By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Tagged games:

 

Choose your side

Antifa 29 28.16%
 
Anticom 39 37.86%
 
Enlightened Alt-Centrism 35 33.98%
 
Total:103
palou on 18 April 2017

Anyone that believes violence to be an appropriate way to bring forward their ideals has no place in modern society. So, they can both fuck right off.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Around the Network
craighopkins on 18 April 2017

In reality there is good or evil. You are with God or the devil



VGPolyglot on 18 April 2017
Lawlight said:
VGPolyglot said:

The OP posted it as an either or, and I sure as hell am not going to side with Anticom! That would be entirely counterproductive. In reality, I'm an anti-fascist that doesn't belong to any group, so my views and actions aren't necessarily indicative of Antifaschistische Aktion, and vice versa. However, if you read their hsitory they originated in the 1930s to oppose Nazi Germany, which is a good thing I'd say. Whether or not the people in the Berkeley riots were even a part of Antifa, I don't know.

They label themselves as Antifa and from what I am seeing their purpose on that day was to use violence to stop a rally about free speech.

Well, I'm not entirely familiar with what happened on April 15th.



FIT_Gamer on 18 April 2017
craighopkins said:

In reality there is good or evil. You are with God or the devil

...or you give zero fucks about either of them. 



VGPolyglot on 18 April 2017
Helloplite said:
I pity those who feel that anti-fascism is wrong, as well as those who feel that anti-communism can still be a 'thing'.

Well, there's still communists, so there's going to be anti-communists too.



Around the Network
Lawlight on 18 April 2017
StarOcean said:
Lawlight said:

Why do you think this topic was even made?

Dude, stop talking to me. I said I'm not interested. I know your views already, I ain't going to argue with whatever the hell you want to argue about politically. Reply to this if you want, just know I won't bother replying -better to argue with someone who wants to debate what you're after

Then why are you replying again?



Mnementh on 18 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:

It can't be abolished through peaceful means, because those in power are not going to willingly give it up. They are authoritarian for a reason: they like control. There's a reason they have a military and a police force: they need violence to sustain the system. Therefore, the only rid to get rid of it is through violence: you can't be peaceful against a violent opponent.

I disagree. The colonial power of Great Britain over India was removed by peaceful means. While the ANC fought with violence, the actual end of Apartheid was through peaceful means. The change in eastern europe, especially east germany came through peaceful means. The Franco-regime and the regime of Chiang Kai-shek ended peacefully (with their death). Sure, violence seems faster, but it tends to give power to the people willing to use violence. Also change through violence can cause more harm that is avoided.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Dante9 on 18 April 2017

"I disagree with what you're saying, but I'll die defending your right to say it". Too lazy to google who said that, but it's all you need to understand.



Mnementh on 18 April 2017
Lawlight said:
StarOcean said:

Both sides need to die. The problem with them lies right with the premise of the thread. It's an "us vs them" or to put it plainly, very black and white. The lack of middle ground makes them the same. 

Would you say the free speech rally was black and white?

Free speech? The people that organized the rally support and accept free speech since then?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

VGPolyglot on 18 April 2017
Mnementh said:
VGPolyglot said:

It can't be abolished through peaceful means, because those in power are not going to willingly give it up. They are authoritarian for a reason: they like control. There's a reason they have a military and a police force: they need violence to sustain the system. Therefore, the only rid to get rid of it is through violence: you can't be peaceful against a violent opponent.

I disagree. The colonial power of Great Britain over India was removed by peaceful means. While the ANC fought with violence, the actual end of Apartheid was through peaceful means. The change in eastern europe, especially east germany came through peaceful means. The Franco-regime and the regime of Chiang Kai-shek ended peacefully (with their death). Sure, violence seems faster, but it tends to give power to the people willing to use violence. Also change through violence can cause more harm that is avoided.

There's reasons though as to why all of those happened.

-The United Kingdom gave up India because the continual maintenance of all of its colonies and the cost of the World Wars made it financially and militarily unable to keep a hold on its territories

-A lot of Eastern European leaders became extremely rich through the privatization of many of the formerly nationalized industries, so they didn't lose out on much with the change

-Franco and Chiang Kai-shek were both authoritarian dictators that did use violence to suppress opposition. Franco also clearly did not expect the introduction of representative democracy, so it's not like they told their successors to implement democracy when they died.