Jump to content

General American Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

I would like to state that the problem isn't that we should pull out of the middle east, because as terrible as the war is, we could solve it by replacing infrastructure and continuing to take in refugees. If we're going to cause chaos we should provide something more solid than what it was in the first place. (Though not a dictatorship.. America has a bad history with that.) We're a largely hypocritical country because we say we're for immigrants, while some denounce Muslims from being allowed in. And, the Orlando nightclub shooting was not proven to be linked to Islamic extremism. The fact that ISIS claimed they were responsible is BS because any time something happens, they tend to claim it anyways. Also, racist bias isn't an SJW buzzword, as much as you'd like to claim it could be. In simple terms, someone makes their decision based on generalization and stereotyping a ethnic group, while having very little actual interaction with them. And while, yes, there were multiple factors for the cause or for the shooting to continue, the NRA continually endorses policies to make access to guns easier. It's hypocritical to have a requirement to be taught how to use a vehicle, and take a test to be legally allowed to operate it, when you can go into the nearest pawn shop or gun store and get a gun, with very little effort.

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to state that the problem isn't that we should pull out of the middle east, because as terrible as the war is, we could solve it by replacing infrastructure and continuing to take in refugees.

 

Just no. You don't burn someone's house, then invite them to come stay at your place, they'd still hate you for it. Besides, taking in refugees is bad for the first world AND for the third world, just like it was self-destructive for the Roman Empire.

LPjzfGChGlE

 

If we're going to cause chaos we should provide something more solid than what it was in the first place. (Though not a dictatorship.. America has a bad history with that.) We're a largely hypocritical country because we say we're for immigrants, while some denounce Muslims from being allowed in.

 

Correct...

and yes, because Islam is a regressive dangerous and destructive religion that has stayed in an 11th century timewarp that has caused more deaths in the entire world history than any "white supremacy" in our time.

 

And, the Orlando nightclub shooting was not proven to be linked to Islamic extremism. The fact that ISIS claimed they were responsible is BS because any time something happens, they tend to claim it anyways.

 

It doesn't matter if it wasn't ISIS, they're not the only Islamic terrorists, some act of their own accord. Islam is intolerant of LGB people, and Islamofascist actions or violence should not be excused from criticism. It's funny how the left is eager to hate Christianity and even Judaism (in the case of FreePalestine) but won't criticise Islamofascism, and call those who do as "Islamophobic".

IMO they're like the traitors in the Roman empire who held the gates open for the barbarians to charge in.

 

Also, racist bias isn't an SJW buzzword, as much as you'd like to claim it could be. In simple terms, someone makes their decision based on generalization and stereotyping a ethnic group, while having very little actual interaction with them.

 

No I'm just asking if it is, I never claimed it was. It just sounded like something so stupid that only a progressive could come up with it.

 

And while, yes, there were multiple factors for the cause or for the shooting to continue, the NRA continually endorses policies to make access to guns easier.

 

Yeah good on 'em, supporting the second amendment, and actually doing what they were CREATED to do.

 

It's hypocritical to have a requirement to be taught how to use a vehicle, and take a test to be legally allowed to operate it, when you can go into the nearest pawn shop or gun store and get a gun, with very little effort.

 

That is not true, that has been debunked numerous times, and I dare ask you, "Have you tried it yourself?"

They do not just give out guns willy nilly, despite the Legacy media portrayal as such. From background checks to Safety lessons, it's not as simple as fronting up, unless the dude's an illegal weapons trader.

Share this post


Link to post

"Correct... and yes, because Islam is a regressive dangerous and destructive religion that has stayed in an 11th century timewarp that has caused more deaths in the entire world history than any "white supremacy" in our time."

 

Yes, and Christianity isn't based off of something similarly regressive, dangerous, and destructive? Did you miss the crusades? The multiple "Holy" wars? That'd be ironic considering you've named yourself after the "Templars" who obviously took part in the crusades. Saying it's all Islam's fault is missing the other similar religions, which used their religion to commit atrocities. I also hope you would consider the amount of African Americans killed by white supremacists and slave owners. And, while we're at it, let's add the systematic genocide of Jewish people and Native Americans. Because this was all either white supremacy or Christianity claiming superiority. Compared to the recent influx of radical Islamists, they have nothing on the violent history of Christianity.

 

 

"It doesn't matter if it wasn't ISIS, they're not the only Islamic terrorists, some act of their own accord. Islam is intolerant of LGB people, and Islamofascist actions or violence should not be excused from criticism." 

 

And this is also compared to people claiming that gay people are against their religion... In the U.S. Have you missed the last 60 years of Anti-LGBT groups? Almost all of them cite Christianity as their reason. And even though they might not say they want to murder gay people, you have to admit that there is a shocking correlation between LGBT people committing suicide, and oppressive "religious" views. There is also conversion therapy, which in equivalent is torture of LGBT people to be afraid of being themselves.

 

 

"Yeah good on 'em, supporting the second amendment, and actually doing what they were CREATED to do."

 

So basically what you're saying is, despite the results of endorsing easy public access to firearms, you'd rather have a mass shooting every week? Even if it was their purpose as a group, and why they were created, that doesn't make the group any less shit. That's like saying that you can't blame the KKK for being a white supremacist group. Because you goddamn well can.

 

 

"That is not true, that has been debunked numerous times, and I dare ask you, "Have you tried it yourself?" 

They do not just give out guns willy nilly, despite the Legacy media portrayal as such. From background checks to Safety lessons, it's not as simple as fronting up, unless the dude's an illegal weapons trader."

 

[CITATION NEEDED]

 

Yes, just let me go out and spend money I don't have on something I'd never use. You can do that too, y'know.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, and Christianity isn't based off of something similarly regressive, dangerous, and destructive? Did you miss the crusades? The multiple "Holy" wars? That'd be ironic considering you've named yourself after the "Templars" who obviously took part in the crusades.

 

Yeah, but Christianity has evolved from it's original incarnation, and is now something much more than it used to be, as a force for positivity. Islam is still stuck in the 11th centuary where it still thinks women are worth less than men, and will throw gays off buildings.

And the Crusades were wars of defense against Islamic invasions to Sicily, Spain, and Constantinople. It's a typical weak leftist argument that has been debunked numerous times.

Funny how you have to go back 1000 years to justify "muh evil christians", when I can open this newspaper TODAY and read about the latest Islamic terrorist attack by the "Religion of Peace"

-ilFbbk9jw4

 

Saying it's all Islam's fault is missing the other similar religions, which used their religion to commit atrocities. I also hope you would consider the amount of African Americans killed by white supremacists and slave owners.

 

Not all "White" Americans owned slaves, and some African Amercians owned slaves too. Meanwhile, Islamic countries have had more slaves than the west ever did, and TO THIS DAY are still using slaves. Ever heard about the Greek slaves being subjugated by the Turks? Probably not, because "white people can't be slaves" even though statistically "Whites" were sold into slavery more than blacks. "Slaves" comes from "Slav" from the Slavic people stolen from their families and sold into slavery by Moorish Islamists in the 9th century Spain. The West didn't start slavery, we ENDED it. Islam, STILL practices it in the modern day. Just look at Lybia.

 

And, while we're at it, let's add the systematic genocide of Jewish people and Native Americans.

 

Yeah wrong, there was no "systemastic genocide" of Red Indians; they died from diseases that they had no immune to, and from fighting for their lands and losing. They got over it, why can't you?

The National Socialists were NOT Christians: They used the catholic church to spread their propaganda and to convince people that they cared for Deutsch values.

Also what's 6 Million Jews compared to the millions of Christians (AND Jews) slaughtered in the middle east every year (to the point of near extinction), and over 120 million innocents killed by the evil hands of Communism? A damn little. Not that you care about dead Christians anyway.

 

Compared to the recent influx of radical Islamists, they have nothing on the violent history of Christianity.

 

Absolute grade A bullshit. Islam has enslaved and killed more people throughout history than any Christian movement, and still does to this day. Call me "Islamophobic" or whatever, but I'm not falling for your leftist propaganda

 

And this is also compared to people claiming that gay people are against their religion... In the U.S. Have you missed the last 60 years of Anti-LGBT groups? Almost all of them cite Christianity as their reason.

 

Yeah, because they're socialist dumbasses that are still stuck in the 1990's, and because they want to destroy traditional american values and the nuclear family, and subjugate everyone to their regressive ideology.

Conservative LGBT people don't cite Christianity as the reason. Makes you think...

 

And even though they might not say they want to murder gay people, you have to admit that there is a shocking correlation between LGBT people committing suicide, and oppressive "religious" views.

 

Yeah, oppressive religious views like Islam that drive LGB people to suicide and kill them on a daily basis. But you don't care about that. You only care about me being "Islamophobic" for pointing it out.

 

There is also conversion therapy, which in equivalent is torture of LGBT people to be afraid of being themselves.

 

Yeah that no one does anymore you idiot. You sound like we're in the 18th centuary. Are you living at the bottom of the ocean?

 

So basically what you're saying is, despite the results of endorsing easy public access to firearms, you'd rather have a mass shooting every week?

 

Mass shootings DON'T happen every week. The USA is at a 40 year low in gun crime. Kids and girls were taught how to use a rifle in school. Teenagers used to have a "rite of passage" where they would own a gun before moving out. They didn't have mass shootings back then. You can't fool me with your leftist MSM fueled propaganda.

 

Even if it was their purpose as a group, and why they were created, that doesn't make the group any less shit.

 

Newsflash jackass: THE NRA HAS KILLED NO ONE. NONE. They are there to defend the Constitutional and Federalist Right to own firearms, literally the CORE of the USA. Frankly it's anti-american to be so hateful to them. Although to be fair, they aren't as good at defending gun RIGHTS as they should be, which is why other groups like the NFA are more effective at promoting the fundemental right to bear arms.

txINV-l0qlI

 

That's like saying that you can't blame the KKK for being a white supremacist group. Because you goddamn well can.

 

That is actually the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Holy shit how retarded are you?

I can not believe how autistic you are, comparing the NRA, a group that defends Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, and has killed NO BODY, to a racist lynchmob of the 19th century that doesn't exist anymore.

And you call me the bad guy? Look in the mirror you hypocrite.

 

Yes, just let me go out and spend money I don't have on something I'd never use. You can do that too, y'know.

 

Haw, If you have ever used a Firearm, you would know about Firearm Safety, maintaining it, and how to keep it properly and be a legal responsible gun owner. Even though any woman can be a prositute if they wanted, hardly any do it. So what logic makes you think that every legal responsible gun owner would be a mass shooter? Because let's face it: You don't want no guns. You want guns in the hands of everyone BUT the american people, so they can't defend themselves from big government takeover, because you're totally anti-big government aren't you?

 

"I have a strict Gun Control policy.

If there's a gun around... I want to be in control of it."

-Clint Eastwood

 

 

Your posts to me in a nutshell:

tumblr_n1rzn5tr851s5h4dwo1_500.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post

"Yeah, but Christianity has evolved from it's original incarnation, and is now something much more than it used to be, as a force for positivity. Islam is still stuck in the 11th centuary where it still thinks women are worth less than men, and will throw gays off buildings.

And the Crusades were wars of defense against Islamic invasions to Sicily, Spain, and Constantinople. It's a typical weak leftist argument that has been debunked numerous times.

Funny how you have to go back 1000 years to justify "muh evil christians", when I can open this newspaper TODAY and read about the latest Islamic terrorist attack by the "Religion of Peace""

 

Yes, because they claim self-defense. Despite the attempts, weren't the crusades massive failures? And, were there plans for them invading beforehand, or was it retaliation? "Force of positivity" yes, because they complain about gay people existing? Also, are you aware that there is a division in Islam? The Sunni are the ones who are fundamentalists. The Shia are a peaceful sect of Islam. Guess which one immigrates into the U.S. to get out of conflict? Yeah, the Shia.

 

 

"Yeah wrong, there was no "systemastic genocide" of Red Indians; they died from diseases that they had no immune to, and from fighting for their lands and losing. They got over it, why can't you?

The National Socialists were NOT Christians: They used the catholic church to spread their propaganda and to convince people that they cared for Deutsch values.

Also what's 6 Million Jews compared to the millions of Christians (AND Jews) slaughtered in the middle east every year (to the point of near extinction), and over 120 million innocents killed by the evil hands of Communism? A damn little. Not that you care about dead Christians anyway."

 

Sorry, did you miss the part where I said "and white supremacy"? Also, "they got over it"? I'm sorry, you expect me to believe, that while I live on a reservation, that they got over it? You're kidding, right? Reservations themselves are a racist construct. They weren't made to preserve Indian culture. The United States government purposefully put tribes with known history of wars and conflicts in the same area. Also, I'm gonna either need a actual figure or a citation for the mass genocide in the middle east. Because as far as I can tell, only thousands have been killed, not millions. Also, communism is an entirely different beast.

 

 

"Yeah, because they're socialist dumbasses that are still stuck in the 1990's, and because they want to destroy traditional american values and the nuclear family, and subjugate everyone to their regressive ideology.

Conservative LGBT people don't cite Christianity as the reason. Makes you think..."

 

Jesus Christ, you're kidding, right? Can you please clarify in your response which group you're talking about? Also, what conservative LGBT people? You literally can't just be gay and support the very platform that says you shouldn't be able to get married.

 

 

"Yeah that no one does anymore you idiot. You sound like we're in the 18th centuary. Are you living at the bottom of the ocean?"

 

Dude. Simple Google search.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

 

https://nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-therapy-torture.html?

 

https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

 

 

"Mass shootings DON'T happen every week. The USA is at a 40 year low in gun crime. Kids and girls were taught how to use a rifle in school. Teenagers used to have a "rite of passage" where they would own a gun before moving out. They didn't have mass shootings back then. You can't fool me with your leftist MSM fueled propaganda."

 

Yeah I'm calling bullshit.

 

https://goo.gl/images/4CVP22

 

"Congress has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from conducting research that advocates in favor of gun control. The CDC has interpreted this ban to extend to all research on gun violence prevention, and so has not funded any research on this subject since 1996."

 

"Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S." 

 

 

"Newsflash jackass: THE NRA HAS KILLED NO ONE. NONE. They are there to defend the Constitutional and Federalist Right to own firearms, literally the CORE of the USA. Frankly it's anti-american to be so hateful to them. Although to be fair, they aren't as good at defending gun RIGHTS as they should be, which is why other groups like the NFA are more effective at promoting the fundemental right to bear arms."

