Apparently antifa pissed in his oatmeal when he was a young lad and he's never forgiven them.
MORE violent? Jesus fucking Christ, liberals are so easily duped by right wing shit lords it's unbelievable.
How many people have antifa killed? Because Nazis killed someone like 3 weeks ago.
Look, I get your disdain for Antifa, and I'm not a fan myself. But that logic is pure crap and is like saying that's all Trump's problem is when he won't condemn literal fucking wannabe Nazis and white supremacists. It also completely dismisses any and all nuance while simultaneously lessening how horribly fucked up the false equivalence that Trump and many like him have been spouting for years. The people calling Black Lives Matter as terrorists are the exact same type of people that condemned the Black Panthers (who absolutely were wrongly called terrorists when they were in fact arming themselves in defense of the outright murder and terror that law enforcement was doing against people of color at the time). That's why the professor is making the point, as just labeling Antifa like that, effectively promotes law enforcement to do horrible shit that is not justified. Not only that but it completely ignores the outright hypocrisy and how the false equivalency does disservice in both directions (makes one group look worse, while also tries to justify the actions of other groups that are doing worse shit and being defended by the same people making the stupid claims). In this case it is the people that support right wing "militias" that have proven to be far far worse and commit outright terrorism and a whole host of other awful things, often in the name of white supremacy or various fucked up insane beliefs that fall in line with that general mentality.
Antifa doesn't actually promote anything though. They're little more than a violent counter reaction that gives the alt-right a talking point and only fuels further divisiveness. Their methods are contrary to core liberal ideology
No, you're completely wrong. He posted that in response to people who were saying that the difference between antifa and the lunch counter sit-ins is violence, and implying that violence is a bright line.
Any semi-organized mass movement like this is going to have violent and non-violent factions. It's inevitable.
The lunch counter sit-ins were nonviolent, the argument goes, and antifa is not. That's a bright-line distinction. No comparison.
There's a few problems with that, though. First of all, not all lunch counter sit-ins were nonviolent. Let's take a look...
No, you either didn't read or understand what he said, or you're deliberately misrepresenting his argument.
MORE violent? Jesus fucking Christ, liberals are so easily duped by right wing shit lords it's unbelievable.
How many people have antifa killed? Because Nazis killed someone like 3 weeks ago.
WTF, you realize he's arguing deliberately against that. He's also arguing that you should oppose the people that use that as a foundation for their justification of violence against those. The post you quoted is literally him saying that only if those groups insist on being violent should we violently get rid of them.
Except you're missing his point. And it is valid. Many anarchists are just using that as a means of pushing their own ideologies, which tends to be authoritative regimes that end up every bit as bad (the reason Communism failed is because the ones pushing it used the same tactics as the complete opposite side, they and fascism both used authoritarian dictatorships that did the same things and accomplished the same results). Its like many of the so called "libertarians" or "fiscal conservatives" that try and prop up that they believe those ideals, when in fact they're just using that to try and legitimize their other beliefs (much like the self-purported objectivists that use junk science to push for eugenics and other similarly horrible ideas), which go far beyond, and often actively work against the ideals they claim as central to their ideology.
I do agree that he's wrong for trying to dismiss what the person is saying (and doubling down by making his own awful false equivalence).
Worth mentioning that J.Wilkins only hates nazis because he aligns with the Israeli right (ie big fan of penning up muslims, etc), not due to any disdain for their ideals per se.
Similar to this guy who's only out to protect other conservatives (no matter how shitty) by pretending to give a shit about free speech/non-violence:
Not all antifa are violent, and the alt right doesn't require any kind of legitimacy. They are happy lying through their teeth to justify their hatred.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...antifacist-storm-relief-efforts-a7921846.html
That is a good question, in total since it's inception? Several thousand people. Modern day version? Well mainly cops and I don't know if you count them as people but a fair amount.
In the G* summits the antifa set several police officers on fire, I assume you are cool with that though?
99% of the Nazis don't even go outside, they just sit in their mum's basement as angry adults.
So fucking what? Antifa is a violent group that hates all there is to hate about western society. Fuck them and everyone who supports them, they are as bad as the Nazis.
And when they deign to come out, it's good antifa are there to oppose them since the white supremacist cops sure as shit aren't stopping them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/charlottesville-protest-police.html?mcubz=3
It's too bad you think that western society is indistinguishable from Nazism, fascism, sexism, and racism, which is what they actually oppose. I also think it's pretty bad, but not indistinguishable.
Hey dummy I did read it, and understood it. I clearly quoted the posts he made.
This started because his claim was that people who are opposed to Antifa because they do not support violence, would thus not support the sit-ins because those were actually violent too.
Proof that is the context.
Then, we have him saying that "some" of the sit-its were violent.
Now he is making the claim that sit-ins can be violent, which is absurd. Perhaps the motive was to do something that would provoke people into attacking so it would turn violent, but that is like saying putting on shoes is violent if you intend to use it for violence.
