Quebec city:
http://tinyurl.com/y84kkxut
http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2017/08/20/deux-manifestations-attendues-a-quebec
Boston:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2017/aug/20/boston-rally
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/19/boston-protest-free-speech-rally
It's a good way to convince everyone about the "peaceful" intentions of the left. Violently attack the police and the anti-immigration protesters who aren't committing any act of violence. That is very convincing.
In both case, the number of counter protesters dwarfs the anti-immigration crowd. Hadn't it been for violence, their message would have been heard and the anti-immigration crowd would have simply looked like fools.
Do you want to give it a rest?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2017, 03:05:59 PM
Do you want to give it a rest?
Yeah a bit odd given the official Boston gov't position on the Boston demonstration.
http://www.wcvb.com/article/man-driving-forklift-falls-through-sidewalk-into-underground-garage/12038359
QuoteOf the estimated 40,000 attendees, Boston Police said 33 were arrested for charges including assault and battery on police officers. Three people were found wearing ballistic vests, and one of those was armed, Police Commissioner William Evans said.
"99.9 percent of the people here were here for the right reason, and that is to fight bigotry and hate," Evans said.
"I want to thank everyone who came here to express themselves in such a positive, great manner today," said Mayor Marty Walsh.
Nobody doubts there are violent far left people out there.
As an issue they are however nothing compared to the far right
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-trump-gets-wrong-about-antifa/537048/
Quote
For starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn't perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do. It's no coincidence that it was a Nazi sympathizer—and not an antifa activist—who committed murder in Charlottesville. According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent
From the Boston gallery:
QuoteWhile there were isolated cases of white nationalists and rally-goers being threatened, or chased by counter-protesters, these instances were largely stopped by other counter-protesters, who protected them.
Why do we need to be peaceful?
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2017, 03:14:03 PM
According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent
That doesn't make any sense. The murder of five cops last year by a BLM supporter would itself almost be 2 percent of that total. There were other political murders by leftists this year too. Somehow I don't think these and others are being counted.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2017, 03:11:14 PM
Of the estimated 40,000 attendees, Boston Police said 33 were arrested for charges including assault and battery on police officers. Three people were found wearing ballistic vests, and one of those was armed, Police Commissioner William Evans said.
I suspect very few of those 40,000 were Antifa members, so why is viper37 wrong to imply that Antifa were violent?
Antifa seems to me to be a vigilante group out to save us from fascism because the police are incapable. Vigilantism of any stripe is dangerous. I am not sure what else needs to be said really.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 20, 2017, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2017, 03:14:03 PM
According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent
That doesn't make any sense. The murder of five cops last year by a BLM supporter would itself almost be 2 percent of that total. There were other political murders by leftists this year too. Somehow I don't think these and others are being counted.
According to the ADL they do include the police murders: https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016
If you don't believe them, the report is available via the link I posted, but the summary explicitly mentions the recent police murders. The report itself, however, also calls out 2016 as being unusual in the number of murders not being dominated by right wing extremists.
Yeah but Antifa (and BLM) provides the necessary 'whataboutism' cover. Tamas explained all about how that worked in Hungary. Whatever your opponents accuse you of, accuse them of the same thing. I have seen memes saying that Antifa is the 'armed wing of the Democratic Party' now. It is uncanny how it works just like Tamas said.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 11:17:02 PM
Yeah but Antifa (and BLM) provides the necessary 'whataboutism' cover. Tamas explained all about how that worked in Hungary. Whatever your opponents accuse you of, accuse them of the same thing. I have seen memes saying that Antifa is the 'armed wing of the Democratic Party' now. It is uncanny how it works just like Tamas said.
They'll do that no matter what though. Your American rightists have a long history of taking their own sins and claiming the left has them too - seems to me the vigour with which they do so is unrelated to any factual basis (sometimes there is one, sometimes it seems entirely manufactured).
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 11:17:02 PM
Yeah but Antifa (and BLM) provides the necessary 'whataboutism' cover. Tamas explained all about how that worked in Hungary. Whatever your opponents accuse you of, accuse them of the same thing. I have seen memes saying that Antifa is the 'armed wing of the Democratic Party' now. It is uncanny how it works just like Tamas said.
Worked for Putin before that. Or even Soviets, for that matter.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 20, 2017, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2017, 03:14:03 PM
According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent
That doesn't make any sense. The murder of five cops last year by a BLM supporter would itself almost be 2 percent of that total. There were other political murders by leftists this year too. Somehow I don't think these and others are being counted.
2% of 372 is 7-8.
An incident where 5 are dead fits.
Also even though that incident is included for the left it wasn't BLMs doing, it was a black nationalist
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 20, 2017, 09:59:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2017, 03:11:14 PM
Of the estimated 40,000 attendees, Boston Police said 33 were arrested for charges including assault and battery on police officers. Three people were found wearing ballistic vests, and one of those was armed, Police Commissioner William Evans said.
I suspect very few of those 40,000 were Antifa members, so why is viper37 wrong to imply that Antifa were violent?
Because it seems like a distraction. The actions of a few throwing rocks and urine distracts you from the many thousands who participated in what Boston's government says was a pretty great demonstration of American values?
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2017, 01:10:27 AM
2% of 372 is 7-8.
An incident where 5 are dead fits.
Sure, that's why I said almost.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 11:17:02 PM
Whatever your opponents accuse you of, accuse them of the same thing.
If they are doing the same thing, it's a fair accusation.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 21, 2017, 02:07:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 11:17:02 PM
Whatever your opponents accuse you of, accuse them of the same thing.
If they are doing the same thing, it's a fair accusation.
Um...no that was not the point at all. I am tempted here just to restate myself again a different way but because I am not clear why you thought this had anything to do with what I was I saying would you mind saying what you think I was saying?
Semi-related-- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2017, 09:44:08 PM
Why do we need to be peaceful?
no reason at all. destroy everything, kill everyone who resists. :)
Just don't be surprised that people start arming themselves to be protected from the thugs you support.
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2017, 08:20:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2017, 09:44:08 PM
Why do we need to be peaceful?
no reason at all. destroy everything, kill everyone who resists. :)
Just don't be surprised that people start arming themselves to be protected from the thugs you support.
Far as I can tell, the cops are already armed so they should be equipped to deal with rocks and urine. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 08:09:32 AM
Semi-related-- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html
I figured this would be coming here eventually. I thought he had a fine haircut.
QuoteFor starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn't perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do. It's no coincidence that it was a Nazi sympathizer—and not an antifa activist—who committed murder in Charlottesville. According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent
This is the study that I looked at for those numbers: https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/MurderAndExtremismInUS2016.pdf (https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/MurderAndExtremismInUS2016.pdf)
If that's the correct study, then I think the statistic quoted in the article is seriously misleading. The study looks to
extremist-related killings, not
politically-motivated killings. In general, it looks like the vast majority of the killings are not ideologically motivated. For example, the study would count a skinhead killing another skinhead over meth as an extremist-related killing, since the skinheads are extremists. Obviously this is significantly different from a skinhead targeting and killing someone because of their race/religion. This would skew the statistics to make political violence look more common than it is, and also skew the statistics toward right-wing extremist since "whites-only" skinhead/Aryan Nation gangs are generally counted as right-wing extremists, but groups like the Black Gangster Disciples or MS-13 are not counted as extremist at all (though tough to see how they could be counted as left or right-wing).
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 08:09:32 AM
Semi-related-- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html
I figured this would be coming here eventually. I thought he had a fine haircut.
Strange that one of his priorities was to take photos of it to put on twitter.
Kleves - the ALD doc you linked to notes the limitations:
QuoteThe main limitation of cross-movement comparisons is that extremist connections to killings are easier to determine for some movements than for others. For example, white supremacists, who frequently sport many racist and white supremacist tattoos, or who may be documented as white supremacists by gang investigators or corrections officials, are often more easily identifiable. In contrast, it may be more difficult for police or media to identify, say, anti-government extremist associations that a suspect might have. This issue
comes up most often with non-ideological killings rather than ideologically-motivated ones. It is fair to say that nonideological murders committed by extremists other than white supremacists are probably underrepresented here.
In addition, because murders that occur behind bars often get little or no reporting by the media, and are typically not publicized by prison officials, prison-based violence by all extremist movements is definitely under-represented
Note that while the first factor would bias WS violence upwards, the second factor might bias it downward.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 10:48:04 PM
Antifa seems to me to be a vigilante group out to save us from fascism because the police are incapable. Vigilantism of any stripe is dangerous. I am not sure what else needs to be said really.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 11:17:02 PM
Yeah but Antifa (and BLM) provides the necessary 'whataboutism' cover. Tamas explained all about how that worked in Hungary. Whatever your opponents accuse you of, accuse them of the same thing. I have seen memes saying that Antifa is the 'armed wing of the Democratic Party' now. It is uncanny how it works just like Tamas said.
That is one problem, of course. One of the other problem being that is untrue that blacks are more targetted by cops than other. The data does not support BLM's claims for violent encounters with police officers.
Link (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiNjIGDt-jVAhWG7YMKHQtBBCoQFggsMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.yale.edu%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Farea%2Fworkshop%2Fleo%2Fleo16_fryer.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHhqcEI1JdDuhAbRvvB5jYXWbUhpw)
That's for BLM.
The other problem in general, is described right here with Grey Fox and Jacob's attitude: They don't care. Whatever violence is used by the far left, the mainstream left will almost always find a justification for it. "Capitalism is violence in itself, we must resist by force". "Nazis are violent and anti-democratic we must use force". "The guy looked like a nazi". "Blacks are subjected to police violence". "The police protects nazis". "They're scabs". "They refuse to follow us". "They're not with us". "They're rich". "They're English Canadians".
Unlike the leftists, I don't believe Gangs of New York is the ideal way to settle differences.
As distasteful as racism is, so long as they remain peaceful, racists have the rights to express themselves.
Freedom of speech is essential for our society, and that means accepting distateful stuff.
I understand the situation in the US is different, since the new President has changed tone and has dismantled the special FBI unit investigating such groups for domestic terrorism.
But in Canada? In Quebec? What reasons they did have to sack the city? The group was only anti illegal immigration. No white power stuff. No racist slogans. They're certainly hiding something and they're quite secretive about their actions, but that's no reason to physically attack them yet.
You may disagree with their speech, but that's no reason to trash the city, excuse their behavior, minimize their actions or even promote it by saying it was justified. Yet, with the left, they always excuse such behaviors because it's for the cause.
Frankly, Donald Trump aside, how many Canadian and American mainstream politicians (those elected to office) ever excused violent behaviour from the rigth? Or said something to the effect: "Violence is not a solution, but..." followed by a variation of: they were provoked/they suffer violence everyday by the system ?
I can't remember of any.
And please, don't tell me like GF will try that the right or the mysterious rich hold all the power. Justin Trudeau's Liberal party is virtually the same as the current NDP. Québec Solidaire controls the center of Montreal with a constant rise in votes in the metropolitan area and last time the PQ held power, their economic agenda was totally the same as QS. The Quebec Liberal Party follows the same pattern since Robert Bourassa in 1985: a few minor cuts for the first two years, massive public spending for the two next, status quo for the next mandate.
As soon as a high ranking union member is under investigation, the government orders a shutdown to avoid "provocation". When leftists destroys the city once per century as it looks, they always find their cheerleaders. Now in the US, they are attacking people who only look like nazi. This fucking witch hunt has got to stop. And it won't so long as there are people excusing their indecent behaviour, the same way Donald Trump is doing with the KKK scumbags. When you use a soft tone with extremists, they only get bolder with time.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 08:20:42 AM
Far as I can tell, the cops are already armed so they should be equipped to deal with rocks and urine. :hmm:
If the left is totally justified to use violence because they feel the police apparently protects the neo nazi scums, than I am totally justified to use violence because I feel the police apparently protects the far left scums. :)
We will all be better once we're armed to the teeth and confront one another everywhere :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2017, 09:25:09 AM
Unlike the leftists, I don't believe Gangs of New York is the ideal way to settle differences.
I guess I missed the mainstream politicians calling for vigilante mobs. Yet you state this as a fact.
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2017, 09:29:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 08:20:42 AM
Far as I can tell, the cops are already armed so they should be equipped to deal with rocks and urine. :hmm:
If the left is totally justified to use violence because they feel the police apparently protects the neo nazi scums, than I am totally justified to use violence because I feel the police apparently protects the far left scums. :)
We will all be better once we're armed to the teeth and confront one another everywhere :)
That is the basis of Antifa's reason to exist which is obviously dangerous nonsense. I was not aware anybody was claiming this was good besides themselves though.
I am not entirely sure what the argument is. While neo-Nazis are certainly undesirable, it is also highly undesirable to use violence to stop their marches or rallies. Any violence used should be strictly for self-defence, or defence of others.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 08:09:32 AM
Semi-related-- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html
I figured this would be coming here eventually. I thought he had a fine haircut.
One of our outspoken local quasi-Antifa types sports the same haircut. Dunno if it's hipster irony or what.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 09:50:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 08:09:32 AM
Semi-related-- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html
I figured this would be coming here eventually. I thought he had a fine haircut.
One of our outspoken local quasi-Antifa types sports the same haircut. Dunno if it's hipster irony or what.
He is a Nazi agent provocateur!
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2017, 09:29:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 08:20:42 AM
Far as I can tell, the cops are already armed so they should be equipped to deal with rocks and urine. :hmm:
If the left is totally justified to use violence because they feel the police apparently protects the neo nazi scums, than I am totally justified to use violence because I feel the police apparently protects the far left scums. :)
We will all be better once we're armed to the teeth and confront one another everywhere :)
What you are missing is that the right side is already armed to the gills. Those militias in Charlottesville wren't on the left.
Quote from: Kleves on August 21, 2017, 08:50:02 AM
QuoteFor starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn't perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do. It's no coincidence that it was a Nazi sympathizer—and not an antifa activist—who committed murder in Charlottesville. According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent
This is the study that I looked at for those numbers: https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/MurderAndExtremismInUS2016.pdf (https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/MurderAndExtremismInUS2016.pdf)
If that's the correct study, then I think the statistic quoted in the article is seriously misleading. The study looks to extremist-related killings, not politically-motivated killings. In general, it looks like the vast majority of the killings are not ideologically motivated. For example, the study would count a skinhead killing another skinhead over meth as an extremist-related killing, since the skinheads are extremists. Obviously this is significantly different from a skinhead targeting and killing someone because of their race/religion. This would skew the statistics to make political violence look more common than it is, and also skew the statistics toward right-wing extremist since "whites-only" skinhead/Aryan Nation gangs are generally counted as right-wing extremists, but groups like the Black Gangster Disciples or MS-13 are not counted as extremist at all (though tough to see how they could be counted as left or right-wing).
I'll have to look into that.
Though, the far left are infamous for how very fragmented they are. They often seem to hate the 'wrong sort' of far leftist more than they hate the right. Surely if the far left were just as violent you'd see a lot of examples of inter-doctrinal killings between different strands of communist?
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 09:38:26 AM
That is the basis of Antifa's reason to exist which is obviously dangerous nonsense. I was not aware anybody was claiming this was good besides themselves though.
French article (http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201708/21/01-5126215-le-porte-parole-de-la-manifestation-contre-la-meute-sabstient-de-condamner-la-violence.php)
QuoteMais Pablo Roy-Rojas s'abstient de condamner les agissements d'un groupe de militants d'extrême gauche, dont plusieurs étaient masqués.
« Ce que je condamne, c'est la situation dans laquelle on est. Celle où il y a l'extrême droite qui est violente et dangereuse, et où la gauche, elle, doit répliquer. Certains groupes de gauche, et certaines personnes, sentent le besoin de répliquer de cette façon-là », a-t-il affirmé à La Presse lundi.
But Pablo Roy-Rojas abstain from condeming the actions or a far left militant group, of wich many were masked.
"What I condemn is the situation we're in. The one where there is the extreme right who is violent and dangerous, and the left, she must retaliate. Some leftist groups, and certain people, feel the need to retaliate this way," she said to La Presse on MondayThat's the exact same reasoning used by leftist politicians everytime it happens.
That guy is not a politician he is some kind of activist spokesman. And he seems like he sucks.
By the way there is extreme right wing violence going on in Quebec?
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 09:50:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 08:09:32 AM
Semi-related-- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html
I figured this would be coming here eventually. I thought he had a fine haircut.
One of our outspoken local quasi-Antifa types sports the same haircut. Dunno if it's hipster irony or what.
He is a Nazi agent provocateur!
Hiding in plain sight! He's whiter than I am. Dude is straight-up wacko-- crazy eyes and all.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 10:10:07 AM
Hiding in plain sight! He's whiter than I am. Dude is straight-up wacko-- crazy eyes and all.
Are we talking like Andrew McCarthy crazy eyes?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2tLNWYuOhsg%2FU7Yf-RQ6OII%2FAAAAAAAAHLA%2FkTRc61Xx4Rc%2Fs1600%2FMcCarthy.PNG&hash=80e6b9c638b91075bf7cfc8bccaff6d4bbef1ba0)
:ph34r:
Wait, a city was sacked in Quebec?
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 10:17:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 10:10:07 AM
Hiding in plain sight! He's whiter than I am. Dude is straight-up wacko-- crazy eyes and all.
Are we talking like Andrew McCarthy crazy eyes?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2tLNWYuOhsg%2FU7Yf-RQ6OII%2FAAAAAAAAHLA%2FkTRc61Xx4Rc%2Fs1600%2FMcCarthy.PNG&hash=80e6b9c638b91075bf7cfc8bccaff6d4bbef1ba0)
:ph34r:
Worse.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153074852786848&set=pb.685606847.-2207520000.1503329586.&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152881441721848&set=pb.685606847.-2207520000.1503329586.&type=3&theater
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 09:50:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 08:09:32 AM
Semi-related-- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html
I figured this would be coming here eventually. I thought he had a fine haircut.
One of our outspoken local quasi-Antifa types sports the same haircut. Dunno if it's hipster irony or what.
The high fade with length has been a men's hair fashion thingy for the last few years. Sure, Ammon Gothe and your average fave-rave SS officer-about-town sported it, but so did Clark Gable, Douglas Fairbanks and Cab Calloway.
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20882954_10214252508093241_2624759007923017502_n.jpg?oh=01fd4f2e746f86323dee34ae2ec91621&oe=5A3031D8)
An encouraging sign that the conflict is ideological rather than wholly identitarian. :)
Quote from: 11B4V on August 21, 2017, 12:34:44 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20882954_10214252508093241_2624759007923017502_n.jpg?oh=01fd4f2e746f86323dee34ae2ec91621&oe=5A3031D8)
something went wrong there.... ?
:lol:
I guess this picture shows a left wing victory? Everyone enjoying each other's culture in peace?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 21, 2017, 01:04:33 PM
An encouraging sign that the conflict is ideological rather than wholly identitarian. :)
Did you just assume their identity?
Quote from: 11B4V on August 21, 2017, 12:34:44 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20882954_10214252508093241_2624759007923017502_n.jpg?oh=01fd4f2e746f86323dee34ae2ec91621&oe=5A3031D8)
They got their baggage mixed up at the airport. How fortunate that they ran into each other later that afternoon.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 21, 2017, 01:04:33 PM
An encouraging sign that the conflict is ideological rather than wholly identitarian. :)
Did you just assume their identity?
Transracialism isn't allowed, as demonstrated by the reaction to that confused woman in Oregon. Granted, the individual on the right could be a very white-passing person of color, but insofar as 'white-passing' is an identity in itself, I'm still ok. :)
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 10:08:08 AM
By the way there is extreme right wing violence going on in Quebec?
Outside the heads of the left? No.
To be honest, there are occasional vandalism against mosque, there was the terror attack last winter against the Quebec mosque, but nothing indicating a sudden rise in extreme right wing.
Due to the high numbers (over 6000 now and likely 8000 by the end of the week) of Haitian refugees illegally crossing the border to claim refugee status here combined with the pressure we had by rushing through the admittance of so many Syrian refugees without the promised Federal resource, there is a certain resentment that is easily felt. Cornwall has had 300 and they're starting to worry. Wait until there's 5-6000 there and you'll see the same thing as in Quebec, a rise in xenophobic comments made online and a couple of protests against illegal immigration.
But overt racism, as in KKK white supremacists attitude? Right wing thugs beating Arabs, Blacks or Jews? No. The only violence comes from the left, it's the only way they express themselves.
This painting was commissionned by then Québec Solidiare co-chief, Amir Kadir:
http://blogues.lapresse.ca/lagace/files/2012/06/Mise-en-demeure-420x310.jpg
It represent a dead Jean Charest, then Premier, at his feet.
That tells you how these guys think.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 09:55:34 AM
What you are missing is that the right side is already armed to the gills. Those militias in Charlottesville wren't on the left.
What you are missing is that the left side is arming up to the gills as well.
Here's one for you, Viper:
Houston man arrested, accused of attempting to blow up Confederate statue (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/us/houston-confederate-statue-attempted-vandalism/index.html)
You've got to admit, they never do anything halfway in Texas. :alberta:
Quote from: Monoriu on August 21, 2017, 09:39:58 AM
I am not entirely sure what the argument is. While neo-Nazis are certainly undesirable, it is also highly undesirable to use violence to stop their marches or rallies. Any violence used should be strictly for self-defence, or defence of others.
Well, I agree with you and Valmy on this. But some other posters seem to think that political violence is justified if it's by someone on their side of the ideological spectrum.
Quote from: dps on August 21, 2017, 06:00:44 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 21, 2017, 09:39:58 AM
I am not entirely sure what the argument is. While neo-Nazis are certainly undesirable, it is also highly undesirable to use violence to stop their marches or rallies. Any violence used should be strictly for self-defence, or defence of others.
Well, I agree with you and Valmy on this. But some other posters seem to think that political violence is justified if it's by someone on their side of the ideological spectrum.
Everyone thinks that. They just draw the line in a different place.
I.e., I would support civil war in X circumstances.
Hell, supporting the status quo, which is upheld by the state's monopolization of violence is an endorsemnet of violence for political ends.
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2017, 03:12:43 PM
To be honest, there are occasional vandalism against mosque, there was the terror attack last winter against the Quebec mosque, but nothing indicating a sudden rise in extreme right wing.
How many "lefitsts" according to your capacious definition, killed anyone in a politically motivated attack in the last five years?
The attack against the mosque in Quebec City left six persons dead, and eight injured. Last January. It's almost as if it never happened, in your world.
That you treat it as a footnote, in your usual rush to indict "the left" is pretty fucking disgusting.
No, that's not it Oex. Viper isn't forgetting it, he just doesn't think it's as important as economic destruction.
While the right isn't being overtly violent it is passively violent & being intimidating. The only thing to do with a Nazi is too punch him in the face.
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2017, 03:12:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 10:08:08 AM
By the way there is extreme right wing violence going on in Quebec?
Outside the heads of the left? No.
To be honest, there are occasional vandalism against mosque, there was the terror attack last winter against the Quebec mosque, but nothing indicating a sudden rise in extreme right wing.
Due to the high numbers (over 6000 now and likely 8000 by the end of the week) of Haitian refugees illegally crossing the border to claim refugee status here combined with the pressure we had by rushing through the admittance of so many Syrian refugees without the promised Federal resource, there is a certain resentment that is easily felt. Cornwall has had 300 and they're starting to worry. Wait until there's 5-6000 there and you'll see the same thing as in Quebec, a rise in xenophobic comments made online and a couple of protests against illegal immigration.
But overt racism, as in KKK white supremacists attitude? Right wing thugs beating Arabs, Blacks or Jews? No. The only violence comes from the left, it's the only way they express themselves.
This painting was commissionned by then Québec Solidiare co-chief, Amir Kadir:
http://blogues.lapresse.ca/lagace/files/2012/06/Mise-en-demeure-420x310.jpg
It represent a dead Jean Charest, then Premier, at his feet.
That tells you how these guys think.
Sorry, complete BS. Where's your head at.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 21, 2017, 07:29:04 PM
No, that's not it Oex. Viper isn't forgetting it, he just doesn't think it's as important as economic destruction.
I don't understand it either. Maybe viper really really likes bank windows or something.
I know this will convince no-one to change their mind on anything re: Antifa, but here's a link on leftist anti fascists joining Kurds to fight ISIS:
https://itsgoingdown.org/right-urges-fear-refugees-antifa-fighting-isis/
I find the term "Antifa" annoying. It's the kind of word that aggravates and alienates the average Joe America. Sounds too much like "Intifada" or something else suspiciously furriner.
My dearest Honeykitten,
I have arrived at the front to battle the leftist menace. I squeed with delight as I was given my very own torch for the night time rally! The day after I shall hold up the scared Sothern Cross as we battled the subhuman scum.
Thank you for packing my Capri Suns and Lunchables in my backpack. Those victuals will sustain my confederate fervor. Also, thank you for washing my anime body pillow.
Regards,
Col. Lettow
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nRjeMSwkGqA%2FTjY-nvP7_DI%2FAAAAAAAAAg4%2FobL_wwlSURM%2Fs1600%2Fdoggonesouth42.jpg&hash=36c5db114ef1c116f1b81156ce2f2154e3dbfa05)
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 21, 2017, 06:47:51 PM
How many "lefitsts" according to your capacious definition, killed anyone in a politically motivated attack in the last five years?
https://www.csdconstruction.qc.ca/deux-scaphandriers-se-font-couper-loxygene/
Almost killed two by cutting the divers' oxygen supply.
100 dead in Venuzeula (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/27/death-toll-in-venezuela-civil-unrest-hits-100.html)
The Human cost of the Cuban revolution (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article118282148.html)
That does not prevent people to cheer for Maduro or the Cuban regime. Back in the 60s and 70s, we had a lot of marxists teachers and vocal supporters. That was freedom of speech. Even if it was distateful.
But right wing speech? Someone dares questions border security? Immigration quotas? NAZIS! HANG HIM!
Fuck that bullshit.
Freedom of speech is for everyone. Not just the marxists and the wannabe revolutionaries.
There was a bomb threat yesterday at Complexe G. Hint: it wasn't the far right.
Quote
The attack against the mosque in Quebec City left six persons dead, and eight injured. Last January. It's almost as if it never happened, in your world.
And last year, 2 soldiers died, and a lot more could have died had his weapon not malfunctionned. By your rationale, we should be rounding up muslims and beating them up for suspected radicalism.
Quote
That you treat it as a footnote, in your usual rush to indict "the left" is pretty fucking disgusting.
I never treated it as a footnote, and I posted about it when it happenned and I've always said it was horrible. Using it as a political argument to shut down any kind of rational discussion about immigration quotas, integration of immigrants, respect of our borders, and lumping everyone who dares discuss issues like this as facists like you and Jacob are doing is disgusting.
One individual got radicalized by listening to US medias. He received zero support or excuses from politicians or radio hosts or any public figure. Yet, whenever leftist violence occurs, you all look away and pretend nothing happenned.
One anti immigration protests and it's a rise if extreme right wing movements according to Montreal media. Maybe they should concentrate on the violent thugs that came from their neck of the woods to sack Quebec city?
Will you not condemn the violent actions on your side? So far, you have refused to do so. Jacob and Sbr were quite vocal in supporting such violence, Sbr was willing to pay to see a nazi killed, but you remain silent.
Again, what is so fucking hard in denouncing violence from all sides when it occurs? Even the fucking Republicans condemned the terrorist attack of Charlottesville. Even Ryan managed to do it. But on the left side, when there's a violent protest, it's total silence. Or Donald Trump like comments.
Once again, you mix everything.
I'll only say this. La Meute is not a group dedicated to "discussing legitimate issues". It's a collection of authoritarian xenophobes and racists. They have been for years, and they have used this pretext to normalize their speech and existence. Only recently, they intervened directly in that referendum down the project of the Muslim cemetery.
Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends? No. But if you cant see beyond your usual hatred, and confusion of everything "left", and transform that incident into support for groups like La Meute, you need to rethink your political definition. This is not mainstream right. This is racist far-right.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2017, 08:34:09 AM
Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends?
:blink:
Khan Noonien Singh....? :o
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trekcore.com%2Fspecials%2Falbums%2Frare%2Farticle28%2Fkhan_noonien_singh_1996.jpg&hash=0753e4c4228d4a70c8b37e45512b3d03beb94b53)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2017, 08:43:20 PM
My dearest Honeykitten,
I have arrived at the front to battle the leftist menace. I squeed with delight as I was given my very own torch for the night time rally! The day after I shall hold up the scared Sothern Cross as we battled the subhuman scum.
Thank you for packing my Capri Suns and Lunchables in my backpack. Those victuals will sustain my confederate fervor. Also, thank you for washing my anime body pillow.
Regards,
Col. Lettow
^_^
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2017, 08:34:09 AM
La Meute is not a group dedicated to "discussing legitimate issues". It's a collection of authoritarian xenophobes and racists.
Yes they are xenophobes and racists. Rambo Gauthier is part of them. So was another FTQ Construction guy now barred from my Facebook.
But for now, in public, they haven't overstepped the boundaries of what is acceptable. No one has received death threats from anyone in La Meute as far as I can tell. If they had, the Montreal media would have been all over it.
My opinion on the subject is close to that of Joseph Facal:
http://www.journaldequebec.com/2017/08/22/la-meute
they have committed no violent act. They do act like an authoritarian group, but that is no different from the hard left.
Something you still fail to grasp. For fuck sake, cutting the oxygen supply of workers who refused to join in their illegal strike was not enough? Did they actually need to kill them before you realize that radicals exists both left and right of the spectrum?
Last week-end the antifa rented buses from Montreal to come to Quebec city and trash the town. Did the organizers even tried to stop them? Condemn them? Nope. Nothing. Yet, just like Taillefer, you're asking from any moderate right wing person, any right wing party, anyone who ever questionned immigration quotas or the resources allocated to their integration to publicly cut ties with these people and denounce them as facists? Should I find myself an atheist symbol to spit and step on too?
I am against the use of violence as a political tool. I will promote dialogue, even heavy handed dialogue, but never violence or bullying. I hate bullies, they are scumbags, and I will never give them my support, left or right.
So far, with dialogue, I've brought back 3 people from close to joining La Meute to staying in mainstream politics and toning down the anti-immigration rethoric. That's a lot more than Jacob's antifa friends did over the week-end. In fact, I think they've turned away dozens of people from their pro-immigration speech. Way to go. Keep it going, and by the end of next year, the streets will be filled with blood just like you seem to dream of.
QuoteOnly recently, they intervened directly in that referendum down the project of the Muslim cemetery.
That's Montreal media bs, again. "Hillbillys reject tolerance" makes for great headlines and sells tons of copy.
Rather than going in a long tirade, I'll give you another opinion, supported by facts, written by one of your colleagues, Carl Pépin:
QuotePolitique québécoise. Projet avorté d'un cimetière musulman à Saint-Apollinaire.
Mon plaidoyer sur l'affaire.
D'emblée, il y a deux manières d'aborder la politique, ce que j'appelle la "chose publique". L'on peut le faire par l'émotion - normal, nous sommes humains - ou par la raison - la froide analyse des faits. J'y vais personnellement presque toujours en empruntant la seconde voie, dans la mesure où elle me permet de m'élever au-dessus du débat et comprendre réellement ce qui se passe et quelles sont les prétentions de tout un chacun dans les dossiers que j'étudie.
Dans l'affaire du "défunt" projet de cimetière musulman de Saint-Appollinaire, le référendum tenu dimanche dernier a permis à une partie des gens directement concernés par l'affaire de s'exprimer démocratiquement. Ils ont rejeté le projet : le résultat, quoique serré, ne faisant aucun doute.
Cela étant, que s'est-il réellement passé? Ou plutôt, qu'allait-il réellement se produire? L'affaire qui nous intéresse tourne autour d'un changement dans le zonage d'un terrain d'environ 60 000 pieds carrés - pour vous donner une idée, une dimension moyenne de terrain de maison en ville varie de 5 000 à 10 000 pieds carrés - qui longe l'autoroute 20 à la hauteur de la municipalité. L'objectif du promoteur, nommément le Centre culturel islamique de Québec (CCIQ), consistait à acheter ce terrain qui n'était pas alors zoné "cimetière".
Si l'on remonte quelque peu dans la chronologie, l'on se rappellera que la communauté musulmane du Québec ne dispose pas de lieu de sépultures digne de ce nom dans la région de la Capitale Nationale. Ladite communauté a donc besoin d'un terrain, selon ce qu'elle prétend. Les administrateurs du CCIQ, avec l'accord des membres, entreprennent des démarches auprès de l'entreprise funéraire Harmonia, sise au 320, rue Laurier, Saint-Appollinaire. Ils y apprennent qu'un terrain relativement boisé serait disponible non loin de ses installations funéraires et qu'il serait même possible de disposer d'une option d'achat pour un second terrain qui permettrait, éventuellement, d'en doubler la superficie initiale.
Prise quelque peu au dépourvu, la municipalité n'entend pas a priori, du moins dans l'esprit de son maire, s'opposer au projet. En effet, si le promoteur obtient les permis et les autorisations nécessaires, il n'y aurait donc, en principe, aucun obstacle légal. De son côté, le maire Bernard Ouellet semble ouvert au projet, présume que son conseil municipal l'approuve, et affirme qu'une fois les vérifications légales faites - donc, celles-ci ne sont pas faites au moment où la CCIQ et Harmonia l'approchent en toute bonne foi -, le changement de zonage s'opérera en bonne et due forme.
En clair, il est raisonnable de penser que l'administration municipale n'entend pas s'opposer au projet. Il ne manquerait que les autorisations. Rappelons, d'autre part, que la valeur du terrain est estimée à environ 215 000$. Au strict plan des affaires, il s'agit d'une transaction entre la CCIQ et l'entreprise Harmonia. Parallèlement, l'entente conclue entre les parties prévoyait également qu'Harmonia, compte tenu probablement de son expertise en la matière, gère le site pour une période de dix ans.
Par ailleurs, il est important de mentionner que le projet ne relève pas uniquement que de la transaction foncière. Il y a également des paramètres environnementaux et logistiques propres à l'inhumation de corps et à la composition des sols. En clair, on n'érige pas un cimetière n'importe où. Certes, la municipalité dispose de certains pouvoirs en ces domaines, mais le gouvernement de la province de Québec, notamment par ses ministères de l'Environnement et des Affaires municipales, a aussi son mot à dire.
