Far-right "Proud Boys" filmed beating protesters in New York - Polidicks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q26d23oA-DY

The quality of the politics board really went down if this is the closest thing to an "argument" people can make. Oh, so by your logic no country has ever been communist, not even the dozens of ones that are considered communist. You can't just say it's not communism because it turned out to be shit. See above. People are literally trying to say communist countries aren't communist because it didn't turn out the way they wanted. Nah, even if facts make you and the rest of the socialists upset it's good for you to hear. This. I have been called a racist alt righter at least a dozen times in the last week on this forum alone and I know Antifa is just as dumb so since it's ok to "punch a nazi" and since everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi suddenly millions of people are put onto their hit list just for having wrong think. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p3w6xJPiWPQ/maxresdefault.jpg Pic related, guy on the right is a nazi who deserved to be punched. Apparently Nazis include people of all skin colors these days.

thank you for replying to my statement im so glad you took the time to read it and not post an ad hominem riddled post of literally nothing

This kind of thing always seems to make those guys come out of the woodwork.

I know this might trigger you but hate speech is free speech. If someone calls me a nigger I might get upset but I can't force him to not say it and thank fuck for that. Also hate speech is a stupid vague term. I honestly hope these people have ways to protect themselves. If a freedom hating communist tries to attack someone for offending them I hope the victim in question uses his right to defend himself even if it means blowing the fuckers head off.

all im gonna say is this: you refuse to accept the possibility that people do not consider your definition of "socialist" as valid, and when they try to explain to you why they think your constructed definition for it is wrong, you're just going "oh so you're saying that's not real socialism huh GOTCHA". you use the same word to mean something very specific when others here explain to you it isn't that simple, and even if one accepts your definition then all they gotta do is find another word for the "kind of socialism" that they mean. this argument is entirely semantic and consequently entirely pointless. this isnt about facts, this isnt about anything at all. all this is, is a bad faith attempt to make your case and be right while sitting here with shut ears.

The History Place At least 2/3s of this are highlights of the Democrats in 2016.

Hate speech is free speech, but so is calling folks out on being a dumb-ass for believing that trite.

I am not using ad hominen. Just because you don't like my response doesn't make it not a response. Unlike the vast majority of posters in this thread I am actually taking the time to argue. By your logic, if North Korea isn't communist than that means literally no nations has ever been communist because communism by your definition is something that hasn't (and can't) happen. Of course this is again all dependent on your definition. I have found multiple definitions for it including "Communism is a political and economic system in which the major productive resources in a society—such as mines, factories, and farms—are owned by the public or the state..." Which by definition makes communist Russia, communist.

someone calling you a nigger isn't hate speech though inciting race riots, getting a group of people to chant "gas the jews" in the streets, that's hate speech. it's not vague, you just dont know what you're talking about.

By your definition. Hate speech has no grounding in US law. Also if this is hate speech than the people being accused of hate speech clearly weren't fucking doing it.

iunno man if someone was constantly insulting me and making me upset with conscious intent somewhere and they refused to shut up when asked and no cops were around i wouldnt think twice about punching them if i thought i could get away with it. is their conscious intent to harm me justified while my conscious intent to harm them back to stop their harming me isn't?

"The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment, except where such speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States given, this hasn't been completely followed, but officially that is what's defined.

Yes your intent to literally attack someone because they say things you don't like isn't justified. If you don't like what people have to say you have the option to not listen, they aren't holding you down.

I haven't read a single refutal outside of calling names. Half the time you're just repeating what he's saying. Same deal with me. I ask for the specific policies (and proof behind these claims) and there is zero refutal. Nothing. Probably don't have a refutal.

ok, great but what if i do not have the option; what if i cannot leave the place for whatever reason? why is there this arbitrary cutoff point where they can harm me with the fully conscious intent of harming me and with the initiative to do so, while i am not capable of doing the same in reaction? sure, its illegal, whatever. but i wouldnt lose sleep over doing it from a moral standpoint if i asked them nicely and they just kept on doing it. its the same as punching a bully. this isnt about "not liking what they have to say". this is about them saying it with the full knowledge it might harm me and the hope that they will.

