"If u reflexively oppose antifa today, u probably would have opposed lunch counter sit-ins in 1960"

[jackstar7]

I know your position. You want to kill people for thoughts. So if people are racist, kill them.

Do you support the death penalty? If so, when?

 

[Svnla]

I do remember at least reading a history book, Allies shooting Nazis and nobody made a moral equivalence between the two

Since when we have a declared war within the US?

Last time I check, speeches (vile/hateful or not) are not illegal but beat up people with sticks, bats, etc. are.

Read post #61 above from me, with several links from well know liberal sources and one Democrat politician how they feel about Antifa thugs. Wanna try again?

 

[Iron Woode]

Since when we have a declared war within the US?

Last time I check, speeches (vile/hateful or not) are not illegal but beat up people with sticks, bats, etc. are.

Read post #61 above from me, with several links from well know liberal sources and one Democrat politician how they feel about Antifa thugs. Wanna try again?

I like this from WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html

seems some people are finally seeing the real picture about antifa.

so many leftwing ragers in this thread. sad.

 

[senseamp]

Until others start kicking Nazi ass, Antifa it is. I am sure they don't give a shit what you think about them.
And before folks tell you that Nazis don't need a good ass kicking:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...violent-turn-hollywood-arrest-charlottesville

 

[Rebel_L]

So you cant understand then?

If I bring a razor to a gay pride parade does that make the parade violent? If a fight breaks out at the parade, does that make it a violent parade?

What people are saying is that you can protest violently or non-violently. A sit-in is a non violent form of protest. People like the non-violent forms of protest. Just because there are non-violent types of protest does not mean there are not violent forms of protest. Just because some protest non-violently does not mean others will not use violent forms. Quite amazing that you are having trouble with this. Its pretty simple really.

I believe the original point that the professor was trying to make is that if you object to something simply because of violence you have not taken enough time to think about why your objecting. Most people in the western world dont object to violence, but rather to the why of the violence.

The sit ins are likely not the best analogy he could have used, but I do believe that was the point. For the sit ins in particular I think his point was that to "sit in" you have to first get a seat, and to get those seats they were not above bullying and pushing people around. I think you demonstrate his point quite well in your claims that you distinguish between defensive violence and offensive violence to the point where you somehow dont seem to think of one as violence. If you believed that violence was wrong period you would not defend yourself in a fight, nor support any wars, etc.

There are plenty of people who simply end the conversation with "violence is wrong" ergo whatever it is we are discussing is wrong. That kind of behavior usually just means that the person not really willing to engage on the topic while trying to appear that they have but some thought into it.

 

[justoh]

What does reflexively mean? Jesus. Nonsense much?

 

[interchange]

What does reflexively mean? Jesus. Nonsense much?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=reflexively

Do you think that we have an unconscious mind and that our decisions and our behaviors are at least significantly determined by it?

 

[justoh]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=reflexively

Do you think that we have an unconscious mind and that our decisions and our behaviors are at least significantly determined by it?

You mean like... walking? Doing a somersault over an unexpected car about to run you over?

 

[realibrad]

Do you support the death penalty? If so, when?

Actually I don't.

 

[realibrad]

I believe the original point that the professor was trying to make is that if you object to something simply because of violence you have not taken enough time to think about why your objecting. Most people in the western world dont object to violence, but rather to the why of the violence.

No. The professor's point was that if you do not support Antifa because they resort to violence, then you would not have supported the civil rights activists because they too have resorted to violence. What is astounding is that is not the argument made at all. What people say is that they like non-violent forms of protest and Antifa does not use those methods thus people do not generally like Antifa. The professor is trying to link Antifa and the Civil Rights activists as a way of guilting them into supporting Antifa. People are generally concerned about the methods used to gain the result. Antifa methods are generally violent, and not sometimes violent. Civil Rights was mainly a product of non-violence with a generally agreed beneficial result. Antifa are generally violent with a stated goal of fighting fascism, but a reality of using fascist tools.

When someone disagrees with Antifa beliefs, they want to use the state to take away the freedoms of that person. If that does meet their wishes, they have no problem taking matters into their own hands to take away someones personal freedom. This is far from being generally true of Civil Rights activists.

The sit ins are likely not the best analogy he could have used, but I do believe that was the point. For the sit ins in particular I think his point was that to "sit in" you have to first get a seat, and to get those seats they were not above bullying and pushing people around. I think you demonstrate his point quite well in your claims that you distinguish between defensive violence and offensive violence to the point where you somehow dont seem to think of one as violence. If you believed that violence was wrong period you would not defend yourself in a fight, nor support any wars, etc.

Again, the professor used one type of non-violent method to encapsulate the entire movement. Civil Rights activists were the ones doing sit-ins, and that was not the only non-violent method they used. The professor knows this, but its easily one of the biggest things when people think of the movement. So he creates the link to the method and then says that the movement itself was also violent, just like Antifa so by not supporting people whom are "sometimes" violent like Antifa, you would also not likely support the Civil Rights activists as they were also sometimes violent.