Je peux raisonnablement croire - en étant toutefois conscient que je nage quelque peu dans la présomption ici - que la firme Harmonia, qui, comme je l'évoquais, dispose assurément d'une expertise en la matière, était consciente des étapes légales à franchir avant de remettre les clés aux futurs propriétaires. De plus, il semble que le terrain convoité se trouve dans une zone qui n'est pas potentiellement conflictuelle en matière de zonage, puisqu'il réside loin du centre urbain, entre une zone agricole et une zone industrielle.
Or, c'est là que le bât blesse, où repose le nœud de l'affaire. Pourquoi? Parce que tous semblent tenir pour acquise et réglée la question du zonage. Or, c'est faux. Il faut soit re-zoner, soit mettre à jour (mettre à niveau) le zonage du terrain, terrain qui, d'ailleurs, devrait accueillir environ 1 500 sépultures. L'entreprise Harmonia est régulièrement pointée du doigt pour sa prétendue ignorance de cet important détail, soit pour ne pas avoir fait les vérifications d'usage. En tous les cas, sur le fond, il faut re-zoner.
Bref, les principaux acteurs - CCIQ, Harmonia et la municipalité - se trouvent confrontés à ce que disent (ou ne disent pas) les lois et règlements en vigueur, et ce, à différents paliers de gouvernements. Que disent finalement, tant dans la lettre que dans l'esprit, les lois et règlements? Qu'un changement de zonage est obligatoire.
L'implantation du futur cimetière musulman à Saint-Appollinaire ne saurait faire abstraction de l'impératif changement de zonage et, par-dessus tout, de l'obligation, pour la municipalité, de tenir un référendum sur la question. Conformément à la loi municipale, il semblerait que 49 électeurs soient éligibles à voter, car directement concernés puisqu'ils habitent à proximité des lieux. En vertu du respect de sa propre loi, et plus globalement par respect de la primauté du droit, la municipalité n'avait d'autre choix que de tenir ce référendum.
Ici, Mesdames et Messieurs, le nombre d'électeurs éligibles à voter n'a strictement aucune importance. Ce qui importe au premier chef est la primauté du droit et, de par l'aboutissement logique de l'application de ce même droit, la tenue d'un référendum.
Naturellement, l'on peut comprendre que certains soient déçus, voire outrés, par le résultat du référendum. Cependant, sur le fond, la loi a été respectée. À savoir maintenant sur quelles bases les partisans et les opposants au changement de zonage se sont exprimés, cela relève du domaine extra-judiciaire. Autrement dit, si les lois et règlements ne répondent plus aux exigences de temps et de lieux, alors il faut les modifier, les amender et ainsi de suite. La récente loi provinciale no 122 constitue un énième exemple en matière de gouvernance municipale.
C'est pour cela que je dis qu'au final, il faut faire bien attention avant de jeter des pierres aux acteurs de cette affaire. Les quolibets, les moqueries et les insultes fusent de toutes parts, mais ils ne règlent en rien les questions, fondamentales pourtant, de la place de la religion dans l'espace public ou encore de la séparation de ce qu'on appelait, d'après une formulation qui mériterait d'être actualisée, la "séparation de l'Église et de l'État". Sur ce point, je laisse aux philosophes et aux sociologues le soin d'en discourir.
Je serais toutefois tenté d'en conclure qu'on a placé 49 personnes dans une situation impossible, comme si, à elles seules et sans le concours de ses dirigeants, elles avaient à décider de la conscience morale du Québec.
Quote
Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends? No.
That's pretty timid. That's less than you people asking from everyone on the right.
QuoteBut if you cant see beyond your usual hatred, and confusion of everything "left", and transform that incident into support for groups like La Meute, you need to rethink your political definition. This is not mainstream right. This is racist far-right.
So far, La Meute has done nothing wrong. Everything has been done within the limits of the law.
I do not trust them. I do not like the secrecy. I do not like the organization where the "leaders" have absolute authority over everything. It is certainly sectarian.
But so far, they have not opposed or attacked democracy. They have not attacked free speech outside of their membership. They have not promoted violence, they have not tolerated it from their members. They have not advocated violence against any kind of group, be it leftist or muslim or haitians or jews. They have not even called for deportation of anyone. That's better than Denis Coderre, champion of multiculturalism so far...
Let me make it clear: I hate these far right groups, and nothing good will come of it. But responding the way your antifa buddies did just makes them stronger and more popular. Free speech is threatened in Canada, freedom of the press is declining, and that is not the act of radical right wingers for now. Adding more violence like you and Jacob propose is not going to solve the problem of anti-immigration attitudes. Sensible immigration policies, allocating necessary resource, ending this bullshit of religious accomodation for every radical out there will solve the problem. Restrciting free speech is not going to convince the mainstream right to not support these groups.
Expressing fear of immigration or questionning immigration does not make you a facist in itself. I do not agree with their views, but so long as they do not use violence or even hint at violence, they'll be better then the mainstream left always finding an excuse for violence by any group nominally on their side.
When they resort to violence or threat of violence the same way the antifa, the unions and everyone on the left does, I'll be the first to condemn.
But long before that, they'll be knocked from their feet by either CSIS or the RCMP. That's the big difference with the left, at least somebody will bother investigating and arresting them. Good luck doing that with the FTQ or the antifas. Singh has been freed this morning. The city will not even dare accuse other antifas for fear of taking the side of La Meute. So don't worry, they'll be back in force, again for another show down in our streets. That might make you and Jacob happy. Maybe they'll even kill someone next time, wich would have happenned if the police hadn't been there. For fuck sake, there were kids there and they were throwing objects at them.
With your side, we get all lumped together. It's "with us or against us". That's really no better than La Meute.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2017, 02:39:57 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2017, 08:34:09 AM
Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends?
:blink:
Khan Noonien Singh....? :o
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trekcore.com%2Fspecials%2Falbums%2Frare%2Farticle28%2Fkhan_noonien_singh_1996.jpg&hash=0753e4c4228d4a70c8b37e45512b3d03beb94b53)
his cousin:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstorage.journaldequebec.com%2Fv1%2Fdynamic_resize%2Fsws_path%2Fjdx-prod-images%2F25e9331d-d83d-40bc-aa37-8a83b1c81e53_JDX-NO-RATIO_WEB.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bversion%3D69%26amp%3Bsize%3D968x&hash=baf91f887a372f0f3eafc966fdb51b1e380e3bce)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 21, 2017, 06:34:27 PM
Quote from: dps on August 21, 2017, 06:00:44 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 21, 2017, 09:39:58 AM
I am not entirely sure what the argument is. While neo-Nazis are certainly undesirable, it is also highly undesirable to use violence to stop their marches or rallies. Any violence used should be strictly for self-defence, or defence of others.
Well, I agree with you and Valmy on this. But some other posters seem to think that political violence is justified if it's by someone on their side of the ideological spectrum.
Everyone thinks that. They just draw the line in a different place.
I.e., I would support civil war in X circumstances.
Hell, supporting the status quo, which is upheld by the state's monopolization of violence is an endorsemnet of violence for political ends.
Have you even read some of the other posts in this thread? If you do, I don't see how you can take the position that everyone agrees with the stance taken by Valmy and Mono. Well, yes I can see how you can--you truly are a moron.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2017, 08:33:43 PM
I find the term "Antifa" annoying. It's the kind of word that aggravates and alienates the average Joe America. Sounds too much like "Intifada" or something else suspiciously furriner.
Yeah, it's not my favourite phrasing either, but it's the term being used.
Another article on the subject (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/daryle-jenkins-has-stepped-up-to-explain-the-shadowy-groups-violent-tactics-to-the-world.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru), once again unlikely to convince anyone :)
QuoteI ask him to respond to those who say that facing off against white supremacists only gives them the publicity they crave. "Those people got their wish on Friday night," he said, pointing out that, in the absence of antifa, torch-wielding marchers on the University of Virginia campus attacked a group of students and other activists holding a small, quiet counterdemonstration. (According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, a UVA employee who was injured while trying to protect students had a stroke shortly after the clash and ended up in the ICU.) "They beat the shit out of them," Anderson said. "They called them 'niggers' and hit them with torches. Nobody came to their defense. There was actually a church full of people singing songs with Cornel West not that far away. That's what happens when you ignore them."
Yes the violence is totally justified. Cops, journalists, passerbys, ennemy protestors, families, anyone with an heavy metal t-shirt, anyone with something that might look like a wolf is a fair target:
https://www.facebook.com/99media.org/videos/1459794050735150/
You can't take any chances with facists, they might be everywhere, even hiding in that stroller.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2017, 09:35:04 PM
Yes the violence is totally justified. Cops, journalists, passerbys, ennemy protestors, families, anyone with an heavy metal t-shirt, anyone with something that might look like a wolf is a fair target:
https://www.facebook.com/99media.org/videos/1459794050735150/ (https://www.facebook.com/99media.org/videos/1459794050735150/)
You can't take any chances with facists, they might be everywhere, even hiding in that stroller.
I'm sorry, but there was writing in French. Don't want to go all Multicultural, do we?
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2017, 12:23:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2017, 08:33:43 PM
I find the term "Antifa" annoying. It's the kind of word that aggravates and alienates the average Joe America. Sounds too much like "Intifada" or something else suspiciously furriner.
Yeah, it's not my favourite phrasing either, but it's the term being used.
Another article on the subject (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/daryle-jenkins-has-stepped-up-to-explain-the-shadowy-groups-violent-tactics-to-the-world.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru), once again unlikely to convince anyone :)
QuoteI ask him to respond to those who say that facing off against white supremacists only gives them the publicity they crave. "Those people got their wish on Friday night," he said, pointing out that, in the absence of antifa, torch-wielding marchers on the University of Virginia campus attacked a group of students and other activists holding a small, quiet counterdemonstration. (According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, a UVA employee who was injured while trying to protect students had a stroke shortly after the clash and ended up in the ICU.) "They beat the shit out of them," Anderson said. "They called them 'niggers' and hit them with torches. Nobody came to their defense. There was actually a church full of people singing songs with Cornel West not that far away. That's what happens when you ignore them."
Antifa just refers to the masked anarchist types there for a fight with the fascists right?
It's not the common term for all anti fascist protesters.
Quote from: Tyr on August 24, 2017, 03:00:11 AM
Antifa just refers to the masked anarchist types there for a fight with the fascists right?
It's not the common term for all anti fascist protesters.
Correct.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
I'm sorry, but there was writing in French. Don't want to go all Multicultural, do we?
ah, the infamous speak white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_White). Never get tired of it. Not.
Lots of white people speak in barbarian tongues, Quebeckers are not alone.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2017, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
I'm sorry, but there was writing in French. Don't want to go all Multicultural, do we?
ah, the infamous speak white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_White). Never get tired of it. Not.
On the other hand, we got very, very, very tired of you whining about language politics.
"Why should we abandon our language, our tradition our culture?" - Viper37 August 15th, 2013 in thread about putting "Royal" back in the name of the Canadian Navy.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 24, 2017, 02:19:41 PM
Lots of white people speak in barbarian tongues, Quebeckers are not alone.
Yeah, remember Bmollson?
Yeah way too many Quebeckers speak a barbarous tongue unworthy of Quebec's glorious heritage.
This from the guy who tried to get as far away from Louisiana as possible...
Backroom Sanctity!!!!!1111
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2017, 02:33:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2017, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
I'm sorry, but there was writing in French. Don't want to go all Multicultural, do we?
ah, the infamous speak white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_White). Never get tired of it. Not.
On the other hand, we got very, very, very tired of you whining about language politics.
"Why should we abandon our language, our tradition our culture?" - Viper37 August 15th, 2013 in thread about putting "Royal" back in the name of the Canadian Navy.
than stop whining about people speaking other languages than english every time it happens? just ignore and go to another thread?
So I'm in McD's for a breakfast sandwich in the bucolic countryside, and I've got Statler and Waldorf a couple tables over for what is their Saturday morning coffee and Fox News bitchfest jamboree, and they're talking politics, etc.
Some of the phrases--and I'm dictating as it happens--
--"These dirty animals they don't keep locked up"
--"They outta publish the names of judges who let these criminals out of jail"
--Something about Trump passing martial law for something
--Nobody got arrested protesting a "great American hero" like Lee
--"That one Jewish guy"
--"These minorities that can't pass simple assed tests"
--Cities "are in such terrible shape because they've been run by Democrats, and more recently, by worthless creatures" (whatever that means)
--How, back in biblical times, they would stone the criminals
--something negative happening about "this great country of ours" (yes, someone actually used the term "this great country of ours" in a sentence. Out loud.
There was some other stuff about the senior center, but that's a little too inside baseball.
So maybe it's not just the Left talking and focusing on race all the time. On the positive side, these men will be dead soon.
What's wrong with this great country of ours?
That certain things are happening to it. Negro things. With a splash of fag.
You can't say A without saying B. What's the deal with the senior center?
Stop eavesdropping on my morning McDonald's conversation Seedy. :mad:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2017, 07:16:29 PM
Stop eavesdropping on my morning McDonald's conversation Seedy. :mad:
Should have gone to Chick-Fil-A instead.
Oh look, I am being proven right ahead of schedule:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?deferJs=true&outputType=default-article&utm_term=.18bd51fee818
Whatever they're doing, it's working. Far right groups are experiencing a surge in membership. Keep up the good work guys! Soon, we'll have real facists in the streets too, then you'll have your bloody riots just like in the US :)
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2017, 06:00:08 AM
Oh look, I am being proven right ahead of schedule:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?deferJs=true&outputType=default-article&utm_term=.18bd51fee818
I'm sure they were acting in self-defense, or defending clergymen.
Looks to me like just a bad road game.
You protest against redneck racists and neo-Nazis in Virginia, you get run over by a car.
You go to Berkeley to sing Dixie, you deal with the home field advantage.
Time people started to look at their OOC schedules.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
Whatever they're doing, it's working. Far right groups are experiencing a surge in membership. Keep up the good work guys! Soon, we'll have real facists in the streets too, then you'll have your bloody riots just like in the US :)
Of course, the reason there's a surge in far right group membership is that a bunch of black clad anarchists got violent in Berkley recently. Excellent cause and effect analysis there, viper :)
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
Whatever they're doing, it's working. Far right groups are experiencing a surge in membership. Keep up the good work guys! Soon, we'll have real facists in the streets too, then you'll have your bloody riots just like in the US :)
Of course, the reason there's a surge in far right group member ship is that a bunch of black clad anarchists got violent in Berkley recently. Excellent cause and effect analysis there, viper :)
Is there any actual documentation that there has been a surge in far right group member ship"? such groups do seem emboldened under Trump and far more vocal, but I have my doubts they are any more numerous than they were before.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2017, 11:37:03 AM
Is there any actual documentation that there has been a surge in far right group member ship"? such groups do seem emboldened under Trump and far more vocal, but I have my doubts they are any more numerous than they were before.
I assume viper has a bunch of connections so he's getting us inside information.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2017, 10:49:18 AM
Looks to me like just a bad road game.
You protest against redneck racists and neo-Nazis in Virginia, you get run over by a car.
You go to Berkeley to sing Dixie, you deal with the home field advantage.
Time people started to look at their OOC schedules.
Counter protests, especially the violent ones, are just not useful against the neo-nazis types. It just strenghten them.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2017, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
Whatever they're doing, it's working. Far right groups are experiencing a surge in membership. Keep up the good work guys! Soon, we'll have real facists in the streets too, then you'll have your bloody riots just like in the US :)
Of course, the reason there's a surge in far right group member ship is that a bunch of black clad anarchists got violent in Berkley recently. Excellent cause and effect analysis there, viper :)
Is there any actual documentation that there has been a surge in far right group member ship"? such groups do seem emboldened under Trump and far more vocal, but I have my doubts they are any more numerous than they were before.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/far-right-extremist-groups-on-the-rise-in-canada-expert-says-1.3546672 (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/far-right-extremist-groups-on-the-rise-in-canada-expert-says-1.3546672)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1139375?journalCode=uter20& (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1139375?journalCode=uter20&)
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-angry-radical-right/
La Meute (translated to Wolf Pack, but not to be confused with the gang using the same name) is still on the fringe, so far, un public, staying within the limits of the law, promote democracy and freedom of speech but they are still very anti-immigration of all kind and do not hesitate to spread false rumours or offensive speech in their secret group.
They said their membership now stands at 60k members, an increase for 40k 2 weeks ago. Of course, that has to be taken with a grain of salt. By members, they count everyone subscribed to their secret Facebook group, the same thing the media does. It's no denying they got a huge wave of sympathy from the public and many media figures after the antifa violent counter-protest compared to their discipline, silent march. That's all Jacob's friends managed to do, make them bolder and more interesting to the curious eye.
So, again, keep the good work, buddy :) Soon, you will have your wildest dreams fulfilled and the streets will run amok with blood :)
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
Whatever they're doing, it's working. Far right groups are experiencing a surge in membership. Keep up the good work guys! Soon, we'll have real facists in the streets too, then you'll have your bloody riots just like in the US :)
Of course, the reason there's a surge in far right group membership is that a bunch of black clad anarchists got violent in Berkley recently. Excellent cause and effect analysis there, viper :)
all leftist protests turn violent, and you guys always turn a blind eye to hit. You're just thugs waiting for you pint of blood. If an innocent leftist is killed, she's a martyr and it's supposed to advance your cause. When bystanders get targeted & attacked, it's collateral damage, totally justified for the end cause. As long as there is violence, you are happy. Doesn't matter if it's a real nazi, everyone can become a nazi, so let's not take any chances. A variant on the good old
Kill 'em all. :)
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2017, 11:37:03 AM
Is there any actual documentation that there has been a surge in far right group member ship"? such groups do seem emboldened under Trump and far more vocal, but I have my doubts they are any more numerous than they were before.
I assume viper has a bunch of connections so he's getting us inside information.
Of course. It's not like I read the news everyday and keep myself informed on the rise of the extremists. No, the logical explanation is that I am a neo nazi. Wich is obvious, since I'm not from the far left and refuse to engage in violent actions against innocent physical and corporate citizens. You're either with us, or against us. I know the drill, you guys are all the same :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2017, 11:37:03 AM
Is there any actual documentation that there has been a surge in far right group member ship"? such groups do seem emboldened under Trump and far more vocal, but I have my doubts they are any more numerous than they were before.
In the United States there's been a steady decline in the number of white supremacist groups since Barack's first term in office according to the SPLC. Even with last years presidential campaign only neo-Confederates saw a slight uptick, neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups continued to decline. While that doesn't tell us anything about the total membership of the individual groups which remain; it seems that if this were really a force on the march the number of groups would be increasing.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 12:02:44 PM
Counter protests, especially the violent ones, are just not useful against the neo-nazis types. It just strenghten them.
Lucky for us you weren't around in London circa May 1940, Weimartard. Save your Nazi-asslicking for the next bookburning.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
all leftist protests turn violent, and you guys always turn a blind eye to hit. You're just thugs waiting for you pint of blood. If an innocent leftist is killed, she's a martyr and it's supposed to advance your cause. When bystanders get targeted & attacked, it's collateral damage, totally justified for the end cause. As long as there is violence, you are happy. Doesn't matter if it's a real nazi, everyone can become a nazi, so let's not take any chances. A variant on the good old Kill 'em all. :)
Well, at least we know where you are coming from.
Raz, what's your take on the Antifa types?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2017, 12:59:28 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 12:02:44 PM
Counter protests, especially the violent ones, are just not useful against the neo-nazis types. It just strenghten them.
Lucky for us you weren't around in London circa May 1940, Weimartard. Save your Nazi-asslicking for the next bookburning.
I'm only quoting the experts in the field. This one in particular (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/25/this-is-how-you-become-a-white-supremacist/)
QuoteI've been beat up as often as I've beaten others, and in no case did being on the receiving end of violence make me any less violent. It was actually the kindness of brave people who refused to lower themselves to my level that changed the course of my life, to put me in a position to follow their example and promote the practice of loving-kindness myself. We cannot hate violent extremism out of existence.
People like Jacob, Oex and Justin Trudeau are only adding fuel to the fire. The extreme left is the ennemy, without their silly attitude, there would be no ground for the extreme right to prosper on.
Really, it should be a no brainer that violent communist protests achieve nothing. It actually made things worst for Spain, Italy and Germany, prompting the people to rally behind the stability offered by the facists instead of the dangerous anarchy promoted by the left.[/quote]
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
all leftist protests turn violent, and you guys always turn a blind eye to hit. You're just thugs waiting for you pint of blood. If an innocent leftist is killed, she's a martyr and it's supposed to advance your cause. When bystanders get targeted & attacked, it's collateral damage, totally justified for the end cause. As long as there is violence, you are happy. Doesn't matter if it's a real nazi, everyone can become a nazi, so let's not take any chances. A variant on the good old Kill 'em all. :)
Well, at least we know where you are coming from.
Yes, I'm the one advocating non violent events and proper education to counter nazi propaganda. Much more useful. You should try it.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 02:03:46 PMThe extreme left is the ennemy, without their silly attitude, there would be no ground for the extreme right to prosper on.
And if women weren't wearing skimpy clothes, men would have less reason for raping them. And if the Jews would stop being Jews, people would stop hating them for being Jews. :rolleyes:
You know what would be awesome? An episode of Quantum Leap, where Viper is transported back in time as a black man and lynched accordingly. He could even take his pick of who he'd be; after all, more than 4,000 blacks were murdered by terrorist acts of WS extrajudicial killings from 1877 to 1950.
Or, he could be that one commie that doesn't get a job in Hollywood.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 02:13:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
all leftist protests turn violent, and you guys always turn a blind eye to hit. You're just thugs waiting for you pint of blood. If an innocent leftist is killed, she's a martyr and it's supposed to advance your cause. When bystanders get targeted & attacked, it's collateral damage, totally justified for the end cause. As long as there is violence, you are happy. Doesn't matter if it's a real nazi, everyone can become a nazi, so let's not take any chances. A variant on the good old Kill 'em all. :)
Well, at least we know where you are coming from.
Yes, I'm the one advocating non violent events and proper education to counter nazi propaganda. Much more useful. You should try it.
How can I? "All leftist protest turn violent" Any protest I engage in will become violent by virtue of the fact it is a left-wing one.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 01:35:50 PM
Raz, what's your take on the Antifa types?
They piss off the right people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2017, 02:42:48 PM
You know what would be awesome? An episode of Quantum Leap, where Viper is transported back in time as a black man and lynched accordingly. He could even take his pick of who he'd be; after all, more than 4,000 blacks were murdered by terrorist acts of WS extrajudicial killings from 1877 to 1950.
Or, he could be that one commie that doesn't get a job in Hollywood.
Yes, we are at exactly the same point as we were in 1877. If it weren't for all those gentle people attacking suspected neo nazis everywhere, basically any white men in Quebec city, we would have a facist regime right now with everyday lynching of a random black.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 02:52:01 PM
How can I? "All leftist protest turn violent" Any protest I engage in will become violent by virtue of the fact it is a left-wing one.
doesn't have to be a protest. Doesn't have to be with armed and masked people, that kinda reduce the risks. It could also be possible that as an organizer, you invited people, beforehand, to not commit any kind of violence. But that would be too much too ask. Some people just can't get their orgasm if it's not violent.
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2017, 02:16:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 02:03:46 PMThe extreme left is the ennemy, without their silly attitude, there would be no ground for the extreme right to prosper on.
And if women weren't wearing skimpy clothes, men would have less reason for raping them. And if the Jews would stop being Jews, people would stop hating them for being Jews. :rolleyes:
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
Or should we start lynching people we disagree with? I kinda have a list too. That will make a better world for sure, once there's only one group left, with people all in agreement. I'm sure Jacob, Raz & their pals have wet dreams about it.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:07:11 PM
Some people just can't get their orgasm if it's not violent.
Fucking freaks.
Viper is what happens when a lefty breaks your heart in your youth. He fell in love with the Little Drummer Girl in class.
It's those damned berets, they always look so adorable in them. Kinda like little Marxist Dorothy Hamills.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:07:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 02:52:01 PM
How can I? "All leftist protest turn violent" Any protest I engage in will become violent by virtue of the fact it is a left-wing one.
doesn't have to be a protest. Doesn't have to be with armed and masked people, that kinda reduce the risks. It could also be possible that as an organizer, you invited people, beforehand, to not commit any kind of violence. But that would be too much too ask. Some people just can't get their orgasm if it's not violent.
You said, that "all leftist protests turn violent". So nothing we do can prevent the violence. Seems our hands are tied.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:51:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 02:52:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 01:35:50 PM
Raz, what's your take on the Antifa types?
They piss off the right people.
So, thumbs up then?
Look out, Raz! He's got DHS on speed dial!
Press 1 for English
Press 2 for Spanish and wait right where you are, por favor
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
that, and attacking people with a stroller last week-end in Quebec city. Future neo-nazi in there, I guess.
I heard it from the organizer of the counter-protest: he didn't commit violence, but all violence is justified if we don't want to fall under a nazi regime.
I guess that was not paranoid at all.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Pop quiz, derneighborhoodwatch:
Suspect is wearing khakis but holding Skittles: Shoot/No Shoot?
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
Whatever they're doing, it's working. Far right groups are experiencing a surge in membership. Keep up the good work guys! Soon, we'll have real facists in the streets too, then you'll have your bloody riots just like in the US :)
Of course, the reason there's a surge in far right group membership is that a bunch of black clad anarchists got violent in Berkley recently. Excellent cause and effect analysis there, viper :)
all leftist protests turn violent, and you guys always turn a blind eye to hit. You're just thugs waiting for you pint of blood. If an innocent leftist is killed, she's a martyr and it's supposed to advance your cause. When bystanders get targeted & attacked, it's collateral damage, totally justified for the end cause. As long as there is violence, you are happy. Doesn't matter if it's a real nazi, everyone can become a nazi, so let's not take any chances. A variant on the good old Kill 'em all. :)
Has he always been this crazy?
It was a very good first effort by a bunch of kids, but I rarely spin it these days.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 02:13:38 PM
Yes, I'm the one advocating non violent events and proper education to counter nazi propaganda. Much more useful. You should try it.
I was not aware any of us were pro-vigilante violence and against education.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Just tell me how many times I have to say I am against violence before this ridiculous strawman bullshit ends. Fuck you man. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt and you are too much of a douchebag to even name names. Hiding behind that bullshit 'SJW crew' garbage.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2017, 04:01:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Pop quiz, derneighborhoodwatch:
Suspect is wearing khakis but holding Skittles: Shoot/No Shoot?
Too confusing the OODA loop keeps looping.
I always figured Quebec as this nice place with beautiful scenery, swank ski resorts, and a good restaurant scene.
Little did I realize its a horrific violent dystopia, with rampaging mobs of unchecked Communist hordes sacking cities, intimidating decent folk and assaulting stroller-bound infants in the street.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 28, 2017, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2017, 04:01:51 PM
Pop quiz, derneighborhoodwatch:
Suspect is wearing khakis but holding Skittles: Shoot/No Shoot?
Too confusing the OODA loop keeps looping.
Double Jeopardy followup, where the scores can really change:
Suspect is wearing a hoodie--but the light from the Tiki torch affects your vision, so you can't tell if that is a white polo underneath: Shoot/No Shoot?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2017, 04:44:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 28, 2017, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2017, 04:01:51 PM
Pop quiz, derneighborhoodwatch:
Suspect is wearing khakis but holding Skittles: Shoot/No Shoot?
Too confusing the OODA loop keeps looping.
Double Jeopardy followup, where the scores can really change:
Suspect is wearing a hoodie--but the light from the Tiki torch affects your vision, so you can't tell if that is a white polo underneath: Shoot/No Shoot?
Easy. Tiki torch=White Cracker/Neo-Nazi.
Shoot
OODA loop complete.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Oh, you mean the guy who admitted making it up entirely? Seems a bit rich for blaming antifa or leftists for that.
In any case, no I am in fact not in favour of making up fake attacks by anyone. Of course, I don't expect the updated story will get much traction in your media-sphere.
QuoteMan Who Claimed He Was Stabbed After Being Mistaken For A Neo-Nazi Was Lying
A man who claimed that he was stabbed after being mistaken for a neo-Nazi now admits that he made the whole story up after accidentally stabbing himself.
Joshua Witt, 26, told police two weeks ago that he was getting out of his car in the parking lot of a Steak 'n Shake in Sheridan, Colorado, when a man came over to him and attacked him with a knife.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-08/28/11/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-7338-1503935052-1.jpg?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nidhiprakash/this-man-says-he-was-mistaken-for-a-neo-nazi-and-stabbed?utm_term=.wrdQ46Kv2#.yv72E8ZW1
:lol:
NEXT
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2017, 04:36:17 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 02:13:38 PM
Yes, I'm the one advocating non violent events and proper education to counter nazi propaganda. Much more useful. You should try it.
I was not aware any of us were pro-vigilante violence and against education.
I'll say to you basically what I said to Timmay--read some of the shit people have posted. There are definitely some people who have posted in favor of vigilante violence.
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2017, 05:29:22 PM
I'll say to you basically what I said to Timmay--read some of the shit people have posted. There are definitely some people who have posted in favor of vigilante violence.
In these sorts of discussions - especially since it's a contentious subject - it's IMO best to be precise in what you attribute to other people.
For my part, I have said that I think it is a positive to physically confront neo-Nazis in particular, and white supremacists groups who use the threat of violence in their behaviour (so the KKK, racist skinheads, et. al.). I do not think that there should be made any legal allowances for this, but I think it is moral behaviour nonetheless.
To the degree that you can characterize that as favouring vigilantism (and you can, fair enough), I do. But I do not subscribe to any of the many other wild accusations and slippery slope constructions - attacking people who "look like Nazis", using those kind of confrontational tactics against any other kind of political opponents etc.
I'm happy to discuss this in a constructive fashion, but I'll ignore the wild-eyed insanity of viper and the usual languish forum snide remarks and trolling (mostly, at least).
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2017, 04:36:17 PM
I was not aware any of us were pro-vigilante violence and against education.
Raz and Jacob are certainly pro-vigilente. Education, I don't know, we never discussed it here.
Usually, when the extreme right and the extreme left agree on something, it's bad for everyone else in the center.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 02:03:46 PM
People like Jacob, Oex and Justin Trudeau are only adding fuel to the fire. The extreme left is the ennemy, without their silly attitude, there would be no ground for the extreme right to prosper on.
:lmfao:
POWER OVERWHELMING
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2017, 04:40:15 PM
I always figured Quebec as this nice place with beautiful scenery, swank ski resorts, and a good restaurant scene.
Little did I realize its a horrific violent dystopia, with rampaging mobs of unchecked Communist hordes sacking cities, intimidating decent folk and assaulting stroller-bound infants in the street.
Since you speak French, enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZOfU_tIyg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZOfU_tIyg)
https://www.facebook.com/99media.org/videos/1459794050735150/ (https://www.facebook.com/99media.org/videos/1459794050735150/)
It really depends on what is your goal.
If you want facism to thrive, and lump together white supremacists with reasonable questions on immigration (quotas, resources allocated to integration, wich refugees should get in first, how fast should they arrive here, etc), then the actions of the antifa are really the way to go. Call people "nazis" and "racists", like Jacob&co, everytime they question the official multicultarilism doctrine, and you get what we have here: a lot of people join a questionable movement because they look like the nice guys. And maybe they are. Or maybe they are a bunch of white supremacists in disguise. It's hard to tell with so much secrecy. I refused to join the movement because everything was so secret and it seems like racism, while not promoted, is certainly welcome.
And I will always refuse to wear a mask to protest against something, and carry weapons of any kinds during a protest in a democracy to "show my strenght", so that I can intimidate others. And anyone who pretends to speak in my name and acts like this will get a smack behind the head, figuratively or in reality depending on how close I am to them.
The problem with the left is they will always tolerate this kind of behavior. There is always a good justification to act with violence.
In my opinion, so long as a group does not advocate violence, does not perform any act of violence and does not incite to any hatred against any group, they should have the right to speak wether I agree with them or not.
I realize in the US hate speech is protected by the Constitution, so that last part may have to be adapted to your particular situation.
I think the KKK chanting "the Jews will not replace us" looked like moron. And I do believe these guys should be closely watched and smacked down everytime they commit violent actions or threaten violence on anyone.
Now, people protesting peacefully and in silence against a wave of irregular immigration, they are not a threat yet. If you oppose the message, the best strategy would be to rally cultural communities in Quebec city the day before and organize some kind of fest. Or rally with your friends and bring supplies to a refugee camp and film the whole thing, talk to the people there, get their story heard, let them explain why they are here.
If I go and chant "Jews will not replace me" like a moron, and you come at me with Malthus to beat me up and threaten my baby, do you think it will diminish my resolve to be a racist moron forever? I know for sure being threatened by union thugs multiple times did not diminish my resolve to fight against the injustice we suffer. Seeing friends hurt and police and political passivity in front of these acts did not dether me. It's long hard, uphill battle, but one day, we will win. There are people willing to listen, but if our group starts using violence to pass our message, we're no better than the violent union thugs we fight.
If the leftist had brains, that's the way to would act. They would denounce violence instead of cheering it. They would organize their counter protest in another place, in another time than those with differing views. They would try to convince people with the strenght of their arguments instead of the strenght of their fists. I am a firm believer in democracy. And freedom of speech. People who are against the Government giving wellfare checks to refugees have legitimate questions that should be heard and answered, not shouted down "OMG!!! YOU RACIST!!!".
Viper, nice of you to edit out what you said about Raz :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 06:00:40 PM
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2017, 05:29:22 PM
I'll say to you basically what I said to Timmay--read some of the shit people have posted. There are definitely some people who have posted in favor of vigilante violence.
In these sorts of discussions - especially since it's a contentious subject - it's IMO best to be precise in what you attribute to other people.
For my part, I have said that I think it is a positive to physically confront neo-Nazis in particular, and white supremacists groups who use the threat of violence in their behaviour (so the KKK, racist skinheads, et. al.). I do not think that there should be made any legal allowances for this, but I think it is moral behaviour nonetheless.
