He brought an American flag to protest fascism in Portland. Then antifa attacked him

JoeMorgue said:
I can't give you some 100% perfect, chiseled in stone answer with no grey area like you're demanding.

I just know in no circumstances does a Nazi getting punched in the face make the world a worse place.

I am utterly flabbergasted that the statement "It's 2018, dealing with Nazis is simply not a viable option" is such a controversial statement.

Any moral, political, philosophical standard that has people with swastika's goose-steeping in the streets of America in 2018 is flawed.
Click to expand...

Flawed: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Flawed."
 
Belz... said:
Like, if I belong to a group that claims that all lawyers should be killed, does that count?
Click to expand...

If you pledge your alliance to a "Let's Kill All Lawyers" group and every single time your group marches it becomes violent and back in the 1940s we fought a war against this same group that literally involved the entire world... yes. Yes that counts.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If you pledge your alliance to a "Let's Kill All Lawyers" group and every single time your group marches it becomes violent and back in the 1940s we fought a war against this same group that literally involved the entire world... yes. Yes that counts.
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about a group that advocates killing all lawyers, that's it. Please don't alter my hypothetical. Besides, people who call themselves Nazis today aren't the Nazis of WWII Germany, and most don't even call themselves that. If we're going to have a discussion about where we draw the line, shouldn't we, you know, determine where we draw the line?
 
I suspect that Antifa members are just flip sides of the coin, with regard to the people they physically attack. They are people who enjoy violence and once they've found a cause they can relate to, they feel justified in carrying out their passion. The only difference between them and the people they hate is which 'side' of the political spectrum they call their own.
 
ThatGuy11200 said:
I suspect that Antifa members are just flip sides of the coin, with regard to the people they physically attack. They are people who enjoy violence and once they've found a cause they can relate to, they feel justified in carrying out their passion. The only difference between them and the people they hate is which 'side' of the political spectrum they call their own.
Click to expand...

Thats probably true for some of them. But, as had been said before on this forum: advocating violence against people for their race/religion/ethnicity is not equivalent to advocating violence against the above.
 
BStrong said:
So you're relying on the Supreme Court decision of They Did It First! v Reality et al?

Greensboro was as bad as Cruickshank and in that incident it was free blacks that ran on the Republican ticket and won elective office. The murderers in The Colfax Massacre were card carrying Democrats.

Maybe that means that Democrats are the historic enemy of post Civil War individual rights.
Click to expand...

I am pointing out the the civil court found that the cops worked with the nazis in that case, I know how can something almost 40 years ago matter right?

The fact stands that cops often work with nazis because they agree with them. The march you were talking about the cops were making sure the nazi who organized it would be anonymous against common practice and the law. But suddenly it is the protestors fault for not trusting the cops whos own records show that they were helping the nazis.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Thats probably true for some of them. But, as had been said before on this forum: advocating violence against people for their race/religion/ethnicity is not equivalent to advocating violence against the above.
Click to expand...

Of course it is being biased against nazis is just as bad as wanting to get rid of all the blacks.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Thats probably true for some of them. But, as had been said before on this forum: advocating violence against people for their race/religion/ethnicity is not equivalent to advocating violence against the above.
Click to expand...

It's not the same, but advocating violence is pretty much always a bad idea, no?
 
JoeMorgue said:
You don't consider the existence of Nazis to be an imminent threat?

Like these Nazis are different and aren't going to cause violence?
Click to expand...

No more than I do communists, muslims, KKK, etc.

I don't consider existence an "imminent threat".
 
dann said:
Let me remind you of post 587,
Click to expand...

Ah, takes a look at post 587....

"The Right always pretend that the Left are the inventors of violence."

That was the post where you said you condemned left wing violence?

HAHA!! Who's the fish? :thumbsup: I am.:thumbsup:
you got me with your "made ya look" scam.

/protip: I deleted your impressively off topic attempts to derail the thread, seriously that was some next level attempt to distract from the scum bag coward antifa scum bag in the OP.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ah, takes a look at post 587....

"The Right always pretend that the Left are the inventors of violence."

That was the post where you said you condemned left wing violence?
Click to expand...


Yes, it is, and you've read and cherry-picked one sentence from it. How brave you are.

HAHA!! Who's the fish? :thumbsup: I am.:thumbsup:
you got me with your "made ya look" scam.

/protip: I deleted your impressively off topic attempts to derail the thread, seriously that was some next level attempt to distract from the scum bag coward antifa scum bag in the OP.
Click to expand...


