Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we have a society, have a huge problem on our hands. We can already see the heard mentality has started to take over. Statues taken down, emblems being changed , people getting attacked because of how they look... yeah the antifa are gaining momentum and whether or not they are Democrats or part of the left, they sure are doing the dirty work for them.
Quote:
QUOTE=scarabchuck;49266805]Probably not, but it also works the other way as well. If we see something really bad happen again, this time the culprit being the "anti " protestors , antifa can easily bow out and say they had nothing to do with it, that they are a peaceful organization. This fact , that they can easily cover their tracks makes them pretty dangerous.
And if their only targets where W/S's , I would have no problem with it. Even though I know those dirtbags have the same rights as you and I do under our Constitution.
Okay, I can understand you not buying the link I sent...I do agree it is propaganda like...although which news media outlet isn't these days ? Take a look at these....
I had seen the Antifa manual before but took another look and a couple of sentences jumped out. First this, more on *who* they are:
The anti-fascist movement has come from multiple theoretical currents; it is based on an agreement on tactics, not ideological uniformity. In the U.S., most activists are anarchist, although a few are Maoist or anti-state Marxists. (In other countries, the movement is predominately Marxist.)There is a general agreement to live and let live regarding political disagreements that would be divisive in other activist circles.
And this one: The cops will be Trump supporters; do not collaborate with them.
Classic fringe-group-think. Just like the vast majority of folks who accept a certain viewpoint (say removing a Confederate statue) are not Antifa or Antifa supporters many policemen didn't vote for Trump.
But, worse, this is a major problem not just for the cops on who we depend but - as you write - "And if their only targets where W/S's , I would have no problem with it." The Antifa is opposed to the State - be it a Democratic or Republican administrations - and to cops - and so the clashing with the police when there are no KKK/W's around - and the breaking of windows and the like. For once you get hopped up enough and readied for violence, it tends to spread.
Per your first post, I agree with you that many Americans tends to fall into herd mentalities for various reasons (identity and all that stuff in a very fluid society). Perhaps bored (increasing lack of mobility in the workplace for many), some enjoy the drama of a cause. And so it's just not down with the Confederate statues but, for some, on to others with which I both disagree, in theory, and think ridiculous.
Finally - like I've written, the Antifa does share some causes in common with mainstream liberals but I'm not sure where to go with that. Democrats should (and do) denounce the violence, dissociate themselves but they can't drop the cause just because of the Antifa. The Antifa does have "peaceful" activities but clearly components are violent, yes.
I have been aware of these guys since the Trump rally in San Jose, which is the only reason I went and voted this year against Hillary Clinton. I sat out the primary because I was unwilling to vote for any of the candidates, but San Jose completely changed my mind.
I believe the Democrats have a huge problem on their hands.
Democrats only have a huge problem on their hands if the current playbook to associate the Antifa with them works. Depends on how gullible people are - which, I admit, given a lot of what passes for discourse is potentially problematic.
“We have folks that are Libertarian, Republican, communists, anarchists,” she claimed. “It’s a melting pot of ideologies ... I would say the people we have the least of are liberals." Despite this melange of beliefs, she conceded that most people would regard the group as being on the left of the political spectrum.
Faaaar left, by my reckoning."
I went back and checked to make sure that it not was *I* who truncated the quote and, yes, it was the Daily Kos. I've seen them distort information before and I think the prevalence of that kind of stuff on the web and elsewhere is a HUGE problem.
That said, I rather agree with her as would I assume another poster who addressed this a while back. We have a tendency to want to place groups on spectrums in order for easier political categorization.
The CAUSES they espouse do tend to be "liberal" ones even though their methods are not. And sure - if they have to be on the spectrum they *are* "Faaaar out." That was part of her quote? Yes?
This is precisely why Trump got into such hot water with his Charlottesville statements with so much talk of "moral equivalency." Denounce the actions (violence) of both yes. But he ignored the latter issue (the moral).
What the Antifa *says* it is fighting for (although from a psychological and sociology viewpoint many are probably more troubled than not, at least those who take up violence) - antifascism, gay rights, the environment I DO rank as more acceptable and "left" than the Nazism and racism of the AltRight that showed up for the Unite the Right rally.
Apples and oranges.