you're right, the soviet union was communist. idealogically. economically, no. they were state capitalist, communism includes common ownership, not just the state the people didnt own the businesses in the soviet union, the state did, hence state capitalism. By your logic, if North Korea isn't communist than that means literally no nations has ever been communist because communism by your definition is something that hasn't (and can't) happen. it cant, thats why they werent, they were state capitalist. basically every dictator of a communist nation realized this at some point attempted, or completely converted to state capitalism. it worked to varying degrees, china being the most prominant one currently. if you dont achieve common ownership you're not a communist, becuase that's what communism is. you cant get 50% of the way there and then say "fuck it were communist anyway"

even armed with this knowledge all he is gonna say is "well you see clearly all socialist plans put into action result, for whatever reason, in a bad state of affairs that you term "state capitalism". i am still right to oppose socialists!" this isn't really addressing the underlying point, even if it does address his wrong understanding of what the term means.

There is basically no point in arguing over a strange what if case where you are somehow stuck. Are your legs broken? Maybe you should call a ambulance instead of worry about random conservatives. Capitalism "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit". How can a state owned business be private? Even if you don't want to consider communist countries communist than again, all it means is that communism has never succeeded and each time it was tried it failed and turned into something else. It's a semantic argument but either way the failures of communism are obvious. Can I have 2010 facepunch back please? How the hell did commies take over the Mass Debate sub forum? Literally why wouldn't I be? If a system fails every time it is tried 100% of the time why would I be pro a failure of a system? Use all the semantics you want, socialism fails, communism fails. Communists can't argue so they have to resort to physically attacking the people who disagree.

uh no, if a person frequents the same places i do and repeatedly acts this way even when asked to stop surely you see why one would punch them, even if it is by all means illegal? you cant always just disengage and move to other places just because some asswipe keeps fucking calling you a kike or whatever, and other than purely legal reasons i see no moral/ethical reason why one should lie down and take it. this isnt a strange what-if case, some bizarre hypothetical. this sort of thing is a common occurrence for some people. intent to harm is to be answered with intent to harm to the capacity one possesses and the necessity of applying it in order to stop the initial acting upon the intent to harm me.

again, you're not getting it Capitalism "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit". capitalism is not strictly privatized, you cant deal in absolutes when it comes to economic policy. "State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares." privatization is not inherently capitalist, and capitalism is not inherently privatized capitalism is exactly what it says on the tin, an economic policy where you maximize capital, whether it be for the state or for private ownership. Even if you don't want to consider communist countries communist than again, all it means is that communism has never succeeded and each time it was tried it failed and turned into something else. It's a semantic argument but either way the failures of communism are obvious. you're restating what i've already said, i acknowledged that communist and socialist economic policies have failed but those are economic policies, a country can be communist without having a communist economic policy. china is a communist nation, but they do not have a communist economic policy, they are a state capitalist economic power.

You are asking people to not say their own opinion in a public spot. They don't deserve to be punched because they don't put duck tape around their mouths when you are around. Are you being serious right now? The literal core of Capitalism is private owners. That is the core of capitalism, it's in your own definition.

The literal core of Capitalism is private owners. That is the core of capitalism, it's in your own definition. no it actually isn't, what you quoted was a quote from you, read my statement again. "State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares." this is what i quoted.

they do if they are actively trying to hurt me. im not talking about cases where they say something that offends because they're tone deaf; im talking about cases where they are intentionally saying things in the hope ill take it personally and feel hurt. calling someone a nigger to their face, especially after asked not to, is a repeated example of such intent. the police isnt gonna stop em, so why shouldnt i? after all, its not the police getting hurt here, they have no skin in this game - they are not a party to this interaction. i am the one being hurt.

Aaaand bingo on my polidicks shitposter bingo card!

idk man he has a pretty good point, one side just wants to threaten folks and advocate for a white ethnostate, and the other side is doing some tyrannical russian-style type bullshit by trying to stop them

What are you even talking about right now? Capitalism is not strictly privatised. Social Democracies and mixed market economies with nationalised industries aren't Socialist.

This forum will go to amazing lengths to defend antifa. The thing is that antifa came first, you can't say that they are responding to the proud boys unless you have no concept of cause : effect. Proud boys didn't even exist as a group until long after antifa showed up here. And what were they doing? Occupy Wallstreet. I dislike big banker types as much as the next guy but saying that they're fascists diminishes what actual fascism is. Proud boys weren't even founded until 2016. But no antifa are the ones OPPOSED to fascists it couldn't be that they're just communists who view everyone else as fascists and adopted an inaccurate name to justify their oddly fascistic modus operandi!