Any Antifa members here?

[Slingshot Bob]

I prefer seeing what I saw in Boston today, 50,000 people peacefully marching for inclusion to overwhelm the nonsensical chants of haters. But, if it came to a a physical fight and a need for violence, I'd fight with antifa not the Nazis.

So, is that being an antifa sympathizer? Maybe. Anti fascist trumps Nazi.

But, do I like anarchists who throw **** through windows, assault peaceful people holding signs and burn American flags just to burn them? No. I hate those ****ers almost as much as I do Nazis.

Good, glad to hear that, me? I think that both extremes lead to extremes. Mainly I see this stuff on TV, in my little town, we are all Arcadians, color be damned.

 

[fmw]

Well I would consider myself an anti-fascist, just as my father before me, and his father and much of my extended family for generations. Simply being a red blooded American with a respect for our rights and principles should make you sympathetic to anti-fascists and antagonistic towards fascists.

Except that antifa displays more characteristics of fascism than anti-fascism. We have no fascism in our political system nor anything close to it. I view them as anti American because of their violence.

 

[CLAX1911]

When you advocate for the genocide of your fellow countrymen, you lose your right to tolerance. I have no sympathy for nazis.

Agreed. Being against the group that calls themselves antifa forest make someone a Nazi.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Agreed. Being against the group that calls themselves antifa forest make someone a Nazi.

I didn't realize Charlottesville was a an anti-antifa rally, I thought they might have had another agenda.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Except that antifa displays more characteristics of fascism than anti-fascism. We have no fascism in our political system nor anything close to it. I view them as anti American because of their violence.

And you will be branded a "Nazi" for stating that!

 

[Kal'Stang]

I've already stated that in the special case of dealing with armed nazis calling for racial genocide I don't think Americans have to give two ****s about their rights or feelings. You can draw whatever conclusions from that that make you feel good.

I would agree with you, on the one and only condition that those Nazi's started to actually use those arms. Self defense is after all is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise violence is not acceptable. As far as I'm concerned nazi's should not be met with violence for simply standing somewhere and spewing their idiocy, even while armed. They should only be met with violence if they first act violently. If they're not being violent then it is every American's obligation to uphold their right to free speech. Whether you agree with their message or not.

Rights and upholding them are one of the few things that everyone, from all sides of the aisle should be able to agree on. And people do have a Right to not be assaulted simply for spewing hateful stuff. Otherwise you are no better than those Nazi's.

What I am finding alarming is that people think that only the government can violate peoples rights. That is simply wrong. Individuals not in government certainly can violate peoples Rights.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I would agree with you, on the one and only condition that those Nazi's started to actually use those arms. Self defense is after all is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise violence is not acceptable. As far as I'm concerned nazi's should not be met with violence for simply standing somewhere and spewing their idiocy, even while armed. They should only be met with violence if they first act violently. If they're not being violent then it is every American's obligation to uphold their right to free speech. Whether you agree with their message or not.

Rights and upholding them are one of the few things that everyone, from all sides of the aisle should be able to agree on. And people do have a Right to not be assaulted simply for spewing hateful stuff. Otherwise you are no better than those Nazi's.

What I am finding alarming is that people think that only the government can violate peoples rights. That is simply wrong. Individuals not in government certainly can violate peoples Rights.

I see it differently. At the point they start demanding the ethnic cleansing of their fellow countrymen, which would be a violation of their right to life, I no longer give a **** about their claim to a right to free speech. Yes, the government must still protect them if they're being lawful, but morally they deserve just about anything they get. I'm not saying calls for ethnic cleansing would be enough for me to get violent, but it's pretty understandable if the people they want to mass murder want to nip it in the bud and not let it get that far.

Also, while this is certainly up to judicial interpretation and not mine, I don't think the 2nd amendment is meant to let protesters show up armed to the teeth and dressed like wannabe Seal Team Six with the thin facade of "personal defense". If you show up to a protest with bats, torches and rifles, you're not there to assemble in peace, you're hoping you'll get to use the weapons to kill one of your enemies. I'd much rather see these extremely volatile protests handled more like Boston and less like Charlottesville.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

I see it differently. At the point they start demanding the ethnic cleansing of their fellow countrymen, which would be a violation of their right to life, I no longer give a **** about their claim to a right to free speech. Yes, the government must still protect them if they're being lawful, but morally they deserve just about anything they get. I'm not saying calls for ethnic cleansing would be enough for me to get violent, but it's pretty understandable if the people they want to mass murder want to nip it in the bud and not let it get that far.

Also, while this is certainly up to judicial interpretation and not mine, I don't think the 2nd amendment is meant to let protesters show up armed to the teeth and dressed like wannabe Seal Team Six with the thin facade of "personal defense". If you show up to a protest with bats, torches and rifles, you're not there to assemble in peace, you're hoping you'll get to use the weapons to kill one of your enemies. I'd much rather see these extremely volatile protests handled more like Boston and less like Charlottesville.

We've had this discussion before, Alpaca. Say what you will about the position of militias in American culture and law, they certainly weren't protesters.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

I would agree with you, on the one and only condition that those Nazi's started to actually use those arms. Self defense is after all is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise violence is not acceptable. As far as I'm concerned nazi's should not be met with violence for simply standing somewhere and spewing their idiocy, even while armed. They should only be met with violence if they first act violently. If they're not being violent then it is every American's obligation to uphold their right to free speech. Whether you agree with their message or not.

Rights and upholding them are one of the few things that everyone, from all sides of the aisle should be able to agree on. And people do have a Right to not be assaulted simply for spewing hateful stuff. Otherwise you are no better than those Nazi's.

What I am finding alarming is that people think that only the government can violate peoples rights. That is simply wrong. Individuals not in government certainly can violate peoples Rights.

These radicals forgot, "sticks and stones mat break my bones".....

 

[Slingshot Bob]

I see it differently. At the point they start demanding the ethnic cleansing of their fellow countrymen, which would be a violation of their right to life, I no longer give a **** about their claim to a right to free speech. Yes, the government must still protect them if they're being lawful, but morally they deserve just about anything they get. I'm not saying calls for ethnic cleansing would be enough for me to get violent, but it's pretty understandable if the people they want to mass murder want to nip it in the bud and not let it get that far.

Also, while this is certainly up to judicial interpretation and not mine, I don't think the 2nd amendment is meant to let protesters show up armed to the teeth and dressed like wannabe Seal Team Six with the thin facade of "personal defense". If you show up to a protest with bats, torches and rifles, you're not there to assemble in peace, you're hoping you'll get to use the weapons to kill one of your enemies. I'd much rather see these extremely volatile protests handled more like Boston and less like Charlottesville.

Yeah, beat up anyone that speaks offensive language, that will teach them to speak freely!

 

[Kal'Stang]

I see it differently. At the point they start demanding the ethnic cleansing of their fellow countrymen, which would be a violation of their right to life, I no longer give a **** about their claim to a right to free speech. Yes, the government must still protect them if they're being lawful, but morally they deserve just about anything they get. I'm not saying calls for ethnic cleansing would be enough for me to get violent, but it's pretty understandable if the people they want to mass murder want to nip it in the bud and not let it get that far.

Tell me, would you support a first strike attack on North Korea? Iran? Russia? Because that is essentially what you are supporting here by thinking its understandable if they want to "nip it in the bud and not let it get that far". People with differing ideologies being attacked simply for the rhetoric that they spew.

Also, while this is certainly up to judicial interpretation and not mine, I don't think the 2nd amendment is meant to let protesters show up armed to the teeth and dressed like wannabe Seal Team Six with the thin facade of "personal defense". If you show up to a protest with bats, torches and rifles, you're not there to assemble in peace, you're hoping you'll get to use the weapons to kill one of your enemies. I'd much rather see these extremely volatile protests handled more like Boston and less like Charlottesville.

The 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment are able to coincide. One can come armed to a protest and still hope to not have to use those arms. You are only assuming that they came armed in hopes of killing one of their enemies. The arms could very well have been meant as a statement that they are willing to fight to protect the things that they consider worth fighting for and not in the hopes of being able to use them.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Yeah, beat up anyone that speaks offensive language, that will teach them to speak freely!