So as I expected, you won't condemn Alt-Right killings and a U.S. American massacre.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am pointing out the the civil court found that the cops worked with the nazis in that case, I know how can something almost 40 years ago matter right?

The fact stands that cops often work with nazis because they agree with them. The march you were talking about the cops were making sure the nazi who organized it would be anonymous against common practice and the law. But suddenly it is the protestors fault for not trusting the cops whos own records show that they were helping the nazis.
Click to expand...

I know that's what the defense attorney for BAM leader Felarca alleged, but unfortunately for her, their motion to dismiss on those and other grounds was rejected.

This is probably a good time to remind interested parties that the only individual currently charged in the incident that is still in custody is a neo, and he also faces the most serious charges - it also might be useful to know that the CHP in their report recommended charges against 106 individuals involved in the riot - on both sides - comprising 514 misdemeanors and 68 felonies but the DA whittled it down to 4.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article137313578.html
 
JoeMorgue said:
If you pledge your alliance to a "Let's Kill All Lawyers" group and every single time your group marches it becomes violent and back in the 1940s we fought a war against this same group that literally involved the entire world... yes. Yes that counts.
Click to expand...

How is that not special pleading?

Additionally, give your definition of nazi as I find no two people have the same one, when they hold your views.
 
BStrong said:
I know that's what the defense attorney for BAM leader Felarca alleged, but unfortunately for her, their motion to dismiss on those and other grounds was rejected.

This is probably a good time to remind interested parties that the only individual currently charged in the incident that is still in custody is a neo, and he also faces the most serious charges - it also might be useful to know that the CHP in their report recommended charges against 106 individuals involved in the riot - on both sides - comprising 514 misdemeanors and 68 felonies but the DA whittled it down to 4.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article137313578.html
Click to expand...

Man, you are ruining the whole "Cops are the tools of the evil capitalist oppersors of the people" meme.
 
sadhatter said:
How is that not special pleading?

Additionally, give your definition of nazi as I find no two people have the same one, when they hold your views.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that "Nazi"equals "Anybody whose Politics I don't like".
 
Anyone who isn't sure exactly what a Nazi is should read any history book about Hitler and the Third Reich. There are a gazillion of them. Briefly, anyone who isn't interested in creating a master race, conquering every piece of land they can get to for "living space", killing all of the Jews in the world and everyone else they feel like killing, etc. isn't actually a Nazi. The Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to be, so without him I doubt very strongly there will ever be another real Nazi movement. Just pretenders who get attention for flying a flag and taking a name.
 
dudalb said:
Man, you are ruining the whole "Cops are the tools of the evil capitalist oppersors of the people" meme.
Click to expand...

But in this case, the police chief did go on right-wing radio to basically brag about how local politicians didn't control them, and they love beating up counterprotesters and letting the right-wing violent lunatics run wild.

And these guys do reportedly march down immigrant-majority streets, and often form splinter groups who run around beating up random nonwhite people while police stand down and do nothing, or outright attack counterprotestors to clear a path for them.

So, again, that's already a situation where actual rule of law has broken down, because law enforcement is simply refusing to do what they should, so what you're left with are white supremacist idiots versus random vigilantes. Take away the vigilantes, and you only have violent white supremacists running around freely. If you're going to show up there at all, realize that that's the mess you're running into.

I'll say that the vigilantes are *closest* to being ethically right, in what is in reality a terrible situation with bad players on every side.
 
Mumbles said:
But in this case, the police chief did go on right-wing radio to basically brag about how local politicians didn't control them, and they love beating up counterprotesters and letting the right-wing violent lunatics run wild.

And these guys do reportedly march down immigrant-majority streets, and often form splinter groups who run around beating up random nonwhite people while police stand down and do nothing, or outright attack counterprotestors to clear a path for them.
Click to expand...

"Reportedly"? And yes, as usual and as per design, the cops are in bed with the fascists here too.

So, again, that's already a situation where actual rule of law has broken down, because law enforcement is simply refusing to do what they should, so what you're left with are white supremacist idiots versus random vigilantes. Take away the vigilantes, and you only have violent white supremacists running around freely. If you're going to show up there at all, realize that that's the mess you're running into.
Click to expand...

"Random vigilantes"?

I'll say that the vigilantes are *closest* to being ethically right, in what is in reality a terrible situation with bad players on every side.
Click to expand...