To the degree that you can characterize that as favouring vigilantism (and you can, fair enough), I do. But I do not subscribe to any of the many other wild accusations and slippery slope constructions - attacking people who "look like Nazis", using those kind of confrontational tactics against any other kind of political opponents etc.
I'm happy to discuss this in a constructive fashion, but I'll ignore the wild-eyed insanity of viper and the usual languish forum snide remarks and trolling (mostly, at least).
I wasn't talking about you, particularly. I did PM Valmy and tell him who in particular I was referring to, but I didn't think it was productive to post that information in the thread itself. I don't know, perhaps that was an error on my part.
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 06:00:40 PM
For my part, I have said that I think it is a positive to physically confront neo-Nazis in particular, and white supremacists groups who use the threat of violence in their behaviour (so the KKK, racist skinheads, et. al.). I do not think that there should be made any legal allowances for this, but I think it is moral behaviour nonetheless.
To the degree that you can characterize that as favouring vigilantism (and you can, fair enough), I do. But I do not subscribe to any of the many other wild accusations and slippery slope constructions - attacking people who "look like Nazis", using those kind of confrontational tactics against any other kind of political opponents etc.
if that's not promoting violence, I don't know what it is.
If a group advocates violence, let the cop deal with it. If they threaten you and your friends, that falls under legitimate defense. But attacking people you disagree with is another thing. As was seen in Quebec city, a lot of people who had nothing to do with the anti immigration group got hurt by your pals. The end result is, La Meute is now more popular and they're gaining sympathy instead of legitimate scrutiny.
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2017, 06:21:08 PM
I wasn't talking about you, particularly. I did PM Valmy and tell him who in particular I was referring to, but I didn't think it was productive to post that information in the thread itself. I don't know, perhaps that was an error on my part.
No worries :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 06:09:15 PM
Viper, nice of you to edit out what you said about Raz :cheers:
Damn I missed it.
I'm not sure where viper is going with this. He has claimed that leftist protests are always violent, so where does he want us to go from there? It seems that the only way to avoid violence is to stay at home or become right-wingers.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2017, 04:39:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 02:52:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 01:35:50 PM
Raz, what's your take on the Antifa types?
They piss off the right people.
Dude don't do this troll shit.
'They piss off the right people' is what Derspeiss said to me about the Alt-Right.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 07:19:40 PM
He has claimed that leftist protests are always violent, so where does he want us to go from there?
it seems obvious: take measures so that they aren't always violent. Denounce violence, do not excuse it, minimize it. When you organize something, tell people in advance you don't want violence and you will not tolerate it.
Something like this:
- silent protest
- no weapons
- no body armour or shield of any kind
- no helmet
- no mask
- no sticks
- do not talk to the media
- if you go out of the ranks for any reason, you will not reintegrate
- no physical or verbal violence will be tolerated.
Fairly easy to do to organize a non violent protest when you want to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2017, 04:40:15 PM
I always figured Quebec as this nice place with beautiful scenery, swank ski resorts, and a good restaurant scene.
Little did I realize its a horrific violent dystopia, with rampaging mobs of unchecked Communist hordes sacking cities, intimidating decent folk and assaulting stroller-bound infants in the street.
Don't forget the Maple Syrup thieves.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 07:44:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 07:19:40 PM
He has claimed that leftist protests are always violent, so where does he want us to go from there?
it seems obvious: take measures so that they aren't always violent. Denounce violence, do not excuse it, minimize it. When you organize something, tell people in advance you don't want violence and you will not tolerate it.
Something like this:
- silent protest
- no weapons
- no body armour or shield of any kind
- no helmet
- no mask
- no sticks
- do not talk to the media
- if you go out of the ranks for any reason, you will not reintegrate
- no physical or verbal violence will be tolerated.
Fairly easy to do to organize a non violent protest when you want to.
This doesn't make sense. Even if we do all the things you suggest there will still be violence because "leftist protests are always violent". Even if we protest quietly in our homes all by ourselves it will be violent simply because it was a leftist protest.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2017, 04:37:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Just tell me how many times I have to say I am against violence before this ridiculous strawman bullshit ends. Fuck you man. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt and you are too much of a douchebag to even name names. Hiding behind that bullshit 'SJW crew' garbage.
I wasn't talking about you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 07:58:02 PM
This doesn't make sense.
If you',re trying to prove me right, it's certainly working :)
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2017, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Oh, you mean the guy who admitted making it up entirely? Seems a bit rich for blaming antifa or leftists for that.
In any case, no I am in fact not in favour of making up fake attacks by anyone. Of course, I don't expect the updated story will get much traction in your media-sphere.
QuoteMan Who Claimed He Was Stabbed After Being Mistaken For A Neo-Nazi Was Lying
A man who claimed that he was stabbed after being mistaken for a neo-Nazi now admits that he made the whole story up after accidentally stabbing himself.
Joshua Witt, 26, told police two weeks ago that he was getting out of his car in the parking lot of a Steak 'n Shake in Sheridan, Colorado, when a man came over to him and attacked him with a knife.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-08/28/11/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-7338-1503935052-1.jpg?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nidhiprakash/this-man-says-he-was-mistaken-for-a-neo-nazi-and-stabbed?utm_term=.wrdQ46Kv2#.yv72E8ZW1
I did not know that. EXAMPLE WITHDRAWN
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 07:58:02 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 07:44:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2017, 07:19:40 PM
He has claimed that leftist protests are always violent, so where does he want us to go from there?
it seems obvious: take measures so that they aren't always violent. Denounce violence, do not excuse it, minimize it. When you organize something, tell people in advance you don't want violence and you will not tolerate it.
Something like this:
- silent protest
- no weapons
- no body armour or shield of any kind
- no helmet
- no mask
- no sticks
- do not talk to the media
- if you go out of the ranks for any reason, you will not reintegrate
- no physical or verbal violence will be tolerated.
Fairly easy to do to organize a non violent protest when you want to.
This doesn't make sense. Even if we do all the things you suggest there will still be violence because "leftist protests are always violent". Even if we protest quietly in our homes all by ourselves it will be violent simply because it was a leftist protest.
I don't think viper was saying they have to be violent but that all the ones he'd seen were.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 28, 2017, 10:19:51 PM
I don't think viper was saying they have to be violent but that all the ones he'd seen were.
Or more correctly, all the ones he'd seen reported. Peaceful protests rarely make the news unless they are notable for other reasons (such as size or composition).
Which, unfortunately, plays into the idea that the way to get attention is to be violent.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 28, 2017, 10:19:51 PM
I don't think viper was saying they have to be violent but that all the ones he'd seen were.
It sounded like he was stating some sort of law. If he wants to walk it back he's more than welcome to do so.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2017, 04:58:07 AM
It sounded like he was stating some sort of law.
Sounded more to me like he was talking out his ass.
Quote from: dps on August 29, 2017, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2017, 04:58:07 AM
It sounded like he was stating some sort of law.
Sounded more to me like he was talking out his ass.
it is known leftist protests are all people holding hands and singing
let's give peace a chanceViolence from the left is as mythical as dragons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFamvR9CpYw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVU4lt5xk1A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41YC0ASnfv4
Dang, even Nancy called out antifa :pinch:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/
Quote"Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts," Pelosi said in a statement released late Tuesday. "The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.df228cc3191d
More negative press :(
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/29/16216346/antifa-violence
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/antifa-beats-up-trump-supporters-fuels-right-wingers.html
http://time.com/4919011/donald-trump-alt-left-antifa/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-perspec-page-antifa-trump-0830-story.html
Why wouldn't she? What sort of connection do you think exist between antifa and Nancy? What mainstream politicians have you heard endorse anti-fascist direct action?
Of course there'll be bad press. There's a big market for finger wagging at anti-fascist action.
In other news, racists with links to the Stormfront website are responsible for roughly 100 murders in the last five years: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 10:05:44 AM
Why wouldn't she? What sort of connection do you think exist between antifa and Nancy? What mainstream politicians have you heard endorse anti-fascist direct action?
:lol:
Anyway, Dems had been a bit silent on the alt-left/antifa types. Glad to see Nan-Nan speaking up.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 10:07:57 AM
Of course there'll be bad press. There's a big market for finger wagging at anti-fascist action.
In other news, racists with links to the Stormfront website are responsible for roughly 100 murders in the last five years: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:08:27 AM
Anyway, Dems had been a bit silent on the alt-left/antifa types. Glad to see Nan-Nan speaking up.
Glad your worry could be put to rest, then :hug:
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2017, 09:23:40 AM
it is known leftist protests are all people holding hands and singing let's give peace a chance
I don't get this strawman. There have been violent leftist movements for centuries.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Yet you seem far more obsessed with us constantly having to say we don't like vigilante violence. Because Languish is well known to go out in the streets and beat the shit out of people I guess.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 10:07:57 AM
Of course there'll be bad press. There's a big market for finger wagging at anti-fascist action.
In other news, racists with links to the Stormfront website are responsible for roughly 100 murders in the last five years: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action)
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 10:07:57 AM
Of course there'll be bad press. There's a big market for finger wagging at anti-fascist action.
In other news, racists with links to the Stormfront website are responsible for roughly 100 murders in the last five years: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action)
100 murders worldwide in 5 years? I would have expected more.
Donald Trump aside, how many mainstream* politicians have condoned/praised, excused or minimized such acts in the US&Canada? On the top of my head, I can find a lot of politicians on tv expressing sympathy for vandals, saying it was somehow justified. Politicians from the PQ (Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, more than once), politicians from Québec Solidaire (Gabriel Nadeau Dubois who said "resistance was justified" after innocent people got attacked in Quebec city, Manon Massé who said the same, Amir Khadir who said as much during the students protests and even participated in such protests and got arrested for it), people from the NDP who always refused to condemn violent actions from the left, threats from their union supporters, etc.
On the right? I can't remember any public comments as such, defending acts of violence committed with a political intent. I can't remember anyone trying to minimize the terrorist attack on a Quebec city mosque. I can't remember the leader of right wing protest group excusing any acts of violence committed in its name.
Sbr said he'd pay someone who killed a suspected nazi. You never hide that you would use and support violence against people you suspect of threatening democracy. You posted a text from an antifa militant who stopped short of calling that poor victim a martyr and he was almost rejoiced by it. That was really disgusting and pretty revealing of the mentality that goes on in your ranks: the end justifies the means.
Oex turns a blind eye to the people attacked by such groups tagging with the line of Québec Solidaire that they were facists. It's pretty convenient when everyone who does not share your particular world view is the ennemy. Kinda justifies pretty much everything.
When it's leftist or islamic terrorism though, there's always someone finding a good excuse on the left, trying to portray the agressor as the real victims. That is a disgusting behavior that only serves to encourage further acts of protests.
I may not have liked all of Obama's policies, certainly disagreed with many of Bush policies, but none of them would have stomped so low as to reach the Donald Trumpesque level of your crowd.
*By mainstream I mean a political party with at least one elected member in the House of Commons, US Congress, Provincial and US State parliament or any independant elected to such an institution while he was in service or after his retirement from politics so long as he continues to represent the party in public.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2017, 10:29:46 AM
100 murders worldwide in 5 years? I would have expected more.
Sorry to disappoint you? I mean it is just one website for a very fringe ideology. How many murders did you expect?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2017, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Yet you seem far more obsessed with us constantly having to say we don't like vigilante violence. Because Languish is well known to go out in the streets and beat the shit out of people I guess.
Who told you? What have you heard?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2017, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Yet you seem far more obsessed with us constantly having to say we don't like vigilante violence. Because Languish is well known to go out in the streets and beat the shit out of people I guess.
to be fair we do have a history of threatening to tackle people :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2017, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Yet you seem far more obsessed with us constantly having to say we don't like vigilante violence. Because Languish is well known to go out in the streets and beat the shit out of people I guess.
Stop including yourself in that group. I'm talking about the antifa apologists, not you.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2017, 10:24:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2017, 09:23:40 AM
it is known leftist protests are all people holding hands and singing let's give peace a chance
I don't get this strawman. There have been violent leftist movements for centuries.
Jacob is trying to convince us that only the nazis are bad and everyone else is simply justified in the use of violence, so long as they attack suspected supporters of nazis, capitalism and other evils of modern society.
Even if the target of your hatred is someone protesting against illegal immigration while you want to welcome just about everyone in the country, including suspected criminals, that is no reason to attack someone who is not violent and does not present any immediate threat.
I thought we had evolved beyond this way of doing politics, but the left wing are insistant in bringing us back to it. Strange behavior for people who called themselves "progressists".
These guys are just bullies, as much as the neonazi morons. All they do is provoke even more violence.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Hard to tell sometimes. Glad to see you speaking up.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:50:23 AM
Stop including yourself in that group. I'm talking about the antifa apologists, not you.
I'm worse than an apologist. I spent years doing anti-fascist activism.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:09:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:50:23 AM
Stop including yourself in that group. I'm talking about the antifa apologists, not you.
I'm worse than an apologist. I spent years doing anti-fascist activism.
You've certainly mentioned that before.
But I'm puzzled - you live in Vancouver. Exactly how many "fascists" are there in the lower mainland (then or now) to be activist against?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:50:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2017, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Yet you seem far more obsessed with us constantly having to say we don't like vigilante violence. Because Languish is well known to go out in the streets and beat the shit out of people I guess.
Stop including yourself in that group. I'm talking about the antifa apologists, not you.
Valmy always thinks he's the one being attacked if you don't call somebody out by name.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 10:07:57 AM
Of course there'll be bad press. There's a big market for finger wagging at anti-fascist action.
In other news, racists with links to the Stormfront website are responsible for roughly 100 murders in the last five years: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action)
Everyone here agrees Stormfront and Nazis are terrible. Duh.
Apparently there are some very fine people there.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2017, 11:12:17 AM
You've certainly mentioned that before.
But I'm puzzled - you live in Vancouver. Exactly how many "fascists" are there in the lower mainland (then or now) to be activist against?
There are more than enough, especially in the 90s. The Heritage Front, Northern Hammerskins, Church of the Creator et. al. were active all across Canada.
That said, I got involved in Ottawa: http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/farber-echoing-charlottesville-ottawas-own-neo-nazi-riot
But Vancouver had plenty, as the 1998 murder of Nirmal Singh Gill by neo-Nazis illustrate (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b-c-skinheads-sentenced-in-sikh-beating-death-1.191403). Finding online resources of Vancouver street culture in the 90s is not the easiest thing, but the stories of Daniel Gallant (http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/10/05/ex-white-supremacist-tackles-spike-in-bc-extremism.html) and Tony McAleer (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/ex-vancouver-neo-nazi-urges-parents-to-talk-to-kids-about-charlottesville) are reminders of that past.
To be honest, though, it was the kind of thing that if you were white and didn't want to know you could easily avoid being cognizant of it. If you were not white, if you were adjacent to circles where neo-Nazis operated, or you were interested in knowing you could run into them fairly easily.
That said, from my perspective the peak was probably in the early 90s, though still with a real presence until around 2000 or so. After that it got pretty quiet until recent times.
Now, of course, there's a bit of a resurgence with racist flyers (http://globalnews.ca/news/3679732/neo-nazi-flyers-found-stuffed-into-east-vancouver-mailboxes/) being distributed every so often (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/more-anti-chinese-flyers-distributed-in-richmond). Obviously flyers are not violence, but in my observation they're frequently an early indicator.
We also now have the "we're not racists we're just pro free speech and want to patrol the streets to make them safe from Muslim extremism" groups like Soldiers of Odin (http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/09/22/soldiers-of-odin-start-foot-patrols-in-vancouver.html) putting down roots as well. Totally not racist, of course, and any semblance of them dancing close to the lines are probably purely coincidental - just like the Heritage Front wasn't racist at all until it suddenly was:
QuoteOn its website, Anti-Racism Canada posted images from social media accounts of several Soldiers of Odin Canada members, including its Saskatoon leader. The graphic includes the organization's logo and name above the words, "We must secure the existence of our people and the future of our children."
That's just one word different from "The Fourteen Words," a motto in U.S. white supremacist circles, according to the hate group watchdog Southern Poverty Law Centre: "We must secure the existence of our people and the future of White children."
So from my perspective there's enough to be concerned about if you're inclined to be concerned about Nazis. If you think - as I do - that a robust response against Nazis from the community is one of the ingredients in preventing them from taking root and growing in strength, now is pretty good time to act.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 30, 2017, 11:20:17 AM
Valmy always thinks he's the one being attacked if you don't call somebody out by name.
Not always, just here. There are not exactly many people on this message board.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:59:21 AM
So from my perspective there's enough to be concerned about if you're inclined to be concerned about Nazis. If you think - as I do - that a robust response against Nazis from the community is one of the ingredients in preventing them from taking root and growing in strength, now is pretty good time to act.
What do you consider a 'robust' response?
Jacob, my experience of the early 90s was different than yours. That was when I was big in helping out the Reform Party, and as a new, right wing party there were frequent accusations we were somehow in league with groups like Heritage Front (which I think history has shown was complete nonsense).
My recollection of that time was that such groups were embarrassingly small and not really worthy of the attention being given to them.
Heritage front was infiltrated by CSIS, by the Toronto Sun blew up his cover before the work could be finished.
Nonetheless, the group was pretty much done by 1995 even if it officially disolved only in 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Front
As for the links with the Conservative Alliance, some leaders of the HF bought a membership card of the party. Once it was discovered, they were expelled.
I seem to remember they were hired by the Alliance as a security force for one of their rally, but I can't find anything credible on this, so it might have been a wild rumour.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2017, 12:21:13 PM
What do you consider a 'robust' response?
When Nazis and allies claim public space be physically present to tell them they are full of shit. Do not back down from physical intimidation. If it turns into a fight, win the fight.
Personally I'm not in favour of initiating violence.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2017, 12:39:40 PM
Jacob, my experience of the early 90s was different than yours. That was when I was big in helping out the Reform Party, and as a new, right wing party there were frequent accusations we were somehow in league with groups like Heritage Front (which I think history has shown was complete nonsense).
Regarding the Reform Party and the Heritage Front I'd expect that as the RP started up there were indeed people affiliated with both groups - that's a pretty standard situation for the start of any party on the left or right, that extremists will try to get in on the ground floor - but I'd also expect that the RP minimized their influence and expelled them as they moved towards mainstream appeal and a merger with the Progressive Conservatives.
QuoteMy recollection of that time was that such groups were embarrassingly small and not really worthy of the attention being given to them.
Unsurprising you have a different recollection than I do. Nonetheless, the links I posted reflect reality - there was in fact 100+ Nazi affiliated thugs rampaging through Ottawa after having listened to RaHoWa at the local Boys & Girls club, and Nirman Gill Singh was in fact murdered by Nazi thugs in a racist attack. Like I said, if you were white and not inclined to be look for it you could comfortably avoid the issue. But getting the shit kicked out of you by Nazis and their wannabes was indeed something that happened with some frequency if you looked queer, coloured, disreputably leftist, or otherwise an acceptable target in their eyes. I expect, however, that that group did not include young Reform Party loyalists. But if you belonged to such a group, or you felt that people belonging to such groups deserved having their concerns heard, then Nazis and fellow travelers were worth the attention given to them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calling someone out for being white? Berkut will not stand for this!
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2017, 04:34:49 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calling someone out for being white? Berkut will not stand for this!
Wow, you were really stung by someone calling you our for overt racism, weren't you?
It is ironic that in all of Languish, you are probably the most openly racist poster we have.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:21:16 PM
It is ironic that in all of Languish, you are probably the most openly racist poster we have.
You genuinely think so?
It's obviously lettow if he still counts.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:21:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2017, 04:34:49 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calling someone out for being white? Berkut will not stand for this!
Wow, you were really stung by someone calling you our for overt racism, weren't you?
It is ironic that in all of Languish, you are probably the most openly racist poster we have.
You can't be racist against white people silly.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:24:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:21:16 PM
It is ironic that in all of Languish, you are probably the most openly racist poster we have.
You genuinely think so?
He states unequivocally that people think in a certain manner because of their race, and is perfectly comfortable saying things that if the roles were reversed, you would blast away at him for being a white supremacist or something (and rightly so, btw).
What is more interesting than me calling him out on comments that are clearly racist, is that you give him a complete pass on it. It isn't even worthy of comment from you that he accused someone of having views determined by their race.
Your radar is all out of whack.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:24:13 PM
You genuinely think so?
He states unequivocally that people think in a certain manner because of their race, and is perfectly comfortable saying things that if the roles were reversed, you would blast away at him for being a white supremacist or something (and rightly so, btw).
What is more interesting than me calling him out on comments that are clearly racist, is that you give him a complete pass on it. It isn't even worthy of comment from you that he accused someone of having views determined by their race.
Your radar is all out of whack.
Well that answers my question. Thank you.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
What is more interesting than me calling him out on comments that are clearly racist, is that you give him a complete pass on it. It isn't even worthy of comment from you that he accused someone of having views determined by their race.
On this:
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks, I do not rate garbon's "*white whine*" as particularly noteworthy, no. Off-handed trolling dismissals of viewpoints you disagree with - or viewpoints you agree with but which suggest an opening - are pretty par for the course here IMO, including ones that are implicitly or explicitly racist.
Then again, you getting your knickers in a twist over something fairly trivial and going all "Berkut Indignation Level: Throbbing Purple" is par for the course too, but personally I don't find it particularly interesting.
Are there any other examples of garbon being openly racist out there?
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
What is more interesting than me calling him out on comments that are clearly racist, is that you give him a complete pass on it. It isn't even worthy of comment from you that he accused someone of having views determined by their race.
On this:
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks, I do not rate garbon's "*white whine*" as particularly noteworthy, no. Off-handed trolling dismissals of viewpoints you disagree with - or viewpoints you agree with but which suggest an opening - are pretty par for the course here IMO, including ones that are implicitly or explicitly racist.
Then again, you getting your knickers in a twist over something fairly trivial and going all "Berkut Indignation Level: Throbbing Purple" is par for the course too, but personally I don't find it particularly interesting.
Lovely. Because of course it must be the case that I am over-reacting to a completely innocent comment, rather than that you are not capable of seeing actual racism right in front of you. That could not be the case, so it must be Berkut being an asshole.
You go straight to the ad hom, that is rather beneath you. Or it should be.
garbon is not Ed, or Seedy, or any of the other LOLZOR trolls, and neither are you. And neither am I. Giving him a pass on racist comments because calling him on it makes you uncomfortable makes you a bigger problem then any of the trolls.
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 06:37:04 PM
Are there any other examples of garbon being openly racist out there?
Nothing as overt as that, that I can recall.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 06:39:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 06:37:04 PM
Are there any other examples of garbon being openly racist out there?
Nothing as overt as that, that I can recall.
How long have we known him for?
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 06:40:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 06:39:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 06:37:04 PM
Are there any other examples of garbon being openly racist out there?
Nothing as overt as that, that I can recall.
How long have we known him for?
Long enough to be willing to give him a pass on a comment made possibly off the cuff.
But he decided to bring it up again.
I don't think it is that interesting in and of itself, and would be happy to let it go. It certainly informed my views of him and his attitudes towards race, but in a relatively minor way.
What was more interesting is that in the context of a discussion *about race* his comment was taken as a matter of course by those arguing one side of the argument, and accepted without comment. "Sure, arguing anything other than the most SJW viewpoint must be an indication of racial bias!"
Indeed, they went to bat for him vigorously - Jake is accusing me of being some kind of enraged crazy person rather than simply accept that he said something untoward. This is interesting and indicative of the way some on the left has taken to attacking anyone that does not perfectly align with their strict views on perfect "tolerance". It is what sees the SPLC accuse those who call for moderation in Islam "anti-Muslim extremists". It's what has speakers at Universities being actually attacked by mobs rather than be allowed to speak if their views are not sufficiently ideologically pure.
It's crazy. Intolerance in the service of faux tolerance. What a world.
Garbon rotates his ethnicity weekly. He's white this week.
lolz, garbon made Berkut think about racism and little else, and in every part of his life, just now in this thread.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthesource.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F04%2FRay_Lewis_Leadership_Blah_Blah_Blah_Ravens.jpg&hash=fc03f9233a545969b075e3317fdce7c11ca456e9)
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 06:54:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 06:40:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 06:39:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 06:37:04 PM
Are there any other examples of garbon being openly racist out there?
Nothing as overt as that, that I can recall.
How long have we known him for?
Long enough to be willing to give him a pass on a comment made possibly off the cuff.
But he decided to bring it up again.
I don't think it is that interesting in and of itself, and would be happy to let it go. It certainly informed my views of him and his attitudes towards race, but in a relatively minor way.
What was more interesting is that in the context of a discussion *about race* his comment was taken as a matter of course by those arguing one side of the argument, and accepted without comment. "Sure, arguing anything other than the most SJW viewpoint must be an indication of racial bias!"
Indeed, they went to bat for him vigorously - Jake is accusing me of being some kind of enraged crazy person rather than simply accept that he said something untoward. This is interesting and indicative of the way some on the left has taken to attacking anyone that does not perfectly align with their strict views on perfect "tolerance". It is what sees the SPLC accuse those who call for moderation in Islam "anti-Muslim extremists". It's what has speakers at Universities being actually attacked by mobs rather than be allowed to speak if their views are not sufficiently ideologically pure.
It's crazy. Intolerance in the service of faux tolerance. What a world.
The leftist intolerance on social justice matters irritates me deeply. What you say has a lot of merit in general.
That said, in this particular case, I think you're way over-reacting to that one post, and the reason that others didn't comment on it was because they didn't over-react to it. It was just a bitchy post, the likes of which we've seen 47,000 times before.
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 07:03:58 PM
That said, in this particular case, I think you're way over-reacting to that one post, and the reason that others didn't comment on it was because they didn't over-react to it. It was just a bitchy post, the likes of which we've seen 47,000 times before.
No no no.
The post makes garbon the worst racist on languish and anyone who doesn't join Berkut in chastising garbon - but especially me and Oex apparently, I suppose because we are the designated SJWs of languish - even worse.
I suppose because we're the designated SJWs of languish we're responsible for policing everyone's behaviour, and if we fail to do so to Berkut's satisfaction we must be hypocrites... and as everyone knows, those are hands down the worst thing ever.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 06:54:08 PM
Indeed, they went to bat for him vigorously - Jake is accusing me of being some kind of enraged crazy person rather than simply accept that he said something untoward.
:lmfao:
Berkut dear, you being "some kind of enraged crazy person" is an established part of languish culture to the degree that you've had your own emoticon for probably the past decade
:berkut:
Of course - I have my own emoticon, so that must mean your tolerance of racism is really no big thing.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 07:10:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2017, 07:03:58 PM
That said, in this particular case, I think you're way over-reacting to that one post, and the reason that others didn't comment on it was because they didn't over-react to it. It was just a bitchy post, the likes of which we've seen 47,000 times before.
No no no.
The post makes garbon the worst racist on languish
And you are accusing me of over-reacting?
Quote
and anyone who doesn't join Berkut in chastising garbon - but especially me and Oex apparently, I suppose because we are the designated SJWs of languish - even worse.
It makes you, well, you, I guess. You don't really think objectively about these things. garbon is on your side, therefore he can make racist comments and that is fine with you. You will go jihad on anyone who calls him out on it, just like this.
Worst thing ever? I dunno, those are your words, not mine. You are just making shit up at this point.
Quote
I suppose because we're the designated SJWs of languish we're responsible for policing everyone's behaviour, and if we fail to do so to Berkut's satisfaction
You didn't not police him, you defended him.
In fact, you not only didn't police him, you defended him and are desperately trying to instead police the person who noted it. You are attacking the person who objected to an overtly racist comment, and doing so with ad homs and doing so rather vigorously. It is a fascinating contrast.
Racist comment gets a pat on the back, objecting gets a over the top enraged response.
Quote
we must be hypocrites... and as everyone knows, those are hands down the worst thing ever.
No, but if you tolerate overtly bullshit comments and then go one to vigorously defend them even in other threads, then yeah, you are pretty obviously a hypocrite.
Whether those are the worst things ever or not is your call, not mine.
You do seem rather sensitive to it though, so I suspect you know as well as I do just how contemptible it is...
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:21:16 PM
It is ironic that in all of Languish, you are probably the most openly racist poster we have.
Apparently, I'm a Jew hater and I have all of Stormfront and the other neonazis on speed dial.
Garbon can't beat that for sure.
Berkut you are hilarious :hug:
Jesus, Berkut, loosen up a bit.
Attempting to avoid, if possible, the personal stuff (probably doomed), I will simply say this:
I don't think there is anything quite outrageous to presume a white person, in a white society, has not especially been confronted to racism. It's a pretty well researched phenomenon, actually: members of groups who are placed in a position of privilege have the luxury not to imagine the life of those in an inferior position, because such ignorance carry no great consequences. Whereas the price of ignorance of how the powerful think, from the less-powerful, can be quite high.
It's a presumption, sure. Which doesn't mean a white person never has been confronted with prejudice (obviously). I am sure people, including on the forum, have had to contend with all other sorts of prejudice, and surely that informs the understanding of being placed in a position of judgment and inferiority. But I tend to assume there is something about racial prejudice that does not lend itself well to comparisons to other forms of prejudice, as all those stories of black people arrested for driving luxury vehicles they couldn't possibly own, in the minds of the cops. In any other circumstances, in the United States, wealth should have insured these people from discriminatory treatment, and yet, have not.
It doesn't mean either that white people are incapable of thinking seriously about issues such as racism, or articulating a profound understanding of it. But is garbon's habitual snarky answer *that* different from the snarky answers given to, say, Marty, or BB, posting stuff about the United States, and being dismissed as foreigners - regardless of how informed they may be? Apart from the fact that it's clearly more offensive to be dismissed as a racist than as a "foreigner"?
BB is worse than a foreigner. Canadian.
Forget about the curve ball B. Give'em the the heater. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physics.utoronto.ca%2F%7Eaephraim%2FGoesto11%2F11.jpg&hash=268ed0931c2057e7855e1112758579874707e711)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2017, 08:51:26 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physics.utoronto.ca%2F%7Eaephraim%2FGoesto11%2F11.jpg&hash=268ed0931c2057e7855e1112758579874707e711)
Classic movie.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Oh you mean the guy that made that story up from A to Z?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/28/his-story-of-being-stabbed-for-a-neo-nazi-haircut-went-viral-police-say-it-was-a-lie/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/28/his-story-of-being-stabbed-for-a-neo-nazi-haircut-went-viral-police-say-it-was-a-lie/)
You should leave your echo chamber once in a while. Follow up on stories, past the facebook memes. You know, adult stuff.
Shit, I just read the rest of the thread.
Ok, disregard :frog:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2017, 08:56:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2017, 03:15:42 PM
Don't be silly you too, that has nothing to do. We're talking violence here. Attacking people in the streets. Trying to murder suspected or actual neo nazis. Deciding for yourself what kind of justice is the right one.
You mean, like knifing a guy who has the wrong haircut? I'm guessing the Languish SJW crew were okay with that. The attacker had the best of intentions-- punch a Nazi, stab a guy who maybe sorta vaguely looks like a Nazi, etc.
Oh you mean the guy that made that story up from A to Z?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/28/his-story-of-being-stabbed-for-a-neo-nazi-haircut-went-viral-police-say-it-was-a-lie/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/28/his-story-of-being-stabbed-for-a-neo-nazi-haircut-went-viral-police-say-it-was-a-lie/)
You should leave your echo chamber once in a while. Follow up on stories, past the facebook memes. You know, adult stuff.
Psst we've moved passed that and towards another thread to discuss who is more racist, Berk or garbon
Damn between to the post.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2017, 08:35:16 PM
Attempting to avoid, if possible, the personal stuff (probably doomed), I will simply say this:
I don't think there is anything quite outrageous to presume a white person, in a white society, has not especially been confronted to racism. It's a pretty well researched phenomenon, actually: members of groups who are placed in a position of privilege have the luxury not to imagine the life of those in an inferior position, because such ignorance carry no great consequences. Whereas the price of ignorance of how the powerful think, from the less-powerful, can be quite high.
It's a presumption, sure. Which doesn't mean a white person never has been confronted with prejudice (obviously). I am sure people, including on the forum, have had to contend with all other sorts of prejudice, and surely that informs the understanding of being placed in a position of judgment and inferiority. But I tend to assume there is something about racial prejudice that does not lend itself well to comparisons to other forms of prejudice, as all those stories of black people arrested for driving luxury vehicles they couldn't possibly own, in the minds of the cops. In any other circumstances, in the United States, wealth should have insured these people from discriminatory treatment, and yet, have not.
It doesn't mean either that white people are incapable of thinking seriously about issues such as racism, or articulating a profound understanding of it. But is garbon's habitual snarky answer *that* different from the snarky answers given to, say, Marty, or BB, posting stuff about the United States, and being dismissed as foreigners - regardless of how informed they may be? Apart from the fact that it's clearly more offensive to be dismissed as a racist than as a "foreigner"?
The difference is that the snarkys answers are just that - trolls, and nobody takes it seriously when Seedy calls BB a Canadian - it isn't part of the actual discussion.
Garbon told us that we should ignore Del's position because he is a white person, and that was not a joke, or a troll, or a snarky response. It was a completely serious response to a serious discussion.
This isn't about challenging someone's perspectives and demanding that they step outside their bubble. This is about the attempt to stifle discussion by invalidating someone's position based solely on their race, rather than the content of their ideas.
I don't think garbon gets a pass, or should not get a pass, because he is "snarky". Or because other people are also snarky, and maybe dismissive in some other fashion.
Now, if you want to argue that garbon should be given as much relevance as lettow because they are equally willing to make racist, snarky comments, then we are probably in agreement.
But the argument, that appears to be being made by you and Jake, that garbon making racist comments towards people he disagrees with is a-ok because other people on languish are trollish, then I suspect that your position is motivated more by his alignment in opinion than any rational or even reasonably fair assessment of his behavior in this case.
It isn't THAT big of a deal, but it isn't nothing. I think the level of angst shown by garbon in bringing it up in a completely unrelated context, and Jakes hysterical reaction and your own careful attempt to divert the basic issue suggests rather strongly to me that you all know perfectly well that I am right.
