Antifa rocks!

[Narz]

I'm curious whether you recognize the conflict in these two statements. I'm quite comfortable with the second one. People who in any way shape or form present as willing to use violence I will meet head on with violence, quite likely beyond their wildest imagination. If they don't want it, don't bring it. But that position leaves absolutely no room for a generality like "violence is unacceptable."

I'm talking about snack-talking not violence.

He started calling me a bigot and other nonsense out of the blue and then acted all hurt when I called it out. Glass houses, stones, etc.

Violence unprovoked is unacceptable. If you're protecting your family, friends or yourself it's all good in fact I celebrate it.

If you're out in the street like a hooligan trying to brawl you're an idiot.

Do you feel better now that you've gotten that all out?

Not really cuz you're not gonna listen and will be a perpetual victim with an unhappy life. Not really my problem but it's sad I cant help.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you're protecting your family, friends or yourself it's all good in fact I celebrate it.

How about strangers?

See, that's where you and Cloud slipped onto divergent paths. There are people in the US who, unlike you and I, are hunted just for being who they are. Antifa is protecting those people, even if they are strangers, and I am certainly willing to celebrate them for it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Actually, the divergence is more like at "Antifa is protecting those people" by throwing caustic milkshakes at people and beating journalists they don't like at events they don't like. Even events those damned arsehole police aren't killing enough people at.

If you're the worst sort of mulehole in the 99% and you get off on the 1% getting pounded, their instigating premptive vigilante violence is a wet dream. It's such a bad idea it beggars belief that non-99%-worst-arsewads support it and really calls into question honesty of presentation. It's got false flag written all over it.

 

[Narz]

@tim (weird cant seem to insert quotes in an edit)

I give props to people protecting the persecuted, housing am immigrant family, walking a kid to school in a bad neighborhood. Sure.

Acting like antifas are heroes tho... meh, I mean if I had to choose sides in a riot I'd choose their bullyboys over the ones on the other side but rioting in the streets is just gonna inspire backlash and if you're going out with fire in your blood looking to fight you're gonna start bashing first and asking questions later . The left are supposed to be the civilized ones.

I would hesitate to get involved in a fight between two strangers. I did break up a fight between two cabbies once. The fat one was beating the crap out of the skinny one. They were both 6" shorter than me tho, generally I don't get involved although I like to think if a bunch of people were jumping one guy I would intervene.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: I've noticed a certain rancor in the thread lately that is at odds with our happy little community. To that end, I would suggest that those of you who are bickering at each other, stop discussing each other and discuss the topic at hand. Thank you.

 

[Estebonrober]

@tim (weird cant seem to insert quotes in an edit)

I give props to people protecting the persecuted, housing am immigrant family, walking a kid to school in a bad neighborhood. Sure.

Acting like antifas are heroes tho... meh, I mean if I had to choose sides in a riot I'd choose their bullyboys over the ones on the other side but rioting in the streets is just gonna inspire backlash and if you're going out with fire in your blood looking to fight you're gonna start bashing first and asking questions later . The left are supposed to be the civilized ones.

I would hesitate to get involved in a fight between two strangers. I did break up a fight between two cabbies once. The fat one was beating the crap out of the skinny one. They were both 6" shorter than me tho, generally I don't get involved although I like to think if a bunch of people were jumping one guy I would intervene.

The bolded part is the important part, and the support I give antifa is I appreciate their existence in case the bolded part becomes inescapable. Which considering the chanting at the last Trump rally is more likely than ever. . .

 

[Patine]

I have to correct myself again, she wasn't killed for shoplifting, she was killed for attacking the clerk. But why did she put the OJ in her backpack? Can you explain that Cloud/Lex? Maybe she was swiping the OJ and paying for something else at the counter. It doesn't really matter, the clerk lost her right of self defense when the kid walked away. But it looks suspicious, I can see why the clerk thought she was a shoplifter. It sure looks that way on film.

@Berzerker, if I may ask, is your family ancestry originally from Albania, where vigilante law-enforcement, defending one's own land and family in however one deems necessary, upon one's own judgement at the time, and the centuries long family feuds that rise from that system famously called "Vendetta," because until Enver Hoxha's Communist regime after WW2, there was no meaningful government-provided or -applied law and order or justice in much of the country for many centuries? Is that your original family heritage before grandpa and gramma got on the boat to America, and where you learned these absolutely barbaric, backward, and savage social mores of justice?

Edit: And, for the second time, I didn't see the moderator note before typing that. My apologies.

 

[Berzerker]

"the clerk lost her right of self defense when the kid walked away."

you quoted that and ignored it to rant about vigilantism and barbarism?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Actually, the divergence is more like at "Antifa is protecting those people" by throwing caustic milkshakes at people and beating journalists they don't like at events they don't like. Even events those damned arsehole police aren't killing enough people at.

If you're the worst sort of mulehole in the 99% and you get off on the 1% getting pounded, their instigating premptive vigilante violence is a wet dream. It's such a bad idea it beggars belief that non-99%-worst-arsewads support it and really calls into question honesty of presentation. It's got false flag written all over it.

Even a cursory google search shows that the supposed concrete in milkshakes is nothing more than disinformation spread by right wing agitators.

Nevermind that concrete wouldn't set with any amount of sugar in it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, the discussion has very much veered to, join your militia, protect yourself, arm yourself, get licensing, we don't mind. The objections have been to assault and gang pounding the journalist, random violence, crowbaring old dude, and the person we're talking with is mostly you. The argument, thus far until now, at least not with me(I haven't been wading through it for 64 pages), has not been that antifa is not picking fights with protests and journalists it does not like, it has been a defense of these actions, a defense of preemptive violence. If the argument is not actually a defense of preemptive violence, the thing the objections are to, I would suspect that the argument is largely moot. It'd be a paradigm shift at this point.

