Weedmonkey
Active Member
Real isis, or "isis" in the same way as ppl like milo are "fascist"?
College Professors Begin Direct Support For AntiFa Groups On Campuses
- Thread starter Greenthumbskunk
- Start date
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Real isis, just like real Nazis, and real fascist. Milo, lol...What world do you live in?
PCXV
Well-Known Member
Evidence for what? You don't even know who it is you think is being accused of fascism. All means necessary only pertains to people that are openly fascist, and many/most on the left, including l, understand but do not condone instigating violence. If a Jewish person punched a Nazi waving a Nazi flag chanting "Jews will not replace us" most would say that was wrong, but most people would also understand why he did it.
Your straw man stupidity is stale. But your meltdowns are so retarded they are actually kind of funny.
Show me where I said I supported violence against people that are not openly fascist and I will retract it. If not, have another meltdown, we all know you want to. lol
Weedmonkey
Active Member
Evidence for what lol. Fucking troll.
Sure, you only shut down people who are openly fascist by using any means necessary, good for you, problem is you label everyone a fascist so that claim doesn't mean anything.
I don't know if you support any of the violence against regular people, as you keep being vague about everything.
I would consider trying to intimidate people and vandalism and pulling fire alarms and calling in bomb threats etc. violence too though, I've got a feeling that you don't.
Why are you even arguing with me if you really believe what you claim to believe, that's exactly what I have said I believe from the very beginning.
I really believe it though, you just use it as a tool to be able to justify harassing and shutting down people you disagree with.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
You have zero evidence that I falsely labeled people fascists. If you defend fascist speech as free speech does it make you a fascist? No, but it doesn't make you right, and it calls into question your motivation for defending such an evil ideology.
The media you asked about are quick to defend fascists and demonize the opposition to fascism. They may not be true fascists, but they will align with anyone that opposes the left, and they share ideology with the fascists such as white-washed nationalism, white-washed history, anti-brown immigration, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish liberal, anti-globalization, etc. I'm pointing out the nuances of the relationship between the right wing media and the alt-right/far right. I'm not saying all right-wing media is fascist.
Trump said the people associated with fascist ideology which explicitly motivated a man to run over nearly a dozen anti-fascists, killing one, are "fine people." Meanwhile he says Mexico mostly sends us "murderers and rapists." Read between the lines.
If by "regular people" you mean people standing against fascism or avoiding it and not the people right next to the fascists chanting "blood and soil," then I don't support violence against them. I also don't support instigating violence against fascists, I simply understand why someone might get violent towards such an evil ideology.
The people on the left instigating violence are in the wrong, though not entirely unjustified if they are attacking true fascists/Nazis as Nazi speech is fighting words.
I don't condemn the entire right-wing as fascists, and I certainly don't believe the majority of the left does either, or that they support violence.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
A very well thought out and nuanced response, that is unfortunately utterly wasted on the walking flatulence that is @Weedmonkey.
Weedmonkey
Active Member
Lol you keep going in circles and keep back pedalling, all that just so you don't have to admit you were wrong, pretty sad man.
You can keep telling me I supposedly defend fascist speech but you refuse to tell me what that supposed fascist speech is and who used it, all you can do is label certain people as being fascists or ""aligning with fascism", whatever the fuck that means, without showing me why you think that's the case.
Of course I'm defending people who are wrongly being portrayed as being fascists or aligning with fascism when you can't come up with any evidence that supports your claims. Am I really supposed to take your claims for gospel?
"The media you asked about are quick to defend fascists and demonize the opposition to fascism."
Seems like you're not the smartest cookie in the jar so I'll explain this very slowly to you. This is a claim you're making, which could be true, or not, so you would have to provide evidence that shows that they are indeed "quick to demonize the opposition to fascism", because without the evidence all there is left is you claiming they do that, which is far from evidence, especially coming from you as you don't seem to take facts all that seriously.
And even if they're "demonizing" (read: criticizing) you fucks, it doesn't mean it's because you oppose fascism, it might just be because you crazy lefties use terrorist tactics to shut down people who you now finally admitted are not really fascists.
You're the terrorists, of course people are going to be against you.
"The people on the left instigating violence are in the wrong, though not entirely unjustified if they are attacking true fascists/Nazis as Nazi speech is fighting words."
