Another Antifa Call for Violence

[Emily's Cat]

Way to totally miss my point. Let me be quite clear here. If you walk around with a bunch of Alt-Right Nazi's and White Supremacists spouting the same Nazi and White Supremecy slogans, retweeting their tweets, and acting in ways that are racist and downright deplorable, then no, you're not a "good person." You are showing your colours as a Racist and a Deplorable and, at least, a wannabe Nazi. You can't act like and sound like a Nazi and then claim that you are really "just being an Independent, really, truly, and it's unfair to judge me by my Tiki Torch."

Okay, fine. Now... is that true for all republicans and independents?

Do you think it's dangerous to feed the stereotype that all republicans and independents are racists, bigots, and nazis?

 

[autumn1971]

You're kind of making my point here.

You're rather strongly imply that you are not "misrepresenting" republicans and independents at all... because they're all racists, nazis, and deplorables.

You extend Some A are B to mean All A are B, and see no problem with that. You also, by the way, seem to ignore that Some C are B too.

When every A elected at the state and federal levels of government are B, and openly support B and encourage their supporters to join B, and the supporters overwhelmingly agree. then yeah, I believe that assuming all A are B is a good plan for survival.

The Right in the US want to destroy democracy.

They want to make working Americans into serfs.

They explicitly want a return to feudalism.

Ignore that at your peril

 

[Carlotta]

Okay, fine. Now... is that true for all republicans and independents?

Do you think it's dangerous to feed the stereotype that all republicans and independents are racists, bigots, and nazis?

Please link to reliable reports of antifa or anyone else saying all republicans are nazis.

 

[dann]

Is it more or less dangerous than the frequent description of people as racists and nazis and deplorables because they're republicans, or even independents?

Does that mean that you don't think that it's dangerous to feed the right-wing vigilantes more (fake) reasons to kill antifas?
I'm not familiar with republicans and independents being described as racists, nazis and deplorable merely because they're republicans and independents. Has that actually happened?

ETA: At the moment, I see a lot of things being depicted as "dangerous" when they really are just "unpleasant". It drives yet more division and partisanship, because it casts every disagreement as intentionally malicious and as an imminent threat.

You do know about the cases where heavily armed vigilantes have showed up to ward of alleged marauding antifas on their way to their communities, don't you? I guess we disagree about this, but I would describe these cases as dangerous, not merely unpleasant.

 

[dann]

Okay, fine. Now... is that true for all republicans and independents?

It wouldn't be true for those republicans and independents who would immediately distance themselves from the racists and nazis. However, it is true in the case of those republicans and independents who instead say that some of the participants of those white-supremacist rallies are good people.

Do you think it's dangerous to feed the stereotype that all republicans and independents are racists, bigots, and nazis?

Many stereotypes are dangerous, but most of them aren't heavily-armed-with-AK47s dangerous. And most stereotypes aren't backed up by the White House. The ones that are are bound to be more dangerous than the ones that aren't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, fine. Now... is that true for all republicans and independents?

Do you think it's dangerous to feed the stereotype that all republicans and independents are racists, bigots, and nazis?

They are just comfortable voting for them. Nothing wrong with that, like sharing white supremacist propaganda does not mean anything either.

How white supremacist does someone have to be to be called one? Clearly calling them good people and retweeting their propaganda is not enough or you would be fine with calling Trump a white supremacist and people who vote for him fine with voting for white supremacists. So where is the line?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Please link to reliable reports of antifa or anyone else saying all republicans are nazis.

Have you read threads here?

 

[Emily's Cat]

When every A elected at the state and federal levels of government are B, and openly support B and encourage their supporters to join B, and the supporters overwhelmingly agree. then yeah, I believe that assuming all A are B is a good plan for survival.

Are you actually of the opinion that every state and federal elected Republican is a racist and a nazi, and that they openly support nazis and encourage their supporters to join nazis? And that republican supporters overwhelmingly agree with that support and actively join nazis?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does that mean that you don't think that it's dangerous to feed the right-wing vigilantes more (fake) reasons to kill antifas?

I think it's as dangerous as feeding left-wing revolutionaries with more (fake) reasons to kill conservatives.

Both have the potential to be dangerous. Neither is directly inciting violence. Both are sentiments I disagree with, and don't support. Neither are views I think are valid justification for censoring.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you actually of the opinion that every state and federal elected Republican is a racist and a nazi, and that they openly support nazis and encourage their supporters to join nazis? And that republican supporters overwhelmingly agree with that support and actively join nazis?

Yea then people start thinking mainstream conservative views like those expressed by @whitegenocide(tm) are somehow racist. They are mainstream and hence can not be racist or their ties to the president would be problematic for republicans, clearly being concerned by the lower races replacing whites is not a racist position in america.

Here I will make it simple.

Is Trump a racist and does his retweeting of nazi propaganda send more people to those sources? Do republicans support him and are they clearly not bothered by his support for white supremacists?

If they actually cared about it when trump goes full racist you would have some kind of position but clearly supreme court seats are totally worth it to support Trump as the ends always justify the means to republicans. Why they will never be concerned over a little forced sterilization of minorities again as an example. Nothing wrong with that and how dare anyone compare it to the nazis, they totally copied america in that regard anyway!