But if this is just no big deal, then let it go. So garbon is all edgy racist, I am sure me and Del are just being overly sensitive - I am, after all, well known for being some kind of radical conservative ready to be offended by supposed "reverse racism", right?
I agree with Berk but mostly because I find garbon annoying :P
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,
Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here? I can't think of any.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 09:14:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,
Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here? I can't think of any.
Voting for trump.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 09:14:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,
Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here? I can't think of any.
The better question is why when you post something that he thinks is racist, he is happy to confirm his perception of you as such.
Yet he just compared garbon doing that to others, and yet his conclusion is that we should NOT draw any conclusions from garbon's post - that it is perfectly fine and not to be discouraged. And in fact, the response to anyone questioning it should be the thing that warrants a significant reaction!
Jake is engaging in Trump supporter levels of "whataboutism"!
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 09:14:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,
Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here? I can't think of any.
Too much work to dive back through old posts, but it's a fair point. I'll point it out the next few times I see it, but until then (so maybe never, if your implicit claim to not troll/ joke with racism is true) I'll concede that maybe I've let CdM's characterization of your politics colour my memory of your posts.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:07:10 PM
I'll concede that maybe I've let CdM's characterization of your politics colour my memory of your posts.
:lol:
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2017, 08:35:16 PM
I don't think there is anything quite outrageous to presume a white person, in a white society, has not especially been confronted to racism. It's a pretty well researched phenomenon, actually: members of groups who are placed in a position of privilege have the luxury not to imagine the life of those in an inferior position, because such ignorance carry no great consequences. Whereas the price of ignorance of how the powerful think, from the less-powerful, can be quite high.
I've definitely observed a similar phenomenon with some of the Chinese (Han) people in my wife's family when discussing politics and their perception towards various Chinese minority groups.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2017, 11:11:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:07:10 PM
I'll concede that maybe I've let CdM's characterization of your politics colour my memory of your posts.
:lol:
CdM is better at languish agitprop than Hansie ever was.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:12:19 PM
CdM is better at languish agitprop than Hansie ever was.
Perhaps a function of his receptive audience.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2017, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:12:19 PM
CdM is better at languish agitprop than Hansie ever was.
Perhaps a function of his receptive audience.
That's often the case, yes. That's 101 level stuff isn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2017, 09:14:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,
Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here? I can't think of any.
I thought about it, long and hard. Why is Derspiess always compared to a neo-nazi? Why is called nigger-hater by Cdm?
I tried searching your post and couldn't find anything relevant. You don't really go in detail on your political opinions.
So I think I have found the reason.
A lot of people assume that muslims are dangerous terrorists, since a lot of terrorists are muslims. Unfair assumption, imho, and Jacob will back me on this. Besides, Christian arabs often get lumped into this group and it's totally unfair, since Christianity is a religion of peace and no Christian ever hurt anyone in the name of his God, it is known.
So, by that same rationale, that all practionners of Islam are terrorists, it stands to reason, that if a certain racist group is composed of White Anglo Saxon Protestants Republicans using religion as the basis of their argument that White Men are superior to all others, because it's apparently written in the Bible somewhere that Black Men are evil, that if you are a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Republican using religion to define your political opinions, it means you are a neo nazi too.
It is, in a way, kinda funny that some of the people who will take time to defend islam practionners from the prejudice they face because of terrorists like ISIS and AQ, going so far as to verbally and physically assault people who think like that, will in turn associate you to neo-nazi because you are a white Republican man.
But really, bullying is a national sport here. When it's not Tim, it's you, or me, or Berkut now, it seems. We get used to it. I'm sure most of them are nice guys in real life.
Yes, poor Berkut. :lol:
Yeah, don't fucking lump me in with your lot.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2017, 01:05:34 AM
Yeah, don't fucking lump me in with your lot.
Agreed.
Well it sure is interesting how Berk has turned my post into meaning that white people should always big ignored on matters of race.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 01:41:02 AM
Well it sure is interesting how Berk has turned my post into meaning that white people should always big ignored on matters of race.
A near-perfect strawman argument. Thanks for the example. I can use this in my classroom.
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2017, 05:41:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 01:41:02 AM
Well it sure is interesting how Berk has turned my post into meaning that white people should always big ignored on matters of race.
A near-perfect strawman argument. Thanks for the example. I can use this in my classroom.
Well it was in response to this wildly off the mark mischaracterization:
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 09:04:41 PM
Garbon told us that we should ignore Del's position because he is a white person, and that was not a joke, or a troll, or a snarky response. It was a completely serious response to a serious discussion.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 06:15:47 AM
Well it was in response to this wildly off the mark mischaracterization:
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 09:04:41 PM
Garbon told us that we should ignore Del's position because he is a white person, and that was not a joke, or a troll, or a snarky response. It was a completely serious response to a serious discussion.
If Berkut's interpretation of "white whine" as your sole response to a lengthy Del post was not what you intended, you communicated your more complex point poorly. Perhaps two words (one of them racist) isn't enough? If Berkut was "wildly off the mark," you have only yourself to blame.
Not really. After all, he's the one who decided to decide on a flawed interpretation and then post at length about it. Can't really blame myself for the time and energy he decided to expend.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
What is more interesting than me calling him out on comments that are clearly racist, is that you give him a complete pass on it. It isn't even worthy of comment from you that he accused someone of having views determined by their race.
On this:
Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks, I do not rate garbon's "*white whine*" as particularly noteworthy, no. Off-handed trolling dismissals of viewpoints you disagree with - or viewpoints you agree with but which suggest an opening - are pretty par for the course here IMO, including ones that are implicitly or explicitly racist.
Then again, you getting your knickers in a twist over something fairly trivial and going all "Berkut Indignation Level: Throbbing Purple" is par for the course too, but personally I don't find it particularly interesting.
About time my greatness is acknowledged.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 07:20:43 AM
Not really. After all, he's the one who decided to decide on a flawed interpretation and then post at length about it. Can't really blame myself for the time and energy he decided to expend.
True. But you are to blame for sounding exactly like a racist, no matter how much or little time Berkut expended pointing it out.
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2017, 07:31:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 07:20:43 AM
Not really. After all, he's the one who decided to decide on a flawed interpretation and then post at length about it. Can't really blame myself for the time and energy he decided to expend.
True. But you are to blame for sounding exactly like a racist, no matter how much or little time Berkut expended pointing it out.
People are free to draw the wrong conclusions.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 07:37:42 AM
People are free to draw the wrong conclusions.
And you are free to remain in denial.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Who's Del?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2017, 08:15:10 AM
Who's Del?
Delirium who posted on this race stuff in another thread I think.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2017, 08:15:10 AM
Who's Del?
The guy garbon racially abused. what happened to your languish encyclopedia? I thought you kept all this stuff documented :D
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2017, 07:31:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 07:20:43 AM
Not really. After all, he's the one who decided to decide on a flawed interpretation and then post at length about it. Can't really blame myself for the time and energy he decided to expend.
True. But you are to blame for sounding exactly like a racist, no matter how much or little time Berkut expended pointing it out.
Context matters. This wasn't garbon's first post on this forum, a little latitude in the interpretation is called for when it runs counter to all prior positing history.
Berkut's very first first reply, when he decided to go "THAT'S RACIST!!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :angry: :angry: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :angry: :angry:" instead of "this really did not come off well, did you really mean it that way" made it all about him from that point on.
Garbon has been oppressing us for 14 years, about time it got recognized. :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2017, 07:31:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 07:20:43 AM
Not really. After all, he's the one who decided to decide on a flawed interpretation and then post at length about it. Can't really blame myself for the time and energy he decided to expend.
True. But you are to blame for sounding exactly like a racist, no matter how much or little time Berkut expended pointing it out.
Context matters. This wasn't garbon's first post on this forum, a little latitude in the interpretation is called for when it runs counter to all prior positing history.
Berkut's very first first reply, when he decided to go "THAT'S RACIST!!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :angry: :angry: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :angry: :angry:" instead of "this really did not come off well, did you really mean it that way" made it all about him from that point on.
Yes, it is certainly my fault he said something racist and then refused to back off on it.
The problem isn't the news, it is the leakers! They are the problem!
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2017, 07:31:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 07:20:43 AM
Not really. After all, he's the one who decided to decide on a flawed interpretation and then post at length about it. Can't really blame myself for the time and energy he decided to expend.
True. But you are to blame for sounding exactly like a racist, no matter how much or little time Berkut expended pointing it out.
Context matters. This wasn't garbon's first post on this forum, a little latitude in the interpretation is called for when it runs counter to all prior positing history.
Berkut's very first first reply, when he decided to go "THAT'S RACIST!!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :angry: :angry: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :angry: :angry:" instead of "this really did not come off well, did you really mean it that way" made it all about him from that point on.
It is true that things went to a bizarre place before I'd even had a chance to explain why I wrote what I did...which made me think it wasn't really worth it to elaborate.
I guess, just so it is out there, I don't think that all people of any race think the same way. :o
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2017, 10:01:13 AM
I guess, just so it is out there, I don't think that all people of any race think the same way. :o
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Bill_Clinton%2C_Yitzhak_Rabin%2C_Yasser_Arafat_at_the_White_House_1993-09-13.jpg)
Look at those three people with low melanin content in their skin. They must all think the same!
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2017, 10:19:28 AM
Look at those three people with low melanin content in their skin. They must all think the same!
WYPIPO
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2017, 08:09:54 AM
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I don't know, man. Ray Charles was pretty damn blind.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2017, 11:11:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2017, 11:07:10 PM
I'll concede that maybe I've let CdM's characterization of your politics colour my memory of your posts.
:lol:
CdM is better at languish agitprop than Hansie ever was.
I just traffic in the truth.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2017, 12:25:47 AM
But really, bullying is a national sport here. When it's not Tim, it's you, or me, or Berkut now, it seems. We get used to it. I'm sure most of them are nice guys in real life.
It's not the same for everyone, though. Tim gets bullied for being somewhat naïve and so very, very earnest. Berkut gets, well, I'm not sure he gets bullied exactly, because he pushes back, but he gets flack for being so forceful and having a hair-trigger. You get bullied because many people find some of the views you've expressed recently pretty vile (and they aren't the vile views that are socially and politically acceptable around here).
Do me! :w00t:
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
You get bullied because many people find some of the views you've expressed recently pretty vile (and they aren't the vile views that are socially and politically acceptable around here).
All right, I'll bite, which vile views do we find socially and politically acceptable around here?
Alright, where we at here gents?
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2017, 08:40:00 PM
Alright, where we at here gents?
I'm seducing Brain with my manliness.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2017, 08:42:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2017, 08:40:00 PM
Alright, where we at here gents?
I'm seducing Brain with my manliness.
Not with that semi-masculine avatar
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2017, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
You get bullied because many people find some of the views you've expressed recently pretty vile (and they aren't the vile views that are socially and politically acceptable around here).
All right, I'll bite, which vile views do we find socially and politically acceptable around here?
Pro-violence as long as the perpetrators wear hoodies and Che t-shirts instead of swastikas?
Quote from: Tamas on September 01, 2017, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2017, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
You get bullied because many people find some of the views you've expressed recently pretty vile (and they aren't the vile views that are socially and politically acceptable around here).
All right, I'll bite, which vile views do we find socially and politically acceptable around here?
Pro-violence as long as the perpetrators wear hoodies and Che t-shirts instead of swastikas?
Seems like a mistake to highlight that one as 1) a terrible mischaracterization and 2) that people espousing their actual view (Jacob...I guess me to some extent) are holding views that are considered controversial by Languish.
Well I was harassed for like two days in one of these threads (by you, mostly) for disapproving the notion of political violence.
That's not what I 'harassed' you for.
Quote from: Tamas on September 01, 2017, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2017, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
You get bullied because many people find some of the views you've expressed recently pretty vile (and they aren't the vile views that are socially and politically acceptable around here).
All right, I'll bite, which vile views do we find socially and politically acceptable around here?
Pro-violence as long as the perpetrators wear hoodies and Che t-shirts instead of swastikas?
I think we have more "I'm just trolling" fascists than we have those.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2017, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 01, 2017, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2017, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
You get bullied because many people find some of the views you've expressed recently pretty vile (and they aren't the vile views that are socially and politically acceptable around here).
All right, I'll bite, which vile views do we find socially and politically acceptable around here?
Pro-violence as long as the perpetrators wear hoodies and Che t-shirts instead of swastikas?
I think we have more "I'm just trolling" fascists than we have those.
Our "just trolling" fascists get ridiculed and criticised. Which is the same treatment you get when you think pro-left violence is wrong.
Ah, the imaginary fascists of Languish. I guess sometimes you need to invent bad guys.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 10:58:21 AM
Ah, the imaginary fascists of Languish. I guess sometimes you need to invent bad guys.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Tamas on September 01, 2017, 11:21:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 10:58:21 AM
Ah, the imaginary fascists of Languish. I guess sometimes you need to invent bad guys.
:rolleyes:
So you think there are fascists here?
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 01, 2017, 11:21:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 10:58:21 AM
Ah, the imaginary fascists of Languish. I guess sometimes you need to invent bad guys.
:rolleyes:
So you think there are fascists here?
I think there are people who tolerate pretty fascist leaning people and even ideas because it aligns with their political views.
Ironically, about a week ago I was pretty sure that set of people was almost 100% aligned with the right on Languish. Now I realize that there are plenty aligned with the left as well.
Quote from: Berkut on September 01, 2017, 11:40:33 AM
I think there are people who tolerate pretty fascist leaning people and even ideas because it aligns with their political views.
So no actual fascists, just people who supposedly tolerate quasi-fascists. I'd love to hear more on this, if you could elaborate.
QuoteIronically, about a week ago I was pretty sure that set of people was almost 100% aligned with the right on Languish. Now I realize that there are plenty aligned with the left as well.
Yes, we have people aligned with the right (though not many these days), and people aligned with the left. That shouldn't really be big revelation.
We have plenty of people on Languish that are/were aligned with the right. It isn't our fault that the majority of the right has gone retarded in the last several years.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 12:23:02 PM
We have plenty of people on Languish that are/were aligned with the right. It isn't our fault that the majority of the right has gone retarded in the last several years.
Yeah. The right has gone basically all morally bankrupt.
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2017, 12:24:57 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 12:23:02 PM
We have plenty of people on Languish that are/were aligned with the right. It isn't our fault that the majority of the right has gone retarded in the last several years.
Yeah. The right has gone basically all morally bankrupt.
Has not! :mad: #NeverTrump
The right has shifted further right, leaving your moderately-right Languishites in the center and your retarded right Languishites still retarded.
And some right Lanquishites have left.
Which ones?
Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2017, 12:31:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2017, 12:24:57 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 12:23:02 PM
We have plenty of people on Languish that are/were aligned with the right. It isn't our fault that the majority of the right has gone retarded in the last several years.
Yeah. The right has gone basically all morally bankrupt.
Has not! :mad: #NeverTrump
Without a thorough and complete repudiation of Trump before or even shortly after the mid-terms by mainstream Republicans (platitudes and "condemnation" that leads to no action a la Ryan, McConnell, etc. don't count), we're going to see the damage done for an entire generation of right-leaning politicians. It may already be done.
I learned a phrase from the right during those dark years when Obama was irrevocably destroying America: "Silence is consent".
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 01:28:27 PM
Which ones?
Hortlund, Hans, Scip (he's still sort of here but seems to avoid political threads). Probably forgetting one or two.
Kronn, Slargos, Siege, catholic Fahdiz
I'm glad Hortlund left, Slargos was an annoying racist, and I think Kronn is still around here and there. I know AmScip is.
Not exactly a good list.
I was just answering your question.
FWIW, Kronn is pretty much gone, though he may pop back in at some point. I know he was a bit turned off by the hostility the Languish left has been displaying in recent years. And as I mentioned, Amski appears to be avoiding political discussions, so from a political perspective he's not here.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
FWIW, Kronn is pretty much gone, though he may pop back in at some point. I know he was a bit turned off by the hostility the Languish left has been displaying in recent years.
He was posting some kooky quackery when it came to politics.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
I'm glad Hortlund left, Slargos was an annoying racist, and I think Kronn is still around here and there. I know AmScip is.
Not exactly a good list.
I think it would be fair to call Hortlund a fascist. Remember his constant defense of Albert Speer?
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2017, 02:56:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
FWIW, Kronn is pretty much gone, though he may pop back in at some point. I know he was a bit turned off by the hostility the Languish left has been displaying in recent years.
He was posting some kooky quackery when it came to politics.
Case in point :P
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2017, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
I'm glad Hortlund left, Slargos was an annoying racist, and I think Kronn is still around here and there. I know AmScip is.
Not exactly a good list.
I think it would be fair to call Hortlund a fascist. Remember his constant defense of Albert Speer?
Point?
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
I was just answering your question.
FWIW, Kronn is pretty much gone, though he may pop back in at some point. I know he was a bit turned off by the hostility the Languish left has been displaying in recent years. And as I mentioned, Amski appears to be avoiding political discussions, so from a political perspective he's not here.
Fair enough.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2017, 02:56:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
FWIW, Kronn is pretty much gone, though he may pop back in at some point. I know he was a bit turned off by the hostility the Languish left has been displaying in recent years.
He was posting some kooky quackery when it came to politics.
Case in point :P
Quote from: garbon on February 03, 2017, 05:34:51 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 03, 2017, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 03, 2017, 05:14:46 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 03, 2017, 04:37:13 PM
the planned attack by a couple of Iraqi refugees in Kentucky that police prevented. This was the incident that led Pres Obama to halt refugees from Iraq for a while.
Leaving aside whether Conway lied about it or not, she certainly did lie (or is this another 'misspoke'?) about the Iraqi travel ban. There was no such thing.
Iraqis were not banned from entering the USA on travel visas and there was no "halt[ing] refugees from Iraq for a while". Imposing additional checks and slowing process time is in no way "halt[ing]" refugees.
Right, and Trump's ban was never a ban on Muslims, as has been wrongly reported all around the world. But Trump admin did screw up with banning those with valid visas and green cards but that was quickly changed/fixed.
:lol:
Trump campaigns on a Muslim ban and then just so happens to ban people who are citizens of several muslim majority nations? Where, sir, is your mind?
Quote from: garbon on February 03, 2017, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 03, 2017, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 03, 2017, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 03, 2017, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 03, 2017, 11:57:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 03, 2017, 10:45:11 AM
So lovely how Conway blamed refugees for an American massacre that never happened...
check the Twitters at the bottom of the article :D
Link (http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/03/kellyanne-conway-la-conseillere-de-donald-trump-invente-le-massacre-de-bowling-green-pour-justifier-le-decret-anti-immigration_n_14594906.html)
Conway misspoke. She was talking about the planned attack by a couple of Iraqi refugees in Kentucky that police prevented. This was the incident that led Pres Obama to halt refugees from Iraq for a while.
She misspoke when she named a massacre in an American city? :yeahright:
She was wrong, if she did mean a massacre. I doubt she tried to lie about it as it's so easy to check the story, therefor I said/assumed she misspoke.
:lol:
Yes, because the Trump administration never tells easily disprovable lies.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 03:02:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2017, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
I'm glad Hortlund left, Slargos was an annoying racist, and I think Kronn is still around here and there. I know AmScip is.
Not exactly a good list.
I think it would be fair to call Hortlund a fascist. Remember his constant defense of Albert Speer?
Point?
Hortlund was a fascist.
Giving Conway the benefit of the doubt is kooky now?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 01, 2017, 04:56:26 PM
Giving Conway the benefit of the doubt is kooky now?
She talked about the "Bowling Green Massacre" on three separate occasions.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2017, 05:15:41 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 01, 2017, 04:56:26 PM
Giving Conway the benefit of the doubt is kooky now?
She talked about the "Bowling Green Massacre" on three separate occasions.
How does that prove she was making shit up rather than confused about the facts?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2017, 04:41:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 03:02:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2017, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
I'm glad Hortlund left, Slargos was an annoying racist, and I think Kronn is still around here and there. I know AmScip is.
Not exactly a good list.
I think it would be fair to call Hortlund a fascist. Remember his constant defense of Albert Speer?
Point?
Hortlund was a fascist.
Okay.
When it came to politics, KRonn sounded like he had an IQ of 70, even long before he said anything that identified him with one party or the other. He displayed a profound inability to say or comprehend anything other than empty platitudes.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2017, 06:36:04 PM
When it came to politics, KRonn sounded like he had an IQ of 70, even long before he said anything that identified him with one party or the other. He displayed a profound inability to say or comprehend anything other than empty platitudes.
Glass houses?
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
I was just answering your question.
FWIW, Kronn is pretty much gone, though he may pop back in at some point. I know he was a bit turned off by the hostility the Languish left has been displaying in recent years. And as I mentioned, Amski appears to be avoiding political discussions, so from a political perspective he's not here.
I am sorry to hear we were too mean for Kronn but what is this 'recent years' nonsense? When have we ever been a cuddly warm sort of place? I mean I love you Spicey but not everybody is as tender hearted as me.
Did I ever say something mean to KRonn? I apologize if he took anything personally.
As for Scip he has not posted seriously about political topics since at least before 2009. And judging by his facebook feed that is not because he shares a radically different opinion than most of us here so it is not terror at our vile hostility that is keeping him from doing that. But hey he can probably speak for himself at some point if he sees this.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2017, 02:56:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
FWIW, Kronn is pretty much gone, though he may pop back in at some point. I know he was a bit turned off by the hostility the Languish left has been displaying in recent years.
He was posting some kooky quackery when it came to politics.
Case in point :P
Is saying somebody is a kooky quack too hostile for you? Damn you have gotten soft over the years.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2017, 01:28:27 PM
Which ones?
Hortlund, Hans, Scip (he's still sort of here but seems to avoid political threads). Probably forgetting one or two.
Hortlund left because he was running for office in Sweden and did not want anything HE said to impact him, nothing to do with my hostility towards him. I was not that hostile to him I don't think.
Hans was never really a regular poster, or at least has not been for a decade. He just drives by from time to time. I have wondered what he thinks about Trump. He might show up again at some point.
Anyway sorry this faceless mob known at the 'Languish Left' is so damn hostile. But any team that has Berkut on it is going to be pretty salty.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2017, 07:10:01 PM
Anyway sorry this faceless mob known at the 'Languish Left' is so damn hostile. But any team that has Berkut on it is going to be pretty salty.
it's just that some of us never imagined Languish turning that far left. Now, it's just "OMG facist!" "Jew hater" "Racist" whenever there is a disagreement on policies. That and the constant reminder that not all of us are English teachers. I know my english sucks, and I'm totally losing it, it's even worst in person, I constantly struggle with the words and I'm unable to form them correctly. I just don't have to be reminded every goddam post, it gets tiresome.
It used to be a cool place, filled with cool people. It used to be despite our differences, despite the trading of insults by CdM we had a certain grudging respect for one another. Now... Ah, I'm just a tired old man.
And yeah, I liked Kronn and I miss him. Even if he became a misguided Trump supporter, he wasn't a kook in politics, far from it. He wasn't anything like Hansmeister towing the GOP lines and spin all day long. Pretty laid back, liberal guy. Unlike so many of us, he was against the war on Iraq back in 2003. Now, some of us looks like fool, and he gets called a kook. Weird.
QuoteNow, it's just "OMG facist!" "Jew hater" "Racist" whenever there is a disagreement on policies.
And there are plenty of us fighting back against that to the extent it happens.
QuoteIt used to be a cool place, filled with cool people. It used to be despite our differences, despite the trading of insults by CdM we had a certain grudging respect for one another. Now... Ah, I'm just a tired old man.
I think we all are...tired old men that is. We are getting grumpy. I do have a grudging respect for all of you it is never personal.
And don't forget shitloads of people like Buddha and Sav and others have left because were too damn far right wing.
QuoteAnd yeah, I liked Kronn and I miss him. Even if he became a misguided Trump supporter, he wasn't a kook in politics, far from it. He wasn't anything like Hansmeister towing the GOP lines and spin all day long. Pretty laid back, liberal guy. Unlike so many of us, he was against the war on Iraq back in 2003. Now, some of us looks like fool, and he gets called a kook. Weird.
Was he? Damn I don't remember that. Anyway Kronn will hopefully be back I think we are all mellowing out a bit on the Trump shit as it becomes more normalized and common place.
Quote from: mongers on September 01, 2017, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2017, 06:36:04 PM
When it came to politics, KRonn sounded like he had an IQ of 70, even long before he said anything that identified him with one party or the other. He displayed a profound inability to say or comprehend anything other than empty platitudes.
Glass houses?
Clever jabs are not your forte.
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2017, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2017, 07:10:01 PM
Anyway sorry this faceless mob known at the 'Languish Left' is so damn hostile. But any team that has Berkut on it is going to be pretty salty.
it's just that some of us never imagined Languish turning that far left. Now, it's just "OMG facist!" "Jew hater" "Racist" whenever there is a disagreement on policies. That and the constant reminder that not all of us are English teachers. I know my english sucks, and I'm totally losing it, it's even worst in person, I constantly struggle with the words and I'm unable to form them correctly. I just don't have to be reminded every goddam post, it gets tiresome.
It used to be a cool place, filled with cool people. It used to be despite our differences, despite the trading of insults by CdM we had a certain grudging respect for one another. Now... Ah, I'm just a tired old man.
And yeah, I liked Kronn and I miss him. Even if he became a misguided Trump supporter, he wasn't a kook in politics, far from it. He wasn't anything like Hansmeister towing the GOP lines and spin all day long. Pretty laid back, liberal guy. Unlike so many of us, he was against the war on Iraq back in 2003. Now, some of us looks like fool, and he gets called a kook. Weird.
If you can't stand the heat, don't put your face on the stove.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 01, 2017, 05:17:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2017, 05:15:41 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 01, 2017, 04:56:26 PM
Giving Conway the benefit of the doubt is kooky now?
She talked about the "Bowling Green Massacre" on three separate occasions.
How does that prove she was making shit up rather than confused about the facts?
Anyone who refers to lies as "alternative facts", draws suspicion of dishonesty.
OTOH quite a few people on the left have complained about the right leaning tendencies of Languish and subsequently quit. Tuna, Sask, BuddhaRhubarb come to mind (although Sask does make appearances now and then).
I think the lean of the board hasn't changed significantly, it's just shed some of the extreme and the views of the remaining members have changed over time.
I thought Norgy did so to. But I could be wrong.
Quote from: frunk on September 01, 2017, 09:05:37 PM
OTOH quite a few people on the left have complained about the right leaning tendencies of Languish and subsequently quit. Tuna, Sask, BuddhaRhubarb come to mind (although Sask does make appearances now and then).
I think the lean of the board hasn't changed significantly, it's just shed some of the extreme and the views of the remaining members have changed over time.
This I can't agree with. Languish has always been left. If this site is thought of as right leaning, it's like comparing the Euro right to the U.S. right.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 01, 2017, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 01, 2017, 09:05:37 PM
OTOH quite a few people on the left have complained about the right leaning tendencies of Languish and subsequently quit. Tuna, Sask, BuddhaRhubarb come to mind (although Sask does make appearances now and then).
I think the lean of the board hasn't changed significantly, it's just shed some of the extreme and the views of the remaining members have changed over time.
This I can't agree with. Languish has always been left. If this site is thought of as right leaning, it's like comparing the Euro right to the U.S. right.
Oh everything is too right wing for somebody.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 01, 2017, 09:32:00 PM
This I can't agree with. Languish has always been left. If this site is thought of as right leaning, it's like comparing the Euro right to the U.S. right.
I didn't say whether Languish was to the right or to the left, just that there are people who quit because they felt it was too far to the right.
Going by US elections, we had a pretty even split between Bush and Kerry, 2/3 majorities for Obama and near unanimity for Clinton.
Languish has been center-right for most of its existence. Let's not forget that this forum started as a refuge for pro-war Americans that felt alienated from Paradox OT forum. We just haven't descended into fascism when the right wing did, which is why it appears that we have taken a left turn.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 01, 2017, 10:03:36 PM
Going by US elections, we had a pretty even split between Bush and Kerry, 2/3 majorities for Obama and near unanimity for Clinton.
Well I cannot challenge you on that since the evidence from the 2004 and 2008 elections has been destroyed forever.
I think we were mostly unanimous against Trump, with a few notable exceptions, but not necessarily for Clinton.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2017, 10:04:43 PM
Languish has been center-right for most of its existence. Let's not forget that this forum started as a refuge for pro-war Americans that felt alienated from Paradox OT forum. We just haven't descended into fascism when the right wing did, which is why it appears that we have taken a left turn.
At least the sanctions were ended. Think of all the children we saved.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2017, 10:04:43 PM
Languish has been center-right for most of its existence. Let's not forget that this forum started as a refuge for pro-war Americans that felt alienated from Paradox OT forum. We just haven't descended into fascism when the right wing did, which is why it appears that we have taken a left turn.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. This was Iraq-war central. I think the failure of war and the Bush administration took the sails out of lot of the right wingers. I do remember being lectured several times how Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. How quaint that seems in the age of the Alt-Right.
Trevor Noah calling out Antifa :pinch:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/01/trevor_noah_on_antifa_violence_video.html
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 11:59:22 PM
Trevor Noah calling out Antifa :pinch:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/01/trevor_noah_on_antifa_violence_video.html
Because most left wing people do not like violent extremists. I don't get the smilie.
Politics is so middle class. I try to avoid getting my hands filthy.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 01, 2017, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 01, 2017, 09:05:37 PM
OTOH quite a few people on the left have complained about the right leaning tendencies of Languish and subsequently quit. Tuna, Sask, BuddhaRhubarb come to mind (although Sask does make appearances now and then).
I think the lean of the board hasn't changed significantly, it's just shed some of the extreme and the views of the remaining members have changed over time.
This I can't agree with. Languish has always been left. If this site is thought of as right leaning, it's like comparing the Euro right to the U.S. right.
...huh?
Languish is very right leaning. The very core of this place is people who left paradox as it was too left wing.
Most people here are fairly moderate conservative with a few on the hard right and a handful on the left.
Quote from: frunk on September 01, 2017, 09:05:37 PM
OTOH quite a few people on the left have complained about the right leaning tendencies of Languish and subsequently quit. Tuna, Sask, BuddhaRhubarb come to mind (although Sask does make appearances now and then).
Tuna didn't leave over any left/right type split, though. He left because people were making fun of people that died in a shipping accident in our typical misanthropic, sarcastic, mean-spirited way. There wasn't really anything political about it IIRC,
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2017, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2017, 11:59:22 PM
Trevor Noah calling out Antifa :pinch:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/01/trevor_noah_on_antifa_violence_video.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/01/trevor_noah_on_antifa_violence_video.html)
Because most left wing people do not like violent extremists. I don't get the smilie.
Even savage black people are turned off by the terrible brutality of standing up to Nazis.
Inasmuch as there is a general political tenor to this place, I'd describe its leanings as similar to those of the Economist - so in US political terms, socially somewhat liberal and economically more conservative with the attendant faith in science and evidence-based policy (at least relative to most other corners of the internet). Of course there are notable individual outliers.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2017, 04:21:08 AM
...huh?
Languish is very right leaning. The very core of this place is people who left paradox as it was too left wing.
Err, no. It's people who left paradox because we wanted to discuss forbidden topics.
And the exodus happened just before Paradox got an influx of new hoi players who probably were more conservative on average than the eu vets.
All of you can board a Malaysian Airlines flight as far as I'm fucking concerned.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html
QuoteWaiting for a Perfect Protest?
Media outlets and commentators representing a range of political persuasions have called attention to recent outbreaks of violence in Berkeley, Calif., Boston and other locations where anti-racist and anti-fascist demonstrators have gathered. Intentionally or not, they have often promoted a false equivalency between groups that advocate white supremacy and those that seek to eliminate it.
Even mainstream media outlets that typically fact-check the president seem to have subtly bought into Mr. Trump's "both sides" narrative regarding right- and left-wing extremism. They've run headlines that highlight small violent skirmishes while ignoring the thousands who marched and protested peacefully, to say nothing of the injustices that inspired the protests.
Our complaint here is not about the right-wing media outlets that we know will continue to delegitimize anti-racist protest in any form — whether it's peacefully sitting during the national anthem, marching in the streets, staging boycotts or simply making the apparently radical claim that "black lives matter." Rather, our concern at this moment is with our moderate brothers and sisters who voice support for the cause of racial justice but simultaneously cling to paralyzingly unrealistic standards when it comes to what protest should look like.
As Christian clergy members, we place a high value on nonviolence. We are part of a national campaign that promotes proven solutions to reducing gun violence in our cities, and each of us has worked to achieve peace in our neighborhoods. But we know there has never been a time in American history in which movements for justice have been devoid of violent outbreaks.
Thanks to the sanitized images of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that dominate our nation's classrooms and our national discourse, many Americans imagine that protests organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and countless local organizations fighting for justice did not fall victim to violent outbreaks. That's a myth. In spite of extensive training in nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, individuals and factions within the larger movement engaged in violent skirmishes, and many insisted on their right to physically defend themselves even while they proclaimed nonviolence as an ideal (examples include leaders of the SNCC and the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Mississippi).
The reality — which is underdiscussed but essential to an understanding of our current situation — is that the civil rights work of Dr. King and other leaders was loudly opposed by overt racists and quietly sabotaged by cautious moderates. We believe that current moderates sincerely want to condemn racism and to see an end to its effects. The problem is that this desire is outweighed by the comfort of their current circumstances and a perception of themselves as above some of the messy implications of fighting for liberation. This is nothing new. In fact, Dr. King's 1963 "Letter From Birmingham Jail" is as relevant today as it was then. He wrote in part:
QuoteI have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action."
National polling from the 1960s shows that even during that celebrated "golden age" of nonviolent protest, most Americans were against marches and demonstrations. A 1961 Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of the public thought that lunch counter sit-ins and other demonstrations would hurt integration efforts. A 1963 poll showed that 60 percent had an unfavorable feeling toward the planned March on Washington, where Dr. King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. A year later, 74 percent said that since black people had made some progress, they should stop their demonstrations; and by 1969, 74 percent said that marching, picketing and demonstrations were hurting the civil rights cause. As for Dr. King personally, the figure who current moderates most readily point to as a model, 50 percent of people polled in 1966 thought that he was hurting the civil rights movement; only 36 percent believed he was helping.
