Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners? (Page 2)
Anonymous
(25-29) 
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
33Opinion
Now? Same as it ever was. White domestic terrorists have killed many more people in the US than foreign terrorists.
911, San Bernadino and Pulse Nightclub more innocents killed by Muslims than any race in recent times,
@IreallyhateGAG 9/11 is the biggest. Second biggest with Timothy McVeigh.
Anti-government right wing has been running a strong second to islamofascists for a few decades.
@0112358 If that is true Muslims still got the top spot so this fucking post is irrelevant.
@IreallyhateGAG I don't know what the last 2-3 years look like, but for quite a while it's been islamist 1 white nationalist/anti government 2. The ratio was maybe 2:1. After that a big drop off before any other group.
Trump's right to say that islamist terror shouldn't be swept under the rug. What's unfortunate is that he absolute has encouraged security agencies to ignore right wing terror.
Agencies should be able to cover both. And need to. Nobody wants another Oklahoma city bombing, or worse, just like we don't want to see another 9/11.
They always have been. Dating back to when they formed armies and tried to conquer lands. And slaughtered people. There has been no bigger terrorist threat to make kind than white people
WOW Killing people is now a competition. Congrats , you're no different that people that hate Muslims.
Can't wait for the clever meme or gif
Service with a "smile".
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
Social media made it more difficult for them to cover up Islamic terrorist attacks, so they just tried to rebrand terrorism as yet another tool to attack European people with.
Yeah, because Euros are so fucking innocent! They only started mass-slavery, the genocide of the Native American race, plagued & exploited every resource of Mother Nature and worst of all, fucking Bluegrass & Western Music! Can't white-wash your flat-ass out of this one, Howdy Doody!
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
Not an argument.
It's beyond an argument, Boss Hog; it's the rude awakening truth!
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
The worst is these PC idiots saying that if Muslims commit a terrorist attack that the fact that they were Muslim should be told to the public. I mean these people are out of their minds.
should not be told to the public*
@supercutebutt I know you are the anon. You give yourself away.
@IreallyhateGAG
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
I know it is you
@IreallyhateGAG You do?
@supercutebutt You have 2 accounts then because I know this is you.
@IreallyhateGAG Well you are wrong. Good try, though.
@IreallyhateGAG
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
Even if it isn't you it is still some left wing extremist who is wasting their life dedicating it to the wrong things in the world so same difference.
@IreallyhateGAG Hahaha, you are so stupid. The only "extremists" here are the Trumptards like yourself. I'm a moderate who sees Trump for what he is: a dope who panders to the poorly educated community for his own personal gain.
You mean like the Antifa dumbass that died in a shootout with police while trying to firebomb a federal facility in Washington state?
the vast majority of domestic terror attacks have been perpertrated by Right Wingers...
Did he kill anyone?
@goaded Just myself in the firefight he had with the police that stopped the attack.
So, no, he was killed by the police.
@Waffles731 So that makes firebombing an ICE facility okay?
@AllThatSweetJazz Of course not, just a hell of a lot better than shooting random innocent people out shopping or at prayer.
@goaded Not really. If he had succeeded in blowing up the propane tanks he was aiming for he could have done much more damage, our saving grace was that he was old and sucked. But that's not even the point.
*It's all bad, you dunce*
Don't give us that what-about-ism. Both extremes are awful, so don't make it about the nebulous evil "right-wingers". Both left and right extremes are fully of utterly cancerous identitarians. Whether it's low-grade frequent terrorism like antifa or high-grade infrequent terrorism like shooting or bombings from a well equipped white supremacist or Islamist, it all sucks. You don't get to commit political violence full stop.
@AllThatSweetJazz I think you're ignoring some important details.
A Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist rally is low-grade terrorism; ask any Jew or person of colour if they feel safe around people whose stated purpose is to subjugate them, if not outright exterminate them.
When people protest them, it's the protesters who are the ones who get shot, or stabbed, or run over.
You're right, it all sucks, but in this round of political violence, not a single right-winger has been killed unless they were in the process of killing other people. And if you can't see that that's a huge difference, there's something wrong with you.
@goaded "ask any Jew or person of colour if they feel safe around people whose stated purpose is to subjugate them"
You're not entitled to *feel* safe. You're entitled to standards of safety and here that means civility and law-abiding.
Similarly, anything Jews or non-whites do could be considered terrorism by these people and they're entitled to the same things. And again, none of that would excuse antifa. So even if you considered a nazi rally (of which are few and far between) to be terrorism, antifa is *at least* equally bad.
"When people protest them, it's the protesters who are the ones who get shot, or stabbed, or run over."
Only in the sense that they start fights and then can't finish them. Antifa, have been very well documented as instigators and aggressors in most of these violent situations. You see more random attacks against Trump supporters than from them. You see antifa beating people with crowbars for carrying an American flag or cracking random people over the head with bike locks. They call anyone who doesn't agree with them a Nazi and then throw punches then get rolled if they don't have overwhelming numbers.
They turn up in black bloc ffs. The whole point of that is to facilitate doing illegal shit.
"not a single right-winger has been killed unless they were in the process of killing other people"
So you're just assuming that people who these lone wolf attackers kill are all leftists? No. Think before you type.
No *organization* has killed anyone on either side. Even including the recent shooting at Dayton. That's one dude, not antifa.
But it's primarily, if not almost entirely antifa who organize to attack people and destroy things.
So do *you* see the difference when it's a widespread, organized, concerted effort to hurt and silence people? Antifa's stated purpose is to subjugate, if not outright exterminate and they *actually* try to do those things -- that's the difference.
@AllThatSweetJazz "You're entitled to standards of safety and here that means civility and law-abiding."