 

I'm sorry, did me calling their actual organization shit offend you? They're shit. I do not agree with what they stand for. Not the 2nd amendment itself, but the way they go about it. They are about making guns easier to acquire.

 

 

 

Logically, you'd never hope to have teenagers have to do shit for the adults, but frankly, this is where we're at.

 

 

"That is actually the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Holy shit how retarded are you? 

I can not believe how autistic you are, comparing the NRA, a group that defends Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, and has killed NO BODY, to a racist lynchmob of the 19th century that doesn't exist anymore.

And you call me the bad guy? Look in the mirror you hypocrite."

 

Newsflash jackass, the KKK does still exist. Also, I never explicitly compared the two. I was just saying you can blame a group for being shit because of what they stand for. Frankly, you're really grasping at straw here, to exacerbate the issue.

 

 

"Haw, If you have ever used a Firearm, you would know about Firearm Safety, maintaining it, and how to keep it properly and be a legal responsible gun owner. Even though any woman can be a prositute if they wanted, hardly any do it. So what logic makes you think that every legal responsible gun owner would be a mass shooter? Because let's face it: You don't want no guns. You want guns in the hands of everyone BUT the american people, so they can't defend themselves from big government takeover, because you're totally anti-big government aren't you?"

 

I literally just fried my brain trying to read this as a coherent string of sentences. I have fired a gun. I do, in fact, have ownership of a gun. Gun ownership is not equal to women wanting to be prostitutes. Oh wait, I'm supposed to read that in context with the following sentence, silly me. But I still can't make any fucking sense of what you're saying, or how it's supposed to even be a point. I am saying that it should be harder to obtain a gun in the fucking first place so that people are able to understand every necessary precaution to owning a gun.

 

What's this have to do about me supposedly wanting everyone but the American people to have a gun? You're literally a personification of the NRA because you think when I say Gun Control you immediately fucking clutch a gun like it's your child. I'm not saying we should go AUSTRALIA and take away everyone's guns. I'm saying we should be responsible for our weaponry, not handing it out like free samples! Also, what big government? It's already a big government! By your logic we should have had a fucking uprising every 4 years for when a new president is being elected!

 

You literally are missing the point of everything I've said. Please, for the love of god actually spend time crafting a response so you understand what in the hell you're supposed to be arguing against anyways.

 

 

"I have a strict Gun Control policy. 

If there's a gun around... I want to be in control of it."

-Clint Eastwood

 

Sorry, did you literally miss the political undertones of Dirty Harry? He's not about being a fascist, although with the context you're quoting it in, you want me to believe he is?

 

"Over the years, Clint Eastwood has been quoted publicly taking stances supporting gun control:

 

For gun legislation

 

Believes all firearms should be registered

 

Backer of the Brady Bill, and its mandated waiting period (for gun safety purposes)

 

Wondered why anyone would need or want an assault weapon

 

Supported Dianne Feinstein for the U.S. Senate (but has had harsh criticism for President Obama)"

 

He literally encompasses my stance on guns. This is just ironic at this point.

Share this post


Link to post

Selous, please tone down your language. I will not accept flamewars or resorting to calling other users "retarded" in order to get your point across... you've been warned...

Share this post


Link to post
--

Do you know why people call Islam a religion of peace? Most of them have talked to and befriended actual Muslims in their life. The city I grew up in was a refugee hotspot and some of my best friends were Muslims. They were incredibly nice people because a good chunk of them followed a sect of Islam that promotes peace and kindness. Just because the middle east is full of militant fundamentalist theocrats doesn't mean those kinds of people are the Muslims trying to escape the conflict of the middle east. I think it's fucking sad and miserable how much prejudice there is against Muslims in this country, in no small part due to the message that folks like you promote that they're intolerant of LGBT people or western culture in general. Also, don't act like you care about LGBT people when you're intentionally dropping the T. If you're going to talk about real Muslim people your average U.S. Citizen talks to, talk about the refugees or even the civilians in relatively safe parts of the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty much every muslim I have met have been really nice and have felt like genuine people and I wouldn't say they force their religion on others more than Christians do...

 

I'm quite sure that the extremist groups are a minority.

Share this post


Link to post

 

For some reason they seem to want to promote underground echo-chambers of extremists to grow to critical mass because they're incapable of intellectually beating them in a way that's calm and composed.

 

and here's something specifically i want to touch on.

 

meanwhile they don't seem to understand that the best way to stop the growth of extremist ideologies is by actually having open debate and breaking apart their ideas to make them look like morons.

 

Two things i want to talk to about this: For one, debate isn't the end all be all for destroying REALLY DANGEROUS ideologies, like fascism. Debates only work if both parties come into the discussion with good faith. And Nazis do NOT enter debates in good faith. They WANT to debate not because they want to inform themselves or come to the best ideas, but because they want to spread their message AND intimidate people who they target.

 

If someone says, "I think Cultural Marxism is destroying the west because of a jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race, therefore we need a white ethnostate" then I heavily doubt any amount of debate is going to change that persons mind. Sure, they may seem like morons, but these people are going to make themselves as watered down and "presentable" as possible.

 

They aren't going to say what i just said, they'll use dogwhistles and very "acceptable" language to try to spread their message to as many people as possible, maybe without those people even realizing that the ideas they repeat are dogwhistles. And trust me, once you pick up on the dogwhistles (which in my case i feel like i have to because if the alt-right ever do rise to power i'm a pretty big target for them) they're very easy to notice. And when some is in a university, spouting hidden message after hidden message, it's designed to also silence people who would be abused by the alt-right via intimidation.

 

So, rather than fall into the useless trap of debate with people who won't change their minds and are trying to sneak in fascist ideas into the minds of ordinary people (why do you think crypto-fascists is a term) Antifa instead seeks to show that those types of messages aren't tolerable.I haven't watched the debate but i'm guessing Styxhexenhammer666 wasn't criticized for being a nazi sympathizer, but because he's unintentionally spreading the fascist agenda.

 

And this:

Meanwhile you see some Democrats waving around the Antifa handbook as good reading material

 

Can i see some actual evidence of this please? Because Antifa isn't an organized political group, I don't think they HAVE a "handbook" the only thing I saw was a book from 2017 by one guy (not put out by any organization or leader of any organization) that's about the history and tactics of historical antifa groups. You know, the ones that fought fascists in the streets because there really was a huge rise of fascist sympathizers? Same as today?

 

I don't see any great resurgence in Klansmen numbers, or actual Neo-Nazis rising to power

 

Buddy, have you not been paying attention to anything? There are far more hard-right groups and members today than 4 years ago. The whole reason for the Charlottesville rally was because of a "Unite the Right" movement where hard-right groups from all over the US were trying to work together to spread their hate messages.

 

In short, when you take a look at the crimes commited by antifa and their very purpose for existing (which is to be anti-fascists) vs. the crimes of alt-righters and their purpose for exsiting (which seems to be "white power") then the hatred and demonization of antifa just doesn't make sense to me. If antifa had committed HALF the murders the alt-right did, I'd be more understanding, but I haven't found one murder at the hands of antifa.

 

The only thing they as a whole seem to hate are fascists, and it's hard to feel any sympathy towards fascists in my opinion

 

 

First off, how you described Nazis is exactly how I would describe Antifa when it comes to debate. They literally may as well be the exact same thing if that's your argument. The Nazis, by your definition, don't enter into debates in good faith, and Antifa doesn't like the idea of Free Speech because it inherently endorses Nazism. Therefore neither actually desire any debate, they desire obedience to what they want.

 

I would argue though that changing the mind of the opponent in a debate is not the goal. Let's take it out of the context of Nazis and Antifa, but to a divisive topic. Lets say its a Theological debate between a Christian Preacher, Muslim Imam, and a Jewish Rabbi. Or heck, we could even picture it as a Christian versus a Hindu if you'd like. The topic is debating religion, and which is the more compelling one to believe, or that people should believe. The debators themselves have no hope of convincing their opponents, or odds that are basically 0% unless the person isn't firm on their stances to begin with, or has some personal epiphany of which the debator has limited control over anyway. The objective is to convince the audience, the spectators, as to who can create the more compelling argument, as its to be assumed that the spectators are smart enough to understand the more compelling argument from one that is weaker. This should be the ideal situation in a secularized society that claims to educate its people in critical thinking. To the point where you don't need to police ideas, the people will figure out on their own which ones are complete nonsense. Its a very democratic system which aligns to the politics we claim to be the most fair, its a critical part of science, and it is basically the whole point why Democracies have their candidates debate each other on different topics.

 

It doesn't matter if some schmuck spouts complete nonsense, we have faith that the vast majority will see it as complete nonsense, if it truly is and if we've developed people's critical thinking skills correctly.

 

Yes, debate is not the be-all and end-all for destroying ideologies, but stifling it does nothing but drive said ideology underground and promote it as rebellious, taboo, or appealing in edgier qualities, and ultimately doesn't refute its points, but merely shows you refuse to talk about it.

 

If we don't have faith that people, specifically, citizens with the power to make decisions in relation to various issues in a country, cannot dissect a debate, see who is making the argument that makes more sense, and make intelligent decisions based off what is the more compelling option, then why are we even in a Democratic system? We'd be more efficiently run as some variant of a Dictatorship, Monarchy, or even merely an Oligrachy if that were the case.

 

Appealing language is no excuse. Everyone who is in a serious debate and wants to win is obviously going to use any measure they can within the debate to make their point seem to be the most sensible and compelling, via dramatic gestures, tone of voice, choice of words, and all kind of other things. Doesn't matter who they are. Business people do this all the time when they're trying to sell you something. It falls to the opponent to create a more compelling argument that people believe more and can cut through the bullshit, if that is what it is. No amount of flowery language can cover a logical inconsistency or flaw in the argument.

 

Hence why I used the Styx example. They could not respond to his criticism without stumbling into a hole, so they ignored it, and people noticed it about as much as if they'd stepped in the hole.

 

So yes, debate is not everything. But to claim that censorship of thought and deplatforming of debates, and refusal to engage is the actual way to crush Nazism I think is a foolish prospect that will do nothing beyond make more Nazis. Its the same way the Free Speech Movement gained momentum when they tried to bring up Vietnam in the 1960s.

 

 

Second, for your proof of the DNC endorsing Antifa, or at least its literature, this is comes from a video of Styx's I watched on the subject of the Deputy Chairman of the DNC tweeting a picture of him holding an Antifa handbook and saying how it "Makes Trump tremble", he archived the link. Both his video and the archive link here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?start=534&v=8P7UbBGWu3Y

http://archive.is/EPLN1

 

The book looks pretty obvious to me, IDK about you. Unless we're going to say that the guy was fucking trolled.

 

But let's analyze it. A modern book from last year, talking about the older movements, and their contemporary resurgence, no doubt painting them in a favourable light since this isn't a satire or Conservative criticism. Maybe you could say its not the "core" material an Antifa member in the past few years prior had read, but this is obviously an open endorsement of Antifa as a book, and providing at least some portion of what those other works may have done in a single book. It doesn't matter if every single last member of Antifa were own this as their movement's Bible, I would safely say someone showing it off could reasonably be said as endorsing Antifa as a movement, meaning the Democrats did since a high ranking member of their party administration did, essentially, last year.

 

Three,

 

Of course there are more active further right groups than there were 4 years ago. Not all of them are Nazis though. You actually have a wide variety of various Right-Wing groups that have arisen. Some are ethnonationalists, others are genuine racists and Nazis, some are simply Gun Right supporters, others are Christian Conservatives, some are Constitutional Fundamentalists (I believe that's the Oathkeepers group, but I might be wrong), others are former Leftists there merely because their disdain for many other Leftists and Liberals have grown so much over the years that they have been thrown into the Conservative camp.

 

Did they pick one of the absolutely worst way to broadcast their message that I could think of in Charlottesville? Absolutely. But Antifa is not much better if they stroll in to many prior demonstrations or gatherings (ONES WHICH I WILL ADD WERE NOWHERE NEAR AS RADICAL) looking for fights, or disrupting them, and NOBODY in the police departments or security service of various places doing anything about it (That also happened in Charlottesville, the police were told to stand down by several officials in the area, small fucking wonder the two groups broke out into conflict and someone got killed, then the police stepped in.). What the hell do you think would happen? They'd suddenly stand down because they were being intimidated? Or that they'd only become more radical? At least among some of them?

 

But I'd counter by saying how many Far-Left groups have been operating for years prior without ANY opposition of any serious form? I'm a GamerGate Supporter, I've seen the power these groups and individuals have held over the media especially, but also tons of other industry bodies and groups because they have so many ideologically aligned allies regardless of whether or not they're actually right or wrong. That's only within one industry.

 

For every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Especially in the case of politics, and what we're seeing is almost an inverse of the 1960s as to who is in which roles. The difference being that instead of the media saying there are Russian agents, pinko radicals, and communists everywhere, the media is saying that there are Russians, racists, and Nazis everywhere. The establishment flipped, even if the Far-Left will never admit it fully, and even if it wasn't truly all that sudden or noticeable in a moment. The pendulum has been swinging the other way, so it only makes sense there would be movement back.

 

Show me a murder the "Alt-Right" has committed, or the stats that somehow show they're worse. Because by the Gods, I've yet to see a single one done on behalf of any singular organization that didn't already exist decades before. When the hell was the last time a Klansmen was caught murdering someone? I certainly haven't heard it make the news.

 

Meanwhile, I see Antifa supporters attacking people with all kinds of makeshift weapons, gang-beating them, destroying or vandalizing tons of property that apparently was somehow reality to Nazis 100% of the time, and even attacking people who aren't even in "Nazi" groups or related to "Nazi" figures but are so fucking unlucky as to just so happen to be in the same photo as when one "Nazi" takes a selfie. (Which happened when Laura Southern was in Germany during the G20 summit, at least one person was beaten because some fuck thought they were a Nazi sympathizer because they just so happened to be in the same photo as her, and their Antifa fellows beat them up.)

 

I do not trust Antifa to be arbiters of who is an isn't a Nazi, or what is and isn't Nazism, and I certainly do not trust them not to harm innocent people in the process. In my eyes, they're no better than the enemies they claim to seek to defeat. Self-righteous moral arbitrators who'd be more at home in Weimar Germany than today.

Share this post


Link to post

First off, how you described Nazis is exactly how I would describe Antifa when it comes to debate. They literally may as well be the exact same thing if that's your argument. The Nazis, by your definition, don't enter into debates in good faith, and Antifa doesn't like the idea of Free Speech because it inherently endorses Nazism. Therefore neither actually desire any debate, they desire obedience to what they want.

