Antifa justifying violence because some is being provocative.... the irony.

"He shouldn't have gone out in public it was dangerous wtf was he thinking"

"she shouldn't have gone out in public at night wearing that it was dangerous wtf was she thinking"

I'm not saying what happened to him is right or wrong.  But nobody should be surprised that he got attacked he is not some innocent bystander.  Again if you mess with a hornets nest you are bond to get stung.

Ima stop before I get in trouble. But let me just say. The slippery slope argument has been used to exhaustion. But still is apropiate. Antifa started punching who they claimed where Nazi and that label could have been applied by simply saying you don't agree to any one issue. People said it would get worse. Now people are getting beat up for being a "provocatour" which again can be applied to anyone who disagrees with their points.
Basicly people don't agree with the label Nazi as it was to extreme so now we got provocatour which is not as extreme as Nazi but less people dissagre and the end result is still violence by antifa. Eventually they will just say he just don't agree with us kick his ass.

I believe if any group no matter how noble their goal is. As soon as they resort to violence the argument is lost. And there is no excuse no matter how much the person sucks. And the people saying violence is bad butt..... The rest of the argument is invalid. The is no butt. Whoever started the violence immediately lost the argument.

If i think i'm fighting for a good cause i might get stung when pushing the boundaries indeed,to my opinion it is good some have the bravery to do that and even when we expect those people being attacked it would still not make them wrong for crossing the boundaries .

There could have been expectations of him being assaulted for sure but he is still a victim.

I definitely don't think of him as victim he stirred things up and was looking for trouble.  I pretty much agree with everything RolStoppable just posted.

That specific article is not his article, however he did vouch for it, vocally support it, and agree with the ideas behind it.

As for the documentation of antifa, I think it is impossible to be a solely anti-antifa journalist when almost every single one of these incidents (including this one) involve counterprotests against violent far-right hate groups. In focusing exclusively on the evils of antifa, you create a narrative which indicates that those right wing hate groups are innocent victims (which obviously isn't the case) and that silence condones those hate groups who were just there to wave their flags and be peaceful, right? (that last bit was sarcasm...)

That said, I think you could very much have an individual or group who was anti-right wing who went into right wing protests to start trouble and I think that they would get criticized for "looking for it". In fact, you might be able to put many members of antifa in this very category. Some individuals go to these protests in order to encourage the other side to cross a line so they can use it for their narrative. Again, condemn those who step over the line, but watch for how this information all plays into the larger narratives. Like, consider the fact that you don't see a widespread story like this every time an antifa member or a Proud Boy gets punched in the face. Why is that?

Does all of that excuse violence used against him?

No.

How many times does this question have to be answered for you to accept the answer?

Once