And punching them while they're baiting you plays into their game.

@Randomizer

I was responding to Condescension saying we became powerful off of right wing ideology be censored

i gave an example of a time period with left wing ideology being censored and we became amazingly powerful

i wasn't drawing causation, i was disproving HIS claim of causation

I agree but we shouldn't exaggerate the problem, either. They are a very small minority and violently attacking them lets them craft a victim narrative that they can use to recruit new members. Counter-protests and complete and utter social ostracization is more effective against such a small collective.

@DO

"No one took Hitler seriously either until it was too late. Don't brush off Nazi ideology as a whatever thing until it gets serious. It's always serious."

except this ENTIRELY against the historical record. the Polish had been breaking German codes in the mid 1930s and creating bombes right up until they were invaded and the war started. plenty of countries saw this coming, they simply couldn't stop it. Ever heard of "appeasement?" it was a fools errand, but there were plenty of signs of the Nazi's plans.

and once Hitler got into power, there was a shit ton of support for him

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0819.html

many took him seriously, it was weak international policing of Nazi Germany that lead to Hitler's unbridled power

Let's not forget the Nazis used the Reichstag fire to justify their evil agenda, and people bought into it.

Before Hitler became german Chancellor, rather than before 1939, are two seperate times.

For accuracy, please read about the time before The Nazi party were taken seriouslt in germany. Not the time after Hitler came to power but before he invaded Poland.

well funnily enough, the weimar republic was split between red shirts and brown shirts, so it's not just the Nazis that were bad during that time period either.

We destroyed fascism through censorship and violence. We can do it again.

It's hilarious to see conservatives all of a sudden being anti-violence, when they've supported the militarization of the police and imperialistic wars for the last 50 years.

It's hilarious to see leftists all of a sudden being pro-violence, when they've protested the militarization of the police and imperialistic wars for the last 50 years.

0.o

@James: Pretty much, the police was heavily militarized under Obama and Clinton.

Condescension will ignore that though because.. reasons and it doesn't support his fake reality worldview.

I consider Obama and Clinton conservatives.

lol k

"I consider Obama and Clinton conservatives."

i'm not going to lie, i'm not sure how to respond to this.

If there is a Nazi rally somewhere. Unless they are violent. You can not assault them. It is against the constitution for free speech. If their constitutional rights get taken then your rights can be taken also.

Actually in several countries you can just call the police and have every single one of them arrested. Pretty sure those countries are doing it right.

exactly

The 'exactly' was in response to MelodicMethods. Yes, in some countries the right of free speech is not respected. In the United States it is, for the moment.

JamesYanik: It's amusing to see you concern troll over endorsement of violence.

"You dumb libtards are supposed to be pacifist even when Nazis are running over you with cars and promising more violence herp derp derp derp"

Obviously the real objective of your trolling, whether you're self aware enough to realize it or not, is to try to intimidate liberals into letting Nazis take over our public spaces.

Again, go fuck yourself.

@jmo

those countries have also gone way to far

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/man-arrested-facebook-posts-syrian-refugees-scotland?CMP=share_btn_tw

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html?utm_term=.4f8feb417e2a

i mean even the far left in germany are thinking "whoa, maybe take a step back"

@thatwasawkward

"JamesYanik: It's amusing to see you concern troll over endorsement of violence."

nice to see the substance lacking arguments are back. it's always nice to know who the least intelligent on the forum are. but by your standards i should be punched. after all one of your fellow gulag guards Ogion already accused me of being a neonazi sympathizer, so by your side's standards i should be violently assaulted. i've had enough with trying to have any kind of civility if you guys keep calling my a neonazi sympathizer.


""You dumb libtards are supposed to be pacifist even when Nazis are running over you with cars and promising more violence herp derp derp derp""

1. antifa and the white supremacists were both being violent BEFORE the car attack, so how do you explain THAT?

2. don't pretend antifa are just a bunch of liberals who really don't like Naziism. there have been multiple connections to them an ancap groups, and they've gone on full on riots for Ann Coulter and Ben Shaprio. Say what you will about those two: they aint Nazis bud. so i'm not going to speak any kind of good about the antifa.


"Obviously the real objective of your trolling, whether you're self aware enough to realize it or not, is to try to intimidate liberals into letting Nazis take over our public spaces."

wow. this is the SINGLE most idiotic thing i've read. "you don't know your intentions but i do" oh fuck off. at least call me a LIAR, but calling my stupid, that's a whole other level of derangement on your part. i am fine with protests (NEWS FLASH: IVE SAID THIS BEFORE IN THESE THREADS!!!) of Nazis, I'm NOT FINE WITH VIOLENCE


"Again, go fuck yourself."

right back at you.

tell me, why were the perfectly pure of heart antifa attacking journalists, huh?

