“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Argumemnon said:
I'd still like to know what you think: is there _any_ limit you think free speech would have (for the record, I don't know where I'd put said limit myself)?
Click to expand...

I think the Brandenburg standard is fine. But this thread isn't about speech which violates that standard.
 
MostlyDead said:
Is this one of the 'actually controversial' issues you were pleading to discuss a few posts ago?

Whether they were invited, showed up on their own, mutually agreed, or were Shanghaied, does it make any difference? But you raise a good point- they were pretty clearly welcome. I wonder if Coulter and others denounced the combative contingent on their own side, if that would have an effect. I have argued that these groups are in this by mutual consent, as opposed to one attacking and one defending. Antifa have been initiating conflict at the events by their presence, but it has been shown (esp OC) that the pro-Trump crowd sometimes initiates actual violence.

It is a chicken-and-egg problem regarding who started hostilities, as antifa goes back to protesting fascists for years, and neos being accepted into a mainstream party-in-power (shudder) is a new development. A lot of people may see antifa as coming out of the blue to attack Americans, while antifa might say they are continuing a long-running fight against fascists who only recently been welcomed into the mainstream.
Click to expand...


Yes it does, of course it matters!!! It matters because you said they were "brought in" which would mean that the people organizing the event did possibly deliberately escalate things by inviting the other groups. If these groups showed up of their own volition then you can't blame the event organizers for that.

Should the law abiding Berkeley protesters be responsible for the damage that the "anarchist" group inflicted? Didn't think so. Should they be associated with them at all? I disagree with your first paragraph entirely.

And no this is not what I want to discuss but it's the only thread in town and I'm bored.

Are you a member of one of these "antifa" groups? I mean no disrespect, but your opinions are so radically different than mine that I have to wonder. I can't imagine, nor have I seen, anyone else making the arguments that you have made.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, no, not gonna happen. Anarchists themselves might evolve out of anarchy into some useful ideology, but anarchy itself is social evolutionary dead end.
Click to expand...

An awful lot of them think it's going to evolve into communism. Introducing an entirely different kind of state violence, only this time it's violence they agree with.
 
mgidm86 said:
Yes it does, of course it matters!!! It matters because you said they were "brought in" which would mean that the people organizing the event did possibly deliberately escalate things by inviting the other groups. If these groups showed up of their own volition then you can't blame the event organizers for that.
Click to expand...

I am assuming the violent faction within these rallys are not directly involved with the event organizers. In Huntington, for example, I feel confident that it was set up as a feel-good middle-America march by the organizers, and that a smaller number of more redneck types joined in (perhaps enjoying their more accepted status with Trump supporters). If the militia groups were invited in, I would guess it was by this presumed subset and not the organizers. Coulter and her management, as another example, do not likely actively coordinate attendees in the crowd. So who specifically got the idea to bring them in is secondary IMO; they were clearly welcome.

Should the law abiding Berkeley protesters be responsible for the damage that the "anarchist" group inflicted? Didn't think so. Should they be associated with them at all? I disagree with your first paragraph entirely.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think the more violent Trump supporters are cast as defenders against antifa aggression. Looking at the evidence presented in this thread and elsewhere, I think it's a knee-jerk characterization. Antifa wear black, and neos wear red, white and blue, so bad guy/good guy classifications are made in kind (maybe unfairly). I maintain that prominent conservatives would be wise to condemn the neos attending their events and publicly discourage the violence from their side. That it is not speaks volumes about how the organizers feel about these types. Huntington was a big exception- protesters and marchers were pictured shaking hands and mutually hoping for a peaceful event. Very small subsets had other ideas.

And no this is not what I want to discuss but it's the only thread in town and I'm bored.
Click to expand...

:) I hear ya.

Are you a member of one of these "antifa" groups? I mean no disrespect, but your opinions are so radically different than mine that I have to wonder. I can't imagine, nor have I seen, anyone else making the arguments that you have made.
Click to expand...

No (and I appreciate your wording a lot). My play group from my teens/20s included anarchists, but not antifa as discussed ITT. Some sincerely wanted a better world but thought it was irredeemably corrupt, some just wanted to rage against the machine. I was close enough with them to have much more favorable associations with their thinking than I think many in this thread have. I'm sure some hear 'anarchist' and think of mindless street punks. I remember some good people, and some not so good but a ton of fun.
 
phiwum

caveman1917 said:
phiwum said:
That's terrible.
Click to expand...
Why?
Click to expand...

Any reason why you don't answer this question? Here's why it's relevant:

In another thread when discussing the bank window which got rearranged at Trump's inauguration, you stated, in response to the example of me rearranging your car, something along the lines of "well if I rearrange you, how would you like that?".

Your standard then seems to be that rearranging a person is ok in response to said person disputing a belief you hold. Then why is this call for rearranging Trump so terrible, given that we can safely assume that Trump has disputed some beliefs held by the people making the call?

In yet another thread you argue for (at least the possibility) of objective morality. If you're going to argue that whatever arbitrary set of value-judgements you hold is objective, shouldn't you be primarily concerned with consistency? Why is something which can be casually expressed in response to disputation of a belief not be expressed in response to someone who has by now, just for starters, probably already killed a whole bunch of people?
 
Heavily Armed Antifa March at Phoenix, Arizona


Looks like airsoft guns actually.

And they are demonstrating. But they don't want to be filmed. And yes, they realise they are on public property so they can be filmed, but please stop filming. Or else. But they are not going to do anything, but they are not responsible for anything that might happen if you keep filming. No that's not a threat, but watch out etc etc etc

I have no words for how retarded this is.

