bogaloo Bois as well?
Must be real fun being in Trump’s golf cart when he’s driving… he never turns left–takes forever to get where you want to go.
Re: Re:
Unless it’s in reverse. Then you bounce off the curbs until the sidewalls blow, at which point you sue the cart maker.
Re: Re:
He turns left. He then goes 270 degrees, and as a result has turned further right and convinced everyone he was juking left. Then he complains about not getting enought credit for his left turn.
My guess
The MAGA crowd is the majority of the violent protesters.
In related news:
It is discovered that the application of water is able to moisten things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Try thinking instead.
If we are to consider the question of whether or not antifa fights fascists we must ask what is meant by the term "fascist" in this context. In that sort of context the term "fascist" is used to mean something or someone who uses or seeks to use force to prevent some/all people from exercising their freedoms. Does antifa exist to protect some/all people’s freedoms from those who seek to oppress those freedoms? No. They do the exact opposite. In fact, one of their favorite targets is libertarianism which is the exact opposite of "fascism". Antifa literally opposes libertarianism. In other words, they literally oppose freedom. In other words, antifa are "fascist". Defense of antifa is defense of "fascism".
Re:
By all means, show me where the group known as “Antifa” — the organized national-level collective with a clear hierarchy of leadership — believes in everything you say. I’ll wait.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: antifa and honesty
Your comment suggests that antifa are honest about their views.
Re: Re: Re: antifa and honesty
Feel free to demonstrate that they oppose libertarianism – and that their definition of fascism is what you stated – by some other evidence, such as their actions. Emphasis, however, on the word "evidence".
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 antifa and honesty
I appreciate your emphasis on evidence. I hope you are sincere. If I take the time to link to one or more livestreams of a given event wherein antifa used or attempted to use violence to prevent other people (libertarians, for example, with those yellow flags that say “Don’t tread on me!”) from exercising their right to gather in public, their right to free speech, their right to association, etc. would I be wasting my time or would you sincerely consider that evidence?
Re: Re: Re:3 antifa and honesty
I’m not going to watch a two hour stream to look for it, but if you can tell me where to look, sure. Keep in mind it has to be clear that it is someone who identifies as antifa, not just anyone committing violence who someone else decided later was antifa.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 antifa and honesty
OK, well, what if I were to pick one event (for starters) wherein antifa showed up at a place and time specifically with the intent of preventing other people from exercising their civil rights and I gave you a few time-stamps to check out? In other words, would you just argue, for example, that the use of violence to prevent right wingers from exercising their rights is anti-fascism and good and etc in which case I would just be wasting my time?
Re: Re: Re:5 antifa and honesty
I would be interested to see that, if:
If it’s antifa trying to prevent armed militias from intimidating BLM protestors, I wouldn’t find that particularly interesting. Different sides sometimes have different ideas of what "I’m just exercising my rights" means.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 antifa and honesty
ok, so how about, for example, February 1st, 2017: antifa engaging in what they call anti-fascist action with the goal of preventing Milo Yakka-something from speaking to an audience at the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union Bld (ironically) on UC Berkeley campus in California. People flying the flag, chanting the chants, identifying as antifa, wearing antifa symbols, engaging in what some call "anti-fascist action", etc. and so on. Not all of them. Many showed no group affiliation. Some showed affiliation to BAMN and etc. but all engaging in what they would call "anti-fascist action" by shutting down the event "by any means necessary" as they said that night and etc. I could give you links to videos of that event for starters.
Re: Re: Re:7 antifa and honesty
If you can demonstrate that that was antifa.
"Some were attacked by the agitators — who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman. "
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 antifa and honesty
OK then what would you accept as valid evidence that they were antifa?
Re: Re: Re:9
Show us the existence of an organized hierchial group called “Antifa”. Then we can talk.
Re: Re: Re:10 Prove Antifa exists!
We are everywhere! It is because you don’t see us that you know we’re watching!
Re: Re: Re:11 Prove Antifa exists!
"It is because you don’t see us that you know we’re watching!".. well that makes sense…. if you don’t think about it.
Re: Re: Re:12
It’s a joke—I say, a joke, son! A goof!
(nice boy, but about as sharp as a bag of liposuctioned fat)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Oh I see. So then there are no such thing as groups that do not have organized hierarchy? Oh that’s totally sane and not at all a stupid argument to make. Yep. Only organized hierarchies exist. Sure.
Re: Re: Re:11
You’re talking about “antifa” as if it is an organized hierchial group that has planned attacks nationwide or some shit. No such group exists, in that people who identify as antifascists are not organized into a nationally active organization with a clear hierarchy of leadership. (You may have smaller groups in cities and even states, but a national group does not exist and no one has yet proven otherwise.) If you’re going to talk about “antifa” in that way, you’ll need to prove it exists in that way — and if you can’t do that, or if you won’t admit the truth of the matter, I have no reason to take you or your claims seriously.
Show your cards or fold, gambler. You can’t keep bluffing forever.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
"So then there are no such thing as groups that do not have organized hierarchy?"
There certainly are such groups…but the fact that the FBI and the DHS as a whole have been trying to find "Antifa" with every incentive to come up with them and simply can’t tells a story of its own. And it isn’t "Yeah, they’re dumb flatfeet who can’t find the super-secret cabal of leftist supervillains".
"Antifa" isn’t a group. It’s an ideology, like "capitalist" or "Vegan". More specifically "Antifa" – anti-fascism – is an ideology to which every last member of america’s Greatest Generation subscribed.
To not be antifa can actually be said to be highly unamerican, because fascism is highly unamerican…at least according to american self-written mythology.
A lot of black people and native americans might disagree and claim that fascism is indeed highly american, from what they’ve observed.
But you want the "truth, justice, and apple pie" bit? Antifa is right in there as well. The creed is written right on the base of the statues of liberty and lady justice.
Re: Re: Re:9 antifa and honesty
You claim to have video evidence that they are; why are you so reluctant to present it?
