2020 US Election (Part One)

[Patine]

I think the problem is I just don't care what you believe anymore, @Patine. You consistently believe in the worst case scenarios when it comes to fighting fascists.

But, weirdly, you don't when it comes to the status quo, to the emboldening to fascist groups and messaging. There's no slippery slope mentioned, no fears of yours mentioned. You offer no solutions, only warnings that any solutions can and will be misused against the greater society.

Anything can. Literally anything can. If you keep using this argument against any measure of any progress that could ever be made, people just aren't going to take you seriously when you profess you have peoples' best interests at heart. You prefer the status quo, and the blood of the minorities and marginalised seem to be an acceptable price to pay. Going strictly on your posts and what you've said, for the record.

I'd like you to find and quote a post of mine where I embolden Fascists or say that the blood of minorities is an acceptable price to pay for this supposed "passivity." This is a very serious accusation, and not to be taken lightly. Or, am I ASSUMED to adopt the vile stance you accuse me of because I don't whole-heartedly support, without reservation, concern, or question, @Cloud_Strife's proposed witch hunt- or Inquisition-calibre romp of lawless and arbitrary disregard for rights and due process, accusing people willy nilly of full-fledged, died-in-the-wool Fascism, and destroying their lives, with no real burden of proof or sense of true justice. This "if you don't support us completely, you're instantly on the enemy side, or at least a sympathizer," attitude to terrorize or coerce people into supporting these things has a wonderful pedigree in it's engineering - it was first innovated by Joseph Goebbels, and later built upon by Joseph McCarthy. Aren't they such great role-models you can be proud of. Oh, wait, I thought you opposed Fascists, not adopted their playbooks...

 

[Berzerker]

Nicotine is a drug... just sayin'

I've heard heroin addicts who smoked say its even more addictive than heroin

Alright, then. How do massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich and deregulating big corporations to walk all over their employees, cheat their consumers with shoddy goods and services, and freely outsource jobs abroad (planks supported by a significant number of Republicans and a notable, but surprising minority of Democrats) serve 99% of the American population?. How do these planks and the candidates that push them get so many votes from outside the ultra-wealthy without some hoodwink?

freely outsource jobs abroad...with a trade war?

 

[Patine]

Patine, you really need to step back and relax. And stop with insulting everyone and your ridiculous hyperboles, you are doing exactly what you're accusing everyone else of (as @Gorbles has pointed out)

Some things to consider:

- You make up peoples' arguments. What's this "solution" you keep talking about? You don't seem to understand at all. Maybe yell and scream less, and actually listen to people, and you might learn something. You seem to be arguing against something you've made up in your head.
- You sound a lot like a Trump blowhard in your style, in anything you don't like you basically declare as "FAKE NEWS!", "SLANDER!", and what have you ... you don't actually ever respond to peoples' points, you just throw a tantrum and denigrate people in an effort to avoid any real discussion.
- Your hypocrisy and double-standards are both sickening. Please treat others as you wish to be treated. Please stop with the yelling and silly, repetitive adjectives.
- You sound like a raving lunatic, mostly because of these above points. Any ideas you're trying to get across are being completely lost in your style, which seems to be an abusive form of arguing. I feel that if we were having this conversation in real life, we'd all be giving in to you because you're going by volume, tone, and verbal violence (and IRL probably exaggerated and threatening physical movements) to try to bully us into giving up.
- You keep calling yourself the only "rational" and "sane" person here, and as above your posts don't display any of this. If you feel a need to say it so much, that's typically because it isn't true.
- When discussing an issue, it's very disingenuous to try to say "Well what about ..." something else, no matter how closely you think it's related. This doesn't matter (it's like if you get pulled over by a police officer for speeding, do you think she's going to listen to you saying "You can't give me a ticket unless you give one to this other person I saw running a red light last week"?) If we're talking about Republicans trying to systematically destroy the lives of LGBTQ people in America, bringing up some other issue from some other place or time to try to trick people into some kind of "gotcha" is literally whataboutism. You say you hate people bringing this word up, well you keep seeing it because you keep doing it.
- Please stop using that "neo-manichean" label. No one here subscribes to Manichean philosophy, you honestly sound like you've just come out of some weird boot camp or something where you learned this word.