Oh please, the ongoing events in Chemnitz (as per links above) show clearly what happens if you let the fascists take the streets, this "bad players on every side" rhetoric is idiotic. You know who the people are who are *furthest* to being ethically right? Those who do nothing but sit by and watch as the fascists take the streets.
 
Mumbles said:
I'm still strongly in favor of police and public facilities, in general, refusing service to people who openly espouse violence, and bring violent people along with them.
Click to expand...

The police should refuse service to itself?
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Anyone who isn't sure exactly what a Nazi is should read any history book about Hitler and the Third Reich. There are a gazillion of them. Briefly, anyone who isn't interested in creating a master race, conquering every piece of land they can get to for "living space", killing all of the Jews in the world and everyone else they feel like killing, etc. isn't actually a Nazi. The Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to be, so without him I doubt very strongly there will ever be another real Nazi movement. Just pretenders who get attention for flying a flag and taking a name.
Click to expand...


Hitler was what the Nazis wanted him to be, too. Much like Trump is what the MAGA crowd wants him to be.
Master race = white supremacy
Fremden raus = Build the wall

You can't expect every potential Nazi Führer to be a cloned copy of Hitler. It's obvious that you'll never hear Trump say Make Germany Great Again - he's a U.S. American nationalist and not too fond of the Kanzlerin - and that seems to be all it takes to give you the confidence to say that there aren't any Nazis, just pretenders."
You should probably read a couple of history books - preferably about some of the different Fascist movements.
 
BStrong said:
I know that's what the defense attorney for BAM leader Felarca alleged, but unfortunately for her, their motion to dismiss on those and other grounds was rejected.

This is probably a good time to remind interested parties that the only individual currently charged in the incident that is still in custody is a neo, and he also faces the most serious charges - it also might be useful to know that the CHP in their report recommended charges against 106 individuals involved in the riot - on both sides - comprising 514 misdemeanors and 68 felonies but the DA whittled it down to 4.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article137313578.html
Click to expand...

ANd of course we can ignore all the cops who are actively nazis and get outed when they get a bit too much attention, like the hot cop last year after the hurricane and the nazi cop who was killed in the mass shooting in Dallas.

There are a lot of out right nazis on the force and they get their backs covered very effectively. But of course cleaning house in the police would be wrong not matter how corrupt and racist the department is. After all so far attempts to clean up these departments have been ineffective so why bother?

Next there will be a conviction(yea right) because sheriff deputies pull something funny like shutting off the water to a cell and watching a man die of dehydration.

Lots of cops are nazis and cops in general love violence and are fine with their racist coworkers. That is just a fact of policing in america. There are a few people trying to do better such as the former Dallas Police Chief David Brown. But seriously the violence loving cops certainly seem to be the norm.
 
Thermal said:
The right wingers have actually killed, dramatically above any standard of bar-setting. Therefore you condemn the right wing killers in the strongest possible terms, yes? Far worse, bar wise, than any antifa actions, so far more vehement in your condemnation, yes?
Click to expand...

I've run across this before, and I get where you're coming from... but I also don't think it really makes a lot of sense.

Let's take this, for instance. I'm 100% certain that TBD vehemently disapproves of right-wing violence and killings. I think TBD disapproves of them as much as you do - as much as I think ALL of us do. And that's the crux - we all agree in our condemnation and disapproval of right-wing violence.

But when it comes to antifa violence... there is disagreement. There's substantially more disagreement than I really expected to see. In fact, there are some people in this thread who excuse and support the violence from antifa. That's where the issue comes in - we don't all agree in our condemnation and disapproval of antifa violence.

Where we're all in agreement, there's no discussion to be had. I mean, I suppose we could all vehemently express our condemnation about the same thing together... and that would take up maybe two pages, tops. You're only going to get a discussion when there is disagreement. So really, you're only going to get this thread when some people support and approve of violence from a particular source and others don't.

The fact that there is no multi-page thread where some express support of violence from the right wing is pretty clear indication that we all agree that it's not acceptable.
 
ponderingturtle said:
ANd of course we can ignore all the cops who are actively nazis and get outed when they get a bit too much attention, like the hot cop last year after the hurricane and the nazi cop who was killed in the mass shooting in Dallas.

There are a lot of out right nazis on the force and they get their backs covered very effectively. But of course cleaning house in the police would be wrong not matter how corrupt and racist the department is. After all so far attempts to clean up these departments have been ineffective so why bother?

