[QUOTE=thejjokerr;51766496]Just recently I completely flipped my opinion on refugees: sure let them in, support them, for the love of God let them take the place of these "leftists". All this time I thought it was refugees causing a problem, but it's the people "defending" them that are pissing me off and actively disrupting society.
Build a wall and put the "leftists" behind it so I don't cringe at their warped beliefs.[/QUOTE]
I'm cringing at your pathetic post tbh
[QUOTE=BlackRainbow;51767828]Your fantasies about shooting "leftists" are really creepy, dude.[/QUOTE]
These kinds of videos are essentially pornography for the alt-right, where you watch it and then you jerk off about how much you'd love to be there to kick some leftist libcuck ass or shoot em with yer gun
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51769569]Why does it seem impossible for so many people here to agree that one side is shit without trying to instantly be apologetic for the other?[/QUOTE]
"One side"?
Seems like a pretty big generalization there. Antifa and the left are two different things.
Once you fully identify as left or right and see no basis of agreement on either side, you have been successfully absorbed into that party, you fell right into their hands and swallowed the propaganda targeted at you. Please come to the conclusion that just as life is not black and white, neither is the political spectrum. Just because someone says they are left, does not mean they are autistically screeching while burning buildings. Just because someone says they are right, does not mean they want to exterminate blacks and gays.
This division is what will tear the country apart. Each side is trying desperately to win, but in the end all we will be left with is disaster.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51770335]"One side"?
Seems like a pretty big generalization there. Antifa and the left are two different things.[/QUOTE]
Generalising everything as being part of "The Right" or "The Left" is incredibly harmful to discussing complex topics and allows the uninformed to revert to tribalism in defence of their 'team'.
Especially when American politics is so far right these days that their "left" is centralist at the extremes and centre right compared to Europe.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51770335]"One side"?
Seems like a pretty big generalization there. Antifa and the left are two different things.[/QUOTE]
I was more referring to literally Milo's side vs. the Antifa side but i guess i was referring to the left and right after all. Silly me.
Time to start enforcing the still very much alive and legal anti communist cold war laws. Media tried to shut down coverage and aren't even reporting the passerby they put in critical condition. There's a lot of people who need to go no questions asked.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51770335] Antifa and the left are two different things.[/QUOTE]
If we can say this despite how intertwined their member base is, then everyone can also recognize the difference between right, far right, neoconservative, and natsoc's
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;51770443]Once you fully identify as left or right and see no basis of agreement on either side, you have been successfully absorbed into that party, you fell right into their hands and swallowed the propaganda targeted at you. Please come to the conclusion that just as life is not black and white, neither is the political spectrum. Just because someone says they are left, does not mean they are autistically screeching while burning buildings. Just because someone says they are right, does not mean they want to exterminate blacks and gays.
This division is what will tear the country apart. Each side is trying desperately to win, but in the end all we will be left with is disaster.[/QUOTE]
theres not a single redeeming feature of the extreme right (republican, alt right, fascism) worth keeping in a society
in the traditional left right and centre, does the '''right''' offer some good ideas? sure, depending on circumstance. none of those come from the extreme right. theyre not compatible with a fair society.
[QUOTE=papaya;51771729]theres not a single redeeming feature of the extreme right (republican, alt right, fascism) worth keeping in a society
in the traditional left right and centre, does the '''right''' offer some good ideas? sure, depending on circumstance. none of those come from the extreme right. theyre not compatible with a fair society.[/QUOTE]
So I'm guessing in your view the extreme left has good qualities though?
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;51771536]If we can say this despite how intertwined their member base is, then everyone can also recognize the difference between right, far right, neoconservative, and natsoc's[/QUOTE]
If you believe antifas and the US "left" (which are center-right at most) have an intertwined member base, you've completely lost the plot.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51771802]So I'm guessing in your view the extreme left has good qualities though?[/QUOTE]
That doesn't logically follow at ALL. He said "extreme right is bad, centre right has some good qualities". There's no endorsement of the extreme left at all there, what are you talking about??? It's textbook strawmanning.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51771967]That doesn't logically follow at ALL. He said "extreme right is bad, centre right has some good qualities". There's no endorsement of the extreme left at all there, what are you talking about??? It's textbook strawmanning.[/QUOTE]
In an SH thread he was defending the Antifa's actions here, saying they have the right methodology, not really strawmanning.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51771802]So I'm guessing in your view the extreme left has good qualities though?[/QUOTE]
Yeah the problem is, very recently the far, extreme right has propped up on the idea of "wow, you guys sure are progressive, silencing us [nazis]"; meanwhile the far, extreme left are still seen as the communist "threats" they've been seen as for the past 70 years (rightfully so) .
