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

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

DrDoomz on 11 July 2019
tsogud said:
DrDoomz said:

My point flew over your head it seems.

The point is that it is irrelevant either way. Once you escalate to violence (whether it be physical or sexual violence), when neither the implication nor the threat of violence existed, you are always the one at fault. You are the victimizer. Those that would handwave/support/excuse such actions are just a step or two down from the those perpetrating said violence.

And how exactly did Ngo provoke people? I've been waiting for people to provide some form of reasonable provocation but people keeps going to thought crimes.

Antifa and the Proud Boys are both violent extremist groups and have committed violence in the past and it's known by any journalist that they wouldn't hesitate to commit violence at this event as well. And to add to that Antifa had already labeled Ngo as a person of interest which Ngo knew about before going in. So by your definition the implication and threat of violence WAS ALREADY THERE. So by your own words you've falsely equated this incident with an unprovoked rape.

.....

/facepalm

Daheck kinda logic is that?

The implication and threat of violence has to come from Ngo himself for that to be relevant in this case. Him getting threatened by Antifa before showing up just means he is a victim of physical assault AND intimidation.

You need to learn definitions better.



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 11 July 2019
RolStoppable said:
o_O.Q said:

so he was specifically calling the nazis good people

Indeed.

even though he said that he wasn't and you cannot find me a quote of him specifically talking about nazis... ok

so hold on you believe the united states president is a nazi? lol



tsogud on 11 July 2019
DrDoomz said:
tsogud said:

Antifa and the Proud Boys are both violent extremist groups and have committed violence in the past and it's known by any journalist that they wouldn't hesitate to commit violence at this event as well. And to add to that Antifa had already labeled Ngo as a person of interest which Ngo knew about before going in. So by your definition the implication and threat of violence WAS ALREADY THERE. So by your own words you've falsely equated this incident with an unprovoked rape.

.....

/facepalm

Daheck kinda logic is that?

The implication and threat of violence has to come from Ngo himself for that to be relevant in this case. Him getting threatened by Antifa before showing up just means he is a victim of physical assault AND intimidation.

You need to learn definitions better.

No actually it doesn't have to just come from Ngo himself by your definition. You said if it existed at all, you never said just by Ngo.

And also you just said that his provoking of Antifa was irrelevant a few posts back to another poster and when I brought it up again you said his provoking was irrelevant because he was assaulted. How does that work? Is every relevant thing (his motives and actions) excused because he was assaulted? Then how about we excuse Antifa with that logic or the Proud Boys, a couple of them were assaulted in the past? No, it's doesn't work like that you can't claim plausible deniability to him in this case.

Last edited by tsogud - on 11 July 2019

 

DrDoomz on 11 July 2019
tsogud said:
DrDoomz said:

.....

/facepalm

Daheck kinda logic is that?

The implication and threat of violence has to come from Ngo himself for that to be relevant in this case. Him getting threatened by Antifa before showing up just means he is a victim of physical assault AND intimidation.

You need to learn definitions better.

No actually it doesn't have to just come from Ngo himself by your definition. You said if it existed at all, you never said just by Ngo.

And also you just said that his provoking of Antifa was irrelevant a few posts back to another poster and when I brought it up again you said his provoking was irrelevant because he was assaulted. How does that work? Is every relevant thing (his motives and actions) excused because he was assaulted? Then how about we excuse Antifa with that logic or the Proud Boys, a couple of them were assaulted in the past? No, it's doesn't work like that you can't claim plausible deniability to him in this case.

Wow. Really? My statement was pretty clear. If you would rather strawman it that would be on you. Just looks desperate to me, tho. /shrug

Assaulting people is never a right thing (there are exceptions, tho as defined by the law). Not unless they are using intimidation/threats of violence/actual violence against you. 

This is not biblical times where people can physically attack others at will because they feel subjectively justified. There is a reason why we have laws. We can never excuse assault from either side. Whether it be against Antifa or the Proud Boys or even your local Klansmen. It is not up to you to mete out punishment to those you disagree with.

Our laws are clear when you are allowed to use physical force against another. Attacking someone you disagree with is not one of them.



tsogud on 11 July 2019
DrDoomz said:
tsogud said:

No actually it doesn't have to just come from Ngo himself by your definition. You said if it existed at all, you never said just by Ngo.

And also you just said that his provoking of Antifa was irrelevant a few posts back to another poster and when I brought it up again you said his provoking was irrelevant because he was assaulted. How does that work? Is every relevant thing (his motives and actions) excused because he was assaulted? Then how about we excuse Antifa with that logic or the Proud Boys, a couple of them were assaulted in the past? No, it's doesn't work like that you can't claim plausible deniability to him in this case.

1. Wow. Really? My statement was pretty clear. If you would rather strawman it that would be on you. Just looks desperate to me, tho. /shrug

2. Assaulting people is never a right thing (there are exceptions, tho as defined by the law). Not unless they are using intimidation/threats of violence/actual violence against you. 

3. This is not biblical times where people can physically attack others at will because they feel subjectively justified. There is a reason why we have laws. We can never excuse assault from either side. Whether it be against Antifa or the Proud Boys or even your local Klansmen. It is not up to you to mete out punishment to those you disagree with.

4. Our laws are clear when you are allowed to use physical force against another. Attacking someone you disagree with is not one of them.

1. Agreed. Your statement was very clear and I used it as it was written. Maybe you should learn to write better. I can't help if you didn't like your statement, that's your fault.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

What was the point of this post?

In any event, TBH idc what side you're on in this incident or how you view Ngo, Antifa, or the Proud Boys because I have lost interest to discuss them. What I care about, the reason I initially quoted you, is that it's extremely problematic to falsely equate what a rape victim goes through to what Ngo went through. This desensitizes people to actual victim blaming of rape victims and lessens the impression of the horrible things and scrutiny rape victims go through in this day and age.



 

Around the Network
EricHiggin on 11 July 2019

EricHiggin said:

RJTM1991 said:

I'll add one more to your meme wall, my man.



Machiavellian on 11 July 2019
DrDoomz said:

I think the point is relevance.

It is irrelevant that Ngo opted to saunter into danger even knowing full well that violence could happen to him. The fault lies 100% in those that use violence. It is a distraction. I mean, let me ask: what is your point? What do you feel is the relevance in pointing this out?

And like he said, the same could be said with rape victims. If someone is raped then some guy says: "but well she DID walk into a dangerous alley wearing barely any clothing!", how do you think that could be taken here?

Point is: Antifa has turned violent. Or at least a segment of it has graduated from intimidation/harassment to actual violence. And apparently (correct me if I am wrong) some people think a person's beliefs is sufficient reason for him to be "asking for it". At least, the people who assaulted him and the people who defend the assaulters are at least.

And NO. A person wearing something provocative does not share blame with those that resort to violence. The fault is always 100% on those who escalate and do violence.A victim is not as much as an asshole as those who attack them. What the heck is wrong with you?

I feel like you totally did not read what I wrote.  Its like what I am saying is going right over your head.

At Bullet Point:  This is where I totally disagree and I will tell you why.  One of the main reasons during Dr. Martin Luther King protest where he asked his followers no matter what do not respond to any violence against you with violence even if you are physical hurt or beaten.  Why do you believe he stated this and made sure anyone working with him understood the consequences.  If you retaliate at any point with violence, the only message that will be the main theme is that violent response and not what you are trying to accomplish.  During those times, people tried to get Dr. King and his people to respond in violence a lot because they knew once you get that reaction they can then label everyone violent, change the conversation to the violence and destroy and drown out the movement message based on that violence.

The thing is you are not hearing me and you are missing the point.  Is Antifa 100% at fault.  Well of course they are.  They are a violent group.  Is Mr. Ngo a player just like what I describe above, YES he is.  Meaning that he found an idiot group he could easily antagonize to act in violence so then he can create a narrative that all people on the left are also violent.  



Machiavellian on 11 July 2019
NightlyPoe said:
Machiavellian said:

Your second point is total garbage.  Not once did anyone say they support Antifa or any of the violence they do whether its hitting people with eggs and milkshakes to the occasional punks who take the cheap shot.  None of those things are acceptable and no one condone it. No one is putting Antifa on a pedestal or dismissing they are a violent group.  This is the narrative you want to portray to support your point but its totally made up and based on nothing.

It is not made up.  You'll notice that RolStoppable has never once contradicted me on the matter, and the reason is that the quote has already been captured:

RolStoppable said:

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.

If the American government did a better job and put a stop to organizations that promote political violence, it wouldn't have come this far to begin with.

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.

There's no wiggle room in that.  It's an unequivocal statement in favor of beating Ngo up.

As for the rest of your statement, you're just victim-blaming.  As we just discussed, it's what Trump tried to do in Charlottesville and was rightly condemned for.

Lol, you can toss that victim-blaming statement all you want because that seems to be the banner you are willing to pitch in the sand.  What it tells me is that you are totally naive to such gamesmanship that you are easily manipulated.  Since you never debated any point I have made concerning Mr. Ngo world tour, I have to believe you just dismiss that part because it doesn't fit your opinion or you are in support of it.  Either way, if Mr. Ngo is your hero that is fine but just because someone takes a beating isn't enough for me since this isn't the first rodeo I seen played to this tune.  



o_O.Q on 11 July 2019
tsogud said:
DrDoomz said:

1. Wow. Really? My statement was pretty clear. If you would rather strawman it that would be on you. Just looks desperate to me, tho. /shrug

2. Assaulting people is never a right thing (there are exceptions, tho as defined by the law). Not unless they are using intimidation/threats of violence/actual violence against you. 

3. This is not biblical times where people can physically attack others at will because they feel subjectively justified. There is a reason why we have laws. We can never excuse assault from either side. Whether it be against Antifa or the Proud Boys or even your local Klansmen. It is not up to you to mete out punishment to those you disagree with.

4. Our laws are clear when you are allowed to use physical force against another. Attacking someone you disagree with is not one of them.

1. Agreed. Your statement was very clear and I used it as it was written. Maybe you should learn to write better. I can't help if you didn't like your statement, that's your fault.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

What was the point of this post?

In any event, TBH idc what side you're on in this incident or how you view Ngo, Antifa, or the Proud Boys because I have lost interest to discuss them. What I care about, the reason I initially quoted you, is that it's extremely problematic to falsely equate what a rape victim goes through to what Ngo went through. This desensitizes people to actual victim blaming of rape victims and lessens the impression of the horrible things and scrutiny rape victims go through in this day and age.

" This desensitizes people to actual victim blaming of rape victims and lessens the impression of the horrible things and scrutiny rape victims go through in this day and age."

that you can post this and not see the irony in it truly is a sight to behold for me, the lack of self awareness is absolutely amazing lol



tsogud on 11 July 2019
o_O.Q said:
tsogud said:

1. Agreed. Your statement was very clear and I used it as it was written. Maybe you should learn to write better. I can't help if you didn't like your statement, that's your fault.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

What was the point of this post?

In any event, TBH idc what side you're on in this incident or how you view Ngo, Antifa, or the Proud Boys because I have lost interest to discuss them. What I care about, the reason I initially quoted you, is that it's extremely problematic to falsely equate what a rape victim goes through to what Ngo went through. This desensitizes people to actual victim blaming of rape victims and lessens the impression of the horrible things and scrutiny rape victims go through in this day and age.

" This desensitizes people to actual victim blaming of rape victims and lessens the impression of the horrible things and scrutiny rape victims go through in this day and age."

that you can post this and not see the irony in it truly is a sight to behold for me, the lack of self awareness is absolutely amazing lol

Funnily enough I didn't ask for your opinion about me and I made it very clear that your interactions to me are unwanted.

Last edited by tsogud - on 11 July 2019