If you cared about what I'm saying you would know that this is roughly what I said before, I don't care that much if you're attacking actual fascists/nazis, so I asked for proof that they're actual fascists/nazis (or "aligning with fascism" which is basically the same as calling them a fascist) and so far I'm still waiting.
All you got was those ppl waving nazi flags around, as if anyone has any doubt about those people whatsoever.
So that's the only enemy you're fighting? people waving nazi flags around etc? If so then I would have been on your side as I have said before and It's puzzling to me why you feel the need to attack me, so tell me what this is really about, because you're not making a lot of sense.
Here's the evidence of you being a lying manipulator.
Lots of claims. I'm still waiting for the evidence.
Keep pretending it's not just a tool used to shut down anyone you ppl don't agree with, and if you don't agree with those tactics can't you just admit that that's a bad thing antifa is doing?
And remember, criticizing the left doesn't necessarily mean you're defending the opposition.
That's just a retarded idea used by people who can't handle criticism.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
A lot of stupid right here
Weedmonkey
Active Member
I'm really starting to think it's a mental illness.
Go ahead and defend this bullshit you freaks. I'm curious what you ppl can come up with this time.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/08/berkeley-offers-students-counseling-to-cope-with-shapiro-speech/
Not a Joke: Berkeley Offers Students ‘Counseling’ to Cope With Shapiro Speech
Maybe the coolest Halloween costume on campuses this fall will be dressing up as Ben Shapiro.
Because apparently that’s about the scariest thing a college student can encounter.
Shapiro, a conservative commentator and writer, is set to give a speech at University of California, Berkeley next Thursday. If you know anything about Berkeley, you’re aware that it’s unlikely there’s much agreement, either from students or locals, with Shapiro’s conservative viewpoint.
If we lived in a sane world, that would mean Shapiro would be giving a speech in front of half a dozen College Republicans, wearing bow ties to be countercultural—and everyone else would just ignore that he was coming.
However, we live in a world where apparently speech you disagree with can be traumatizing. Here’s what Paul Alivisatos, UC Berkeley’s executive vice chancellor and provost, writes in his memo about Shapiro’s talk:
Support and counseling services for students, staff and faculty
We are deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging. No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe. For that reason, the following support services are being offered and encouraged:
Um … what?
Shapiro, if you’re not familiar with him, is a fairly mainstream conservative speaker. Yeah, he can push buttons—which is probably one reason he’s so popular with college students. But he’s hardly some way-out-of-touch radical.
So, I reached out to UC Berkeley to inquire what specifically Shapiro had said that led them to be “deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging.”
In an emailed response, Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor at the university’s Office of Communications and Public Affairs, wrote: “The sentence you cite does not identify a specific speaker, and that is by design. We are not aware of anything Mr. Shapiro has said that would necessarily lead someone to fear for their safety, or question the degree to which they belong to our campus community.”
So, I wrote back, asking whether there were any examples of announcements including offers of counseling available to students because of appearances by liberal speakers. After all, if nothing Shapiro had said was an issue, surely there were past examples of this?
Apparently not.
Here’s what Mogulof emailed back:
In the 13 years I have been here we have not seen on this campus any violence or mayhem in support of, or opposition to any speakers other than Mr. [Milo] Yiannopoulos last February… and that, to tell you the truth, was a first for us. So, this sort of communication has not been needed previously. However, the sentence you cite was specifically formulated to address the expressed concerns of all students, including our conservative students who have told us they are worried not about the speakers headed our way but, rather, by the possibility that members of the antifa paramilitary group will return to the campus. I can assure you that if, in the future, we hear concerns in advance of ANY other speaker coming our way we will issue a similar communication. We care for our students without regard for their beliefs.
I don’t know. Maybe UC Berkeley is simply listening to students. But even if it’s student-driven, it’s concerning: Why is there such fear from students about people on the right speaking?
And it’s a little hard to swallow that it’s conservative students seeking counseling over Antifa. Given Antifa’s propensity for violence, it seems more likely a student would want protection, not counseling. And as far as Antifa goes … Well, let’s hope if they create violence and destruction again, UC Berkeley’s police department manages to make more than two arrests as they did after the violence in February.
Look, ideas you don’t agree with can be unpleasant. I don’t think Norma McCorvey was probably thrilled the first time something a pro-lifer said got under her skin—but it later led to her, despite being Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, becoming a pro-lifer herself.
There is no doubt some Americans were deeply irritated and upset when Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But he was right that America needed to change.