Civility? You think claiming the Jews/(((You))) "will not replace us" is civil? How about surrounding and threatening counter-protesters who are holding hands and chanting? You should probably also look at what constitutes assault - "An assault is an act that causes a person to fear a battery, an offensive, unwanted touching. The normal elements of assault are:
An intentional act that puts another person in reasonable fear of offensive contact; where
The act was intentionally committed by the defendant."
www.expertlaw.com/.../assault-and-battery
Did you see this video from Charlottesville, the night before the rally?
cdn.theguardian.tv/.../...harlottesville3_desk.mp4
"they start fights and then can't finish them."
It wasn't Antifa got run over at Charlottesville, it was a bunch of innocent protesters, they weren't part of any fight.
"Antifa, have been very well documented as instigators and aggressors in most of these violent situations."
This documentation I'd like to see. Where was this terrorist organisation before Trump came into office, before the rise of the Alt-Right?
"You see more random attacks against Trump supporters than from them."
No, *you* see more random attacks against Trump supporters because that's what Google and YouTube show you, because that's what you want to see. And, again, not one of those attacks has been fatal. How about we both try to find some real research on the subject?
"Think before you type."
OK, fair enough. I'm pretty sure you understood my point, though, meaning they were somewhere in their capacity as a right-winger, not as a Walmart shopper or church-goer.
People have recently killed other people, in the US, based on the killer's political beliefs. Those killers have all been right-wing (so far), there has been, afaik, one non-fatal shooting in the other direction.
@goaded "reasonable fear"
The fear here is not reasonable and any argument that you want to give to suggesst that is is will also have to apply to antifa, so... no.
It's not directed at anyone or intended to harm, it *does not* cause *reasonable fear* take offensive contact will take place.
And that's a really fkn ironic position to argue from in defense of antifa.
"Charlottesville"
You mean basically the single actual nazi rally we've seen?
I'm not defending nazis.
I'm talking about the thousand other times antifa have attacked people, virtually all of them not nazis.
"It wasn't Antifa got run over at Charlottesville, it was a bunch of innocent protesters, they weren't part of any fight."
And who started the violence? And even IF it was nazis, what does that matter? Yes, we have no problem condemning nazis. So why does it cause a short circuit when it comes time to condemn the years of antifa violence?
"This documentation I'd like to see."
It's called google. Even with a biased media it's not that hard to find stuff. Professor bike lock is a classic example, more recently there was the Andy Ngo attack in Portland, there was using a crowbar to beat an old dude with a flag, beating people because they were holding a US flag hass happened a number of time, even to their own people who held up a flag. There's the endless milkshakings and just many, many examples of antifa being aggressive (especially toward people who try film them). Weird how they have to use black bloc and cover their faces as a bunch of peaceful protesters, hmm?
"Where was this terrorist organisation before Trump came into office, before the rise of the Alt-Right?"
Why. In. The. World. Would. That. Matter?
It's the violence that's the problem.
Furthermore, of course they're going to show up when Trump does. Because it's the rise of socialist and progressive rhetoric bringing about Trump and it's the losing to Trump then intensified that. Tensions flared, sides polarized, antifa swelled.
" that's what Google and YouTube show you"
They can't show me anything if it didn't happen.
Compare that to these supposed nazi attacks. Nazis groups aren't attacking shit, because they're a tiny fraction of the population and seem to be able to obey the law better than antifa. Even if nazis were attacking people in the manner than antifa do, we have no problem condemning that. So again, why does antifa get a pass? Especially when most of the time they're protesting and attacking people who are not nazis or fascists and indeed they act like fascists themselves.
"How about we both try to find some real research on the subject?"
I've been following these events since 2014. I feel pretty well informed, thanks.
"meaning they were somewhere in their capacity as a right-winger"
How many leftist have died in their capacity as leftists?
The killers may have had political motivations, but they go after people just out and about, not specifically politically aligned people.
But again, that doesn't even matter. Political violence is bad, whether it's killing people or bashing people, it's all beyond what it acceptable and all needs to be dealt with -- and here these problems relate to each other. It's the fringe wacko socialist and progressive rhetoric that antifa espouse that inflame the fringe right-wing wackos. They're all bad, none of them get a pass.
"one non-fatal shooting "
So we're not counting the Dayton guy then?
I'm surprised there's been no deaths attributed directly to antifa as yet. It's essentially luck that cracking open someone's head with a bike lock doesn't kill them. Andy Ngo ended up with a brain bleed when he got punched in the back of the head. Apparently antifa have also taken to wearing tactical gloves to maximize damage when going for a punch.
None of that is acceptable.
The "right-wing" (I should be putting in quotes this whole times because I'm not even sure their beliefs strictly constitute right wing) shooters are dangerous, but they strike like lightning we don't know where or when, they act alone and many come with a connection to mental illness and we should do our best to deal with all that -- and part of that is not letting antifa get away with their BS. It's not killing people (yet), but we know where they are and what they do, we watch them commit crimes, but they're given leniency and not condemned despite that. If it were nazis attacking people, we wouldn't hear the end of it.
There's a MINDS event on Aug 17 in Chicago with a bunch of speakers going. Antifa don't like free speech for their opposition or speaking with opposition. It's anticipated they will have a presence there. Keep an eye out for that.
@AllThatSweetJazz That's a lot. Let's see. By the way, I'm not saying Antifa's actions are all good, but I am saying that in comparison, they're better.
It was not an unreasonable fear, there were physical assaults and at least one conviction.
Not the only Nazi rally unless you want to really split hairs over the title. (https://www. girlsaskguys. com/social-relationships/a57909-why-i-might-call-someone-a-nazi)
I've heard of all three of your examples, I thought you might have more. For comparison: 20 people run down by a car, one dead, two firearms discharged, with one person shot, eight people stabbed in Portland (plus one in the other direction).
@AllThatSweetJazz Why does it matter that Antifa wasn't a thing until the right wing started to come out in force? Because it implies that they will disappear again when the threat they're countering does.