Next there will be a conviction(yea right) because sheriff deputies pull something funny like shutting off the water to a cell and watching a man die of dehydration.

Lots of cops are nazis and cops in general love violence and are fine with their racist coworkers. That is just a fact of policing in america. There are a few people trying to do better such as the former Dallas Police Chief David Brown. But seriously the violence loving cops certainly seem to be the norm.
Click to expand...

Great answer to a question that wasn't asked, but your inability to discuss the facts of the Sacramento riot noted.

Now that you've proven that you support violence as long as the right people are the victims, when will you sign up for your local academy class?
 
Emily's Cat said:
I've run across this before, and I get where you're coming from... but I also don't think it really makes a lot of sense.

Let's take this, for instance. I'm 100% certain that TBD vehemently disapproves of right-wing violence and killings. I think TBD disapproves of them as much as you do - as much as I think ALL of us do. And that's the crux - we all agree in our condemnation and disapproval of right-wing violence.

But when it comes to antifa violence... there is disagreement. There's substantially more disagreement than I really expected to see. In fact, there are some people in this thread who excuse and support the violence from antifa. That's where the issue comes in - we don't all agree in our condemnation and disapproval of antifa violence.

Where we're all in agreement, there's no discussion to be had. I mean, I suppose we could all vehemently express our condemnation about the same thing together... and that would take up maybe two pages, tops. You're only going to get a discussion when there is disagreement. So really, you're only going to get this thread when some people support and approve of violence from a particular source and others don't.

The fact that there is no multi-page thread where some express support of violence from the right wing is pretty clear indication that we all agree that it's not acceptable.
Click to expand...

As is stated far more eloquently in Latin in my signature line, the only people that approve of violence are people that have no experience in the subject matter.

One of the biggest lies ever promoted through popular fiction is the notion that if you injure or kill "the bad guy" everything afterwards is A.O.K.

It isn't. Someone might feel good about being alive and having their life still in front of them, but in the quiet moments, remembering how you got there might be harder than the (uneducated) public may ever suspect.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Sure, and punching wannabe rapists before they rape would also make the world a better place.
The question is: how do you determine who's going to rape/shoot/run over someone before they've started doing so?
Click to expand...

Oh holy hell.

IF you know for a fact that they ACTUALLY INTEND TO RAPE SOMEONE then by all means, punch them prior to them committing the act. But if all you've got to go on is that they don't condemn rapists as much as you think they should, or that they showed support of a rapist in a particular scenario, or that they frequent an MRA website... then NO - you cannot just punch them because you believe they might be dangerous.

This is not a difficult concept.
 
The comfort of so called liberals with using the heckler's veto, including violently, is very concerning to me.
 
uke2se said:
I do. Nazis aren't acceptable. Their very existence is a threat to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

The existence of pro-lifers is a threat to a lot of people. The existence of anti-vaxers is a threat to a lot of people. The existence of orthodox islamists is a threat to a lot of people.

Where do you draw the line regarding how many of which 'lots of people' are sufficient for you to incite violence against a group of people whose beliefs you find unacceptable?

JoeMorgue said:
I'm sorry I'm not really onboard with any version of some "Hashtag Not all Nazis" defense.

Nazis aren't a group that has extremists that we have to hem and haw over where to draw a line with. Nazis are already over the line.

There are no good Nazis. There's no baby to be thrown out with the bathwater.

We don't have to wait for Nazis to declare an imminent threat. That's implied in them being Nazis.
Click to expand...

Same logic as above. By this approach, pro-lifers, anti-vaxers, and orthodox islamists are all already imminent threats because what they believe in represents a potential threat to a group of people. Why should we have to wait for any of them to enact violence before taking the law into our own hands and practicing aggression against them?
 
JoeMorgue said:
You don't consider the existence of Nazis to be an imminent threat?

Like these Nazis are different and aren't going to cause violence?
Click to expand...

Do you consider the existence of the Banditos to be an imminent threat? Like these Banditos are different and aren't going to cause violence?

When do you determine that it's acceptable to take the law into your own hands and enact violence against someone else when you are not being directly threatened, nor are in directly observing a credible threat against another person?

Seriously - what makes your viewpoint any different from that of the church during the Crusades or the Inquisition?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The comfort of so called liberals with using the heckler's veto, including violently, is very concerning to me.
Click to expand...

It's wrong when utilized by any group, but in 2018 we have folks who clearly have determined that they, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights have the final word on who is allowed to publicly protest in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom