Current Events > Neo-nazi hospitalized after fight with antifa.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Completion posted...

Get insta-suspended w/ no moderation history for "CE's biggest idiots"

"Nazis started out as a peaceful party" fair game

Lol gamefaqs

don't insult users
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

some contrarian shit

nah. foh with that BS, sir.

thanks in advance.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

why do people keep deliberately misinterpreting what others are saying? stop pretending like you're trying to understand.

enemies of America should not dwell in America. Nazis are enemies of America, and those who threaten America while on American soil should be treated as if they made a death threat against the President. not made to feel like a welcomed addition. that also goes for their sympathizers.

too many died for this country for these degenerates to be allowed to spit on their graves.

pretty sure the ones spitting on dead soldier's graves is the government that discard them as soon as their service is over.
---

ModLogic posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

why do people keep deliberately misinterpreting what others are saying? stop pretending like you're trying to understand.

enemies of America should not dwell in America. Nazis are enemies of America, and those who threaten America while on American soil should be treated as if they made a death threat against the President. not made to feel like a welcomed addition. that also goes for their sympathizers.

too many died for this country for these degenerates to be allowed to spit on their graves.

pretty sure the ones spitting on dead soldier's graves is the government that discard them as soon as their service is over.

oh okay, so I guess that means the previous claim untrue because one is also true?

#opiatelogic
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Person 1: lets commit genocide
Person 2: *stops them violently*
UR: that was wrong

1. He never said "Let's commit genocide" he had racist bumper stickers. You can't even get your strawman straight.

2. Yes, opposing opinions with violence is wrong.

There are people who think inter-racial couples are genocide, according to you, they are now entitled to attack them violently.

The current Trump anti-vietnam war refugees policy is genocide in that it's a raced based mass forced migration, which is literally genocide. So should Trump and his supporters be beaten?

You're not thinking. You're just advocating lunacy.

Challenge with your mind and your words. Don't throw tantrums and get violent because people disagree with you.

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

some contrarian shit

nah. foh with that BS, sir.

thanks in advance.

So again you actually have no logic nor counter argument to how being violent towards people who disagree with you is okay.

Nor who gets to decide what counts as wrongthink.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

ModLogic posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

why do people keep deliberately misinterpreting what others are saying? stop pretending like you're trying to understand.

enemies of America should not dwell in America. Nazis are enemies of America, and those who threaten America while on American soil should be treated as if they made a death threat against the President. not made to feel like a welcomed addition. that also goes for their sympathizers.

too many died for this country for these degenerates to be allowed to spit on their graves.

pretty sure the ones spitting on dead soldier's graves is the government that discard them as soon as their service is over.

oh okay, so I guess that means the previous claim untrue because one is also true?

#opiatelogic

so by your logic the us government should not dwell in america derp da herp

obviously dumb shit spouted by those condoning violence doesn't make sense
---

pretending that America isn't a nation that's proud of putting Nazis down like dogs while also trying to accuse somebody else of being uninformed, lolololol

foh.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

This post is so fucking dumb

that can be said for every post a baizuo makes
---

I cant believe how ignorant shockthemonkey actually is being with this. Antifa is just as disgusting as neo nazis are, they are only left leaning instead of right leaning.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

This post is so fucking dumb

So you keep saying, but yet are constantly unable to explain why

Merely saying "Its good to be violent to people who disagree with you!" and then insulting people over and over.

Which says it all really.
---

Offworlder1 posted...

I cant believe how ignorant shockthemonkey actually is being with this. Antifa is just as disgusting as neo nazis are, they are only left leaning instead of right leaning.

Antifa isn't good, but thinking they're just as bad as Neo Nazis shows your own lack of education, tbh.

to not acknowledge nuance on such a subject is very telling.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Offworlder1 posted...

I cant believe how ignorant shockthemonkey actually is being with this. Antifa is just as disgusting as neo nazis are, they are only left leaning instead of right leaning.