Re: Re: Re:7
By what means did they try to accomplish their goal — speech or violence? Because Milo Y may not be a fascist himself (debatable), but he does tend to align himself with fascists and fascist-adjacent groups. And while it would technically be a heckler’s veto, people who identify as antifascist have every right to say “fuck you, GTFO” in his direction.
You keep saying “I’ll give you links” like that means something. But you’re not providing any goddamn links. Give us the links — with pertinent timestamps, if necessary — so we can judge the footage for ourselves instead of going with your (obviously biased) description of the event. Or do you fear a Sandmann-type situation where the footage in question, placed in context and viewed in full, tells a different story than the one you’re telling us?
Re: Re: Re:3
This leads me to think you’re insincere. I’ve never seen/heard anyone saying this shit if they’re trying to have a good faith conversation. But if you really wanna have this conversation and be sincere about it? Heaven or Hell — let’s rock.
That depends on a few things. Were those supposed agents of “antifa” actually…
Because all three can be equally valid options unless you present concrete evidence that says one of them is true (or all of them are false and a different option is true).
And if you can provide that evidence, you’ll need to provide as much context as you possibly can:
If you want to say the kinds of things you’re saying and claim you want a sincere conversation based on evidence, you’ll need to provide the evidence that backs up the kinds of things you’re saying or I won’t buy into your claim of wanting a sincere conversation.
You placed your bet. Now I’m calling your bluff. The choice now falls to you: Show your cards or fold.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Groups do not necessarily have locations. You know that (unless you do not know what the word "group" means). Groups do not necessarily have organizational structure. You know that as well. So who do you think is stupid enough to fall for your silly propaganda and to be stupid enough to not know what the word "group" means?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Antifa isn’t a group. It’s many groups and people with varying goals and agendas, but some of their beliefs intersect when it comes to anti-fascism while they can oppose each other on other things, sometimes violently.
You have anarchists that are antifa, you have vegans that are antifa, you have libertarians that are antifa, you have democrats that are antifa, you have greens that are antifa, you have republicans that are antifa.
Should I continue, or do you get the idea?
Re: Re: Re:2
None of which are in Congress at the moment…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Are there republicans in Congress? It’s hard to believe that, considering those in Congress calling themselves republicans have more or less betrayed everything a real republican believe in.
Re: Re: Re:4
Actions speak louder than words. And in the time I’ve been alive and paying attention to politics, Republicans have demonstrated exactly what they stand for and believe in. That often doesn’t align with what they say they believe in, at least in regards to “small government” (e.g., approval of government surveillance of Americans and growing the federal security apparatus in the wake of 9/11), “fiscal responsibility” (e.g., continually increasing spending on the military), “personal responsibility” (e.g., generally refusing to hold their own party members accountable for their wrongdoings), “protection of personal freedom” (e.g., wanting to ban abortion and same-sex marriage as well as trying to push Christianity as The One True American Religion), and “letting the free market decide who wins” (e.g., giving major corporations with entrenched power the kinds of corporate welfare than further entrench their power).
Democrats can also be hypocrites; God knows, they could be doing a lot better about fighting for civil rights (e.g., pushing for a new Voting Rights Act) and fighting against global climate change instead of paying lip service to the ideals of “diversity” and “listening to scientists”. But at least they’re not trying to turn the country into a theocratic autocracy led by, and built for the benefit of, rich White heterosexual cisgender Christian men.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 the meaning of the term "group"
It seems that you do not understand what the term "group" means. Humans are a group. Left handed people are a group. Blind people are a group. Democrats are a group. All people who believe in Bigfoot are a group. Antifa is a group. Try thinking next time.
Re: Re: Re:3
Antifascism is an ideology. Antifascists are a group of people. But there is no organized hierarchial group called “Antifa” that operates on a national level within the United States. Until and unless you can prove otherwise, that is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I don’t think anyone is claiming that antifa exist as a hierarchical group nationally or otherwise.
Perhaps it is fair to say that antifa is a term given to those who engage in "anti-fascist action". It’s fair to say that there is a disagreement about whether that "anti-fascist action" is actually anti-fascist.
It is certainly a fact that there is a recurring pattern of people showing up in GROUPS to participate in what is framed as Antifa "resistance" or Antifa "protests" etc, with symbols associated with Antifa, in the "black bloc" attire, engaging in the black bloc tactics, chanting the chants associated with Antifa (sometimes in their original European forms) and so on and so forth. That’s Antifa. They exist as such.
Re: Re: Re:5
The entire point of the Trump administration’s “War on Antifa” is that, yes, “Antifa” is a nationally active and organized hierarchial group. That you keep referring to “Antifa” as if you agree with that stance is…telling.
“Antifa” is a shortening of the word “antifascist”. To say it means anything else is ridiculous.
There is. But that doesn’t mean shit when those most opposed to antifascists are anti-antifascists — or, to put it more simply, fascists. (A fascist never declares he is a fascist; he declares that antifascists are the enemy.)
That’s their fucking right. That you disagree with their ideology or their tactics — which begs the question of whether you agree with the tactics and ideology of those they protest against — is irrelevant.
No, that’s a group of antifascists. To call them “antifa” as if referring to, say, the Klan exposes the truth: You believe “Antifa” is an organized hierarchial group.
White supremacists tend to march together regardless of their affiliation with smaller organized groups. That doesn’t make White supremacists a cohesive and organized group. The same goes for antifascists — that they march together and may be part of smaller organized groups doesn’t make all antifascists a cohesive and organized group (i.e., “Antifa”).
If you can admit this basic truth, we can have an actual conversation. If you can’t, we have nothing more to discuss. The choice is yours.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
"It is certainly a fact that there is a recurring pattern of people showing up in GROUPS to participate in what is framed as Antifa "resistance" or Antifa "protests" etc, with symbols associated with Antifa, in the "black bloc" attire, engaging in the black bloc tactics, chanting the chants associated with Antifa (sometimes in their original European forms) and so on and so forth."
That’s like saying anyone who smokes pot OR has a weird hairdo OR drives a garishly coloured neon VW minibus OR believes in crystal healing must be a hippie and therefore a Woodstock attendant.
