To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you. You are ignorant and lack reading comprehension. You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down. You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal), conflate equality with "leftism" (a condescending tag lumping together a variety of different ideologies), have produced no coherent position of your own, and your best efforts have been spent on finding amusing gifs to illustrate points that you do not have (what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts).
So, I will entirely avoid responding to you, and simply participate in the wider conversation on this topic. You are really not worth my time.
My position to the general topic is the following:
1. Antifa is an oxymoronic movement. They are literally the antifascist fascists. Still a million times better than radical right-wing movements and groups, but depressive nevertheless. Gilles Deleuze, described this as 'microfascism', and if unchecked can lead to full-blown fascism.
2. You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves. The whole idea of a 'peaceful protest' is borne from the same kind of neoliberal-capitalist mindset in which all social conflict must be restricted to the 'institutional' arrangements and systems in place, namely elections and the 'peaceful' civil society. Society is never so neat, and containing politics exclusively to parliaments is effectively the death of real politics. So yeah, of course protest will be violent, eruptive, uncontrollable, and impossible to fully contain. Furthermore, whenever we attempt to constrain protest and activist action, no matter the source, we engage ourselves in the same kind of totalitarian thinking. A protest is a protest is a protest. It is not there to sugar-coat things, or to act 'civil', as if we are all nobles sat on thrones. 'Civility' is a highly problematic as a concept, and stems from aristocratic conceptions. For the same reason, 'political correctness' is a repressive idea. You can never contain fully all of the excess in society, no matter where it is coming from. Doing so, including restricting the right to speak and to think, only generates further disillusionment and protest down the road.
To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you. You are ignorant and lack reading comprehension. You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down. You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal), conflate equality with "leftism" (a condescending tag lumping together a variety of different ideologies), have produced no coherent position of your own, and your best efforts have been spent on finding amusing gifs to illustrate points that you do not have (what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts).
So, I will entirely avoid responding to you, and simply participate in the wider conversation on this topic. You are really not worth my time.
My position to the general topic is the following:
1. Antifa is an oxymoronic movement. They are literally the antifascist fascists. Still a million times better than radical right-wing movements and groups, but depressive nevertheless. Gilles Deleuze, described this as 'microfascism', and if unchecked can lead to full-blown fascism.
2. You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves. The whole idea of a 'peaceful protest' is borne from the same kind of neoliberal-capitalist mindset in which all social conflict must be restricted to the 'institutional' arrangements and systems in place, namely elections and the 'peaceful' civil society. Society is never so neat, and containing politics exclusively to parliaments is effectively the death of real politics. So yeah, of course protest will be violent, eruptive, uncontrollable, and impossible to fully contain. Furthermore, whenever we attempt to constrain protest and activist action, no matter the source, we engage ourselves in the same kind of totalitarian thinking. A protest is a protest is a protest. It is not there to sugar-coat things, or to act 'civil', as if we are all nobles sat on thrones. 'Civility' is a highly problematic as a concept, and stems from aristocratic conceptions. For the same reason, 'political correctness' is a repressive idea. You can never contain fully all of the excess in society, no matter where it is coming from. Doing so, including restricting the right to speak and to think, only generates further disillusionment and protest down the road.
Except no one have Carte Blanche to attack others or destroy public/private property during their protests. But as rightly stated in this thread if the protest was made by Nazi, KKK or right wing movements they would face the consequences. When it's done by Antifa, BLM or other left wing movements it is defended and uphold.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you. You are ignorant and lack reading comprehension. You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down. You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal), conflate equality with "leftism" (a condescending tag lumping together a variety of different ideologies), have produced no coherent position of your own, and your best efforts have been spent on finding amusing gifs to illustrate points that you do not have (what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts).
So, I will entirely avoid responding to you, and simply participate in the wider conversation on this topic. You are really not worth my time.
My position to the general topic is the following:
1. Antifa is an oxymoronic movement. They are literally the antifascist fascists. Still a million times better than radical right-wing movements and groups, but depressive nevertheless. Gilles Deleuze, described this as 'microfascism', and if unchecked can lead to full-blown fascism.
2. You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves. The whole idea of a 'peaceful protest' is borne from the same kind of neoliberal-capitalist mindset in which all social conflict must be restricted to the 'institutional' arrangements and systems in place, namely elections and the 'peaceful' civil society. Society is never so neat, and containing politics exclusively to parliaments is effectively the death of real politics. So yeah, of course protest will be violent, eruptive, uncontrollable, and impossible to fully contain. Furthermore, whenever we attempt to constrain protest and activist action, no matter the source, we engage ourselves in the same kind of totalitarian thinking. A protest is a protest is a protest. It is not there to sugar-coat things, or to act 'civil', as if we are all nobles sat on thrones. 'Civility' is a highly problematic as a concept, and stems from aristocratic conceptions. For the same reason, 'political correctness' is a repressive idea. You can never contain fully all of the excess in society, no matter where it is coming from. Doing so, including restricting the right to speak and to think, only generates further disillusionment and protest down the road.