Where it gets even darker is when pushed and someone says violence is not the answer to the problem, he disagrees and literally defends using violence as if they are equitable when they are clearly not.

There are plenty of people who simply end the conversation with "violence is wrong" ergo whatever it is we are discussing is wrong. That kind of behavior usually just means that the person not really willing to engage on the topic while trying to appear that they have but some thought into it.

And those people are dumb and do not live in reality. There comes a time when violence is absolutely justified ergo WWII. When the situation stops being about spreading ideas, and people taking action violence may be needed to stop those actions. Debating, rallies, protests ect are only useful for stopping ideas. They do very little if anything when it comes to stopping actors from taking action beyond a certain point. Only a fool would say that Germany could have been stopped through any other means than total destruction, or that Japan would have surrendered had we not dropped two bombs on them.

 

[agent00f]

Hey there buddy, how are you doing today?

So, tell us again how much you hate the Jews? How you agree with Nazi beliefs and support their ideas. And show us how Liberal you are by attacking the Liberals on the forums.

You certainly behave the same as the rest of the gop nazi/klan defense force when they get desperate. Or in this case their colleagues are also in a desperate situation after driving into a crowd.

Cliche and predictable

Speak of which, it would only be surprising if conservatives weren't always on the same side of these matters as chucky/roflmouth/trump/svnla.

 

[xthetenth]

For antifa, their "ends" are seemingly moral, but their "means" are not always, not to mention that their anarchist tendencies really don't fit in a rational society, regardless of who they may be "fighting" at the present moment. We have government agencies far better equipped to monitor and keep extremists under a watchful eye and in check. Vigilante violence never ends well.

No. We have government agencies that are specifically being kept from monitoring and keeping white and right wing extremists under a watchful eye and in check. It's even worse than the usual level of continual failure from the government, and it doesn't look to be getting better.

We don't have a rational society. We have one where fascists walk the streets and advocate genocide openly, where their continued violence is taken for granted rather than being treated as an outrage while a wide swath of "moderates" desperately try to dismantle any group that stands in their way.

It's getting bad enough that the best coverage is coming from satire sites, for crying out loud.

http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/im-sick-busting-my-ass-doing-neo-nazi-stuff-only-h-6597

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/903696936368316420

It's goddamned amazing, and I can't wait till it turns out that you all did actually support antifa when they all get whitewashed so nobody who opposes them now has to admit to taking the side of actual literal fascists who openly advocate genocide and kill people.

Take a look at this cartoon. Take a good long look at this cartoon:

The methodology by which this cartoon was derived is exactly how your hatred of antifa was fostered.

 

[jackstar7]

Actually I don't.

Cool. Me neither.

 

[interchange]

You mean like... walking? Doing a somersault over an unexpected car about to run you over?

Well that is an example. But probably not relevant to whether you might reflexively oppose Antifa.

More generally, science has demonstrated that human decision making is generally driven by the brain circuits which are involved in emotional processing. We apply logic secondarily to decisions we have made without any knowledge of the process behind them, and that logic is often quite flawed. Intelligence does not necessarily improve decision making, although it generally confers greater capacity to rationalize and intellectualize flawed decisions which really poses a greater difficulty in learning from rational discourse because the flawed logic is less easily defeated.

Here's a useful media article: https://qz.com/922924/humans-werent-designed-to-be-rational-and-we-are-better-thinkers-for-it/
And some science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032808/

Note: we are capable of making decisions based on reason. We just way overestimate its role.

 

[agent00f]

No. We have government agencies that are specifically being kept from monitoring and keeping white and right wing extremists under a watchful eye and in check. It's even worse than the usual level of continual failure from the government, and it doesn't look to be getting better.

We don't have a rational society. We have one where fascists walk the streets and advocate genocide openly, where their continued violence is taken for granted rather than being treated as an outrage while a wide swath of "moderates" desperately try to dismantle any group that stands in their way.

It's getting bad enough that the best coverage is coming from satire sites, for crying out loud.

http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/im-sick-busting-my-ass-doing-neo-nazi-stuff-only-h-6597

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/903696936368316420

It's goddamned amazing, and I can't wait till it turns out that you all did actually support antifa when they all get whitewashed so nobody who opposes them now has to admit to taking the side of actual literal fascists who openly advocate genocide and kill people.

Take a look at this cartoon. Take a good long look at this cartoon:

The methodology by which this cartoon was derived is exactly how your hatred of antifa was fostered.

Starbuck knows what's up same as his colleagues and predecessors, same as buckshot with evolution, certainly after the dozens of time it's been explained to them in the smallest possible words. They just love to play dumb & innocent, it's what conservatives do. In all fairness to them, it's their best play available given these circumstances of protecting the nazis/klan.

 

[Commodus]

My issue isn't with opposition to Antifa in and of itself; a group that's actively violent (as opposed to reactionary) isn't helping that much.

Rather, it's how much of a threat you see in the group, and why you oppose them. Many in the Trump camp treat Antifa as this gigantic, looming threat that's just as bad as neo-Nazis, because it serves as a convenient distraction. "Please don't look at how Trump enables racist violence through his policies and reckless dialogue; if you do, I might have to acknowledge that he's wrong and reconsider my views."