By the time we find that you’ve correctly identified "antifa" – i.e. in the same broad category as "Capitalist" or "Vegan" it’s no longer a useful moniker, because a more truthful one and descriptive one might be "Greenpeace activist", "Black Panther", or "NAACP".
The closest you can get is by narrowing "Antifa" down to "anti-fascist activists" at which point what you describe is something civics 101 tells me everyone with a functioning moral compass needs to be part of.
Re: Re: Re:3 Groups
I think the point is the DHS’ war on Antifa is about as meaningful or useful as a war on people who believe in Bigfoot.
And will be about as effective as the war on terror or the war on drugs.
But we have always been at war with Eastasia, yes?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Groups
Yeah, I am not an advocate of expanding government power to deal with Antifa or etc. I would much rather see the police actually protect and serve people and their civil rights from those who use violence to prevent them from doing so and/or (even better) I would rather see people just defend their own civil rights and the right of others from Antifa. I would rather no government agencies get involved.
Re: Re: Re:5
What about antifascists defending their rights and the rights of others from White supremacists and other asshole fascists — does that situation not get the same consideration from you because of the sociopolitical ideology of antifascists?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 now what?
Your last comment is a bit garbled but I think you are asking me why I do not concentrate more on white supremacists who try to use terror and violence to stop other people from exercising their civil rights. The answer is this – we are discussing antifa because this is the comments section of an article about antifa. But I condemn any person or any group that uses (or tries to use) violence to stop people from exercising their rights. I also condemn racism. Same for sexism. I condemn hatred against LBGT people. I condemn hatred of disabled people. etc etc. etc. Seems a little off-topic here, but there you go. Now what?
Re: Re: Re:7 An article about Antifa
It’s an article about <checks headline> everyone but Antifa. The role of Antifa in this seems to be getting blamed and exonerated.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 nah, but....
….actually, it’s a pro-antifa propaganda, so…
Re: Re: Re:9
This article says antifascists are not even remotely the same kind of domestic terror threat to the United States as are right-wing/White supremacist groups. How is that “pro-antifa propaganda” if all it does is posit a statement with which even the United States federal government agrees? (Or would agree with if it weren’t being forced to keep its mouth shut on the subject by a president who actively courts violent racists as part of his voting base, anyway.)
Re: Re: Re:9 "Pro-Antifa propaganda"
Justin Trouble, assuming you mean propaganda in the traditional sense, (and not in the late 20th century sense in which false or misleading statements are implied), by calling the article pro-Antifa propaganda you are implying TechDirt is an agent of or complicit with Antifa who would not publish such an article without such a connection.
Granted it’s difficult not to be allied with Antifa. All you need to do, according to the FBI is to harbor anti-fascist sentiments. But there’s a difference between agreeing with Antifa’s basic creed, and actually being part of the movement or connected with an organization within the movement.
And TechDirt isn’t the latter.
The writers on TechDirt have been pretty explicit about their positions. They cheer those who write concurring opinions and or those who move to further those causes, and criticize those who disagree or who obstruct implementation. But TechDirt has also consistently proven not to be aligned with movements, sects or organizations except specifically with regard to those positions they support, and as individuals have changed their positions, so has the TechDirt stance regarding those individuals.
TechDirt pretty solidly harbors anti-fascist sentiments, but not enough to publish an article only because it serves Antifa. Rather it seems important to note that Antifa doesn’t actually commit all that much violence in comparison with white supremacist movements that have been largely ignored for decades. That’s kinda important regardless of what you think of Antifa.
But your compulsion to identify (dismiss? It looks like dismissal from here.) the article as pro-Antifa propaganda suggests you are outside that circle who find fascism revolting and a social phenomenon that should be resisted.
Do you, Justin Trouble, harbor pro-fascist sentiments? Maybe that’s your problem.
Re: Re: Re:9 nah, but....
"….actually, it’s a pro-antifa propaganda, so…"
It’s pretty telling that you view the OP describing a breakdown of the ideology of those who actually DID engage in anti-government violence as "pro-antifa propaganda" because the officially arrested people all happen to be white supremacists.
So far all I’m seeing from you is a lot of desperation to explain away factual reality in favor of a narrative where being an active anti-fascist is somehow wrong.
Re: Re: Re:7
No, this is the comments section of an article about right-wing violence. The article mentions antifascists in the context of “the government knows antifascists aren’t a terroristic threat in even remotely the same way as White supremacists and other right-wing nutjobs”. If you’re going to go down the road of whataboutism with “antifa” in these comments, I’ve every right to show you the right path and ask that you get back on it.
You come off as someone more worried about a fictional organized hierarchial group than you are about actual groups with actual violent histories and actual plans for further violence. You and the government agents who think like you might want to think about what message those priorities send.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 meh
Oh you are being so tedious. Look, as I have already said, to hell with right wing extremists too. Now, unless someone wants to disagree with me that right wing extremists are bad this is redundant.
Re: Re: Re:9
Can you spot the one word in that sentence that proves my prior comment true?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 nope
Nope. But I think it’s funny how you are doing the predictable and typical Inquisition song-and-dance. Your witch-hunting says much about you. In the 950 you would have joined the Red Scare. You would have falsely accused your neighbors of being communists during the paranoid McCarthyist era. You would jpoin a lunch mob if it went after a falsely accused black man. If you could have joined the witch-hunts you would have. It is obvious that you wish you had the (fascist) power to force me to answer all your accusations as if you had some sort of rightful power over me (you wanna-be fascist) as a sort-of Grand Inquisitor. "Yes you have denounced the devil already, but we demand that you denounce the Devil again, louder this time!"
You know, you could go try to be a cop. They let you exert power over other people. They even let you use a gun to do so, you wanna-be-fascist.
Re: Re: Re:11
I want you to keep this phrase in mind as you read my reply here: “Every accusation, a deflection.” Because I’m gonna prove how it applies to you.
I have not done a “song-and-dance”. If and when you can prove the existence of an organized hierarchial group called “Antifa”, I will acknowledge its existence.