In the specific and special case of people calling for the mass murder of their countrymen, no, I will not shed one tear if Americans refuse to accept their bull****. They don't want to live in a society with rights, then they should start practicing. The government should hold everyone legally accountable for their actions, but I don't think any individual is morally or intellectually required to protect the speech of people that want to commit genocide.

You're not allowed to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater, make direct threats to people, or slander them. Why are these things perfectly fine to restrict but calling for genocide isn't? This is more than "just a political opinion".

We've had this discussion before, Alpaca. Say what you will about the position of militias in American culture and law, they certainly weren't protesters.

Sure, they just showed up to the nazi rally armed to the teeth and toting confederate flags on their uniforms. Definitely 100% purely apolitical. They were only there to hand out teddy bears and administer first aid. :roll:

Tell me, would you support a first strike attack on North Korea? Iran? Russia? Because that is essentially what you are supporting here by thinking its understandable if they want to "nip it in the bud and not let it get that far". People with differing ideologies being attacked simply for the rhetoric that they spew.

No, as I don't hold individuals to the same standard I hold governments. I do not have any sympathy for the rights of people that want to commit genocide against their countrymen and destroy everyone else's rights. If someone threatened to kill me and my family while we sleep, it's possible that I might do something to them first. Will I still be held accountable to the law if caught? Sure, but that doesn't change my reaction to having me and my family and friends threatened with murder.

The 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment are able to coincide. One can come armed to a protest and still hope to not have to use those arms. You are only assuming that they came armed in hopes of killing one of their enemies. The arms could very well have been meant as a statement that they are willing to fight to protect the things that they consider worth fighting for and not in the hopes of being able to use them.

Sure, they can coincide, but bringing as many weapons as you can carry to a protest where two heavily emotional political sides are clashing is specifically asking for trouble. It's like dousing gasoline on a fire. If you want to show up and protest, do it in good faith and show up unarmed. It's the police and national guard's job to keep the people peaceful and lawful, which is why Boston was a much better example than Charlottesville. Do you think the 40,000 people who showed up in Boston should've all been armed to the teeth? Would that have made everyone more or less safe?

 

[Brochacholomigo]

snip

So, if I got that right, you believe that:

1. if you are protesting, you should do so peacefully

and

2. bringing weapons is bad, because it's to intimidate others and because you want to use them

But at the same time, you also believe that

3. Antifa is perfectly reasonable in attacking Nazis at protests in order to silence them, regardless of the fact that I disagree with violence and intimidation at protests

BECAUSE

4. A small fringe group stating that they want bad things to happen to me is enough to act on, regardless of what the actual police are legally allowed to do

Do I have that straight?

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, as I don't hold individuals to the same standard I hold governments. I do not have any sympathy for the rights of people that want to commit genocide against their countrymen and destroy everyone else's rights. If someone threatened to kill me and my family while we sleep, it's possible that I might do something to them first. Will I still be held accountable to the law if caught? Sure, but that doesn't change my reaction to having me and my family and friends threatened with murder.

I see that as a problem. Why don't you hold the government to the same standards? That imo is exactly why we have Trump in the White House and Hillary ran 2 times, almost making it to the White House the 2nd time. Not to mention all the senators and congress critters that keep their jobs some how.

And don't you think it would be more appropriate to let the police know that that person threatened to kill you and your family and make sure you had a gun handy to defend yourself if the person were to attempt it? I understand that you're willing to accept the consequences of your acting before doing so. But is it the morally right thing to do? I personally don't think it is. People often say things in anger without meaning to actually do what they say. Not saying that these neo-nazi's wouldn't like to do the things that they say. But to be frank they've been spewing the same crap for over 50 years and have yet to actually act on it in the US. They're a bit like the angry old man yelling at the clouds. A completely worthless endeavor, yet harmless in the end.

Sure, they can coincide, but bringing as many weapons as you can carry to a protest where two heavily emotional political sides are clashing is specifically asking for trouble. It's like dousing gasoline on a fire. If you want to show up and protest, do it in good faith and show up unarmed. It's the police and national guard's job to keep the people peaceful and lawful, which is why Boston was a much better example than Charlottesville. Do you think the 40,000 people who showed up in Boston should've all been armed to the teeth? Would that have made everyone more or less safe?

I don't agree that its the police and national guards duty to keep the people peaceful and lawful. It is the police and national guards duty to arrest those that do not stay peaceful and lawful. It is the individuals job to make sure that they themselves do not commit violence and remain lawful. And being armed, or not, is irrelevant to that fact.

As for Boston, I fully believe that even if everyone had shown up armed to the teeth that it still would have ended the same. Why? Because the same people that were in Charlottesville were not the same people in Boston. Antifa appeared to have more influence in Charlottesville on one side. While Nazi's had more influence on the other side. Where as in Boston you had the organizers of the Free Speech rally which had condemned the Nazi's and white supremacists even before the rally was held and didn't want either of those groups with them on one side and on the other you had the decent side of the BLM on the other side.

In other words it wasn't the weapons that were the cause of violence in Charlottesville. It was the individuals on both sides that caused the violence. Even with both sides showing up armed as they were no violence had to happen. It was the individuals choices that led to the violence. Not the inanimate objects or even the groups themselves. This is shown by the fact that not every one there among the groups committed violence. Even of the ones that were armed.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So, if I got that right, you believe that:
1. if you are protesting, you should do so peacefully
and
2. bringing weapons is bad, because it's to intimidate others and because you want to use them
But at the same time, you also believe that
3. Antifa is perfectly reasonable in attacking Nazis at protests in order to silence them, regardless of the fact that I disagree with violence and intimidation at protests
BECAUSE
4. A small fringe group stating that they want bad things to happen to me is enough to act on, regardless of what the actual police are legally allowed to do
Do I have that straight?

1) Yes.
2) Yes and because it's easy for a mistake to happen when emotions are running hot and people are armed with bats, clubs, pistols and assault rifles with many magazines.
3) I'm not here to talk about antifa, I'm here to talk about the thousands of regular Americans counter-protesting nazis.
4) I don't personally give one flying **** about the rights of people who don't want those rights to exist in the first place and want to exterminate all the minorities in America. They deserve any fate they get.

I see that as a problem. Why don't you hold the government to the same standards? That imo is exactly why we have Trump in the White House and Hillary ran 2 times, almost making it to the White House the 2nd time. Not to mention all the senators and congress critters that keep their jobs some how.

And don't you think it would be more appropriate to let the police know that that person threatened to kill you and your family and make sure you had a gun handy to defend yourself if the person were to attempt it? I understand that you're willing to accept the consequences of your acting before doing so. But to be frank they've been spewing the same crap for over 50 years and have yet to actually act on it in the US. They're a bit like the angry old man yelling at the clouds. A completely worthless endeavor, yet harmless in the end.

Because I hold the government to higher standards than I do individuals. A government is responsible for representing all of their people, while an individual is only responsible for representing himself.

Yes, it's very likely I would just inform the cops about it and watch my back, but depending on the situation and the person I'm dealing with, I may decide it's not worth the risk and take care of it myself. I do hope you're right that they're as harmless as the man yelling at a cloud, but when I see them armed to the teeth and spilling blood in the streets while calling for the mass murder of every minority in America, I worry that they're escalating.

I don't agree that its the police and national guards duty to keep the people peaceful and lawful. It is the police and national guards duty to arrest those that do not stay peaceful and lawful. It is the individuals job to make sure that they themselves do not commit violence and remain lawful. And being armed, or not, is irrelevant to that fact.

In other words it wasn't the weapons that were the cause of violence in Charlottesville. It was the individuals on both sides that caused the violence. Even with both sides showing up armed as they were no violence had to happen. It was the individuals choices that led to the violence. Not the inanimate objects or even the groups themselves. This is shown by the fact that not every one there among the groups committed violence. Even of the ones that were armed.

Except if we sprinkled 80,000 guns among the crowd of 40,000 people in Boston the crowd as whole would be much less safe. Sure, most American gun owners are very responsible with their weapons, but all it takes is one asshole to just start mowing people down because he's scared and feels like he's justified in defending himself. What is the purpose of these militias showing up dressed like they think they're Seal Team Six carrying assault rifles with many magazines? How exactly does that keep the peace? Will they start blasting people who get too rowdy? If a group of angry "leftists" is coming their way will they feel justified in mowing them down? These people don't have any training in riot control and emotions on all sides are at an absolute fever pitch. Does every armed protester know exactly what situations he is and isn't allowed to just start blasting people?