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
Google, YouTube, and feeling informed: Try using a public computer somewhere without logging into social networks, and see if the search results you watch come up the same as on your own device. If you have time, always choose videos or stories about alt-Right violence (or kittens!), and watch as you get more of the same. Not everyone's online experiences are the same, and they try to give you what you want to see, not a balanced view. (As an aside, do you think the viewer is more likely to be told *not* to punch the opposition on left-wing or right-wing shows? "I'll pay your legal fees" is not a thing, on the left.)
"The killers may have had political motivations," Yes! And the point is that all the killers' political motivations were right-wing. I don't see why you don't accept that it's worse than beatings and orders of magnitude worse than milkshaking. And the shooters don't go after "people just out and about", they go to cities with lots of Mexicans, or into black churches, or into mosques; they're targetted attacks. Then you get this guy coming armed to a migrant's centre with latex gloves on (don't worry, he was allowed to go free after questioning).
@AllThatSweetJazz I'm not counting the Dayton guy, because there is no indication it was remotely politically motivated; he shot up a bar with his sister in it. The El Paso (and Christchurch) shooters explicitly said why they were doing it.
As for the tactical gloves, the person starting that claim, afaics, is Ngo, who, in the same article, claimed that it was a police lieutenant that reported cement milkshakes, when the report was, in fact, that the police "had received reports", and asking for anyone suspicious to collect the cups. (Do you think a policeman would have noticed something like that and, and then just thrown the evidence away?)
I did find one report of a person being turned away from an event for having tactical gloves (and a paintball mask). He was also wearing a MAGA hat, though.
www.latimes.com/.../...ifa-20170925-htmlstory.html
There is condemnation of Antifa violence from the left, but it is tempered by people who believe they were saved from violence by them.
One simple way to reduce Antifa's actions would be for the Republicans to repudiate the white supremacists (like everyone used to); to say that their actions and beliefs are not acceptable. But there's a reason Google, Facebook, and Twitter can't block people saying those things without affecting political office holders and candidates.
And finally...
I'm guessing you don't mean Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/MINDS)? I can't find anything about what you're talking about.
@goaded I'm not sure if this on is longer... that's how long it is, sorry.
“but I am saying that in comparison, they're better.”
By comparison, “the right-wing” (if it even makes sense to call it that) is generally less violent. Even people who self-identify as Nazis or White supremacists are less violent than antifa. It’s only when you count bodies that things look bad, but those killings aren’t the actions of a organisation like antifa, it’s individuals. Depending of what metrics you’re using I think antifa can be considered worse in general, but the issue is that you and others go straight to body count like it’s the only thing that matters and if it’s redeeming defence of antifa; it’s not, just don’t defend them at all because obviously you shouldn’t.
“It was not an unreasonable fear”
This was the only important detail.
“Not the only Nazi rally unless you want to really split hairs over the title.”
It takes a very broad definition of Nazi to be able to say that even half the people antifa have protested are tangentially related to nazis or fascists (other than antifa themselves). Indeed, they do take a very broad definition and that’s why anyone who advocates for free speech or supports Trump or is just generally “conservative” is considered a “nazi” and all the other mean words; racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
“20 people run down by a car, one dead, two firearms discharged, with one person shot, eight people stabbed in Portland”
In other words, very little by comparison to antifa’s violence – and are we just going to assume that antifa was totally reasonable and played no negative role in any of that?
“Because it implies that they will disappear again when the threat they're countering does.”
And that’s a silly conclusion to come to. Flip it around, the nazis only “came out in force” around the same time antifa did, how about we stop antifa and the nazis will go away too. It’s a ridiculous conclusion. The fact is that both extremes are authoritarian, their gripe with each other is that they think they and not the other should be the ones who get to control people and put boots on necks.
The thing “they're countering” is capitalism and liberalism. These are not “threats” we would want to go away, and even if they did, I don’t think that means the end of antifa. It would mean the opposite. They would then be in control and could act will even less repercussions.
By “YouTube” I mean journalists and commentators who actually appear honest and accurate, so yes YouTube. Where else?
I’ve search for alt-right violence and other than Charlottesville there doesn’t seem like anything comparable to antifa. Charlottesville was the one time we might actually be able to attribute violence to a group of nazis. However, that’s what makes Charlottesville unique. The issue is that nearly every other instance of antifa getting violent is not toward nazis (not that being violent toward nazis is okay). They don’t fight fascism, they don’t even fight other fascists for control, they fight for control, they fight against dissidence in the way a fascist does.
“do you think the viewer is more likely to be told *not* to punch the opposition on left-wing or right-wing shows?”
Not to punch? The right-wing.
And if we count the center-moderates, then definitely the center more than the left as well.
“And the point is that all the killers' political motivations were right-wing”
They are not acting together, nor are they condoned by the “right.” The “right” has no problem condemning “right-wing” violence, yet the left seems to think they should be defending antifa. I have to use “right-wing” in quotes all the time because really, it’s not a clear term at all. The El Paso guy wanted things like UBI and some other “lefty” things iirc. “Right-wing” is a demonization label spread by *these* leftists. Boxing the killers into “right-wing” is just part of the game. Things are not so easily categorised I that way.
“I don't see why you don't accept that it's worse than beatings and orders of magnitude worse than milkshaking.”
Killing is worse than beatings. Both are unacceptable.
But these killings are not the result of an entity “coming out in force”. Despite having political motivations some of the time, the more common element of these killers have in their motivation is personal. They’re often downright psychotic or just exceedingly sad and mad -- this gives them anger which colours their politics and so we see their motivation as political. They are individuals acting on their own and no one supports them. The “right” doesn’t support mass shooters.
Antifa, on the other hand, act as part of an entity with goals and change in mind, they support each other, they are supported by many more. The press is lenient. The left establishment is lenient.
Society damns the killers in no uncertain terms, we can’t come down any harder on them. But Antifa? We find people looking the other way too often.
Killing is worse than beatings. We don’t tolerate killings, but too many tolerate beatings, that’s the issue.
"people just out and about"
Those people are out and about. Again, politically charged, but not without personal motivation and again-again we have no problem condemning it.