 

[agent00f]

My issue isn't with opposition to Antifa in and of itself; a group that's actively violent (as opposed to reactionary) isn't helping that much.

Rather, it's how much of a threat you see in the group, and why you oppose them. Many in the Trump camp treat Antifa as this gigantic, looming threat that's just as bad as neo-Nazis, because it serves as a convenient distraction. "Please don't look at how Trump enables racist violence through his policies and reckless dialogue; if you do, I might have to acknowledge that he's wrong and reconsider my views."

You mean to tell me this is just like Clinton/butter emails.

 

[realibrad]

Cool. Me neither.

Well that was a short exchange.

 

[realibrad]

You certainly behave the same as the rest of the gop nazi/klan defense force when they get desperate. Or in this case their colleagues are also in a desperate situation after driving into a crowd.



Speak of which, it would only be surprising if conservatives weren't always on the same side of these matters as chucky/roflmouth/trump/svnla.

They to ask how your day was? How very considerate of them.

 

[agent00f]

They to ask how your day was? How very considerate of them.

Next time you can't think of any coherent reply, trying mouthing off like svnla or the various other trailer trash here.

 

[Svnla]

Next time you can't think of any coherent reply, trying mouthing off like svnla or the various other trailer trash here.

Mouthing off? Like you did and I took you to school of shame and humiliation? http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

Coherent indeed.

In other news, Hollywood folks, know your place, don't you dare to step out of line - http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/cel...ash-over-alt-left-tweet/ar-AAr5uad?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[agent00f]

Mouthing off? Like you did and I took you to school of shame and humiliation? http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

Coherent indeed.

In other news, Hollywood folks, know your place -
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

Exquisite example.

 

[justoh]

Well that is an example. But probably not relevant to whether you might reflexively oppose Antifa.

More generally, science has demonstrated that human decision making is generally driven by the brain circuits which are involved in emotional processing. We apply logic secondarily to decisions we have made without any knowledge of the process behind them, and that logic is often quite flawed. Intelligence does not necessarily improve decision making, although it generally confers greater capacity to rationalize and intellectualize flawed decisions which really poses a greater difficulty in learning from rational discourse because the flawed logic is less easily defeated.

Here's a useful media article: https://qz.com/922924/humans-werent-designed-to-be-rational-and-we-are-better-thinkers-for-it/
And some science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032808/

Note: we are capable of making decisions based on reason. We just way overestimate its role.

Dunno. sounds a bit like nonsense, imo. One can't reflexively oppose antifa, and one can't really be said to be rational or irrational. I'm actually disgusted by that first article. I dare not click on the second.

 

[Jhhnn]

My issue isn't with opposition to Antifa in and of itself; a group that's actively violent (as opposed to reactionary) isn't helping that much.

Rather, it's how much of a threat you see in the group, and why you oppose them. Many in the Trump camp treat Antifa as this gigantic, looming threat that's just as bad as neo-Nazis, because it serves as a convenient distraction. "Please don't look at how Trump enables racist violence through his policies and reckless dialogue; if you do, I might have to acknowledge that he's wrong and reconsider my views."

You mean... Nazis & White Supremacists are sooo persecuted... for damned good reasons?

 

[Starbuck1975]

No. We have government agencies that are specifically being kept from monitoring and keeping white and right wing extremists under a watchful eye and in check. It's even worse than the usual level of continual failure from the government, and it doesn't look to be getting better.

We don't have a rational society. We have one where fascists walk the streets and advocate genocide openly, where their continued violence is taken for granted rather than being treated as an outrage while a wide swath of "moderates" desperately try to dismantle any group that stands in their way.

It's getting bad enough that the best coverage is coming from satire sites, for crying out loud.

http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/im-sick-busting-my-ass-doing-neo-nazi-stuff-only-h-6597

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/903696936368316420

It's goddamned amazing, and I can't wait till it turns out that you all did actually support antifa when they all get whitewashed so nobody who opposes them now has to admit to taking the side of actual literal fascists who openly advocate genocide and kill people.

Take a look at this cartoon. Take a good long look at this cartoon:

The methodology by which this cartoon was derived is exactly how your hatred of antifa was fostered.

The cartoon is not a fair analogy. Those opposed to civil rights sought to attribute violence to a non-violence movement, with MLK being a huge proponent of non-violence.

There are elements of antifa literally using and advocating violence. Take Boston for example. There was a very effective non-violent demonstration in Boston against fascism, largely because the police successfully suppressed any violent antifa elements.

In Germany, where they have zero tolerance for Nazis, the government also has zero tolerance for antifas.

You didn't read the article I posted, it is worth your time.

There's been adequate media coverage.

The organizations that watch and monitor hate groups continue to remain effective and functional. Which ones specifically are being disabled?

I've witnessed the results and human tragedy of what true fascism and nationalism is capable of. We have a very rational society, and I just don't see fascism expanding in America.

What is happening in America is the death throes of a movement, not the rise of one.