 

Sorry, please enlighten me on how Antifa doesn't like the idea of Free Speech? Antifa is a loosely organized group, so attributing that sort of thing to the group as a whole might prove difficult. No one is saying anything about getting rid of free speech?

 

http://time.com/4899658/charlottesville-antifa-protests/

 

 

I would argue though that changing the mind of the opponent in a debate is not the goal. Let's take it out of the context of Nazis and Antifa, but to a divisive topic. Lets say its a Theological debate between a Christian Preacher, Muslim Imam, and a Jewish Rabbi. Or heck, we could even picture it as a Christian versus a Hindu if you'd like. The topic is debating religion, and which is the more compelling one to believe, or that people should believe. The debators themselves have no hope of convincing their opponents, or odds that are basically 0% unless the person isn't firm on their stances to begin with, or has some personal epiphany of which the debator has limited control over anyway. The objective is to convince the audience, the spectators, as to who can create the more compelling argument, as its to be assumed that the spectators are smart enough to understand the more compelling argument from one that is weaker. This should be the ideal situation in a secularized society that claims to educate its people in critical thinking. To the point where you don't need to police ideas, the people will figure out on their own which ones are complete nonsense. Its a very democratic system which aligns to the politics we claim to be the most fair, its a critical part of science, and it is basically the whole point why Democracies have their candidates debate each other on different topics.

 

It doesn't matter if some schmuck spouts complete nonsense, we have faith that the vast majority will see it as complete nonsense, if it truly is and if we've developed people's critical thinking skills correctly.

 

 

Okay, but, we're forgetting that even though we HAVE these critical parts of science, a large portion of our current government is ignoring it? Even if it is not in critical speech, science still isn't being accounted. If we DID account for science, we wouldn't have a president saying that global warming is a hoax, regardless of whether he attributes it to the Chinese or not.

 

Also a fun little thing:

https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/category/education/

 

 

Yes, debate is not the be-all and end-all for destroying ideologies, but stifling it does nothing but drive said ideology underground and promote it as rebellious, taboo, or appealing in edgier qualities, and ultimately doesn't refute its points, but merely shows you refuse to talk about it.

 

So what do you propose to fix that? They *are* talking about it. You have to talk about something to say why it's bad. You shouldn't have to just *demonstrate* why we shouldn't have mass shootings, although recent events dictate that, despite numerous demonstrations showing why it's a horrible event, the majority of politicians don't care.

 

 

If we don't have faith that people, specifically, citizens with the power to make decisions in relation to various issues in a country, cannot dissect a debate, see who is making the argument that makes more sense, and make intelligent decisions based off what is the more compelling option, then why are we even in a Democratic system? We'd be more efficiently run as some variant of a Dictatorship, Monarchy, or even merely an Oligrachy if that were the case.

 

You're implying that America isn't already governed by the rich? When was the last time we had a president that didn't already make obscene amounts of money, or have some easy access to it?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth

Oh. It's Truman, who left office in 1953.

 

 

Appealing language is no excuse. Everyone who is in a serious debate and wants to win is obviously going to use any measure they can within the debate to make their point seem to be the most sensible and compelling, via dramatic gestures, tone of voice, choice of words, and all kind of other things. Doesn't matter who they are. Business people do this all the time when they're trying to sell you something. It falls to the opponent to create a more compelling argument that people believe more and can cut through the bullshit, if that is what it is. No amount of flowery language can cover a logical inconsistency or flaw in the argument.

 

Then how did Donald Trump become president? Because arguably, it was not from logical consistency and an unflawed argument.

 

 

Hence why I used the Styx example. They could not respond to his criticism without stumbling into a hole, so they ignored it, and people noticed it about as much as if they'd stepped in the hole.

 

So yes, debate is not everything. But to claim that censorship of thought and deplatforming of debates, and refusal to engage is the actual way to crush Nazism I think is a foolish prospect that will do nothing beyond make more Nazis. Its the same way the Free Speech Movement gained momentum when they tried to bring up Vietnam in the 1960s.

 

Have you considered that maybe him having only 30,000 viewings on that video you linked below would have been a reason? I don't consider his 214k subs to be a compelling argument, because obviously those do NOT carry over to his actual viewer count, at least on the videos you think are the biggest theory hole-punchers? Also, yeah, you're right about the bottom bit, but obviously Antifa isn't full on anti free speech. They *are* engaging.

 

 

Second, for your proof of the DNC endorsing Antifa, or at least its literature, this is comes from a video of Styx's I watched on the subject of the Deputy Chairman of the DNC tweeting a picture of him holding an Antifa handbook and saying how it "Makes Trump tremble", he archived the link. Both his video and the archive link here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?start=534&v=8P7UbBGWu3Y

http://archive.is/EPLN1

 

The book looks pretty obvious to me, IDK about you. Unless we're going to say that the guy was fucking trolled.

 

But let's analyze it. A modern book from last year, talking about the older movements, and their contemporary resurgence, no doubt painting them in a favourable light since this isn't a satire or Conservative criticism. Maybe you could say its not the "core" material an Antifa member in the past few years prior had read, but this is obviously an open endorsement of Antifa as a book, and providing at least some portion of what those other works may have done in a single book. It doesn't matter if every single last member of Antifa were own this as their movement's Bible, I would safely say someone showing it off could reasonably be said as endorsing Antifa as a movement, meaning the Democrats did since a high ranking member of their party administration did, essentially, last year.

 

Have you considered that maybe this is just a book that covers the history of Anti-Fascist movements, and that the DNC chairman used it in relevancy to current context? Also, since when has a handbook of a loosely affiliated group been condemned as the smoking gun of a movement's motives? Hitler made his own book, and then proceeded to form his own governmental party. Antifa is not ordered by a single person, it is a set of morals and a large group of people loosely linked by these morals.

 

 

Three,

 

(Far-right groups, creations, motives, etc)

 

Did they pick one of the absolutely worst way to broadcast their message that I could think of in Charlottesville? Absolutely. But Antifa is not much better if they stroll in to many prior demonstrations or gatherings (ONES WHICH I WILL ADD WERE NOWHERE NEAR AS RADICAL) looking for fights, or disrupting them, and NOBODY in the police departments or security service of various places doing anything about it (That also happened in Charlottesville, the police were told to stand down by several officials in the area, small fucking wonder the two groups broke out into conflict and someone got killed, then the police stepped in.). What the hell do you think would happen? They'd suddenly stand down because they were being intimidated? Or that they'd only become more radical? At least among some of them?

 

“The standard for antifa ideology is anti-capitalism, anti-fascism of course. Those are kind of the two main pillars, but within that, encompassed, it also comes with being anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ableism, anti-transphobia, anything like that and just protecting people who are marginalized and oppressed.” - An Antifa Activist

 

Now, the anti-capitalist movement within Antifa is obviously a newer section, but the group as a whole can agree against fascism, as it is the point for the group's existence.

 

 

But I'd counter by saying how many Far-Left groups have been operating for years prior without ANY opposition of any serious form? I'm a GamerGate Supporter, I've seen the power these groups and individuals have held over the media especially, but also tons of other industry bodies and groups because they have so many ideologically aligned allies regardless of whether or not they're actually right or wrong. That's only within one industry.

 

For every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Especially in the case of politics, and what we're seeing is almost an inverse of the 1960s as to who is in which roles. The difference being that instead of the media saying there are Russian agents, pinko radicals, and communists everywhere, the media is saying that there are Russians, racists, and Nazis everywhere. The establishment flipped, even if the Far-Left will never admit it fully, and even if it wasn't truly all that sudden or noticeable in a moment. The pendulum has been swinging the other way, so it only makes sense there would be movement back.

 

Far-Left groups have been operating for years prior without any serious opposition because they don't do this:

Murder

Harrassment

Dox

Threats

Attempted Bombings

Mass Shootings

Attempted murder

Violence

 

Well, actually they have done threats and Doxxing as of late, but not that I know of before now.

 

 

Show me a murder the "Alt-Right" has committed, or the stats that somehow show they're worse. Because by the Gods, I've yet to see a single one done on behalf of any singular organization that didn't already exist decades before. When the hell was the last time a Klansmen was caught murdering someone? I certainly haven't heard it make the news.

 

Alright, you asked for it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Neo-Nazi_alliances_and_Stormfront

 

https://qz.com/1182778/the-far-right-was-responsible-for-the-majority-of-extremist-killings-in-2017/

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-supremacist-murders-2017-report_us_5a5f59b0e4b0ee2ff32c4bea

 

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016

 

https://www.splcenter.org/20180205/alt-right-killing-people

 

https://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/

 

 

Meanwhile, I see Antifa supporters attacking people with all kinds of makeshift weapons, gang-beating them, destroying or vandalizing tons of property that apparently was somehow reality to Nazis 100% of the time, and even attacking people who aren't even in "Nazi" groups or related to "Nazi" figures but are so fucking unlucky as to just so happen to be in the same photo as when one "Nazi" takes a selfie. (Which happened when Laura Southern was in Germany during the G20 summit, at least one person was beaten because some fuck thought they were a Nazi sympathizer because they just so happened to be in the same photo as her, and their Antifa fellows beat them up.)

 

Beating up someone, while still an atrocious act, is still pretty mild compared to the list of things that the Alt-Right has done. Mistakes are always made, you can look at any organization, militarized or otherwise, and see examples.

 

 

I do not trust Antifa to be arbiters of who is an isn't a Nazi, or what is and isn't Nazism, and I certainly do not trust them not to harm innocent people in the process. In my eyes, they're no better than the enemies they claim to seek to defeat. Self-righteous moral arbitrators who'd be more at home in Weimar Germany than today.

 

Of course they're not the all-knowing. That's why you use critical thinking, like you were talking about earlier. Although I do want to know how critical thinking brought you to the comparison of Antifa to the Alt-right and of Weimar Germany.

Share this post


Link to post

Well why don't you just join ANTIFa then?

If you're so supportive of Alt-Left Fascism, why don't you go ahead and join them?

It's not like the FBI and CIA have labeled them as domestic terrorists right?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4844296/Homeland-Security-deem-antifa-domestic-terrorists.html

White Supremacists may be violent and cause deaths, but to deny that the Alt-Left isn't the one instigating and starting the violence to begin with is very biased and nieve.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?start=18&v=jNWAIJfzGZc

Share this post


Link to post

Well why don't you just join ANTIFa then?

If you're so supportive of Alt-Left Fascism, why don't you go ahead and join them?

It's not like the FBI and CIA have labeled them as domestic terrorists right?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4844296/Homeland-Security-deem-antifa-domestic-terrorists.html

White Supremacists may be violent and cause deaths, but to deny that the Alt-Left isn't the one instigating and starting the violence to begin with is very biased and nieve.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?start=18&v=jNWAIJfzGZc

 

1. While I do agree with much of the ideals of Antifa I do not seek "membership" with it. I also don't agree with some of the methods, but it is generally more agreeable than the alt-right.

 

2. It's not "Alt-Left Fascism" if they are explicitly anti-nationalism. Fascism requires extreme nationalism. And, again, I still do not seek "membership." To claim that I do is like if I claimed you want to join the KKK because of your obsession with knights. And please don't say I'm comparing, because, again, I'm not explicitly comparing the two.

 

3. They might be domestic terrorists but they're nowhere near as bad as white supremacists and extremists.

 

4. Name a time when Antifa led a riot that wasn't in response to the alt-right and neo-fascist groups. Also, many members agree that they only use violence when absolutely necessary.

 

5. I kind of want to see more video proof that isn't from a biased filter like FOX news or some guy in a basement trying to be edgy.

Share this post


Link to post

But you ARE a biased filter. Why the hell should I listen to someone so Alt-Left that's just going to dismiss everything I say as biased?

Or call good people as "edgy basement dwellers"

 

Here's what you have to understand:

FREE SPEECH FOR NAZIS, OR FREE SPEECH FOR NOBODY.

 

If the other side can't have their say before fascism shuts them down, then the side you claim to be the more moral, are the REAL bad guys.

Share this post


Link to post
But you ARE a biased filter. Why the hell should I listen to someone so Alt-Left that's just going to dismiss everything I say as biased?

Or call good people as "edgy basement dwellers"

 

Here's what you have to understand:

FREE SPEECH FOR NAZIS, OR FREE SPEECH FOR NOBODY.

 

If the other side can't have their say before fascism shuts them down, then the side you claim to be the more moral, are the REAL bad guys.

 

 

Okay, sure, let's say I'm biased. I'm biased because I am citing specific evidence proving my points? Or am I biased because perhaps I don't fall into similar political views? You know people are allowed to have different opinions right? It's just a matter of whether people choose to take it seriously or not, based on evidence, or lack thereof. I just have chosen to be highly skeptical of what you cite as evidence, based off of what I have accrued as evidence which is statistically backed, and is not a rant made by one guy wearing all leather in a basement. The key is a variety of sources which can be backed by actual scientific proof.

 

I wouldn't dismiss everything you say as biased if you had a reliable source of information that isn't FOX, CNN, or a tabloid's article, or aforementioned guy in a basement trying to be edgy.

 

I do understand it's free speech for nazis, or free speech for nobody, but it's America and people can legally take action against hate speech. When governments or legal bodies crack down on what people can or cannot say, that's a restriction on free speech. And before you say "ACLU IS EVIL AND IT'S A LEGAL BODY THEREFORE IT'S A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH", no, it's just a group of lawyers that assists with people whose civil rights are infringed upon, who much of the time happen to be minorities. That, and it is usually only obeyed federally when the Supreme Court makes a decision on something.

 

Also, what are you saying in that last sentence? They aren't fascists. I've said that multiple times. Antifa is "ANTI-FASCIST". Clue's in the name. Very few people in Antifa are nationalists and even fewer, maybe even none can be considered fascists. Please cite some evidence showing they are fascists if you're going to claim that.

 

Also: At least Antifa doesn't have the history of holocausts and racism in the background of it, unlike Neo-Nazis and Neo-Fascists, and, to a far lesser extent of holocaust on the Alt-Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, sure, let's say I'm biased. I'm biased because I am citing specific quote unquote "evidence" proving my points? Or am I biased because perhaps I don't fall into similar political views? You know people are allowed to have different opinions right? It's just a matter of whether people choose to take it seriously or not, based on evidence, or lack thereof. I just have chosen to be highly skeptical of what you cite as evidence, based off of what I have accrued as quote unquote "evidence" which is statistically backed, and is not a rant made by Raz0rfist, The key is a variety of sources which can be backed by actual scientific proof.