Antifa isn't good, but thinking they're just as bad as Neo Nazis shows your own lack of education, tbh.

to not acknowledge nuance on such a subject is very telling.

I don't get how you can complain at others for not understanding nuance while you literally advocate violence, promote wrongthink and duck questions on who gets to decide what the wrongthink is.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

pretending that America isn't a nation that's proud of putting Nazis down like dogs while also trying to accuse somebody else of being uninformed, lolololol

foh.

---

Offworlder1 posted...

I cant believe how ignorant shockthemonkey actually is being with this. Antifa is just as disgusting as neo nazis are, they are only left leaning instead of right leaning.

Your friend code is showing

Jesus, did anyone catch ROD's pentapost from post #127-131

what a meltdown and he needs some help
---

Look at how they treat vets and how they literally disrespect the funerals of vets qlong with their families, just cause Antifa is not open about who they want dead does not mean a person cant read between the lines.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

This is a stupidly myopic post and no one should be taken seriously they use "jUsT fOr DiSsAgReEiNg WiTh YoU" rhetoric without applying context as if it ever a simple disagreement about what could be anything. What's next? "If punching a Nazi is okay, how long will it be until all violence is okay for any reason? sLiPpErY sLoPe!!"

I disagree entirely.

Going "I agree that it's wrong to attack people who disagree with you.... unless they disagree with you!" is just nonsense.

If the premise goes "Well this isn't a "simple" disagreement therefore it's okay to be violent!" is a complete lapse of logic and I think that you know this. WTF does "Simple" mean?

Never respond to someone who disagrees with you with physical violence. That way lunacy lies. Again 3 year olds are taught this.

shockthemonkey posted...

Right? No one is condoning violence on the sole basis of disagreement. People are condoning violence because someone believes that genocide should be carried out.

"No one is condoning violence SOLEY on disagreement, they just condone violence because someone disagreed with them." is literally doublethink.

Which is doubleplus bad.

I'm reminded of something Penn once said about why he and Teller were such a successful double act. It's because they thought their shows together were better than there shows alone, so when they pissed each other off, they just shrugged it off.

His comparison was saying imagine you were a 7-11 clerk when the surplee machine breaks down and someone comes in to fix it, then says something dumb while fixing the machine.

So what? He's the dude who fixes the surplee machine? Who cares.

You're literally advocating that if you think the wrong opinion, you deserve to be physically attacked. That's lunacy

Wow. You can't get off that disagreement obsession. Have you tried to get help or at least considering it? If you keep twisting the words that others say to you too much, you will run out of people willing to interact with you. Is that something you want? I'm genuinely curious because a lot of people here go too far out of their way to attract negative attention to not know what they're doing. They want negative attention. I'm wondering if that's why you do what you do on here.

Okay. You disagree. Next paragraph: no one ever said that. I firmly believe that you only responded because I've called you out for not responding to certain things in posts in the past. What does simple mean? "I disagree with you about ________. I used violence for that reason alone." Toss various random things into the blank and evaluate the statement as a whole. If changing the variable doesn't change how you view the statement, it was a simple argument. Here are some variables to use: "chairs," "pizza," "cats or dogs," "tits or asses," "sports teams," "whether or not various demographics should be genocided and that some races and ethnicities are fundamentally superior to others," "vehicles," "exercise methods," "movies/TV shows," "video games," "music genres." You will say that when you have plugged all of those in, the level of ridiculousness in resorting to violence in each case is equal and the escalation leading to the violent act is likely to play out consistently across the argument variables. In my case, and the case of anyone who thinks critically, one of those variables raises an eyebrow, because it is a different sort of argument entirely from the rest. As for you referencing what 3 and 4 year olds are taught three times at least, I'm going to recommend you change your name to Khan... and your surname to Descending.
---

lmfao baizuo pushed into meltdown
---

AssultTank posted...

Once you start justifying violence against those who have done no violence to others, you start on a path that is the same one the Nazis took in the 1930s. They didn't start out with a "Kill all Jews" slogan. They started by claiming that the rich Jewish people in Germany were harming others through economic control. This led to the Nazi party doing absolutely horrendous things, but it started much in the same way as the Occupy movement.

Basically they gained power by making the Jewish people into a scapegoat for all the troubles in the nation, then from there eventually justified violence, and concentration camps.

Basically, I don't condone violence against anyone who has not done actual violence to others. Sticks and stones guys... Sticks and stones.

Nazism is horrendous, and I will never condone it, but I will defend the rights of people tp hold horrendous beliefs because once you justify silencing someone, it gets very easy to justify silencing others.

Why cant I hold all these white supremacist talking points

FursonaNonGrata posted...

AssultTank posted...

Once you start justifying violence against those who have done no violence to others, you start on a path that is the same one the Nazis took in the 1930s. They didn't start out with a "Kill all Jews" slogan. They started by claiming that the rich Jewish people in Germany were harming others through economic control. This led to the Nazi party doing absolutely horrendous things, but it started much in the same way as the Occupy movement.

Basically they gained power by making the Jewish people into a scapegoat for all the troubles in the nation, then from there eventually justified violence, and concentration camps.

Basically, I don't condone violence against anyone who has not done actual violence to others. Sticks and stones guys... Sticks and stones.

Nazism is horrendous, and I will never condone it, but I will defend the rights of people tp hold horrendous beliefs because once you justify silencing someone, it gets very easy to justify silencing others.

Why cant I hold all these white supremacist talking points

Id challenge asstank to show ONE post where he pulled the same guys! Violence is wrong! Leave the victims alone :( bullshit when Charlottesville happened. You know the whole lets run over non Nazis or pull guns on them stuff.

SchoolForAnts posted...

FursonaNonGrata posted...

AssultTank posted...

Once you start justifying violence against those who have done no violence to others, you start on a path that is the same one the Nazis took in the 1930s. They didn't start out with a "Kill all Jews" slogan. They started by claiming that the rich Jewish people in Germany were harming others through economic control. This led to the Nazi party doing absolutely horrendous things, but it started much in the same way as the Occupy movement.

Basically they gained power by making the Jewish people into a scapegoat for all the troubles in the nation, then from there eventually justified violence, and concentration camps.

Basically, I don't condone violence against anyone who has not done actual violence to others. Sticks and stones guys... Sticks and stones.

Nazism is horrendous, and I will never condone it, but I will defend the rights of people tp hold horrendous beliefs because once you justify silencing someone, it gets very easy to justify silencing others.

Why cant I hold all these white supremacist talking points

Id challenge asstank to show ONE post where he pulled the same guys! Violence is wrong! Leave the victims alone :( bullshit when Charlottesville happened. You know the whole lets run over non Nazis or pull guns on them stuff.

basically a more quiet Admiral.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Wow. You can't get off that disagreement obsession.

Yes.

I like all rational people think that violence against people because they disagree with you is wrong.

Calling it an obsession is a lazy way to degrade that ironclad stance that most reasonable people are taught early in childhood.

This is redoubled by the fact the people calling for violence, anti-free speech and dictatorships like shock and ricky cant actually defend their call. They can just insult people

Have you tried to get help or at least considering it? If you keep twisting the words that others say to you too much, you will run out of people willing to interact with you. Is that something you want?

I don't believe I've twisted anything. And again a lack of any point being made followed by a flurry of lazy insults just kinda demostrates how little logical point you actually have.

I'm genuinely curious because a lot of people here go too far out of their way to attract negative attention to not know what they're doing. They want negative attention. I'm wondering if that's why you do what you do on here.

I don't really care about attention, negative or positive. I'm just going to promote logic and thought and debate and exchange over violence against those who disagree with you.

And considering the attitudes being expressed by people like you and Shock, people like me doing that seems kinda needed to help prevent lunacy.