A lot of people are literally spreading their far right fascist hate rhetoric on the principal of free speech, and some people are starting to take them seriously.
Respect to Jake Shields.
[media]https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/827017644087730176[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/827023984273219584[/media]
And Howard Dean being retarded by supporting their behavior.
[media]https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/827503157496406017[/media]
Sooo, Antifas is dumb, according to people in New York, a [B]LIBERTARIAN[/B] was giving a speech someplace and 4 Antifas went in a punched him, And the police immediately arrested 3 of them.
As someone who was there (observing) I can confirm the police hid inside the building/up on balconies shooting rubber bullets maybe once or twice. I followed my buddies roommate who was using a fire extinguisher to put out fires they were starting, basically the mob would go down the street destroying storefronts and the last few through would be the ones starting trashcan fires. I witnessed firsthand anarchist thugs trying to spraypaint a guy's eyes who was just trying to get away, we helped him by knocking down the antifa fuck while he tried to get his spraypaint can working lmao. I also saw the coward that spraypainted the girl with the "make bitcoin great again" hat on, it was the biggest act of cowardice I've ever seen, basically one person called her to get her to look away and the other guy runs up and gets her.
Also people were talking about why the police couldn't stop the anarchists from basically forming because someone was playing music and it's a city ordinance that if there's music being played live you can have gatherings like that. No idea if it's true but I can't be assed to look it up.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqkgNECCC7I[/media]
Vid from the conservative side of the political view.
Please stop posting the monkey child hes a stupid dickhead
I think Antifa's purpose is to be paid to destabilize peaceful leftist protests - in order to provoke the right into a response that will justify the position of the left and result in impeachment.
They do you all keep calling them anarchists? What evidence is there that they want to get rid of all government?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51776642]They do you all keep calling them anarchists? What evidence is there that they want to get rid of all government?[/QUOTE]
Where do you think Antifa got that red and black color scheme from?
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;51777034]Where do you think Antifa got that red and black color scheme from?[/QUOTE]
It just seems a little odd to me that people who's main goal is to get rid of all government would make a point to only riot against right wing speakers.
There are plenty of cases, like the hammer and sickle, where people use symbols of groups who they don't really identify with.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51777450]It just seems a little odd to me that people who's main goal is to get rid of all government would make a point to only riot against right wing speakers.
There are plenty of cases, like the hammer and sickle, where people use symbols of groups who they don't really identify with.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what's with the colour scheme but it's pretty clear the police aren't arresting them. Maybe if the paid, violent ones cause enough trouble, the right will get mad enough to do things that they can be arrested (or impeached?) for - and then the globalists funding the violence win because they will turn on the nationalist administration for beating down the violent (paid) protesters.
If the extreme left (or those who fund their activities) can disrupt a protest that starts out with peaceful intent, and the more angry they can make everyone else, the more heavy the response they will invite. Ultimately, I think they want that heavy response to happen to their paid rabble so that they can highlight that the nationalists really are fascists and therefore should be shut down.
The world is a chess board and those with influence are moving their pawns (protesters and the media) into place accordingly so that they can go for check-mate.
Different protest, but thought it was relevant here.
[media]https://youtu.be/Qrwl2kdt3KE[/media]
[QUOTE=sgman91;51777450]It just seems a little odd to me that people who's main goal is to get rid of all government would make a point to only riot against right wing speakers.
There are plenty of cases, like the hammer and sickle, where people use symbols of groups who they don't really identify with.[/QUOTE]
Dude they are the extreme left on the libertarian side. ANTI-FAshists want to fight all the nazis didn't you know? And the gay jew is apparently a nazi because he rants about and fucks with the "SJWs" and progressives.