Some things to think about what other people are saying:

- No one's suggesting some "mass extermination of anyone labelled as fascist" that you seem to be arguing against (and you accuse others of putting words in your mouth)
- Cloud_Strife is saying she has a right to defend herself from organized threats against her life and wellbeing
- I am saying I'm willing to forgive oppressed people, who out of desperation and frustration act out when they're feeling afraid and trapped by our establishment, act out in a way I wouldn't normally approve of. I still don't like their methods, but I'm far more concerned that they feel they're down to no other choice. I consider the immediate and real threat people face from a growing and terrifying part of our society, who are methodically taking over our government and law enforcement, to be much more severe than any imagined threat from "What happens if these oppressed people start feeling safe, are they going to become the oppressors?"
- My last sentence above reminds me of something I read years ago, which was basically about how "Men don't want women getting into power, because they fear once women have power they're going to treat men as they've always treated women." This sort of thing goes for pretty much any group that white-Christian-heterosexual-cisgender men have abused and oppressed.
- When you argue against us, especially with how passionate you are, you really give us the impression you're one of two things: 1) someone who just doesn't give a [bleep] about anyone but yourself, so as long as you're safe and getting yours, everyone else can just deal, or 2) someone who actually wants these types of dangerous and hate-fueled regimes to take over. If you're neither of these, then I feel you really need to step back and listen (instead of yelling) to what you're really going against.

@Gorbles and @Cloud_Strife my suggestion is that if @Patine can't converse like a big boy, we all just give up on this and future conversations. You just can't have an intelligent discussion with someone like this.

I will say this simple thing before I go on to other things for a while. It may be something you, @Cloud_Strife, and others have forgotten or overlooked. It's also, actually, something far-right-wing extremists have also forgotten or overlooked. In fact, a lot of modern Western culture has forgotten this. Justice based on "demographics" is not justice. Justice is about an individual being called to account for what they have accused of, and having right to defend themselves. Anything else, including a "demographic" aspect. is not justice. It is something else, and it should not be put in the place of justice. That is where BOTH modern extremes fail miserably.

I've heard heroin addicts who smoked say its even more addictive than heroin



freely outsource jobs abroad...with a trade war?

Trump is waiting a trade war at this time. That doesn't mean members of his party aren't waiting out the storm, ready to go back to their old ways.

 

[Zardnaar]

You advocate for passivity in the face of existential harm from the far-right, you offer no hope, no comfort for those that must endure their attacks and instead condemn them for taking even the most basic, rational attempts to defend themselves, as well as poo-pooing any notion of prevention of harm.

The law allows you to use self defense.

Your idea of self defense is mob attacks.

Even in NZ it's legal to use reasonable force to defend yourself which includes killing someone in extreme situations.

No one's claiming that Nazis get a free ride. We have one here who killed 51 people. In my world he would get the death penalty as his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.

The Neo Nazi who killed that lady at Charlottesville is also getting prosecuted.

 

[Gorbles]

I'd like you to find and quote a post of mine where I embolden Fascists or say that the blood of minorities is an acceptable price to pay for this supposed "passivity." This is a very serious accusation, and not to be taken lightly. Or, am I ASSUMED to adopt the vile stance you accuse me of because I don't whole-heartedly support, without reservation, concern, or question, @Cloud_Strife's proposed witch hunt- or Inquisition-calibre romp of lawless and arbitrary disregard for rights and due process, accusing people willy nilly of full-fledged, died-in-the-wool Fascism, and destroying their lives, with no real burden of proof or sense of true justice. This "if you don't support us completely, you're instantly on the enemy side, or at least a sympathizer," attitude to terrorize or coerce people into supporting these things has a wonderful pedigree in it's engineering - it was first innovated by Joseph Goebbels, and later built upon by Joseph McCarthy. Aren't they such great role-models you can be proud of. Oh, wait, I thought you opposed Fascists, not adopted their playbooks...

I'd like you to find the quotes of mine that prove that all the people you tagged with me share my exact same views on how to combat fascism in Western nations. You claimed you didn't need to. Bit ironic you're demanding evidence now that the shoe's on the other foot.

Like I said: you've provided no solutions of your own. Maybe that'd be a good place to start. Doubling down on calling people fascistic after protesting your innocence of "slander" is probably not the best look

All you do is argue against people who advocate against fascism. That's literally all you do in topics like these. Remember: you tagged me. Willingly. To make a point. Don't waffle about comparisons between me and Goebbels now that I'm calling you on your debate tactics. If all you do is argue against people who advocate against fascism, and you never offer any alternatives of your own, that is you upholding the status quo. I don't need to assume anything - that's what you're doing, here, on CFC. Elsewhere, you might be doing other things, but nobody can see that. Just like you don't know us outside of CFC (for the most part, I'm assuming. You certainly don't know me).