The solution for college students—and anyone—who find an idea painful and upsetting is to think about why and to consider the idea. If the idea is wrong or hateful or immoral, then, great, discard it—and debate the heck out of those who hold it. But if an idea is right and true, and the upset you’re feeling is a pang of conscience, that’s something different—and something that shouldn’t be undesirable.
College especially should be a place where intellectual and moral debates flourish, where students aggressively read and listen to others’ arguments, consider them, and then make their own cases. Don’t demand a counselor when a speaker you think is wrong comes to campus—go and debate them! Ask a tough question! Write an op-ed in the student newspaper showing the mistakes the speaker is making. Protest peacefully!
But counseling?
Ideas can hurt, it’s true. But the worst fate isn’t being troubled by another person’s idea: It’s settling for intellectual and moral stagnation, refusing to ever encounter any ideas besides the ones you currently hold.
Go ahead and defend this bullshit you freaks. I'm curious what you ppl can come up with this time.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/08/berkeley-offers-students-counseling-to-cope-with-shapiro-speech/
Not a Joke: Berkeley Offers Students ‘Counseling’ to Cope With Shapiro Speech
Maybe the coolest Halloween costume on campuses this fall will be dressing up as Ben Shapiro.
Because apparently that’s about the scariest thing a college student can encounter.
Shapiro, a conservative commentator and writer, is set to give a speech at University of California, Berkeley next Thursday. If you know anything about Berkeley, you’re aware that it’s unlikely there’s much agreement, either from students or locals, with Shapiro’s conservative viewpoint.
If we lived in a sane world, that would mean Shapiro would be giving a speech in front of half a dozen College Republicans, wearing bow ties to be countercultural—and everyone else would just ignore that he was coming.
However, we live in a world where apparently speech you disagree with can be traumatizing. Here’s what Paul Alivisatos, UC Berkeley’s executive vice chancellor and provost, writes in his memo about Shapiro’s talk:
Support and counseling services for students, staff and faculty
We are deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging. No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe. For that reason, the following support services are being offered and encouraged:
Um … what?
Shapiro, if you’re not familiar with him, is a fairly mainstream conservative speaker. Yeah, he can push buttons—which is probably one reason he’s so popular with college students. But he’s hardly some way-out-of-touch radical.
So, I reached out to UC Berkeley to inquire what specifically Shapiro had said that led them to be “deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging.”
In an emailed response, Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor at the university’s Office of Communications and Public Affairs, wrote: “The sentence you cite does not identify a specific speaker, and that is by design. We are not aware of anything Mr. Shapiro has said that would necessarily lead someone to fear for their safety, or question the degree to which they belong to our campus community.”
So, I wrote back, asking whether there were any examples of announcements including offers of counseling available to students because of appearances by liberal speakers. After all, if nothing Shapiro had said was an issue, surely there were past examples of this?
Apparently not.
Here’s what Mogulof emailed back:
In the 13 years I have been here we have not seen on this campus any violence or mayhem in support of, or opposition to any speakers other than Mr. [Milo] Yiannopoulos last February… and that, to tell you the truth, was a first for us. So, this sort of communication has not been needed previously. However, the sentence you cite was specifically formulated to address the expressed concerns of all students, including our conservative students who have told us they are worried not about the speakers headed our way but, rather, by the possibility that members of the antifa paramilitary group will return to the campus. I can assure you that if, in the future, we hear concerns in advance of ANY other speaker coming our way we will issue a similar communication. We care for our students without regard for their beliefs.
I don’t know. Maybe UC Berkeley is simply listening to students. But even if it’s student-driven, it’s concerning: Why is there such fear from students about people on the right speaking?
And it’s a little hard to swallow that it’s conservative students seeking counseling over Antifa. Given Antifa’s propensity for violence, it seems more likely a student would want protection, not counseling. And as far as Antifa goes … Well, let’s hope if they create violence and destruction again, UC Berkeley’s police department manages to make more than two arrests as they did after the violence in February.
Look, ideas you don’t agree with can be unpleasant. I don’t think Norma McCorvey was probably thrilled the first time something a pro-lifer said got under her skin—but it later led to her, despite being Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, becoming a pro-lifer herself.
There is no doubt some Americans were deeply irritated and upset when Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But he was right that America needed to change.
The solution for college students—and anyone—who find an idea painful and upsetting is to think about why and to consider the idea. If the idea is wrong or hateful or immoral, then, great, discard it—and debate the heck out of those who hold it. But if an idea is right and true, and the upset you’re feeling is a pang of conscience, that’s something different—and something that shouldn’t be undesirable.
College especially should be a place where intellectual and moral debates flourish, where students aggressively read and listen to others’ arguments, consider them, and then make their own cases. Don’t demand a counselor when a speaker you think is wrong comes to campus—go and debate them! Ask a tough question! Write an op-ed in the student newspaper showing the mistakes the speaker is making. Protest peacefully!
But counseling?
Ideas can hurt, it’s true. But the worst fate isn’t being troubled by another person’s idea: It’s settling for intellectual and moral stagnation, refusing to ever encounter any ideas besides the ones you currently hold.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
what I think is, tldr
What pleasure or satisfaction do you get aping actual Nazis and or Fascists and at what point do your jokes become your thoughts? In other words if 80% of the "jokes" you type or repeat are racist at what point are you racist? If it's extreme method acting when do you break character and not act like a racist cunt?
PCXV
Well-Known Member
What was I wrong about? You have zero evidence I falsely labeled people fascist and you can't admit it. "Pretty sad man."
"Blood and Soil" "Jews will not replace us" = actual chants by people at Charlottesville and literally every other alt-right/far right/fascists/kkk/neo nazi rallies. Need proof? Google it! It is literally all over the news. Are you being willfully ignorant to it?
When someone takes the side of those fascists at fascist rallies, they are aligning with fascism. When they defend waving Nazi flags and KKK marches as free speech, they are aligning with fascism. Aligning with fascism means they support/condone fascism. Supporting/condoning fascism means they are at least partially fascist, or they are just ignorant to what fascism is and don't know what they are supporting. Maybe they don't think fascist speech is hate speech and should be protected.
Here is your first post in this thread:
The first thing you do is insult the opposition to the fascists. And what exactly are we supposed to open out minds to? Your insults? Far-right fascism? "Blood and Soil"? "Jews will not replace us?"
This is your second post:
You are making the claim without evidence. Who is "everyone" that is being called a Nazi and racist?
You are defending "nobody" because nobody is who you've specified as being falsely labeled fascists. I haven't labeled anyone fascist that isn't literally marching with fascists or supporting the spread of fascist ideology by defending fascist rallies and speeches. If the speech is provably not racist/fascist then it should NOT be shut down, period. Agree?
You've already proven my claim by parroting the rhetoric used by the right-wing media named:
Your rhetoric is straight off Breitbart. You are obviously familiar with right-wing media. Just like your posts, they falsely accuse the left of supporting violence, and they defend Nazi rallies as "mild" free speech. Them and their followers, just like you, portray Anti-fascists as weak snowflakes whining about nothing, and the fascists as tough, justified patriots trying to #MAGA. In reality, Antifa has no centralized leadership, and virtually all left-wing leadership has denounced instigating violence or engaging in violence. 13 out of 7,000 were arrested for violence. No casualties caused by the left at any rally. While fascism explicitly calls for violence and subjugation against racial minorities, and literally brainwashed a man into running down anti-fascists with his car, killing one and injuring nearly a dozen. Don't believe me? Go visit right-wing news websites.
So no, they don't just oppose the left, they defend the Nazi rallies as well and use hyperbolic rhetoric like "crazy terrorist lefties," "snowflakes," "actual fascists," etc. to frame the opposition to fascism as the bigger problem.
Once again, I have no intention or motivation to label anyone that disagrees with me a fascist or a nazi or a racist. There are many individuals on the left that are too quick to make those accusations, it is counter-productive IMO. It is not a widely adopted or supported political strategy on the left. But most right/right media is quick to dismiss/discredit justified accusations made by the left, and to push the idea that people trying to stop fascism and racism are the actual fascists and racists trying to shut down free speech of a reasonable opposition. I see the latter as worse and a much bigger, more wide-spread problem.
I disagree with the people waving flags, I don't think they should be hurt/killed just for their beliefs but I believe their beliefs have no place in America, perhaps they should be criminalized or labeled as terrorists. They deserve due process.
I'm arguing that most of us on the left are NOT falsely labelling people fascists or racists. I'm arguing that most of us on the left do no condone instigating violence against fascists or shutting down any speech but actual hate speech.