[QUOTE=BLOB Fish Dude;51767926]I saw much of it. At the end of the day, I am dissapointed with the campus. While the violence was conducted by antifa, many of the students watched idle and even cheered as they destroyed OUR property that WE paid for. It's so ironic, they threw rocks and fences at the MLK building which stands to commemorate MLK and his peaceful protests. Then, students and antifa fired fireworks and flares at the police and targeted trump supporters by ko'ing them. I'm liberal and I don't like Milo but this is plain wrong even if the student body didn't commit much of the destruction. UC Berkeley is the number 1 public university and top 10 university in the world, yet we fall into the mindset of mob mentality when one person comes to speak who has questionable ethics and ideals.[/QUOTE]
My question is what is an individual supposed to do when they're at a protest and antifa rolls around breaking shit and making a mess of things? They cannot simply be evicted by other protesters because a) that would cause an even bigger riot than we've already seen, b) they stick together and dress specifically to counter police tactics, and c) from a protester's point of view they are ostensibly there because they agree with the message of the protest.
One decision a person could make would be to just leave, assuming the streets aren't blocked off and they can move through the crowd freely enough to do so. Someone could potentially be against doing this as they could see it as abandoning the reason they came out to protest in the first place. And therein lies another debate on "means to an end." However, if the direct purpose of a protest has been fulfilled, then there is little reason not to leave.
Let's look at the specific example of this protest, [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-cancelled"]using this article by the Guardian as a source.[/URL]
The article states that the protest began in earnest at 5PM and it wasn't until 6PM that Antifa arrived and started the violence. Fifteen minutes after Antifa's arrival, the event was canceled. In a perfect world, it would be at this moment that the peaceful protesters would dissipate leaving the police to deal with Antifa. But let's look into the matter further, now focusing on Antifa itself rather than the bystanders.
Was it Antifa's fifteen minute burst of violence that lead to the event's cancellation, or would the peaceful protest by the students, had it gone uninterrupted, achieve the same result?
For the sake of argument, let's assume the former, as the latter makes writing off Antifa as unhelpful too easy.
So far I have been assuming that the purpose of the protest was to shut the event down, rather than to only express disagreement with the university holding the event. This is because a simple petition stating "We the undersigned do not approve of the views previously expressed by Milo Yiannopoulos and therefore do not believe any further input of his to be constructive or helpful" would have achieved the same thing and saved a lot of people time and money.
And so we are left with:
The protesters wanted the event canceled.
It was Antifa's violence that canceled the event.
∴ The protesters needed Antifa's violence to cancel the event.
Now this looks pretty bad, but it's all based on the earlier assumption that was made that Antifa's actions did indeed get the event canceled. Let's go further, stated in general terms, as to [I]why[/I] a protester would want the event canceled.
The event was a speech, so as hinted in the sample petition earlier, the protesters do not want Milo's views to spread. Because of Antifa destroying property and causing a scene, it had the opposite effect. Instead of minimizing Milo's views it put him on CNN. Plus the people who did want to hear his speech can always just look him up online and watch his earlier events at other campuses. In the long run, the protest stops no one from hearing Milo due to the internet and he has been exposed to a wider audience due to the media attention.
tl;dr
If Antifa had never showed up, the event would have either a) been canceled anyway and people could go home with property damage being minimal, if any or b) proceeded as scheduled with little notice or care by the mainstream media and general public. Instead, they showed up and now Milo's smug mug is all over the news. :goodjob:
People should have left after the event was canceled as their goal had been achieved.
There is no action that Antifa can take that is helpful short of unmasking themselves and protesting peacefully like normal, civilized Americans.
If you're at a protest and Antifa (or any other group emulating their tactics) shows up, the best thing you can do is leave.
Can we all people hop off of this "us vs them" mentality.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51778848]Can we all people hop off of this "us vs them" mentality.[/QUOTE]
You're giving people too much credit. I'm not sure they can deal with or understand anything else. After all, we all know it was group X and not Y. That goes without saying.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
