ANTIFA attacks peaceful right wing protestors in Berkeley CA.

[Blue_Phlame]

Well, I'm not interested in your interests. I was having a discussion with a few Americans in this thread before you interrupted with a completely incorrect notion of what I was saying, and what this thread was originally about.

Now, I've been way too polite to you, Mr. Mentor. I know you're real intent was to keep on goading SpaceJunk into saying something pro-violence, so you can later say that all these antifa are hypocrites, therefore all leftist politics is invalid. Well, enjoy.

Sounds like someone is mad.

 

[Scrofula]

Stone Happy Mutant wasn't referring to your ability to articulate irrelevancies, Mr. Mentor, he was talking about your condescension and presumptions. For instance, believing the conversations you overhear on your quad define a community half a world away.

I said you were over-broad even thinking you can neatly define it, and continue to not understand who comprises, the counter-protestors, that we're not bothering to indulge your "reasons" for being "counter-counter-protest."

Be careful about over-confidence in your argumentation skills. It's easy to bury the weak or absent ones in lengthy passages. It could get you in trouble at finals.

(For instance, I never said you didn't enjoy trolling SpaceJunk. Two people can enjoy trolling each other, even in Australia now, so I've heard.)

 

[Droppersneck]

Being relatively articulate doesn't invalidate my opinion. I have leveled a number of arguments against the effectiveness of this kind of activity, so far, nobody has made much of an effort to say what is actually wrong with these arguments. If there is no reason to think militant antifascism is effective then surely there are better ways to address the issue of fascist ideology. It would be nice if you addressed my arguments as well as my aplomb...



There are not so many of these people that we cannot lock them up when they engage in this sort of activity. I have never said there are no victims of racism, but I do question that militant antifascism is an effective way to prevent this sort of violence from occurring.



I really don't see that the existence of Adolf Hitler in the past serves as an adequate justification for taking rights away from groups of people who hold nationalist views in 2017. If they commit or incite racist or nationalist violence then they can and should be arrested.



(My emphasis.)

Well, I did ask you to point out where the reasoning is irrational more than twelve hours ago, I am still waiting....

The emboldened part is a particularly odd remark, assuming I am not misinterpreting you and you are insinuating that I am suggesting that my mere belief that a view is rational is a sufficient condition of said views rationality (if you weren't suggesting this then I have no idea what the point of your remark was). I made no such suggestion. In post #717 I said:



Clearly I am suggesting that it is a rational view because it is based on what I take to be sound reasoning, reasoning which I did actually supply in the post linked above. If I felt my holding the opinion entailed the rationality of the view it is not obvious why I should engage in any further explanation as to why it is rational - yet, I did just that.



I have the utmost respect for spacejunk, he is literally one of my favourite bluelighters. It really is a joke for you to engage in this kind of baseless speculation. I co-moderated AusDD with SJ for years and have had nothing but pleasant interactions with him, both publicly and privately. It is actually possible to respect those who you disagree with, though it is seeming increasingly likely that this is not possible for you. It is rather telling that you would rather dismiss me as a troll who is being irrational than actually say how I am being irrational - or how I am being a troll for that matter. Why would I try and troll spacejunk by talking to you? It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, like many of the things you post here.

I tried to engage you in a polite and stimulating discussion, but you have now lowered the bar to personal insults. I am done interacting with you.

I've read most of your responses, and it appears you are conversing with people not interested in discussion. It's refreshing to see another rational poster here. Their trump card is to call you a name like troll/racist/ bigot when they can't articulate a point due to the weakness in their arguments/ philosophies imo.

Does Australia have a lot of people that sympathize with the idea that right leaning nationalist views must be met with violence?

Sounds like someone is mad.

indeed Mr. Flame

 

[Scrofula]

Or at least quite annoyed, Mr. Neck, yes.

 

[alasdairm]

I've read most of your responses, and it appears you are conversing with people not interested in discussion. It's refreshing to see another rational poster here. Their trump card is to call you a name like troll/racist/ bigot when they can't articulate a point due to the weakness in their arguments/ philosophies imo.

but calling people arrogant and delusional is fine?

Yeah not only is it a flawed argument, but it makes him seem arrogant and probably turns off anyone that might be sympathetic towards his delusional political views.

your high and mighty post would look a lot less like trolling when you don't do the stuff you complain about others doing. i invite you to be the change droppers...

alasdair

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Being relatively articulate doesn't invalidate my opinion. I have leveled a number of arguments



There are not so many of these people that we cannot lock them up when they engage in this sort of activity. u.

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.

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.

 

[Droppersneck]

Calling for mass violence against half of the country bc they lean right and are nationalistic = delusion
Arrogance was an adjective that fits. I'm not the one going around calling everyone that doesn't think exactly like I do a racist/bigot/idiot/ etc.