 

There's nothing scientific about Politics mate. Don't know where you're pulling that from.

 

I wouldn't dismiss everything you say as biased if you had a reliable source of information that isn't FOX, CNN, or a tabloid's article, or aforementioned man in a "basement" trying to be "edgy" that I don't even know anything about and am judging a book by it's cover on

 

I wouldn't use Mainsteam Leftist biased """news""" sources like Huffington Post, ABC, CBS, MSMBC, Associated Press, New York Times, LA Times, Washington (com)Post, CPAC, Daily Beast, and The Blaze as sources.

And I don't use CNN, they can take a drive off the cliff for all I care.

 

I do understand it's free speech for nazis, or free speech for nobody,

 

Wait for it, about to contradict yourself...

 

but it's America and people can legally take action against hate speech.

 

And there we go, a typical post-modernist left wing argument: "hate speech"

Here's two revelations for you cultural marxist sloganite:

 

1) Hate Speech IS Free Speech, by definition. Free Speech exists to protect speech that is unpopular or "hateful" because popular speech doesn't NEED protection. Hate Speech =/= Insighting Violence. That's what you don't understand. Hate Speech has never existed before the 21st century, and there are already laws in place against inciting violence. Which helps lead into point number

 

2) THERE ARE NO Hate Speech laws in the United States. So using violence to curtail the ramblings of an ideology smaller than the audience of the Oscars under the false pretense of "fighting hate speech" is more fascistic than anything Benito could come up with. Also funny how there is hate speech laws in Europe, which don't have first amendments and no free speech. Makes you think who is truly free and not just by some statistic chart.

 

When governments or legal bodies crack down on what people can or cannot say, that's a restriction on free speech. And before you say "ACLU IS EVIL AND IT'S A LEGAL BODY THEREFORE IT'S A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH", no, it's just a group of lawyers that assists with people whose civil rights are infringed upon, who much of the time happen to be minorities.

 

Well even though I was thinking about that Left wing hate group the SPLC,

Yeah that's what those snake oil salesmen want you to believe. They are lobbyists, they have a stake in what the government does, that means they are mandating government censorship. And if they truly cared about "minority rights" then they should protect the "white supremacists" and alt-right you so vermontly hate, because they are not mainstream opinions and are technically minorities.

 

That, and it is usually only obeyed federally when the Supreme Court makes a decision on something.

 

Yeah, because the supreme court are surely the arbiters of nonpartisanship right? It's not like they've made terrible decisions in the past that would never have been supported by the founders nor by anyone alive today with their brains still in their heads right?

Dredd Scott VS Stanford or Roe Vs Wade ring a bell? Or maybe Obergeffel Vs Hodges basically flipping off states rights?

There has never been an institution more unaccountable to the american voter nor to the government than your judiciary. Like that famous quote:

"There will be no justice in this country until you can swing a judge from a tree" - annonymus

 

Also, what are you saying in that last sentence? They aren't fascists. I've said that multiple times.

 

That doesn't make it true numbnut. And everything I've seen them do indicates that they are the ENBODYMENT of fascism.

 

Antifa is "ANTI-FASCIST". Clue's in the name.

 

Ok, so do you believe that the National Socialists are Socialists?

Do you think the Democratic Republic of Congo is a Democratic Republic?

Is The People's Republic of North Korea a Republic of the People?

Your logic of "if they say so it's true" is total horseshit this way, because their actions speak louder than their words, and their actions against ordinary innocent americans indicates that they are the Italian Blackshirts reborn.

 

Very few people in Antifa are nationalists and even fewer, maybe even none can be considered fascists.

 

Nationalism isn't a bad thing you realise? It's the love of your country. Nationalism =/= fascism and if you think so you do not understand fascism OR nationalism you left wing hack.

I'm not surprised that many people in Antifa aren't nationalists because Antifa Hate America and everything America stands for like the anarcho-Communist scum they are.

 

Please cite some evidence showing they are fascists if you're going to claim that.

 

1930's Italian Blackshirts:

tom-mann-brigade.jpg?resize=672%2C351

 

http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/22/choose-sides-you-bet-but-antifa-and-fasc

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/08/economist-explains-11

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831

sorosferguson.asp

https://www.revealnews.org/blog/reveal-host-al-letson-shields-man-from-beating-at-anti-hate-rally/

nytjtyjt-800x445.png

antifatweetboston-911x1024.jpg

What lovely pro american people they are

Antifa-North-Korea-flag.jpg

American patriots

Antifa-Threatens-Race-Mixers.jpg

Spreading anti-racist messages

irpgf.jpg?w=1080

image17.jpg

Totally not domestic terrorists

 

86lCFyK.jpg

 

antifa-dead-cops-644x445.jpg

If they are proud of their message, why cover their faces?

pnMJtJHqZJrrJKa-800x450-noPad.jpg?1509386572

All Antifa signs they carry.

DHmuu4yUQAAkIji.jpg

Carrying Communist flags is the equivalent of carrying Swastikas, if not worse, and is more offensive.

 

"Hooded thugs that cover their face and promote and commit violence and intimidation to advance their beliefs"

Who does that remind you of?

 

antifa.png

paulk2017-08-22_5-07-27.png

 

 

Meanwhile, just look at all these far-right fascists:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Berkeley20Trump20riots20Antifa.jpg

antifa-terrorists-police-on-fire.png

 

Also: At least Antifa doesn't have the history of holocausts and racism in the background of it, unlike Neo-Nazis and Neo-Fascists, and, to a far lesser extent of holocaust on the Alt-Right.

 

They are Fucking Communists, they have killed MILLIONS more people. Have you heard of Gulag Archipelagos? They were also extremely racist towards outsiders like the Hungarians and the Polish, not that you care about all the innocent lives that communism and socialism has killed.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

2017-05-09-25926fb6_large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

There's nothing scientific about Politics mate. Don't know where you're pulling that from.

Man, you can piss off a lot of specialists saying that sort of shit. Political science exists, and you have to use science when you put in a law because if you don't have evidence it's very unlikely that people will support it. Although, I still wonder about how anyone took Trump seriously.

 

 

I wouldn't use Mainsteam Leftist biased """news""" sources like Huffington Post, ABC, CBS, MSMBC, Associated Press, New York Times, LA Times, Washington (com)Post, CPAC, Daily Beast, and The Blaze as sources.

And I don't use CNN, they can take a drive off the cliff for all I care.

Your point? I don't care if you use left biased sources or not as long as there's actual scientific evidence backing it.

 

 

Wait for it, about to contradict yourself...

 

And there we go, a typical post-modernist left wing argument: "hate speech"

Here's two revelations for you cultural marxist sloganite:

 

1) Hate Speech IS Free Speech, by definition. Free Speech exists to protect speech that is unpopular or "hateful" because popular speech doesn't NEED protection. Hate Speech =/= Insighting Violence. That's what you don't understand. Hate Speech has never existed before the 21st century, and there are already laws in place against inciting violence. Which helps lead into point number

 

2) THERE ARE NO Hate Speech laws in the United States. So using violence to curtail the ramblings of an ideology smaller than the audience of the Oscars under the false pretense of "fighting hate speech" is more fascistic than anything Benito could come up with. Also funny how there is hate speech laws in Europe, which don't have first amendments and no free speech. Makes you think who is truly free and not just by some statistic chart.

You do realize hate speech means anything advocating the marginalization of people, and advocating someone as lesser, right? Also, you're completely blowing what I said out of proportion. I didn't contradict myself. People are entitled to say what they want in America, but it's really everyone else who has to deal with them that determines whether they think it's a valid opinion or whether it's hate speech.

 

 

Well even though I was thinking about that Left wing hate group the SPLC,

Yeah that's what those snake oil salesmen want you to believe. They are lobbyists, they have a stake in what the government does, that means they are mandating government censorship. And if they truly cared about "minority rights" then they should protect the "white supremacists" and alt-right you so vermontly hate, because they are not mainstream opinions and are technically minorities.

 

Yeah, because the supreme court are surely the arbiters of nonpartisanship right? It's not like they've made terrible decisions in the past that would never have been supported by the founders nor by anyone alive today with their brains still in their heads right?

Dredd Scott VS Stanford or Roe Vs Wade ring a bell? Or maybe Obergeffel Vs Hodges basically flipping off states rights?

There has never been an institution more unaccountable to the american voter nor to the government than your judiciary. Like that famous quote:

"There will be no justice in this country until you can swing a judge from a tree" - annonymus

You do realize the ACLU also draw the line at hate speech right? They might respect free speech but they sure as hell don't like it when that speech is advocating social hierarchy, especially when based on race or political views.

 

 

That doesn't make it true numbnut. And everything I've seen them do indicates that they are the ENBODYMENT of fascism.

 

Ok, so do you believe that the National Socialists are Socialists?

Do you think the Democratic Republic of Congo is a Democratic Republic?

Is The People's Republic of North Korea a Republic of the People?

Your logic of "if they say so it's true" is total horseshit this way, because their actions speak louder than their words, and their actions against ordinary innocent americans indicates that they are the Italian Blackshirts reborn.

 

Nationalism isn't a bad thing you realise? It's the love of your country. Nationalism =/= fascism and if you think so you do not understand fascism OR nationalism you left wing hack.

I'm not surprised that many people in Antifa aren't nationalists because Antifa Hate America and everything America stands for like the anarcho-Communist scum they are.

Sorry, how are they the embodiment of fascism? Extreme Nationalism IS fascism. If you looked it up in the dictionary, it would say that. You're thinking of the modern definition which says it's oppression in general, but when I say fascism, I mean the original term, used properly. Also, while yes, many countries are named rather ironically, those are nations you're talking about, not an actual group of people. Granted, yes, there could be groups which are named opposite of what they are, but these groups often just get considered by most people as being an unreputable group, since they already lie about their name. Also, you're really, really scraping the bottom of the communist barrel. You're referring to totalitarianism, which is very far from what communism actually should be. Naming themselves as communists is a lie.

 

 

Pictures and more anti-"communists" and comparing Antifa to terrorists. Sparsely interspersed with links to articles.

1. What do blackshirts have to do with this?

2. They're anarchists and communists (for actual communism), so what?

3. Perhaps he's carrying the N. Korea flag as a sign of protest. He's not saying he wants it to be north Korea, I think he's saying it already is.

4. Okay, but there's always those extremists, a very small sect. But it is pretty fucked up.

5. They cover their faces to hide who they are? Have you missed the efforts made by alt-right to identify people who participate in Antifa activities? No one actively does that in Antifa for the alt-right, only the leaders of the group.

6. Are those pictures of immolated officers actually from Antifa or is that from another riot?

7. Again, killed by totalitarianism, not actual communism.

8. There's a huge difference between soldiers in a war who don't have to worry about being individually targeted after all is said and done, and protesters who can be harassed and threatened. This is something that the alt-right does far more commonly to the average protestor, and Antifa only usually does so to prominent alt-right members.

9. Holy shit you need to read those websites you cite, the Economist especially made arguments I agree with.

Share this post


Link to post

This is in reply to Kraken, I'm not quoting your whole thing in order to save space, but my responses correlate to your points.

 

So a decentralized organization that just so HAPPENS to show up constantly to disrupt Free Speech talks doesn't oppose Free Speech as a whole? Give me a fucking break man.

 

I'm a former GG supporter, I know all about decentralized movements and how the actions of a few do not necessarily reflect on the whole, but Antifa, from what I have seen, has consistently shown that they oppose the idea of Free Speech because it inherently allows for Nazis to speak and therefore gain supporters. Hence why they love disrupting Free Speech rallies, or even merely just Conservative speakers of different varieties in North America and Europe. They cannot allow Nazis to speak because they think they'll convince people regardless of how good your arguments against them are, you admit so yourself, essentially.

 

The problem being: who do they define as a Nazi? From everything I've seen, they're EXTREMELY broad with their definition, to the point where its a running joke that "everyone Right of Marx is a Nazi".

 

Antifa organizations have routinely, and repeatedly been present to protest numerous Free Speech gatherings, talks, or meetings wherein anyone they consider to be a "Nazi" might be both in North America and Europe over the past years. Do you want me to list the incidents? How about I give you one from a few days ago which is undeniable. King's College, London, UK. Flag-bearing members of the Antifa chapter there tried to shut down a talk on Free Speech between Yaron Brooks, and Sargon of Akkad on the belief that they are Nazi Gatekeepers, Fascists, or Alt-Right supporters. You cannot oppose someone's right to speak merely because you believe that they are a Nazi or a Fascist. But they did, hence they oppose Free Speech, especially since the topic being discussed was, ironically, Free Speech.

 

-----

 

Global Warming/Climate Change is a different issue entirely, and one which has far greater problems because of how it has been handled by Science over the last 50 years than merely the current presidency, but let's discuss it. How about the fact that people have become skeptical of it because some of the first scientists involved decided to try and push their earliest findings without much evidence to actually support their ideas, and were subsequently found to be incorrect on numerous fronts? Or even Al Gore, who in his popularized movie, it is subsequently almost a laughing stock if you were to go back and analyze it today, and a whole generation (mine) saw it and were led to believe it was entirely accurate. I wouldn't be shocked if people came to think of it as a hoax after that, and I myself do believe in climate change. Its also a far more complex debate than whether you believe it or not. One can not believe in Man-made climate change, and still believe that it is a thing, merely a natural shifting in the Earth's climate and beyond human control or that human contribution is extremely marginal. The data isn't entirely conclusive that it even is entirely man-made anyway, nor will the people who believe in it also admit that if it truly is caused strictly by us, we're already screwed? Any measures we take would ultimately be meaningless if we are the be-all-and-end-all of climate change. You would need to commit the single greatest humanity atrocity the world has ever seen just to save us as a species in order to go carbon negative and correct what we've done, if that is the case. But that's why Climate Change is a unique example, the context of the debate has reached a point where there is not enough data to totally be certain on much of anything, therefore how can anyone argue one way or another with 100% accuracy? (Since that is the stakes they are playing with) Its not the same kind of argument. The situation there won't change until science works as it always does and finally gets enough data to be able to form more concrete observations and statements. They still don't even fully understand why the data shows a climate warming in the medieval period, a time when human industry was nothing compared to what it would be many centuries later. More data is the only thing that will help resolve that argument, and when it comes to climate, it takes time.