The civil rights movement was messy, disorderly, confrontational and yes, sometimes violent. Those standing on the sidelines of the current racial-justice movement, waiting for a pristine or flawless exercise of righteous protest, will have a long wait. They, we suspect, will be this generation's version of the millions who claim that they were one of the thousands who marched with Dr. King. Each of us should realize that what we do now is most likely what we would have done during those celebrated protests 50 years ago. Rather than critique from afar, come out of your homes, follow those who are closest to the pain, and help us to redeem this country, and yourselves, in the process.
Michael McBride is a pastor and the director of PICO National Network's "Live Free" campaign. Traci Blackmon is the United Church of Christ's executive minister of justice and witness.
Frank Reid is the African Methodist Episcopal Church's bishop of ecumenical affairs and social action. Barbara Williams Skinner is a co-convener of the National African American Clergy Network.
Deus vult!
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2017, 09:04:41 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2017, 08:35:16 PM
Attempting to avoid, if possible, the personal stuff (probably doomed), I will simply say this:
I don't think there is anything quite outrageous to presume a white person, in a white society, has not especially been confronted to racism. It's a pretty well researched phenomenon, actually: members of groups who are placed in a position of privilege have the luxury not to imagine the life of those in an inferior position, because such ignorance carry no great consequences. Whereas the price of ignorance of how the powerful think, from the less-powerful, can be quite high.
It's a presumption, sure. Which doesn't mean a white person never has been confronted with prejudice (obviously). I am sure people, including on the forum, have had to contend with all other sorts of prejudice, and surely that informs the understanding of being placed in a position of judgment and inferiority. But I tend to assume there is something about racial prejudice that does not lend itself well to comparisons to other forms of prejudice, as all those stories of black people arrested for driving luxury vehicles they couldn't possibly own, in the minds of the cops. In any other circumstances, in the United States, wealth should have insured these people from discriminatory treatment, and yet, have not.
It doesn't mean either that white people are incapable of thinking seriously about issues such as racism, or articulating a profound understanding of it. But is garbon's habitual snarky answer *that* different from the snarky answers given to, say, Marty, or BB, posting stuff about the United States, and being dismissed as foreigners - regardless of how informed they may be? Apart from the fact that it's clearly more offensive to be dismissed as a racist than as a "foreigner"?
The difference is that the snarkys answers are just that - trolls, and nobody takes it seriously when Seedy calls BB a Canadian - it isn't part of the actual discussion.
Garbon told us that we should ignore Del's position because he is a white person, and that was not a joke, or a troll, or a snarky response. It was a completely serious response to a serious discussion.
This isn't about challenging someone's perspectives and demanding that they step outside their bubble. This is about the attempt to stifle discussion by invalidating someone's position based solely on their race, rather than the content of their ideas.
I don't think garbon gets a pass, or should not get a pass, because he is "snarky". Or because other people are also snarky, and maybe dismissive in some other fashion.
Now, if you want to argue that garbon should be given as much relevance as lettow because they are equally willing to make racist, snarky comments, then we are probably in agreement.
But the argument, that appears to be being made by you and Jake, that garbon making racist comments towards people he disagrees with is a-ok because other people on languish are trollish, then I suspect that your position is motivated more by his alignment in opinion than any rational or even reasonably fair assessment of his behavior in this case.
It isn't THAT big of a deal, but it isn't nothing. I think the level of angst shown by garbon in bringing it up in a completely unrelated context, and Jakes hysterical reaction and your own careful attempt to divert the basic issue suggests rather strongly to me that you all know perfectly well that I am right.
But if this is just no big deal, then let it go. So garbon is all edgy racist, I am sure me and Del are just being overly sensitive - I am, after all, well known for being some kind of radical conservative ready to be offended by supposed "reverse racism", right?
Well, Berkut (and grumbler) are obviously correct here. I find it somewhat soothing that more people, now, have expressed doubt about the issue but the failure from most people to do so was and is disappointing and I suppose an indication of how accepted the silly left and its ridiculous ideas on identy have become for people who do not think their positions through.
I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?
Jaron wasn't funny.
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:03:28 AM
I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?
Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:03:28 AM
I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?
Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.
Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 01:57:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:03:28 AM
I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?
Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.
Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".
Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'. I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 02:43:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 01:57:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:03:28 AM
I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?
Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.
Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".
Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'. I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too. :mellow:
You have made it very clear how much you care about other peoples race.
His motives are not the question - the issue is where the genesis of those motives come from - you have stated they come from his race. He is whining because he is white.
Again, there is a word for that - where you ascribe motives, thoughts, attributes, and characteristics to people based on their race.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 02:43:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 01:57:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:03:28 AM
I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?
Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.
Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".
Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'. I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too. :mellow:
You have made it very clear how much you care about other peoples race.
His motives are not the question - the issue is where the genesis of those motives come from - you have stated they come from his race. He is whining because he is white.
Again, there is a word for that - where you ascribe motives, thoughts, attributes, and characteristics to people based on their race.
Yeah middle distance runners are twats, sprinters on the other hand are enormous dicks.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 02:43:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 01:57:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2017, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:03:28 AM
I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?
Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.
Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".
Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'. I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too. :mellow:
You have made it very clear how much you care about other peoples race.
His motives are not the question - the issue is where the genesis of those motives come from - you have stated they come from his race. He is whining because he is white.
Again, there is a word for that - where you ascribe motives, thoughts, attributes, and characteristics to people based on their race.
No, I don't.
Garbon enjoys being contrarian, but I don't think he gets many laughs out of it.
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2017, 12:42:26 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html
QuoteWaiting for a Perfect Protest?
Media outlets and commentators representing a range of political persuasions have called attention to recent outbreaks of violence in Berkeley, Calif., Boston and other locations where anti-racist and anti-fascist demonstrators have gathered. Intentionally or not, they have often promoted a false equivalency between groups that advocate white supremacy and those that seek to eliminate it.
Even mainstream media outlets that typically fact-check the president seem to have subtly bought into Mr. Trump's "both sides" narrative regarding right- and left-wing extremism. They've run headlines that highlight small violent skirmishes while ignoring the thousands who marched and protested peacefully, to say nothing of the injustices that inspired the protests.
Our complaint here is not about the right-wing media outlets that we know will continue to delegitimize anti-racist protest in any form — whether it's peacefully sitting during the national anthem, marching in the streets, staging boycotts or simply making the apparently radical claim that "black lives matter." Rather, our concern at this moment is with our moderate brothers and sisters who voice support for the cause of racial justice but simultaneously cling to paralyzingly unrealistic standards when it comes to what protest should look like.
As Christian clergy members, we place a high value on nonviolence. We are part of a national campaign that promotes proven solutions to reducing gun violence in our cities, and each of us has worked to achieve peace in our neighborhoods. But we know there has never been a time in American history in which movements for justice have been devoid of violent outbreaks.
Thanks to the sanitized images of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that dominate our nation's classrooms and our national discourse, many Americans imagine that protests organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and countless local organizations fighting for justice did not fall victim to violent outbreaks. That's a myth. In spite of extensive training in nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, individuals and factions within the larger movement engaged in violent skirmishes, and many insisted on their right to physically defend themselves even while they proclaimed nonviolence as an ideal (examples include leaders of the SNCC and the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Mississippi).
The reality — which is underdiscussed but essential to an understanding of our current situation — is that the civil rights work of Dr. King and other leaders was loudly opposed by overt racists and quietly sabotaged by cautious moderates. We believe that current moderates sincerely want to condemn racism and to see an end to its effects. The problem is that this desire is outweighed by the comfort of their current circumstances and a perception of themselves as above some of the messy implications of fighting for liberation. This is nothing new. In fact, Dr. King's 1963 "Letter From Birmingham Jail" is as relevant today as it was then. He wrote in part:
QuoteI have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action."
National polling from the 1960s shows that even during that celebrated "golden age" of nonviolent protest, most Americans were against marches and demonstrations. A 1961 Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of the public thought that lunch counter sit-ins and other demonstrations would hurt integration efforts. A 1963 poll showed that 60 percent had an unfavorable feeling toward the planned March on Washington, where Dr. King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. A year later, 74 percent said that since black people had made some progress, they should stop their demonstrations; and by 1969, 74 percent said that marching, picketing and demonstrations were hurting the civil rights cause. As for Dr. King personally, the figure who current moderates most readily point to as a model, 50 percent of people polled in 1966 thought that he was hurting the civil rights movement; only 36 percent believed he was helping.
The civil rights movement was messy, disorderly, confrontational and yes, sometimes violent. Those standing on the sidelines of the current racial-justice movement, waiting for a pristine or flawless exercise of righteous protest, will have a long wait. They, we suspect, will be this generation's version of the millions who claim that they were one of the thousands who marched with Dr. King. Each of us should realize that what we do now is most likely what we would have done during those celebrated protests 50 years ago. Rather than critique from afar, come out of your homes, follow those who are closest to the pain, and help us to redeem this country, and yourselves, in the process.
Michael McBride is a pastor and the director of PICO National Network's "Live Free" campaign. Traci Blackmon is the United Church of Christ's executive minister of justice and witness.
Frank Reid is the African Methodist Episcopal Church's bishop of ecumenical affairs and social action. Barbara Williams Skinner is a co-convener of the National African American Clergy Network.
:wub: This.
Bleh. "Paralyzingly unrealistic standards?" That's horseshit. Don't beat people up. Don't throw shit at cops. Don't smash up Starbucks. Nothing paralytic about that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2017, 10:14:31 PM
Bleh. "Paralyzingly unrealistic standards?" That's horseshit. Don't beat people up. Don't throw shit at cops. Don't smash up Starbucks. Nothing paralytic about that.
Yep. If some skinheads attack you and you defend yourself nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2017, 10:18:48 PM
Yep. If some skinheads attack you and you defend yourself nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Unless of course you belong to some easily scapegoated demographic or were in the wrong place at the wrong time and get blamed for starting it in the media.
There's of course also the fact that it's a lot easier to defend yourself if you're prepared for the eventuality that you'll be attacked... but that doesn't play so well with the don't-be-violent crowd.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2017, 10:14:31 PM
Bleh. "Paralyzingly unrealistic standards?" That's horseshit. Don't beat people up. Don't throw shit at cops. Don't smash up Starbucks. Nothing paralytic about that.
So say there are some Nazis coming to town and I want to tell them off.
I join a protest of thousands, with no intention of engaging in violence or property destruction or anything like that. A handful of other people next to me decide to smash up a Starbucks and/ or to throw the first punch at a Nazi.
What if anything am I supposed to do about that, in your view?
Quote from: Jacob on September 04, 2017, 12:56:06 AM
So say there are some Nazis coming to town and I want to tell them off.
I join a protest of thousands, with no intention of engaging in violence or property destruction or anything like that. A handful of other people next to me decide to smash up a Starbucks and/ or to throw the first punch at a Nazi.
What if anything am I supposed to do about that, in your view?
1st you agree with me that the paralyzingly unrealistic standards statement is horseshit. Then you report the perps to the police.
The second part of your statement appears to illustrate "paralyzingly unrealistic standards"
Reporting serious crime seems to me to be good citizenship.
Of course. But in the middle of a demonstration, such sentiment appears to impose an unrealistic standard of behavior.
Who started this dust-up
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 04, 2017, 09:45:28 AM
Of course. But in the middle of a demonstration, such sentiment appears to impose an unrealistic standard of behavior.
Ok well what is a realistic response to seeing a violent crime occur?
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2017, 11:39:28 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 04, 2017, 09:45:28 AM
Of course. But in the middle of a demonstration, such sentiment appears to impose an unrealistic standard of behavior.
Ok well what is a realistic response to seeing a violent crime occur?
Filming it for Youtube
It's not "seeing a violent crime occurring". :huh: it's being in a demonstration. In my experience, demonstrations can be huge gatherings. Violent acts committed in one part can be totally ignored in another in a crowd. Circulation can be difficult. The police is usually already there, but it's hard to tell how they will actually react to someone approaching their lines. Leaving someone to be punched to wander aimlessly may not seem like the most appropriate response on the spur of the moment. People using violence can be intimidating. For some, people being assaulted is of graver importance than windows being broken.
I am not saying all of it is a good thing: I am simply saying that in the moment, "let's go tell the police" appears as terribly unrealistic response to some theoretical demonstration. If demonstrations are illegitimate, or worthy of condemnation if they do not meet that standard of "proper citizenry", then I am not sure any demonstration of contentious issues will be legitimate.
Add to that he fact that police have not shown themselves to be terribly good with protest these last few years. One can be in what one believes to be an utterly peaceful protest, and suddenly be kettled, and arrested.
Yeah, most of the anti-antifa stuff seems to be a rather weakly veiled attempt to ignore the core issue. Which is fucking Nazis and their support by POTUS.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2017, 12:25:37 PM
Yeah, most of the anti-antifa stuff seems to be a rather weakly veiled attempt to ignore the core issue. Which is fucking Nazis and their support by POTUS.
Trump doesn't support Nazis and you know it. I don't see why a very small Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville is the core issue, moreso than rampant Antifa violence nationwide.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 12:54:44 PM
Trump doesn't support Nazis and you know it.
Both silence and moral equivalency implies at best ambivalence and at worst consent--none of which are acceptable options for any President of the United States.
QuoteI don't see why a very small Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville is the core issue, moreso than rampant Antifa violence nationwide.
Rampant means "flourishing" and "unchecked." Please link to examples of such flourishing and unchecked rampancy nationwide.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2017, 01:56:29 PM
Both silence and moral equivalency implies at best ambivalence and at worst consent--none of which are acceptable options for any President of the United States.
He shouldn't have had to comment on such a minor event at all. I don't recall Obama's feet being held to the fire every time a black person somewhere did something bad.
As for moral equivalency, political violence is political violence, regardless of the alleged ideology of the perpetrator.
QuoteRampant means "flourishing" and "unchecked." Please link to examples of such flourishing and unchecked rampancy nationwide.
I'm not interested in playing word games. Read up on the "Battle of Berkeley" for an example of what I mean.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 02:41:26 PM
I'm not interested in playing word games.
Then stop being a douchebag with them.
I seem to recall constant demands that Obama say the words "radical Islamic terrorism" and complaints that Obama is not forceful enough in his rhetoric concerning Muslims.
I had briefly forgotten about what a douche Ancient Demon is. I guess there's a face to why America got Trump.
I think he's Canadian.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2017, 12:25:37 PM
Yeah, most of the anti-antifa stuff seems to be a rather weakly veiled attempt to ignore the core issue. Which is fucking Nazis and their support by POTUS.
Well yes. That is obvious. It is whataboutism. That was clear from the beginning.
I think it's reasonable to hold that both are problems significant enough to warrant discussion and condemnation without engaging in whataboutism. IMO both represent serious societal dysfunction.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 02:41:26 PM
He shouldn't have had to comment on such a minor event at all. I don't recall Obama's feet being held to the fire every time a black person somewhere did something bad.
For that analogy to hold up you'd have to be saying that Trump is an actual Nazi.
Quote from: Maximus on September 04, 2017, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 02:41:26 PM
He shouldn't have had to comment on such a minor event at all. I don't recall Obama's feet being held to the fire every time a black person somewhere did something bad.
For that analogy to hold up you'd have to be saying that Trump is an actual Nazi.
No.
Quote from: Camerus on September 04, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
I think it's reasonable to hold that both are problems significant enough to warrant discussion and condemnation without engaging in whataboutism. IMO both represent serious societal dysfunction.
Agreed. What annoys me the most is the double standards.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 04, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
I think it's reasonable to hold that both are problems significant enough to warrant discussion and condemnation without engaging in whataboutism. IMO both represent serious societal dysfunction.
Agreed. What annoys me the most is the double standards.
Yes, the Missouri Border Ruffians said that about the Kansas Free Staters too.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 04, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
I think it's reasonable to hold that both are problems significant enough to warrant discussion and condemnation without engaging in whataboutism. IMO both represent serious societal dysfunction.
Agreed. What annoys me the most is the double standards.
What double standard?
Quote from: Camerus on September 04, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
I think it's reasonable to hold that both are problems significant enough to warrant discussion and condemnation without engaging in whataboutism. IMO both represent serious societal dysfunction.
Sure it is possible. But it was only done this time once somebody got murdered by a far right nut case. Suddenly we all had to denounce everybody else for some reason. Just so the far right doesn't feel like they are unjustly blamed for something.
I don't think anybody is really all that worried about those antifa clowns. But hey if they are that concerned I don't think anybody will complain if criminals are arrested. Because I have to say that repeatedly for some reason. Just so there is no 'double standard'.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2017, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 04, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
I think it's reasonable to hold that both are problems significant enough to warrant discussion and condemnation without engaging in whataboutism. IMO both represent serious societal dysfunction.
Agreed. What annoys me the most is the double standards.
What double standard?
That there's favoritism shown against a handful of extremists committing counter-protests versus a superior number of established racist extremists, Klansmen and neo-Nazis espousing philosophies of hate, segregation and politics of racial superiority that has challenged the rule of law with violence dating to the 19th century.
It offends his sense of fair play.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 04, 2017, 02:41:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2017, 01:56:29 PM
Both silence and moral equivalency implies at best ambivalence and at worst consent--none of which are acceptable options for any President of the United States.
He shouldn't have had to comment on such a minor event at all. I don't recall Obama's feet being held to the fire every time a black person somewhere did something bad.
As for moral equivalency, political violence is political violence, regardless of the alleged ideology of the perpetrator.
QuoteRampant means "flourishing" and "unchecked." Please link to examples of such flourishing and unchecked rampancy nationwide.
I'm not interested in playing word games. Read up on the "Battle of Berkeley" for an example of what I mean.
...and yet he did choose to comment on the situation in Charlottesville. In Press Conferences. Three times. If a black person was dressed to resemble Obama's preferred clothing style, was part of a group who had vocally and actively voiced support for Obama, was part of a demonstration featuring members sporting Obama election clothing, Obama quotes on signs, and Obama quotes in chant, I think you have have seen him comment on such a situation. Alas, we have only speculation of an alternate reality to do so. Maybe Tim can draw us a map of the fallout of such an event or events. The "Battle of Berkeley" being considered a battle is a joke. It might be a rallying cry to the alt right, but it certainly is an amped up bullshit name for such an event.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2017, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 04, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
I think it's reasonable to hold that both are problems significant enough to warrant discussion and condemnation without engaging in whataboutism. IMO both represent serious societal dysfunction.
Sure it is possible. But it was only done this time once somebody got murdered by a far right nut case. Suddenly we all had to denounce everybody else for some reason. Just so the far right doesn't feel like they are unjustly blamed for something.
I'm not sure I follow you here, so apologies if my response seems like a non-sequitur, but plenty of people were denouncing the antifa before the events in Charlottesville, e.g. following the riots preventing notorious troll Milo Yannopolis from speaking. However, I agree their prominence on the national stage increased greatly once Trump began his mealy-mouth equivocations.
Quote
I don't think anybody is really all that worried about those antifa clowns. But hey if they are that concerned I don't think anybody will complain if criminals are arrested. Because I have to say that repeatedly for some reason. Just so there is no 'double standard'.
I disagree. I do think unease about the antifa is warranted. Obviously they are a very small minority that hardly represents most people out counter-protesting Nazi morans (who are themselves a very small group). However, antifa does use the lexicon of progressives and has targeted conservative thinkers at universities (not just Nazis). I think this makes people justifiably nervous about free speech as well as progressive capture of intellectual space at universities (and a perceived willingness among some to use violence or intimidation to enforce it). Further, if one makes the "antifa are random criminals without bona fide political ties" argument, that person is still left with having to explain why they only show up to disrupt right-wing events.
However, I don't think the "double standard" language is very useful, since one should easily be able to call out the bullshit of one without having to mention the other in the same breath, for fear of offending one or another tribe. It also suggests a kind of equivalency between the two that obscures the significant number of differences.
Antifa's finest
https://mobile.twitter.com/KATUNews/status/907027788946841600/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fus%2F2017%2F09%2F10%2Fantifa-throws-smoke-and-projectiles-at-police-at-portland-rallies-7-arrested.html
Would you feel better if they were wearing white polos and khakis with tiki torches?
If you extend your definition of 'fascists' to include the police I think I can see where they might have deviated a bit from what Jacob said.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2017, 09:21:44 PM
Would you feel better if they were wearing white polos and khakis with tiki torches?
No, but at least comb their hair.
But I get why they wear masks.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
If you extend your definition of 'fascists' to include the police I think I can see where they might have deviated a bit from what Jacob said.
Now why would they think that? :hmm:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/charlottesville-protest-police.html?mcubz=0
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11783.0.html
Tim's been listening to N.W.A.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 10, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
Tim's been listening to N.W.A.
He obviously knows more about cops than you do.
We don't hear enough stories about your time in the Brown shirts, Seedy.
You haven't been nightsticked enough for that mouth of yours, punk.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2017, 06:44:01 AM
You haven't been nightsticked enough for that mouth of yours, punk.
Gay BDSM dialogue?
This is why we can't have white things. Damned lefties, making white supremacists get all violent. :mad:
Quote
'Kill them': Three men charged in shooting after Richard Spencer speech
By Susan Svrluga and Lori Rozsa October 20 at 8:40 PM
The Amazon Washington Post
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Three men were charged with attempted homicide after they argued with a group of people protesting a white nationalist's speech and fired a shot at them, police said Friday.
About 90 minutes after Richard Spencer's speech Thursday at the University of Florida — which generated so much controversy that the governor declared a state of emergency days before the event — a silver Jeep pulled up to six to eight protesters near a bus stop and confronted them, according to Gainesville Police Department spokesman Sgt. Ben Tobias.
The men, whom police identified as white nationalists, threatened the group, making Nazi salutes and shouting chants about Hitler, police said.
One of the people in the group, who were in their 20s and heading home after protesting, hit the Jeep with a baton. It pulled over.
Tyler Tenbrink, 28, of Richmond, Tex., jumped out with a gun, authorities said. According to the Alachua County sheriff's arrest report, Colton Fears, 28, and William Fears, 30, of Pasadena, Tex., encouraged Tenbrink to shoot, yelling, "I'm going to f—— kill you," "Kill them" and "Shoot them."
Tenbrink fired a single shot that missed the people, police said, and hit a nearby building.
"Once the altercation began, it started ramping up very quickly until the gunshot," Tobias said.
Wesley Durrance, a 2016 graduate of UF, had just said goodbye to his friends — who were sitting at the bus stop with their signs from the protest — when he heard a loud pop. "Clearly a gunshot," he said.
He turned around and saw chaos. "Some people were running, one of my friends was still sitting there, my friend who was shot at was standing there," Durrance said. "Everybody was freaking out, but he was pretty calm, considering. I mean, they had just tried to kill him."
The men then fled in the Jeep, but one of the people who had been targeted got the license plate number and reported it to police. An off-duty sheriff's deputy who had worked at the Spencer event searched for and found the Jeep.
Gainesville police confirmed Friday that the arrests were related to the event.
Tobias said all three admitted to having been involved in the shooting when they were stopped by police on Interstate 75 about 15 miles north of Gainesville. Tenbrink admitted he was the shooter, according to the Alachua County sheriff's arrest report.
Spencer's speech was repeatedly disrupted by people shouting at him, but the protests outside remained largely peaceful, despite tensions between his supporters and more than 2,500 counterprotesters.
"I hesitate to make a comment on an incident that just happened," Spencer said Friday evening. "If it actually happened as it is described in the news, then it is an absolutely terrible incident and it can't be defended. But I think we should all remember that it is a developing story."
He urged supporters to avoid violence.
"There are time when one can rightfully defend oneself, but these kinds of confrontations should be avoided. The eyes of the world are upon us, and we need to behave in the way that is of the highest standards," Spencer said.
Tenbrink told The Washington Post on Thursday that he came from Houston to hear the speech. "I came here to support Spencer because after Charlottesville, the radical left threatened my family and children because I was seen and photographed in Charlottesville," Tenbrink said, referring to the "Unite the Right" rally in August that ended in violence.
"The man's got the brass to say what nobody else will."
Tenbrink said from inside the event venue that all he cares about are the 14 words, a reference to a white-supremacist slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
"That doesn't mean I hate all black people I see," Tenbrink said.
"And homosexuals, if they want to be homosexual, keep it to yourself. Nobody wants to see that s—," he said. :lol:
The Gainesville Sun reported that William Fears had told the paper Thursday that he believed James Fields, the man accused of driving his car into a crowd of people protesting the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, killing one woman and injuring others, wasn't unjustified.
William Fears told The Washington Post in August that he came to Charlottesville equipped for violence — and found it. He threw and took punches.
"It was like a war . . . it was an eerie feeling," Fears said after he had gone home to Texas and his job as a construction worker. "Things are life and death now, and if you're involved in this movement, you have to be willing to die for it now . . ."
"If I'm killed, that's fine," he said. "Maybe I'll be a martyr or something, or remembered."
At least two of the three who were arrested in Gainesville have demonstrated connections to extremist groups, police said.
All three men have attended white supremacist events, according to the Anti-Defamation League, and all three were at the torchlight march and the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville.
Spencer's speech was his first on a university campus since he led a torchlight march through the University of Virginia in August, with followers chanting, "You will not replace us" and "Jews will not replace us." That was the beginning of a weekend of clashes between white nationalists and white supremacists on one side and counterprotesters on the other that turned fatal in Charlottesville the next day.
After that violence, University of Florida officials denied Spencer's request to speak on campus — as did several other public universities — "amid serious concerns for safety."
Spencer, who leads the National Policy Institute, was not invited by the university or a student group. UF leaders have repeatedly rejected his message as hateful. But under threat of a lawsuit, university officials acknowledged Spencer's First Amendment right to speak at a campus venue they rent out, and began planning extensive security.
Gov. Rick Scott (R) declared a state of emergency in the days before the speech. More than 1,000 law-enforcement officers converged on campus, and the public university expects its total costs for security measures to exceed $600,000.
Tenbrink, Colton Fears and William Fears were charged with attempted homicide and were in the Alachua County Jail on Friday. Tenbrink faces additional charges for possession of a firearm by a felon.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/21/antifa-portland-evan-welch-violence
QuoteThis Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open With a Bat.
Masked Antifa agitators told Welch, a Hillary voter, to hand over the flag. He resisted. They attacked
Robby Soave Aug. 21, 2018 8:55 am
Evan Welch is not a fascist. He is a liberal who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary, and for Hillary Clinton in the general election. On August 4, he attended a far-right rally in Portland, Oregon, as a counterdemonstrator intent on signaling his opposition to the "tacitly fascist event," he told The Oregonian.
Tell that to Antifa: One of the masked militants attacked Welch, striking him over and over again with some kind of metal rod concealed in black cloth. One blow landed on his head, which caused Welch to immediately crumple to the ground. He would eventually need four staples to close up the gaping wound.
How did Antifa misidentify Welch? He had brought an American flag with him in an attempt to take the symbol back from Patriot Prayer, the group holding the rally. According to The Oregonian:
"The right and certainly a lot of smaller groups like Patriot Prayer might rush to things like the flag and try to take it up as, 'This is our symbol exclusively,'" [Welch] said. "Part of my thinking was to take it back."
Aside from a few odd looks, Welch did not encounter any problems when he joined hundreds of other counter-protesters who gathered at City Hall late that morning.
In fact, Welch said, he saw several other people with American flags sprinkled among the group of progressives, union members and social justice activists.
But then, two members of Antifa confronted him and demanded he hand over the flag, which they characterized as a "fascist symbol." When Welch resisted, they attacked him. The concussion landed him in the hospital for two days.
It was, of course, wrong to attack Welch regardless of his political views. Even if Welch had been a Trump-worshipping alt-right troll, the masked man still had no right to try to take Welch's flag and club him over the head when he resisted. This was an ill-founded and immoral initiation of violence, full stop.
But it's also a good reminder of why Antifa's resistance strategy, punch Nazis in the streets, wherever and whenever they appear, is deeply misguided. Not everybody who attends a protest is a Nazi. Not everyone who waves an American flag is a fascist. Not every Republican is racist (Queer Eye's Jonathan Van Ness is right). A group that endorses political violence while claiming that everyone who isn't with them is against them, and that centrists are essentially fascist collaborators, is not a group that is making careful distinctions or thoughtfully considering its tactical approach. A broad endorsement of violence as a resistance tactic is certain to result in innocent people getting hurt, and to turn the moderate masses away from whatever it is Antifa supposedly represents. As a general matter, civil resistance works and violent protests backfire.
It's easy to abuse the whole "See, this is why Trump won!" thing. But beating the crap out of a liberal because he committed the sin of carrying an American flag does in fact seem like it belongs in the win-for-Trump column. If the left wants to defeat Trump, the worst thing it can do is make people fear Antifa more than they fear the administration.
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Vigilantes of any sort are bad news man, even the ones that start out with the best intentions. So many of those Mexican drug gangs were originally just packs of citizens trying to protect themselves from other gangs.
I am a little annoyed how citizens of the United States get labelled according to their political persuasion in that article, clearly an attempt to dehumanize the opposition. Also this: ' If the left wants to defeat Trump, the worst thing it can do is make people fear Antifa more than they fear the administration.' I am sorry do these people take orders from somebody such that 'the left' can control them in some way? Who is in charge of the 'the left' and how can they get in touch with the Antifa leader such that they might coordinate in response to this article?
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
White supremacist mobs do not make anybody NOT want to vote for Trump but the actions of these Antifa people make people want to vote for him?
I don't get it. But then I tend to vote for people based on their own actions, not other people's actions unlike the people at 'reason'. A very reasonable position to be sure.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2018, 10:07:18 AM
White supremacist mobs do not make anybody NOT want to vote for Trump but the actions of these Antifa people make people want to vote for him?
I don't get it. But then I tend to vote for people based on their own actions, not other people's actions unlike the people at 'reason'. A very reasonable position to be sure.
Is that comment directed at my post?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2018, 10:07:18 AM
White supremacist mobs do not make anybody NOT want to vote for Trump but the actions of these Antifa people make people want to vote for him?
I don't get it. But then I tend to vote for people based on their own actions, not other people's actions unlike the people at 'reason'. A very reasonable position to be sure.
Is that comment directed at my post?
Nope. I mean it has nothing to do with your post.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
So you're saying you still like Antifa?
Ok, why do you think white supremacists "do not make anybody not want to vote for Trump" Surely there are a lot of Republican voters who voted for him in the last election thinking he was a harmless idiot - but their harmless idiot - who have changed their minds.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
So you're saying you still like Antifa?
I am saying that this incident draws attention to the fact that there are violent factions within every protest group but that fact does not undermine the need, especially now, to confront fascism.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
So you're saying you still like Antifa?
I am saying that this incident draws attention to the fact that there are violent factions within every protest group but that fact does not undermine the need, especially now, to confront fascism.
Antifa are pretty much 100% violent.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:18:12 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
So you're saying you still like Antifa?
I am saying that this incident draws attention to the fact that there are violent factions within every protest group but that fact does not undermine the need, especially now, to confront fascism.
Antifa are pretty much 100% violent.
Have you ever met Jacob?
He's a member of Antifa?
He's as much a member of antifa as anyone is, I don't think they give out membership cards.
Generally, I don't see the difference between the Purple Drazi and the Green Drazi. Seems to matter to them, though.
QuoteNot every Republican is racist (Queer Eye's Jonathan Van Ness is right).
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:18:12 AM
Antifa are pretty much 100% violent.
You're pretty much 100% full of shit.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
So you're saying you still like Antifa?
I do. Most of them aren't violent. They do however sometimes use the internet identify those who are openly racist and try to get them fired.
Sometimes the American military kills civilians, derspiess. Are you still a supporter of the American military?
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2018, 10:38:04 AM
Generally, I don't see the difference between the Purple Drazi and the Green Drazi. Seems to matter to them, though.
Neither did the Swiss in WW2. They had no problem taking peculiar deposits (first time a customer came in with 30,000 gold teeth!) from the Purple Drazi. A shining example of non-tribal businesses.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2018, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:18:12 AM
Antifa are pretty much 100% violent.
You're pretty much 100% full of shit.
Hi Jake. Are you part of Antifa?
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 01:41:42 PM
Hi Jake. Are you part of Antifa?
Hi derspiess. Given the current political climate in the US, given that I travel there on business, and given that my actual identity is traceable here (unlike yours, I note), I'm not going to speak of any personal political affiliations.
Oh, for Pete's sake :lol: :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 01:47:56 PM
Oh, for Pete's sake :lol: :rolleyes:
Yeah for sure - the American right wing - including fine upstanding conservatives who are not Trump supporters like yourself - are currently working overtime to cast anti-fascist activism as terrorism. For you it's just inconsequential points scoring on the internet, done safely and anonymously. Maybe I should've made a different decision about how much I revealed about my personal life to you guys over the years, but that's a bit late now.
I'll happily talk to you about the subject in person should we have the opportunity though :)
I have yet to see conservative solution to the Alt-Right problem.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2018, 02:23:23 PM
I have yet to see conservative solution to the Alt-Right problem.
What is the alt-right problem, and what do you think Conservatives ought to do to fix it? Physically assault alt-righters? Ruin their lives somehow?
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 02:52:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2018, 02:23:23 PM
I have yet to see conservative solution to the Alt-Right problem.
What is the alt-right problem, and what do you think Conservatives ought to do to fix it? Physically assault alt-righters? Ruin their lives somehow?
How about making it clear that their conduct is not acceptable.
Cone head optional?
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 02:52:02 PM
What is the alt-right problem, and what do you think Conservatives ought to do to fix it? Physically assault alt-righters? Ruin their lives somehow?
The existence of white nationalists is a problem. The fact they have made a beachhead into mainstream politics is an extremely large problem. Conservatives should strive toward driving these people back underground. How they do it is up to them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 02:52:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2018, 02:23:23 PM
I have yet to see conservative solution to the Alt-Right problem.
What is the alt-right problem, and what do you think Conservatives ought to do to fix it? Physically assault alt-righters? Ruin their lives somehow?
How about making it clear that their conduct is not acceptable.
What conduct?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 02:52:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2018, 02:23:23 PM
I have yet to see conservative solution to the Alt-Right problem.
What is the alt-right problem, and what do you think Conservatives ought to do to fix it? Physically assault alt-righters? Ruin their lives somehow?