 

[Scrofula]

Since no one cared about Berkeley anyway, don't most people believe fascism can only exist with state cooperation? That's what separates fascism from just the campus Ski or Snowboard club. It needs state apparatus, even if it's only the local police force, or state-pressured media.

That's what makes it insidious--you can't just lock it up, if it's already the warden. Or in our case, the US Atty General.

 

[Droppersneck]

Berkeley was where Antifa burned down half the town and beat/pepper sprayed a bunch of innocent bystanders(Nazi fascists). To me this seems like one big LARP for people that are upset they didn't get their way with the election and have romanticized the idea of showing ones virtue through 'fighting fascism'. It's all pretty sad to me, but thats just my asshole opinion.

 

[alasdairm]

it's different when i do it

ok. thanks.

alasdair

 

[Droppersneck]

Lol nice spin ali.

 

[cduggles]

If you say that groups tend to initiate violent behaviour, it isn't clear to me how adding another group to the mix is supposed to prevent this behaviour. To me, this line of thought doesn't really add up...

I think counterprotesters to white supremacy serve a different function than you do.

Do you suppose that insulting people is generally an effective tactic to get them to change their minds? I have a pretty solid track record of calling out racism in person and online, in general I try and fault the logic of the claims and arguments instead of resorting to making remarks about the character of those who are advancing them. Admittedly, neither tactic is overwhelmingly effective; however, in my experience the former is considerably more effective than the latter.

No. However, I'm not the one of us who thinks white supremacists are particularly open to having their minds changed. You're assuming that is achievable and not a huge waste of time if it is.

And yes I do think in public absolutely they should be insulted. White supremacists should be ashamed of themselves and their atrocious behavior; if they aren't on the cliff with it, so to speak, all those within earshot should know that behavior is unacceptable and can/might be called out. It's not just for their benefit, although it could be beneficial.

To wit, when a white supremacist screams the word 'kike' at an elderly Jew, I feel like exercising my right to free speech (unless the elderly person has a few choice words) and letting everyone involved know I support the person who was just verbally attacked, at the very least.

It would help kill this movement if the woodwork idiots stayed there. Instead, in the US at least, they feel "emboldened" by Trump and their online personas.

I am a big proponent of calling out racism in everyday settings. I don't think people should let racism go unchallenged in day to day life, both because I think this type of challenge is more likely to be effective, and because I don't think it is plausible to view such interactions as stifling anybodies rights.

Me too.

Gathering a large crowd to counter protest a rally in order to 'shut it down' is stifling free speech in my opinion, and I don't think it is effective when it comes to changing minds.

Acknowledged. We're not coming from the same place or moving towards the same goal.

I completely agree with this, but there is a time and a place. I tend to think counter protests exacerbate awful behaviour, if I genuinely thought they contributed to positive outcomes I would be less opposed to them.

Okay. We disagree.

Police aren't perfect, sometimes they fail to do their jobs effectively. Frankly, when large numbers of people turn up to counter protest a rally, police resources are being stretched more thinly than they would otherwise be. The reality is this is going to inhibit the effectiveness of the police response to violence from anyone in attendance. I don't think the fact that sometimes police fail to do their jobs makes antifascist vigilantism acceptable.

Okay. We disagree.

In general, people don't support vigilantism for other law enforcement failures. We don't generally think it is okay to lynch rapists and murderers who get off on a legal technicality due to police failure (at least, I certainly don't). It isn't clear to me that white nationalists should be treated as a special case.

Acknowledged.

I've stated what is personally acceptable to me in terms of physical violence, and it's not particularly unreasonable as a norm. (Self defense and defense of the more vulnerable against imminent physical violence.)

I don't advocate killing or maiming white supremacists. On the other hand, I'm not losing sleep over fisticuffs unless someone is seriously hurt or it's part of a larger intimidation campaign, regardless of who initiates what.

Regarding doxxing, I think that reporting names to the police as opposed to tweeting them is responsible, which is all that I am aware of occurring in the case I mentioned. (It's actually a topic I'm interested in discussing if this thread simmers down.)

Otherwise, doxxing does occur, and law enforcement is very ill equipped to deal with it. I think it's wrong as a general practice and the exceptions are very limited.

I said that the violence on both sides is not equivalent, I acknowledge the right has been more violent than the left. Other than that, I am not sure that I made a specific claim about the degree of violence. If all you mean is that I neglected to mention that people were injured, then fair enough. I am not sure what bearing that has on my condemnation of all violence.

I simply think that the point about casualties is always understated by everyone and try to point it out consistently.

It's a little patronising to assume that, just because I disagree with you and you can't actually fault the logic of my post, I must surely lack experience. I am not as young as you might assume just because I am a University student.

I don't have any idea how old you are. I'm aware that uni students aren't necessarily in a certain age bracket, regardless of which degree they are working to get (you didn't specify). Also, age and experience are not particularly correlated.

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.

If white nationalists hope to get a mainstream platform then they will have no choice but to engage in debate and open discussion about their views. Personally, I am confident that their views are so obviously foolish that this would function as an effective prophylactic and prevent them seizing power democratically.