“because there is no indication it was remotely politically motivated”
Nothing directly related to the attack, but he was obviously far-left, angry and vocal about it. But if a “right-wing” person shooters a bunch of people then I think it’s safe to assume that the media is going to look at the person’s social media or whatever and see the rhetoric they don’t like, then add that to the list of killers and the body count as evidence of how it’s all “the right’s” fault.
“The El Paso (and Christchurch) shooters explicitly said why they were doing it.”
And was it just because “right wing”? Or just out of racism or something else? What about it makes it specifically “right-wing”?
What about it makes all other right-wingers implicitly guilty or worthy of scorn? Nothing, because they don’t support it.
“claimed that it was a police lieutenant that reported cement milkshakes”
That’s true a police lieutenant did report what he believed to be quick-crete in a milkshake. That’s why they put the warning out on twitter. It might have been literally just the one woman he supposedly spoke to that had the quick-crete. Whatever, that’s the really not the interesting point for me. They beat and robbed a reporter completely without justification. The fact that they would throw milkshakes at all is crossing the line for me and adding things like quick-crete is secondary to that, it’s just a measure of how far it’s escalating beyond something that’s already unacceptable.
“There is condemnation of Antifa violence from the left”
Some. But they have the kid gloves on. I think it’s the game of labels; ‘they’re “anti-fascist” so they must by definition *only* fight fascists and it *must* be those fascists who are violent, because we’ve defined them as the bad people…’ No.
But it’s only now that people are drawing the line with antifa as things escalate. So I do expect to see more condemnation going forward, but even so I think there’s been enough time to radicalize a lot of leftists. I think it’s too late to prevent a major attack. There’s been a fair bit of talk about leftists arming themselves. Sooner or later one of these protests is going to erupt with a proper gunfight or there’s going to be insurgency. At best, I give it a year, and if Trump gets re-elected in 2020 then shits going to kick off.
“repudiate the white supremacists (like everyone used to); to say that their actions and beliefs are not acceptable.”
They obviously don’t accept the white supremacists. Trump came out such groups in no uncertain terms and I don’t see the rest of the republican party objecting to that. But last I heard, AOC and friends hasn’t condemned antifa, but continues to fan the flames of conflict which incites the “right-wing” shooters, by saying “concentration camps and shit like that.
“Google, Facebook, and Twitter”
They block that shit all the time. They just can’t to it *with an algorithm* without effecting loads of people. But that has another issue in itself that it frames the people they want to block as bad, which I’m not even sure is the case. I don’t trust them to decide what is racist or whatever else, even if they could pull it off. And that’s another problem with these companies, even when they do enforce rules manually, they still can’t be consistent. You don’t even need to be “right-wing”, as long as you’re saying anything bad about the progressive left it seems like you’re fair game to get reprimanded. The most recent example I can think of is not a huge one, it’s Lindsey Shepard responding to mean words (from the trans-woman who wants women to shave her balls) with mean words of her own, but only Lindsey gets suspended. It seems not a huge deal, but it’s interesting how Shaun King can encourage violence, then we see an attack on an ICE facility, then he celebrates the attacker as a martyr, and he doesn’t even get a mild punishment like Lindsey got. Twitter is fucked.
By MINDS I mean, minds. com. This is the event I was thinking of
https://irl.minds.com/event-dates
But I got my events mixed up.
There’s two events on the 31st that I’m keeping my eye on. The International conference for men’s issues – that’s where I got Chicago from – and the minds event in new jersey. Then there’s a planned antifa event that I was thinking of – the “Border Resistance” thing in El Paso, which I thought was on the 17th , but I’m getting all this stuff jumbled. I think the El Paso thing is meant to be on the 1st and something else on the 17th. I forget. Basically the point was that on one or more of these dates I’m anticipating to hear about antifa throwing milkshakes of peace at “white supremacists/misogynists/whatever” who are being “violent” with their civil discussion about current affairs – if not something worse than milkshakes.
I also just happened to run into an article that had a photo of an antifa dude with tac gloves while looking up the dates.
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
@AllThatSweetJazz I should probably stop at "It’s only when you count bodies that things look bad". Why don't you think killing people is more important than beating people?
I've got something to do, so I'll look at the rest in a couple of hours.
@goaded "Why don't you think killing people is more important than beating people?"
In a vaccuum, killing is worse. But consider a context where killing is illegal and all of society agrees that it's bad, but where beatings are not and are tolerated. Therein, a killing is "worse", but we address it and reject that behaviour, then beatings being common and not dealt with like they should make beatings a problem worthy of attention. Killing is worse than tax loopholes for corporations as well, yet people still talk about that for some reason. And there's even more context in that these beatings being tolerated reflects the tolerance of violent socialists, whom I don't want to have any influence over people. These killers are not winning hearts and minds, but the beatings do have a lot of support and that can lead to a conflict that will dwarf the damage the lone shooters will have done. That's the ultimate danger and I don't think it's unrealistic. It seems like we're on that path.
@AllThatSweetJazz The killings, though, are taking place in the context of the violence. It's not something unrelated, like tax loopholes and murder - if some company had killed off IRS agents to protect their profits, you'd have made a fair analogy, and the headlines would not be about carried interest loopholes.
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
We're both half right about the milkshakes report: www.oregonlive.com/.../...me-form-of-concrete.html
According to the police lieutenant, a woman told him there was quikrete in the milkshakes and disappeared without leaving a statement or any evidence. He supposedly believed it, hence the tweet, but there has been no evidence to back it up (which is odd, you'd think there would be lumps of concrete lying about the place afterwards).
I still think that bringing a milkshake to a potential gun fight is pretty brave.
Antifa's violence: can you point to 20 cases of people being run-down-by-a-car injured by them? I still need to be convinced that most of the violence isn't in response to provocation. There's a long history of usually peaceful people standing up to fascists. (And they *will* go away when there's nothing to fight, the clue's in the name.)
