Ah … got it, thanks. I thought you (or someone) was trying to discredit them for having “antifa” connections, which some associate (falsely) purely with dangerous radicalism.
A number of antifa are dangerous radicals.
There’s a difference between being against fascism and being antifa, like there’s a difference between being moral and in a majority and being part of the Moral Majority.
Dangerous radicals, huh? How many people have antifa injured so far? What is their rate of the killing?
They seem more like vocal and annoying, dangerous not so much.
I’m not sure that the group in question, no matter what their name, would qualify as ‘progressive,’ much less be reasonably held to represent all progressives (as Mr. Erickson’s accusation implied.)
In any case, what they were doing really is NOT what the Brownshirts used to do.
(And Erickson knows it, disingenuous little knob that he is.)
Do you really think you can get away with such things?
And, to take a page (as it were), if speech can be violence, credible threats of violence against identified groups are, in fact, violence.
Smashing “cameras” means smashing faces, given where cameras are positioned.
The antifa “leaders”, as much as such people can be said to exist, agree with me in principle:
Yes, I’m sure The Hill is Literally Brietbart.
That’s why I included the word “purely.” Just trying to avoid guilt by association. If you think these protestors were wrong to do this particular thing, just say that.
When I want to smash a camera I grab it and throw it on the ground, maybe stomping on it if that’s what it takes. To pretend that smashing cameras means trying to punch through them is laughable.
The rest of your post seems similarly desperate to conflate ‘rampant destructive property damage’ with ‘murder’. Yes, Antifa as an organization has embraced volence and property damage, and I personally don’t want to be associated with them (and think it’s bullshit to claim equate them with progressives as a whole). But trying to twist that into them being a gang of murderers just makes you wrong when you could very easily make strong points while staying right.
That is just precious.
I did no such thing.
Then my point is proven.
This is an amusing digression, but it started when talking about something other than Antifa as such. I think it is insulting both to the Democratic Socialists who heckled Secretary Nielsen and to the Sturmabteilung to equate the two. The SA did more than heckle people; and the hecklers are not going out to burn and rob.
I know that the forces of conformity and fear want to label all anti-fascists as Antifa while at the same time defining Antifa as the violent ones, but you can’t really have it both ways.
Brian Kilmeade of Fox & Friends: “…these aren’t our kids. Show them compassion, but it’s not like he is doing this to the people of Idaho or Texas.”
There it is, folks. Flat out right there. These brown kids don’t matter because they aren’t us pure white folks.
all the people who were supposedly injured by Antifa were actually crisis actors. Hey, this is fun.
Saw an outtake of Trump in Duh-luth. There was a protester in the midst, with predictable results, and has he was led away, Trump spilled some shit about how he couldn’t tell if that was a man or a woman because he needed a haircut. Felt so much younger, all of a sudden…
In a post where you seemed committed to establishing facts with citations, you had to fuck it up and throw this ridiculous assertion in there, didn’t you?
The conversation went like this:
Derleth: They’re dangerous radicals!
eschereal: How dangerous can they be? They’re not killing people!
The goalpost for ‘dangerous’ was set at killing or hurting people, where Antifa’s main target for their destructive tendencies seems to be property, as best I can tell. This was a problem for Derleth, so in his rebuttal his did his damndest to slyly imply that Antifa really is dangerous - aka hurting/killing people.
I called him out on that. He didn’t like it.
Hey, man, property is people too. Or something.
That’s a good reminder of how old you are when someone hands you their phone to take a picture and you instinctively hold it up to look through the viewfinder.
Mike Huckabee tweeted a photo of a bunch of tattooed Latino men throwing gang signs with the caption “Nancy Pelosi introduces her campaign committee for the take back of the House.”
https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/1010497564435730434
nm, duplicate
Just throwing away the dog whistles and going full-on racist, eh, Mike?
(You have to wonder, presuming Huckabee actually is a theist, how he pictures his God reacting to his little foray into hatemongering.)