 

-----

 

No, but their "talking" is shouting over people and simply causing disruptions and chanting mantras like they're some kind of religious cult than an actual intelligent debate. I don't call that "engaging" I call it "disrupting". Because they're specifically trying to stop people from speaking to others, and are refusing to engage on the same field as them, they'd prefer to deplatform, which was exactly what happened in London just a few days ago as the latest case showing this exactly IDK what other evidence I would need to cite besides this. Unless you're to say that those were not the real "Antifa".

 

You're also making a false equivalency with the mass shootings idea. Yes, of course one can say they're bad, but that doesn't help actually come up with an idea to fix the situation, does it? I doubt you'll find many politicians who will actually say that mass shootings are a good thing. No, with Mass Shootings, the argument is over what kind of remedy would actually be best to prevent such situations from happening, not whether or not they're bad. Me, from my observations, and living in Canada, would argue that banning or controlling guns will not solve your problem in the way that it will prevent mass tragedy. It won't. People will just obtain the guns illegally like many criminals do, they'll use knives (of which there was one knife attack several months ago in Japan that resulted in even more people dying than in the Parkland shooting, figure that one out) or home-made bombs, or cars, or some other type of weapon. The types of people we're talking about can be endlessly creative in the methods they choose to cause tragedy. I'd argue the best methods of prevention would be to change how your education system deals with kids who are bullied (specifically in regards to teachers and their role), change the treatments of people with mental illnesses instead of just giving them a ton of pills, and actually provide outlets for people to release their emotions and problems in other safer ways, whatever those may be. IMO those would go far further than any kind of control on any weapons in terms of prevention. But in the end, I also don't think you can ever 100% prevent tragedy, so there is that.

 

IMO the best methods to deal with the situation of people falling for extremist ideologies is through education (specifically the development of critical thinking and research capacities that aren't merely echo chambers.) Tolerance in the intellectual sense being promoted where we are not afraid of discussing various topics or hearing certain opinions because we can tolerate that they exist, and can provide our own counter-opinions and arguments if necessary. And in general, an adherence to total free speech. Wherein it doesn't matter anything that someone says, so much as their actions are what matters. A guy could argue for genocide, but so long as they don't move to actually do it, its no crime. Right now, there are double standards that exist around that very type of incident depending on who is saying it, and who they're talking about as to what reaction it will elicit from the public and law enforcement. I wouldn't want such double standards, we either set a single standard, or don't bother enforcing it at all. Just my thoughts on a thousands of years old problem.

 

-----

 

You're missing my point and got hung up on my Oligrachy comment. If you do not trust the citizenry to be capable of making an educated or informed decision, then you have no faith in a Democracy. I'm not talking about a Democracy's leaders, I'm talking about its people. In a Democracy, you need to be able to trust the fact that a state's citizens have the ability to make a decision after being confronted with arguments and evidence as to which option is the best. If you don't believe that, then what is the point of being in a democracy? Now, the US is a Democratic Republic, which is not strictly a Democracy, built to try and make the situation as fair as possible so as to prevent mob-rule or the Tyranny of the Majority versus a Dictatorship or Monarchy, so the popular vote is not the be-all-end-all. But it operates on the same basic assumption in regards to how its citizens vote, if it did not, then what's the fucking point in even voting? (Which is a problem a lot of Democracies face, voter apathy due to a lack of meaningful contribution by the perspective of the voters)

 

The rich being, by and large, the only ones with the power to become politicians is a problem across many democracies also, not merely the US. Its a problem of how elections have become in that they're big money-spending races, of course the rich are most well-suited for such a game, and its not likely to change without electoral reform (and I can tell you just from our experiences up here in Canada, no standing politician in power is hardly ever willing to do it). There's also the idea that someone who is rich has obviously accrued some measure of success in order to reach that point and thus is arguably capable of being a leader of others. Not necessarily the case since not everyone who's rich is capable of leading no more than one who has less, but I'm just outlining the thought process.

 

-----

 

IDK why Donald Trump became President. But I do know that neither choice was fucking amazing from my view, and based off of your comment of how he looks, I'd argue the same could be applied to Clinton. Hillary very vaguely calling over a quarter of the US "deplorable" who weren't worth of attention didn't help (hurts a lot more than any of Trump's comments because she was so vague about who), her support organizations claiming that a green frog is somehow entirely a white nationalist symbol, and claiming Wikileaks is a Russian State Op didn't do any favours either. I also know that it wasn't a "Whitelash", what data we do have is enough to prove that.

 

-----

 

I find it funny that you think that just because Styx isn't the most well-watched commentator on all of Youtube, you can simply disregard him, yet you want me to take seriously a movement that is quite a minority in its own numbers and is not even strictly public knowledge (As is the Alt-Right, but that's another matter), or Wikipedia (which I'll get to later)? Would you prefer that I cite Sargon? Or Molyneaux? Or Lauren Southern? Or Shoeonhead? Or Armoured Skeptic? Or Tim Pool? Or shall I abscond the Alt-Media entirely and go for the Mainstream Hacks at CNN, Fox, or Washington Post, or Huffington Post who half the time don't even research what they're talking about without slanting it towards whatever agenda they want? I chose Styx because he makes some fairly compelling arguments on his channel, and he's a Centrist. He has no love for partisan politics, and he's often been quite right not only in his predictions and insights on various subjects, but he does it in ways that are fairly eloquent or make sense.

 

But no, I obviously have to wait until he's some big Youtube star or something for you to acknowledge his opinion. You're not even claiming he's wrong.

 

-----

 

You obviously didn't read my brief summation of it, or looked it up yourself. Were it merely a history book of past Anti-fascist movements, why does it so conveniently show the official flag of the modern one, and after the historical bits discuss modern anti-fascist movements? Maybe because it does have a fair bit of content that relates to the MODERN antifa alongside the older movements?

 

And what do you mean by "relevancy to the current context"? You're going to argue with me that Trump is "Literally Hitler" now? Or that he's somehow a Fascist even though he's a Capitalist and not a Socialist? Because that's the only context you could be referring to in relation to what the Deputy Chair was saying.

 

-----

 

Yea, and the fact that all of the ones I've seen bear the exact same flag, use the similar tactics, and all dress the same don't fucking matter? Give me a break. The most I'll grant you is that there may be different Blocs of varieties Anarchists, and they get by by not having any singular leadership (because that would antithetical to Anarchy), but that they may as well all be doing the exact same things since I've yet to see a situation where two different Anarchist groups have actually come to blows over political maneuvers. The only flag I've seen is the Red-Black Flag of Antifa, whom to me are basically Anarcho-Communists. I know the other flags variations for the different others and that they exist, but by the Gods do they seem to be notably absent.

 

More to the point, it doesn't change the fact that the action was still an open endorsement of Antifa, doesn't matter what fucking iteration you want to claim it.

 

-----

 

I don't care if that is their mandate, they're welcome to it, or whatever it is they want. It doesn't change the fact of what they have DONE. And what their various chapters have been proven to have done, on numerous live videos both they and others have taken. I don't care that they think that it's morally right to punch someone they think is a Nazi, I'm still going to oppose them punching said "Nazi" because its not going to help the situation. Can you not see that radical actions promote even more radical actions by ideological oppositions? They become feed-back loops.

 

-----

 

Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there if you're honestly going to try and claim to me with 100% honesty that Antifa, or since you said it, The Far-Left, has NEVER done:

 

Harassment

Violence

Doxxing

Threats

Mass Shootings (Admittedly, this one I cannot prove as strictly Antifa, but I'm pretty sure the mass shooting and attempted murder of those Republican Senators last year qualifies)

Attempted Bombings (Yea, since The Weathermen fucked up and blew their own apartment hideout to bits, I can see why most haven't tried since, at least in the US)

Attempted Murder (Well, that's admittedly vague, do they beat up people with the assumption to not kill them? What if nobody found someone beaten into unconsciousness?)

Murder (Not Antifa, no, but I chalk that up as to total luck that they haven't killed someone yet, just as the Alt-Right groups had no blood on their hands until Charlottesville, and even that is a stretch given who the killer was)

 

------

 

Since you were so damn picky of Styx, I figure I have the liberty to be as picky with your sources.

 

Wikipedia I don't trust on this subject, in fact I trust them on basically nothing other than dates, if that. Some pages may be better than others, but there is zero consistency and little ways to actually confirm which are honest since Wikipedia picks and chooses which pages it actually enforces honest research procedures on. They cite the SPLC and ADL as main sources among a couple others.

 

-But even aside from that, the Wikipedia page still doesn't deny that the Klan has fragmented over time. The organization itself seems to be completely fragmented according to it into dozens of organizations all fighting for the same members. The only number I saw listed there that is even remotely modern is at apparently 120 members. Real big fucking upswing in membership from fucking 75. I'm sure they'll be out lynching tomorrow en masse like they were in their heydays. Even if it is 120, its still down from the 1999 report that gives a vague number of several hundred members.

 

Quartz, IDK much about them, but yea, real big fucking scoop, so Right-wing extremists apparently killed 20 people last year, I'll wager not even all of those were done on behalf of any groups if a couple of the more famous incidents are the ones that come to my mind (if lone wolf extremists can shoot up Republican football games, I wager similar lone wolves can act on right-wing causes without endorsement from any major groups). Politifacts lists even more violent attacks committed by Radical Islamists in the US in 2016, could it not merely be said that extremist attacks in general have been going up over the years? The data doesn't lead me to see why the Alt-Right are apparently the sole urgent problem that need to be stopped immediately when it comes to extremist attacks, it merely suggests to me that extremist attacks in general are on the rise and all need to be dealt with. Hell, even in terms of crime statistics, that's not a lot across the entire US, unacceptable though all crime is. They also cite the ADL, not their own research.

 

Huffington Post? Yeah, because they're just the pinnacles of journalism and unbiased opinions. Their GG coverage was enough to make me doubt their coverage of more serious matters. Again, what reason do I have to trust their coverage? They also cite the ADL.

 

-But let's look at their coverage. A sensationalist title trying to claim its more impressive than it is. "More than doubled", what's the actual number? 34 deaths, 18 of which were killed by right-wing extremists. That's interesting since it seems to contradict Quartz's number even though both are citing the same source, but even more interesting since a 59% increase means a rise in roughly 10 deaths, again, I'm not trying to belittle loss of life, but this is a pathetic number when compared to other crimes across the US, and not really indicative to me of a urgent issue, especially since I doubt all of them can actually be proven to have been done by an organized group and not an individual.

 

The ADL has similarly fucked up a lot on this issue to the point where I don't have reason to immediately trust their numbers, you'd think Hitler won the second world war if you listened to them all the time. These are the morons who tried to claim that the "Okay" hand sign means fucking "White power", even though the traditional sign for it requires two hands. Much like the SPLC, they're seeing Nazis everywhere and are basically pulling a reverse of the "Reds under the bed" bullshit of past eras. They've been trolled into thinking this bullshit, and yet you think they're reliable sources?

 

-I will say that the page you linked doesn't support your case. Its 2016 statistics which actually support the idea that Right-Wing extremist attacks are not the only form of extremism to worry about in the US on this issue. IDK why you didn't link the 2017 stats since that's what Huffington Post and Quartz both cite, but whatever.

 

The SPLC are total ideological fanatics who disregard reality for their mandate. They fucking label Pepe the Frog as a White Nationalist Meme after Clinton's campaign said so, a meme that is by no means inherently a racist meme but is actually one of the more versatile memes ever made. How am I supposed to trust their interpretations of what is and isn't an extremist when they don't even understand memes or are politically influenced? Oh they magically care about the actual stats, but want to mislead people on the same issue in other ways by misrepresenting information as propaganda? Get fucking real.

 

-But what does their page show? "100 killed or injured by the Alt-Right". Okay. What data do they give? On individuals and lone wolf rampages over the past 4 years who apparently bore all the "signs" of being Alt-Right followers. I'm sure they had tons of Pepe memes and tons of pictures where they showed "Okay" signs, for all the good that statement of theirs implies on what that's supposed to mean. But more seriously, they're stretching it back to over 4 years ago!? That's pretty damn generous, considering I don't even recall most people even using the term "Alt-Right" widely until the last 1 1/2 to maybe 2 years at best, but I'm betting they did it because they like the round 110 number, so I'll humour them. In terms of deaths, 43 were killed over those 4 years, 25 of those being killed outside of last year. They completely skip over 2016 where apparently no right wingers killed anybody for some odd reason. They include Alexandre Bissonnette for 2017, which is funny, since I thought they were supposed to be an American agency, concerned with American crimes, last I checked, our agencies up here in Canada don't include your American stats into ours to bolster a narrative, but whatever. If we remove Bissonnette's totals since he didn't kill Americans and was in Quebec, that actually lowers the number of people killed by Right wing extremists in the US in 2017 to 11 people, according to SPLC's stats here, which is less than half of ADL's and almost less than half of Quartz's reports and even lower than their own 2015 numbers of 18 deaths, they should be applauding that Right-wing extremist murders are apparently down in the US comparatively and are losing! Now there are more injured in 2017, but we're talking murders, and the data shows that murders are down.

 

That's not even going into analyzing if these attackers were actually official members of any "Alt-Right" groups and acted in their name to do these various acts and not merely for their own reasons, or how big these groups even are.

 

And Snopes is referring to ADL for their source. I'm going to repeat again why ADL and SPLC are not good sources for this, they are politically slanted and deny reality when it suits them, they're prone to being trolled and promoting "Nazis under the bed" propaganda, and as I showed in SPLC's case they're willing to inflate their numbers by using particular foreign examples when they're a distinctly American organization (probably because they don't want it to look like the actual number of deaths went down in the years where they have occurred).

 

But okay, so you proved that Alt-Right individuals have killed and injured people. Congratulations. They're not the only extremists to kill or injure others in the US. I've seen plenty of video evidence showing Antifa members injuring various people to know they're fully capable of injuring others, many Far Leftists have made threats towards killing people if they were given the opportunity to do so, and I chalk it up to pure luck that hardly anyone has died of a Leftist killer yet, had the shooter at the Republican game been a better shot, that'd have been a different story.