And just one final clarification, to hopefully get through to you that (once again) you're doing the "ready, fire, aim" business of not reading peoples' posts properly, I never said you emboldened fascists. I recommend reading what you're replying to thoroughly, considering this is an argument you started. The lack of reading things thoroughly always seems to let you down, as well.

 

[Patine]

I'd like you to find the quotes of mine that prove that all the people you tagged with me share my exact same views on how to combat fascism in Western nations. You claimed you didn't need to. Bit ironic you're demanding evidence now that the shoe's on the other foot.

Like I said: you've provided no solutions of your own. Maybe that'd be a good place to start. Doubling down on calling people fascistic after protesting your innocence of "slander" is probably not the best look

All you do is argue against people who advocate against fascism. That's literally all you do in topics like these. Remember: you tagged me. Willingly. To make a point. Don't waffle about comparisons between me and Goebbels now that I'm calling you on your debate tactics. If all you do is argue against people who advocate against fascism, and you never offer any alternatives of your own, that is you upholding the status quo. I don't need to assume anything - that's what you're doing, here, on CFC. Elsewhere, you might be doing other things, but nobody can see that. Just like you don't know us outside of CFC (for the most part, I'm assuming. You certainly don't know me).

And just one final clarification, to hopefully get through to you that (once again) you're doing the "ready, fire, aim" business of not reading peoples' posts properly, I never said you emboldened fascists. I recommend reading what you're replying to thoroughly, considering this is an argument you started. The lack of reading things thoroughly always seems to let you down, as well.

Did you ever consider, or did anyone with a highly flawed solution I criticize and demands one from me, that magic wand solutions solving problems like these in the short-term may not be realistically exist. But, the arbitrary and demographic censorship, censuring by political opinion and holding people "to account for their vote" (even by vote, regardless of why one actually did actually vote the way they did, and not taking into account it's a two-party system and there isn't much of a choice, and 2016, by the GE, was a wretched election anyways, with both candidates being utter unethical, lying, soulless monsters, just in different ways, as it was), and "vigililantism" for self-defence with no stated limits or checks, that would turn the cities into blood-soaked warzone - three things @Cloud_Strife has actually endorsed and called for explicitly without my need for reading intimation or extrapolating - is no more of a solution in the unfortunate reality of affairs - these things will only make things far worse, and a lot of people will still suffer who do not at all deserve to.

 

[Berzerker]

Ah yes, the evil ideology of not wanting to be physically assaulted or killed by a right-wing extremist who views me as a threat to their society and as an abomination.

a journalist covering a right wing rally was assaulted by Antifa

Trump is waiting a trade war at this time. That doesn't mean members of his party aren't waiting out the storm, ready to go back to their old ways.

Thats the real reason the swamp wants Trump gone

 

[Zardnaar]

Who was that Dutch polititian who got murdered by radical lefty 2002. Pin whathisname.

Antifa also trashed so property in Europe recently. Once you start using violence you Lise the moral high ground (left or right) and the people doing it if they're Nazi, Antifa or whatever else deserve what they get from the authorities.

Since you have existing mechanisms to get rid of Trump you can't really justify violence either. Try winning an election, if you can't win that there's a reason (hint immigration had something to do with it works wide plus economic distress).

 

[Gorbles]

Did you ever consider, or did anyone with a highly flawed solution I criticize and demands one from me, that magic wand solutions solving problems like these in the short-term may not be realistically exist. But, the arbitrary and demographic censorship, censuring by political opinion and holding people "to account for their vote" (even by vote, regardless of why one actually did actually vote the way they did, and not taking into account it's a two-party system and there isn't much of a choice, and 2016, by the GE, was a wretched election anyways, with both candidates being utter unethical, lying, soulless monsters, just in different ways, as it was), and "vigililantism" for self-defence with no stated limits or checks, that would turn the cities into blood-soaked warzone - three things @Cloud_Strife has actually endorsed and called for explicitly without my need for reading intimation or extrapolating - is no more of a solution in the unfortunate reality of affairs - these things will only make things far worse, and a lot of people will still suffer who do not at all deserve to.

