• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

ANTIFA attacks peaceful right wing protestors in Berkeley CA.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone in this thread has had reasonable discussion , and those arguing against them are irrational, delusional, misinformed, have lost credibility, resort to sensationalism, lies, and personal attacks.

T/F?
 
Well, I know that the people who used to live in the area are somehow "enemies of free speech" and pro-violence and anti-constitution and no better than nazis.

You tell me Mr. Phlame.
 
2ut534j.jpg

I just think using violence and intimidation to achieve your political goals is wrong in principle. It's why I take issue with Antifa, but didn't with the the occupy wallstreeeeeeeet protestors tbh.
 
Trump-Riot.jpg


My biggest issue is the fact that I denounce all white supremacist neo Nazi scum, and disavow completely, from their tactics to beliefs. While y'all stand by and protect these alt left extremists, that use their misguided ideology as a basis to go out and commit violent acts. That's a big difference, honestly that scares me more than anything.
 
What’s happened to you in the last couple of years? You sound right up your own arse. You never used to sound like that. Be careful about bigging up your own levels of articulacy because that can lead to nasty surprises.

I said nothing about being articulate dismissing your views. I was, as Scrofula pointed out, referring to your condescension and presumptiveness.

You know what, this really has turned into a joke. I have voiced a difference of opinion, you haven't addressed any of my arguments. You are now the second person to direct ad-hominem attacks my way instead of addressing the substance of what I said. If I am so obviously wrong it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate why. If this weren't supposed to be a forum for serious discussion of politics it would actually be amusing that yourself and scrofula are alluding to errors in the way I have articulated myself and my arguments, errors that it is apparently beneath both of you to bother to point out.

Your constant reference to state actions being able to contain fascism flies in the face of history. Your refusal to acknowledge the cycle of history repeating itself, or our own (or yours) necessity to learn from this, also speaks volumes about the position you are coming from.

You talk of locking people up after others, who most certainly aren’t you, have suffered. That’s a nice ivory tower to watch from.

Places where fascism have taken hold were very different times and places to the ones we live in now, people did not have the same access to information back then. I do have faith that people in general are decent and intelligent enough to reject fascism when presented with the facts. In any case, a large part of my argument against militant antifascism is I don't believe it is effective, I believe it is contributing to a polarised political climate which is pushing people further toward political extremes. The onus is really on those who would advocate vigilante activities to provide evidence that those vigilante activities lead to positive outcomes, so far I have not seen anybody present said evidence.

It isn't a given that history repeats itself, certainly not in the sense relevant to the rise of fascism. It's not a valid argument to say 'it has happened before, therefore it will happen again'. You could use the same argument for the persecution of people with different political ideologies than fascism, including one I know you are quite sympathetic to - of course, doing so would be fallacious, and fly in the face of fairness, democracy and free speech.

Yes, locking people up after crimes are committed is how the criminal justice system works. It is unfortunate for the victims in all cases, but if we did not wait until the crimes were committed then the people we were locking up would be the victims. Believing something is not a crime, saying you believe something is not a crime. It is not the role of citizens to create and enforce laws, no matter how special you think your cause is.

I expected better from you than to have my talking points ignored and insults directed at me for expressing a difference of opinion. You should really examine the soundness of your own position when this is the best sort of defense you can muster. The stupid thing is that I am open to the possibility I am wrong, but instead of engaging me in intellectually honest debate and potentially changing my mind, you have resorted to petty insults. This is part of the problem I am talking about, instead of explaining why militant antifascism ought to take place you insult those who question its utility or moral justification. I am officially done, enjoy your echo chamber.

Yeah, cdugz, he doesn't understand, still, that we're talking about a community response to a growing evil, with a long history in the US that he completely ignores. He continues to label the community "antifascist", which, while certainly correct, is not what they're explicitly about. He still supports the alt-right propaganda that labels anyone who turns out to yell at nazis "vigilante thugs". He says they're violent, even though no violence (ok, a sucker punch, a shove) has been reported.

You are incredibly intellectually dishonest. I explicitly stated that I was talking about militant antifascism and that my commentary was more relevant to the community in which I live than the US. Fair enough, this is technically a thread about something that happened at Berkeley, but I don't believe I am the first person to shift the discussion toward militant antifascism more generally. When you pointed out that your commentary was confined to the US and this incident, I acknowledged that we were probably talking past one another and even apologised for the miscommunication on my part (here, first paragraph), your response to this post was an insult...

Moreover, I did say why, in general, I view counter protest as an attempt to stifle free speech, even if none of the counter protesters engage in violence.

Regardless, I think your assumptions about law enforcement are naïve for any country. I realize there was probably a more diplomatic way to state it.

I don't see that I made any explicit assumptions about law enforcement. I certainly don't view law enforcement through rose tinted glasses, but I think it is naive to assume that a bunch of unrestrained and unaccountable citizens are going to consistently do an adequate job of maintaining law and order.

I'm not sure why you save education and debate for white supremacists.

Who says I 'save' it for them? I generally believe bad ideas are defeated by education and debate, white supremacy is no exception to this. We are talking about white nationalists and fascists, so my comments about education has been focused on them. It does not mean my support for education and debate is confined to this case.