 

-----

 

By that argument, you're saying that just because Antifa hasn't reached that most vile point yet, what they do is a necessary evil. Yet it is their own actions that have spurred the Alt-Right to become as they are, and its total luck that they HAVEN'T reached that most vile point yet (one's definition of vile being subjective as well, I've read some accounts by claimed former Antifa members from some Chapters that IMO suffered far more traumatic experiences than death, but this entirely subjective). Is it somehow unfair to say I condemn one as much as the other, and would prefer that both merely verbally fight it out on an equal field rather than use aggressive attacks to try and intimidate people or injure or even kill people?

 

-----

 

Yet where is the evidence of their critical thinking? I've yet to see any when they seem down to label anyone to the right of Marx as a "Nazi" if they're going to label so many Alternative Media figures as Nazis and Fascist Gatekeepers when those same people regularly spar with Nazis or Identitarians and repeatedly don't endorse Nazi or Fascist ideology. I'm sorry, I have no evidence of many of Antifa's chapters actually showing much critical thought when it comes to picking their targets. They are the Communists of Weimar Germany, the enemies of the Nazis, yes, but merely a different brand of puritan and extremist that ultimately just feed off of each other until one destroys the other. That is why I brought up the Weimar comment.

Share this post


Link to post

So a decentralized organization that just so HAPPENS to show up constantly to disrupt Free Speech talks doesn't oppose Free Speech as a whole? Give me a fucking break man.

 

I'm a former GG supporter, I know all about decentralized movements and how the actions of a few do not necessarily reflect on the whole, but Antifa, from what I have seen, has consistently shown that they oppose the idea of Free Speech because it inherently allows for Nazis to speak and therefore gain supporters. Hence why they love disrupting Free Speech rallies, or even merely just Conservative speakers of different varieties in North America and Europe. They cannot allow Nazis to speak because they think they'll convince people regardless of how good your arguments against them are, you admit so yourself, essentially.

 

The problem being: who do they define as a Nazi? From everything I've seen, they're EXTREMELY broad with their definition, to the point where its a running joke that "everyone Right of Marx is a Nazi".

 

Antifa organizations have routinely, and repeatedly been present to protest numerous Free Speech gatherings, talks, or meetings wherein anyone they consider to be a "Nazi" might be both in North America and Europe over the past years. Do you want me to list the incidents? How about I give you one from a few days ago which is undeniable. King's College, London, UK. Flag-bearing members of the Antifa chapter there tried to shut down a talk on Free Speech between Yaron Brooks, and Sargon of Akkad on the belief that they are Nazi Gatekeepers, Fascists, or Alt-Right supporters. You cannot oppose someone's right to speak merely because you believe that they are a Nazi or a Fascist. But they did, hence they oppose Free Speech, especially since the topic being discussed was, ironically, Free Speech.

 

Again, as I've said, they are allowed to speak against the groups using free speech. Antifa is NOT anti-free speech, and I have said it multiple times. Disrupting an event with free speech in it is not the same as oppressing it. The point of Antifa is to protest what Neo-nazis and Neo-fascists have to say, not to act as the next anti-sedition law.

Also, that entire first paragraph just has so many things wrong with it.

 

1. Former GamerGate supporter? You've changed stances on it? Let me quote a direct excerpt from Wikipedia, which you so vehemently despise, despite its efforts to retain accuracy, which is far better than most sources can claim.

 

"Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent and contradictory, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. As a result, Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters committed. Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims."

 

2. You claim you understand "how the actions of a few do not necessarily reflect on the whole" but you immediately contradict yourself by meaning to criticize the extremist portion of it, thinking it represents the entire group.

 

3. I'm pretty sure they define anyone as a Nazi as someone who is extremely racist. Racism is hand in hand with Nazism, in many ways. Did you forget about the supposed "Aryan Race"? Have you forgotten the large sections of racism still left in the country? Trump is very much a racist. Now, while the difference between Nazism and racism might be an intent to follow violence with it, which would be Nazism, do keep in mind that he does hold one of the most powerful offices in the world, and explicitly criticizes African countries, calling them a "shithole", and is xenophobic to Muslims.

 

4. Is it a coincidence that most of the Neo-Nazis claim themselves as conservative?

 

5. "You cannot oppose someone's right to speak merely because you believe that they are a Nazi or a Fascist.", but, they're criticizing what they say? It's not their fault if they criticize a point so well that the person saying racist things refuses to speak afterwards. And then they proceed to play the victim card, claiming that they "threatened their right to speak."

-----

Global Warming/Climate Change is a different issue entirely, and one which has far greater problems because of how it has been handled by Science over the last 50 years than merely the current presidency, but let's discuss it. How about the fact that people have become skeptical of it because some of the first scientists involved decided to try and push their earliest findings without much evidence to actually support their ideas, and were subsequently found to be incorrect on numerous fronts? Or even Al Gore, who in his popularized movie, it is subsequently almost a laughing stock if you were to go back and analyze it today, and a whole generation (mine) saw it and were led to believe it was entirely accurate. I wouldn't be shocked if people came to think of it as a hoax after that, and I myself do believe in climate change. Its also a far more complex debate than whether you believe it or not. One can not believe in Man-made climate change, and still believe that it is a thing, merely a natural shifting in the Earth's climate and beyond human control or that human contribution is extremely marginal. The data isn't entirely conclusive that it even is entirely man-made anyway, nor will the people who believe in it also admit that if it truly is caused strictly by us, we're already screwed? Any measures we take would ultimately be meaningless if we are the be-all-and-end-all of climate change. You would need to commit the single greatest humanity atrocity the world has ever seen just to save us as a species in order to go carbon negative and correct what we've done, if that is the case. But that's why Climate Change is a unique example, the context of the debate has reached a point where there is not enough data to totally be certain on much of anything, therefore how can anyone argue one way or another with 100% accuracy? (Since that is the stakes they are playing with) Its not the same kind of argument. The situation there won't change until science works as it always does and finally gets enough data to be able to form more concrete observations and statements. They still don't even fully understand why the data shows a climate warming in the medieval period, a time when human industry was nothing compared to what it would be many centuries later. More data is the only thing that will help resolve that argument, and when it comes to climate, it takes time.

 

1. How has it been mishandled by Science?

 

2. Scientists almost always push their earliest findings. It's part of science. They want people to review their experiments and data, something called "Peer review". You can't claim credibility if no one else can replicate your findings.

 

3. Scientists will always have something incorrect or a quirk in one of their theories. Refining and stamping out such quirks is also part of science, so they can perfect their theories.

 

4. So is it just a coincidence that by the time of the industrial revolution, global carbon emissions increased? Also, what increase in the medieval period? It looks stable to me.

 

Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

 

5. It is very well likely that we could eventually become carbon negative, it is just that most countries have not made sufficient steps to do so. You understand what carbon dioxide scrubbers, adsorption and even algae are, right? Algae especially are an easy access solution, which can be genetically modified to absorb even MORE carbon dioxide.

-----

No, but their "talking" is shouting over people and simply causing disruptions and chanting mantras like they're some kind of religious cult than an actual intelligent debate. I don't call that "engaging" I call it "disrupting". Because they're specifically trying to stop people from speaking to others, and are refusing to engage on the same field as them, they'd prefer to deplatform, which was exactly what happened in London just a few days ago as the latest case showing this exactly IDK what other evidence I would need to cite besides this. Unless you're to say that those were not the real "Antifa".

 

You're also making a false equivalency with the mass shootings idea. Yes, of course one can say they're bad, but that doesn't help actually come up with an idea to fix the situation, does it? I doubt you'll find many politicians who will actually say that mass shootings are a good thing. No, with Mass Shootings, the argument is over what kind of remedy would actually be best to prevent such situations from happening, not whether or not they're bad. Me, from my observations, and living in Canada, would argue that banning or controlling guns will not solve your problem in the way that it will prevent mass tragedy. It won't. People will just obtain the guns illegally like many criminals do, they'll use knives (of which there was one knife attack several months ago in Japan that resulted in even more people dying than in the Parkland shooting, figure that one out) or home-made bombs, or cars, or some other type of weapon. The types of people we're talking about can be endlessly creative in the methods they choose to cause tragedy. I'd argue the best methods of prevention would be to change how your education system deals with kids who are bullied (specifically in regards to teachers and their role), change the treatments of people with mental illnesses instead of just giving them a ton of pills, and actually provide outlets for people to release their emotions and problems in other safer ways, whatever those may be. IMO those would go far further than any kind of control on any weapons in terms of prevention. But in the end, I also don't think you can ever 100% prevent tragedy, so there is that.

 

IMO the best methods to deal with the situation of people falling for extremist ideologies is through education (specifically the development of critical thinking and research capacities that aren't merely echo chambers.) Tolerance in the intellectual sense being promoted where we are not afraid of discussing various topics or hearing certain opinions because we can tolerate that they exist, and can provide our own counter-opinions and arguments if necessary. And in general, an adherence to total free speech. Wherein it doesn't matter anything that someone says, so much as their actions are what matters. A guy could argue for genocide, but so long as they don't move to actually do it, its no crime. Right now, there are double standards that exist around that very type of incident depending on who is saying it, and who they're talking about as to what reaction it will elicit from the public and law enforcement. I wouldn't want such double standards, we either set a single standard, or don't bother enforcing it at all. Just my thoughts on a thousands of years old problem.

 

1. And Neo-Nazis don't chant mantras like a religious cult?

 

2. I would say that the opposite side also "disrupts", perhaps even more.

 

3. Fair enough on the rest.

 

4. Except for the double standards. Do you think Germany is making more of an attempt to remedy their history than America? Also, when a guy argues for genocide, obviously there is something wrong there, and you shouldn't really have to wait until they actually attempt it to do something about it. I'm not suggesting arresting him, but like, get the person some therapeutic help or something. Obviously things aren't working out for that guy if he's saying genocide is a good thing.

-----

I guess that makes sense. Still, has there ever been a country in modern times "Dictated by mob rule"? I mean in modern day as fast communication, not having to send a messenger boy to go tell someone your opinion.

-----

I never said I wanted Hillary either, but I did leave out her, because she isn't currently POTUS. Would rather have Bernie.

-----

I find it funny that you think that just because Styx isn't the most well-watched commentator on all of Youtube, you can simply disregard him, yet you want me to take seriously a movement that is quite a minority in its own numbers and is not even strictly public knowledge (As is the Alt-Right, but that's another matter), or Wikipedia (which I'll get to later)? Would you prefer that I cite Sargon? Or Molyneaux? Or Lauren Southern? Or Shoeonhead? Or Armoured Skeptic? Or Tim Pool? Or shall I abscond the Alt-Media entirely and go for the Mainstream Hacks at CNN, Fox, or Washington Post, or Huffington Post who half the time don't even research what they're talking about without slanting it towards whatever agenda they want? I chose Styx because he makes some fairly compelling arguments on his channel, and he's a Centrist. He has no love for partisan politics, and he's often been quite right not only in his predictions and insights on various subjects, but he does it in ways that are fairly eloquent or make sense.

 

But no, I obviously have to wait until he's some big Youtube star or something for you to acknowledge his opinion. You're not even claiming he's wrong.

One person with a viewer base is far different from a loosely organized group. I would rather just have someone read out the facts, with as little bias as possible, and not dance around the facts or making assumptions. Especially coming to mind is when he mentioned that Trump's tax reform cut everyone's taxes. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it makes more of a tax break for the wealthy.

-----

You obviously didn't read my brief summation of it, or looked it up yourself. Were it merely a history book of past Anti-fascist movements, why does it so conveniently show the official flag of the modern one, and after the historical bits discuss modern anti-fascist movements? Maybe because it does have a fair bit of content that relates to the MODERN antifa alongside the older movements?

 

And what do you mean by "relevancy to the current context"? You're going to argue with me that Trump is "Literally Hitler" now? Or that he's somehow a Fascist even though he's a Capitalist and not a Socialist? Because that's the only context you could be referring to in relation to what the Deputy Chair was saying.

 

1. Anti-fascist movements have largely featured the picture of the two flags. Antifa has kept it in theirs, but it is slightly different, not the same as the one on the book.

 

2. I did look it up. Also, it discusses modern anti-fascist movements because it's relevant. But you said that for me. I don't see what your argument is.

 

3. It is relevant because history repeats itself. I'm not saying Trump is Hitler, but he does have a few characteristics of Hitler. Racist? Check. Wants to have mass deportation? Check. Blames a specific ethic/religious group? You bet.

-----

Yea, and the fact that all of the ones I've seen bear the exact same flag, use the similar tactics, and all dress the same don't fucking matter? Give me a break. The most I'll grant you is that there may be different Blocs of varieties Anarchists, and they get by by not having any singular leadership (because that would antithetical to Anarchy), but that they may as well all be doing the exact same things since I've yet to see a situation where two different Anarchist groups have actually come to blows over political maneuvers. The only flag I've seen is the Red-Black Flag of Antifa, whom to me are basically Anarcho-Communists. I know the other flags variations for the different others and that they exist, but by the Gods do they seem to be notably absent.

 

More to the point, it doesn't change the fact that the action was still an open endorsement of Antifa, doesn't matter what fucking iteration you want to claim it.

So, you think that just because there isn't fighting over political maneuvers, you think that they are all the same? Also sure, it's an endorsement of Antifa? It's not representative of the whole platform. Again, hypocrisy with earlier.

-----

I don't care if that is their mandate, they're welcome to it, or whatever it is they want. It doesn't change the fact of what they have DONE. And what their various chapters have been proven to have done, on numerous live videos both they and others have taken. I don't care that they think that it's morally right to punch someone they think is a Nazi, I'm still going to oppose them punching said "Nazi" because its not going to help the situation. Can you not see that radical actions promote even more radical actions by ideological oppositions? They become feed-back loops.

Again, actions of a few representing the entire group? While many did enjoy Spencer getting punched, it was really rather deserved, considering he is literally a Nazi. He entirely fits the ideals of the Nazis. I'm pretty sure more people than Antifa think he's a Nazi. I abhor the fact that his hometown is even in my state.

-----

Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there if you're honestly going to try and claim to me with 100% honesty that Antifa, or since you said it, The Far-Left, has NEVER done:

 

Harassment

Violence

Doxxing

Threats

Mass Shootings (Admittedly, this one I cannot prove as strictly Antifa, but I'm pretty sure the mass shooting and attempted murder of those Republican Senators last year qualifies)

Attempted Bombings (Yea, since The Weathermen fucked up and blew their own apartment hideout to bits, I can see why most haven't tried since, at least in the US)

Attempted Murder (Well, that's admittedly vague, do they beat up people with the assumption to not kill them? What if nobody found someone beaten into unconsciousness?)

