Antifa rocks!

[Narz]

I'm saying I don't give a damn if Andy got beat, and I've said before I think he was intentionally cruising for this, then spewed crocodile tears just for PR for his side.

She was asking for it... look at what she was wearing...

He should be able to cruise all he wants without getting beaten.

No one is "asking for trouble" unless they throw the first punch.

And yea, right. Sam Harris is on 'my side'? He's a islamophobe

No.

believes in the IQ bell curve

Source?

He gave Trump the benefit of the doubt over Charlottesville.

? Source?

He's gone against BLM in an aside snide.

Meh. They deserve some criticism. Why so tribal?

and is melting on Trump because the left is getting to 'radical'. Good for him. But he ain't my people.

Melting on him?

 

[Estebonrober]

Like I asked on Spacebattles: Then what do the non-far right Right-wingers and Centrists suppose to do? All I'm hearing, from Harris, who already is 'both sides are wrong' and has gone from being strongly Anti-Trump to weakly letting him slide, along with figures like Milo, is that 'Wow, look at these Antifa being violent! How horrendous, Trump is def going to win!'.

Side note: Is he really thinking there aren't free Neo-Nazis or White Supremacists walking around and Antifa is fighting...innocent kids? Yea, there are a lot of them in Jail. But no one stays in jail forever. Operation White Christmas uncovered a whole White Supremacist criminal network across four biker gangs. The PNW is crawling with the Far-Right, Alt-Right, White Supremacists, and their ilk; and Sam Harris is acting like Portland is 'just' another college town full of peaceful people beset by two gangs, when the history is far deeper. There's a reason Rose City Antifa is the oldest one in the country.

At best Sam Harris sounds like a coddled, detached VSP, from who I hear a lot of complaining and not a lot of suggestions or answers.

Harris is known for both siding things. I don't even have to listen to know that bout him. Fundamentally the point of this thread is my point that they are not equal. I bolded the part of this statement because it is pertinent to the discussion. I know that goes completely over fox news host's heads since it involves reading actual history.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-history-portland/492035/


PORTLAND, Ore.— Victor Pierce has worked on the assembly line of a Daimler Trucks North America plant here since 1994. But he says that in recent years he’s experienced things that seem straight out of another time. White co-workers have challenged him to fights, mounted “hangman’s nooses” around the factory, referred to him as “boy” on a daily basis, sabotaged his work station by hiding his tools, carved swastikas in the bathroom, and written the word “******” on walls in the factory, according to allegations filed in a complaint to the Multnomah County Circuit Court in February of 2015.

When the state entered the union in 1859, for example, Oregon explicitly forbade black people from living in its borders, the only state to do so. In more recent times, the city repeatedly undertook “urban renewal” projects (such as the construction of Legacy Emanuel Hospital) that decimated the small black community that existed here. And racism persists today. A 2011 audit found that landlords and leasing agents here discriminated against black and Latino renters 64 percent of the time, citing them higher rents or deposits and adding on additional fees. In area schools, African American students are suspended and expelled at a rate four to five times higher than that of their white peers.


So yea maybe the tactic isn't right atm, but considering their surroundings. . .

 

[Estebonrober]

As he often does Sam Harris sums things up nicely.

Ok I listened to this nonsense. He has the context completely wrong and the actual event right. The context is critical to the event so therefore it is all wrong. It was originally a Proud Boy rally first off not an Antifa one. Antifa showed up because Proud Boys promote all sorts of racist borderline fascist nonsense. Ngo being there was obviously a firestorm in itself because of his long relationship with Quillette. Describing Quillete as centrist is in itself indicative of Harri's personal Overton window and therein lies the point. The entire US in the last 10 years has been dragged so far to the right and the undercurrent of racism has risen so high that it is choking on it now. I still do not defend the assault on Ngo, but I know why the sentiment is there and it is not insane.

 

[Rashiminos]

Maybe the location of the Overton Window is relative or socially constructed.

 

[bernie14]

@Narz... you do see now of course, that Harris is part of the problem, and you, as the numbskull teenager that you have made yourself out to be, are but a mindless follower....hopefully that AI you are hopefully wishing for will be available soon to straighten you out

 

[Estebonrober]

to the "antifa rocks" crowd, Harris just seems like a "race realist, fash adjacent"....did i get the newspeak right?

EDIT.. i forgot islamophobe..