I have not performed a “witch hunt”. White supremacists are, according to federal law enforcement agencies, the single biggest domestic terror threat in the United States. That you’ve been trying to act like antifascists are a similar threat, or that they’re an organized group akin to the Klan or the Proud Boys, is all on you. I didn’t make you believe that shit.
I have not falsely accused anyone of anything. I have made reasoned assumptions about your beliefs and your sociopolitical affiliations based on your comments. You’re the one who accused this article of being “pro-antifa propaganda” only because it pointed out how right-wing violence is a far greater domestic terror threat than “antifa”/left-wing violence.
All I’ve done is ask you to answer some questions. I’m under no illusions that you have any legal, moral, or ethical obligation to do that. But…well, it isn’t exactly a good look for you to refuse that request. Whether you can live with that is your choice — and I can’t make you answer that question, either.
I bet you’re the kind of person who thinks Ilhan Omar has to denounce radical Muslim terrorists every time such terrorists carry out a fatal attack.
Bold of you to assume I’d join some of those who work forces and also burn crosses. Seems like, all things considered, that would be more up your alley.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Murder is not insignificant
Antifa have murdered people. They have also endangered the lives of others. Examples: Charlie Landeros of Eugene Antifa wildly firing off his gun at a middle school with kids inside. Willam von Spronsen trying to set an ICE detention center on fire with people detained inside. Then you have the cases where they succeeded in murder; the Dayton Ohio shooter, Michael Reineohl, Matthew Dolloff. Denounce all such political extremism & violence, not just the right wing stuff.
Re: Re: Re:13 Murder is not insignificant
Are we allowed to condemn law enforcement for its murders on innocent Americans? And yes, we know they engaged in targeted killings given our dear leader gloated about the summary execution of suspect Michael Forest Reinoehl in Portland. Several times.
In the meantime US law enforcement average four officer-involved homicides a day, and they are a unilateral organization and the backbone of our police state that has an awful lot of features typical of fascism.
If, in the meantime, you want to look at white supremacy attacks, feel free to compare and contrast here but I’ve become skeptical of your interest in a fact based assessment of the situation, Justin Trouble.
Re: Re: Re:14 Murder is not insignificant
If you mean a national hierarchy, no. Police departments are run by cities and counties; the federal (and even state, as far as I know) government has no involvement.
Re: Re: Re:15 Police departments are run by cities and counties
I’d think so too. But while the brutality problem is maybe worse for some regions over others, it is a problem everywhere.
And the police unions have undue influence throughout the nation.
Considering how the National Sheriffs Association got super chummy with Trump in 2017, and since then Sheriffs have been a steadfast ally to the White House, it sure looks like the state and federal departments of justice are intertwined and receive unilateral orders.
Though granted, the Portland Police Bureau was managing the George Floyd protests far better than the DHS, with or without the PPD’s help. (I’ve heard from friends in Eugene the police there are pretty good at keeping the peace between three social factions that don’t like each other very much.)
Whether or not these organizations are unilateral at the federal level they are unilateral at least at the county level, and tend to be systemically corrupt throughout.
And my point to Justin Trouble is our society doesn’t even consider the bad apples, and yet he’s ready to condemn antifa because a few assailants were remotely antifa enthusiasts.
It’s like demonizing all of Islam for terrorists organizations that represent a tiny fraction of the Muslim population, though US law enforcement, including the FBI has been conspicuously avoidant of looking at white nationalism related violence, whether looking at its frequency or regarding it as terrorism when it compares to other terrorist acts.
It seems like there might be some double standards going on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 ?
I am not sure to whom you are addressing the question, "Are we allowed to condemn law enforcement for its murders on innocent Americans?" but if you are asking me, well, I have no idea why you would ask me, but I am very strict about the right to assemble and petition the government (protest), or just assemble, the right to free association also applies. That’s crucial and must remain non-negotiable. Because of that, I don’t think that we, as a nation, take what happened in Kent State U in 1968. The government literally had the military murder people because they were protesting. I could go on but I am falling asleep.
Re: Re: Re:15
I don’t know what right-wing online college taught you how to argue, but in these comments sections, this “I’m only pretending to be dumb” bullshit doesn’t fly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 ?
I am not sure to whom you are addressing the question, "Are we allowed to condemn law enforcement for its murders on innocent Americans?" but if you are asking me, well, I have no idea why you would ask me, but I am very strict about the right to assemble and petition the government (protest), or just assemble, the right to free association also applies. That’s crucial and must remain non-negotiable. Because of that, I don’t think that we, as a nation, take what happened in Kent State U in 1968. The government literally had the military murder people because they were protesting. I could go on but I am falling asleep.
Re: Re: Re:13
Did any of those people commit their violence in the name of a group called “Antifa” or the ideology of antifascism? If so, I denounce their violence. If not, I still denounce their violence.¹
There. I denounced left-wing political violence without trying to equivocate it with right-wing violence. Now let’s see you do the same for right-wing violence. Denounce all of it — anti-queer violence, White supremacist violence, pro-Trump/anti-“leftist” violence, anti-woman/pro-“men’s rights” violence, and everything in-between.
¹ — This does raise an interesting notion: Should I denounce the violence of the antifascists who fought Adolf Hitler and his fascist Nazi regime in World War II?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 ?
Who are you addressing when you write, "Now let’s see you do the same for right-wing violence…"?
Re: Re: Re:15
I’m addressing you. You haven’t once denounced right-wing violence without trying to lump left-wing violence into the equation, as if violence from both sides is equally abundant and both sides are equally threatening to the security and stability of the United States. You know who else does that shit? Donald Trump.
Denounce right-wing violence without equivocation. Denounce all of it — even the violence you might actually agree with. If I can do it, so can you.
…unless, of course, you’re down with fascist violence so long as you agree with who carries it out.
Re: Re: Re:16 are you crazy, stupid, lying or some combination?
You are incorrect. I clearly have denounced right wing extremism and violence on it’s own. I have also denounced right wing extremism while also denouncing left wing extremism. I have also denounced all extremism without mentioning left or right.