"What about [The El Paso (and Christchurch) shooters' manifestos] makes it specifically “right-wing”?"
The fact that they killed people based on right-wing language conflating everyone in a group with something terrible (Mexican-looking people are invaders, Muslims are terrorists), and that language is coming from the top.
"right-wingers [...] don’t support it."
They've been supporting the same othering techniques for decades, but at least (for example) Bush explicitly differentiated between Muslims and terrorists. That's no longer the case, and supporting Trump is supporting these beliefs.
“It's not something unrelated, like tax loopholes and murder”
The point was that they are not related in that way but people still care about these things and recognise problems. The context being that one problem is addressed and the other is not, but the one that is not addressed doesn’t stop being a problem. Between killings, oppressive authoritarian governments, and severe economic decline resulting in widespread poverty, I don’t know how to weight those things up against each other. They all seem bad and we should tackle all of them appropriately. Returning to my point; murder is not condoned, that is appropriate, but too often the criminal elements of antifa are tolerated, that is not appropriate.
“We're both half right about the milkshakes report”
I had seen that report before, I didn’t say anything that was contradicted in that report, but okay whatever. Like I said, it’s not the cement that makes it cross the line for me.
“you'd think there would be lumps of concrete lying about the place afterwards”
Assuming it just gets splattered around I don’t think it’s going to “clump”. Maybe it basically just becomes like dust. The sugar in a milkshake would stop part of the reaction, so I don’t know how that would end up when left to dry.
“I still think that bringing a milkshake to a potential gun fight is pretty brave.”
I don’t think they expect guns. I also think that they would perceive any opposition having a gun to make them worthy of attacking. I think they’re fully capable of attacking people with milkshakes, fists and clubs and then turning around and being entirely indignant about getting shot at in response.
“can you point to 20 cases of people being run-down-by-a-car injured by them?”
It wouldn’t surprise me if there were 20 cases of people being physically attacked in Portland on the 17th. That was pretty bad and I’m not at all surprised about how it turned out. That should also suffice that it’s not in response to provocation.
“There's a long history of usually peaceful people standing up to fascists”
Yes, but that doesn’t include antfia.
“And they *will* go away when there's nothing to fight, the clue's in the name”
That’s not a necessity at all. It’s a blind hope. There’s always mission creep. But as it stands I don’t think the things they fight should go away. If we flip it around, let’s say a group called antilib (anti-liberals) oppose liberalism, so when there’s nothing left to fight they go away and that’s good, right? No. We don’t want that. So then it’s just about the label; why does calling yourself anti-fascist exclude you from being utterly awful or even worse? People hunted witches and witches were bad right? Everything must have been on the level there.
Who was on the other side of cable street? The communists? I don’t want them to succeed either. Furthermore, that was then, this is now. Now, antifa are the only blackshirts we see.
“right-wing language”
What right-wing language?
Advocating for UBI? Environmentalism?
At the very least there’s left-wing language in there too. But we don’t say it has anything to do with the left…
“conflating everyone in a group with something terrible”
And that’s not what do antifa…?
“Mexican-looking people are invaders, Muslims are terrorists”
Not that’s not “right-wing language.” That’s left-wing language to characterise people who are against no borders and want Islamic terrorism addressed as racists. It’s disingenuous to characterise all of the right as people who just don’t like “Mexican-looking people” or think Muslim = Terrorist. But the media portrays the killers as not just “right-wing” but *so fiercely right-wing that that’s why they killed people*. Not only should we not just accept at their word that it’s the case, even if it was the case, it doesn’t reflect on people who *don’t share their beliefs*.
The same reason antifa don’t reflect on liberals – because they don’t share beliefs, especially when it comes to political violence.
“supporting Trump is supporting these beliefs.”
Firstly, I don’t agree that Trump reflects those beliefs. Second, I don’t think the left is in anyway above whatever tactics you’re accusing the “right” of. And third, it’s that exactly “language conflating everyone in a group with something terrible”. Tsk, tsk.
So what do you think about all that’s happened over the last week? Threats of arson made to the minds. com event forcing them to find a new date and venue, iirc. Antifa once again being giant wonglords in Portland, but smears levelled at proud boys anyway, despite no instances of violence from them and them packing up and going home to a barbecue. What would happen if antifa didn’t show up to such things? “Right-wingers” would wave their flags around for a while then go to a bar or go to a barbecue.
Turns out it was fake news that the minds. com event was rescheduled and relocated. The threats seem to be real, but minds. com and the venue didn't back out.
@AllThatSweetJazz 6 people were injured in Portland at the weekend, one went to hospital. Of the 20 hit by the car at Charlottesville, 1 died, five were in critical condition, you can't point to anything equivalent from Antifa.
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
I expect you've heard of the hammer incident, for example, but I doubt you've bothered to look further, to see the video of the guy on the bus who brought and used the hammer before having it taken off him. Have a look through this article (yes, I expect it's a left-wing source), and tell me where it's wrong. www.dailydot.com/.../ (And, yes, the antifa guy is wearing tactical gloves, while being threated with a hammer.)
When I said they will go away, I was talking about the "usually peaceful people standing up to fascists". Some of the people that make up Antifa won't totally stop being activists, anachists, or even assholes, but what support they have from decent people will disappear well before then. They aren't going to take over anything without popular support.
@goaded “6 people were injured in Portland at the weekend, one went to hospital. Of the 20 hits by the car at Charlottesville, 1 died, five were in critical condition, you can't point to anything equivalent from Antifa.”
1. That’s just one protest. I can point to years of protests getting violent and people getting injured. You can’t point to anything equivalent from another active group.
2. Charlottesville doesn’t represent the people antifa are attacking. Charlottesville was unique in that it was the only time we’ve really seen anyone close to nazis come out.
3. Again, no one has a problem saying Charlottesville was bad. It in no way *even in the slightest* excuses antifa from being awful… so why the hell are you talking about it? The whole point is that when antifa does wrong people turn the other cheek and make excuses for them like you’re doing. Can you say *that* happens for any other group? Didn’t think so.