"i don't have a valid solution that satisfies all the things i think need satisfying" is a discussion point, and probably one that would go down a lot better if you just said it, instead of resorting to dispensing your moral judgement from on high.

"i think people defending themselves from fascists will escalate into a blood-soaked warzone", however, is just a terrible attempt at hyperbole. An argument to absurdity, even. You're the one assuming there would be no limits. You're the one assuming that innocent people would be targeted. And yet, given the very real and current violence from the far-right, we have you saying literally nothing. We have ICE arresting legal US citizens for simply looking not white, and yet you insist fascism and white nationalism doesn't have roots in the current administration (or have done, in the past).

It's fine to admit you don't have a solution. That's not a weakness, that's a strength. But it has nothing to do with your laughable attempts at invoking the slippery slope fallacy every time somebody talks about dealing with fascists in a physical manner. Did you ever consider that people who want to oppose fascists in person are capable of doing so with moral strength and nuance, and don't just lash out randomly at people on the streets? Because you don't ever seem to consider this idea, which means from the offset you're not treating anyone who espouses violence against fascists as a level-headed person. That's bias, plain and simple. It's also ridiculously naive.

a journalist covering a right wing rally was assaulted by Antifa

Is this the same journalist that has been repeatedly proven to lie about events as they happen? You're on about Andy Ngo, right? I'm pretty sure the last time he came up in a CFC thread it resulted in a billion page derail over defense of his palling about with a known far-right extremist group?

 

[Zardnaar]

"i don't have a valid solution that satisfies all the things i think need satisfying" is a discussion point, and probably one that would go down a lot better if you just said it, instead of resorting to dispensing your moral judgement from on high.

"i think people defending themselves from fascists will escalate into a blood-soaked warzone", however, is just a terrible attempt at hyperbole. An argument to absurdity, even. You're the one assuming there would be no limits. You're the one assuming that innocent people would be targeted. And yet, given the very real and current violence from the far-right, we have you saying literally nothing. We have ICE arresting legal US citizens for simply looking not white, and yet you insist fascism and white nationalism doesn't have roots in the current administration (or have done, in the past).

It's fine to admit you don't have a solution. That's not a weakness, that's a strength. But it has nothing to do with your laughable attempts at invoking the slippery slope fallacy every time somebody talks about dealing with fascists in a physical manner. Did you ever consider that people who want to oppose fascists in person are capable of doing so with moral strength and nuance, and don't just lash out randomly at people on the streets? Because you don't ever seem to consider this idea, which means from the offset you're not treating anyone who espouses violence against fascists as a level-headed person. That's bias, plain and simple. It's also ridiculously naive.


Is this the same journalist that has been repeatedly proven to lie about events as they happen? You're on about Andy Ngo, right? I'm pretty sure the last time he came up in a CFC thread it resulted in a billion page derail over defense of his palling about with a known far-right extremist group?

Until fascist actually get violent they're not breaking the law in most countries.

Even in the US the authorities ping then if they get out of control. Same with antifa.

But no the extreme left is a problem in most countries that are not the USA. It's not the Nazis openly advocating for violence.

The problem being identifying the fascist and even if you find one there's that whole concept of due process and innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Gorbles]

Until fascist actually get violent they're not breaking the law in most countries.

Fascists can be violent, and indeed at times are. White nationalist speech, by definition, is violent as well.

However, given that you seem to think evidence of "antifa" violence is some posters on a wall, I feel this is a completely pointless discussion to have with you. Either violence is literally hitting someone, and intimidation, violent language, and text-based hate speech don't count, or it all counts - for "antifa" as well as fascists. You can't claim fascists need to "actually get violent" to count as "breaking the law", and then moan about posters on a wall.

Fascism is a violent ideology. If posters on a wall count as inciting violence, so does literally just being a fascist.

EDIT

And just to tie this back to the topic for a second, to avoid the endless back-and-forth with the same exact posters who never seem to be afraid of fascists, but are very concerned with "antifa", we're all aware Stephen Miller (that guy from the White House, in a senior position) is undeniably a white nationalist, right?

That's common knowledge at this point, and hasn't slipped under anyone's radar?

 

[Patine]

"i don't have a valid solution that satisfies all the things i think need satisfying" is a discussion point, and probably one that would go down a lot better if you just said it, instead of resorting to dispensing your moral judgement from on high.

