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

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

Immersiveunreality said:
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.

You're letting me down.

Unavoidable to use violence because of opinions hurting us?

How much do you want to violate the intolerant for them just using words?

I've read a long article parallel to posting here and there it says that the far-right has murdered more than 100 people in the USA in the past ten years as opposed to 0 murders by Antifa. Clearly, the intolerant aren't only using words.

More importantly though, the government needs to do a better job, but I suppose that clashes with the idea of free speech.

EDIT: Finished reading the article. Was a good read because it examined three different angles: The left, the right and the big picture.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

Also contains a sample of Ngo's work which is hilariously bad.

EDIT2: This is so funny that it deserves its own link.

https://splinternews.com/london-has-fallen-according-to-this-racist-wall-street-1828725242

Last edited by RolStoppable - on 07 July 2019

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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:

Sheesh, look at the way that Vox article contorts itself to try minimize the problem.  That's embarrassing.

What is the problem?



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

RolStoppable said:
Immersiveunreality said:

You're letting me down.

Unavoidable to use violence because of opinions hurting us?

How much do you want to violate the intolerant for them just using words?

I've read a long article parallel to posting here and there it says that the far-right has murdered more than 100 people in the USA in the past ten years as opposed to 0 murders by Antifa. Clearly, the intolerant aren't only using words.

More importantly though, the government needs to do a better job, but I suppose that clashes with the idea of free speech.

EDIT: Finished reading the article. Was a good read because it examined three different angles: The left, the right and the big picture.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

Also contains a sample of Ngo's work which is hilariously bad.

EDIT2: This is so funny that it deserves its own link.

https://splinternews.com/london-has-fallen-according-to-this-racist-wall-street-1828725242

"

Also contains a sample of Ngo's work which is hilariously bad.

EDIT2: This is so funny that it deserves its own link.

https://splinternews.com/london-has-fallen-according-to-this-racist-wall-street-1828725242"

yeah... he's afraid of islam's growing influence... the same as many who are apparently trying to victim blame him

had I done this thread on whether religion is delusional and needs to go the way of the dinosaur I can assure you that almost every single person victim blaming him would enthusiastically agree with that proposition

this does not mean he's far right(or even right at all) and it certainly does not mean he's a proud boy



RolStoppable said:
Let's recap:

1. This incident was posted in the official thread for US politics earlier this week and was written off as a provocateur getting what he was looking for.

2. The incident was spun off into its own thread by a user who has a long history of deliberately misrepresenting situations. The video of Fox News describes the situation as Ngo getting beaten almost to death, but the whole thing lasted only about ten seconds and Ngo could walk away on his own feet. People suffer more bruises from an average game of American football.

3. Despite how fake the whole thing is in real life (see Fox News video) as well as how it's set up for this thread, we still get a bunch of people who defend a far-right journalist. If you are right-leaning, why not distance yourself from this journalist as well as the groups he sympathizes with? Is that really a challenge to do?

4. Perhaps there would be more sympathy if Ngo had been driven to death by an Antifa member. But considering that the right as a whole seems to be proud of the American military, it's hilarious that a pansy like Ngo gets the spotlight for suffering minor injuries and that apparently a republican lawyer wants Trump to classify Antifa as a terrorist organisation.

"he video of Fox News describes the situation as Ngo getting beaten almost to death, but the whole thing lasted only about ten seconds and Ngo could walk away on his own feet. People suffer more bruises from an average game of American football."

"it's hilarious that a pansy like Ngo gets the spotlight for suffering minor injuries"

he had bleeding in his brain, are you seriously trying to argue that this is a minor injury?

"we still get a bunch of people who defend a far-right journalist."

how is he far right? and even if he was why shouldn't he be defended from violence?

" If you are right-leaning, why not distance yourself from this journalist as well as the groups he sympathizes with?"

i've seen no evidence so far to show that he's a proud boy



o_O.Q said:

he's afraid of islam's growing influence

he's far right

o_O.Q said:

he's a proud boy

Case closed.



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
"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"

You've made a logical fallacy, but I'm not surprised considering it's you lmao

Last edited by tsogud - on 07 July 2019

 

NightlyPoe said:
RolStoppable said:

What is the problem?

The problem is that the entire article is whataboutism.

Does it matter that left-wing violence is more common?  That they are responsible for much more property damage and assaults?  That their body count is also not zero (a trick of the article is to put right-wing violence into one basket but only credit antifa when it's specifically under that banner).

At this point I am 100% sure that you don't care about journalistic integrity.



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

tsogud said:
o_O.Q said:
"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"

You've made an illogical fallacy, but I'm not surprised considering it's you lmao

can you explain how its a fallacy beyond assertion?

the left states constantly that questioning a victim's actions is victim blaming (when its a woman)

"Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them. The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the prejudice against victims, and the perception that victimsare in any way responsible for the actions of offenders."

now the left beat the shit out of a journalist and what is happening? suddenly its completely ok to criticise the actions of the victim and lets not forget that his actions were simply standing there with a camera

ok look, here's a dude kicking the shit out of a woman

is it ok to victim blame her too? or is it different because she's a woman?

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 07 July 2019

o_O.Q said:
tsogud said:

You've made a logical fallacy, but I'm not surprised considering it's you lmao

can you explain how its a fallacy beyond assertion?

the left states constantly that questioning a victim's actions is victim blaming (when its a woman)

"Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them. The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the prejudice against victims, and the perception that victimsare in any way responsible for the actions of offenders."

now the left beat the shit out of a journalist and what is happening? suddenly its completely ok to criticise the actions of the victim and lets not forget that his actions were simply standing there with a camera

Cool story but you're foundation is based in a fallacy known as false equivalence so your argument doesn't stand and you're wrong.

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence 



 

tsogud said:
o_O.Q said:

can you explain how its a fallacy beyond assertion?

the left states constantly that questioning a victim's actions is victim blaming (when its a woman)

"Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them. The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the prejudice against victims, and the perception that victimsare in any way responsible for the actions of offenders."

now the left beat the shit out of a journalist and what is happening? suddenly its completely ok to criticise the actions of the victim and lets not forget that his actions were simply standing there with a camera

Cool story but you're foundation is based in a fallacy known as false equivalence so your argument doesn't stand and you're wrong.

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence 

"he similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. "

good, what are the additional factors? that he's a man? that he's apparently not a leftist? 

all you're doing is restating the assertion, what i'm asking is for you to describe how I've used the fallacy in this specific case