“the hammer incident”
I’m aware.
“Threatened” with a hammer. Interesting language. I suppose antifa weren’t threatening? But okay whatever, doesn’t matter. I don’t care what the people on the bus might have done. If they did anything wrong, then they should be left to embarrass themselves and everyone not interested in thuggery should just stay out of the whole thing. I don’t see why not fucking with the bus in the first place is such a big ask.
See but now, I get to make the same nonsense argument: If antifa went away then so would the other side, that’s how that works right?
“usually peaceful people standing up to fascists”
Well, what fascists? That’s the issue. Free speech is fascism apparently. Enforcing immigration laws and borders is apparently fascist. Capitalism is fascist. Everyone is apparently a fascist. They don’t need popular support; it only takes a fraction of the population to act to seriously stir things up.
I think we’re still not seeing these so-called fascists that are everywhere, but we are seeing people not interested in violence moving away from it and people who are interested in it are seeking each other out. We will see only the worst people out there and that will make everyone want to fight more.
“tell me where it's wrong”
The tone that antifa did nothing wrong and painting everyone in opposition to them as “fascists” and “right-wing” and the conflation of terms as if these things are uniquely related.
@AllThatSweetJazz Considering there are multiple violent right-wing groups, and one left-wing one, it's wouldn't be surprising that the injuries from Antifa would be more than the others, but I don't think you can even show that (and dead bodies count way more than people being hurt). I would probably look at the "Proud Boys" for a roughly equivalent number of injuries.
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
"The Proud Boys event was billed as a Demand Free Speech rally and featured alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, who spoke in drag with fake breasts and a black wig and inspired waves of applause. "The left must be made to fear you," he said. "Massive brutal retaliation for the slightest of perceived insults must be the way from now on. ... If they tear down your idols, burn down their cathedrals"" www.newser.com/.../...ff-against-antifa-again.html
Charlottesville was unique? The "only time we’ve really seen anyone close to nazis come out."?
Also, to be clear, running people over with a car = bad, not killing anyone = awful (=very bad)?
"“Threatened” with a hammer. Interesting language." Yeah, he actually threw it at someone, and someone threw it back, but look on YouTube, and there's a dozen videos of the latter part, for every one that shows the whole thing.
"If antifa went away then so would the other side, that’s how that works right?"
No, it's not. If you've got a bacterial infection, and you don't have antibiotics, does the infection go away? If you have indigestion, does not taking antacid make it go away?
Once the cause goes away, there's no need for the cure.
I don't believe you can find an incident where AntiFa attacked someone for just approving of capitalism without saying something bigoted. (A possible exception being the poor guy with the American flag.)
"“tell me where it's wrong”
The tone..."
So, not in any factual details?
@goaded "multiple violent right-wing groups"
No there aren't and even in combined total injuries as a result of violence they initiated they don't match antifa. Then there's the issue of "right-wing", it's not their defining feature, so isn't it curious how the narrative has to be about how awful "the right wing" is, even though that doessn't define then? At the very least it shows they're no monolith, but it it's "the right wing" that's the issue for some reason.
"dead bodies count way more than people being hurt"
And what's the count? One? And everyone condemned it, just like they where supposed to. HMMMMMMM. It's almost like people don’t have blinders when it comes to these characters.
"The Proud Boys event was billed as a Demand Free Speech rally and featured alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos"
You realise none of that is a problem, right?
"Massive brutal retaliation for the slightest of perceived insults must be the way from now on. ... If they tear down your idols, burn down their cathedrals"
That's how milo talks. But even if I take him 100% literally, okay we can say it's dangerous language if their is someone who takes it literally. Still doesn't mean the proud boys are violence, their whole thing is that they don't start fights.
"Charlottesville was unique"
Yes. You don't see nazis starting fights like antifa do, or going to other groups events and hurting people.
"unning people over with a car = bad, not killing anyone = awful"
"Not killing anyone" is actually fosstering widespread violence and cultural tensions that do cause harm and ultimately lead to far greater violence.
Also, notice how it's always "the car, the car"? One unique incident that is treated like a blanket statement for literally all of the right.
"Yeah, he actually threw it at someone"
And was he being attacked by violent thugs or not, hmm?
So it's bad when they do it, but when antifa brings a cement brick in a case and throws it at people, or beats people with weapons are we going to call that self-defense?
"If you've got a bacterial infection"
My point was, who is the infection and who's the antibotics?
The answer is they both are, one is swine flu and one is bird flu. Framing one as if it's the cure for the other isn't doing anything. The antibotic is to stop defending them.
"Once the cause goes away, there's no need for the cure."
Right... so antifa should go away?
"The tone"
Yes.
"It's the difference between violence breaks out at another far-right rally" and "pro-censorship protestors attack free speech advocates."
There's no lie, but it's abound with bendy words meant to demonize the right and prop up antifa.
"I don't believe you can find an incident where AntiFa attacked someone for just approving of capitalism"
Other than all those protests, right?
"without saying something bigoted"
No no no. That doesn't qualify anything. That's exactly kind of toxic bullshit that is wrong with antifa. If you think it justifies anything then fork you.
I can call antifa far-left thugs, am I lying?
Nope. But you seem to respond to it as if antifa is worth defending -- as if they're not every bit as bigoted as the people they claim are this nebulous and undefined "far-right".
@AllThatSweetJazz I'll start with your first and last points, I might read the rest later.
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
""multiple violent right-wing groups"
No there aren't..."
Of course there are. Just look at the list of groups who attended the "Unite the Right" rally. And think about the name of the rally before saying "right-wing [is] not their defining feature". en.wikipedia.org/.../Unite_the_Right_rally
Your last point:
"I can call antifa far-left thugs, am I lying?
Nope. But you seem to respond to it as if antifa is worth defending -- as if they're not every bit as bigoted as the people they claim are this nebulous and undefined "far-right"."
