I should have read your disclaimer. Did you Google “Battle of Berkely random stupid videos”? Or are these just what turn up in the search when you misspell “Berkely”? The only one that seemed to have a point was the 2nd one, though I only watched one minute of it. It’s subtitled “Why the Right Won” and judging from the minute I watched, the “Right” won because they were thugs willing to use severe force against innocent demonstrators.
Was Yvette Felarca involved in the Battle of Berkeley? Anti-antifa folk may want to click and join in the Pit thread I started where the anti-antifa were eager to express delight when the Fa stabbed the Antifa with knives and sent several to hospitals with serious wounds.
Oh please. That’s a creative way of watching those videos. Especially with the knowledge that those same types of antifa mobs have assaulted people and destroyed property in past protests/riots.
I don’t know who you think is “holding them up as false leaders of ‘the left’”, but (at least somewhat) similar things ARE happening around the country (although California seems to be the most violent).
Here is the Utah Antifa (their word choice) Facebook page. They’ve got an event planned for Monday night:
I don’t want to “silence” them, and certainly don’t see how labelling them Antifa (a label they’ve chosen themselves) would accomplish that anyways. I just want them to eschew violence.
Do you think that groups like this have a valuable role to play in opposing pro-fascist groups? Pro-fascist groups that have a tendency to be violent, or at minimum promote an anti-social agenda that advocates for discrimination and intimidation of targeted minorities.
I know that the better angels in us demand that violence be a last resort, but I just can’t help feeling like pro-fascist groups don’t deserve the same level of deference to our better angels.
In the video, her gloved hand is clearly visible as she gets punched, yet there is no bottle in her hand. I was also unable to find that picture on the Reuters website.
Pictures at this website, and there are quite a few on that page, show no bottle in her gloved hand.
I note that in your picture with the bottle, the bottle is not beneath any of the “watermarks”.
Your description of events does not at all match what is shown in the video. Mr. Dominga is visible at :28 at the far right of the image. At :29 Miss Rosealma is visible on the far left. There is no bottle in her gloved hand. At :32 seconds, Mr. Dominga punches her, and that is clearly the first contact the two had.
Currently they’re not opposing pro-fascist groups. They’re opposing Ann Coulter, and while I’m sure you two are on different sides of the political spectrum, I believe she deserves the same level of deference to “better angels” as Eric Holder or Tom Perez or any other run-of-the-mill political figure.
By threatening violence, they make those they threaten look better by comparison. Ann Coulter looks like a martyr, and Antifa looks like a gang of brownshirts.
Oh, I’m with Bill Maher on this one. Liberals need to stop being a bunch of whining babies and allow people to speak without violent protests directed at the speaker.
What I’m saying is that anti-fascist groups that are not afraid to throw a punch are a good bulwark against pro-facsist groups. I don’t want fascists getting comfortable with thinking their right to free speech is the same as “right speech”.
BTW, somewhat tangentially related to the Antifa discussion: UC Berkeley is facing a lawsuit over their banning of Ann Coulter. This is the press conference by the plaintiff’s lawyer. It’s got lots of good commentary on First Amendment law and how it applies to Antifa / BAMN and UC Berkeley.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “right speech”? And what are the “pro-fascist groups” you refer to?
The last rally they caused trouble at wasn’t anything overtly pro-fascist AFAIK. Here is an online poster advertising the event. “A free speech rally”. Am I missing something here? What’s fascist about that?
UC Chancellor Nicholas Dirks cancels the appearance of Ann Coulter because of a credible threat to her safety. Now the university is being sued for infringing on freedom of speech?
Which thing is true? Did they not let her speak because there was a credible threat to her safety, or did they not let her speak because they were buckling under student pressure, thus violating the right to freedom of speech?
IANAL, but it seems to me that both things cannot be true at the same time.