Okay. You disagree. Next paragraph: no one ever said that. I firmly believe that you only responded because I've called you out for not responding to certain things in posts in the past. What does simple mean? "I disagree with you about ________. I used violence for that reason alone." Toss various random things into the blank and evaluate the statement as a whole. If changing the variable doesn't change how you view the statement, it was a simple argument. Here are some variables to use: "chairs," "pizza," "cats or dogs," "tits or asses," "sports teams," "whether or not various demographics should be genocided and that some races and ethnicities are fundamentally superior to others," "vehicles," "exercise methods," "movies/TV shows," "video games," "music genres." You will say that when you have plugged all of those in, the level of ridiculousness in resorting to violence in each case is equal and the escalation leading to the violent act is likely to play out consistently across the argument variables.

I've said nothing about whether or not the cases are "Equal" and I am not sure what that even means. I feel like you're just rambling and ranting here without any coherance.

I just think violence against those for having different views is wrong. You going "Hey being violent against a Nazi isn't literally identical to being violent against someone who likes Guns and Roses!" has no baring on that original statement

Violence against those for having different views is wrong.

As for you referencing what 3 and 4 year olds are taught three times at least, I'm going to recommend you change your name to Khan... and your surname to Descending.

I point it out very intentionally.

1-3 year olds aren't logical. They are purely emotion and instinct driven. Once their brain develops we enourage them to think rationally and grow.

You and shock are saying we need to neglect that and give up on rationality and logic and instead become violent and emotional without purpose.

Pointing out that this is falling below the standards of a rational 3 year old is in my opinion immensely relevant and to be repeated
---

It's funny that CE will go the distance to defend nazi rights yet this argument and stance isnt the focal point when minorities are attacked.

Same group of the usual suspects to I'm not even surprised.
---

evidence > opinion.

evidence shows Nazis have no place in America. your feelings might as well be toilet paper, UR.
---

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
---

You guys really need to stop engaging UR.
---

VipaGTS posted...

You guys really need to stop engaging UR.

Again you can't actually point out why it's okay to respond to differing opinions with violence.

Why are you so afraid of dialogue?
---

Im not. I just know youre a gimmick so its not worth the time.
---

why are you referring to genocide advocacy & threats as "opinions"

they are threats
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

why are you referring to genocide advocacy & threats as "opinions"

they are threats

What threat did this guy make?

And if he made a threat, why didn't they call the police for threatening them? Why did 5 men attack him?

The article just said he had racist bumper stickers.

Which is not something to attack someone over.

Just look at Reverend Wade Watts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ce1UK1knU" data-time="

You won't watch that video because you can't counter it, but it demonstrates how stupid violence is against opposing views and how powerful dialogue is.
---

Are we now accepting that regular citizens (i.e. not law enforcement) can or even should perform physical violence against others, if they feel threatened by words? Im asking because Im seeing a lot of names here who still despise George Zimmerman, for example, for literally defending himself from bodily harm that could have been life-threatening, but now theyre here saying its Ok to attack someone who is running his mouth or had an offensive sticker on his car.

How the fuck you guys going to justify that double standard?
---

What threat did this guy make?

belonging to an organization that advocates genocide, ergo, he supports genocide

really simple stuff

"If I attain power your race will be exterminated" is a threat, and that is exactly what you concede to believing and advocating for if you identify as a neo-nazi

reminder that by defending these people you are enabling people like the Synagogue shooter because you fail to understand the clear and present danger genocide advocacy presents
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

for literally defending himself from bodily harm

*stalking a kid, instigating a fight, shooting said kid when he was losing the fight
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Im seeing a lot of names here who still despise George Zimmerman, for example, for literally defending himself from bodily harm that could have been life-threatening

lmfao holy shit

We do not need to drag in Zimmerman vs Trayvon again, it hasnt even been a month since the last topic for that bullshit.
---

I mean if you're going to bring that shit up at least demonstrate that you even -slightly- know what happened which Lorenzo evidently does not

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

SchoolForAnts posted...

FursonaNonGrata posted...

AssultTank posted...

Once you start justifying violence against those who have done no violence to others, you start on a path that is the same one the Nazis took in the 1930s. They didn't start out with a "Kill all Jews" slogan. They started by claiming that the rich Jewish people in Germany were harming others through economic control. This led to the Nazi party doing absolutely horrendous things, but it started much in the same way as the Occupy movement.

Basically they gained power by making the Jewish people into a scapegoat for all the troubles in the nation, then from there eventually justified violence, and concentration camps.

Basically, I don't condone violence against anyone who has not done actual violence to others. Sticks and stones guys... Sticks and stones.

Nazism is horrendous, and I will never condone it, but I will defend the rights of people tp hold horrendous beliefs because once you justify silencing someone, it gets very easy to justify silencing others.

Why cant I hold all these white supremacist talking points

Id challenge asstank to show ONE post where he pulled the same guys! Violence is wrong! Leave the victims alone :( bullshit when Charlottesville happened. You know the whole lets run over non Nazis or pull guns on them stuff.

basically a more quiet Admiral.

Very true!

I take he bangs C list Celebs then? Hahaha

Zero_Destroyer posted...

an organization that advocates genocide, ergo, he supports genocide

Trump's policies advocate genocide.

So according to you beating him and his supporters is okay?

Some people think interracial couples are genocide.

So they are now allowed to attack people?

You're going "Yes I agree that it's wrong to attack people for their opinions but these are BAD opinions, therefore it's fine."

That's doublethink. It's bad.

Those Muslims in Kano just arrested 11 women for having a gay marriage because it was "The wrong opinion" beyond what the opinion is, how are you different?

Don't go "Say goodbye to logic and reason and debate and benefit and thought. Just let the most powerful group assault the wrongthinkers." That will always end badly.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

George Zimmerman, for example, for literally defending himself from bodily harm that could have been life-threatening, but now theyre here saying its Ok to attack someone who is running his mouth or had an offensive sticker on his car.

How the fuck you guys going to justify that double standard?

They won't.

Nobody has ever managed to make a decent case explaining how Zimmerman's self defense was wrong

You are not authorized to read messages from this board.

"If I attain power your race will be exterminated" is a threat, and that is exactly what you concede to believing and advocating for if you identify as a neo-nazi

Well first off did the guy ever say that? Sounds like you're putting words in his mouth.

Secondly, then the solution is to try and ensure either

1. He doesn't obtain power.

2. You change his mind.

Violence is not the way to do either.

Again the video you ignored:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ce1UK1knU" data-time="

Zero_Destroyer posted...

reminder that by defending these people you are enabling people like the Synagogue shooter because you fail to understand the clear and present danger genocide advocacy presents

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

for literally defending himself from bodily harm

*stalking a kid, instigating a fight, shooting said kid when he was losing the fight

None of that is true. Zimmerman didn't stalk anyone.
Trayvon got home, went after Zimmerman, hid behind a bush, ambushed Zimmerman, attacked him and mounted him while punching his face as blood poured into Zimmerman's mouth and eyes so he couldn't see or breathe.

Zimmerman pleaded for Mercy while Travyon said he was going to die. Then got shot.

Aside from bruised knuckles from punching and the bulletwound, travyon had no scratches on him. There was no "fight."

Trayvon just followed, ambushed and assaulted Zimmerman.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

reminder that by defending these people you are enabling people like the Synagogue shooter because you fail to understand the clear and present danger genocide advocacy presents

When they reported the Muslim child rape grooming gangs in the UK a lunatic shot up a bunch of random innocent Muslims in "Retaliation."

As such should we not report the grooming gangs in the UK? I mean clearly reporting those facts enbabled the lunatic. IT's undeniable that if we never reported those facts the guy wouldn't have killed those innocent people.

No. You challenge the lunatics, you don't change basic fundamentals of your nation because you fear them.
---

with all of the straw men, this topic is highly flammable
---