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.
The old pacifists are long gone. Non-violence only encouraged groups like the KKK to greater violence against the non-violent protestors in earlier times, and it culminated in several deaths.
The antifa aren't going to let it go like that again. Hitting a bully back works better than taking the punch and hoping another won't follow.
Only they aren't hitting "back". They are doing preemptive strikes.
I misstated. Standing up to Fascism and White Supremacy is self defense. Violence is only acceptable for self defense.
I do not promote violence for violence's sake.
Make of it what you will.
BLM/Antifa start the violence over FREE SPEECH ISSUES by not allowing conservatives to speak when they are invited. Also, they attack first, so your argument is false. BLM/Antifa are VIOLENT Nazi thugs.
Antifa is a hate group and in my opinion should be labeled a terrorist group. What is your opinion?
There is no doubt that both Antifa and BLM are terrorist hate groups. That doesn't mean they should be shut down. Monitored carefully-yes. But their speech, no matter how vile and hate filled-is still protected by the 1st amendment. Their actions are another story. The question is what statute or law allows an entire group to be shut down for promoting and practicing hate and violence? Perhaps they can be prosecuted under RICO, the same as some MCs are.
If you kill someone simply because they pushed you on the street, you will find yourself in prison for a long time under at least an aggravated manslaughter felony. That disproportionate response is not going to fly as self defense.
I understand that.
The law is immoral and illogical.
I'm talking about the non-aggression principle which is moral and logical.
Standing up to Fascism and White Supremacy is self defense. Violence is only acceptable for self defense.
This is justifying the initiation of violence. You're creating a boogeyman (like Ben Shapiro coming to speak at a campus), which involves no violence, pretending it's violence, and then imagining that "standing up to it" (i.e. initiating violence) is "self-defense."
This is justifying the initiation of violence. You're creating a boogeyman (like Ben Shapiro coming to speak at a campus), which involves no violence, pretending it's violence, and then imagining that "standing up to it" (i.e. initiating violence) is "self-defense."
You've lost your marbles.
KKK and Neo Nazis were killing before years before Shapiro was even born
Not at all. I don't know how what I said, brought you to that conclusion.
I condemn both.
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.