They're not liberal causes. They are far left, communists. I do not believe they represent the liberal perspective or even many democrats, but that seems to be changing and it's a big problem.
Democrats only have a huge problem on their hands if the current playbook to associate the Antifa with them works. Depends on how gullible people are - which, I admit, given a lot of what passes for discourse is potentially problematic.
Both sides propagandize the other.
Or attempt to.
Question. When have Democrats disavowed them? In fact, you can find articles in the New York stokes and on CNN that give them some legitimacy. That is going to bite them on the ***.
They're not liberal causes. They are far left, communists. I do not believe they represent the liberal perspective or even many democrats, but that seems to be changing and it's a big problem.
Did you just say that believing in gay rights and concern over the environment makes you a Communist? Surely not.
Now true enough that both liberals and Communists have opposed fascists - like during WW2.
I think it's pretty astounding how the NYTs spins everything. It sounds like they will do an honest assessment, and ultimately the ideology genes kick in and it all goes south in an epic deflection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
Did you just say that believing in gay rights and concern over the environment makes you a Communist? Surely not.
Now true enough that both liberals and Communists have opposed fascists - like during WW2.
Progressives ARE communists, and they claim to be liberals. Supremacists claim to be Republicans, so all republicans are supremacists... according to child logic of the progressives.
See how that works?
Antifa was started by German skinhead anarchists who were anti-everything. They are not what they appear or represent themselves to be. They are thugs who bring violence (black bloc are antifa) everywhere they go.
FK all of them! They are not supremacists streets, they are not Antifa's streets, they are the citizens streets and those ideological fools better crawl back into their caves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO The Karl Rove playbook on full display here. If you know you're guilty of being a fascist the first thing you do is accuse your opposition of being a fascist. It's pretty transparent and weak.
What might have happened if the antifa in 1920's and 30's Germany would have had more public support? Worth considering.
It's NOT intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance.
This is what you want to do freely and without consequence. I'm sorry, but that is most definitely going to lead to territorial war. People are not going to put up with it. And while you might do the killing in the beginning, as we saw in VA, there will be retaliation. People are going to fight back. That you think we should all should bow to your assault is nonsense.
No, I don't think so, but if they try the garbage above they're going to get shut down as they were yesterday.
You are advocating for the rights of WN to march through our city and neighborhood as a "militia force armed with assault rifles" under the guise of free speech only for the purpose of intimidation so they can spew their vitriol against minorities. You might die for that. I would not. Nor would I sacrifice my husband or children to that alter. Nor do I think you should die for it.
How am I not honest? If I'm anything I'm honest. Now, I don't know much about this Milo thing, but I'm suspicious out of the gate that anyone would invite a pedophile from Brietbart to speak at Berkley. It stinks to the high heavens with an intent to incite and that is evil on its face and evidence of calculated power wielding. That you are shocked that people will not put up with it is something I don't get.
The word in bold is a LIE, something Milo Yiannoppoulos said was deliberately taken out of context by the media, it was intended to discredit him. Even people on the right believe it, I read a column by Jonah Goldberg yesterday and he repeated the same lie.
As the bolded says, "speak out, speak out, speak out". If I have said anything here, it is that we all have a constitutional right to speak out. The more, the better! That is how we should be settling our differences. That is how we stand up for people's rights.
My argument is that violence should only be used as a defense. Whoever initiates the violence is in the wrong.
Your argument is that it is sometimes right to use physical violence with someone who was not physically violent with you first.
I'm not so sure you do speak for the vast majority of Democrats. Granted, I live in the bluest county in the blue state of NY, so I'm prejudiced. Far too many people here are in complete approval of using violence to shut down not just the white supremacists, but any rally supporting Trump. They also love the idea of Google and ProPublica working to shutdown right-wing web sites. I know a couple who are pleased as can be that their kid and his friends are going to Phoenix to disrupt the Trump rally and bragged their kid is going to punch one of those Trump effer's in the face.
What if the kid goes after someone who's a better fighter than he is, and gets seriously injured? Will they still stand there in the hospital beaming while the kid pushes the button for more morphine? Sounds like these parents are either fanatics, hopelessly naive of the danger they are encouraging their son to get himself into. He could be permanently maimed or killed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
.