I disagree completely. In America, this is alarmingly obvious with our current administration.

Europe is experiencing a shift to the right as well, although obviously each country is different.

I can't say that I think they have anywhere near the numbers for a non-democratic takeover (or that they ever will).

Oops. See above. Much longer discussion.

I think people can and should call out racism when they see it in the workplace, at school, when they are socialising with friends, etc. I think that calling it out in these types of scenarios is much more effective than going to a rally where people are fired up and surrounded by like-minded idiots.

I don't know what you mean by effective. I think I've addressed our relevant differences though.

If you want to completely stamp out white nationalism then you would likely have to reform the education system, including free or very cheap access to University education. Personally, I am a fan of the idea of adding an extra year or two to high school, and teaching all students politics, logic, ethics, and basic scientific literacy skills.

I'm not sure education makes the difference as to whether or not someone has racist attitudes as much as actual exposure to members of other races as children or otherwise as peers, if that even.

I've met very educated racists.

On a lighter note, studying those topics in two years would be very intense.

Maybe that is unrealistic, but surely there are plenty of ways for antifascists to engage people in the streets and disseminate literature which helps to educate people on politics and dispel racist nonsense.

I tend to think of racism as a very entrenched belief because I grew up in a geographically segregated area full of backward racists. I still know some of them and it's bizarre.

People don't have a right to be vigilantes, and I don't feel that the onus falls on those who oppose militant antifascism to get creative and tell Antifa what they should be doing instead of their more extreme activities. It's pretty obvious to me that engaging people respectfully is the only way to effectively change anybodies' views.

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

I'm not saying everyone else needs it as much, but if for example the people who you know that are violent and identify with the antifascism movement don't actually know what fascism is, then there is an opportunity to educate there.

 

[Scrofula]

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.

He uses complete sentences like an educated person, but refuses to at least attempt, briefly before jerking off about abstractions, to see it from the community's point of view. From that angle, from our angle, this very "debate" is part of an ongoing long-con. While y'all whine about whether Spencer deserved a sucker punch (he did), murderers continue to gain acceptance here.

 

[Droppersneck]

I remember seeing this on YT, some Antifa pepper sprayed this elderly man at Berkeley for no reason. This is the type of thing that really turns people off imho.

Everyone that doesn't agree with their insane leftist views is considered a fascist and is met with violence. I don't know how anyone with a brain and a conscience can get behind this way of thinking.

 

[spacejunk]

Again, you've posted these images with no context.
I recall the guy at the bottom with the urine-soaked trousers (yep - lol) featured in a lot of pictures where he was getting in the faces of counter-demonstrators, shouting and waving his fists around.

Then he got belted and pissed his pants.

You're not being ageist here droppy?
Surely people have the right to defend themselves against violent old men?
If an old man picks a fight with you, you should just let him beat you?

If you weren't being dishonest/disingenuous, you wouldn't need to post misleading images to paint antifa as bad people.

Everyone that doesn't agree with their insane leftist views is considered a fascist and is met with violence.

That's a lie, and you know it.

 

[Scrofula]

OH NO! They were right all along, look at this innocent right-winger being burned alive by antifa!

Oh no, wait, that's San Francisco after the World Series in 2014.

You don't want to know what Oakland looks like on a random Tuesday.

This stuff you call "violence" is laughable.

 

[Droppersneck]

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?V=PG5cl6ov_2g[/video]
Her make bitcoin great again hat was too fascist for these Berkeley 'protestors'

 

[Scrofula]

Here's a shot from a random Tuesday in Oakland. That's down the street from where your peaceful snowflake Nazi got hurt by these enemies of free speech.

This is several years ago, before the media invented the term "antifa" in the US. See, they can't even round up a photo like this to back up their stories.

Again, this shit happens like every weekend, and it has nothing to do with the narrative imagined by y'all:

That's closer to "vigilante thugs". Y'all could at least attempt some context.

 

[cduggles]

I recall the guy at the bottom with the urine-soaked trousers (yep - lol) featured in a lot of pictures where he was getting in the faces of counter-demonstrators, shouting and waving his fists around.

Then he got belted and pissed his pants.

Between you and Scrofula I literally have tears coming down my face. Great run!

 

[Scrofula]

My point a thousand posts above being, if antifa was real, in Berkeley, and they wanted to stifle the nazis' "free speech", the nazis would've left in body bags.

Berkeley is a campus of conservative Asians, in a town surrounded by rough neighborhood. They would have literally killed these people before they got off the BART, if the motives you describe had any accuracy.



(Just remembered the Kwik-E-Mart across the street from my old "apartment" sold chitlins out of a bucket. A half hour walk from where the OP went down. I watched a guy get shot for no reason there. And y'all want to tell me this little picnic was full of "vigilante thugs". The stuff in Charlottesville would not have happened here.)