Do you think intolerence should be tolerated? ↗
@goaded “Of course there are.”
*Violent* groups.
Few to none and they don’t hold enough sway to be considered a threat to the nation, certainly not worthy of a terrorist organisation meant to combat them. Furthermore, it doesn’t justify anything they do against these groups, and above all that, it’s not even these groups that they target. It’s the free speech crowd, moderate liberals and conservatives.
“think about the name of the rally before saying "right-wing [is] not their defining feature".”
Try not getting hung up on names so often. The national socialists are socialists yet they’re at a “right-wing” rally.
Also, it’s wasn’t “the right”, it was primarily white identitarian groups, that was their defining feature.
I don’t agree with this interpretation of Popper here.
I don't think tolerance is a virtue society directly aspires to.
Of course it is to a progressive, I think that’s one of their defining characteristics. But here we get into the essence of progressive and liberal ideology. I’m not progressive, I’m a liberal. In liberalism, tolerance is a consequence, not something that is in itself aspired to. Liberalism affords individual rights and insists despite differences that we maintain civility. The consequence is tolerance.
So I don’t care about a “tolerance society”. The framing of the question is wrong from the start. I would ask if a society protects individual rights and if the answer is yes, then the Nazi gets a voice and I agree with that right. The violent communist revolutionary’s get a voice too.
When you restrict “intolerance”, you restrict dissidence. And after the fact it seems obviously bad, but why isn’t “the jew is intolerant of us” perfectly valid in that framework? Well it is. And if you’re intolerant of the communist utopia then shouldn’t you get the guillotine too? You can justify anything as intolerant and you end up with purity spirals. As I understand it, Popper was a classical liberal and the same quote can be interpreted as a criticism of progressivism.
@AllThatSweetJazz "*Violent* groups."
"Since 2017, [Atomwaffen Division] organization has been linked to five killings and several violent hate crimes, including assaults, rape and multiple cases of kidnapping and torture."
The leader of the Traditionalist Worker Party assaulted a woman at a Trump rally.
James Alex Fields marched with Vanguard America before running a load of people over.
The El Paso shooter wasn't part of a group, afaik, but nor are AntiFa, and you lump them all together.
They ALL want to get rid of, or otherwise marginalise, non-white minorities and Jews, how do you suppose they intend to do that without violence? By asking nicely?
"Try not getting hung up on names so often. The national socialists are socialists yet they’re at a “right-wing” rally."
1. They self-identify as right wing, it's not a label I'm putting on them.
2. The Nazis were no more socialist than the DRNK is Democratic. (They literally killed the few members who were socialist, in 1934.)
"Also, it’s wasn’t “the right”, it was primarily white identitarian groups, that was their defining feature."
It wasn't all of the right, but it's certainly part of it, and has been for decades.
"In liberalism, tolerance is a consequence, not something that is in itself aspired to. Liberalism affords individual rights and insists despite differences that we maintain civility. The consequence is tolerance."
Do these rights include the right to live free from violence? To be tolerated?
"why isn’t “the jew is intolerant of us” perfectly valid in that framework?"
That's the whole point of the paradox. It's reasonable to be intolerant of people saying you should be gassed. It's not reasonable to be intolerant of people who are tolerating you.
"As I understand it, Popper was a classical liberal and the same quote can be interpreted as a criticism of progressivism."
I think you misunderstand it. What progressive policies are intolerant of tolerant people?
@goaded Man, we really fucked this guy's thread. I assume we're muted by now.
"Atomwaffen Division"
They're obviously not "the right". They're anti-constitution, pro-flag burning. They're in the same vein as antifa, just more extreme. Like I said, this isn't some noble fight antifa is engaged in, this is just different groups of fascists who hate each other because they want to be the ones in charge. As I've said many times, no one has a problem condemning such people, so if they commit crimes then investigate them and lock them up. Why then would antifa need to exist? ... it doesn't.
Adding to the reasons it doesn't need to exist is because Atomwaffen Division are not the people who antifa go after. Most of the time antifa goes after free speech rallies and entirely reasonable things and people who aren't a threat. And again, if they are a threat... let the damn cops deal with it.
"The El Paso shooter wasn't part of a group, afaik, but nor are AntiFa"
What? How in the world are they not a group? I can't even rant in response to that, it's just nonsense.
"By asking nicely?"
If they commit violence then they can go to jail. Otherwise, yes, they are limited to asking nicely and we're just going to tell them no. Same goes for the black clad communists, they want to get rid of the rich or otherwise rob them of their wealth and "redistribute" it. How do you suppose they intend to do that without violence? They're already attacking people in the street. We should be telling them no and arresting them, but instead, for some ridiculous reason, people defend them. That's the *only* difference between them and whatever truly violent groups you think they fight, and that's the problem.
"They self-identify as right wing, it's not a label I'm putting on them."
Again, so the nazi's were socialists yeah?
"The Nazis were no more socialist than the DRNK is Democratic."
HMMMMMMMM, what was that you *literally* just said about labels people put on themselves? FFS, listen to yourself. So why is it that all that can be true, but you think antifa calling themselves "anti-fascist" means ANYTHING in the slightest?
What better label to be a fascist under?
"It wasn't all of the right, but it's certainly part of it, and has been for decades."
Literally no. This is some caricature of the right you've built. The progressive left is openly identitarian. So again, even if these "right-wing" identitarian groups can even be considered "right-wing" again you still basically admitted that it's the identitarianism that defined them. Yet, you have to link it to the nebulous and mysterious force of pure evil that is "the right". Give it a rest.
Say nazis are bad like a normal person would and lets move on.
"Do these rights include the right to live free from violence? To be tolerated?"
You have the right to live free from violence; the *consequence* of that right is tolerance. It was the endeavour to protect individual rights and freedoms that brought that tolerance. Seeking out tolerance in itself leads to that degenerate perspective where you have to silence people you *perceive* to be "intolerance." Progressivism seems superficially similar but the essence of it is that they come at it from the other direction. Tolerance is their starting point and the consequence is sacrificing individual rights in order to be "tolerant".