The vast majority of sit-ins were non-violent. Just because there was violence used against the protesters does not make the protest they used violent. Again, that would be like saying that Rosa's unwillingness to move was violent because people got into fights after that.
Except that I literally quoted his posts supporting my claim. First he claims that people mistakenly think that the sit-ins were non-violent. Then he says that violence worked then and it works now.
You may want to reread it again.
You're right. And groups like Antifa give them an excuse to get violent. The Occupy movement was humming along nicely and then you had bad actors start throwing bricks, giving the state an excuse to move in and rough everyone up.I'm more worried about the violence coming from police, which is orders of magnitude greater.
[
No, it's too bad that antifa are there, the people they should be meeting are people like me, actual liberals who have no problem punching both groups in the face.
It's too bad that you have to pretend you are so stupid that you cannot understand the simplest of things to make an irrelevant point.
Liberalism is what they oppose, that is the core of western society and they absolutely hate it which is why the protest the G* meetings. But yeah, play stupid and play pretend that that never happened because you are 'muricah and you know better.
I'd say that you have the president you deserve, he is not any different from you at all. Simpleminded and wilfully ignorant is the key to your idiocy and you are winning all the way to the asylum with your excellent strategy.
You're right. And groups like Antifa give them an excuse to get violent. The Occupy movement was humming along nicely and then you had bad actors start throwing bricks, giving the state an excuse to move in and rough everyone up.
You... understand that he's referring to sin-ins where the participants fought back, right? That's not non-violent.
The lunch counter sit-ins were nonviolent, the argument goes, and antifa is not. That's a bright-line distinction. No comparison.
There's a few problems with that, though. First of all, not all lunch counter sit-ins were nonviolent. Let's take a look...
The sit-ins, like antifa, had violent and non-violent components. Both are/were decentralized movements, so it's not surprising that different participants will behave differently from each other. The bottom line is that you cannot point to the use of violence as an essential difference between the two movements. It's not.
LMAO. Leftists do the heavy lifting while liberals stay home and eat sheet cake.
Hey dumbass, I'm still waiting for that link supporting your assertion that antifa have killed thousands of people.
Liberalism sucks, but their core opposition is to fascism. That's why their called, you know, antifa and not antili
Good for them for protesting the G* meetings.
Trump is horrible, but most of the horrible shit he's doing - wrecking the environment, brutalizing immigrants, and bombing innocent people in the Middle East, liberal Obama was doing too.
99% of the Nazis don't even go outside, they just sit in their mum's basement as angry adults.
So fucking what? Antifa is a violent group that hates all there is to hate about western society. Fuck them and everyone who supports them, they are as bad as the Nazis.
I think @senseamp was doing you the courtesy of letting you know he felt triggered and has nothing meaningful to contribute from the echo chamber of his safe space.When you have no reply, just write "triggered"? Where did you learn that from? Did you let them turn you into one of them?
I don't support violent authoritarian fucks no matter what side they are on, that is where you and I differ.
You must be reading a few words and then getting so worked up you are not reading the remainder.
Again, he said the following...
The protests were non-violent, but he is saying that they sometimes were which is wrong. Saying sit-ins are violent would be like saying that me protesting outside of a church saying god is not real and getting attacked makes it a violent protest. Violence at a protest is different from a violent protest.
The sit-ins turned violent because people did not want equality, and were willing to use violence to stop it. Sitting down and trying to be served is not violent. Punching and using defense because someone is using violence against you is violent defense. You need to use some critical thinking skills here.
No, you seem to not be smart enough to understand what is being said. The type of protest is non-violent, and the professor is saying different. The protesters might have violent and non-violent members, but the types of protesting being done is not the same. Sit-ins are non-violent, while Antifa more often than non uses violence with a goal for anarchy. Both were not decentralized in the same way. Civil rights had far more leaders because of how communications needed to work back then. So, you most certainly point out the difference, because violence is not what won civil rights. It may have been used by some (Malcom for a while) but it was not even close to being the normal tactic. Civil rights also had a clear goal. Antifa protests often turn violent, and they do not have a clear goal.
I don't remember any lunch counter sit-in participants covered their faces and bodies all in black and ganged up and beat up their opponents with bats, sticks, and other items.
Here is a clue to you, liberalism is to fascism/authoritarianism as progressivism is to conservatism or atheist to theism.
Antifa/you/Nazis are the people arguing against individual freedoms and liberals are your opposition.
I know you are very concerned about neo-Nazis not having a safe space and getting ass kicked.I think @senseamp was doing you the courtesy of letting you know he felt triggered and has nothing meaningful to contribute from the echo chamber of his safe space.
After the dust has settled and most of the left see's Pantifa for what they are - skinny/fat priveledged anarcho neckbeards, the few who still go to bat for them 'round these parts are hodgkinson-libphoma fanbois like OP.
Shocked, shocked I tell you.