"i think people defending themselves from fascists will escalate into a blood-soaked warzone", however, is just a terrible attempt at hyperbole. An argument to absurdity, even. You're the one assuming there would be no limits. You're the one assuming that innocent people would be targeted. And yet, given the very real and current violence from the far-right, we have you saying literally nothing. We have ICE arresting legal US citizens for simply looking not white, and yet you insist fascism and white nationalism doesn't have roots in the current administration (or have done, in the past).

It's fine to admit you don't have a solution. That's not a weakness, that's a strength. But it has nothing to do with your laughable attempts at invoking the slippery slope fallacy every time somebody talks about dealing with fascists in a physical manner. Did you ever consider that people who want to oppose fascists in person are capable of doing so with moral strength and nuance, and don't just lash out randomly at people on the streets? Because you don't ever seem to consider this idea, which means from the offset you're not treating anyone who espouses violence against fascists as a level-headed person. That's bias, plain and simple. It's also ridiculously naive.


Is this the same journalist that has been repeatedly proven to lie about events as they happen? You're on about Andy Ngo, right? I'm pretty sure the last time he came up in a CFC thread it resulted in a billion page derail over defense of his palling about with a known far-right extremist group?

I made a mistake tagging you. But not for the reason YOU complained about. I'd forgotten what a word-twisting, manipulative, slanderous, disingenuous, and turnabout poster you constantly were. Other than obstensibly being anti-right-wing, you'd fit right in well with the style and approach of a co-host on one of those Fox News Talk Shows. I'm done with you.

 

[Zardnaar]

Fascists can be violent, and indeed at times are. White nationalist speech, by definition, is violent as well.

However, given that you seem to think evidence of "antifa" violence is some posters on a wall, I feel this is a completely pointless discussion to have with you. Either violence is literally hitting someone, and intimidation, violent language, and text-based hate speech don't count, or it all counts - for "antifa" as well as fascists. You can't claim fascists need to "actually get violent" to count as "breaking the law", and then moan about posters on a wall.

Fascism is a violent ideology. If posters on a wall count as inciting violence, so does literally just being a fascist.

EDIT

And just to tie this back to the topic for a second, to avoid the endless back-and-forth with the same exact posters who never seem to be afraid of fascists, but are very concerned with "antifa", we're all aware Stephen Miller (that guy from the White House, in a senior position) is undeniably a white nationalist, right?

That's common knowledge at this point, and hasn't slipped under anyone's radar?

You're really stretching the definition of violence here.

You don't see fascist stuff here. I think someone handed out some white nationalist type stuff at one of the universities a year or two ago.

I'm seeing these posters walking down the street. I don't see neo Nazis posters anywhere. Saw a different one the other day.

I have no problem with antifa existing but they smash up stuff for no good reason. I don't see how wrecking stuff helps combat fascism. It's just vandalism.

If a fascist crosses the line into violence or even how they word their B's in some countries then yeah charge then and arrest them.

They're still entitled to due process. Mr Nazi scumbag here should get the death penalty. They'll lock him up and throw away the key but he's in solitary confinement last I heard as they can't guarantee his safety in general prison population.

Wouldn't be to upset if he has an accident in the shower one day.

 

[Berzerker]

Is this the same journalist that has been repeatedly proven to lie about events as they happen? You're on about Andy Ngo, right? I'm pretty sure the last time he came up in a CFC thread it resulted in a billion page derail over defense of his palling about with a known far-right extremist group?

Attacking lying journalists is okay? Then its not fascism for right wing extremists to attack lying journalists. Thats not good news for all those media outlets lying for the 2 parties. Where is your proof he lied? I saw his interview on Rogan, he seemed honest enough to me.

 

[Lexicus]

If Trump accepts no limits on his power, as much so as Hitler, why does the Democratic Party of the United States still exist, why is there an actual election coming up in 2020, why are the big Socially Progressive, Anti-Trump talking heads still alive (or, at least, not incarcerated indefinitely for undefined charges, in hiding, or in exile abroad), and why are you free to complain so vociferously about him to me here on the Internet? I think there is, in truth, a BIG difference between the limits on the power of Hitler and Trump...

Yeah, and you've moved the goal posts between the beginning of this post and the end. To say that Trump and Hitler each accept no limits on their power is quite different from saying there actually are no limits on their power.

