Poll of the Day > Antifa are a bunch of cowards

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.4e40d188a02b

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the silence from most here on this

maybe the people here have grown tired and weary of yet another contrarian troll account.

“We’re just puzzled as to why people consider violence a valid tactic”

Said the person who has never read a history book before. It should be stamped out, obviously, but man that was a stupid statement.

argonautweakend posted...

maybe the people here have grown tired and weary of yet another contrarian troll account.

How am I a troll by posting a news article? The definition of a troll seems to vary from poster to poster. Not even sure it means anything at this point

Posting news you don't like isn't trolling dude

OhhhJa posted...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the silence from most here on this

I just got up, I don't get to my America bashing until after breakfast
---

Lokarin posted...

OhhhJa posted...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the silence from most here on this

I just got up, I don't get to my America bashing until after breakfast

Aye. One must have their coffee and eggs benedict before such occasions

Am I supposed to be apologizing on their part?

I don't know much about Antifa, but I'd hazard a guess that 4 people aren't representative of the entire group, just as every white nationalist wouldn't climb into their car and drive into a crowd of people.
---

KevinceKostner posted...

Am I supposed to be apologizing on their part?

If I was a leftist, I'd be calling you a sympathizer right about now

Grendel Prime posted...

I don't know much about Antifa, but I'd hazard a guess that 4 people aren't representative of the entire group, just as every white nationalist wouldn't climb into their car and drive into a crowd of people.

Well, you'd be wrong. Antifa are a militant group

OhhhJa posted...

militant group

No they aren't ya clown.
---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

OhhhJa posted...

militant group

No they aren't ya clown.

Under the 2nd amendment, all of America is a militant group - so that' phrase is meaningless
---

Lokarin posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

OhhhJa posted...

militant group

No they aren't ya clown.

Under the 2nd amendment, all of America is a militant group - so that' phrase is meaningless

Touché
---

Wait... how is literally fighting against a cause they disagree with considered cowardly? Detrimental and gratuitously antagonistic, sure (violence is bad and all), but cowardly?
---

Zeus tells me Washington Post is fake news whose journalists lie all the time, so this must be a fake story.
---

adjl posted...

Wait... how is literally fighting against a cause they disagree with considered cowardly? Detrimental and gratuitously antagonistic, sure (violence is bad and all), but cowardly?

How is it not? It's a bunch of masked idiots going around beating unarmed people. You gotta do better than that if you wanna defend a bunch of violent degenerates

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus tells me Washington Post is fake news whose journalists lie all the time, so this must be a fake story.

I was honestly pretty shocked they ran this story. Must be trying to appear less biased

If you look up coward in the dictionary antifa is the entry right next to it.

I've got a really shitty dictionary though.

OhhhJa posted...

How is it not?

Because going into any sort of battle is typically considered to be the opposite of cowardly, regardless of what measures the attackers have taken to protect themselves.

OhhhJa posted...

It's a bunch of masked idiots going around beating unarmed people.

By the sound of things, the protestors were about as well-armed as the attackers. Most of the attacks sound like standard kicks and punches, and I think it's fairly safe to assume the protestors have arms and legs, as well as outnumbering the attackers 20 to 1.

OhhhJa posted...

You gotta do better than that if you wanna defend a bunch of violent degenerates

adjl posted...

Detrimental and gratuitously antagonistic, sure (violence is bad and all)

Second half of the post, dude. Violence is bad and these guys are assholes, but that doesn't make calling them cowards any more accurate. Given that the former part of that point is kind of a given, I'm more interested in pointing out your flawed, sensationalist word choice.
---

adjl posted...

Because going into any sort of battle is typically considered to be the opposite of cowardly, regardless of what measures the attackers have taken to protect themselves.

Even if you blindside someone who is ostensibly unarmed with a lock in a sock and try to disappear into the crowd?

Or are you saying that the dipshit who drove his car into non-violent protesters was brave?
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Even if you blindside someone who is ostensibly unarmed with a lock in a sock and try to disappear into the crowd?