"It's not reasonable to be intolerant of people who are tolerating you."
Hence, antifa are unreasonable.
"It's reasonable to be intolerant of people saying you should be gassed."
And what does "intolerant" mean in this context. Notice how when it's what your ingroup does, the terminology is vague, but when it's the opposition you go for "gassed"?
"intolerance" is perfectly within reach of saying you should gas them, so then you're just being intolerant of each other and there is no moral high ground.
The whole problem is that you're thinking in terms of tolerance.
Here's what you do: afford people individual rights and protect them. There, done. That's the thinking. Yet, without even trying I've inadvertently produced tolerance.
When tolerance is your goal, you end up in this retard fight just trying to gas each other.
"What progressive policies are intolerant of tolerant people?"
The very essence of it. Tolerance and intolerance are subjective. If you through any stretch of the imagination can be pointed at as intolerant, then you can be taken down. You purity sprial out of control. You see what we already see from progressives now; with every change there is a new oppressed group that you're being intolerant of and need to adjust your behaviour to cater to. The march toward tolerance always needs to find new "intolerance" to fight.
Rights on the other hand are more straightforward. As an example, don't physically attack other people. And just like that I've barred any violent revolutionaries -- be they communist or fascist or whatever -- from committing their violent bullshit, whilst at the same time I've not invited the ironic toxicity of purity spirals and the likes of McCarthyism.
And yet blacks are the majority of the prison population despite only being about 13% of the total USA population
Even if that's true. Did you bother to think that it could be a response to something?
Perhaps Trump and white supremacists are symptoms of mass immigration.
Anon: Or perhaps Trump and white supremacy, are just the hate and racism that feeds those who hate and think they are better than anyone else. And they find an easy target in immigrants. When racists and white supremacists hanged blacks in the old south, it wasn't because they were immigrants. They forced the black people to come here.
@markscott Your assuming then and now are the same things. They aren't hanging people and times have changed. What happened then and what happens now are not the same. Again, even if it's true that the small pockets of white supremacy go after immigrants because they're "easy targets" (which I don't accept btw) that still doesn't mean there isn't a problem with mass immigration.
When you bring in metric shit-tons of people and it fucks everything up naturally people are going to be mad, and often anger will latch onto something. Properly placed it latches on the idea of mass immigration being bad, but you can't expect everyone to handle it perfectly. Others will stir with animosity toward immigrants in general as a sort of inaccurate identification of the problem. Others will have feelings out outright racism that will have festered in them as a result of mass immigration -- feelings that would otherwise not have existed. Then the actual die hard racists of course, they're few and far between, but you give them the tools to spread and the veneer of legitimacy when you go be crazy in the polar opposite direction.
Thankfully Trump is actually on point a lot of the time and isn't racist or anything like that and does a decent job of supporting values that clearly delineate from racists.
The spark of hate is from progressives who see mustache twirling white supremacists everywhere they look. Seems quite common for the white "liberals"(they're not liberal, they're progressive) to be just guilty white supremacists and so can't help but see it everywhere.
The Irish, Italians, Polish, and Jewish people have generally only been considered 'white' in the U. S since the 1950s.
I feel sorry for all you libtards when Trump will win the next elections.
That’s not true and I have never felt like that about other races since Trump, the world is just a crazy place
No but right wing terror is a bigger threat than left wing.
And what makes you think that? Oh, because you're a racist leftist.
@SkipStop No, because more terror attacks have been committed by the right you moron
www.start.umd.edu/.../...TerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf
Do us all a favor on here and quit spreading bullshit and hate for white people and for all ethnic groups
and learn to be more tolerant of other people rather than spread horseshit like this on the internet
Are you an idiot? This isn't about "hate for white people." Get your head out of your ass.
@Thatsamazing Go fuck yourself asswipe and quit being a SJW retard
@Thatsamazing You stupid millenial little twat. Quit acting like a liberal retard
Mmm... yes that's all tremendously interesting; you must be very highly educated. Tell us more.
@Thatsamazing What are you some fucking weirdo
What are you some fucking illiterate? I said tell us more. You clearly know what you're talking about, right?
"actually I do" ... you do... what. You doing something was never at issue. Can you actually not read? I'm sorry, if so. There are classes you can take to help you with that, probably.
You people are truly fascinating creatures. Where do you come from? We should study you further.
@Thatsamazing God you're a fucking jackass
I'll stop when you do!
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
Nice bait
Did your mom drop you on your head?
I'll take that as a yes.
Blacks commit half the murders in this country
Blacks commit 25 times more violent crimes against whites than whites against blacks: in reference to slavery, I simply call that poetic justice.
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
Of course you do... because you’re not very bright.
Neither when your kind implemented slavery. It's called Karma, good-buddy. A little something from the universe that you should get ready for...
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
Moron, I’m not Islamic.
"No Shit!"
![Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?]()
but the African tribe leaders sold their own people to be slaves for money. Technically everyone was in on it except the people who turned out to be slaves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbUbEnm-mh4
Teachable moment @bangyourhead
Let Beau of the Fifth Column explain just why you are wrong
@Waffles731 lol. Ok dude. The FBI is making up the numbers.
And you didn't watch the video.
You know why?
Because he addresses that point and its both an extremely incomplete dataset and how right of the gate that dataset is 40 to 55 percent incomplete, and then you add in deaths ruled as accidents, missing persons who were murdered.
And now we simply don't know the numbers of the latter too, but from all the True Crime I watch, I thinks its fair to say that at most, the data set you are quote is at most 35 percent complete
You know by that same dataset, people with Brown Eyes commit the vast majority of murders, like 80 percent
@Waffles731 Considering people with brown eyes make up 90% of the country, that makes sense.
This ain’t even a reach.
What a load of horse shit.
Sorry I don't think that is entirely accurate.