"To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you."
i told you from the very beginning man, i've torn this nonsense apart more times than i can count and the reason i can is because i've studied it deeply right to its very source which i'm absolutely sure you do not know of
"You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down."
well buddy if i wanted to discuss fairy tales i'd go back to kindergarden
we are here now discussing real issues governing the interaction between people and the state... i obviously would not expect someone to conflate the two... unless of course they were trying to be dishonest and evasive
you can review your posts and decide for yourself if what i'm claiming here has any credence... regardless any objective person can see what i'm talking about i'd hope
". You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal)"
i used that as an example of how your arguments about hierarchy were nonsensical... but again i'm talking about the real world here and not fairy tales so that must be where the disconnect is occuring
ironically you yourself claimed to be in a higher position in a hierarchy than i am(without any evidence i might add since you do not know my background) using real world criteria then denied that you were doing so
"conflate equality with "leftism"
advocating for equality in opposition to hierarchy is a well understood central value of the left, that you are denying this and claiming i am ignorant is amazing to me
"what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts"
at every single turn i have replied to direct quotes from your posts
"You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves."
i think its more that these people attack violently not in retaliation but to instigate violence
this pathetic weasily coward(who was a professor supposedly in a similar field to yourself) reached out from behind someone to whack this 20 year old(who was simply talking) in the head with a bike lock
you really think this piece of shit attacked this kid to "take down the oppressive capitalist system"(which protects his rights and property ironically) or to "take down the patriarchy" or some shit like that?
there are piles upon piles upon piles of evidence that many of these people are simply looking for an excuse to engage in criminal behavior even though they may claim to have altruistic intentions
this is why its important to have stated goals that are in alignment in with your actions, but unfortunately that is not the default state for most people
they act like fascists but their not? Yes they are, they have zero evidence of an end game to their protest. No direct info on what a fascist is. They are mostly people who feel they don't fit in society and want everybody to conform. Man i miss the 70's. every little group want everybody to conform to their idealism.
They are selfish,why don't they go and help individuals who have real problems like the poor
My quick thought on Antifa vs Alt. Right protesters.
Whenever I see pics of the two on the streets confronting one another there is one huge stark contrast.
Alt Right protesters. They are in the public view and face completely visible.
Antifa. A mass of people wearing black outfits and covering their faces with stuff.
I will side with people will to show their face over hiding it most any day. And when I say side in this case, means more so who is less evil, not that I'm rooting for their cause or anything. Regardless of what each side believes in or how they are acting, one is putting themselves out in the public eye. You could clearly identify everyone of one group and if they do bad things they could all be easily identified and arrested/fired/charged/ect.
The other, not so much.
And don't bring up KKK and their masks. When was the last time you saw a hood in public?
they act like fascists but their not? Yes they are, they have zero evidence of an end game to their protest. No direct info on what a fascist is. They are mostly people who feel they don't fit in society and want everybody to conform. Man i miss the 70's. every little group want everybody to conform to their idealism.
They are selfish,why don't they go and help individuals who have real problems like the poor
because they generally do not care about the poor... many only hate the rich and successful and want to pull them down because of their pathetic insecurities
according to many sources the kkk has 5000 to 8000 members everybody hates them and wish they were gone. In the 1920's there were 4 million mostly democrats in the south. The fbi in late 50's and 60's pushed them down to were they were useless. Anybody who isn't concerned about the far left groups like antifa pull your head out of the sand.
irstupid said: My quick thought on Antifa vs Alt. Right protesters.
Whenever I see pics of the two on the streets confronting one another there is one huge stark contrast. Alt Right protesters. They are in the public view and face completely visible. Antifa. A mass of people wearing black outfits and covering their faces with stuff.
I will side with people will to show their face over hiding it most any day. And when I say side in this case, means more so who is less evil, not that I'm rooting for their cause or anything. Regardless of what each side believes in or how they are acting, one is putting themselves out in the public eye. You could clearly identify everyone of one group and if they do bad things they could all be easily identified and arrested/fired/charged/ect. The other, not so much.
And don't bring up KKK and their masks. When was the last time you saw a hood in public?
Here it is a little different. The Alt-right (Reclaim Australia, United Patriots Front etc') tend to protest about banning the Burqa' a facial covering. - Yet tend to wear the Australian flag as a facial covering so they don't get identified by their employers. Their left-wing opponents (Including ANTIFA) will occasionally also wear masks for the same reason.
But there is one large fundamental difference between the two, which I probably don't need to point out as they are being hypocrites.
irstupid said: My quick thought on Antifa vs Alt. Right protesters.
Whenever I see pics of the two on the streets confronting one another there is one huge stark contrast. Alt Right protesters. They are in the public view and face completely visible. Antifa. A mass of people wearing black outfits and covering their faces with stuff.
I will side with people will to show their face over hiding it most any day. And when I say side in this case, means more so who is less evil, not that I'm rooting for their cause or anything. Regardless of what each side believes in or how they are acting, one is putting themselves out in the public eye. You could clearly identify everyone of one group and if they do bad things they could all be easily identified and arrested/fired/charged/ect. The other, not so much.
And don't bring up KKK and their masks. When was the last time you saw a hood in public?
Here it is a little different. The Alt-right (Reclaim Australia, United Patriots Front etc') tend to protest about banning the Burqa' a facial covering. - Yet tend to wear the Australian flag as a facial covering so they don't get identified by their employers. Their left-wing opponents (Including ANTIFA) will occasionally also wear masks for the same reason.
But there is one large fundamental difference between the two, which I probably don't need to point out as they are being hypocrites.
Do they protest against the Burqa because of safety of because women are obligated to wear it?
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Here it is a little different. The Alt-right (Reclaim Australia, United Patriots Front etc') tend to protest about banning the Burqa' a facial covering. - Yet tend to wear the Australian flag as a facial covering so they don't get identified by their employers. Their left-wing opponents (Including ANTIFA) will occasionally also wear masks for the same reason.
But there is one large fundamental difference between the two, which I probably don't need to point out as they are being hypocrites.
Do they protest against the Burqa because of safety of because women are obligated to wear it?
This is a free country. They aren't obligated to do anything, it's not law.