I'm attacking your unevidenced claim that the majority of the left does either of the above, and that I've done either of the above.
I do NOT agree with shutting down any speech you disagree with, only hate speech. If any of the right-wing rallies that have been shut down one way or another excluded hate speech and hate groups, then it was wrong for them to be shut down. If they included the KKK, neo-Nazis, alt-right, white nationalists, etc. then IMO they should be shut down AFTER due process of the law to determine the validity of the oppositions accusations.
Agree?
I have no problem criticizing people on the left when it is warranted. If some people on the left are falsely labelling people fascists, I don't agree with them. If Antifa is shutting down speech that isn't hate speech, I don't support that. Antifa has no centralized leadership, so there is no platform to blame. Centralized leadership from various leftists groups basically have said what I have: don't instigate or engage in violence, we shouldn't falsely label people fascists, only hate speech should be restricted, etc.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'll believe the fascist right support free speech when they speak out in support of the people in a Black Lives Matter march in the name of free speech instead of supporting laws to make it OK to run over BLM protesters. The fascist right don't support free speech they will shut that speech down as soon as they can.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
He's a stupid, useless thug.
You've wasted far too much time appealing to a better nature he just doesn't possess.
Weedmonkey
Active Member
You have a mental illness bro. You just ignore what I actually posted and start out with blatantly lying lol.
You don't think I'm actually going to read all this nonsense do you? You keep repeating yourself and talking in circles etc so I assume you have said it all before. And judging from the first bit that seems to be exactly what you're doing again. And you made up your mind a long time ago anyway. You're on antifa's side no matter how retarded the shit they're doing is going to be. If not why can you still not admit that "they" did some silly shit?
"The first thing you do is insult the opposition to the fascists. And what exactly are we supposed to open out minds to? Your insults? Far-right fascism? "Blood and Soil"? "Jews will not replace us?""
Read the article in the first post bro. That's the first problem I have, you ppl didn't even read it, and the people that replied before my first reply showed that they didn't care about the content of the article at all, let alone having a civil discussion about it.
The article makes some good points which you fucks don't dare to address because you know they're good points.
Actually not a single precious snowflake in this thread addressed anything that was said in that article.
And I wasn't insulting the opposition to fascists, I was insulting antifa. Don't be retarded. We both know this isn't about your enemy, this is about you, but of course every criticism of you is automatically praising your enemy because you ppl are delusional and not looking for truth, just looking to shut everyone up that doesn't fully agree with you just like you're trying to do with me here.
"You are defending "nobody" because nobody is who you've specified as being falsely labeled fascists. I haven't labeled anyone fascist that isn't literally marching with fascists or supporting the spread of fascist ideology by defending fascist rallies and speeches. If the speech is provably not racist/fascist then it should NOT be shut down, period. Agree?"
Ok let's do this again then. Who are the fascists? Seriously, name some names, and show me how they're supposedly supporting it.
Again, you claiming that "....... is fascist because he/she defends fascists" isn't proof. I need some actual quotes that show what you're claiming or something like it.
I know that's a hard concept to grab for you people but making the claim that someone does something isn't actual proof that they did it.
So all I got so far is the fascists are the people who carry around nazi flags. NO..... SHIT..... SHERLOCK........ Where's the rest? Where's the proof?
If those are the only people you're against then why the fuck are you supporting antifa when they're trying to shut down regular ppl from the right that are clearly not fascist or do a very good job at hiding it.
There are only 2 good answers, either you denounce antifa or you show proof of fascists being present at every single thing your buddies tried to shut down.
I'm sure you're going to come up with some other excuses but don't bother, we both know you keep going in circles and are not willing to be honest, it's a waste of both of our time, and we both know you can waste that time a lot better by planning some terrorist activities, and I just want more free time to jerk off more.
And even if there are some actual fascists at some event, what gives you the right to label all of the people there fascist and try to shut it all down just because some fascists decided to join in. See how that works. It's not that easy.
You people are full of shit.
srh88
Well-Known Member
Weedmonkey
Active Member
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/life/entertainment/story/2017/sep/09/antifvs-free-speech-politics-any-means-necess/448052/
BreakPoint: Antifa vs. free speech: Politics 'by any means necessary'
America's founders believed that freedom of speech, the ability to express political and religious opinions, even unpopular ones, is central to self-government. Of course, this freedom, like all freedoms, has limits, particularly when it comes to putting others in actual danger. We can't shout, "Fire!" for example, in a crowded theater.