 

[Mumbles]

I think it's as dangerous as feeding left-wing revolutionaries with more (fake) reasons to kill conservatives.

Both have the potential to be dangerous. Neither is directly inciting violence. Both are sentiments I disagree with, and don't support. Neither are views I think are valid justification for censoring.

First key difference: left-wingers are generally nonviolent - even the radicals aren't converging on towns with the express desire to attack republicans. Compare to "Unite the Right".

Second key difference: the dems haven't recently (as in, the past 100 years) been led by an outright white nationalist, unlike the GOP, who are following one right now. Even Reagan knew not to be seen loving the KKK, and that guy was a segregationist who loved Apartheid South Africa, *because* of the apartheid. And yes, I will say that Bill Clinton definitely leaned on the racism buttons at times, partly out of a desire to avoid any "Willie Horton" ads like the one that supposedly sank Dukakis (this claim is questionable).

As you've been told before, the main problem with your view of "freedom" is that you invariably take the side of demonstrably violent bigots who demand that anyone unlike them lose *their* rights, over the rights of those that these groups deliberately target and who are ultimately acting to defend others from these bigots. You confuse Apartheid with shunning.

 

[Dr. Keith]

What does that get categorized as "dangerous"? I mean, misinformation seems a bit purposefully exaggerated, given that Rogan says factually wrong things a lot - not on purpose, just because he's got it wrong. So what makes it "dangerous"?

Because it feeds into the fears of citizens who set up vigilante roadblocks like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/oregon-fires-armed-civilian-roadblocks-police

 

[Emily's Cat]

First key difference: left-wingers are generally nonviolent - even the radicals aren't converging on towns with the express desire to attack republicans. Compare to "Unite the Right".

Second key difference: the dems haven't recently (as in, the past 100 years) been led by an outright white nationalist, unlike the GOP, who are following one right now. Even Reagan knew not to be seen loving the KKK, and that guy was a segregationist who loved Apartheid South Africa, *because* of the apartheid. And yes, I will say that Bill Clinton definitely leaned on the racism buttons at times, partly out of a desire to avoid any "Willie Horton" ads like the one that supposedly sank Dukakis (this claim is questionable).

As you've been told before, the main problem with your view of "freedom" is that you invariably take the side of demonstrably violent bigots who demand that anyone unlike them lose *their* rights, over the rights of those that these groups deliberately target and who are ultimately acting to defend others from these bigots. You confuse Apartheid with shunning.

I don't take the side of any of them. And if you took a moment to look around, you would perhaps recognize that the only people on ISF who routinely advocate for violence are all people who consider themselves progressive leftists.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't take the side of any of them. And if you took a moment to look around, you would perhaps recognize that the only people on ISF who routinely advocate for violence are all people who consider themselves progressive leftists.

And those who support the police or just violence against blacks. See all the defending of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery.

 

[autumn1971]

Are you actually of the opinion that every state and federal elected Republican is a racist and a nazi, and that they openly support nazis and encourage their supporters to join nazis? And that republican supporters overwhelmingly agree with that support and actively join nazis?

Nazi? No. And I thought the hyperbole was kind of obvious. I think that a large minority are racist, as in: in private they openly acknowledge their racism.
The rest are more casually racist; they know that their political philosophy tends to disproportionately harm minorities and they acknowledge that and don’t care.

I do believe that the American right is explicitly classist, and have as their aim the destruction of a social mobility for all but a select few. That, in the US especially, is going to be functionally racist.

 

[dann]

I don't take the side of any of them. And if you took a moment to look around, you would perhaps recognize that the only people on ISF who routinely advocate for violence are all people who consider themselves progressive leftists.

Are you talking about egging and milk-shaking? Unlike killing with AK-47s?

 

[dann]

I think it's as dangerous as feeding left-wing revolutionaries with more (fake) reasons to kill conservatives.

When and where does that happen? Are you talking about:

Both have the potential to be dangerous. Neither is directly inciting violence. Both are sentiments I disagree with, and don't support. Neither are views I think are valid justification for censoring.

One of them is very conspicuous. Where is the other one?

 

[rockysmith76]

Are you talking about egging and milk-shaking? Unlike killing with AK-47s?

Some have advocated killing a standing president, this claim is not untrue. A more valid stance is seeing that the larger problem lies with all the agitators, disorganized antifa whether real or wannabes, the boogaloos and the right wing lone wolves all creating the chaos in certain cities that gives a green light for the DHS nonsense in Seattle and Portland, all the agitators played a role in that.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think a vaccine for Bothsidesism might be more important than a vaccine for Covid.

 

[dann]

Some have advocated killing a standing president, this claim is not untrue.

Obviously. But they weren't left-wing, were they?

A more valid stance is seeing that the larger problem lies with all the agitators, disorganized antifa whether real or wannabes, the boogaloos and the right wing lone wolves all creating the chaos in certain cities that gives a green light for the DHS nonsense in Seattle and Portland, all the agitators played a role in that.

I think it's high time antifa agitators get organized.