How about making it clear that their conduct is not acceptable.
Judging by reactions here and reactions of the Republican Party, it seems like refusing to condemn the alt-right and taking up their talking points and ideology seems to be the solution conservatives are going with.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2018, 02:01:14 PM
Yeah for sure - the American right wing - including fine upstanding conservatives who are not Trump supporters like yourself - are currently working overtime to cast anti-fascist activism as terrorism.
Not really working overtime on it here and I didn't use the "t" word, but I did say Antifa is a violent organization. As a militant activist organization, it pretty much is by definition.
QuoteFor you it's just inconsequential points scoring on the internet, done safely and anonymously. Maybe I should've made a different decision about how much I revealed about my personal life to you guys over the years, but that's a bit late now.
I'm not anonymous. I'm FB friends with several people here, including Raz :contract:
QuoteI'll happily talk to you about the subject in person should we have the opportunity though :)
And it would be a pleasant conversation. I'm actually a very nice guy in person.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 21, 2018, 03:08:34 PM
Judging by reactions here and reactions of the Republican Party, it seems like refusing to condemn the alt-right and taking up their talking points and ideology seems to be the solution conservatives are going with.
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Specifically about reactions here.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 21, 2018, 03:08:34 PM
Judging by reactions here and reactions of the Republican Party, it seems like refusing to condemn the alt-right and taking up their talking points and ideology seems to be the solution conservatives are going with.
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Specifically about reactions here.
Your questioning what problem there is with the alt-right/if there is a problem at all is problematic from my perspective. Look at Ancient Demon and all the other magical creatures that have popped out of the woodwork to spout off alt-right rhetoric here. That is concerning. If memory serves they weren't always alt-right level hooligans, but the silence on the right as espoused by people like you who are more balanced and moderated gives them courage and power to shape the direction of where the Conservative elements of society are going.
As a side note, I'd still be more than willing to sit down and drink some beers with you, though probably not them. :)
I'm reminded of Yeats' poem (at least the start of it) :
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 21, 2018, 03:18:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 21, 2018, 03:08:34 PM
Judging by reactions here and reactions of the Republican Party, it seems like refusing to condemn the alt-right and taking up their talking points and ideology seems to be the solution conservatives are going with.
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Specifically about reactions here.
Your questioning what problem there is with the alt-right/if there is a problem at all is problematic from my perspective. Look at Ancient Demon and all the other magical creatures that have popped out of the woodwork to spout off alt-right rhetoric here. That is concerning. If memory serves they weren't always alt-right level hooligans, but the silence on the right as espoused by people like you who are more balanced and moderated gives them courage and power to shape the direction of where the Conservative elements of society are going.
As a side note, I'd still be more than willing to sit down and drink some beers with you, though probably not them. :)
Well put
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 21, 2018, 03:23:19 PM
I'm reminded of Yeats' poem (at least the start of it) :
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Yep
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 21, 2018, 03:18:46 PM
Your questioning what problem there is with the alt-right/if there is a problem at all is problematic from my perspective.
I was asking for the problem to be defined. I wasn't denying that the alt-right presents a problem of some sort. I think it does, though we may disagree on how big a problem it is.
QuoteLook at Ancient Demon and all the other magical creatures that have popped out of the woodwork to spout off alt-right rhetoric here. That is concerning. If memory serves they weren't always alt-right level hooligans,
I've only seen a handful of recent posts from AD and I don't really remember much about the content, other than they ruffled some feathers. Not to de-rail the conversation, but do we really have that many alt-righters here?
Quotebut the silence on the right as espoused by people like you who are more balanced and moderated gives them courage and power to shape the direction of where the Conservative elements of society are going.
Okay, I think that's totally bogus. I don't think I bear any responsibility for giving courage and power to the alt-right. And to the extent that I ever interact with any alt-righters at all (which is very minimal), I'll argue with them.
QuoteAs a side note, I'd still be more than willing to sit down and drink some beers with you, though probably not them. :)
I'd hope so. Probably more than half of my beer drinking friends are on the left.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 21, 2018, 03:23:19 PM
I'm reminded of Yeats' poem (at least the start of it) :
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
I used to read The Second Coming to my students when talking about post world war I world. I even got them to listen some times.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 03:13:10 PM
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Specifically about reactions here.
Maybe it would help if, instead of playing coy about it and asking everybody what they think about it, you'd actually stated what you think about the alt-right, and what problem it represents. Because so far, it mostly seems as if you are asking questions to figure out just how "far gone" everybody is over to the "far left".
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 21, 2018, 03:56:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 03:13:10 PM
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Specifically about reactions here.
Maybe it would help if, instead of playing coy about it and asking everybody what they think about it, you'd actually stated what you think about the alt-right, and what problem it represents.
OKAY THANKS PERFESSER.
QuoteBecause so far, it mostly seems as if you are asking questions to figure out just how "far gone" everybody is over to the "far left".
I'm genuinely interested in what you guys think.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 04:04:29 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 21, 2018, 03:56:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 03:13:10 PM
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Specifically about reactions here.
Maybe it would help if, instead of playing coy about it and asking everybody what they think about it, you'd actually stated what you think about the alt-right, and what problem it represents.
OKAY THANKS PERFESSER.
I think it would be hard for you to play to an anti-intellectual crowd on Languish. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 04:04:29 PM
I'm genuinely interested in what you guys think.
I think it's perfectly fine for a middle-aged nuclear physicist to sit around the house in his underwear playing computer games and looking at porn.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 04:04:29 PM
I'm genuinely interested in what you guys think.
And I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2018, 04:11:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 04:04:29 PM
I'm genuinely interested in what you guys think.
And I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
Awww :blush:
And someday I will tell you. But I have to get to football practice.
Get a room
Back Alley is free.
Well, Derspice likes gated communities, we can accommodate that here.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 21, 2018, 03:18:46 PM
Look at Ancient Demon and all the other magical creatures that have popped out of the woodwork to spout off alt-right rhetoric here. That is concerning. If memory serves they weren't always alt-right level hooligans, but the silence on the right as espoused by people like you who are more balanced and moderated gives them courage and power to shape the direction of where the Conservative elements of society are going.
I'm not alt-right.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 03:47:15 PM
I've only seen a handful of recent posts from AD and I don't really remember much about the content, other than they ruffled some feathers. Not to de-rail the conversation, but do we really have that many alt-righters here?
No, he's full of shit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
So you're saying you still like Antifa?
I am saying that this incident draws attention to the fact that there are violent factions within every protest group but that fact does not undermine the need, especially now, to confront fascism.
Agreed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 21, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2018, 09:28:13 AM
Anyone here still like Antifa? I mean, they're Anti-Fascists, after all. How can you oppose a group that goes after Fascists?
Anyone here think that one incident makes confronting fascists a bad idea?
To the extent that anyone in antifa advocates political violence, yes. My understanding, which may be flawed, is that at the very least, many members of antifa do in fact advocate political violence. Certainly some posters here have made posts in favor of antifa in which they advocated or at least defended political violence.
To the extent that anyone in the alt-right advocates political violence, yes. My understanding, which may be flawed, is that at the very least, many members of alt-right do in fact advocate political violence. Certainly some posters here have made posts in favor of the alt-right in which they advocated or at least defended political violence.
Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
To the extent that anyone in the alt-right advocates political violence, yes. My understanding, which may be flawed, is that at the very least, many members of alt-right do in fact advocate political violence. Certainly some posters here have made posts in favor of the alt-right in which they advocated or at least defended political violence.
I don't disagree. I'm opposed to political violence, no matter who is using it.
And to be clear, I don't mind counter-protesters showing up and being prepared to defend themselves if they are attacked. I do mind them inittiating violence against others.
Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
To the extent that anyone in the alt-right advocates political violence, yes. My understanding, which may be flawed, is that at the very least, many members of alt-right do in fact advocate political violence. Certainly some posters here have made posts in favor of the alt-right in which they advocated or at least defended political violence.
Thanks Grumbler.
During the Obama administration I saw groups armed to the teeth in case they needed to fight against over reaching government. III%ers, Oath Keeprs, various unaffiliated Militias, etc. These groups often used Nazis as examples of groups they needed to fight, yet when actual Nazis are marching through the streets they seem remarkably ambivalent. It seems clear to me there are Conservative groups willing to to at least theoretically fight, yet none of them seem interested in countering the Nazis.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2018, 05:11:49 PM
Back Alley is free.
This thread will do. You're free to leave if you don't like the action.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2018, 10:30:48 PM
During the Obama administration I saw groups armed to the teeth in case they needed to fight against over reaching government. III%ers, Oath Keeprs, various unaffiliated Militias, etc. These groups often used Nazis as examples of groups they needed to fight, yet when actual Nazis are marching through the streets they seem remarkably ambivalent. It seems clear to me there are Conservative groups willing to to at least theoretically fight, yet none of them seem interested in countering the Nazis.
I'd say they're more than ambivalent. They're part of the same demonstrations on the same side. Often times they offer to provide "security" to alt-right groups. As if the police aren't a big enough "neutral" cheerleading group...
What's wrong with advocating violence against Nazis? The US did it in 1941-1945.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 21, 2018, 03:23:19 PM
I'm reminded of Yeats' poem (at least the start of it) :
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Yes, and the fact that the poem is 99 years old indicates how persistent the problem has been. The alt-right and antifa are just the current US manifestations.
Quote"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2018, 03:47:46 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 21, 2018, 03:23:19 PM
I'm reminded of Yeats' poem (at least the start of it) :
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
I used to read The Second Coming to my students when talking about post world war I world. I even got them to listen some times.
I think I've mentioned here that just about my favorite lesson in AP Euro is when, having finished the 30s and 40s, I challenge the students to look on the poem as prophecy, not description. The usual responses are that the falcon is nationalism and the falconer the 19th C conservatives who tried to exploit nationalism to maintain power (thus leading to WW1), while Hitler is the rough beast.
One student, though, proposed an interpretation that I hadn't thought of: the falcon is science, and the falconer is scientists, losing control of science to the politicians. The rough beast is then the nuclear balance of terror, and Bethlehem is Hiroshima.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 21, 2018, 10:11:44 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
To the extent that anyone in the alt-right advocates political violence, yes. My understanding, which may be flawed, is that at the very least, many members of alt-right do in fact advocate political violence. Certainly some posters here have made posts in favor of the alt-right in which they advocated or at least defended political violence.
Thanks Grumbler.
Reading comprehension fail, eDDIE.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 22, 2018, 08:11:32 AM
What's wrong with advocating violence against Nazis? The US did it in 1941-1945.
Except that that was the result of the Nazis declaring war on the US, not the reverse. :P
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2018, 02:42:15 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 21, 2018, 10:11:44 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
To the extent that anyone in the alt-right advocates political violence, yes. My understanding, which may be flawed, is that at the very least, many members of alt-right do in fact advocate political violence. Certainly some posters here have made posts in favor of the alt-right in which they advocated or at least defended political violence.
Thanks Grumbler.
Reading comprehension fail, eDDIE.
I was just recognizing the influence.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 22, 2018, 03:25:33 PM
I was just recognizing the influence.
If you think that I've influenced PeeDee's opinion of the alt-right, you need to get a tin foil beanie.
Er no. It was the stylistic influence. The cutesy take somebody else's post and change one word is your thing.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 22, 2018, 05:03:13 PM
Er no. It was the stylistic influence. The cutesy take somebody else's post and change one word is your thing.
Oh. You mean pointing out the stupidity of a post by reversing a key word or phrase to show that the same reasoning can be used to reach the opposite conclusion. Yes, that's a favorite of mine because it is so devastatingly effective. Thanks. :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2018, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 22, 2018, 08:11:32 AM
What's wrong with advocating violence against Nazis? The US did it in 1941-1945.
Except that that was the result of the Nazis declaring war on the US, not the reverse. :P
Which just means that now we should know that Nazis should be stomped into the dust before they can do anything major. :P
Quote from: Solmyr on August 22, 2018, 05:09:43 PM
Which just means that now we should know that Nazis should be stomped into the dust before they can do anything major. :P
Your words are music to the ears of FDR and (most of) his advisors.
It would be better to stop the fascists before war or violence is necessary, however.
I'd rather Stop the fascists at Cable Street than 20,000 feet over the whole of London.
Antifa to my understanding are basically anarchists with penchant for street violence; I don't care for either of those things. Not a fan.
But their recent rise to prominence is not an accident. When the highest law enforcement authority in the land targets immigrants regardless of status and talks about dispensing rough (and illegal) justice in "paddy-wagons" on the one hand, but on the other hand expresses sympathy for torch wielding Nazis that ran over an innocent girl in the streets, it raises legitimate questions about the state's willingness to provide basic security, at least to those who do not vocally support the Dear Leader, as the fascists so vocally do. That's what fuels vigilantism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2018, 05:51:50 PM
Antifa to my understanding are basically anarchists with penchant for street violence; I don't care for either of those things. Not a fan.
But their recent rise to prominence is not an accident. When the highest law enforcement authority in the land targets immigrants regardless of status and talks about dispensing rough (and illegal) justice in "paddy-wagons" on the one hand, but on the other hand expresses sympathy for torch wielding Nazis that ran over an innocent girl in the streets, it raises legitimate questions about the state's willingness to provide basic security, at least to those who do not vocally support the Dear Leader, as the fascists so vocally do. That's what fuels vigilantism.
Agree with all of this, but I'd argue that those who engage in vigilantism (should be "vigiliantiism," damnit!) do so more because of their attraction to violence than their attraction to justice. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is the greatest American hero (yeah, Eddie and Der Spicey, greater than Lincoln and greater than Washington) precisely because he understood that the seduction of the violent approach had to be resisted because it didn't lead to the kind of resolution to conflict that would yield long-term justice.
QuoteI am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2018, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 22, 2018, 05:03:13 PM
Er no. It was the stylistic influence. The cutesy take somebody else's post and change one word is your thing.
Oh. You mean pointing out the stupidity of a post by reversing a key word or phrase to show that the same reasoning can be used to reach the opposite conclusion. Yes, that's a favorite of mine because it is so devastatingly effective. Thanks. :showoff:
It is devastatingly effective. Just not at the thing you generally want to be devastatingly effective at.
It's partly Hannah Arendt's thought, in that violence actually frees situations that are blocked, and terrible, but narrows the outcomes in favor of more violence. This is the real conundrum, for there are times when the only possible answer to violence has to be violence, or the acceptance of terrible consequences, especially when regimes cease to recognize even the most basic dignity inherent in the protester.
That being said (and Arendt's thought is much richer than that), I can't think of a successful non-violent movement that succeeded in the dialectical absence of a more violent alternative.
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2018, 06:09:00 PM
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is the greatest American hero (yeah, Eddie and Der Spicey, greater than Lincoln and greater than Washington
I'd appreciate if you allowed me to make objections before answering them.
Forget it, he's rolling.
In 1941-45 the US was at war with Germany, not Nazism.
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 12:23:00 PM
In 1941-45 the US was at war with Germany, not Nazism.
I checked with Wiki, and it appears you are correct.
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Which is a red herring.
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Which is a red herring.
Pretty sure they were human.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2018, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Which is a red herring.
Pretty sure they were human.
Why is it always about defending Hitler with you? :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2018, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Which is a red herring.
Pretty sure they were human.
Why is it always about defending Hitler with you? :rolleyes:
Why were you insulting herrings?
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2018, 01:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2018, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Which is a red herring.
Pretty sure they were human.
Why is it always about defending Hitler with you? :rolleyes:
Why were you insulting herrings?
Have you ever dated one?
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:39:46 PM
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2018, 01:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2018, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Which is a red herring.
Pretty sure they were human.
Why is it always about defending Hitler with you? :rolleyes:
Why were you insulting herrings?
Have you ever dated one?
Well, no, so I guess I have to defer to your experience.
Herr Hitler?
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2018, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
The United States declared war on the "Government of Germany"
And the Government of Germany at that point was essentially the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party.
Which is a red herring.
Pretty sure they were human.
Why is it always about defending Hitler with you? :rolleyes:
I didn't realize you had such a high opinion of humans :o
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 12:23:00 PM
In 1941-45 the US was at war with Germany, not Nazism.
That must be why they set up the Nuremberg trials afterwards.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 22, 2018, 06:31:55 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2018, 06:09:00 PM
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is the greatest American hero (yeah, Eddie and Der Spicey, greater than Lincoln and greater than Washington
I'd appreciate if you allowed me to make objections before answering them.
I didn't say that you objected, I simply said that he was great and Abe or George, and mentioned your name to increase the chances that you would actually pay attention to what I was saying and not respond with some strawman based on reading comprehension failure.
It seems to have worked.
Sorry, but you're flat out wrong on that. Ralph Hinkley was the Greatest American Hero.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2018, 11:09:57 AM
Sorry, but you're flat out wrong on that. Ralph Hinkley was the Greatest American Hero.
Wow. Now there's a reference.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 24, 2018, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2018, 12:23:00 PM
In 1941-45 the US was at war with Germany, not Nazism.
That must be why they set up the Nuremberg trials afterwards.
You seem confused.
As I've said in the past, the problem with the "punch a Nazi" thing is that sooner or later you start punching non-Nazis.
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/12/13/marines-assaulted-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2018, 01:52:48 PM
As I've said in the past, the problem with the "punch a Nazi" thing is that sooner or later you start punching non-Nazis.
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/12/13/marines-assaulted-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/ (https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/12/13/marines-assaulted-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/)
So it's the same as killing Terrorists in Afghanistan?
Nazis like to punch people. Sometimes the Nazis call themselves antifa, and sometimes they call themselves Proud Boys, but they should be judged by their actions, not their words. Nazis are as Nazis do. Unfortunately, Nazis don't limit themselves to just trying to kill each other, as these Marines found out.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2018, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2018, 01:52:48 PM
As I've said in the past, the problem with the "punch a Nazi" thing is that sooner or later you start punching non-Nazis.
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/12/13/marines-assaulted-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/ (https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/12/13/marines-assaulted-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/)
So it's the same as killing Terrorists in Afghanistan?
No.
Marines beat by pasty white boys? Man, they sure don't make em like they used to
The pepper spray was probably a factor.
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2018, 03:57:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2018, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2018, 01:52:48 PM
As I've said in the past, the problem with the "punch a Nazi" thing is that sooner or later you start punching non-Nazis.
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/12/13/marines-assaulted-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/ (https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/12/13/marines-assaulted-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/)
So it's the same as killing Terrorists in Afghanistan?
No.
So, what is your method of combating the Nazis?
Quote from: grumbler on December 15, 2018, 03:20:24 PM
Nazis like to punch people. Sometimes the Nazis call themselves antifa, and sometimes they call themselves Proud Boys, but they should be judged by their actions, not their words. Nazis are as Nazis do. Unfortunately, Nazis don't limit themselves to just trying to kill each other, as these Marines found out.
So, which side did you fight for in WWII?
Some of these "Antifa" do sort of fit the Stalinist name they're attacked with.
Formed for noble purposes, they've radically deviated from standard socialist thinking and declared themselves the sole arbitrators of right and wrong.
Nonetheless we really need to highlight in all of these events that we are talking a small percentage of those who operate under the antifa banner.
Violence is not the way. But the far right remain the biggest human-level threat to civilization of the moment.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
I wonder if Grumbler teaches his students about how George Orwell was a Nazi.
I usually find that anything that a possible nazi would do that would deserve punching is usually already illegal and thus punching by me becomes innecessary.
Quote from: celedhring on December 16, 2018, 12:00:58 PM
I usually find that anything that a possible nazi would do that would deserve punching is usually already illegal and thus punching by me becomes innecessary.
What happens when the cops look the other way. That's been a bit of a problem here.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2018, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: celedhring on December 16, 2018, 12:00:58 PM
I usually find that anything that a possible nazi would do that would deserve punching is usually already illegal and thus punching by me becomes innecessary.
What happens when the cops look the other way. That's been a bit of a problem here.
how many times did this happen? You make it sound like it's official policy in the US.
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2018, 05:27:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2018, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: celedhring on December 16, 2018, 12:00:58 PM
I usually find that anything that a possible nazi would do that would deserve punching is usually already illegal and thus punching by me becomes innecessary.
What happens when the cops look the other way. That's been a bit of a problem here.
how many times did this happen? You make it sound like it's official policy in the US.
Enough times that it is something of a problem. I know, I know, it's not great horror of getting in a brawl with metal-heads or spiking a tree, crimes that oppress the whole of Quebec, but we do have police who aren't all that keen in arresting violent Nazis. That was one of the problems at Charlotteville.
In Missouri we also have problems with cops who enjoy preying on protesters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/its-still-blast-beating-people-st-louis-police-indicted-assault-undercover-officer-posing-protester/?utm_term=.a763028297f3
These guys were only arrested and charged because they accidentally beat up an undercover cop.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2018, 09:04:49 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2018, 05:27:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2018, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: celedhring on December 16, 2018, 12:00:58 PM
I usually find that anything that a possible nazi would do that would deserve punching is usually already illegal and thus punching by me becomes innecessary.
What happens when the cops look the other way. That's been a bit of a problem here.
how many times did this happen? You make it sound like it's official policy in the US.
Enough times that it is something of a problem. I know, I know, it's not great horror of getting in a brawl with metal-heads or spiking a tree, crimes that oppress the whole of Quebec, but we do have police who aren't all that keen in arresting violent Nazis. That was one of the problems at Charlotteville.
In Missouri we also have problems with cops who enjoy preying on protesters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/its-still-blast-beating-people-st-louis-police-indicted-assault-undercover-officer-posing-protester/?utm_term=.a763028297f3
These guys were only arrested and charged because they accidentally beat up an undercover cop.
I asked for examples of police looking the other way while Nazis were beating people, something that would indicate it is an official policy in the US.
Charlottesville is dubious, the police was overwhelmed, not complicit.
The other case is one of police brutality, nothing to do with nazis.
It's not "official policy". Just like how shooting unarmed black men is not official policy. It's still a problem. I used the example of St. Louis because it was local and it demonstrated the mindset of the the police.
This is a good article on the issue. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2018, 01:09:18 PM
I asked for examples of police looking the other way while Nazis were beating people, something that would indicate it is an official policy in the US.
Nothing has been an official policy since the 1960s. It is still a problem though, which is what makes it so complicated and difficult to address.
Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2018, 04:27:45 PM
Nothing has been an official policy since the 1960s. It is still a problem though, which is what makes it so complicated and difficult to address.
You agree with Raz that police are looking the other way?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2018, 02:27:13 PM
It's not "official policy". Just like how shooting unarmed black men is not official policy. It's still a problem. I used the example of St. Louis because it was local and it demonstrated the mindset of the the police.
This is a good article on the issue. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I have seen no credible evidence that US police force, generally speaking, are more inclined to shoot unarmed blacks than any other ethnicity. They do get reported a lot more, though.
Everything I've read so far seems to point fatal police interventions are a huge problem, but it ain't specifically and unfairly targetting blacks. Racial profiling is certainly an issue though, and in a country with very lax gun control laws, things will escalate quickly if the cop feels threatened in any slight way. And many police officers seems to retort to shooting first, asking questions later.
Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2018, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2018, 01:09:18 PM
I asked for examples of police looking the other way while Nazis were beating people, something that would indicate it is an official policy in the US.
Nothing has been an official policy since the 1960s. It is still a problem though, which is what makes it so complicated and difficult to address.
allright, then an unofficial policy. Something left unwritten, but a rule everyone knows: look the other way if you see a nazi punching a jew, a leftist, an arab, a black, etc. Something that is still in effect in most US cities.
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2018, 10:04:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2018, 02:27:13 PM
It's not "official policy". Just like how shooting unarmed black men is not official policy. It's still a problem. I used the example of St. Louis because it was local and it demonstrated the mindset of the the police.
This is a good article on the issue. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
I have seen no credible evidence that US police force, generally speaking, are more inclined to shoot unarmed blacks than any other ethnicity. They do get reported a lot more, though.
Everything I've read so far seems to point fatal police interventions are a huge problem, but it ain't specifically and unfairly targetting blacks. Racial profiling is certainly an issue though, and in a country with very lax gun control laws, things will escalate quickly if the cop feels threatened in any slight way. And many police officers seems to retort to shooting first, asking questions later.
:lmfao:
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2018, 10:06:51 PM
allright, then an unofficial policy. Something left unwritten, but a rule everyone knows: look the other way if you see a nazi punching a jew, a leftist, an arab, a black, etc. Something that is still in effect in most US cities.
Bing. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 18, 2018, 02:55:26 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2018, 10:06:51 PM
allright, then an unofficial policy. Something left unwritten, but a rule everyone knows: look the other way if you see a nazi punching a jew, a leftist, an arab, a black, etc. Something that is still in effect in most US cities.
Bing. :thumbsup:
That is not even remotely true.
I reject the claim that there is some known and understood bias among law enforcement in the US to ignore right wing violence against other groups.
That is bullshit, and inflammatory bullshit as well.
What is your basis for rejecting the claim?
To the extent that there is overt activism on the part of police officers, there is a clear predominance of right-wing groups. Which is not to say that there are no environmentalists, or leftists within police forces. Simply, the sort of activism of right-wing groups are "readable" to police officers: they are "weapon positive", demonstrating machismo, celebrating force, and usually conducted with discipline. Police forces tend to couch these actions in terms of "First Amendment", and therefore worthy of protection. They are also often armed. Meanwhile, activism by left-leaning groups are perceived as marginal, trouble-making - and usually employing languages and causes with much fewer echoes in police forces.
This is well-known. This is not to say that police forces are entirely made up of fascists, but rather, that they are building upon years of tradition against leftist activism, while right-wing activism (notably racism in the South) was met with considerable toleration.
"The paper finds that while thousands of FBI agents have been devoted to counterterrorism, the number of field agents assigned to domestic terrorism has averaged less than 330 in the most recent years for which data is available. Further, the Brennan Center report "Wrong Priorities on Fighting Terrorism" shows that even when the FBI looks to counter domestic terrorism, it often minimizes far-right violence while aggressively targeting minority activists and environmentalist movements that have presented a much lower danger."
http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/federal-officials-often-overlook-threat-far-right-violence
My basis is the nonexistence of police looking the other way while a Nazi punches a Jew, black, Arab, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2018, 01:51:26 PM
My basis is the nonexistence of police looking the other way while a Nazi punches a Jew, black, Arab, etc.
How often does this even happen? Sounds like it can only happen in a bar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2018, 01:51:26 PM
My basis is the nonexistence of police looking the other way while a Nazi punches a Jew, black, Arab, etc.
https://qz.com/1423570/proud-boys-members-werent-arrested-after-violently-assaulting-a-man-in-new-york/
And here's one where the police were actually helping the Nazis https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/california-police-white-supremacists-counter-protest
There isn't one single unified police force in the US, there are thousands. Every county, city, town, and village has its own police force, and even within a single force there are different precincts. There are lots of good, professional police forces with good leadership and then there are some that are not as good. Even in the good forces there are weaker links. At the end of the day you are only as good as your lousiest precinct captain or your worst trained officer.
It's actually possible for the police to be pretty damn good overall and yet still have lots of abuses and problems that need to be corrected.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2018, 02:38:29 PM
https://qz.com/1423570/proud-boys-members-werent-arrested-after-violently-assaulting-a-man-in-new-york/
You need to update that
NYPD arrested 9 in connection with that incident, all facing criminal charges.
In Finland, it's now been several occasions where the police has done nothing about Nazi rallies, even though the Nazi organization has been declared illegal. The police don't even order the rally to move elsewhere from the city centre, even though they could legally do that. On the other hand, the police often uses much rougher methods against antifascist counter-marches organized to oppose the Nazis, they order other events to move out of the Nazis' way, etc.
This year, the police finally intervened in the Nazi rally, but only to confiscate actual Nazi Germany flags carried by the marchers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 18, 2018, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2018, 02:38:29 PM
https://qz.com/1423570/proud-boys-members-werent-arrested-after-violently-assaulting-a-man-in-new-york/ (https://qz.com/1423570/proud-boys-members-werent-arrested-after-violently-assaulting-a-man-in-new-york/)
You need to update that
NYPD arrested 9 in connection with that incident, all facing criminal charges.
Yeah, after the video surfaced.
Quote from: Berkut on December 18, 2018, 12:24:39 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 18, 2018, 02:55:26 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2018, 10:06:51 PM
allright, then an unofficial policy. Something left unwritten, but a rule everyone knows: look the other way if you see a nazi punching a jew, a leftist, an arab, a black, etc. Something that is still in effect in most US cities.
Bing. :thumbsup:
That is not even remotely true.
I reject the claim that there is some known and understood bias among law enforcement in the US to ignore right wing violence against other groups.
That is bullshit, and inflammatory bullshit as well.
It isn't bullshit, inflammatory or otherwise. I don't particularly care if you believe myself or the other who have put forth the point. I've seen it in person and read about numerous incidents throughout the country. Is it an official policy? No. No one is suggesting it is to my knowledge. Is it a worrying trend that happens around the country? Yes. Does it mean all cops are bad? Absolutely not. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. When the "Thin Blue Line" mentality makes almost all cops have a siege mentality and an unwillingness to condemn and either vocally or silently condone the actions of bad cops, it is incredibly troubling though and doesn't bode well for things to improve.
In unrelated news, it's just come out that prosecutors have been investigating a police department in Frankfurt since September or so because at least 5 officers were spreading/sharing Nazi propaganda and possibly sent threats to a Muslim lawyer.
Not sure about the US, but in Germany police forces tend towards conservative or very conservative. Probably not surprising for a job that requires a certain "law & order" mentality.
Who in Finland gets to decide who is a Nazi?
Only a true Finn could decide that.
Quote from: chipwich on December 18, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
Who in Finland gets to decide who is a Nazi?
The Nazis belong to an organization that publicly promotes Nazi ideology. So I guess they decide themselves.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 18, 2018, 02:45:27 PM
There isn't one single unified police force in the US, there are thousands. Every county, city, town, and village has its own police force, and even within a single force there are different precincts. There are lots of good, professional police forces with good leadership and then there are some that are not as good. Even in the good forces there are weaker links. At the end of the day you are only as good as your lousiest precinct captain or your worst trained officer.
It's actually possible for the police to be pretty damn good overall and yet still have lots of abuses and problems that need to be corrected.
Sure, but a troubling sign of your country's slide into right wing extremism is seemingly well read citizens like Yi denying it ever happens and forceful rhetoricians like Berkut verbally attacking anyone who suggests otherwise.
If everyone agreed it was a problem that needed to be dealt with then you would be correct to suggest these are merely isolated incidents. But surprisingly that is not the case.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2018, 03:12:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 18, 2018, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2018, 02:38:29 PM
https://qz.com/1423570/proud-boys-members-werent-arrested-after-violently-assaulting-a-man-in-new-york/ (https://qz.com/1423570/proud-boys-members-werent-arrested-after-violently-assaulting-a-man-in-new-york/)
You need to update that
NYPD arrested 9 in connection with that incident, all facing criminal charges.
Yeah, after the video surfaced.
Proud Boys are many things, but they are not Nazis. You guys are overusing that label.
How would you describe them?
Right-wing thugs.
It leaves out the Proud Boys' racism. You know, the kind of racism that prompts to participate in shows like the Daily Shoah.
For a lot of you guys, I'm sure they are. I guess if you expand the definition of "Nazi" wide enough and you can just go out and punch anyone you don't like.
So, for you, the Proud Boys are not racist?
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 19, 2018, 09:47:48 AM
So, for you, the Proud Boys are not racist?
They consider themselves "Western Chauvinists", touting the superiority of Western culture, but they have disavowed racism.
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
They consider themselves "Western Chauvinists", touting the superiority of Western culture, but they have disavowed racism.
I know what they say. I am asking if you consider them racist.
No. It took them longer than it should have to distance themselves from white nationalist groups, but I don't consider them racist.
What would it take for you to consider something racist? Do you have examples of things you consider racist?
I'm not going to try to convince you that they are not racist. You probably consider me racist.
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 11:06:19 AM
I'm not going to try to convince you that they are not racist. You probably consider me racist.
Well, you certainly are the useful idiot of racists.
Thanks.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 19, 2018, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
They consider themselves "Western Chauvinists", touting the superiority of Western culture, but they have disavowed racism.
I know what they say. I am asking if you consider them racist.
As far as I understand it (and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them) the Proud Boys allow and have non-white members.
There appears to be an argument that PB are misogynistic, certainly both anti-Muslim and anti-semitic, but racism doesn't seem to apply.
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 11:06:19 AM
I'm not going to try to convince you that they are not racist. You probably consider me racist.
You shouldn't try to convince me of anything. But if you are willing to call out people for using the term "Nazis" improperly, or to exaggerate, or when you try to rescue all sorts of people from accusations of fascism, it would help to understand what it would take for you to consider someone a Nazi, a fascist, a racist. The people you try to cast as out-of-touch leftist wackos willing to punch anyone they disagreed with have at least offered pretty straightforward description of their political beliefs, while you have weaseled out more than once. What I object to, is the way you constantly imply leftist ideas are self-evidently beyond the pale, while equivocating on your own preferences which, truth be told, appear to be much more extreme-right than you seem willing to admit.
They're anti-Islam for sure. Not sure I've seen anything anti-semitic coming from them.
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
As far as I understand it (and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them) the Proud Boys allow and have non-white members.
There appears to be an argument that PB are misogynistic, certainly both anti-Muslim and anti-semitic, but racism doesn't seem to apply.
Yes. And Nazis had ideologues and sympathizers within the groups they explicitly despised, even Jewish sympathizers and ideologues. That's the problem with the Proud Boys and other hipster racists: it's always humor, it's always ambiguous, we are always lacking the proper context, it's always on a comedy show, they're not really serious, and some of their best friends are black (or Indigenous, or Samoans).
Racism was never a fully coherent set of belief. The Proud Boys essentialize whiteness and wield it as a weapon for justifying discrimination and hatred. That they do not see it fit to develop fully their stance towards the skin color of others neither prevents, nor preclude them from arguing for white supremacy.
How are the Proud Boys depicted in the Right-wing media?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2018, 12:03:56 PM
How are the Proud Boys depicted in the Right-wing media?
They're generally not, from what I can tell.
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
As far as I understand it (and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them) the Proud Boys allow and have non-white members.