His stuff on Islam is his only redeeming quality at all. A large part of Islam is tainted with the same sort of thought processes that the far right here indulge in, the irony is not lost on me.

 

[Estebonrober]

@Narz... you do see now of course, that Harris is part of the problem, and you, as the numbskull teenager that you have made yourself out to be, are but a mindless follower....hopefully that AI you are hopefully wishing for will be available soon to straighten you out

What is this petty garbage? He posted something. Its a legit take it's just wrong contextually. Do you agree with Harris's portrayal of the events? Or that all left wing media celebrated the attack?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

An unjustifiable attack — and a subsequent controversy spotlighting the militant left-wing group antifa.

 

[bernie14]

What is this petty garbage? He posted something. Its a legit take it's just wrong contextually. Do you agree with Harris's portrayal of the events? Or that all left wing media celebrated the attack?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

An unjustifiable attack — and a subsequent controversy spotlighting the militant left-wing group antifa.

I was cross referencing his post with his...Does a theory of psychology underpin your politics?...responses

 

[Narz]

Ok I listened to this nonsense. He has the context completely wrong and the actual event right. The context is critical to the event so therefore it is all wrong.

Assaulting & humiliating someone nonviolent is not excusable regardless of context.

His stuff on Islam is his only redeeming quality at all. A large part of Islam is tainted with the same sort of thought processes that the far right here indulge in, the irony is not lost on me.

You get points for that at least. For most on the far-left ridiculing Christianity is fair game but any criticism of Islam is off the table, it's nuts, they babble on about white-fragility, but radical-Muslims are about the most fragile mofos on the planet, you even draw a cartoon of their pedophile founder and they'll attempt to murder you.

 

[Rashiminos]

Harris won't be well received because not only is he paraphrasing the horseshoe theory (extremism leading to sociopathy), but he's defending the very norms of liberal society (eg civility) that the left is trying to uproot under the contention that they support the (racist/sexist/heteronormative) status quo.

 

[Hygro]

How is identifying her and who she is not a form of doxxing?

edit:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-antifa-death-threats-doxxing-quillette-a8966176.html

Hm he asked us to google names to see their writings. How is this doxxing if these people have their real names associated with online publications?

 

[Peuri]

Hm he asked us to google names to see their writings. How is this doxxing if these people have their real names associated with online publications?

It's not the same. This is how information laundering works. A makes a claim on Twitter that Y did x, because Y's action resembles x. B comes along and accept's A's characterisation of Y's actions and writes an article on some rag somewhere, because the editor wants some juicy rage clicks. Next comes C who cites B's article on Wikipedia about Y's actions, and on comes D, E and F, who try to fact check on Wikipedia, and accept that Y did x. Now Y did x in popular opinion. Bonus points for ideology N does x actions, therefore Y is N.

 

[Rashiminos]

All that's missing is the wikipedia editor executing a MITM attack.

 

[Peuri]

All that's missing is the wikipedia editor executing a MITM attack.

Well, the beauty in all this is that no one has to be intentionally wanting to launder the information. It arises naturally from the information overload we are bombarded with every day and an ideological commitment to believe that other guy is evil.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, the beauty in all this is that no one has to be intentionally wanting to launder the information. It arises naturally from the information overload we are bombarded with every day and an ideological commitment to believe that other guy is evil.

No one has to be intentionally wanting to, but several are. The right wing echo chamber has thrived on reporting on what is being reported on for years. A little known blog posts a bald faced lie. Three other little known blogs post "coverage" saying "this source is saying..." Of course they put no emphasis on the "this source is saying" part and their followers come away with the bald faced lie as "current events." In fairly short order Faux News is running an "investigative piece" examining "where this story comes from and whether it is true" that again repeats the story a dozen times and credits it as "being widely reported on internet sources" without ever giving any clear answer on the question of whether it is true. Prominent right wing talking heads start repeating the story publicly as "something they saw" and implying they saw it on a responsible source. And Breitbarf runs page after page of 'Person X says blah blah blah about <original bald faced lie>.' stories. By that point the bald faced lie is basic canon of the right wing universe, no matter how ludicrous it might be. Fox News definitely has been intentional about their part in the process, and it is the raison d'etre at Breitbarf.

 

[Rashiminos]

Would you say they're pouncing or seizing?

