I'm quoting this because people need to see how things could become. Watch and 'listen'.

Of course the rioters are responsible, but the property damage isn't really concerning me. They shut down this guy and that's what matters.

I think it is very worrying that some people are comfortably and publicy supporting acts of physical violence with the excuse of believing someone's ideals and opinions are violent / hate speech (I have yet to wrap my head around what that means in the real world exactly). As someone said "when did sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me stopped being relevant"? It is embarrasing.

+1 to Jonathan Blow 100%

I stopped watching at 'Christian Broadcasting Network'. If that's not biased, I don't know what is. The video footages themselves are hard to interpret because they're quite blurry and I don't understand the language, so that doesn't help either. And finally, even if those footages are what they're claimed to be, there's no reliable indication of this being a widespread problem.

As to the first video, it seems more legit. It's still hard to know how widespread the issue is, but it seems to exist (which I didn't really doubt much). However, it didn't seem as rough as you implied either. I agree that it's still a problem, but to me, it still seems more like an integration problem than an immigration problem. I think it's pretty well understood by now that creating immigrant districts (or any districts composed mainly of a single group) is bad policy, so the fix should be relatively simple for future developments. Of course fixing the existing issues is hard because you can't forcefully move people around.

EDIT: I see you added more videos... As for the third video, that's disgusting, but doesn't seem like it's related at all to what we were discussing? Or were those immigrants? As for the fourth video, yeah, that's disgusting too. But again, I'd like to see evidence of this being a widespread issue. For all I know, these are all justs single instances where something has happened. I could probably find a ton more videos showing similar behaviour from native citizens, from a lot of countries. Does it mean it's a widespread problem? Of course not. It's a problem but not necessarily widespread.

1. We're not talking about a violent regime just yet, at least internally in the United States. The police force sure is quite violent, but the regime itself isn't.

2. Doesn't mean it's a good way. It's a pretty natural symptom of the problems, but it's still not a better way to solve things. What has violence solved so far? Not much, I don't think.

3. Personally I think that free speech is a value that should be limited only under very careful consideration, but there should be limits to racism. All critical speech can and must not be quelled, but some, uh, moderation should be done. It should mostly be related to not sticking to facts and obviously inciting hate, I believe.

1. The United States has been violent since its inception, starting with slaves existing and women not being allowed to vote, to Japanese people being forcefully relocated in internment camps, to having a prison system filled with millions of people. Donald Trump is certinaly going to continue this, in his debate he said that he wanted stop and frisk and that we needed more police so that we can "law and order".

2. The fact that it hasn't really been successful shows that the people that are complaining are "SJWs" and "the left" ruining games and society is just flat out wrong. But if we're talking about what it has accomplished, I'm pretty sure that a certain war ended slavery in the United States.

3. The problem arises when we are asking what are facts? The Trump administration is already going on about "alternative facts".

1. The United States has been violent, but domestically, it's not very violent these days. It's still quite violent in its foreign politics, but we're talking about the internals of a country when we're discussing protests of all sorts.

2. I'm not very familiar with US history so I don't want to get into an in-depth discussion about it. However, I do need to point out that times have changed, and what's worked in history may not work anymore. Besides, I'd draw a sharp line between the effects of a civil war/rebellion and violent protests.

3. Yeah, and that's a problem. There's a humongous problem when the president of the most powerful country in the world can't even get simply facts straight. Anyway, free speech is vital to democracy, so limiting it should not be done lightly or under vague terms. There must be clear boundaries about what's allowed and what's not, and simply banning 'racist' speech is even more vague than the term 'racist'.

Examine the mindset that allows an individual to label anyone they do not agree with a Nazi, paired with the idea that it is not only perfectly acceptable, but a moral obligation to physically assault ("Punch a Nazi") anyone deemed a Nazi, and it doesn't take a great deal of objectivity to see where this mindset can lead to or the inherent fallacy of thought involved.

The real problem here is I am seeing this group think from individuals who were previously very reasonable, despite carrying their own biases. Conversely, I'm seeing individuals who adopt a more moderate stance (the majority) retract from what was once considered to be the socially conscious mindset.

It becomes a serious social problem when they begin operating collectively within an echo chamber under the banner of Antifas and begin committing violence against any individuals deemed on the wrong side.

Make no mistake; the only thing Antfas groups are accomplishing is providing the very ideology they oppose with the justification needed to crack down on all constitutionally protected dissension.

1. The United States government is still very violent to its people. You don't have one of the highest per-capita prison inmate populations in the world without it.

2. There are still revolutions that occur around the world through violent protest, so I'd say that it is still possible. The thing is though, I can don't think the protestors really want a revolution, so I can understand why people would see the violence as meaningless.

3. Tee problem is, racist thoughts don't just exist in a bubble. Many people act on their beliefs. For example, we may believe that people should be able to express homophobic beliefs in the name of free speech, but the problem arises when that speech influences actions, like what happened with the Pulse Nightclub shooting.

Yeah, letting Hitler have a platform to speak on was what led him to having power to commit genocide in the first place. Nothing good come out of giving fascists a stage to perform.

Hold on a second, how do you define who is a "fascist"? There's a pretty big gap between someone like Milo and Hitler, if you start to shut down people from speaking then not only does that completely erode a free society but you're paving the way for an authoritarian state.