So, one has to wonder how you can be so wrong. Well, it is not surprising that someone so blatantly and obviously wrong would defend antifa.
Re: Re: Re:17
…oh, man, you…you really gave me this opening, huh. Jeez, I didn’t think you’d be this easy to catch in a trap. Your comment from earlier in this discussion thread:
Remember when I asked you to pick out the one word there that proves you were trying to equivocate right-wing violence with left-wing violence? I’m sure your “playing dumb” act might work elsewhere, but it won’t work here. The word, in case you were wondering, is “too”. That one word proves you are unable to see right-wing violence as anything but the exact same thing as left-wing violence.
And I looked over all your comments. You have denounced certain ideologies commonly associated with right-wingers, sure. And yes, you’ve denounced political violence of all stripes. But the one thing you have yet to do, without equivocation or hesitation or qualification, is explicitly and fully denounce right-wing violence.
You’ve done a hell of a tap-dancing job around that specific point, I admit. But if you think I wouldn’t notice that you’ve danced around the point instead of tackling it, you were…mistaken. Especially since…
…every accusation is a confession, one way or another. You accuse me of defending “antifa” so (you hope) no one will notice your inability to denounce groups like the Klan, the Proud Boys, those Boogaloo fuckers, and every other right-wing extremist group without equivocation. But I noticed. And I noticed that you broke out that “you must support antifa!!!!11!1!” bit when I cornered you into the comment to which I’m replying. Every accusation, a confession — and your accusation is a confession, regardless of whether you realized it.
So I ask you, again, to denounce right-wing violence on its own without equivocation, hesistation, or qualification. If you can’t do that, you will have proven my point here. If you can, you’ll at least have my respect for doing it. Either way, you have nothing to lose. Show your cards or fold, gambler; your bluff has run its course.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18 "too"
OK I read enough of that to understand that you are making quite a big deal about the fact that I used the word "too" in that context.
OK. But do you have anything important to argue or any valid points to make or anything?
I don’t have enough interest to argue over something so trivial.
But in making such a huge deal about the difference between "right wing extremism is bad" and "right wing extremism is bad too" you are demonstrating my point about the way some people take on the role of the grand Inquisitor, the head of the lynch mob, the Inquisitors under Joe McCarthy, Joe Stalin, the nut-jobs spearheading the Satanic Panic, etc. and so on. Notice the authoritarian role you adopt here.
You would have done well in Salem, or in the 3rd Reich or the USSR, or Maoist China, or the Inquisition, or in the KKK, or in the Red scare, etc.
What makes you think you have some right to take on such a role with me (or anyone)?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18 Proud Boys
BTW, whereas I might criticize specific actions a few of them take, I do not denounce the Proud Boys. Why should I? They are a racially mixed group of guys who agree that liberty and equality are the best. Why would anyone denounce either freedom or equality?
Re: Re: Re:19 freedom and equality
Um, the Proud Boys might use freedom and equality in their rhetoric but they don’t mean it the way, say, Black Lives Matter does. Or for that matter, how the Southern Poverty Law Center regards freedom and equality.
Also The Proud Boys are way more violent than Antifa, who you’ve denounced for being too violent.
It appears Justin Trouble you either are willfully staying ignorant or hold double standards for your own comfort.
Are you a teenager in school Justin Trouble? Maybe you should study more.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20 actual freedom and equality
I suppose the PB do not mean the same thing by terms like "liberty" and "equality". They use those terms in the standard way. They do not subscribe to intellectually disingenuous efforts to intentionally and strategically corrupt certain terms in attempt to further political aims and I suppose it is fair to say that the racist and corrupt SPLC does not use those terms honestly. I guess that’s fair.
Anyway, I am still quite amused by your whole, "You did not denounce the sinners in exactly the way we want you too! Do it again, properly this time or it’s back on the rack for you, sinner! Witch! Jew! Homosexual! Commie! Your denials are not good enough!" routine. Got more to say about that? I am sure you are just itching to call me a Nazi or a fascist.
Re: Re: Re:21 actual freedom and equality
Do you disagree with the characterizations on the WP page about the Proud Boys, or are you fine with being associated with the group as it is described there? Or did you not bother to read it?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:22 Wikipedia?
Wikipedia? Why not just go look at the PB website? Wikipedia tends to have bad info about anything people disagree about. But I know PBs and I have read their website. Far more importantly, I study what they actually do (because some people/groups claim to be X but actually are Y in real life).
Re: Re: Re:23 Wikipedia?
Because I don’t trust them. So what is your answer? You’re saying WP is incorrect about them?
Re: Re: Re:21 The standard way
There’s a standard way to define liberty and equality as principles worthy of standing for in the United States? And you’re saying it’s different than how the SPLC might define it?
Oh, Justin Trouble, do elaborate. ????
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:22 The standard way
Ever hear of a dictionary? Yes, there are standard meanings to terms and phrases. You do not need me to tell you that. Some people/groups use words/terms in intellectually disingenuous ways in attempt to manipulate others. You know that too. The SPLC is an other one of those "Everything we don’t like is racist!" organizations which turned out to have racist leadership (if all the people accusing the heads of the SPLC of racist actions in thee work place are telling the truth, but if they aren’t, then the SPLC leadership now knows what it’s like to be falsely accused of racism).
Re: Re: Re:23 The standard way
Justin Trouble you and your simplistic black-and-white, authority-is-always-right personal ideology is not going to do you any good understanding the modern world. You’re demonstrating to me you’re out of your league.
Maybe you can’t be convinced to see outside your little bubble, Justin Trouble. But that’s okay. Nihilism, Absurdism, Naturalism are all difficult pills to swallow, even if they are the most likely reflections of the world around us.
In response to your implied assertion, no, a dictionary is not sufficient to serve a definition of liberty or equality that is precise enough for a government to use them as guiding principles. And that means it’s insufficient for a group like Proud Boys (And don’t think I’ve not noticed you’ve refused to acknowledge their checkered history. Your tells are as subtle as those of our president.)