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897977496930570240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2017%2F08%2F17%2Fjake-tapper-antifa-protesters-attacked-several-journalists%2F

the simple truth is: both sides were utterly violent. the nazis were garbage, but the antifa, largely communist, (antifa themselves have admitted this, and even left wing organizations like the washington post have admitted this) aren't exactly on high moral ground either.

the problem here universally is the violence. now the protestors there who'd didn't come armed and didn't want to fight: all the respect in the world to them, and the police should have done a better job protecting them.

but i'm sick of the "choose a side" bullshit. the answer is i'm not with either group in whole. the fact i'm being maligned as a neonazi sympathizer on these threads is ridiculous, i can be a small government constitutionalist and hate naziism. in fact, nazis hate the ideas of free markets, and personal freedom. even richard spencer has talked about "global consumerist capitalism" as bad.

they're not my side, and neither are the others. i'm first and foremost condemning violence, and then second i'm condemning ideology.

so yes, Nazis were worse in violence, because they took a life. but the rest of the violence, there isn't anything near a consensus on yet

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html

so i'm going to condemn left wing violence, before i condemn nazi ideology. because violence is the first standard of bad. the second standard of ideological condemnation: naziism is worse than the antifa, but the antifa are still objectively bad.

it's not some binary choice, stop bastardizing people from politics for not lacking as much intelligence as you

Agree with your comment jmo. Unlimited free speech has imho, too many problems. There have to be reasonable limits, no right to use free speech to encourage violence, hatred, racism are simply commonsense. In the same way that I would support arresting protesting Nazis, I would support police arresting those religious fanatics who protest offensively at the funeral services for American military.. Those wackos who think it's OK to run that line that because America tolerates gay lesbians, transgender persons then the service men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice are going to hell.. Now if they want to spout that nonsense in the privacy of their own homes, inside their church..OK.. But at the funeral of a military personnel, and in fact at any person's funeral then NO ..that's deliberately offensive, deliberately provocative, deliberately hurtful.

if the funeral ground is on private property than of course they should be arrested, but as far as

"no right to use free speech to encourage violence, hatred, racism are simply commonsense. "

except this is problematic in some parts.

violence: objectively observable, and definitely against the law

racism: used to be objective, but now you can be called a nazi sympathizer apparently for not supporting violent protests against nazis. so no, i don't want to be arrested for promoting a pacifistic point of view.

hatred: almost entirely subjective, and definitely shouldn't be an offense you should be arrested for.

also creating the precedent of arresting people for non-violent inciting speech opens the door for greater and greater nuance in laws and in definitions.

@JamesYanik
12:35 AM
"It's hilarious to see leftists all of a sudden being pro-violence, when they've protested the militarization of the police and imperialistic wars for the last 50 years.

0.o"

The opposition the Imperialist wars, and opposition to militarisation of police are both examples of sidong with the oppressed against an oppressor. Saying we don't want to life in fear of the police, in a state where anyone needs military gear to police their neighbourhood (i can't tell you how uncomfortable it can be going to foreign coutries where the police carry guns as standard, in Denmark this summer was weird, especially on a Scout campsite, seeing guns at all... Ireland is also getting there, but it is still only special units of our police force who are allowed firearms).

So saying, 'we want to live in a society which is free from oppression' an opposing those with a violent ideology, like these white supremacists. Is entirely consistant. It is not necessarily the violence of Imperialist wars that the 'left' object to, it is the oppression and subjugation of others (and probably why democrats would often claim that their wars were attempts to free others from subjugation...)

I don't see the contradiction there, and i'm surprised that you do.

I would agree that the US has a hate speech problem, and the choice has been to allow it based on the first amendment. That can be changed by constutitional amendment. Violence on the streets to make Neo-nazis feel unsafe is a rather more direct approach - but it isn't contradictory, makin public spaces nazi-free is not oppressive. White supremecists are still allowed walk down the street safely, thry jist can't bring their flags... If they have swastikas tattoed on their faces then they might be in some trouble, but i think that has been the case in many spaces for a long time.

So yeah, the people who don't want to wait for the incredibly slow process of amending the US constitution, thry can go out in force and shout at, intimidate, and object to, any neo-nazi rally they find. That is their constitutional right.

Unfortunately that kind of abusive behaviour is violent to begin with. If you shouted at a child, surrounded them, and made them fear you (intimidation) that would be considered child abuse. Verbal abuse can infact be violent. Shia LeBouef found this out with his 'we will not let him divide us' art installation/political protest. He was being violent and angry with his words, and very wuickly this exploded into physical violence.

If you, as a country, decide this kind of verbal abuse is not ok in public spaces, then you can stop these violent interactions before they become physically violent. As it stands, you've got protesters and counter protesters who are going to break out into small battles across the country.

I don't know a better way to put this, verbal abuse is violence. The current interpretation of the first amendment allows verbal abuse on the streets. This non-physical violence will cery easily turn into physical violence on a regular basis.

If you are anti-physical violence in all its forms, how do you resolve this problem?

Who the fuck is a pacifist in 2017? How can someone still hold such an outdated belief?