However, an emerging group of radicals on the left has embraced a new belief: that just about any ideas, other than theirs, are not only wrong, but dangerous. And so instead of arguing or debating, they've committed to shut down expression by, and I quote, "any means necessary."
We saw this on full display two weekends ago in Berkeley, where so called "anti-fascist protesters" clad in black and wielding baseball bats and homemade riot shields attacked members of a canceled right-wing rally. "Antifa," as these anarchists and leftists call themselves, reportedly broke through police lines and soon turned things violent.
Video shows vigilantes in ski masks and hoodies chasing down and pummeling Trump supporters with signs that read, "No hate." The irony, evidently, was lost on them.
In the end, police intervened with tear gas and made 14 arrests. "There is a complete mob mentality here," James Queally of the LA Times summarized. "People are accusing random people of being Nazis."
And therein lies the problem. Because although Antifa members style themselves as a citizen resistance movement against fascists, there's no evidence there were any actual fascists at Berkeley. At least not of the right-wing variety.
The only way to understand this behavior is to realize that, despite their names, Antifa is not just driven by their opposition to fascism. What they consider to be fascism is fully informed by their far-left worldview and their embrace of far-left ideologies like socialism, communism and anarchy — ideologies which tend to see their opponents not only as wrong but as obstacles to a utopian fantasy that must be removed.
The Berkeley blowup was just the latest in a long string of riots with Antifa at their center. During the inauguration in January, 230 so-called "protesters" were arrested for smashing windows and starting fires. In February at Berkeley, Antifa demonstrators threw Molotov cocktails to halt a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos. The same month, the Portland city council was forced to shut down a public forum after Antifa threatened violence. In March, conservative political scientist Charles Murray was manhandled at Middlebury College and, more recently, Antifa members trying to disrupt a free speech rally in Boston, threw urine-filled projectiles at police.
The Department of Homeland Security, in fact, has designated Antifa's actions as "domestic terrorist activities" and has warned that more Antifa violence is on the way.
But until this second riot at Berkeley, the mainstream media have mostly refused to condemn Antifa's violence, with some even comparing them to the allied troops storming the beaches at Normandy. But as David French points out at National Review, unlike Charlottesville, there weren't any Nazis in California, Oregon, Massachusetts or Washington, D.C., and still Antifa led with violence.
Thankfully, the latest dust-up in Berkeley appears to have awakened some common sense. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough called Antifa out for "using violence to shut down free speech." Slate and Vox also put the blame for the Berkeley riot on Antifa. And the editorial board of the Washington Post unequivocally condemned left-wing thugs and called for a renewal of "democratic norms and the rule of law."
Despite my opinions about MSNBC, Slate and the Washington Post as news sources, this is a step in the right direction.
People of good will on both sides must agree that the right to peacefully assemble, debate and even protest is a foundation of our Republic. And if left and right don't speak out against political violence while we still can, the price of speech will become higher than any of us can afford to pay.
BreakPoint: Antifa vs. free speech: Politics 'by any means necessary'
America's founders believed that freedom of speech, the ability to express political and religious opinions, even unpopular ones, is central to self-government. Of course, this freedom, like all freedoms, has limits, particularly when it comes to putting others in actual danger. We can't shout, "Fire!" for example, in a crowded theater.
However, an emerging group of radicals on the left has embraced a new belief: that just about any ideas, other than theirs, are not only wrong, but dangerous. And so instead of arguing or debating, they've committed to shut down expression by, and I quote, "any means necessary."
We saw this on full display two weekends ago in Berkeley, where so called "anti-fascist protesters" clad in black and wielding baseball bats and homemade riot shields attacked members of a canceled right-wing rally. "Antifa," as these anarchists and leftists call themselves, reportedly broke through police lines and soon turned things violent.
Video shows vigilantes in ski masks and hoodies chasing down and pummeling Trump supporters with signs that read, "No hate." The irony, evidently, was lost on them.
In the end, police intervened with tear gas and made 14 arrests. "There is a complete mob mentality here," James Queally of the LA Times summarized. "People are accusing random people of being Nazis."
And therein lies the problem. Because although Antifa members style themselves as a citizen resistance movement against fascists, there's no evidence there were any actual fascists at Berkeley. At least not of the right-wing variety.