This will lead to Truptards showing up with AR-15's and then they are going to shoot BB's at them?
 
Eddie Dane said:
Heavily Armed Antifa March at Phoenix, Arizona


Looks like airsoft guns actually.

And they are demonstrating. But they don't want to be filmed. And yes, they realise they are on public property so they can be filmed, but please stop filming. Or else. But they are not going to do anything, but they are not responsible for anything that might happen if you keep filming. No that's not a threat, but watch out etc etc etc

I have no words for how retarded this is.

This will lead to Truptards showing up with AR-15's and then they are going to shoot BB's at them?
Click to expand...


Prob real weapons, these cats are the Phoenix John Brown Gun Club. Putting the Red back in Redneck yo. Link to the main site below

https://www.redneckrevolt.org/

This weird march was actually in response to Trump marchers recently doing the same thing, marching with weapons in public

ETA: Don't know how they missed the irony that many of them are literally wearing brown shirts

ETAx2: Read their article about the film, the JBGC claim the march was over and they were actually going home (This is consistent with the event pics which show them with other groups, banners and demonstration stuff). The press did not cover the event, so the reporter with the cell phone video seemed to them to be randomly following them back to their cars, which they took as a little weird. Since the event was over and the reporter didn't show press ID or anything and was cel phone recording only their trip back to the cars (not the actual march), they may have a little justification in finding his actions odd, even a bit intimidating.
 
Last edited:
MostlyDead said:
No (and I appreciate your wording a lot). My play group from my teens/20s included anarchists, but not antifa as discussed ITT. Some sincerely wanted a better world but thought it was irredeemably corrupt, some just wanted to rage against the machine. I was close enough with them to have much more favorable associations with their thinking than I think many in this thread have. I'm sure some hear 'anarchist' and think of mindless street punks. I remember some good people, and some not so good but a ton of fun.
Click to expand...


That actually explains a lot, thanks.

When I am debating with people I've never actually met, I sometimes feel I can guess their age by certain questions they may ask, or their stances on certain things. Like if someone asks me in all sincerity why I can't stand Hillary, I sometimes think that that person hasn't been around long enough to have lived through the Clinton years.

Whether or not one likes her, most people my age are at least aware of all the scandals the Clintons have been associated with. At least I think they would be.

Similarly, your having some sort of history with the groups you mention makes a lot of sense, to ME anyways, because I couldn't figure out how someone could think this way. I wasn't sure you were even serious.

I dunno, it's just interesting. For me, it maybe helps me respect the person I am talking to a little more.
 
caveman1917 said:
There is no point.
Click to expand...

I get it.

Most people would assume that if you're anti-Fascist it's because you hate the brutal violence, conformity and abuses of human rights that go along with it. But those reasons have no meaning for you, do they?

No, you hate fascism because of it's nationalism and corporatism, which you see as being diametrically opposed to communism. You're okay with the violence and abuses of human rights because you recognize those tools will be necessary if anarchists ever come to power.
 
Mycroft said:
I get it.
Click to expand...

No you don't.

Most people would assume that if you're anti-Fascist it's because you hate the brutal violence, conformity and abuses of human rights that go along with it. But those reasons have no meaning for you, do they?

No, you hate fascism because of it's nationalism and corporatism, which you see as being diametrically opposed to communism. You're okay with the violence and abuses of human rights because you recognize those tools will be necessary if anarchists ever come to power.
Click to expand...

No I am simply capable of recognizing your fascist trope of equating Nazism with state socialism[*]. As for brutal violence and abuses of "human rights" - curious how you're leaving the third side of this (the Allies) out of your lamentations, even though it has a record of brutal violence and "human rights" abuses which far surpasses the Soviet Union's.

* very popular these days in Eastern European fascist circles and it's ideologically allied Western liberal circles.
 
Mycroft said:
I get it.

Most people would assume that if you're anti-Fascist it's because you hate the brutal violence, conformity and abuses of human rights that go along with it.
Click to expand...

I need a clarification. I've been reading this thread thinking antifa stood for "anti-facist" as your post implies, but when I look it up I also find "anti-first amendment."

Which is it? Or maybe both?
 
marplots said:
I need a clarification. I've been reading this thread thinking antifa stood for "anti-facist" as your post implies, but when I look it up I also find "anti-first amendment."

Which is it? Or maybe both?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure "anti-first amendment" is right wing Internet snarkiness.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
caveman1917 said:
No I am simply capable of recognizing your fascist trope of equating Nazism with state socialism[*].
Click to expand...

No, I don't equate them, but I do compare them. They are very different systems, but in terms of brutal violence, conformity and abuses of human rights they are very comparable. No trope about it.

Also, if Stalin's crimes can be so easily overlooked, then what's so terrible about fascism? I think it's bad, but the reasons I would cite are the same reasons Stalin was bad. Take those away, and what do you have left?

caveman1917 said:
As for brutal violence and abuses of "human rights" - curious how you're leaving the third side of this (the Allies) out of your lamentations, even though it has a record of brutal violence and "human rights" abuses which far surpasses the Soviet Union's.
Click to expand...

Oh jeebus, another Whataboutism? It really is reflexive, isn't it? Can't say anything negative about the Soviet Union without the motorboat saying, "b-b-b-but what about the USA?!"

Except why would we bring up the allies in regard to the Battle of Stalingrad? Were there any Allied powers there other than the Soviet Union? Also, technically not a "third" side. The Soviet Union was an Allied power.

caveman1917 said:
* very popular these days in Eastern European fascist circles and it's ideologically allied Western liberal circles.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, and who's promoting fascism in Europe?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-research-group-says/?utm_term=.b27b4bc2bc34
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom