Forums - Politics Discussion - "Anti fascists" Severely Beat Journalist



Around the Network

So uncommon that anti-fascists act more fascists than whoever they fight against



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

NightlyPoe said:

Very well.  Explain yourself.  Why is it that Ngo should have accepted that he was not welcome and could not do his job?  How is it different than saying the Freedom Riders should have known better than to go to Bull Connors' town?

And keep in mind the question isn't whether Ngo is of the same moral character as King, but whether you are applying the same standard to his behavior as you would someone ignoring terrorist threats for what you would consider a virtuous cause.

As I said, not allowing oneself to be intimidated by terrorists is traditionally considered something that we should aspire to.  You and others in this thread have oddly turned it into a vice.

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking me if I would apply the same standard to fundamentally different situations. You are also asking me to deliberately ignore relevant information and context.

The fact that you frame your question in such a way should give you a hint that the situations you attempt to compare are not the same.

I would not apply the same standard, because if I did, I would run into the problem that I would also have to respect/praise any given far-right group for not being intimitated by an announced counter-protest of Antifa, and pushing for their ideals in the face of adversary.

So the question I ask you in return is this: Do you look up to far-right groups because they aren't intimitated by Antifa and go through with their protests?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking me if I would apply the same standard to fundamentally different situations. You are also asking me to deliberately ignore relevant information and context.

No, I am asking you to compare similar situations and ignore irrelevant information.

For example, writing an article you disagree with does not fall under that category.  We are people with various opinions and foibles.  That does not mean that a person can't be blameless in regards to something else.  Just as pointing out that King was a womanizer does not nullify the good he did.

The fact that you frame your question in such a way should give you a hint that the situations you attempt to compare are not the same.

No.  An attempt to keep you on topic.  I know you wish to use character assassination to blame the victim (a repugnant practice in general) and I wish to close off that avenue.

I would not apply the same standard, because if I did, I would run into the problem that I would also have to respect/praise any given far-right group for not being intimitated by an announced counter-protest of Antifa, and pushing for their ideals in the face of adversary.

So the question I ask you in return is this: Do you look up to far-right groups because they aren't intimitated by Antifa and go through with their protests?

This is easily answered:  The far-right groups are not there to be peaceful, they are there for a fight.  If we go back to the civil rights movement, they are akin to the militant wings that were not welcome within the mainstream civil rights movement we revere today.  If the Freedom Riders had gotten off the buses and started fighting with clansmen and police in the street, they would have been rightly criticized and likely prosecuted while their message would be (wrongly) lost.

Ngo does not fall into that category at all.  He came with nothing but a camera for documentation purposes.  When attacked, he immediately retreated (to be chased and attacked further) and awaited medical aid and the police.



NightlyPoe said:

No, I am asking you to compare similar situations and ignore irrelevant information.

For example, writing an article you disagree with does not fall under that category.  We are people with various opinions and foibles.  That does not mean that a person can't be blameless in regards to something else.  Just as pointing out that King was a womanizer does not nullify the good he did.

Good job here focusing in on the categorical imperative of the action.  As Kant shows us, in order to properly judge the morality of an action the non-core details need to be stripped away revealing the categorical imperative of act, which is where we can evaluate morality. For example, the categorical imperative in the case of the topic of this thread would be: "it is OK to physically assault people who have done objectionable things in the past."  This is an accurate way to frame the argument that Antifa is making in support of their actions, while stripping away the sensationalism and emotion associated with terms like "far right."  The next step is to then apply this imperative to all of society and see if it results in a reasonable and functional social order.

In this case, it clearly does not: if anybody could physically assault somebody who has done morally objectionable things in the past then we would have a society where physical assault is universally OK as every single human is guilty of at least some fault.  Such a society is not something that any rational person would desire.  Based on this analysis, I have to conclude that Antifa's behavior is immoral.



Around the Network

"You also had some very fine people on both sides."

This ngo guy, lacks the rare superpower called common sense though. 