Oh good, I needed a reminder about how the sinclair debacle was spun into a symptom of Trump.

 

[Peuri]

No one has to be intentionally wanting to, but several are. The right wing echo chamber has thrived on reporting on what is being reported on for years. A little known blog posts a bald faced lie. Three other little known blogs post "coverage" saying "this source is saying..." Of course they put no emphasis on the "this source is saying" part and their followers come away with the bald faced lie as "current events." In fairly short order Faux News is running an "investigative piece" examining "where this story comes from and whether it is true" that again repeats the story a dozen times and credits it as "being widely reported on internet sources" without ever giving any clear answer on the question of whether it is true. Prominent right wing talking heads start repeating the story publicly as "something they saw" and implying they saw it on a responsible source. And Breitbarf runs page after page of 'Person X says blah blah blah about <original bald faced lie>.' stories. By that point the bald faced lie is basic canon of the right wing universe, no matter how ludicrous it might be. Fox News definitely has been intentional about their part in the process, and it is the raison d'etre at Breitbarf.

To be fair this happens on the other side of the isle too. Perhaps not to the same extent, but liberals or leftists are not exempt from this behavior. Surely places like Fox News started it, but it no longer has a monopoly on it.

 

[Rashiminos]

Not really sure that messaging can be broken down in partisan terms, but it is a thing.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The suggestion is to let Nazis grow out of being, well, Nazis. Surely there is a world outside of a rabid Jew hatery, and possibly there might be some ground where they could have the room and space to be slightly less Nazi. Baby steps.

Treat them closer to recovering cultists.

Again you put the onus on minorities to tolerate intolerance until the Nazis decide that hey minorities are hunan beings too.

You have this reoccurring pattern where you expect minorities to suffer what they will whilst you hope (and it is hope...) the bigots become less strident over time in their beliefs.

You offer no hope, no change, no reassurances to minorities that their needs and their rights and dignity will not be trampled on.

You defend the status quo, which you know to be harmful because in what world is a victim expected to hope that one day their oppressors will understand their plight, in the hope that one day society will change whilst simultaneously being reluctant to accelerate said change with laws to reflect this shift.

You defend the status quo and when pointed out to you how that puts a burden on minorities you don't want to know but you seen pretty keen on bending over backwards for people who are bigoted that I can only assume that you share some sort of latent sympathy and empathy with the latter but not the former, or it at leat supercedes the former and is am acceptable price to pay.

You know, putting the humanity of bigots before minorities.

 

[Rashiminos]

Again you put the onus on minorities to tolerate intolerance until the Nazis decide that hey minorities are hunan beings too.

You have this reoccurring pattern where you expect minorities to suffer what they will whilst you hope (and it is hope...) the bigots become less strident over time in their beliefs.

You offer no hope, no change, no reassurances to minorities that their needs and their rights and dignity will not be trampled on.

You defend the status quo, which you know to be harmful because in what world is a victim expected to hope that one day their oppressors will understand their plight, in the hope that one day society will change whilst simultaneously being reluctant to accelerate said change with laws to reflect this shift.

You defend the status quo and when pointed out to you how that puts a burden on minorities you don't want to know but you seen pretty keen on bending over backwards for people who are bigoted that I can only assume that you share some sort of latent sympathy and empathy with the latter but not the former, or it at leat supercedes the former and is am acceptable price to pay.

You know, putting the humanity of bigots before minorities.

No, I find people refusing to take the onus for motivating the changes they want to see a trifle bit comical. The status quo rests because often it is the path of least resistance. You find the added stress too much of the burden to bear, but the bigots you describe have less reason to even move it in your direction. If you can't tell the difference between me and them, or the similarity between you and them, I'm not sure I particularly want to help you move it, either. The last time we let this particular mosh pit get out of hand, tens of millions of people died in the most ludicrous ways.

You expect others to pay your portion of the price. If change is too much to suffer, it won't, in your world. Humanity seems to be something you have, but are unable to use.

(My problem isn't a particular valuing of the bigots. It's the collateral damage that's the tricky part. Hypothetically the rest of us would sleep better at night if we could arrange prize fights between antifa and fascists and keep their fights away from everything else, but blood sport isn't .. what's the word... oh right, legal. Most gambling isn't either. From the state of politics you can tell some of the cheering sections would be loud as hell.)

By all means, keep kicking the dog after it bites you. It might learn what that means.