The only way to understand this behavior is to realize that, despite their names, Antifa is not just driven by their opposition to fascism. What they consider to be fascism is fully informed by their far-left worldview and their embrace of far-left ideologies like socialism, communism and anarchy — ideologies which tend to see their opponents not only as wrong but as obstacles to a utopian fantasy that must be removed.
The Berkeley blowup was just the latest in a long string of riots with Antifa at their center. During the inauguration in January, 230 so-called "protesters" were arrested for smashing windows and starting fires. In February at Berkeley, Antifa demonstrators threw Molotov cocktails to halt a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos. The same month, the Portland city council was forced to shut down a public forum after Antifa threatened violence. In March, conservative political scientist Charles Murray was manhandled at Middlebury College and, more recently, Antifa members trying to disrupt a free speech rally in Boston, threw urine-filled projectiles at police.
The Department of Homeland Security, in fact, has designated Antifa's actions as "domestic terrorist activities" and has warned that more Antifa violence is on the way.
But until this second riot at Berkeley, the mainstream media have mostly refused to condemn Antifa's violence, with some even comparing them to the allied troops storming the beaches at Normandy. But as David French points out at National Review, unlike Charlottesville, there weren't any Nazis in California, Oregon, Massachusetts or Washington, D.C., and still Antifa led with violence.
Thankfully, the latest dust-up in Berkeley appears to have awakened some common sense. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough called Antifa out for "using violence to shut down free speech." Slate and Vox also put the blame for the Berkeley riot on Antifa. And the editorial board of the Washington Post unequivocally condemned left-wing thugs and called for a renewal of "democratic norms and the rule of law."
Despite my opinions about MSNBC, Slate and the Washington Post as news sources, this is a step in the right direction.
People of good will on both sides must agree that the right to peacefully assemble, debate and even protest is a foundation of our Republic. And if left and right don't speak out against political violence while we still can, the price of speech will become higher than any of us can afford to pay.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
I think it is you that came here with your mind made up. I've engaged every one of your arguments, you have skipped over mine every time. I haven't tried to shut you down, I'm just stating my perspective and opinion. The frustration comes from your lack of comprehension or unwillingness to reason. For instance, I've stated that you are justified in thinking that shutting down free speech is wrong when it is not hate speech. That isn't taking Antifa's side. If they are shutting down Richard Spencer or David Duke at an alt-reich rally, then I am taking the side of Antifa.
Also, you've taken the time to read all of the right-wing rhetoric, so much so that you repeat it ad nauseum, yet you can't be bothered to go look at how many right-wing rallies have a strong presence of KKK, alt-reich, and neo-nazis?
Weedmonkey
Active Member
I'm still waiting for you to point out the fascists, that's all I really care about at this point.
You can keep claiming you're only against real fascists but that doesn't mean anything unless you tell me who you think the fascists are.
They all claim they're only against real fascists while they're bashing in some normal trump supporters heads.
Show me the strong presence of fascists at right-wing rallies. I tried finding it but it's not there in most cases. And I would love to take your word for it but you don't seem that trustworthy to me, so forgive me for not blindly trusting you and asking for evidence.
And as I said before even if there are some fascists at some rally that doesn't mean you can just assume everyone at such a rally is a fascist and try to bash all their heads in.
If you really believe what you claim here then you don't agree with most of antifas actions which makes me wonder why you choose to identify yourself as antifa.
Btw if this is only about fascism, where were these fucks before trump got elected. This is all about trump being president and a bunch of precious snowflakes being butthurt about it.
You can keep claiming you're only against real fascists but that doesn't mean anything unless you tell me who you think the fascists are.
They all claim they're only against real fascists while they're bashing in some normal trump supporters heads.
Show me the strong presence of fascists at right-wing rallies. I tried finding it but it's not there in most cases. And I would love to take your word for it but you don't seem that trustworthy to me, so forgive me for not blindly trusting you and asking for evidence.
And as I said before even if there are some fascists at some rally that doesn't mean you can just assume everyone at such a rally is a fascist and try to bash all their heads in.
If you really believe what you claim here then you don't agree with most of antifas actions which makes me wonder why you choose to identify yourself as antifa.
Btw if this is only about fascism, where were these fucks before trump got elected. This is all about trump being president and a bunch of precious snowflakes being butthurt about it.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Your whole game is to ignore the conversation and smear the left.
It's very transparent and we aren't half as stupid as you think we are.