Murder (Not Antifa, no, but I chalk that up as to total luck that they haven't killed someone yet, just as the Alt-Right groups had no blood on their hands until Charlottesville, and even that is a stretch given who the killer was)

You're shitting about the last one, right? They had no blood on their hands until Charlottesville? Did you not see that list of things that I left that suggest otherwise? Also, I even admitted that they do Doxxing as of late, and most likely have made threats, just not to the degree that the Alt-Right does. Antifa usually only reserves such acts for prominent Alt-right members. I guess I can also add Violence and Harassment, but these happen even less often. Also, Antifa never attempted bombings to my knowledge.

------

Criticisms of my sources

Unless you have better sources?

-----

By that argument, you're saying that just because Antifa hasn't reached that most vile point yet, what they do is a necessary evil. Yet it is their own actions that have spurred the Alt-Right to become as they are, and its total luck that they HAVEN'T reached that most vile point yet (one's definition of vile being subjective as well, I've read some accounts by claimed former Antifa members from some Chapters that IMO suffered far more traumatic experiences than death, but this entirely subjective). Is it somehow unfair to say I condemn one as much as the other, and would prefer that both merely verbally fight it out on an equal field rather than use aggressive attacks to try and intimidate people or injure or even kill people?

I guess? But I think we both know that them verbally arguing is likely not going to happen.

-----

Yet where is the evidence of their critical thinking? I've yet to see any when they seem down to label anyone to the right of Marx as a "Nazi" if they're going to label so many Alternative Media figures as Nazis and Fascist Gatekeepers when those same people regularly spar with Nazis or Identitarians and repeatedly don't endorse Nazi or Fascist ideology. I'm sorry, I have no evidence of many of Antifa's chapters actually showing much critical thought when it comes to picking their targets. They are the Communists of Weimar Germany, the enemies of the Nazis, yes, but merely a different brand of puritan and extremist that ultimately just feed off of each other until one destroys the other. That is why I brought up the Weimar comment.

I would like to point out that even though alt-media might disapprove of even more radical groups/individuals, that doesn't mean they don't have their own faults. But let's be fair, the media is pretty biased, no matter what direction.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a difference between speaking and disrupting.

 

Are you saying that its okay then for a ton of robe-wearing Klansmen or say, a whole contingent of uniformed Nazis to storm a leftist speaking event of any kind and do the same (to use an extreme example)?

 

I don't see it as productive. It mostly only leads to conflict, and nobody really learning anything except becoming more ideologically disposed towards one side or another they likely were already leaning towards.

 

I attended, personally, a teach-in at my old University that was on a subject full of people I disagreed with on their opinions, but whom made up the majority of attendants. I didn't start shouting in the middle of the fucking event and stopped them from even outlining their views fully. I waited, I waited until the end, formed a question for the Q&A (which took a while, considering I felt pretty intimidated in the room I was in, and I had to think about how to pose it without getting yelled out of the room, but I did it nonetheless), and walked out after I got a response (the response was BS, especially from Academics, but that's another story).

 

But I point out the Yaron-Sargon event specifically, because they were actually discussing (because they heard them chanting outside) how yes, Antifa does have a right to protest their talk, if they so desire, but that so long as they allow for them have it, it doesn't matter for Free Speech. Both can exist at the same time, the problem becomes when the one tries to literally stop the other (which is also why its important to have Police or security keep the two at least minimally separated, yet they haven't in various situations). Lo and behold, not even 5 minutes later, they burst in, storm the stage, try to pick fights with numerous people in the audience, pull a fire alarm, chant all over the place, set a bull-horn to siren mode, and have to be forcibly evicted by both administrators and security.

 

You pull a fire alarm, its almost guaranteed you're shutting down whatever event is going on, or at least significantly disrupting it to the point where they cannot continue as planned. Anti-GGs did it to us all the time, and I know Antifa's chapters do it fairly often as well.

 

1:I say "formerly" because I'd say GG is basically dead at this point, or at least dead in terms of any sort actions it may do, KIA still exists, but that's basically it. That's all I mean by it, my opinions on it haven't really changed, so much as I've moved on from it, as have a great many of its former supporters.

 

But oh boy, you had to bring up the Wikipedia page, and the exact reason why I do not trust Wikipedia, if I didn't already because I was educated as an historical researcher that one page has shown me why you never trust Wikipedia.

 

Do you know how many edits that page has gone through? How Wikipedia had to freeze public edits on it because it became a literal tug of war between two sides of the same story with hundreds of edits back and forth every single day? Have you any idea of the chat logs of the various appointed maniac editors who have controlled that page over time and how much shit is on that fucking page that is so poorly sourced, it'd be a fail if it were submitted to a University for analysis. The page pays token homage to the movement's concerns, and instead gives full and almost complete supremacy to the accounts of its "victims" and how we're basically the progenitors of all that is evil on the Internet. It is entirely one-sided, and almost entirely uninformative of the reality of what happened. They don't acknowledge the victims GG's opponents made, they don't acknowledge the actual ethical concerns that were raised, nor do they even acknowledge the efforts GG took as group to control the Trolls, because that would harm their narrative of how we're the devils that need to be exorcised by their patron saints and angels who cannot possibly do anything wrong. I understand I'm using dramatic language, but then the Wikipedia page blows the whole thing as much out of proportion.

 

They also refuse to acknowledge the FBI report that pretty much fully exonerates the movement, is publicly accessible, and goes into quite a large amount of detail on the harassment allegations.

 

". . .Difficult for commentators to discern their goals and motives" my ass, they refused to even talk to us or do any research beyond the "victims" accounts, which is basically what you'll find of almost every single MSM account of us, if they even talk about us at all. And the few that have actually talked to us, like Brad Glasgow, are shunned for having fucking talked to us! Fuck, Milo, back when he jumped in to bolster his own career but at least he pretended to care about us and actually gave the movement some coverage, he got fucking death threats sent in his mail with dead rats stabbed with a razor.

 

It was that page that inspired me to get off of my fence and actually do some digging into GG and its past, because I could not fathom how the page could possibly be accurate. And what I found kicked me off of my fence.

 

2: You've yet to prove to me that I'm wrong about how the Antifa I've been seeing is somehow not the real Antifa. There's a big difference from egg-pictured one-day old accounts claiming to be GG supporters throwing throw-away harassment at individuals on Twitter, and chanting, black bloc uniformed, officially organized flag-bearing chapters of Antifa (all conveniently flying the same basic Antifa flags, too). Prove to me I'm wrong then.

 

I will extend an olive branch in that I will say that I base my observations based off of all of the Antifa organizations or chapters I have seen, but they seem to be pretty fucking consistent across the ones I have witnessed.

 

3: Show me a recording of Trump actually saying Haiti, or African countries were shitholes, and the context in which he said it, because I've yet to see anyone show it. Fuck, they can get recordings of everything else he fucking says because the White House is so fucking leaky, yet magically the Washington Post cannot produce one for that OR the time he supposedly said the N-word. Boy, that would be fucking compelling evidence of him being a racist wouldn't it? Yet where is it? And how he is xenophobic towards Muslims? They're not a race, BTW, anyone of any skin colour can be a Muslim, the fact that many are of Arab or Asian ethnicity doesn't mean shit. His "Muslim travel ban" that the Supreme Court ruled was no such thing? The single most ineffective "Muslim ban" in history because it didn't even include the top five biggest Muslim majority countries on Earth in it and doesn't even specify Muslims as being the only ones banned?

 

Plus, in terms of witnesses to the "shithole" comment that is pretty much entirely hearsay, I've only heard one Senator say it happened, versus three other people who claimed to have been in the room when it happened at the exact same time, and claim nothing was said. But again, they can find recording of every other fucking thing he's said, magically the Washington Posts gets this one apparently through "an Anonymous tip".

 

Otherwise no, I don't think he's a racist or a bigot. He runs a very nationalist and nativist platform in many regards and is crude and crass, but he's no racist. I have more evidence of Hillary being a racist with her "hot sauce" comment she made back in the election.

 

But I must say, that's a very simplistic definition of Nazi. Yes, racial supremacy and hierarchy (quite detailed ones, actually, they even categorize Whites in tons of levels) does go hand-in-hand with Nazi ideology, but not every racist is inherently a Nazi. Racists existed long before the Nazis. Why is Trump apparently a National Socialist, and not merely a Racist, if that's what the argument is? He's yet to even propose racist legislation or anything that would divide US rights into a hierarchy based on race, funnily enough, groups like BLM seem to want just that (maybe not the hierarchy part, but certainly racial segregation of rights). But this definition is even stranger when looking at other figures who aren't even racist and yet are called Nazis by Antifa. Then again, I suppose the definition of racist itself has shifted quite a bit if some people are thinking a less than 100% score on Black Panther's Rotten Tomatoes score indicates Racism, but that's another story.

 

4: So fucking what? The original Nazis and Fascists identified themselves as Leftists and Socialists and as being distinctly different from Conservatives, yet most Leftists won't own up to that embarrassing fact of history. Or the fact that most Communists refuse to acknowledge that almost any singular Communist regime has caused more human suffering than all Hitler did himself and his Third Reich, and that Communism as Marx envisioned will never happen, yet you don't see so many Communists being automatically disregarded, do yea? In fact Neo-Communism seems to be booming, last I checked.

 

5: Are they? This whole argument started around the fact that there's no shortage of Antifa violently opposing anyone they so much as think is a Nazi. Are you saying that this is somehow not the case, and my original points on arguing were correct and is the norm? Because it certainly doesn't look like it. It looks like they, or other Far-Left groups, at best, pressure and intimidate people into not even having debates at all.

 

I've also seen this same thing pulled by Far-Left speakers, by the by. So turnabout is fair play, man.

 

If this isn't the case, please kindly explain to me what the fuck I've been witnessing on countless campuses and Free Speech rallies in the US, Canada, and Europe the past few years. Hell, even explain to me the most recent one I saw and how that somehow matches the fantasy you're peddling.

 

-----

 

1: Its been mishandled in that they fucked up when they first started doing research into it and presenting it. The Environmental Sciences debates have been going on for a long time, arguably since the start of the Industrial Revolution, but didn't really kick into gear until the 50s and 60s after the Atom bomb tests, huge devastating wars, chemical agents like Agent Orange, etc. Back then, you had scientists and researchers put forward theories and arguments based on very limited data. They understood the urgency of what they were studying, but the reality of studying the Climate is that it takes a LONG time to get adequate data on it that Science demands. Science already takes a long time to generate data and knowledge on its own, it does so by design so as to try and generate the most accurate depictions, descriptions, and statements about reality that it can. But they jumped the gun, and turned out that a lot of their early arguments and theories were innaccurate or blatantly false not by intention, but because they didn't possess the full picture. We arguably still don't possess the full picture of climate data, and its no guarantee we ever will (though I believe we'll get a lot of it, certainly). I'd argue it was mishandled so badly that it created a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome in many people on the subject.

 

It certainly hasn't fucking helped when modern situations like Al Gore do the exact same thing, and his data was decades later. Boy was it a fucking joke when Kilimanjaro was covered in ice a year after the date he claimed where none would ever be on it again. THAT sort of thing, doesn't fucking help the issue of making people believe its actually a serious issue, and that we're primarily responsible for it.

 

2: There is a difference between peer review, and trying to incite public action on a subject without fully knowing the whole picture, man. The 60s were the age of activism in many respects, including early Environmental and Climate activism.

 

3: Of course, but the problem is two fold: The Public (for better or worse) has basically come to expect that Science should work as fast as everything else, with Scientists having repeatedly come under pressure of Governments and public bodies to put forward information faster, even though they may not have ironed out all of the kinks in the data, such incidents risk promoting skepticism of Science in general, which has been happening increasingly over the decades. And secondly, because it has been proven on several different ocassions that Scientists will often bend to the whim of whoever pays them, because they've become basically partnered with government agencies (seriously, you don't see many Nikola Teslas or Thomas Eddisons anymore) rather than any objective pursuit of knowledge and truth, and thus can and have falsified or pushed certain data over others (even environmental data both hiding and overexaggerating cases in the past). Its basically creates hurdles in how science traditionally works, and why its not 100% believed by everyone anymore. I don't like it, but it is reality.

 

4: The debate is not that Carbon emissions did not go up during the Industrial Revolution, that is very much provable, its as to whether or not our contributions even have that big of an effect or not in the face of longer climate trends or factors, or that they will actually have the effects that some have predicted.

 

In fact, if we want to talk Carbon emissions and why the whole goal to lower emissions by a significant degree is basically impossible, China alone produces more C02 than the entire world did at the point of the peak Industrial Revolutionary era, not just Britain or a single nation of the period, but the entire world. The point where even your graph admits where it all went awry. Doesn't matter what the rest of the entire world does, China is still making up the difference for the rest of us.

 

So you found a graph that says otherwise by measuring C02 volumes as opposed to actual temperatures, of course its likely to say the amount of carbon is up, search up 10,000 year trends in Climate data graphs and you'll see a bunch that describe the situation I'm talking about. Plus, its compelling enough that Historians are basically telling how there was a Medieval Warming period, and a "Little Ice Age" at the end of the Medieval Period (hence why there was widespread famine, nobody could grow anything that long, tons of historical accounts remark on it). There's even the Young Dryas Period during our early Hominid days which arguably allowed for us to expand out across the world as the climate became warmer.

 

5: If they are so easy, why isn't it self-evident that every country takes them all? I've not even heard of Canada delving into any of these initiatives on the kind of scale necessary for this sort of thing, and we're running Federal and Provincial governments that are all about Environmentalism (or claim to be) AND we have the enormous space for it since most people don't want to leave the GTA or Vancouver and Montreal areas. The most we've been talking about is carbon taxes and a few boosts to green energy production.

 

More to the point, how many of these things would you need to off-set our current output and our continued growth? Even if they work well and were cost-effective, and we had the available space for all of it, you're still left with billions of tons of solid Carbon that needs to be put somewhere. Plus a still increasing population that is heavily reliant on heavily fertilized food production that causes a lot of pollution on its own. These methods also don't deal with methane production or levels, another gas that is basically right behind C02 as a greenhouse gas, though I already know a method for that: Replace Cows and other livestock with insect protein. Because that's something that's sure to be adopted readily across all nations even faster than this stuff, right?

 

The Algae bit is gonna cause problems since research into genetic modification is being tip-toed at best in many cases, but yea I knew about it years ago.