Side point, the danger of diluted concrete is not that it would set up, it's that it would be significantly bad to get in somebody's eyes. It's something to throw at somebody if you want a chance to damage their eyesight. It's the only reason to add concrete to something in this fashion and throw it at somebody.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I prefer throwing cement bags.

 

[cardgame]

You seem to be missing the part where there was no concrete

 

[Farm Boy]

Not really, no. If the premises of the argument regarding preemptive violence is to change to one of false flags, then it is to change. Blindy milkshakes or gangbeatdowns or random crowbars or whatever.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not really, no. If the premises of the argument regarding preemptive violence is to change to one of false flags, then it is to change. Blindy milkshakes or gangbeatdowns or random crowbars or whatever.

I still think that flattening the perspective down to "preemptive violence" misses the point. If a sniper takes out a guy drawing down on someone with a handgun doesn't seem like the same 'preemptive' that busting that same guy in the head with a bat as he leaves his house is, but if he has made his intentions clear then maybe it is the same preemptive. What do we accept, and what do we call excessive? How much responsibility do we insist on in regards to "find another way"? And how do those demands shift if the guy the hunter with the handgun is looking for happens to be us?

I think that you, me, and Narz all look at this question from a perspective where we are, and always have been, pretty safe. Other people, due to their skin color, their gender, their lifestyle, don't have the comfort of that same level of general safety, so their perspective has to be different.

 

[Commodore]

The bolded part is the important part, and the support I give antifa is I appreciate their existence in case the bolded part becomes inescapable. Which considering the chanting at the last Trump rally is more likely than ever. . .

Melodramatic much? While you fret over a chant, your Antifa thugs are running riot in the streets attacking everyone that expresses even the slightest disagreement with their extremist politics.

I agree there is an increasing threat of politically motivated violence in the US, but it's not coming from conservatives. And before you try to bring up Charlottesville, the investigation afterwards determined that it was the counterprotestors (Antifa) that threw the first blows that caused the violence. Just because the conservative protestors won the fight though, Antifa tries to play the victim.

The main point though is Charlottesville wouldn't have turned out like it did if your Antifa thugs weren't so obsessed with being terrorists.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

How many people have antifa killed in comparison to right wing groups?

The answer is 0, but the same cannot be said for your fellow conservatives Commodore yet you ignore that so you can depict the former as s massive threat conveniently forgetting that people of your political persuasion have been killing people in the US for decades before antifa was even a thing.

 

[cardgame]

Melodramatic much? While you fret over a chant, your Antifa thugs are running riot in the streets attacking everyone that expresses even the slightest disagreement with their extremist politics.

I agree there is an increasing threat of politically motivated violence in the US, but it's not coming from conservatives. And before you try to bring up Charlottesville, the investigation afterwards determined that it was the counterprotestors (Antifa) that threw the first blows that caused the violence. Just because the conservative protestors won the fight though, Antifa tries to play the victim.

The main point though is Charlottesville wouldn't have turned out like it did if your Antifa thugs weren't so obsessed with being terrorists.

Charlottesville attracted Swastika-flying genuine neo-nazis and that deserved to be counter-protested. Maybe they shouldn't be so obsessed with being murderers.

 

[Commodore]

How many people have antifa killed in comparison to right wing groups?

The answer is 0, but the same cannot be said for your fellow conservatives Commodore yet you ignore that so you can depict the former as s massive threat conveniently forgetting that people of your political persuasion have been killing people in the US for decades before antifa was even a thing.

Using whataboutism to justify your absolutely abhorrent behavior is pretty low. If you kill my mother that doesn't give me the right to assault your uncle. That's why we have things like courts and laws.

 

[Commodore]

Charlottesville attracted Swastika-flying genuine neo-nazis and that deserved to be counter-protested. Maybe they shouldn't be so obsessed with being murderers.

Not saying counter-protesting isn't allowed. Just saying if you start a fight, you can't play the victim later on when you lose that fight.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think that you, me, and Narz all look at this question from a perspective where we are, and always have been, pretty safe. Other people, due to their skin color, their gender, their lifestyle, don't have the comfort of that same level of general safety, so their perspective has to be different.

To which the response has over and over and over been been, join the little anarchist militia, plan and practice to defend one's self. Go get permits that allow you to do so vigorously. If other people are pretending to be you and smashing randoms with crowbars like a bunch of useless turds that need deleted from society, let us know that is happening. Useless turds that smash randoms with crowbars should be deleted from society. You have our support on that. So much so, that in the face of lowest common denominator idiocy, we even support creating institutions that will forever be imperfect and problematic because of the nature of their work, specifically to hit those turds with "compliance tools" in reaction. So much so that many of us support the right of people to shoot back in reaction if necessary.

People who start cracking heads at protests and beating journalists deserve removed. The person in your example deserves removed. I know there are dangerous fools that are otherwise politically and personally aligned, they deserve removed. But not for pre-crime bull****. That is actual authoritarian society destroying anarchist dipwadery. It's the wish and desire of violent men, rapists, and the worst of man.

I'm more sympathetic than most here are to militiamen. More sympathetic than you are, qualified by the people you have decided that you do not like. But it will still run into limits. Beating journalists on the street, hacks or not, well exceeds the line. Was that false flag? Should I reorient my judgement of the event based on the actors responsible?