Cduggles, thank you for treating me with respect (for the most part) and engaging with what I said. We may not agree on this issue, but I appreciate your willingness to engage in intellectually honest debate. We obviously have fundamentally different outlooks on this issue, and some other posters seem to have lost the ability to carry on this debate in the mature tone it deserves, so I am bowing out of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
us all?

please post one example where i’ve done that. just one will suffice.

thanks.

alasdair

To sit here and act like you haven't been, for all intents and purposes, defending Antifa is just dishonest. If you haven't then please take this opportunity to denounce them much like I or any other right leaning person here denounces the alt right, Nazis, kkk, etc..
 
i denounce anybody who uses violence as a means regardless of political party affiliation or leaning.

if you won't back up your claim with an example - and you'd rather put up a fight than simply substantiate a simple claim you have made - i'll draw the obvious conclusion.

you've spent literally years misrepresenting my position on guns and the second amendment, droppers. let's not go down that road again. when you have to lie and misrepresent and embellish to make your point, you know the rest...

alasdair
 
that college student said:
You are incredibly intellectually dishonest. I explicitly stated that I was talking about militant antifascism and that my commentary was more relevant to the community in which I live than the US. Fair enough, this is technically a thread about something that happened at Berkeley, but I don't believe I am the first person to shift the discussion toward militant antifascism more generally. When you pointed out that your commentary was confined to the US and this incident, I acknowledged that we were probably talking past one another and even apologised for the miscommunication on my part (here, first paragraph), your response to this post was an insult...

Moreover, I did say why, in general, I view counter protest as an attempt to stifle free speech, even if none of the counter protesters engage in violence.

I thought you weren't replying to my replies any more.

Anyway, I know what you explicitly stated.

I've told you five times at least, that those statements are about something that doesn't exist in the US. You said I live in a fantasy land? You might as well be pretending to have a dialectic on the Martians living in Boise. Your commentary about imaginary things is not relevant.

If you want to have your shifted topic of discussion, I'm not stopping you; no one is. I suggested you return to your conversation with SpaceJunk and others. But you have no reason then to interrupt my on-topic discussion, which you continue to do.

I'll add that another sign of your arrogance, is when you assumed the unnamed "he" I used in your quote referred solely to you. If you hadn't noticed, I didn't quote you, and there were a few posts in between. You were certainly included in that sentiment, but the post was directed at Ms. Duggles, not you.

And you may have given reasons why you think counter protest is dumb, or not efficacious, or irrational, and I admit I didn't bother to look at them. Because they wouldn't apply to the situation in Berkeley. How do I know? I don't for sure, but given your mental image of the city and its total inaccuracy, I feel pretty confident.

Good luck at finals.
 
us all?

please post one example where i’ve done that. just one will suffice.

thanks.

alasdair

Theres about 3 people who have, cant see any from you specifically.

For those who do support antifa physically attacking and breaking up a rally that is fascist then thats understandable IF the rally was held by armed people who provoked said attack.

Either way, the whole thing seems unreal.

I personally would not physically intervene or even attend such rallies as Im a chicken .
 
This thread :|

Can I just say, the recent posts of Drug Mentor and CDUgglles have been very interesting and exactly the sort of content that we want more of.

SHM said:
What’s happened to you in the last couple of years? You sound right up your own arse. You never used to sound like that. Be careful about bigging up your own levels of articulacy because that can lead to nasty surprises.

Where is this coming from? D_M is expressing an idea that was well thought out and reasoned, and you go on and attack the person/stranger behind it. It makes me suspect that you are playing the man simply because you can't be fucked trying to rebut the argument, which casts shadow across your actual argument.

As you know, ad homs are not acceptable here.
 
This thread :|
yep.

Can I just say, the recent posts of Drug Mentor and CDUgglles have been very interesting and exactly the sort of content that we want more of.
yep.

Where is this coming from? D_M is expressing an idea that was well thought out and reasoned, and you go on and attack the person/stranger behind it. It makes me suspect that you are playing the man simply because you can't be fucked trying to rebut the argument, which casts shadow across your actual argument.
yep. i think that drug_mentor is the single participant i look up to the most in ce&p.

i have to apologise. this petty shit drives me crazy but it's childish, disruptive bullshit to make a claim and, when asked to substantiate it, to refuse, move the goalposts, double-down, misrepresent, put words in people's mouths, insult, etc. it may not be intentional trolling but, on some level, i believe it is cynically designed to disrupt and inflame.

so, please, if we make a claim we should be happy to substantiate it. we should embrace the chance to demonstrate that the claim we are making is true. if people can't or won't then the conclusion is glaringly obvious. the desire to raise the level of debate isn't the responsibility of people who lean left or people who lean right or people who lean a different way or don't lean at all. it should be all of us.

alasdair
 
Mr. Swillow, D_M was completely ignoring the very premise I kept handing him. Gently at first. He used a lot of long sentences to hide insults, while he didn't even bother to counter my own argument. Not just mine, but even the people who were part of his conversation, like Mr. Monday. Very disrespectful, and very reminiscent of some of my worst students.

Remember, he jumped in to the middle, acknowledged some of us were talking about something different, eventually, but plowed on ahead insisting he understood the community better than the people who lived there.

And when I just kept reminding him he was arguing something different, he took great affront, and ran away.

And like I told him more than once, if he wants to come back and keep his discussion with SJ and others going, I'm not going to say a word. But if he butts in to something I'm talking about, I'm going to reply.

He's a college kid who knows how to dress up his papers. Sometimes an overworked TA will breeze over it.
 
If I may, I would like to acknowledge how heated this thread has gotten again and again. At another time, I could be the worst offender here (this is rhetorical :)).

spacejunk and Scrofula have had to explain their positions so many times it's surreal.

I'm going to circle back when I'm less under the weather, but as a now (honorary) Antifa member, I know it isn't easy or right to be repeatedly pigeonholed and expected not to be testy.
 
If antifa only attacked nazi and white nationalists rally's I could understand that but when they start attacking trump supporters they lose all credibility in my eyes and become hypocrites that are themselves turning into what they are meant to be fighting against.

Antifa will be doing the far right a favour by making people who aren't particularly left or right lean more to the right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top