It also means dictionary definitions are not sufficient enough for a supreme court justice, which is why Constitutional Originalism is a veneer of impartiality to disguise justification of whatever a jurist wants to do, such as dismissing a poor woman’s medical malpractice case over a technicality.
So, Justin Trouble you need to go back to your proverbial dojo and train. You need some introspection as to why you believe what you do, how those things comfort you, and the fears they shield you from. Then you need to look at Rule of Law and the Social Contract which are the fundamental principles of liberty and equality in modern western nations.
Because the evidence that rule of law is not served in the United States is overwhelming. The social contract has been broken for over a century now. And some of our Constitutional Framers would argue — were they the ones getting the bad end of things — that violent revolution against the establishment is long overdue (Something something watering the tree of liberty). If we look at the indictments in the United States Declaration of Independence, we find that a lot of them look familiar in the behaviors of US law enforcement and the justice system.
Do research. Look at these things. See the truth. Or don’t, and stay in your bubble. That’s up to you.
But in the here and now you’re arguing like a primary school student who only knows the national propaganda he’s been taught and diligently said his pledge of allegiance every shiny day. I bet you even wear a red hat.
It’s time you go work out why the rest of us do not.
Re: Re: Re:21
You asked me to denounce left-wing violence. I did exactly that, and without equivocation or qualification.
When you’re asked to denounce right-wing violence in the same way, for what reason do you refuse to give the same kind of straight answer that I gave? What is it about right-wing violence that makes you hesitant to denounce it without equivocation or qualification?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:22 You are a dull, boring BROKEN RECORD
You are SOOOO DULL & BORING with your, "Denounce them! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again! Not good enough for me! Now denounce them the way I tell you too! Denounce them again!"
Re: Re: Re:23
And you call me obsessed. Jesus, dude, have a cup of decaf or whatever the hell you Proud Boys drink to calm down.
Re: Re: Re:19
Congratulations — you’ve won absolutely nothing in your continued refusal to explicitly condemn, without equivocation or qualification, right-wing violence! And you’ve doubled down on that refusal by also refusing to denounce the Proud Boys in particular! All told, this is…not the kind of victory you probably think it is.
(holy shit dude, why can’t you just say “right-wing violence is bad and I denounce it and anyone who carries it out” without trying to connect it to left-wing violence, is that really that hard for you to do)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20 dull, boring broken record
"Denounce the Devil, witch! NO! Denounce the Devil in the way I tell you too!"
"Denounce your heresy, heretic! NO! Denounce your heresy in the way I tell you too!"
"Denounce your blasphemy infidel! NO! Denounce it in the way I tell you too!"
(America during slavery) "Confess that you raped that white woman slave! NO! Confess in the way I tell you too!"
(3rd Reich) "Confess that du ist eine Juden! NO! Confess in the way I tell you too!"
(1950s) "Denounce communism, commie and turn on your neighbors! NO! Denounce the communism in the way I tell you too!"
(1980s) "Denounce the Devil, Satanist! NO! Denounce the Devil in the way I tell you too!"
(today) "Denounce the far right! NO! Denounce them in the way I tell you too!"
G O F U C K Y O U R S E L F
Re: Re: Re:21
Your intentional inability to denounce right-wing violence — and those who promote or engage in such violence — without equivocation or qualification is noted. Your further contributions will be read accordingly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:22 you're funny
"Your lack of obedience before this self-appointed judge and your failure to word your denouncement of heresy in the way this self-appointed judge demands you to has been entered into the record. Your further contributions will be judged by this self-appointed judge accordingly."
Re: Re: Re:23
Your words:
My reply:
If I can denounce left-wing violence without equivocation, hesitation, or qualification — like, I literally didn’t even try to go “not all antifa” — I’m left only to wonder what makes you so hesitant to denounce right-wing violence.
And given your explicit support of the Proud Boys as mentioned in another comment, I’m left to assume you have no other reason to refuse my request — even after I gave in to yours without hesitation — other than direct and knowing support for the ideology and activities of the Proud Boys, which includes (but is not limited to) blanket support for White nationalism, the espousal of anti-Muslim rhetoric, the espousal of misogynistic rhetoric, and the maintenance of alliances with other extremists.
As for your whole “how dare you judge me” bit, where you think I have the authority to do anything to you besides point at you and say “this dude really doesn’t want to denounce right-wing violence”: I have no authority to do anything to you besides point at you and…well, you get the idea. Besides, you’re using an assumed name with no way of tracking it back to who you are in meatspace. What the fuck should you care if I’m ripping into you for your explicit support of a group that glorifies violence against even its own members?
But the broader point, I suppose, is this: I’ve asked you, multiple times, to denounce right-wing violence on its own — as well as the groups that commit that violence. Your pointed and continued refusal to do that, combined with your attempts to deflect the question with “witch hunt” accusations (which is an awfully Trump-like bitch move, by the way) and your explicitly expressed support for a right-wing extremist group that routinely glorifies (and commits) right-wing violence, leaves me with no other choice but to believe you approve of right-wing violence and the groups that commit it.
Whether you refuse to denounce right-wing violence because of genuine appreciation for such acts or a trolling gimmick that has officially gone stale (and has been thoroughly exposed here) or some other bullshit reason, you refuse to denounce it all the same. Your further contributions to this topic will be read accordingly — which is to say, they’ll be read as if you explicitly support right-wing violence and the groups who commit it. You can act like this is some massive “witch hunt” all you want, but it’s literally one dude telling you (in far more detail than you deserve) that your act is so intentional and easy to figure out that even a dumbass like me can do it. And even though I can point out how bullshit your song-and-dance is (should we call it the Right-Step Boogaloo?), I can do nothing to you other than embarass you (and myself, to some extent) on this comments section.
You have done nothing show us how you’ll literally say anything else at all to avoid saying “I condemn right-wing violence” without equivocation or qualification. For that, you have earned nothing but the right to be called out for it. If you don’t like that? Tough shit; that’s what you get when you stan right-wing violence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:24 if you're just going to keep rehashing like an obsessed....