The short answer to your point is that the two figures exist in drastically different historical contexts. The US in 2017 is very different from Weimar Germany in 1933.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

tfw you aren't tagged as an extremist and feel left out but at the same time don't really want to be dragged into it so you passive aggressively poop-post about the situation

 

[Phrossack]

tfw you aren't tagged as an extremist and feel left out but at the same time don't really want to be dragged into it so you passive aggressively poop-post about the situation

I would be remiss to forget @hobbsyoyo, a Neo-Manichaean of the highest order, who doubtless wishes to DRENCH the streets in BLOOD due to his POINTLESS, idiotic, mindless, brainless, INANE, primitive, irrational fear of fascism, and, by daring to oppose me, revealed his irrational beliefs, and his sinister plot of character assassination against me, and indeed must be stalking me, for I heard a chirping sound like a bird outside my window yesterday and blame him, and the Neo-Manichaean organisation known as "CFC-OT" is plotting against me as a whole, so he is DOUBTLESS guilty himself, and I shall continue to tag all the vile conspirators until they SUBMIT to my COMMANDS, for I will assume they plot murder of all they deem "fascist," since I cannot in my vast wisdom comprehend any other form of "holding accountable," and their refusal to tolerate the growth of fascism is an INTOLERABLE threat, just as the growing influence of Stephen Miller, and the AfD, and the popularity of increasingly brutal measures towards anyone even suspected of the misdemeanour of illegal immigration, such as children, and their defense attorneys, and indeed anyone Border Patrol and ICE see who even appears suspiciously Hispanic, is overall a nuisance but not anything worth taking action about, for it does not threaten ME in any way, and is therefore unimportant, although it is a sign of the lesser intelligence of the primitive American people, but the point is, and remains, that I am CERTAIN that the vast Neo-Manichaean conspiracy here is PLOTTING doom, and death, and destruction, and RIVERS OF BLOOD, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the conspiracy, and is a FOX News-host-style, pigheaded, dunderheaded, inferior, DELUDED, Neo-Manichaean, idiotic, vapid, airheaded, vacuous, foolish, irrational, HYSTERICAL, overreacting, Roman-Empire-downfall-causing VANDAL and besides they stole my full stops and force me to combine ENTIRE POSTS into one or two sentences, and I shall pursue them to the ends of the forum, for they are lesser to me in wisdom, and rationality

 

[Berzerker]

sorry Patine, but thats funny stuff

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Let's change the subject away from Patine's thread-jack. Thank you.

 

[Gorbles]

You're really stretching the definition of violence here.

You don't see fascist stuff here. I think someone handed out some white nationalist type stuff at one of the universities a year or two ago.

I'm seeing these posters walking down the street. I don't see neo Nazis posters anywhere. Saw a different one the other day.

I have no problem with antifa existing but they smash up stuff for no good reason. I don't see how wrecking stuff helps combat fascism. It's just vandalism.

If a fascist crosses the line into violence or even how they word their B's in some countries then yeah charge then and arrest them.

They're still entitled to due process. Mr Nazi scumbag here should get the death penalty. They'll lock him up and throw away the key but he's in solitary confinement last I heard as they can't guarantee his safety in general prison population.

Wouldn't be to upset if he has an accident in the shower one day.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you, but just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're the one who said people need to "break the law". Are those posters breaking the law? In New Zealand, specifically? You raised them as some kind of terrible example of "antifa" (for some unknown reason, given that we weren't actually talking about "antifa" at all).

I've got one better. Should those posters be breaking the law? Fascists and white nationalists exist, factually. I don't care how few of them you think there are, they exist. Two posters isn't exactly evidence of a huge frothing army of "antifa", either. So numbers are irrelevant here - it's the concept I'm interested in discussing.

You seem to be more concerned that someone put up a couple of posters, than you are that even one white nationalist exists in NZ. Why? The posters haven't harmed you personally. The people who put up the posters haven't harmed you. Why aren't you calmly waiting for law enforcement to pick them up? That's your answer to any complaints anyone has about fascists or white supremacists. Why isn't it the answer here? Why do you have to go out of your way to show concern for "antifa"?

That's what I want to understand.

Attacking lying journalists is okay? Then its not fascism for right wing extremists to attack lying journalists. Thats not good news for all those media outlets lying for the 2 parties. Where is your proof he lied? I saw his interview on Rogan, he seemed honest enough to me.

He lied about the attack, is what I'm referencing. It was done to death in the other thread, and no minds were changed. I mean, you've already decided he didn't lie because "he seemed honest" to you. That's not evidence. That's your feelings, based on watching some dude you don't know on a monitor