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 10 July 2019

Immersiveunreality said:
tsogud said:

Lmao you really think they're just gonna put "we're misogynistic white nationalists!" on their OWN website do you?? That'd be pretty naive of you.

Lol i doubt they will get many white nationalists on their side when they clearly present Anti-Racism as a value,it could also be a problem that a good amount of them are non whites.

Do you have an opinion of them and what information did you follow to come to that conclusion?

"venerating the housewife" lol

And Antifa claims to be "anti-fascist" (although technically they can't be fascists by the very strict definition of fascism) but nevertheless they use similar tactics utilized by actual fascists. So you really can't trust what these extremist groups say about themselves, their actions speak for themselves.

The Proud Boys do have an incredible amount of white nationalists on their side already and an overwhelming majority of them are misogynistic white males who believe in "white genocide" being a real thing. What they mean by "anti-racism" is that  they view more representation and protection for poc/minorities and their culture as perpetuating "white genocide" and as being "anti-white" and therefore racist. "Anti-racism" sounds good on it's own but they're using it to stand for something different.

My opinion of them is the same with Antifa, they're dangerous extremist groups that use political violence as a tool to spread their message. I don't agree with their actions, they're not civilized groups. I came to this conclusion of the two groups from various sources of info (both online and irl) and from being politically active irl.

Last edited by tsogud - on 10 July 2019

 

SMDH on some of the stuff that people post on here ... 

Considering the level of violence on display, yes, it does. At times it's unavoidable to use violence, because unlimited tolerance would only empower the intolerant and make them go one step further each time they face no resistance.

I am not one of those people who will argue that violence is always bad and/or unnecessary. After all, this world has seen dark times where even the death of millions of people was a necessity.

With this mindset, it's no wonder why Europeans have a history of weak institutions and are more likely to fall into political disrepair as anyone with two eyes can see with both world wars ... 

Freedom of speech and rule of law should mean that EVERYONE is compelled to ALWAYS TOLERATE the INTOLERANT because failing to do would mean that no one is deserving of peace whether it'd be antifa or the neo-nazis since there would be a never ending bipartisan civil war along the political lines ... 

Challenging these two basic institutions is an affront to the lack of understanding in their necessity to developing self-sustaining peace ... 



EricHiggin said:

Hmmm..

Klantifa? AntifISIS? :p



NightlyPoe said:
RolStoppable said:

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking me if I would apply the same standard to fundamentally different situations. You are also asking me to deliberately ignore relevant information and context.

No, I am asking you to compare similar situations and ignore irrelevant information.

For example, writing an article you disagree with does not fall under that category.  We are people with various opinions and foibles.  That does not mean that a person can't be blameless in regards to something else.  Just as pointing out that King was a womanizer does not nullify the good he did.

The fact that you frame your question in such a way should give you a hint that the situations you attempt to compare are not the same.

No.  An attempt to keep you on topic.  I know you wish to use character assassination to blame the victim (a repugnant practice in general) and I wish to close off that avenue.

I would not apply the same standard, because if I did, I would run into the problem that I would also have to respect/praise any given far-right group for not being intimitated by an announced counter-protest of Antifa, and pushing for their ideals in the face of adversary.

So the question I ask you in return is this: Do you look up to far-right groups because they aren't intimitated by Antifa and go through with their protests?

This is easily answered:  The far-right groups are not there to be peaceful, they are there for a fight.  If we go back to the civil rights movement, they are akin to the militant wings that were not welcome within the mainstream civil rights movement we revere today.  If the Freedom Riders had gotten off the buses and started fighting with clansmen and police in the street, they would have been rightly criticized and likely prosecuted while their message would be (wrongly) lost.

Ngo does not fall into that category at all.  He came with nothing but a camera for documentation purposes.  When attacked, he immediately retreated (to be chased and attacked further) and awaited medical aid and the police.

I think you forget the influence Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party had in the civil rights movement. The sad reality is that in order to achieve progress, sometimes violence is needed.