There appears to be an argument that PB are misogynistic, certainly both anti-Muslim and anti-semitic, but racism doesn't seem to apply.
even the Nazis had "honorary Aryans" Racism can manifest in different ways not just literally or figurative black or white.
"European chauvinism" has a racial component even if applied in a way that allows certain others to "convert"
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 19, 2018, 11:55:43 AM
Racism was never a fully coherent set of belief.
It can't be because "race" itself lacks coherence. The Nazis faced that problem all the time, whether dealing with those in their ranks with "impure" blood, dealing with their Japanese allies, or debating how much "Jewish blood" a WW1 vet could have before losing their status as a German.
You can see that confusion when McInnes (e.g.) calls Cory Booker white because he grew up in the suburbs and his parents was a white collar exec. "white" is good and "black" is bad, but "black" can become "white" by reasons of social circumstance. This is still flat out racism but just redefining the boundaries of "black" and "white" --boundaries that were never clear and sharp to begin with.
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 11:37:54 AM
They're anti-Islam for sure. Not sure I've seen anything anti-semitic coming from them.
McInnes posted a video once entitled "Ten Things I Hate About Jews" (he later changed it to Israel). He blamed Jews for the Holodomor. Said after a trip to Israel he was becoming "anti-semitic".
Then he turned around and said he liked jews and hated Nazis. He's a weird dude with an ultra-abrasive sense of humor. But I don't think he was speaking for the Proud Boys when he said it.
So many jokers, these jolly alt-right fellows. A true riot. GET IT. RIOT.
Holodomor?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2018, 02:57:52 PM
Holodomor?
Mass murder of Ukrainians my Stalin in the 30s. Anywhere from 3 to 10 million were killed through starvation.
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2018, 03:00:43 PM
Mass murder of Ukrainians my Stalin in the 30s. Anywhere from 3 to 10 million were killed through starvation.
Thanks.
How's that evidence of Nazi sympathies?
Because you blame Jews for it?
That's anti-Semitism, but shouldn't Nazis have a pro-German bias as well?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2018, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2018, 03:00:43 PM
Mass murder of Ukrainians my Stalin in the 30s. Anywhere from 3 to 10 million were killed through starvation.
Thanks.
How's that evidence of Nazi sympathies?
I used it as an example of anti-semitism.
Generally, I find trying to argue about a label like "Nazi" is be pointless. Calling someone a nazi should be restricted to people who use a swastika and call themselves nazis.
I've been thinking about the comparison between antifas and the Red Scare of the 50s.
In both cases the object of animus was thought, not action, in the sense of blowing up government buildings or assassinating officials or other leaders. The fear in the 50s was that if Communism as a set of beliefs were allowed to be propagated unchecked, the unwashed masses would come to see it as desirable. And once a sufficient number had been converted, inevitably our democratic institutions and practices would be undermined. A number of posters here have described a similar dynamic at work with the normalization of fascist ideology.
I think we can all agree that violence is acceptable and legitimate to use to stop certain actions, like shooting up a synagogue. But we don't all agree whether violence (including incarceration) is appropriate to stop dangerous speech.
So do we now rethink our condemnation of the Red Scare, rethink our condemnation of expression of crypto-fascsim, or am I missing important differences between the two?
To me the major dividing line is between people who think that any political violence decided upon should be performed by a democratic state under the laws, and people who think that political violence should be performed extralegally by private individuals.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 18, 2018, 03:59:07 PM
It isn't bullshit, inflammatory or otherwise. I don't particularly care if you believe myself or the other who have put forth the point. I've seen it in person and read about numerous incidents throughout the country.
That is one problem. Seeing the tree instead of the forest. Something I've been accused of by Raz and Oex, in the past.
At what point do multiple events become a trend? Until we get detailed, credible stories about it, I guess it's a matter of opinion.
What Oex posted, a link about how FBI shifted resources toward islamic terrorism after 3000 dead and 6000 injured isn't terribly informative. There were 6 deads, 19 injured in the Quebec city mosque shooting. The only significant racist act to be perprated in Quebec city for memory serves. It didn't stop Montreal medias (and their readers) from claiming the city was a racist hotbed, filled with anti-muslim hate. For weeks long, they had reports of muslim citizens fearful of their lives simply for being muslims. The police was accused of turning a blind eye to right wing extremism (it was false, but it stayed), it was accused of racial profiling (it was also false, but who cares?), and reading about it, you'd swear every single muslim in Quebec city had a target painted on its back.
Everything was false of course, but who cares about the truth when it suits our needs?
I fear it is the same here.
Cops shooting blacks is, imho, a clear indication that these officers are mostly racists and react accordingly. Just like the 19th century lynching: in their minds, they are not killing an innocent, they are defending themselves (and society) against a dangerous criminal.
But from that, to infer, as Raz and Oex do, that most US cops turn a blind eye to racism, are racists themselves, or simply complacent is a big stretch, and it isn't supported by any analysis.
Quote
Is it an official policy? No. No one is suggesting it is to my knowledge. Is it a worrying trend that happens around the country? Yes. Does it mean all cops are bad? Absolutely not. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. When the "Thin Blue Line" mentality makes almost all cops have a siege mentality and an unwillingness to condemn and either vocally or silently condone the actions of bad cops, it is incredibly troubling though and doesn't bode well for things to improve.
You are linking police brutality, of which blacks aren't, by far, the sole victims, but certainly the most mediatized, to "turning a blind eye to right wing extremism".
That is two different things.
Cops beating a prisoner, going heavy handed, that has happenned a lot. In the US and in Quebec. Again, here, nothing I have seen seems to indicate that blacks were the main recipient of that unjustified violence.
US Cops turning a blind eye to right wing extremism, as in, looking the other way while people of non white ethnicity are getting beaten or killed, that is not something I am aware of, in recent memory (say last decade or two).
I mean as a general unofficial policy, that they should do so.
Not testifying against your own comrades, that is something else.
You will see it among just about any organization with some esprit de corps: unions, armies, police force, etc. The far left will even go so far as to refuse to press charges for rape because "it could be used by the ennemies of the cause".
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2018, 08:23:06 AM
Sure, but a troubling sign of your country's slide into right wing extremism is seemingly well read citizens like Yi denying it ever happens and forceful rhetoricians like Berkut verbally attacking anyone who suggests otherwise.
In other words, a Jewish person is unable to see clearly by himself about a far right problematic in his country and needs a white foreigner to tell him what to think...
Quote
If everyone agreed it was a problem that needed to be dealt with then you would be correct to suggest these are merely isolated incidents. But surprisingly that is not the case.
Again, that is different than what I was talking about first.
Police brutality/lethality is a problem. We all agree it is. As Minsky said, there multiple police forces in the US, and they don't all receive the same training, after basic police academy.
What Berkut and Yi disagreed is that there was a generalized unofficial policy of US police forces (FBI, State Police, local police,etc) turning a blind eye toward right wing extremism, as in, letting nazis beat the crap out of a guy like Minsky or Garbon and walking their way without intervention (figuratively, of course, but generally speaking, not investigating such crimes).
I don't recall saying anything about race, viper. As far as I can tell you're the one who brought that into the discussion here. There is a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism. and I suppose solely focusing on race helps make your point, but I don't see the point of building a strawman out of unrelated comments to then launch your attacks against.
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 02:27:02 PM
Then he turned around and said he liked jews and hated Nazis. He's a weird dude with an ultra-abrasive sense of humor. But I don't think he was speaking for the Proud Boys when he said it.
This kind of reminds of when you were defending Randy Weaver from the accusation that he was in the Aryan Nations. He just kept showing up to their rallies, that's all.
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 02:27:02 PM
Then he turned around and said he liked jews and hated Nazis. He's a weird dude with an ultra-abrasive sense of humor. But I don't think he was speaking for the Proud Boys when he said it.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 19, 2018, 06:28:11 PM
... There is a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism.
Precisely. Fascism is an ideology, and claiming that people who don't hold that ideology are "fascists" or "Nazis" just makes the claimant sound emo and silly.
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2018, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 19, 2018, 06:28:11 PM
... There is a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism.
Precisely. Fascism is an ideology, and claiming that people who don't hold that ideology are "fascists" or "Nazis" just makes the claimant sound emo and silly.
You were calling everyone a Nazi last week!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2018, 04:10:35 PM
...or am I missing important differences between the two?
Yes, for starters the Red Scare was the creation of politicians in the US. A certain senator comes to mind. Today your president gives a wink and a nod to white nationalists. Your comparison would work if he was Antifa.
I don't think that's a critical distinction. Yi was comparing two mindsets, not likening Trump to McCarthy.
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2018, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 19, 2018, 06:28:11 PM
... There is a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism.
Precisely. Fascism is an ideology, and claiming that people who don't hold that ideology are "fascists" or "Nazis" just makes the claimant sound emo and silly.
One does not need to be a card carrying member of a Fascist organization or group to sympathize with, assist, or turn a blind eye to the actions of said groups though.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 20, 2018, 02:04:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2018, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 19, 2018, 06:28:11 PM
... There is a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism.
Precisely. Fascism is an ideology, and claiming that people who don't hold that ideology are "fascists" or "Nazis" just makes the claimant sound emo and silly.
One does not need to be a card carrying member of a Fascist organization or group to sympathize with, assist, or turn a blind eye to the actions of said groups though.
So you are now arguing that there is NOT "a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism?" Or is your statement a
non sequitur? Fascists are fascists - they share a common ideology. Nazis are a subset of Fascists, with a bunch of racism stuff thrown in. The Communist party of the USSR (and the Third International, for that matter) assisted and turned a blind eye to the actions of Nazis. Does this make Marxists into Nazis?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2018, 07:13:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 02:27:02 PM
Then he turned around and said he liked jews and hated Nazis. He's a weird dude with an ultra-abrasive sense of humor. But I don't think he was speaking for the Proud Boys when he said it.
This kind of reminds of when you were defending Randy Weaver from the accusation that he was in the Aryan Nations. He just kept showing up to their rallies, that's all.
That was not what I said. Please try to be honest.
Who is Randy Weaver, mutual friend?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 20, 2018, 01:07:15 AM
I don't think that's a critical distinction. Yi was comparing two mindsets, not likening Trump to McCarthy.
Ok, others might see a distinction between government actions and non governmental actions.
Quote from: derspiess on December 20, 2018, 09:02:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2018, 07:13:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 02:27:02 PM
Then he turned around and said he liked jews and hated Nazis. He's a weird dude with an ultra-abrasive sense of humor. But I don't think he was speaking for the Proud Boys when he said it.
This kind of reminds of when you were defending Randy Weaver from the accusation that he was in the Aryan Nations. He just kept showing up to their rallies, that's all.
That was not what I said. Please try to be honest.
Aw, now you have gone and made me look through the files.
QuoteIs that the same thing as being okay with [Weaver]? I've never been okay with him.
Anyway, my impression was that he attended a couple of their meetings to make contacts with them since they more or less faced a common "enemy". Extremist types do this a lot-- this does not necessarily mean a full endorsement of each other's views or agenda. It's obviously bad enough that he didn't have any qualms about attending the meetings.
Randy Weaver may well be a racist-- I don't know and really don't care. He's sufficiently weird and marginalized to where it really doesn't make much difference to me.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11445.125.html
Quote[Weaver] apparently attended some of their meetings and then at some point had a falling out with them. But my understanding is that various fringe groups/types tend to make contacts with each other. He could have been a white supremicist. Or he could have just been indifferent to it & wanted to make business contacts with them or whatever.
But I guess we're splitting hairs here-- he was a big conspiracy nutter and certainly no hero to me. I actually saw him once at a gun show in Maryland. He was there selling/signing his book. Oddly enough he wasn't getting much attention as both times I walked by his table he had nobody else there. He had a really weird (crazy weird) look in his eyes but also seemed to be a bit sad/fatalistic. Maybe because nobody was buying his book :D
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9578.100.html
QuoteYeah. Not sure [Weaver] was totally one of them, though. But we've had that discussion before
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10497.1000.html
Okay.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 20, 2018, 11:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 20, 2018, 01:07:15 AM
I don't think that's a critical distinction. Yi was comparing two mindsets, not likening Trump to McCarthy.
Ok, others might see a distinction between government actions and non governmental actions.
Was the blacklist a government action?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 20, 2018, 02:07:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 20, 2018, 11:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 20, 2018, 01:07:15 AM
I don't think that's a critical distinction. Yi was comparing two mindsets, not likening Trump to McCarthy.
Ok, others might see a distinction between government actions and non governmental actions.
Was the blacklist a government action?
Do a bit of reading about the Un-American Activities hearings and the creation of the blacklist.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2018, 08:06:35 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 20, 2018, 02:04:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2018, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 19, 2018, 06:28:11 PM
... There is a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism.
Precisely. Fascism is an ideology, and claiming that people who don't hold that ideology are "fascists" or "Nazis" just makes the claimant sound emo and silly.
One does not need to be a card carrying member of a Fascist organization or group to sympathize with, assist, or turn a blind eye to the actions of said groups though.
So you are now arguing that there is NOT "a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism?" Or is your statement a non sequitur? Fascists are fascists - they share a common ideology. Nazis are a subset of Fascists, with a bunch of racism stuff thrown in. The Communist party of the USSR (and the Third International, for that matter) assisted and turned a blind eye to the actions of Nazis. Does this make Marxists into Nazis?
No, no, and no. That's the most I'm willing to go down the rabbit hole of inane minutia and silliness. Sorry, but I don't feel like playing with you. It is never fun, it is never rewarding, and it is never enlightening. Have a nice day! :)
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 20, 2018, 05:32:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2018, 08:06:35 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 20, 2018, 02:04:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2018, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 19, 2018, 06:28:11 PM
... There is a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism.
Precisely. Fascism is an ideology, and claiming that people who don't hold that ideology are "fascists" or "Nazis" just makes the claimant sound emo and silly.
One does not need to be a card carrying member of a Fascist organization or group to sympathize with, assist, or turn a blind eye to the actions of said groups though.
So you are now arguing that there is NOT "a lot more to Fascist ideology than just racism and/or antisemitism?" Or is your statement a non sequitur? Fascists are fascists - they share a common ideology. Nazis are a subset of Fascists, with a bunch of racism stuff thrown in. The Communist party of the USSR (and the Third International, for that matter) assisted and turned a blind eye to the actions of Nazis. Does this make Marxists into Nazis?
No, no, and no. That's the most I'm willing to go down the rabbit hole of inane minutia and silliness. Sorry, but I don't feel like playing with you. It is never fun, it is never rewarding, and it is never enlightening. Have a nice day! :)
The correct decision
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 20, 2018, 05:32:01 PM
No, no, and no. That's the most I'm willing to go down the rabbit hole of inane minutia and silliness. Sorry, but I don't feel like playing with you. It is never fun, it is never rewarding, and it is never enlightening. Have a nice day! :)
Okay. That's pretty much what I thought. First Rule of Holes, and so forth.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2018, 05:41:54 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 20, 2018, 05:32:01 PM
No, no, and no. That's the most I'm willing to go down the rabbit hole of inane minutia and silliness. Sorry, but I don't feel like playing with you. It is never fun, it is never rewarding, and it is never enlightening. Have a nice day! :)
Okay. That's pretty much what I thought. First Rule of Holes, and so forth.
Have a nice day! :)
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 19, 2018, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
They consider themselves "Western Chauvinists", touting the superiority of Western culture, but they have disavowed racism.
I know what they say. I am asking if you consider them racist.
As far as I understand it (and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them) the Proud Boys allow and have non-white members.
There appears to be an argument that PB are misogynistic, certainly both anti-Muslim and anti-semitic, but racism doesn't seem to apply.
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject.
QuoteWhy Young Men of Color Are Joining White-Supremacist Groups
Patriot Prayer's leader is half-Japanese. Black and brown faces march with the Proud Boys. Is the future of hate multicultural?
Arun Gupta
09.04.18 4:54 AM ET
PORTLAND, Oregon—Outfitted in a flak jacket and fighting gloves, Enrique Tarrio was one of dozens of black, Latino, and Asian men who marched alongside white supremacists in Portland on Aug. 4.
Tarrio, who identifies as Afro-Cuban, is president of the Miami chapter of the Proud Boys, who call themselves "Western chauvinists," and "regularly spout white-nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Last month, prior to the Patriot Prayer rally he attended in Portland, Tarrio was pictured with other far-right activists making a hand sign that started as a hoax but has become an in-joke. Last year, Tarrio said traveled to Charlottesville, Virginia, for the Unite the Right rally that ended with a neo-Nazi allegedly killing an anti-fascist protester. (The Proud Boys said any members who went to the event were kicked out.)
Tarrio and other people of color at the far-right rallies claim institutional racism no longer exists in America. In their view, blacks are to blame for any lingering inequality because they are dependent on welfare, lack strong leadership, and believe Democrats who tell them "You're always going to be broke. You're not going to make it in society because of institutional racism," as one mixed-race man put it.
If racism doesn't exist, I ask Tarrio, how would he explain the disproportionate killing of young black men by police? "Hip-hop culture," he says. It "glorifies that lifestyle... of selling drugs, shooting up." Because of that, "Obviously you're going to have higher crime rates. Obviously you're going to have more police presence and more confrontations." (Police kill black males aged 15 to 34 at nine times the rate of the general population.)
Elysa Sanchez, who is black and Puerto Rican, attended the "Liberty or Death Rally Against Left-Wing Violence" in Seattle on Aug. 18, joining about 20 militiamen open-carrying handguns and semi-automatic rifles.
Sanchez says, "If black people are committing more murders, more robberies, more thefts, more violent crime, that's why you would see more black men having encounters with the police."
Also in Seattle, Franky Price, who said he is "black and white,"wore a T-shirt reading, "It's okay to be white."
They are among nearly a dozen black, Latino, and Asian participants at far-right rallies on the West Coast interviewed by The Daily Beast recently. They represent the new face of the far right that some scholars term "multiracial white supremacy."
The Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, which overlap, embrace an America-first nationalism that is less pro-white than it is anti-Muslim, anti-illegal immigrant, and anti-Black Lives Matter. "Proud Boys is multi-racial fraternity with thousands of members worldwide," a lawyer for the group's leader, Gavin McInnis, said in a statement. "The only requirements for membership are that a person must be biologically male and believe that the West is the best."
Daniel Martinez HoSang, associate professor at Yale University, co-author of the forthcoming Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity, says "Multiculturalism has become a norm in society" and has spread from corporations and consumer culture to conservatism and the far-right.
Indeed, Patriot Prayer's leader is Joey Gibson, who is half-Japanese and claims Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as a hero. But his agenda is the opposite of King's. Gibson's rallies have attracted neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis.
His right-hand man is Tusitala "Tiny" Toese, a 345-pound Samoan American who calls himself "a brown brother for Donald Trump" and is notorious for brawling. By bringing diversity to what is at heart a white-supremacist movement, people of color give it legitimacy to challenge state power and commit violence against their enemies.
David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump, says, "The ranks of people of color who show up to these right-wing events are totally dominated by males." He says the alt-right targets white males between the ages of 15 and 30 with a message of male resentment, which ends up attracting black, Latino, and Asian men as well.
Neiwert says many young men of color in the far-right grew up on conservative traditions common in minority communities. Their journey to the far-right has been enabled by the ease of recruitment in the internet age and the endorsement of extremism by Trump.
Entry points to the far-right include male-dominated video-game culture, the anti-feminist gamergate, troll havens on 4chan and 8chan, and the conspiracism that flourishes on websites like Infowars. Libertarianism is another gateway.
"A lot of these young guys," Neiwert says, "especially from the software world, who are being sucked into white nationalism, start out being worked up about Ayn Rand in high school."
Andrew Zhao, 25, a software engineer, says his parents, physicists who emigrated from mainland China, "are Trump fans." He found out about the Seattle rally from Reddit and Facebook and said, "We need more patriotism. A lot of liberals don't like America."
Daniel HoSang says some people of color are drawn to the far-right because they "identify with the military, with nationalism, with patriotism, with conservatism."
Wearing a Proud Boys hat, David Nopal, 23, came to the Seattle rally alone, like others. Nopal, whose parents crossed illegally from Mexico, said, "I'm very patriotic. The U.S. isn't perfect, but we are a hell of a lot better than other countries."
Sanchez comes from a military family. "They all love America. It's a big part of the reason I'm a patriot."
Similarly, Tarrio attributes his anti-socialist politics to his grandfather's experience in Cuba under Fidel Castro.
They proudly identify as "American" without modifiers. In their America they've never experienced racism. They eagerly talk politics, but evidence of their America is scant beyond the internet. Institutional racism has been ended by affirmative action, "black privilege," and equal protection under the law. Any remaining black inequality is caused by social welfare and liberal policies. In any case, it was Democrats who started the Klan.
People of color within the far-right play a role that "excuses white racism and bears witness to the failure of people of color," HoSang says, adding that they make "white supremacy a more durable force."
HoSang said the far-right is trying to broaden its appeal from a whites-only movement in a multiracial America, so it is "laying claim to the ideas of anti-racism, racial uplift, and civil-rights progress."
HoSang says, "It's hard for people to wrap their head around how Dr. King and civil-rights language are being used to legitimate positions approaching fascism and violence to restore hierarchy and order. But they are."
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 19, 2018, 09:47:48 AM
So, for you, the Proud Boys are not racist?
They consider themselves "Western Chauvinists", touting the superiority of Western culture, but they have disavowed racism.
You don't really believe that, do you?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 21, 2018, 12:30:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 19, 2018, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
They consider themselves "Western Chauvinists", touting the superiority of Western culture, but they have disavowed racism.
I know what they say. I am asking if you consider them racist.
As far as I understand it (and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them) the Proud Boys allow and have non-white members.
There appears to be an argument that PB are misogynistic, certainly both anti-Muslim and anti-semitic, but racism doesn't seem to apply.
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject.
QuoteWhy Young Men of Color Are Joining White-Supremacist Groups
Patriot Prayer's leader is half-Japanese. Black and brown faces march with the Proud Boys. Is the future of hate multicultural?
Arun Gupta
09.04.18 4:54 AM ET
PORTLAND, Oregon—Outfitted in a flak jacket and fighting gloves, Enrique Tarrio was one of dozens of black, Latino, and Asian men who marched alongside white supremacists in Portland on Aug. 4.
Tarrio, who identifies as Afro-Cuban, is president of the Miami chapter of the Proud Boys, who call themselves "Western chauvinists," and "regularly spout white-nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Last month, prior to the Patriot Prayer rally he attended in Portland, Tarrio was pictured with other far-right activists making a hand sign that started as a hoax but has become an in-joke. Last year, Tarrio said traveled to Charlottesville, Virginia, for the Unite the Right rally that ended with a neo-Nazi allegedly killing an anti-fascist protester. (The Proud Boys said any members who went to the event were kicked out.)
Tarrio and other people of color at the far-right rallies claim institutional racism no longer exists in America. In their view, blacks are to blame for any lingering inequality because they are dependent on welfare, lack strong leadership, and believe Democrats who tell them "You're always going to be broke. You're not going to make it in society because of institutional racism," as one mixed-race man put it.
If racism doesn't exist, I ask Tarrio, how would he explain the disproportionate killing of young black men by police? "Hip-hop culture," he says. It "glorifies that lifestyle... of selling drugs, shooting up." Because of that, "Obviously you're going to have higher crime rates. Obviously you're going to have more police presence and more confrontations." (Police kill black males aged 15 to 34 at nine times the rate of the general population.)
Elysa Sanchez, who is black and Puerto Rican, attended the "Liberty or Death Rally Against Left-Wing Violence" in Seattle on Aug. 18, joining about 20 militiamen open-carrying handguns and semi-automatic rifles.
Sanchez says, "If black people are committing more murders, more robberies, more thefts, more violent crime, that's why you would see more black men having encounters with the police."
Also in Seattle, Franky Price, who said he is "black and white,"wore a T-shirt reading, "It's okay to be white."
They are among nearly a dozen black, Latino, and Asian participants at far-right rallies on the West Coast interviewed by The Daily Beast recently. They represent the new face of the far right that some scholars term "multiracial white supremacy."
The Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, which overlap, embrace an America-first nationalism that is less pro-white than it is anti-Muslim, anti-illegal immigrant, and anti-Black Lives Matter. "Proud Boys is multi-racial fraternity with thousands of members worldwide," a lawyer for the group's leader, Gavin McInnis, said in a statement. "The only requirements for membership are that a person must be biologically male and believe that the West is the best."
Daniel Martinez HoSang, associate professor at Yale University, co-author of the forthcoming Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity, says "Multiculturalism has become a norm in society" and has spread from corporations and consumer culture to conservatism and the far-right.
Indeed, Patriot Prayer's leader is Joey Gibson, who is half-Japanese and claims Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as a hero. But his agenda is the opposite of King's. Gibson's rallies have attracted neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis.
His right-hand man is Tusitala "Tiny" Toese, a 345-pound Samoan American who calls himself "a brown brother for Donald Trump" and is notorious for brawling. By bringing diversity to what is at heart a white-supremacist movement, people of color give it legitimacy to challenge state power and commit violence against their enemies.
David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump, says, "The ranks of people of color who show up to these right-wing events are totally dominated by males." He says the alt-right targets white males between the ages of 15 and 30 with a message of male resentment, which ends up attracting black, Latino, and Asian men as well.
Neiwert says many young men of color in the far-right grew up on conservative traditions common in minority communities. Their journey to the far-right has been enabled by the ease of recruitment in the internet age and the endorsement of extremism by Trump.
Entry points to the far-right include male-dominated video-game culture, the anti-feminist gamergate, troll havens on 4chan and 8chan, and the conspiracism that flourishes on websites like Infowars. Libertarianism is another gateway.
"A lot of these young guys," Neiwert says, "especially from the software world, who are being sucked into white nationalism, start out being worked up about Ayn Rand in high school."
Andrew Zhao, 25, a software engineer, says his parents, physicists who emigrated from mainland China, "are Trump fans." He found out about the Seattle rally from Reddit and Facebook and said, "We need more patriotism. A lot of liberals don't like America."
Daniel HoSang says some people of color are drawn to the far-right because they "identify with the military, with nationalism, with patriotism, with conservatism."
Wearing a Proud Boys hat, David Nopal, 23, came to the Seattle rally alone, like others. Nopal, whose parents crossed illegally from Mexico, said, "I'm very patriotic. The U.S. isn't perfect, but we are a hell of a lot better than other countries."
Sanchez comes from a military family. "They all love America. It's a big part of the reason I'm a patriot."
Similarly, Tarrio attributes his anti-socialist politics to his grandfather's experience in Cuba under Fidel Castro.
They proudly identify as "American" without modifiers. In their America they've never experienced racism. They eagerly talk politics, but evidence of their America is scant beyond the internet. Institutional racism has been ended by affirmative action, "black privilege," and equal protection under the law. Any remaining black inequality is caused by social welfare and liberal policies. In any case, it was Democrats who started the Klan.
People of color within the far-right play a role that "excuses white racism and bears witness to the failure of people of color," HoSang says, adding that they make "white supremacy a more durable force."
HoSang said the far-right is trying to broaden its appeal from a whites-only movement in a multiracial America, so it is "laying claim to the ideas of anti-racism, racial uplift, and civil-rights progress."
HoSang says, "It's hard for people to wrap their head around how Dr. King and civil-rights language are being used to legitimate positions approaching fascism and violence to restore hierarchy and order. But they are."
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
The left's embrace of identity politics is a large part of why I have so much hesitation about voting for Democrats, even with Trump as the face of the Republican party.
The right and left have both embraced identity politics. They just privilege different identities.
Quote from: dps on December 21, 2018, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
The left's embrace of identity politics is a large part of why I have so much hesitation about voting for Democrats, even with Trump as the face of the Republican party.
It is not so much of an embrace as it is a hijack. They are a pretty intimidating group.
Longtime antigovernment militia organizer calls for 'lone wolf' action against antifa
QuoteAn antigovernment extremist who has called Islam a mental disorder and urged his followers to shoot black women and children has issued another call to violence, posting a video on his Facebook page urging members of the Patriot movement to engage in "lone wolf" action against antifa.
James Stachowiak, who runs the antigovernment propagandist Freedom Fighter Radio, is a former police officer who has repeatedly urged his listeners to consider lone wolf acts of violence. This latest announcement followed a Sunday prayer vigil, which Stachowiak attended with several others in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, to show support for a toppled statue that commemorated the Confederacy. In the video, Stachowiak alleges that tires on a fellow attendee's vehicle were slashed during the event. He blames antifa and demands nationwide retaliation.
"This will have a blowback [sic] against antifa," Stachowiak warns. "I personally hold all members of antifa responsible in all fifty states. If someone is a member of antifa, people, it is time to, be ... lone wolves and retaliate against this attack. Retaliate as a lone wolf."
Stachowiak's call for lone wolf action comes at a time where violence from lone offenders — who, given their smaller footprints are typically less vulnerable to detection by law enforcement — is overshadowing the threat of violence from established groups.
Not even 10 days before Stachowiak posted the video, neo-Nazi sympathizer James Fields was convicted of first-degree murder for his lone wolf attack, ramming his car into a crowd of "Unite the Right" counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one and wounding dozens more.
The Patriot movement at its core is fervently antigovernment, to the extent that adherents believe the federal government will enact mass genocide of American citizens and surrender American sovereignty to a cabal of international elites, often under the auspices of the United Nations and complicit federal agencies like the DHS and FEMA. Stachowiak's call to violent action comes at a time when this movement is rapidly adjusting to a federal government under President Trump that it widely sees as an embattled ally.
Political Research Associates, a Massachusetts-based social justice organization, accurately detailed Trump's appeal to the fundamentally antigovernment Patriot movement when it wrote, "Trump isn't exactly the movement's ideal candidate ... But quite a number of Trump's views — his toxic combination of bellicose patriotism, xenophobia and Islamophobia; implicit White nationalism; protectionist but pro-capitalist politics; as well as his thinly veiled threats of violence and penchant for wild conspiracy theories — all hit the same notes as the Patriot movement."
It's with this context that the Patriot movement largely adores President Trump, and zealously opposes those it perceives to be a threat to the president's Make America Great Again platform: Muslims, immigrants, Black Lives Matter activists and the political left (often all labeled antifa) to name a few.
Stachowiak, a staunch Trump supporter, is a case in point.
He regularly calls himself Johnny Infidel, and has an extensive history of anti-Muslim bigotry and activism, including calling the Islamic Prophet Mohammed a rapist, calling Islam a mental disorder and planning an anti-Muslim rally where he promised to shred a Quran.
In another video posted to Facebook, Stachowiak describes migrants as "illegals," "invaders," "criminals," "parasites" and "vermin." He does so while carrying an AR-15 variant with a Three Percenter "Nyberg" flag displayed prominently behind him. When he's done ranting, he burns the Mexican flag.
In yet another video, Stachowiak seemingly responds to the civil unrest in in a predominantly black quarter of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, following a police shooting of a 23-year-old man by leveling his AR-15 rifle at the camera and stating, "I don't care if they're women or children. Anyone coming out of a store should be shot on sight. They should be shot exiting the store. If they make it down the street, then take their asses out and shoot them in the back."
Stachowiak goes on to describe the Black Lives Matter movement as "Bitches, Losers and Maggots" before holding up to the camera a bullet with "BLM" scribbled on it.
"This is the solution to BLM," Stachowiak says while presenting the ammunition. "BLM, I got a round with your name on it."
He previously called for lone wolf action against Black Lives Matter in 2016, urging "lone wolf patriots" to confront them at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
To be sure, Stachowiak's call for lone wolf retaliation is his latest exclamation in a career of extremist bluster. He does not command a paramilitary militia, and his comments are often controversial even with the ranks of the Patriot movement. But his call for leaderless vigilantism doesn't require paramilitary force — in fact it seeks the opposite — and his rhetoric therein is consistent with the rhetoric of the broader Patriot movement in the Trump era.
And while Stachowiak's radio and social media audience doesn't influence as many people as antigovernment mainstay Alex Jones (at the time of writing the video calling for lone wolf retaliation was viewed just shy of 250 times on Facebook) his messages serve the same purpose of instilling fear and an urgency to act.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/12/20/longtime-antigovernment-militia-organizer-calls-lone-wolf-action-against-antifa?fbclid=IwAR3eTl9oq6pPqmndm_9NYsoowiOJVONuewxc4tgE8D5bcvSqF0ZjeTqR63k
Huh, imagine that.
"Social justice organization is just a term used by bigots who want to be free to call black people niggers."
he's a freedom fighter suffering from the oppressive system in which he lives. He has all the rights to defend himself by attacking innocents and not so innocents.
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2018, 06:39:55 PM
he's a freedom fighter suffering from the oppressive system in which he lives. He has all the rights to defend himself by attacking innocents and not so innocents.
Or perhaps we should leave dealing with former law enforcement officials like James Stachowiak, with current law officials like James Stachowiak. :hmm:
I would definitely prosecute for incitement to violence.
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
Nah. Liberals are not to blame for racist douches being racist douches. Try again.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 21, 2018, 07:34:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
Nah. Liberals are not to blame for racist douches being racist douches. Try again.
If you accept Berkut's hyperbole the left is to blame for all the world's ills.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2018, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2018, 06:39:55 PM
he's a freedom fighter suffering from the oppressive system in which he lives. He has all the rights to defend himself by attacking innocents and not so innocents.
Or perhaps we should leave dealing with former law enforcement officials like James Stachowiak, with current law officials like James Stachowiak. :hmm:
I do not know who that is.
But I agree with Yi.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2018, 08:05:01 PM
If you accept Berkut's hyperbole the left is to blame for all the world's ills.
Yeah, Berkut would be going too far. Only most of the world's ills are to be blamed on the left, not all of them, of course. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2018, 06:17:35 PM
(at the time of writing the video calling for lone wolf retaliation was viewed just shy of 250 times on Facebook)
Well, good job helping him get his message out.
James Stachowiak is a former rent-a-cop, not a former police officer. Since he got fired from his only rent-a-cop job for misconduct, we shouldn't rely on people like him to protect us from people like him.