Mistakes can and will happen, and the more weapons you throw into a crowd of angry protesters, the higher the chance that someone will decide to use them. This is a far, far cry from simply having a gun to protect yourself and your family, they're going out with the intention to intimidate and no good can come from it. The right starts bringing more and more advanced weaponry, so the left feels they need more weapons, and so on, so that we have a protester arms race. No good can come from that.

 

[fmw]

And you will be branded a "Nazi" for stating that!

Sticks and stones may break my bones.........

 

[CLAX1911]

I didn't realize Charlottesville was a an anti-antifa rally, I thought they might have had another agenda.

Yes there was antifa there. I wouldn't call them Rallys either

 

[Absentglare]

I would agree with you, on the one and only condition that those Nazi's started to actually use those arms. Self defense is after all is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise violence is not acceptable. As far as I'm concerned nazi's should not be met with violence for simply standing somewhere and spewing their idiocy, even while armed. They should only be met with violence if they first act violently. If they're not being violent then it is every American's obligation to uphold their right to free speech. Whether you agree with their message or not.

Rights and upholding them are one of the few things that everyone, from all sides of the aisle should be able to agree on. And people do have a Right to not be assaulted simply for spewing hateful stuff. Otherwise you are no better than those Nazi's.

What I am finding alarming is that people think that only the government can violate peoples rights. That is simply wrong. Individuals not in government certainly can violate peoples Rights.

I disagree with this equivocation: "And people do have a Right to not be assaulted simply for spewing hateful stuff. Otherwise you are no better than those Nazi's."

Having rights infringed upon due to voluntary association with Nazi beliefs is unequivocally not as bad as having rights infringed upon due to involuntary association, e.g. being born black.

You are responsible for your public expressions, speech, and behavior. You are not responsible for your ancestry. The two are not equivalent: hatred for one is truly more despicable than hatred for the other.

Though i agree that the government can infringe on rights, in this context i disagree. Your speech is not guaranteed a platform.

 

[Absentglare]

Yeah, beat up anyone that speaks offensive language, that will teach them to speak freely!

Your freedom of speech does not obligate me to agree with or even respect what you have to say.

 

[Absentglare]

Yes there was antifa there. I wouldn't call them Rallys either

You seem to have misunderstood what you were responding to. He was characterizing the Neo-Nazi side as anti-antifa, which we already know is false ("Unite the Right", Neo-Nazi, KKK, confederate statue defenders, etc.).

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Your freedom of speech does not obligate me to agree with or even respect what you have to say.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Your freedom of speech does not obligate me to agree with or even respect what you have to say.

I don't respect Nazis, but I certainly understand why assaulting them is still wrong.

 

[Rogue Valley]

For some reason I just can't seem to grasp, some peeps here must believe that the 40,000 people who turned out in Boston against the Alt-right/Nazis/skinheads etc must all be AntiFa because they opposed the fascists.

What a bunch of horsepucky.

 

[cabse5]

I suspect most are anti fascist. Don't you think?

If antiFA - antiFirstAmendment - is anti-fascist, how do you explain their fighting fascism with their own fascism? Their own brand of fascism is better than the fascism they fight?

I just realized antiFA's - antiFirstAmendment's fascism fighters are actually fighting the white culture...which they consider fascist.

 

[Absentglare]

View attachment 67221684

Lol! Well, i can tell you that i see a HUGE difference between:

1) hatred due to reasons outside of their control (like ancestry/race)
2) hatred due to reasons inside of their control (like voluntary expressions of beliefs)

My belief is that 1) cannot be justified, while 2) could be justified as "intolerance for intolerance". Tolerance is a two-way street, i'm not obligated to tolerate the intolerant simply because i tolerate the mutually tolerant.

I don't respect Nazis, but I certainly understand why assaulting them is still wrong.

Well, the pic i showed didn't depict violence, and i generally condemn violence in protest. Still, based on the strength of your plea for non-violence, do you think we should have let the Nazis control Europe?