A crowd that saw what happened and can tear your arms off if they're so inclined? It's a cheap shot, certainly, but it's far from being a safe way to attack somebody.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Or are you saying that the dips*** who drove his car into non-violent protesters was brave?

In that case, he has the option of just reversing out of there, which means he's not actually going into combat. Just causing a bunch of damage that nobody can readily retaliate against or prevent. I'd call that cowardly.
---

Antifa, in practice, are actually worse than the average neo-Nazi, honestly. Saying hateful things is far less problematic than being violent and destructive. Not to mention they all hide behind masks and run away.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Antifa, in practice, are actually worse than the average neo-Nazi, honestly. Saying hateful things is far less problematic than being violent and destructive. Not to mention they all hide behind masks and run away.

Are you drunk?

Plenty of violent neo-Nazis/white nationalists/Klan members.

And many of them wear things to conceal their faces. Especially the Klan.

What a dumb statement.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Antifa, in practice, are actually worse than the average neo-Nazi, honestly. Saying hateful things is far less problematic than being violent and destructive. Not to mention they all hide behind masks and run away.

Nah, they're being reactively violent against fascists (including white nationalists and neo Nazis). Not killing civilians in proximity to events. What's the term... False equivalence

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/charlottesville-aftermath-1.4246438

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/15/alt-left-donald-trump-said-violent-charlottesville/

http://time.com/4899658/charlottesville-antifa-protests/

http://inthesetimes.com/article/20427/false-equivalency-white-supremacist-nazis-fascists-antifa-Charlottesville

Antifa had been fighting against resurgence of Nazi groups for decades. They fought hard in Germany in the 70s and 80s. Now that these groups are showing their faces in the US and in many ways being condoned by the government, you're now hearing about antifa standing up against it.
---

adjl posted...

A crowd that saw what happened and can tear your arms off if they're so inclined? It's a cheap shot, certainly, but it's far from being a safe way to attack somebody.

I...guess? But if you do it fast and walk away, the only way anyone would know who did it was through the magic of video. And frankly, if people were more bloodthirsty, they would be more focused on killing the offender, rather than attending to their fallen comrade. Not that it makes them right, mind you, but this did happen and he did escape immediate retribution. I suppose, though, fools can be brave.

adjl posted...

In that case, he has the option of just reversing out of there, which means he's not actually going into combat. Just causing a bunch of damage that nobody can readily retaliate against or prevent.

I agree with the reverse option, I've been saying it for weeks. But I also didn't mention the very distinct possibility that he was attacked first in my post. In part because I've reviewed the footage from multiple angles and think it's bunk.

That said, people have absolutely been dragged from their cars and beaten. Ramming cars isn't really a good strategy if you plan to escape such punishment, notwithstanding that cars are generally built to withstand front and rear collisions. I could excuse his actions based on similar reasoning. But I don't. One used a car, one used a mask. They both tried to ensure their escape. They are both cowards. The attack wasn't important.

I reject that premise anyway, but come on. Trying to excuse one and condemn the other based on only their methods of attack is ridiculous. You could perhaps argue that the fucking white supremacist was more cowardly, but not that either was being brave.Hell, the sock-lock guy was also surrounded by sympathetic protesters. His chances of being pulled apart were (roughly, not certainly) comparable to ramming a car into a group of non-violent protesters.
---

Here's more about the false equivalence

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-both-sides-civil-rights-movement-kkk-naacp-20170819-story.html

Did you know that tactic was used to blame the NAACP and the KKK as being equally bad? You know, back when the KKK was more openly and actively working to oppress POC in the US. That whole civil rights movement. The same whataboutism was trotted out.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-false-equivalency-of-the-criticism-of-the-alt-left/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-trump-gets-wrong-about-antifa/537048/

Even Snopes has done the work and says antifa pose much less of a threat.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Antifa, in practice, are actually worse than the average neo-Nazi, honestly. Saying hateful things is far less problematic than being violent and destructive. Not to mention they all hide behind masks and run away.

Nah, they're being reactively violent against fascists (including white nationalists and neo Nazis). Not killing civilians in proximity to events. What's the term... False equivalence

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/charlottesville-aftermath-1.4246438

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/15/alt-left-donald-trump-said-violent-charlottesville/

http://time.com/4899658/charlottesville-antifa-protests/

http://inthesetimes.com/article/20427/false-equivalency-white-supremacist-nazis-fascists-antifa-Charlottesville

Antifa had been fighting against resurgence of Nazi groups for decades. They fought hard in Germany in the 70s and 80s. Now that these groups are showing their faces in the US and in many ways being condoned by the government, you're now hearing about antifa standing up against it.

Boy you are being really generous with the term "reactively" and "fascists". The irony of the term 'antifascist' notwithstanding.

Just like when they "reacted" to a gay dickhead going to speak at Berkley by smashing windows, burning property, beating the shit out of attendees and pepper spraying a girl who's hate said, "Make Bitcoin Great Again".

Turns out when you call everything fascism, you give yourself a license to commit violence on anything you want.
---

Grendel Prime posted...

Are you drunk?

Yes.

Grendel Prime posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Antifa, in practice, are actually worse than the average neo-Nazi, honestly. Saying hateful things is far less problematic than being violent and destructive. Not to mention they all hide behind masks and run away.

Are you drunk?

Plenty of violent neo-Nazis/white nationalists/Klan members.

And many of them wear things to conceal their faces. Especially the Klan.

What a dumb statement.

Grendel Prime posted...

Plenty of violent neo-Nazis/white nationalists/Klan members.

Also yes. Fuck them. I hope they are died or jailed.

Grendel Prime posted...

And many of them wear things to conceal their faces. Especially the Klan.

Uhhh...okay? I hope you didn't think this was an antifa defense. Anyone who is a dumbass violent asshole should get what's coming to them, including dumbass neo-nazi white supremacists and dumbass violent antifa. Violence has no place in political disagreements in our society. I don't care if you agree with me, or if you make stupid race-based arguments.

Grendel Prime posted...

What a dumb statement.

Agreed.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Antifa had been fighting against resurgence of Nazi groups for decades. They fought hard in Germany in the 70s and 80s. Now that these groups are showing their faces in the US and in many ways being condoned by the government, you're now hearing about antifa standing up against it.

And? Does them being less evil than literal Nazis, the go to for evil metaphors if not metaphors, make you good? Does the ridiculous watering down of the Nazi label mean that anyone who anyone calls a Nazi deserves death and no trial?
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

And? Does them being less evil than literal Nazis, the go to for evil metaphors if not metaphors, make you good? Does the ridiculous watering down of the Nazi label mean that anyone who anyone calls a Nazi deserves death and no trial?

What kind of nonsense tangent is this?

Antifa is not on the same moral plane as the hate groups it protests against. You are ignoring reality in any attempt to equate the group.

The article linked above from the Chicago Tribune goes into this tactic and is a good read.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Did you know that tactic was used to blame the NAACP and the KKK as being equally bad? You know, back when the KKK was more openly and actively working to oppress POC in the US. That whole civil rights movement. The same whataboutism was trotted out.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Even Snopes has done the work and says antifa pose much less of a threat.

Uhhh...so? I would immediately ask, which threat is worse? The threat which any reasonable person recognizes as an obvious threat, or the threat that no one realizes is a threat? It's relative. Even if one could historically do more damage, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll do more damage than a shitty movement that has no nationwide opposition.

Oh wait, I guess that was the Nazis. My bad.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Antifa is not on the same moral plane as the hate groups it protests against. You are ignoring reality in any attempt to equate the group.

Ugh, I am not attempting to equate the two. Quite the opposite. But antifa being less bad than Nazis doesn't make them good. Or desirable. How is this hard to understand? I'd imagine if I said," You'd rather be raped than murdered," you'd obviously retort that you'd rather be neither. Of course. Of course the shitty racists are worse. How does that translate to,"their opposition is good"? They can both be bad. Better is comparative. Fuck both of them to hell.
---

adjl posted...

Wait... how is literally fighting against a cause they disagree with considered cowardly? Detrimental and gratuitously antagonistic, sure (violence is bad and all), but cowardly?

"I fear your words so much, i am willing to physically assault you to silence them"

THAT is cowardly
---

OhhhJa posted...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the silence from most here on this

Yeah, for some reason alt right extremists get a lot more apologist responses

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Ugh, I am not attempting to equate the two. Quite the opposite. But antifa being less bad than Nazis doesn't make them good. Or desirable. How is this hard to understand? I'd imagine if I said," You'd rather be raped than murdered," you'd obviously retort that you'd rather be neither. Of course. Of course the shitty racists are worse. How does that translate to,"their opposition is good"? They can both be bad. Better is comparative. Fuck both of them to hell.

"It is only now, when racism is widely considered to be immoral, that racists argue moral equivalency in opposition to civil rights advocates,"
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

That said, people have absolutely been dragged from their cars and beaten.

Usually not when the car in question is being used as a weapon. Most people who get dragged from cars either can't move their car, or choose not to because they don't like the idea of running people over to escape. If somebody's just driven a car into a crowd with the intent of running people over, neither of those issues are particularly relevant.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

They both tried to ensure their escape. They are both cowards. The attack wasn't important.

Ensuring you can escape safely after mounting an offensive is basic strategy, not cowardice. The attack is important in assessing how bold the attack is, because the level of risk faced by the attacker is massively different.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Trying to excuse one and condemn the other based on only their methods of attack is ridiculous.

I'm not particularly trying to excuse either of them. Both are bad, and neither should have happened. I'm just pointing out that it's not particularly cowardly to start a fight while surrounded by thousands of people that you know aren't going to take your side, and that calling such people cowards in a fit of thinly-veiled pathos is just silly. How brave or cowardly it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it's right or wrong.

If you want an extreme example: Suicide bombers are braver than any of us will ever be.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

adjl posted...

Wait... how is literally fighting against a cause they disagree with considered cowardly? Detrimental and gratuitously antagonistic, sure (violence is bad and all), but cowardly?

"I fear your words so much, i am willing to physically assault you to silence them"

THAT is cowardly

Come now, you're more intelligent than that. Or do you actually think that systematic protests are "just words," and not part of an organized effort to effect political and social change?
---

adjl posted...

If you want an extreme example: Suicide bombers are braver than any of us will ever be.

Questionable. I believe that this is the end and after death you're gone forever. Many suicide bombers believe they'll be sent to an eternal paradise where all their dreams come true. If I believed that I'd be far less worried about dying.

You're right about attacking people in public not being cowardly, though, but it's pretty amusing this political shitpost has turned into a semantic debate about an aspect that doesn't really matter that much.

adjl posted...

Come now, you're more intelligent than that. Or do you actually think that systematic protests are "just words," and not part of an organized effort to effect political and social change?

right, im afraid of the power of your words, so i will react with physical violence

come now, youre more intelligent than that. your elementary school teachers must have taught you reading comprehension.
---

adjl posted...

Usually not when the car in question is being used as a weapon. Most people who get dragged from cars either can't move their car, or choose not to because they don't like the idea of running people over to escape. If somebody's just driven a car into a crowd with the intent of running people over, neither of those issues are particularly relevant.

I mean, I already said I agree he should be charged with at least manslaughter. (Maybe not specifically, but he should definitely be charged). That said, your reply here obviously implies that people attempting to take the moral high ground are punished for it. Or can't move their car. Hell, i can't think of a scenario that would make me unwilling to run people over who were willing to drag me from my car other than being physically unable to move it.

adjl posted...

Ensuring you can escape safely after mounting an offensive is basic strategy, not cowardice. The attack is important in assessing how bold the attack is, because the level of risk faced by the attacker is massively different.

So...the driver in this case, using his car to attack, was using basic strategy? By they were not only using basic strategy, but also minimizing risk? Or do you have to face minimum risk to be considered brave, and that standard is according to adjl on GF?

Make no mistake, I think they are both cowards.

adjl posted...

I'm not particularly trying to excuse either of them. Both are bad, and neither should have happened. I'm just pointing out that it's not particularly cowardly to start a fight while surrounded by thousands of people that you know aren't going to take your side, and that calling such people cowards in a fit of thinly-veiled pathos is just silly. How brave or cowardly it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it's right or wrong.

If you want an extreme example: Suicide bombers are braver than any of us will ever be.

Or stupider. Or more religious. Or both.

Keep in mind that my specific example (which as clarification I do not assume is representative for all antifa, but would condemn them as such for the cowardice I think we agree on that the white supremacist displayed)was certainly not surrounded by multiple dissenters, but was in the midst of people who agreed with him when he attacked with potentially deadly force.
---

Duck-I-Says posted...

it's pretty amusing this political shitpost has turned into a semantic debate about an aspect that doesn't really matter that much.

that is adjls modus operandi. his absurdist world view crumbles under actual logic, so he turns every argument into a semantic debate and takes 50 pages to state something that could be conveyed in 6 or 7 words.
---

adjl posted...

Come now, you're more intelligent than that. Or do you actually think that systematic protests are "just words," and not part of an organized effort to effect political and social change?

Systematic protests?

That nazi rally had what, 300 people attending? I don't recall the exact number, but I know it's very small. And that's 300 people in an interstate area that went there to attend. That's statistically zero in the population of the states.

The message they're attempting to spread will not affect politics and will not affect social change. They're assholes. And virtually everyone in this country knows that. These so-called neo-nazi's have been around since WW2 and they've accomplished exactly jack and shit.

But when you have a group, Antifa, that starts going to these poorly attended rallies and starts to beat the shit out of them for aspousing their stupid Nazi ideology, it forces most rational people to say, "The fuck?"

How about we just go ahead and say, "You can hit someone if they hit you" and leave it at that? Maybe let's not forgive the violence of Antifa or Neo-Nazi's or PETA or whoever the fuck just because they're fighting so-called 'bad guys'.
---

Smarkil posted...

How about we just go ahead and say, "You can hit someone if they hit you" and leave it at that? Maybe let's not forgive the violence of Antifa or Neo-Nazi's or PETA or whoever the fuck just because they're fighting so-called 'bad guys'.

adjl is canadian, and you seem to be more in favor of american laws.

in the civilized world we value free speech, regardless of whether or not we agree with that speech

in nazi canadia, they do not value freedom of any sort, and find the very notion offensive (and therefore answerable with violence)
---

Duck-I-Says posted...

Questionable. I believe that this is the end and after death you're gone forever. Many suicide bombers believe they'll be sent to an eternal paradise where all their dreams come true. If I believed that I'd be far less worried about dying.

A valid consideration, certainly, but that's introducing additional variables. There's no reason somebody ramming a car into a crowd or bashing somebody's head in with a lock-sock can't also believe that death will send them to an eternal paradise, nor that a suicide bomber can't commit their attack without such beliefs. Based on where most suicide bombings are happening in the current world, most of them do indeed have that religious component, but if you strip that away and say all other things are equal, suicide bombing is braver than any other offensive because the attacker knows for certain that they won't survive.

Duck-I-Says posted...

You're right about attacking people in public not being cowardly, though, but it's pretty amusing this political s***post has turned into a semantic debate about an aspect that doesn't really matter that much.

I'm trying to teach a lesson about sensationalism, and the importance of reporting things neutrally instead of trying to emotionally manipulate your audience. Namely that, if you're going to try to emotionally manipulate your audience, at least keep the facts straight so you don't look like an overemotional idiot.
---

adjl posted...

I'm trying to teach a lesson about sensationalism, and the importance of reporting things neutrally instead of trying to emotionally manipulate your audience. Namely that, if you're going to try to emotionally manipulate your audience, at least keep the facts straight so you don't look like an overemotional idiot.

nah, youre just doing standard adjl shitposting and turning an argument into something that NOBODY was talking about, and that has 0 relevance to the topic at hand.
---

adjl posted...

here's no reason somebody ramming a car into a crowd or bashing somebody's head in with a lock-sock can't also believe that death will send them to an eternal paradise, nor that a suicide bomber can't commit their attack without such beliefs. Based on where most suicide bombings are happening in the current world, most of them do indeed have that religious component,

That sounds like islamophobe talk...Islam commits most suicide bombings after all (according to islamophobes like you). Why do you hate Islam? The radicals don't speak for most after all.

adjl posted...

I'm trying to teach a lesson about sensationalism, and the importance of reporting things neutrally instead of trying to emotionally manipulate your audience. Namely that, if you're going to try to emotionally manipulate your audience, at least keep the facts straight so you don't look like an overemotional idiot.

I'm not sure how you are trying to demonstrate this. Mind spelling it out?
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

right, im afraid of the power of your words, so i will react with physical violence

Yes, that is indeed the point. Welcome to understanding the issue! It's great, isn't it?

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Hell, i can't think of a scenario that would make me unwilling to run people over who were willing to drag me from my car other than being physically unable to move it.

Most people hesitate when presented with the option to kill people. Specifically, though, I can see somebody not wanting to start driving if there were innocent people in the path of the car. Again, though, if you were already just trying to mow down the crowd, there's no such thing as people you don't want to kill in the crowd.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

So...the driver in this case, using his car to attack, was using basic strategy? By they were not only using basic strategy, but also minimizing risk?

Yep, pretty much. It just wasn't a particularly brave assault to mount, given the very minimal risk to the attacker.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Keep in mind that my specific example (which as clarification I do not assume is representative for all antifa, but would condemn them as such for the cowardice I think we agree on that the white supremacist displayed)was certainly not surrounded by multiple dissenters, but was in the midst of people who agreed with him when he attacked with potentially deadly force.

As I mentioned earlier, the antifa folks were outnumbered 20 to 1 (2000 to 100). An individual attacker may have had a few allies nearby, but he would definitely have been surrounded by dissenters.

Smarkil posted...

The message they're attempting to spread will not affect politics and will not affect social change. They're a******s. And virtually everyone in this country knows that. These so-called neo-nazi's have been around since WW2 and they've accomplished exactly jack and s***.

White nationalist ideals are certainly having an impact on how immigration and trade policies are shaping up in the US, and racists across the country have been emboldened by Trump's election. If Nazis were ever going to influence anything in the US, now's the time.

Smarkil posted...

How about we just go ahead and say, "You can hit someone if they hit you" and leave it at that? Maybe let's not forgive the violence of Antifa or Neo-Nazi's or PETA or whoever the f*** just because they're fighting so-called 'bad guys'.

Oh, I quite agree. Violence is bad. I just understand the rationale behind the violence, and that it's not something that can really be considered cowardly, because Schmen's oversimplification of "just words" misses the point to a degree that would be comical if not for the realization that a good many people actually believe that.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

That sounds like islamophobe talk...Islam commits most suicide bombings after all (according to islamophobes like you). Why do you hate Islam? The radicals don't speak for most after all.

Most suicide bombings in today's world are indeed conducted by Islamic radicals. Why should acknowledging that constitute Islamophobia? Using that to justify distrust of all Islamic people, or to inform sweeping immigration (or worse, registration) policies would, but simply acknowledging that fact does not in any way suggest that the vast majority of Muslims aren't innocent, peaceful people.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

I'm not sure how you are trying to demonstrate this. Mind spelling it out?

See how the topic's been derailed? That's why you don't add extra points that are demonstrably wrong.
---

adjl posted...

Tropic_Sunset posted...

That sounds like islamophobe talk...Islam commits most suicide bombings after all (according to islamophobes like you). Why do you hate Islam? The radicals don't speak for most after all.

Most suicide bombings in today's world are indeed conducted by Islamic radicals. Why should acknowledging that constitute Islamophobia? Using that to justify distrust of all Islamic people, or to inform sweeping immigration (or worse, registration) policies would, but simply acknowledging that fact does not in any way suggest that the vast majority of Muslims aren't innocent, peaceful people.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

I'm not sure how you are trying to demonstrate this. Mind spelling it out?

See how the topic's been derailed? That's why you don't add extra points that are demonstrably wrong.

You know what? Agreed.

adjl posted...