 

Even more to the point, all of our efforts come to nothing if a Supervolcano goes off, or tons of other Volcanoes go off during a period of intense volcanic activity (which has also happened several times in the Earth's history). Not that I'm a fear monger about Yellowstone, but it is a reality if we're talking carbon and climate change.

 

-----

 

1: I never said they didn't. You're the one acting like Antifa is different, my argument is that they're two sides of the same coin. I'm not impressed if I see an Alt-Right group of whatever description doing the same things.

 

2: Really? Because that hasn't been the trend I've been seeing until lately when they finally got tired of being pushed around and especially silenced. Funny how the feed-back loops work for this.

 

3: N/A

 

4: I don't entirely understand what you mean on the question of Germany/America comparison. Explain? Off the top of my head, I would say that Germany most definitely is going WAY further than practically any country to remedy its history. You cannot even show Swastikas on any media in that country for any reason, even if you're depicting Nazis as the most villainous and unsympathetic people imaginable, you cannot use their classic symbol to identify them in any media. I don't know of many other cases where that kind of situation has occurred anywhere on Earth.

 

Is it though? I'm talking about a theoretical situation of total Free Speech, wherein literally nothing is barred from being said in public (I don't necessarily think it will ever happen, but I was referring to what my ideal solutions or theories for solutions would be). There is no such thing as Hate Speech of any variety, and threats don't matter unless you have reason to suspect that they're credible through the suspected individual's actions. People have the freedom to basically say anything they want to each other, no matter how crude or how sophisticated, just not do anything they want to each other. Trolls make fun of the current situation of this all the time by testing one's tolerance limits to get a rise out of people. Philosophically speaking, if you're to take seriously what everyone today says in language conventions seriously, you'd think everyone was throwing death threats at each other constantly, and that the internet was full of genocidal maniacs of all varieties. The film "Twelve Angry Men", while being quite old, demonstrates this idea of intent and meaning versus literalness very well when they discuss what "I'm gonna kill you." can mean, depending on the situation. Its why context matters. Its why you can have debates on tough subjects while knowing its not going to go anywhere in terms of intent beyond the debate or discussion.

 

What I meant by a double standard is how you can have a situation where two statements can exist at the same time, basically arguing the same thing in principle, yet elicit different reactions. On my genocide example. I know for a fact that you cannot post up anything publicly regarding say, IDK, Jewish genocide or Holocaust and promoting the idea in a serious manner that can be linked back to you, and not be immediately charged with a hate crime in many different nations. However, I have also seen people who unironically call for white genocide, yet face hardly any repercussions, certainly not Hate speech charges. These statements are both effectively the exact same thing, both are calling for genocide, we have internationally agreed (supposedly, I studied Rwanda so that assumption is tenuous) that genocide is supposedly universally bad in all circumstances it occurs and that advocating for it is bad, yet one elicits a different response from both the public and law enforcement than the other in the same country depending on who they're referring to. THAT is the kind of double standard I'm referring to.

 

-----

 

Well, that depends on your definition and how broad you want to see it. The USA most certainly would be, if the Constitution hadn't given the rural communities and states a measure of equalizing political power to counter the Urban centers being the only places politicians would need to appeal to. The coastal areas or top 5 major cities of the US would dictate the elections every single year without fail, pretty much, if that had been the case. Instead, you have a case where a party and candidate needs to at least try to cater to a wide swathe of the country and the wide demographics across it, if they want to have any hope of winning. And you have an electoral college that CAN (never has, to my knowledge) overrule the peoples' decision if a candidate is objectively unfit for rule (though that risks causing civil war if it ever were to occur in such a situation and would arguably be a tyrannical move in and of itself). Now, the US could arguably be better at this, they're not perfect since its still basically a two-party system with most of the country not being swing-states, but its still a better system in principle than many.

 

Many Democracies that don't have the controls the US has arguably already are, all it needs is a political system where one merely needs to covet the support of a very specific demographic or area that is larger in power than the rest, and you technically have the rest under a Tyranny of the majority because they can effectively be ignored. Our current global political climate in general is disposed towards ignoring various voices in different ways for various reasons.

 

Canada we have close to such a system. The only thing that really stops it is the fact that Quebec and Ontario never agree on anything. They're still the two major Provinces that dominate Canadian politics, with good reason, half of the country lives between Windsor and Montreal, but it remains that you're in a situation where a Politician could effectively ignore a large swathe of the country, and only cater to the specific areas. The Maritime provinces, 4 whole provinces of Canada, can be effectively ignored if one merely caters to Alberta alone, I believe. Quite literally in our system some votes literally matter more than others in terms of representation in Parliament, how is it that 2 elections ago, the Bloc Quebecois could have somewhere around 50 seats in Parliament with roughly 10 million votes, and yet the Green Party only has 1 seat in Parliament with over a million votes? The answer is due to the concentration of those votes in particular pockets of the country, creating situations where, on paper, one's votes matter more than others. Proportional Representation isn't the answer though on its own, because that would be literal mob rule or tyranny of the majority in a different direction, though it would create more variety in Parliament.

 

Lots of Democracies have this problem, some naturally, others by design because of poor fore-thought on how democracies would change over time. I'd argue a more effective system that would encourage voter interest would be a Hybrid system, kinda like the US but different. Wherein you guys can vote separately for President, Senator, House Representative, Governor, etc, and they could all be effectively different parties. I'd want a Proportional Representation system for the voter numbers that determines how many representatives one can have in Parliament of a given party (I work off of the basis that most Voters don't even see what their average MP does anyway, or interacts with them most of the time, so it effectively doesn't matter who is in charge in terms of party representatives for seats, especially since we have no power anyway over what specific cabinet offices they hold if they're even in charge), but you could vote say for individual PM officials who are party leaders or Senators (who are not elected currently in Canada) Canada doesn't have that, your vote for your regional MP is inherently a vote for the Party leader, and the PM of the hour has the power to appoint any Senators they desire if a seat is open. If it were otherwise, you could end up in a situation where in Canada you have a PM who is Liberal, but a Conservative-majority controlled House, and an entirely different Senate, forcing them to have to work with the the other parties and make compromise.

 

Or at least that's the idea, I think Democracies arguably work best when you have to reach a compromise on a situation by incorporating all different viewpoints or opinions, not merely catering to a Left or Right side.

 

One could argue that Soviet Russia was, the Communist Party there was in charge, but it was obsessed with having mobs of people fighting tons of "minorities" that were apparently the cause of every single problem in Russia and securing their power by being basically the "heads" of the Mob, the "Vanguard Party". They just changed who was most to blame when it suited their goals at a given time. They also seized power with mobs after the election didn't fully vindicate them. Most Communist regimes in the past have arguably operated on this principle of justifying their power by mob-assistance or military control, or both.

 

-----

 

I only brought her up because she's who the obvious alternative would have been. Bernie might have been better, IDK. Certainly more appealing in some respects, and certainly wasn't right how he and his fans got screwed, but he's basically shown he's not willing to fight that, so that left me disappointed in him. Just my view.

 

-----

 

Does it? I've found some individuals to be far smarter than whole groups of people at times.

 

That's not what he claims, and I'm inclined to trust his word. Why would Styx lie about the tax cuts when he's been perfectly fine to call out criticisms of Trump on other topics, AND he has reason to care about tax cuts? He's been poor, he grew up in a poor family, he advocates for lower tax rates across the board, and he's certainly not in the upper middle-class tax brackets based on his Patreon income. He also never denied that it has a tax cut for the wealthy, he merely says that it says that there's an even bigger cut for lower tax brackets as well, to the point where the poor are hardly paying any tax. The only criticism he's seen people level at it is that it gives the wealthy a tax cut, ignoring that it provides others to other groups as well.

 

My point being, what reason does he have to lie?

 

We're also discussing a tax plan that hasn't even fully taken effect, that'll happen next month. Do you somehow have a way to prove Styx that his reading of the plan is wrong, or are you just saying what CNN and other big agencies that have used every opportunity to hate on the plan have told you?

 

-----

 

1: K, so the flag is an older version that stylistically aligns for the book cover. I know the modern red and black double flag one as well, that's the common one I've seen flown, and the same Antifa chapters I refer to.

 

2: The point was you tried to counter by essentially saying that it is purely a historical document. Its not merely an account of past groups. Certainly not how the Deputy Chair was using it in the context of his post.

 

3: I wouldn't disagree, I do see history repeating its cycles again. But you haven't proven to me he is a Racist, nor has anyone else in any compelling way I've yet seen. Mass deportation of individuals who illegally entered the country and don't respect the sovereignty of a nation, and have not gone through the same processes as legal immigrants is not the same as what Hitler desired which was ethnic cleansing and complete genocide, nor is deportation even a uniquely Nazi thing to advocate for. Every Nationalist or individual who cares about people respecting a nation's sovereignty is a Nazi now? My Gods, Japan must be full of Nazis then. He never blamed Muslims for every single problem in the US, he merely remarked on a specific subset of them as an issue, as has the US administration done so, for pretty much the last two administrations prior at least in terms of public acknowledgement. He specifically said, multiple times: "Radical Islamic Extremists" or Terrorists for the last bit depending on the speech, you people merely just don't trust that he or the US administration would actually keep to that definition, and that's fine, but don't try and say he meant all Muslims when the Supreme Court doesn't even support your interpretation (7:2 on the Travel Ban, I might add, so it wasn't merely a partisan split). Hitler and the Nazis made no distinctions among Jews.

 

You can argue that his method may not do shit to solve the problem, I certainly don't think it'll do a damn thing on its own, but it doesn't make him in the same general ballpark as Hitler.

 

You've yet to even show how there are significant differences between chapters, I can easily demonstrate similarities across chapters separated by CONTINENTS where they demonstrate in the exact same fashions and use the exact same tactics to shut down people they don't like, which so often happens to be people who aren't even Nazis. All you've given are vague statements of "Oh not all Antifa chapters are 100% identical". Which of course they wouldn't be, but you've not proven that there is some grand misconception about how I'm viewing events.

 

Are you conversely somehow able to prove that all "Alt-Right" groups are 100% identical in their extremism? Because that's what you seem to imply on your end. The data you showed me certainly didn't prove that. You proved that extremists exist, I can prove extremists exist in Antifa, no fucking different. That hypocrisy is a two-way street if you're going to claim it, bud.

 

Its a general enough book to be a representative advocation of the whole platform, or do you disagree on that?

 

I wasn't specifically referring to Spencer, but he is most definitely the case that sparked that "debate", if you can even call it a debate. Okay, so you're fine with someone who sees someone else as completely inhuman or even simply terrible, to be able to physically harm them? Okay. That's fine. Just don't be surprised that they get violent back, and everyone else steps back while you two beat each other senseless because they think you're both the same thing. The only difference you have is where your moral compass aligns, and both trying to appeal to everyone else how you're somehow better than the other guy as to what is objectively the right thing on a given subject.

 

Unfortunately for such ideas, morals never stay the same. Hence why I think such a thought process is dangerous. The UN couldn't even get 100% agreement on the UDHR, they merely got it so that no country disagreed with it, yet you guys know better?

 

-----

 

The data you provided showed individuals, Antifa is a group of the Far-Left (you changed to ask about the Far-Left in general, not merely Antifa, which is why I make differentiations at different points), just as the Alt-Right has various groups with not all of them being the same. I didn't see any account of how all the groups organized to commit any murder or have consistently done so, and I already explained how the ADL and SPLC are VERY liberal when it comes to defining an "Alt-Right" member. But wasn't it strange that nobody seemed to acknowledge how the general phrase of the Alt-Right groups as responsible for any murders until Charlottesville, really (I'm talking mainstream media)? I certainly didn't even see many even acknowledge the groups existence as a whole "body" under that phrase until then, even you claim they've been doing it for a long time yet where is the organization? Most of those examples you gave are lone wolves, who may have been influenced by various groups, but does that make them "members"? The only data you gave is on sources that relate back to mostly individual cases that I would argue are not wholely reflective of the entire "Alt-Right". Hence why I said the "Alt-Right" didn't really have any blood on their hands til Charlottesville, not as a collective, it became that because so many showed up there from different groups, and they got caught up in an incident that resulted in someone's death, it was also the first time I can recall where someone actually died in a protest-conflict. Which was why it was so noticed. They've clashed several other times and had no deaths repeatedly for a long time before.

 

Hence why I didn't mention them in bombings, since The Weathermen I cannot think of many that have tried. But your comment in that context was on Far-Left groups, not merely Antifa which was why I brought them up.

 

-----

 

I don't think there are necessarily "better" sources on this, the whole fucking issue is so politicized, it has fucked the entire media apparatus and has made very big political divides across nations all over the place. All I know for certain is that I do not trust most popular media sources since many have zero journalistic integrity or actual investigative capacities that don't cow-tow to corporate interests, and I don't trust politically leaning outlets to give an honest account (which I could prove with the ADL and SPLC which were the basic primary sources of the others) when they have agendas to push.

 

I lean towards sections of the Alt-Media since, at least for some of them, especially ones like Styx, they are not corporate entities or aligned, they are not friends with any of the bigger entities with agendas and interests (they may have their own, but they usually state those openly unlike the bigger media outlets who usually lie, if they contradict themselves its another matter.) They most importantly allow for criticism and debate among their comments sections and viewers and generally don't try to police the discussion. You see more variety of opinions in a channel like Styx's (even though some are more prominent than others) than you ever do on any of these outlets that don't like anyone criticizing them or their articles.

 

-----

 

Maybe not, but simply not trying to get to even attempt to get to that point will insure it never happens, and instead increase the likelihood that the worst case scenario happens.

 

-----

 

They have their problems, the first that comes to mind is that they're kinda reliant on a more actively thinking audience to actually keep them honest, and work best if you have a variety of people to look to on various topics to compare and contrast on various information. (I myself have a fairly wide set, I've got subscriptions, or otherwise keep tabs on Sargon, Styx, Shoeonhead, Armoured Skeptic, The Rageaholic, Tim Pool, Lionel Nation, Lauren Southern, Paul Joseph Watson, Stefan Molyneaux, Count Dankula, Top Hats and Champagne, Black Pigeon Speaks, The Great Work, and The Golden One) I most certainly do not watch them all actively, I don't agree with all of them on everything, some I find to be more compelling debaters than others, in fact I disagree on various things they may argue, but I find that having a wide variety helps to discern who are the more melodramatic, who are more joking and humorous ones, and who are the more sensible ones.

 

I still prefer their variety over the mainstream media which basically has none and are boring to watch.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.