You’re obsessed.
I read a little of your last message but I am not going to read most of it for the same reason why I won’t listen to a robot stuck in a loop.
Request: if you are going to keep rehashing this thing, can you do it in far fewer words? See, I am not going to read a few paragraphs of your rehashing. Do something different now or at least keep it brief. Remember: brevity is the soul of wit. Also, redundancy is dull.
Re: Re: Re:25
You’re either a troll or a genuine supporter of right-wing violence, but you’ve refused (multiple times) to condemn such violence and have used bitch moves like the Trump-esque “this is a witch hunt” to deflect from that fact, so commenters here will consider you a supporter of right-wing violence until you openly condemn it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
Yeah, at this point I am not going to denounce anything to you. I am rather amused by you run through this loop in your deranged zealous syntax. Keep going.
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
What a surprise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:28 ok so now what?
So am I a Nazi?
Go ahead. Judge me. You know you are itching to.
Re: Re: Re:29
You may not be a Nazi, but your refusal to condemn the modern-day equivalent of Nazis is saying a whole lot about you — and ain’t one bit of it any good.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:30 nope
Holy shit! You are AMAZING!
Even as you are mocked for being such an unreasonable asshole acting like a broken robot you persist being that way. What you are doing is not healthy behavior. It’s anti-social, pathological, caustic.
You are like all those who fervently joined in the inquisitions and witch hunts of the past; the Red Scare, the Gestapo, the Pogroms, lynch mobs, Antifa, etc.
You just keep acting like some Grand Inquisitor in a witch trial.
Obviously, you’re not a good person.
Re: Re: Re:31
And you keep acting like a Nazi sympathizer, so who’s really the bad guy in this situation?
(You. It…it’s you.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:32 you're a bad person (& paranoid)
Exactly how am I acting like a Nazi sympathizer, oh paranoid & bad person?
Re: Re: Re:29 Am I a Nazi?
Justin Trouble, you are eager to be called a Nazi. Maybe then you can cite (misinterpret) Godwin’s law in your head. Maybe that will help you dismiss the lot of us as biased.
You can dismiss us as whackos or bigots or whatever without being called a Nazi, Justin Trouble. Just do it because you don’t like us, because we’re stupid and dicks and suck at Among Us. That’s more internally honest than waiting for us to slight you somehow that you can clearly identify.
But to indulge your question, go ahead and make that comparison. Are you a Nazi, Justin Trouble? Are you Nazi-like? Naziesque? Would you be a good trooper for Der Führer?
The quintessential element of fascism is placing the blame of systemic social problems onto marginalized minorities. The Nazis favored Jews because antisemitism was all the rage world wide. Jews were a convenient already-popular target for scapegoating. But if it wasn’t the Jews it could be itinerant Romani (Itenerants were never well liked), also LGBT, disabled, mental illness patients and so on. The German purge list was long.
As circumstances get worse, the outrage rises, and undesirables are deported, interned and ultimately massacred. It’s a process that’s slow to accelerate, and the people may not even know about it until well after the institutions are build and in operation for years.
So, Justin Trouble, try this thought experiment:
Every American citizen and every person in the United States is deserving of human rights, including life and liberty, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done.
If you can agree with this wholeheartedly, Justin Trouble, then you’re probably not a Nazi. If you’re willing to take action (id est, fight) to preserve this sentiment as an American principle, then you might harbor anti-fascist sentiments which qualifies you for Antifa, or as a collaborator with Antifa.
If your brain immediately says yes but… wanting to disqualify a group: felons, women, Muslims, atheists, goths, copyright abolitionists, undocumented immigrants, whatever — then you might be prone to the kind of thought process that gets people wearing armbands and goosestepping with the ranks.
Also, Justin Trouble, if you love authority so much that you’d pack the cattle trains with untermenschen or clear their bodies out of the showers and into the furnaces, should Dear Leader assign these tasks, then you might have the kind of cult-attracted personality that would conform to a fascist state.
If you would, like Heydrich, massacre villages, or like Eichmann, gladly erect an industrial genocide machine for the good of the cause or the nation, then yep, you are totally Nazi material.
Does this reflect badly on you? I leave it for you to judge. Do you want to be one of them? Do you want to be different? Answering these questions is part of the human condition.
Over 100,000 Germans knowingly participated in the Holocaust, and while the international community does blame them all (and Nazi hunters track them down to the last individual), such a huge number of people suggests to us these are factors in human organization instincts that can drive people to commit atrocity en mass. We can be very eager to conform. Doubly so if our rent and food money is dependent on doing so. It means the community has to be diligent and proactive in preventing conditions in which genocide becomes a social norm.
How do we do this? I like Marx’s observation (yes, that Marx) that precarity is the most powerful discontent multiplier, that when people lack food security; a safe home; a safe, non-toxic work environment; adequate social contact; reliable information; etc. etc. each of these things compound to stress people out. This drives them to favor simple, aggressive action to purge what feels wrong.
And it’s way easier to blame the weird people who are the wrong color or worship alien gods or have odd habits and dress than it is to work out why everyone is insecure and uptight and how it’s connected to our dependence on a capitalist system that will eschew the interests of the public for individual profits.
… And our plutocratic masters are glad for the distraction when they’re paying workers a less-than-living wage and not bothering with health insurance.
And if you’re not either a billionaire, on close, talking terms with one or closely related to one, you’re on the purge list, just somewhere down below the Communists and Trade Unionists and Jews, even if you are the best Nazi you can be. Fascism is an Ouroboros.
So, I’m not going to call you a Nazi, but now you should have the tools to decide for yourself how well the armband would suit you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:30 request for brevity
Could you give me a short summary of your last comment? Thanks.
Re: Re: Re:31 Brevity
Nope.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:32 Brevity is
What if I reminded you that brevity is the soul of wit?
Re: Re: Re:33 Brevity is
Whoosh!
Re: Re: Re:33 The soul of wit
I wouldn’t care.
At this point I don’t trust you anymore as a participant of this conversation in good faith.