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2018, 11:24:21 PM
James Stachowiak is a former rent-a-cop, not a former police officer. Since he got fired from his only rent-a-cop job for misconduct, we shouldn't rely on people like him to protect us from people like him.
Dude is a real piece of shit
https://www.theroot.com/white-nationalist-who-threatened-stacey-abrams-campaign-1830044440
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2018, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2018, 06:39:55 PM
he's a freedom fighter suffering from the oppressive system in which he lives. He has all the rights to defend himself by attacking innocents and not so innocents.
Or perhaps we should leave dealing with former law enforcement officials like James Stachowiak, with current law officials like James Stachowiak. :hmm:
I do not know who that is.
But I agree with Yi.
James Stachowiak is what the article is about. He's already similar statements about lone wolf attacks on Black Lives Matter. He was not prosecuted. Grumbler just says he was a rent-a-cop, but I have not seen anything to that effect.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 21, 2018, 07:34:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
Nah. Liberals are not to blame for racist douches being racist douches. Try again.
Oh come on. You cannot possibly read what I said and think that is my conclusion.
Look, if you just want to be outraged at the stupid fucking alt right, knock yourself out. There is plenty there to feel outraged about.
If you want to actually think about what is going on, and why the stupid fucking alt right seems to have managed to put a fucking US President in charge, you might consider that there is more to consider then simply being outraged.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2018, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 21, 2018, 07:34:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
Nah. Liberals are not to blame for racist douches being racist douches. Try again.
Oh come on. You cannot possibly read what I said and think that is my conclusion.
Look, if you just want to be outraged at the stupid fucking alt right, knock yourself out. There is plenty there to feel outraged about.
If you want to actually think about what is going on, and why the stupid fucking alt right seems to have managed to put a fucking US President in charge, you might consider that there is more to consider then simply being outraged.
Um, that is exactly what you said. Your hyperbole gets you into trouble. If you actually want to engage in an interesting discussion then stop being so bombastic and stop overgeneralizing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 22, 2018, 12:09:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2018, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 21, 2018, 07:34:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
Nah. Liberals are not to blame for racist douches being racist douches. Try again.
Oh come on. You cannot possibly read what I said and think that is my conclusion.
Look, if you just want to be outraged at the stupid fucking alt right, knock yourself out. There is plenty there to feel outraged about.
If you want to actually think about what is going on, and why the stupid fucking alt right seems to have managed to put a fucking US President in charge, you might consider that there is more to consider then simply being outraged.
Um, that is exactly what you said. Your hyperbole gets you into trouble. If you actually want to engage in an interesting discussion then stop being so bombastic and stop overgeneralizing.
Of course.
That must be exactly what I said, despite me explicitly stating that is not what I said.
Continue with your outrage - now you even have something else to be outraged about! Berkuts hyperbole!
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2018, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 21, 2018, 07:34:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
Nah. Liberals are not to blame for racist douches being racist douches. Try again.
Oh come on. You cannot possibly read what I said and think that is my conclusion.
Look, if you just want to be outraged at the stupid fucking alt right, knock yourself out. There is plenty there to feel outraged about.
If you want to actually think about what is going on, and why the stupid fucking alt right seems to have managed to put a fucking US President in charge, you might consider that there is more to consider then simply being outraged.
Is outrage the word of the day or something? I'm not exactly outraged by the alt-right. They affect my life very little, since I live in a still functioning democracy :P
The way to "beat" the alt-right is to beat them at the polls. Defeat their enabling candidates. Let the justice system deal with their most awful members. And occasionally punch one in the face, just to piss off grumbler and the Brain.
That sounds like a horrible reason for violent crime.
As good a reason as any.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2018, 06:51:28 PM
That sounds like a horrible reason for violent crime.
Hey, he is advocating violence
just to piss off you and me. How sweet is that? The rumbling you hear is Mohandas Gandhi rolling over in his grave - not because he is surprised that Zoupa is a thug, but because Zoupa didn't include him in the list of people "just to piss off" with his thuggery! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2018, 01:46:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2018, 06:51:28 PM
That sounds like a horrible reason for violent crime.
Hey, he is advocating violence just to piss off you and me. How sweet is that? The rumbling you hear is Mohandas Gandhi rolling over in his grave - not because he is surprised that Zoupa is a thug, but because Zoupa didn't include him in the list of people "just to piss off" with his thuggery! :lol:
More to the point you are kind of oldish and might not be around to be pissed off. :(
Gandhi was kind of a terrible guy. I wouldn't mind punching him in the face either.
Gandhi Get Your Gun was a pretty good musical though.
Let he who is without sin throw the first punch.
Beat the change you want to see into the world.
Quote from: The Brain on December 23, 2018, 02:54:09 PM
More to the point you are kind of oldish and might not be around to be pissed off. :(
True, but I'm confident Zoupa will punch some Navy SEAL that he thinks is a Nazi, so will pass on sooner than I will. :)
Quote from: Zoupa on December 23, 2018, 04:26:40 PM
Gandhi was kind of a terrible guy. I wouldn't mind punching him in the face either.
I get the strong feeling that there are few people that you wouldn't mind punching in the face. :lol: I look forward to reading the newspaper stories about you.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 23, 2018, 04:26:40 PM
Gandhi was kind of a terrible guy. I wouldn't mind punching him in the face either.
Nathuram Godse would have been disappointed by your lack of commitment.
At 40 pages, what is the consensus?
That Gandhi could take Zoupa easy.
No way dude. Fucker was stick thin. Plus I fight dirty. I'd probably grab him by his toga or whatever they call it.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 23, 2018, 09:30:49 PM
No way dude. Fucker was stick thin. Plus I fight dirty. I'd probably grab him by his toga or whatever they call it.
You do know that he was a lawyer, right? I'm sure that he knows all about fighting dirty.
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
=topic=15161.msg1166653#msg1166653 date=1545237021]
]
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
I hear this a lot from the right.
I've never seen it.
American thing that the local idiots have decided to just copy wholesale along with incorrect usage of the word liberal et al?
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2018, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
=topic=15161.msg1166653#msg1166653 date=1545237021]
]
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
I hear this a lot from the right.
I've never seen it.
American thing that the local idiots have decided to just copy wholesale along with incorrect usage of the word liberal et al?
Have a look at the comments below any Guardian piece on Brexit. There is systematic "othering" of leavers; the consensus being that leavers are all racist morons. It is exactly the same thing as the right wing saying that, since some Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims are terrorists. Both the right and the left could do with a hard look at the beams in their own eyes.
The important question though is how large these extremist components are. They have always existed of course; I think they are in the process of becoming dominant.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 26, 2018, 06:29:43 AM
]
Have a look at the comments below any Guardian piece on Brexit. There is systematic "othering" of leavers; the consensus being that leavers are all racist morons. It is exactly the same thing as the right wing saying that, since some Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims are terrorists. Both the right and the left could do with a hard look at the beams in their own eyes.
The important question though is how large these extremist components are. They have always existed of course; I think they are in the process of becoming dominant.
But leavers ARE scum who deserve nothing more than a bullet in the back of the head :p
But I'm not on about that. This is more the rights obsession with the left supposedly being obsessed with trans rights, taking it to silly levels, and the like.
Sounds like Tyr may be a tad transphobic. :hmm:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 26, 2018, 09:03:19 AM
Sounds like Tyr may be a tad transphobic. :hmm:
Trans people exist. They should continue to exist and have full rights as the other gender once there's medical sign off.
They aren't a problem. Just let them be.
This is pretty much agreed by all. Its not something the left feel the need to pay the slightest attention to.
But in the minds of the alt right....
Funny people would think you're the one who's "obsessed" when you've stipulated they agree with a position they disagree with.
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2018, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
=topic=15161.msg1166653#msg1166653 date=1545237021]
]
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
I hear this a lot from the right.
I've never seen it.
That sounds like willfull ignorance. Well, maybe not willfull.
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2018, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
=topic=15161.msg1166653#msg1166653 date=1545237021]
]
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
I hear this a lot from the right.
I've never seen it.
American thing that the local idiots have decided to just copy wholesale along with incorrect usage of the word liberal et al?
Wasn't it in this very thread that the Usual Suspects were telling us that there is a institutionalized and systemic refusal by all or nearly all law enforcement to enforce the law against nazis?
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2018, 01:42:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2018, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2018, 01:38:41 AM
=topic=15161.msg1166653#msg1166653 date=1545237021]
]
The dumb ass lefts whole scale embrace of identity politics and refusal to even countenance any kind of rational discussion of race, immigration, and globalism beyond "YOUR RACIST" and "The police and FBI and CIA and all authority figures are secret complicit Nazis" is what leaves a nice little gap for dog whistle racist organizations like Proud Boys to fill.
I hear this a lot from the right.
I've never seen it.
American thing that the local idiots have decided to just copy wholesale along with incorrect usage of the word liberal et al?
Wasn't it in this very thread that the Usual Suspects were telling us that there is a institutionalized and systemic refusal by all or nearly all law enforcement to enforce the law against nazis?
No.
Quote
Funny people would think you're the one who's "obsessed" when you've stipulated they agree with a position they disagree with.
Pretty much agreed by all.
There are or course exceptions.
But the alt right often tend to be careful not to mark themselves out as exceptions. Dog whistle politics are order of the day.
It's not the Jews. It's Soros and Rothschild.
It's not refugees. It's migrants.
It's not transsexuals. It's non gender normative 563 genders.
Question: do you think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports?
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2018, 02:40:15 PM
Quote
Funny people would think you're the one who's "obsessed" when you've stipulated they agree with a position they disagree with.
Pretty much agreed by all.
There are or course exceptions.
But the alt right often tend to be careful not to mark themselves out as exceptions. Dog whistle politics are order of the day.
It's not the Jews. It's Soros and Rothschild.
It's not refugees. It's migrants.
It's not transsexuals. It's non gender normative 563 genders.
Calling "migrants" refugees, illegal and legal immigrants is from being a province of the alt right. That's PC newspeak nowadays.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 26, 2018, 02:48:02 PM
Question: do you think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports?
No
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 26, 2018, 02:48:02 PM
Question: do you think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports?
No.
Why not?
Pretty sure they'd fall afowl of doping laws.
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
So?
Hmm. I suppose if we want to be totally committed to gender equality, we should abolish women's sports and just have women compete against men, rendering the question moot. Probably not a good idea, though.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2018, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
What about you? What do you think and why?
Women's sports exist so women will not be at a physical disadvantage. Athletes are just so insanely competitive and the rewards for winning an Olympic Medal in some countries is so profound that allowing this would open up all kinds of abuse that would render women's sports a joke.
Or at least that is what I thought before. Now I just have no opinion as it is none of my business. If women's sports want this door opened they can go right ahead. Maybe nothing bad will happen at all.
The East Germans were doing this before it was cool.
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
The true gender of a trans woman is woman. :huh:
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2018, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
The true gender of a trans woman is woman. :huh:
Hogwash.
For the clarity of communication, we probably need a different word from gender, to differentiate what you identify as from what you actually are.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2018, 05:44:38 PM
For the clarity of communication, we probably need a different word from gender, to differentiate what you identify as from what you actually are.
Born with a Frank & Beans.
For sake of argument, let us say that "gender" is a culturally defined value that has some to do with biological sex but also includes individual and larger social identities. Let us say that "sex" is the biological expression - most often XX or XY though with a number of other combinations.
When we say this, "gender" allows us to talk about cultures that have more than two, and "sex" allows us to talk about the genotype.
Male gender female sex is kind of a mouthful.
Ok, so how about we not worry about the biology in our nomenclature and instead focus on gender - we could say "identifies as X" with X being the gender, which we have already said is based both on culture and biology.
That's reasonable, but you do need a noun form. An identifier as X? A female identifier? A male identifier?
Well, since we have said that this system needs to work with cultures that might have more than two genders, "male" and "female" work, but there needs to be additional words accepted too if the society has more than that.
My whole point, of course, is that biological sex and social gender can be the same, or different. As Western Culture is undergoing some radical shifts these direct "two sexes, two genders - always fixed" is changing. Where will it play out? Who knows, but I think we do need to understand that the situation is fluid and has been so for a few decades.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
[
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
Thats the Texas policy from your second article.
It is leading to this guy born a woman pumped full of hormones and entirely seeming a normal guy wiping the floor with all competition.
Quote from: PDH on December 29, 2018, 08:44:40 PM
Well, since we have said that this system needs to work with cultures that might have more than two genders, "male" and "female" work, but there needs to be additional words accepted too if the society has more than that.
My whole point, of course, is that biological sex and social gender can be the same, or different. As Western Culture is undergoing some radical shifts these direct "two sexes, two genders - always fixed" is changing. Where will it play out? Who knows, but I think we do need to understand that the situation is fluid and has been so for a few decades.
To be fair we logically also need 2 words for gay but keep muddling through with one.
Men who have sex with men is a bit of a mouthful. (oo err)
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2018, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
The true gender of a trans woman is woman. :huh:
Hogwash.
Fuck transphobes.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 30, 2018, 03:45:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2018, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
The true gender of a trans woman is woman. :huh:
Hogwash.
Fuck transphobes.
Fuck You. Lets see how far this pyramid can get.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2018, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
The true gender of a trans woman is woman. :huh:
Hogwash.
So you're saying our BuddhaRhubarb here isn't a woman?
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 03:08:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
[
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
Thats the Texas policy from your second article.
It is leading to this guy born a woman pumped full of hormones and entirely seeming a normal guy wiping the floor with all competition.
Perhaps both trans women and transmen have advantages that should force them into the (unrestricted) men's leagues.
The whole point of women's sports is to let (cis-) women play competitive sports without biological disadvantages.
I don't see why acceptance of trans people means we have to pretend they're exactly the same as their chosen gender. It makes more sense to expand the number of genders.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 30, 2018, 05:40:23 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 03:08:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
[
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
Thats the Texas policy from your second article.
It is leading to this guy born a woman pumped full of hormones and entirely seeming a normal guy wiping the floor with all competition.
Perhaps both trans women and transmen have advantages that should force them into the (unrestricted) men's leagues.
The whole point of women's sports is to let (cis-) women play competitive sports without biological disadvantages.
I don't see why acceptance of trans people means we have to pretend they're exactly the same as their chosen gender. It makes more sense to expand the number of genders.
There are many points of women's sports. In some cases it's because ultra-sensitive ME men don't want to get their asses kicked by women.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 30, 2018, 05:40:23 AM
Perhaps both trans women and transmen have advantages that should force them into the (unrestricted) men's leagues.
The whole point of women's sports is to let (cis-) women play competitive sports without biological disadvantages.
Is it a given that all trans women have physical advantages over all cis women? What about cis women who are very buff and muscular, should they also be banned?
Sports can have weight classes (where it's relevant), but dividing them by gender is simplistic and does not really solve any problems.
By allowing transwomen, competitive women's sports becomes far more difficult for "cis-women" to succeed in (thus undermining the main point of women's leagues), however much one may wish it otherwise for moral or ideological reasons.
Is that a price worth paying to allow transwomen to compete? I think it's reasonable to say no, including from a feminist perspective.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 30, 2018, 08:52:05 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 30, 2018, 05:40:23 AM
Perhaps both trans women and transmen have advantages that should force them into the (unrestricted) men's leagues.
The whole point of women's sports is to let (cis-) women play competitive sports without biological disadvantages.
Is it a given that all trans women have physical advantages over all cis women? What about cis women who are very buff and muscular, should they also be banned?
Sports can have weight classes (where it's relevant), but dividing them by gender is simplistic and does not really solve any problems.
The biological advantage that "traditional" men have over women physically are not only limited to weight.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 30, 2018, 03:45:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2018, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
The true gender of a trans woman is woman. :huh:
Hogwash.
Fuck transphobes.
Your an idiot
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 30, 2018, 05:40:23 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 03:08:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
[
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
Thats the Texas policy from your second article.
It is leading to this guy born a woman pumped full of hormones and entirely seeming a normal guy wiping the floor with all competition.
Perhaps both trans women and transmen have advantages that should force them into the (unrestricted) men's leagues.
The whole point of women's sports is to let (cis-) women play competitive sports without biological disadvantages.
I don't see why acceptance of trans people means we have to pretend they're exactly the same as their chosen gender. It makes more sense to expand the number of genders.
It's not an easy one but that does seem the most logical thing to do.
The trouble is it's well and good to say this at the professional level but where is the line drawn? Seems a bit daft to have a trans woman who is just playing sport for fun and exercise at a very non serious and amateur level to be forced into men's sports.
Further there's the complication that male and female isn't as strictly a binary thing as was once believed. You do get naturally intersex people. Recall some years ago that south African woman with naturally high testosterone levels.
I wouldn't put it past a dodgy regime to specifically select for such people.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 01:13:17 PM
Further there's the complication that male and female isn't as strictly a binary thing as was once believed.
Is that really the case? I hear it a lot, but I usually hear it from sources that would not critically examine claims of this nature. Honestly, it sounds like a load of nonsense to me.
That South African woman did have a dick growing inside her or something like that.
Back to the original subject of this thread, last night by coincidence I stumbled upon a Wiki page for 1932 Summer Olympics, from there on to a couple of other pages. It turns out that it was quite common for successful female runners in that era to turn out to have disputed gender.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2018, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 01:13:17 PM
Further there's the complication that male and female isn't as strictly a binary thing as was once believed.
Is that really the case? I hear it a lot, but I usually hear it from sources that would not critically examine claims of this nature. Honestly, it sounds like a load of nonsense to me.
You can begin with the RadioLab series on this: https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/projects/radiolab-presents-gonads
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 30, 2018, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2018, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 01:13:17 PM
Further there's the complication that male and female isn't as strictly a binary thing as was once believed.
Is that really the case? I hear it a lot, but I usually hear it from sources that would not critically examine claims of this nature. Honestly, it sounds like a load of nonsense to me.
You can begin with the RadioLab series on this: https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/projects/radiolab-presents-gonads
The answer, only the beginning part of it, is six podcasts? That's too much, sorry.
It's okay. I thought you wanted to know.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 30, 2018, 02:06:50 PM
It's okay. I thought you wanted to know.
So if you have an insurance related question for me, and my response is "Here, read this 500-page source material for the actuarial exam, that would be a good start", I'm justified in concluding you don't really care if you don't want to read it? That's not an answer, that's a fuck-off.
I don't want to pretend that every answer is simple, but generally, if the general gist of the answer can't be boiled down to lay terms in a fairly succinct way, then either the person answering the question doesn't really understand the answer, or a good answer doesn't exist. Obviously such abbreviated and lay answers have no prayer of covering all the details professionals concerns themselves with, but for the purposes of discussion they should suffice.
Sorry. Your comment is fair. I just don't have time, and I would totally understand if you didn't want to answer my hypothetical insurance related question if it was prefaced by "I am sorry, I think insurance sounds like bullshit to me".
RadioLab is a pretty interesting podcast that you should check out regardless, and it's designed for laypeople.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2018, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 01:13:17 PM
Further there's the complication that male and female isn't as strictly a binary thing as was once believed.
Is that really the case? I hear it a lot, but I usually hear it from sources that would not critically examine claims of this nature. Honestly, it sounds like a load of nonsense to me.
Plenty of cases out there of people being born with both sets of genitalia or something which isn't quite either. And that's the more extreme and visible side of things.
Lots of variation in hormone levels among people.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 30, 2018, 02:31:03 PM
Sorry. Your comment is fair. I just don't have time, and I would totally understand if you didn't want to answer my hypothetical insurance related question if it was prefaced by "I am sorry, I think insurance sounds like bullshit to me".
It's fair. I added that sentence deliberately because I didn't want to pretend that I was a blank slate on it. I am starting off fairly skeptical, and I didn't want to be misleading about it.
Scientifically speaking, the biological differences in muscle mass, development and strength between the sexes are significant. Current testosterone levels don't tell the whole story.
Biology and genetics are unfair. That's just the way it is. Maybe a transgender category would be the way to go in sports.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 02:36:36 PM
Plenty of cases out there of people being born with both sets of genitalia or something which isn't quite either. And that's the more extreme and visible side of things.
Lots of variation in hormone levels among people.
How do we define plenty? By absolute numbers or by percentages? Could it be that gender is binary 99.5% of the time, and the rest is just an unfortunate defect?
As far as variation, I'm sure there is some, but how much crossover there is between the two "old school genders"? Does the typical curve of hormonal level look like the first one, or the second one?
(https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bimodal.png)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brendangregg.com%2FFrequencyTrails%2Fbimodal_trimmed_annotated.png&hash=2bed520d3a33dea57f50200a6c07efd2f98d86f7)
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 30, 2018, 02:06:50 PM
It's okay. I thought you wanted to know.
How about you put it in your own words professor.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2018, 02:57:01 PM
As far as variation, I'm sure there is some, but how much crossover there is between the two "old school genders"? Does the typical curve of hormonal level look like the first one, or the second one?
Stop saying gender when you mean biological sex. There is nothing "old school" about two genders for all societies, even our gender roles changed over time - women performing previously male work, wearing male clothing, etc. these days. There is a basic gene-based duality between biological sexes, with the genetic problems alluded to thrown in.
Quote from: Syt on December 30, 2018, 04:41:01 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2018, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 29, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2018, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Why not?
https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-breaks-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
Utter BS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39d389f7fbe9
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/06/transgender-freshman-sprinter-born-a-male-wins-two-girls-state-championships
A bit misrepresented in the reporting of the second one I've seen. Odd you'd include it with the others since it's a case for the other pov.
The issue is its a FTM transgender person who due to conservative rules is forced to compete with women.
This being high school level there's no protections against doping.
Transgender men competing with men on this amateur level is a bit less of a problem and should be allowed. It's the other way around and at top levels where things are iffy.
Seems wrong to utterly deny them access to sport though they do have a natural advantage.
Then compete as your true gender. Or don't compete at all.
The true gender of a trans woman is woman. :huh:
Hogwash.
So you're saying our BuddhaRhubarb here isn't a woman?
If the person identifies as such, no problem. Go into a women's sport, I call BS.
I find the idea of multiple genders liberating; I would like there to be so many that everyone is catered for.
Now as regards sex, apart from a few intersex people that is fairly immutable. When a man changes his gender his/her fundamental skeletal and muscular structure does not change; which is why I think women's sports (at least at the elite level) should be confined to cis-women.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2018, 03:25:10 PM
I find the idea of multiple genders liberating; I would like there to be so many that everyone is catered for.
Now as regards sex, apart from a few intersex people that is fairly immutable. When a man changes his gender his/her fundamental skeletal and muscular structure does not change; which is why I think women's sports (at least at the elite level) should be confined to cis-women.
IMO, any level.
I'm not good with bathrooms either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2018, 03:33:40 PM
I'm not good with bathrooms either.
The general rule is that if you miss the porcelain you should clear up after.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2018, 03:33:40 PM
I'm not good with bathrooms either.
Oh, that doesn't bother me.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2018, 03:41:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2018, 03:33:40 PM
I'm not good with bathrooms either.
The general rule is that if you miss the porcelain you should clear up after.
They just have to learn to put the seat down...
Does a Yi shit in the woods? :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2018, 03:41:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2018, 03:33:40 PM
I'm not good with bathrooms either.
The general rule is that if you miss the porcelain you should clear up after.
:lol:
Meh, I talked about this a couple years ago and had my head bitten off.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2018, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2018, 03:25:10 PM
I find the idea of multiple genders liberating; I would like there to be so many that everyone is catered for.
Now as regards sex, apart from a few intersex people that is fairly immutable. When a man changes his gender his/her fundamental skeletal and muscular structure does not change; which is why I think women's sports (at least at the elite level) should be confined to cis-women.
IMO, any level.
Thats just ridiculous though.
Why should an unsporty and very feminine girl in PE class be forced to play rugby with the boys?
Sounds like a recipe for trouble.
Just as clear that at the top level you shouldn't have trans women competing in women's events is that at the casual level you should let people be with their official gender.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2018, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2018, 03:25:10 PM
I find the idea of multiple genders liberating; I would like there to be so many that everyone is catered for.
Now as regards sex, apart from a few intersex people that is fairly immutable. When a man changes his gender his/her fundamental skeletal and muscular structure does not change; which is why I think women's sports (at least at the elite level) should be confined to cis-women.
IMO, any level.
Thats just ridiculous though.
Why should an unsporty and very feminine girl in PE class be forced to play rugby with the boys?
Sounds like a recipe for trouble.
Just as clear that at the top level you shouldn't have trans women competing in women's events is that at the casual level you should let people be with their official gender.
Who said force the a girl(above) to play any sport? Or force anyone to play any sport? Wtf are you talking about? :huh:
Trans women should not be allowed in any women's sport category at any level.
WNBA
Olympic anything
Collegiate anything
Female boxing/mma
Wrestling
CWHL
etc
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2018, 06:44:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2018, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2018, 03:25:10 PM
I find the idea of multiple genders liberating; I would like there to be so many that everyone is catered for.
Now as regards sex, apart from a few intersex people that is fairly immutable. When a man changes his gender his/her fundamental skeletal and muscular structure does not change; which is why I think women's sports (at least at the elite level) should be confined to cis-women.
IMO, any level.
Thats just ridiculous though.
Why should an unsporty and very feminine girl in PE class be forced to play rugby with the boys?
Sounds like a recipe for trouble.
Just as clear that at the top level you shouldn't have trans women competing in women's events is that at the casual level you should let people be with their official gender.
Who said force the a girl(above) to play any sport? Or force anyone to play any sport? Wtf are you talking about? :huh:
Trans women should not be allowed in any women's sport category at any level.
WNBA
Olympic anything
Collegiate anything
Female boxing/mma
Wrestling
CWHL
etc
You're talking about a handful of cases here.
It's unlikely too many transsexuals will have the skill and ability to compete on an elite level for either gender.
In those cases where it is possible we've already established there is an issue with trans women.
Far more important is the ground level stuff. Not elite athletes winning competitions. But normal kids in PE class.
I can't tell what you're arguing for or against Squeeze.
In every PE class games i've ever known, they just mix genders and no one cares.
Yeah.
Really? We segregated starting in 7th grade.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2018, 06:44:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2018, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2018, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2018, 03:25:10 PM
I find the idea of multiple genders liberating; I would like there to be so many that everyone is catered for.
Now as regards sex, apart from a few intersex people that is fairly immutable. When a man changes his gender his/her fundamental skeletal and muscular structure does not change; which is why I think women's sports (at least at the elite level) should be confined to cis-women.
IMO, any level.
Thats just ridiculous though.
Why should an unsporty and very feminine girl in PE class be forced to play rugby with the boys?
Sounds like a recipe for trouble.
Just as clear that at the top level you shouldn't have trans women competing in women's events is that at the casual level you should let people be with their official gender.
Who said force the a girl(above) to play any sport? Or force anyone to play any sport? Wtf are you talking about? :huh:
Trans women should not be allowed in any women's sport category at any level.
WNBA
Olympic anything
Collegiate anything
Female boxing/mma
Wrestling
CWHL
etc
You're talking about a handful of cases here.
It's unlikely too many transsexuals will have the skill and ability to compete on an elite level for either gender.
In those cases where it is possible we've already established there is an issue with trans women.
Far more important is the ground level stuff. Not elite athletes winning competitions. But normal kids in PE class.
I'm not talking about PE class, but sports competition at all levels. Who's talking about PE class?
Quotecan't tell what you're arguing for or against Squeeze.
No trans women in top level female sport - logical.
Trans women forced to be with the men in bottom level casual sport - ridiculous.
Where the line lies - a difficult question
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 30, 2018, 07:36:36 PM
In every PE class games i've ever known, they just mix genders and no one cares.
Like starship troopers?
So basically people would rather place trans women at significant risk to health and life (because no male sports players are ever violent transphobes, ever) rather than maybe occasionally sometimes mess up their sports results. Okay. :huh:
So basically you would put cis-women at increased risk and kill women's sports to make a political point?
Quote from: Solmyr on December 31, 2018, 04:04:06 AM
So basically people would rather place trans women at significant risk to health and life (because no male sports players are ever violent transphobes, ever) rather than maybe occasionally sometimes mess up their sports results. Okay. :huh:
These are the best kinds of arguments.
Either you agree with me, or you want to kill people! MONSTER!
Solmyr is an odd duck. Seemingly overnight, he went from markedly rightwing to a militant progressive of the "agree with me or you're immoral" mold. Not sure if it's all a troll or just a function of an unbalanced personality.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 31, 2018, 04:04:06 AM
So basically people would rather place trans women at significant risk to health and life (because no male sports players are ever violent transphobes, ever) rather than maybe occasionally sometimes mess up their sports results. Okay. :huh:
I think we got our winner for the least convincing argument of 2018, almost on the buzzer.
Wokemyr.
Quote from: Camerus on December 31, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Solmyr is an odd duck. Seemingly overnight, he went from markedly rightwing to a militant progressive of the "agree with me or you're immoral" mold. Not sure if it's all a troll or just a function of an unbalanced personality.
Nah, just got fed up with rightwingers' egoism and contempt for human rights. :)
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2018, 03:40:45 AM
Like starship troopers?
They aren't taking showers together. I haven't had a Gym class since college but it was co-ed.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 31, 2018, 04:04:06 AM
(because no male sports players are ever violent transphobes, ever)
So are you suggesting Trans-men are at a serious health and life risk for competing with male athletes? I mean there might be reasons to allow trans people to compete with Cis-Women but trying to protect them all from subhuman barbarous male athletes seems a little ridiculous.
I knew Colin Kaepernick was up to no good.
Quote from: chipwich on December 31, 2018, 11:07:08 PM
I knew Colin Kaepernick was up to no good.
What? Did he sign with the Eagles?
Quote from: Camerus on December 31, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Solmyr is an odd duck. Seemingly overnight, he went from markedly rightwing to a militant progressive of the "agree with me or you're immoral" mold. Not sure if it's all a troll or just a function of an unbalanced personality.
It all happened when he cut off his toxic masculinity.
Quote from: derspiess on January 02, 2019, 09:15:15 AM
Quote from: Camerus on December 31, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Solmyr is an odd duck. Seemingly overnight, he went from markedly rightwing to a militant progressive of the "agree with me or you're immoral" mold. Not sure if it's all a troll or just a function of an unbalanced personality.
It all happened when he cut off his toxic masculinity.
You are quite a piece of work.
He said it himself. I don't have the Razskills or time to look it up, but he more or less said that.
Quote from: derspiess on January 02, 2019, 09:15:15 AM
Quote from: Camerus on December 31, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Solmyr is an odd duck. Seemingly overnight, he went from markedly rightwing to a militant progressive of the "agree with me or you're immoral" mold. Not sure if it's all a troll or just a function of an unbalanced personality.
It all happened when he cut off his toxic masculinity.
Is that the new lingo for symbolic emasculation?
Kinda.
It's part of growing up for decent guys.
Once out of school nobody cares whether you're hard or not. Once you've been with a few girls numbers are a topic of curiosity at best rather than boasting.
Quote from: Tyr on January 02, 2019, 11:29:00 AM
It's part of growing up for decent guys.
Once out of school nobody cares whether you're hard or not. Once you've been with a few girls numbers are a topic of curiosity at best rather than boasting.
Lolwut?
I guess that was Tyr's attempt at defining "toxic masculinity".
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 02, 2019, 09:15:15 AM
It all happened when he cut off his toxic masculinity.
It helps if you are minimally familiar with the things you intend to mock.
That ain't how derfoetus operates.
Derspeiss still hasn't told me what the conservative method for stopping the Nazi menace is. I'm beginning to think it's the same conservative method for dealing with the Nazi menace back in the 1930's and 1940's.
FDR didn't believe in gay marriage or even desegregation, I think he would qualify as a conservative.
Quote from: chipwich on January 02, 2019, 06:37:02 PM
FDR didn't believe in gay marriage or even desegregation, I think he would qualify as a conservative.
That relates to what Raz said how? :huh:
FDR was involved in a huge war against the nazis in the 40's. You might have heard of it
Quote from: chipwich on January 02, 2019, 06:37:02 PM
FDR didn't believe in gay marriage or even desegregation, I think he would qualify as a conservative.
Product of the times, maybe.
Quote from: chipwich on January 02, 2019, 07:04:15 PM
FDR was involved in a huge war against the nazis in the 40's. You might have heard of it
And?
The conservative method for stopping the nazis was quite effective
Quote from: chipwich on January 02, 2019, 07:28:33 PM
The conservative method for stopping the nazis was quite effective
Appointing Hitler Chancellor and wholeheartedly throwing their support behind the new regime, providing the core of the nazis support base?
I didn't know FDR has the power to appoint the Chancellor of Germany.
:wacko: WTF just happened in this thread?
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2019, 07:58:36 PM
:wacko: WTF just happened in this thread?
Languish
:lol:
Quote from: chipwich on January 02, 2019, 06:37:02 PM
FDR didn't believe in gay marriage or even desegregation, I think he would qualify as a conservative.
Wait, wait...Karl Marx sure didn't believe in gay marriage and was quite racists and segregationist...he was a conservative?
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2019, 07:58:36 PM
:wacko: WTF just happened in this thread?
chipbitch
Quote from: Tyr on January 02, 2019, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: chipwich on January 02, 2019, 07:28:33 PM
The conservative method for stopping the nazis was quite effective
Appointing Hitler Chancellor and wholeheartedly throwing their support behind the new regime, providing the core of the nazis support base?
Raz and Chip are only interested in US conservatives.
D.C. "Antifa Leader" Is Third Man Charged in Marine Attack in Philadelphia
Joseph Alcoff has been charged with aggravated assault, ethnic intimidation, and conspiracy, among other offenses.
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/01/29/joseph-alcoff-antifa-marines-philadelphia/
Good. Wait...ethnic intimidation is against the law? Or is that what "hate crime" type stuff gets labelled?
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 03:07:47 PM
Good. Wait...ethnic intimidation is against the law? Or is that what "hate crime" type stuff gets labelled?
Yeah, I didn't realize we had laws like that until I watched this Youtube clip of a white chick bitching out an older white lady for giving two Hispanics shit for speaking Spanish. Apparently the older lady got arrested and charged with some kind of ethnic harrassment.
QuoteAlcoff has had a long history of protest. The below video captures him in the mid-2000s saying "I'm a Communist, motherfucker" before spitting
Marx and Engels would be so proud.