I didn’t "claim"that. You stated that.
And how is asking you a question a “veiled attack”?
Here is a non-veiled attack. I now agree with every one else on this board’s opinion of you.
Oh I doubt that. There’s not one unanimous opinion of octopus on this board.
It’s funny how when people are called out for advocating violence for speech they resort to ad hominem attacks. Funny and predictable.
This article might educate people. Hopefully it’s from an ‘approved’ source and by an ‘approved’ writer.
I find it to be much much worse than distasteful.
To get back to your OP; the far right has murdered hundreds, a loose collection of counter-protesters has fought against this using violence. Is that where we stand?
I don’t think we have a smiley for “probably not”.
I have a question for you. 5 years ago, did you ever think you would be describing a bunch of swastika carrying goons as “distasteful”.
You win that point.
I’m not sure what that article has to do with anything, I have no desire for the state to censor Nazi viewpoints. Local communities are free to counter-protest and shut down fascist speech within their own boundaries, but no, the state shouldn’t be in the business of enacting approved speech laws.
What does “shut down fascist speech” look like in your worldview? Is cracking them over the head with crude clubs acceptable to you? Would machine-gunning the fascists to silence them be acceptable to you?
As a point of clarification, the OP was not ‘mine’. And as a further point of clarification, Antifa only pretends to fight against the murder of hundreds. What they’ve actually done is cracked the skulls of some innocent bystanders that, AFAIK, have never murdered anyone.
I never gave it much thought, either 5 years ago, one year ago, or yesterday. Did I not use an Antifa-approved adjective?
That heavily depends on what the current political situation is, and what the other options are. I’d like to point out we did the machine guns thing, it was called World War 2, so clearly if there comes a point where we need to oppose an actual fascist regime I’m not taking it off the table exactly.
However, at the present time I draw the line much more strictly than that. I would ideally stick to non-lethal, no-weapon violence and reserve it for situations with key figures of the movements, or situations with particular symbolic value (or in response to immediate physical danger, obviously). The purpose of violence at the current juncture is to merely deter people from advancing a particular violent, evil agenda, and killing isn’t necessary, helpful, or IMO, ethical for that at this point.
I’m more of a “it’s okay to punch Richard Spencer” person than a “charge down a march with knives” person. I’m not going to advocate throwing a grenade into a KKK meeting.
I also vastly prefer non-violent methods, and would personally have difficulty approving of most uses of violence (especially at the current juncture). I don’t take the option off the table, but I’m not champing at the bit to crack some Nazi skulls either.
I apologize for my mistake re the OP. My bad.
I think we are not going to come to an agreement.
I say antifa is a name given to counter-protesters.
You say they are “pretenders” who just want to bust some skulls.
Really? You think these groups have just formed lately to beat people up?
What did they do before this?
As I and others have said and cited, there are no “antifa approved” phrases. That was sad. Bigly.
Let me know what the next “Fox approved” bogeyman is.
And the answer to my question was "No, of course not. What kind of person in their right mind would call Nazis “distasteful”.
WWII was a bit larger of an issue that just trying to “shut down fascist speech”, agreed?
So you don’t find the Antifa tactic of using clubs / improvised explosive devices on random crowd members to be acceptable? Would you be prepared to go so far as to say you “condemn” it?
Okay now you’re being silly steat. Let’s not police exactly how scathing of an insult you must use for Nazism. I have a tendency to not use strong words a lot of the time and I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could find instances of me merely condemning it as “bad” or “wrong” or “distasteful”.
I literally said I condemn bike lock dude. People shouldn’t be attacking “random crowd members”, but that’s not exactly an “antifa tactic”. Nobody went to a planning meeting and said “yo we should just fuck some rando up”, but if they planned that, yes, it’s stupid and I condemn it. Things like Charlottesville are a bit different where both sides got crazy because of a huge police fuckup. I could maybe justify starting violence there anyway considering they were literally yelling “Gas the kikes! Race war now!”, but that’s not what happened and I’m not sure.
It’s on the same gradient, IMO.
Again, it’s a matter of “I’m not going to say I condemn Antifascist violence, but if you give me a specific incident, I may or may not be for it.”
Jragon, my reply was to HD, who did indeed describe white supremacy as “distasteful”.
I messed up the quote function.
I also think that’s likely the case.
Yes. And it wasn’t a name “given to” them. It was one they picked for themselves. In one of the rare cases of agreement between Nancy Pelosi and myself, I’d like to whole-heartedly endorse this sentiment expressed by her almost a year ago:
Yeah, in this context, I’m OK with policing it. It came about because he was defending white supremacy as a “political difference”.
Thank you for this paragraph. Sincerely.
Yes, you did. Bravo! On this point, we agree.
Disagree. It is exactly an “Antifa tactic”. As Exhibit A I provide the case of Eric Clanton attacking Sean Stiles. Exhibit B is the antifa thugs attacking Paul Welch.
I don’t know what they said to each other beforehand, I only know what they did, in actuality, do, and “fuck some rando up” is about as perfect a characterization of it as I can conceive.
You think chanting mean things and / or prancing around with tiki torches is “on the same gradient” as invading Poland? That’s … amazing.
I’d rate my interest in adhering to your speech codes as “quite low”.
That’s true. You were indeed not arguing against an imaginary person. No, you were arguing against an imaginary statement.
Carry on.
In the context of the US, this is totally nuts. White supremacists have overwhelmingly been the most harmful force in American history. They are literally responsible for millions of enslavements, rapes, kidnappings, and worse. Even including a dumb war-of-choice in a far off country, the communist body-count for the US is orders of magnitude smaller.
In comparison, antifa has killed no one and harmed a very few. Initiating violence is bad, I condemn it, and white supremacists are far, far more violent than antifa, and far, far more dangerous to the country as a whole.