Yes, that is indeed the point. Welcome to understanding the issue! It's great, isn't it?

No, because I feel like this applies to both sides, but one is obviously so, while the other is subtle. I hate both side. This is the one time I will sincerely ask your opinion: should I side with one because the other is demonstrably worse? Or do you think it would be better to condemn both? I'm actually asking you opinion because I respect it, no trap here.
---

adjl posted...

Most people hesitate when presented with the option to kill people. Specifically, though, I can see somebody not wanting to start driving if there were innocent people in the path of the car. Again, though, if you were already just trying to mow down the crowd, there's no such thing as people you don't want to kill in the crowd.

I agree...but if one is panicking, it is understandable why you would act in such a way. Not that I think it is tenable, this alone is the reason I think a manslaughter charge is appropriate, at the minimum.

adjl posted...

Yep, pretty much. It just wasn't a particularly brave assault to mount, given the very minimal risk to the attacker.

Can I be blunt? I agree, but neither do I think it's brave to disappear into a crowd who agree with you. I think both of these individuals were equally cowards (well, comparably). The sock-lock guy was hardly surrounded by enemies.

adjl posted...

As I mentioned earlier, the antifa folks were outnumbered 20 to 1 (2000 to 100). An individual attacker may have had a few allies nearby, but he would definitely have been surrounded by dissenters.

Not to be contrarian, but might you provide a source so I can appropriately reply?

adjl posted...

White nationalist ideals are certainly having an impact on how immigration and trade policies are shaping up in the US, and racists across the country have been emboldened by Trump's election. If Nazis were ever going to influence anything in the US, now's the time.

Yeah? And that's obvious. This is also the time to stand up to them. What's less obvious is that this is the time to also stand up to extremists who oppose them. Again, both are bad. Reject the dumbass nazis, and also reject the extremists who oppose them but would be disastrous as well. Refuse both.

adjl posted...

suicide bombings in today's world are indeed conducted by Islamic radicals. Why should acknowledging that constitute Islamophobia? Using that to justify distrust of all Islamic people, or to inform sweeping immigration (or worse, registration) policies would, but simply acknowledging that fact does not in any way suggest that the vast majority of Muslims aren't innocent, peaceful people.

I agree, just commenting that such logic applies to your original point as well.I do not think that confirming what the data implies should be ignored, but both the left and the right are guilty of this (the right more so than the left in recent years, but neither party has clean hands). This doesn't mean we should close our borders, but reexamine the [policies to cross them.

adjl posted...

Using that to justify distrust of all Islamic people, or to inform sweeping immigration (or worse, registration) policies would, but simply acknowledging that fact does not in any way suggest that the vast majority of Muslims aren't innocent, peaceful people.

Uhhh...agreed?

adjl posted...

See how the topic's been derailed? That's why you don't add extra points that are demonstrably wrong.

Neither agreed nor disagreed. Explain.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Not to be contrarian, but might you provide a source so I can appropriately reply?

First and second paragraphs of TC's link. 100 antifa members, disappearing into a crowd of 2000 right-wing protestors.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Neither agreed nor disagreed. Explain.

TC said something demonstrably wrong, topic turned into demonstrating how he's wrong, and now he's run away. The solution: Don't say things that are demonstrably wrong, especially when you're just trying to evoke an emotional reaction and they don't actually contribute to reporting.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Yeah? And that's obvious. This is also the time to stand up to them. What's less obvious is that this is the time to also stand up to extremists who oppose them. Again, both are bad. Reject the dumbass nazis, and also reject the extremists who oppose them but would be disastrous as well. Refuse both.

Indeed. Again, this is just the discussion of whether or not they're cowardly. The fact that they can be defended as not being cowardly is exactly why one shouldn't try to paint them as cowards. Calling one's enemies cowards is an ancient and hopelessly transparent propaganda technique, which is not remotely necessary when one can just condemn the fact that they're being violent assholes. This is why I gave the extreme example of suicide bombers, whom everyone agrees are awful and indefensible, but which clearly cannot be called cowardly. Just call them (and only them, not everyone who has similar views or beliefs) violent assholes and leave it at that.
---