When a dog is teaching Buddha, he can observe and learn, or he can dismiss the dog for being just a dog. One of these choices is a shortcut on the path to enlightenment.
At at this point Justin Trouble I’m pretty sure you’re just trolling for attention. I’m sorry I couldn’t be useful to you, but I’m more sorry that you’re yet another example of the sort that has to troll forums to feel better about yourself. It’s rather pitiable.
Re: Re: Re:34 "You denounced extremists on both sides! Nazi! Troll!"
You think that because you are so warped by this social justice paranoia, the current mass moral panic gripping society. It’s something that seems to afflict our species from time to time.
"You denounced extremists on both sides! That means you are a right wing extremist or a troll!"
That’s not sane.
Re: Re: Re:35 I'm not the one calling you a nazi.
In this case I’m just holding up proverbial clothes and you’re telling me they might be your size and style.
Re: Re: Re:36 I'm not the one calling you a nazi.
Yeah, well if collectivists wanna be collectivists instead of individualists they can’t complain when they are not considered individually.
Re: Re: Re:37 "collectivists wanna be collectivists"
Ah, so you do believe police departments should be assessed by the behavior of their officers.
That or you openly maintain double standards.
Re: Re: Re:38 of course
Of course all officers and police departments should be very closely scrutinized and dealt with accordingly. More-so than other people, police officers should be punished for any/all crimes and abuses and so on. Police officers are held to a much lower standard than others when they should be held to a much higher standard. Also, it’s common for precincts to not hire anyone who scores above average in intelligence. That has to stop. Stupid people obey bad orders. We need smart people as officers so they can question bad orders. Also there needs to be powers higher than police precincts that severely punish any officer that obeys bad orders. For example, when the police are ordered to stand down as a mob attacks a group of people and they obey those orders, they must be punished severely enough that they serve as a warning to all other cops to never obey bed orders.
Re: Re: Re:39 Held to a higher standard.
With these statements I have no disagreement with you.
Re: Re: Re:40 Held to a higher standard.
Good. Do you believe that all people should receive equal treatment under the law no matter what color, sex. orientation, gender, etc. they are? Do you believe that people should be free? The freedom to gather in public, the freedom to write and say what we want, etc.?
Re: Re: Re:41 I'll bite, but this totally feels like a setup.
Do you believe that all people should receive equal treatment under the law no matter what color, sex. orientation, gender, etc. they are?
I do.
Do you believe that people should be free?
An ye shall harm none, but yeah.
The freedom to gather in public, the freedom to write and say…
I assume you’re asking if I believe everyone in a society should have the rights accorded (more or less) by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically,
~ The free exercise of religion
~ The freedom of speech and of self expression
~ The freedom of the press, of publication and broadcast
~ The freedom of assembly and of association
~ The right to petition the government for redress of grievances
To answer your question, yes with a few qualifications.
The United States and the State of California (and maybe Yolo County, I don’t know) has limits to the freedom of expression and publication that I disagree with, but there are some forms of expression I think are dangerous, or are culturally complicated.
The free exercise of religion gets an An ye shall harm none qualifier. Any benefit afforded to Christian institutions in the US should also be afforded to non-Christian religious institutions (including Satanic institutions) as well as secular non-profit institutions. This is not the case throughout the United States or in federal law.
Re: Re: Re:42 I'll bite, but this totally feels like a setup.
As far as I know from studying the First Amendment (as a layman, for sure) and how the "freedom of religion" thing has been handled through US history, the principle of ‘Separation church and state’ (the "Separation Clause"), there is no excuse for having things like the 10 commandments displayed in courts of law or prayer in public school and so on. But, yes, if they are going to allow Christian stuff they have to allow Satanic stuff and etc.
Could you be as specific as possible about your "an ye shall harm none"/forms-of-expression-that-you-find-to-be-dangerous qualifier? For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that one can not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless one is sincerely trying to warn people of a dangerous fire. They have also ruled that one can’t say, "Go to Joe Blow’s house and kill him!". But one can say, "Trump supporters are mentally retarded!" even if some people call that "hate speech".
Re: Re: Re:14 Antifascist violence in theaters of war.
If we apply Pirates and Emperors logic to it you don’t have to condemn the national endorsed armies that made up the Allies in fighting the Axis, but La Résistance was formed as a grassroots response by French civilians to the brutality of the occupational force. So their involvement and use of violence into comes to question.
But then again, La Résistance is not the same as Antifa or Antifaschistische Aktion as they weren’t fighting fascism per se, but the rude, cruel occupational force that was treating harshly the citizens of France. And the resistance would have developed no matter what flag these brutes marched under, or what ideology they allegedly served.
You might choose to renounce violence in reprisal due to police brutality, the brutality of occupying forces or the abuse of power by those who hold a monopoly of force. But some here, including myself, will not. Indeed, the Parisians who started La Résistance felt compelled. I suspect we Americans do too.
Re: Re: Re:15
Now, see, that’s the kind of nuanced answer that I’m too dumb to come up with in the heat of the moment. Dammit, Uriel, quit showing me up like this! ????
White Supremacy Terrorism
Some Boogaloo Bois have been arrested by the FBI for having burned down a Minneapolis police precinct during the George Floyd protests while masquerading as members of the BLM movement, as part of their ongoing effort to incite widespread civil war.
While I still think we cannot sufficiently reform the US justice system (or the executive or the legislature, for that matter) without it devolving into a violent exchange, this new information has led me (for one) to rethink my understanding of where certain factions are.
I am cautiously optimistic the people of the US might, with luck and pluck, Cuban Missile Crisis its way out of our manifold crises. And yes, Cuban Missile Crisis is now a verb.
Get Well Soon
It is difficult to even know where to begin. Perhaps it’s best to just start and also to end with the nonsense that: 1) there are any fascists to fight, and 2) that 1 is true only if antifa does not fight itself, since they are the closest thing to Mussolini’s brown shirts and Germany’s S.A. in the 1930s. They act like them, they even dress like them.
How could anyone write such falsehoods? Seriously. What happened to you, man?