Antifa - freedom fighters, necessary evil, terrorists?

Post Reply New Topic

Do I want these groups to be terrified of being bigoted? Hell yes.

Do I feel any remorse for them? F no, those f-ers want to harass and kill me.

Just curious, what race/sexuality/religion are you? From the way you tried to downplay the dangers of the far right pages ago I bet I already know.

Not to say you’re far right - just you’re not their target, which makes this whole thing existentialism for you at best.

And do answer the question.

I take ASPartOfMe seriously because AS is similarly one of their targets, similarly has personal stake in it. Just believes more in an MLK approach than a Malcolm X one.

Did they radicalize me over the years? No doubt, I went from a MLK believer to aligning with Malcolm X. They never change and peace is a dream, but not a realistic option not with these animals. We treated them with kid gloves and the only thing that led to was them thinking they could march in public shouting “Jews will not replace us.” Luckily since last year people all over put the fear of God into them and they were too scared to strike terror this weekend - GOOD.

Aligning with Malcolm X, yes that would put me as the opposite side of the coin as them.

At the very least far right “threat marches” should be illegal like and for the same reasons cross burnings are in the states. The only difference between last year’s threat march and cross burnings is they went to where their intended victims could be. That makes it inherently worse. So yes, we do have laws like in Germany - they should just be expanded upon. No one should legally be able to freely march through town threatening a whole group of people like they’re caroling. That’s not free speech, especially considering it was Nazis shouting to replace Jewish people while brandishing torches - those are threats.

Why are you okay with people threatening others and intimidating them into fearing for their lives?

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 13 Aug 2018, 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actual hate speech laws would require a ratification of a new constitutional amendment as just last year SCOTUS unanimously ruled that hate speech is protected speech.

Then at least expansion on the cross burning law. It really should have applied to a Charlottesville. It’s a mockery of the law that it didn’t.

People shouldn’t be able to freely march through streets threatening others and making them fear for their lives.

Cross burnings are illegal because they are a clear threat in the same way the tiki threat march was.

§ 18.2-423.01. Burning object on property of another or a highway or other public place with intent to intimidate; penalty.

B. Any person who, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, burns an object on a highway or other public place in a manner having a direct tendency to place another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or bodily injury is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

White supremacists found a loop hole and I want it closed. I don’t want them being able to assemble dangerous people in any area and letting them march through public places bearing torches or Nazi or Confederate flags chanting they’re going to get rid of a people. That should be against the law for the same reason cross burning is - that isn’t a protest of any sort, it’s intentional intimidation with the sole aim of striking fear. It’s even worse as I keep on saying because cross burning is done in private - this is around their intended victims. It’s a clear threat and should be treated as such.

There are cross burning laws and probably most of them are constitutional. Tiki torches at a Nazi rally probably is not protected speech but nobody has tested it because as far as I know Nazis had not used them in public before. I doubt SCOTUS especially this court would go for expanding the laws considering Nazis were allowed to march through a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors.

While we must be careful, I think it's important to remember that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy - there's no reason why banning Nazi symbols would make it more likely that legitimate debate would be shut down. For example, WrongPlanet bans Nazis, but we are still having this discussion.

I think there is a legitimate case to be made that anyone chanting Nazi slogans or waving Nazi flags is effectively threatening the groups that the Nazis systematically exterminated. Even in America, free speech protections don't extend to threats.

Ideally I'd like to see this nonsense stamped out by "the marketplace of ideas". I think that's viable in Seattle, but it's not viable in places like West Virginia, that voted 68.5% for Trump.

“Slippery Slope” fears do not come to fruition everytime and sometimes end up being paranoia. An example of paranoia is the “Unite to Right”. A few hundred Nazis last year were so easily scared off they were down to two dozen this year means the situation in America was never remotely like Nazi Germany in 1933. “Slippery Slopes” do partially or totally come true often enough, quite often enough that it should always be taken into consideration. It is an important factor for why we essentially do have any legitamite privacy anymore. The particular reasons to fear the slippery slope about speech/language control mainly is because it is happaning already. Racism has gone from an individuals bieng prejudiced or discriminating against people because of there race to societal discrimination and almost any form of bigotry. Offending speech that people are advocating that needs to be or has been banned or gets you fired has gone from the type of Nazi stuff we are talking about in this thread to words that are dated such as “colored”.

Yeah, sure... Also thanks for continuing to remind us how funny and weird Trump's reich wingers are.

NAZI GOAL:

Building a white Christian country through eliminating those of a different race and religion.

Nazis also:
- Sent LGBTQ to concentration camps since Nazis believed we brought the country down
- Extremely anti-immigrant, saw even one drop as alien blood as weakening the country
- Thought a woman's place was in the kitchen and as birthers, women didn't have the right to speak up
- Killed autistic people because they saw us as inferior
- Sent communists, socialists, and democrats to concentration camps as "political enemies"

TRUMP SUPPORTERS GOAL:

Building a white Christian country through discriminating against those of a different race and religion.

Trump supporters also:
- Seek to restrict LGBTQ rights since Trumpsters believe we bring the country down
- Extremely anti-immigrant, see foreigners as weakening the country - they cheer about foreigners being imprisoned by their furher
- Think a woman's place is in the kitchen and as birthers, see women fighting for their rights as evil
- Particularly target mocking their political enemies by saying they're autistic
- Have frequently issued death threats towards communists, socialists, and democrats (A Trumpster rally is on video calling for a genocide)

-------

RIGHT-WING SHOWS ITS OPPOSITION TO FREE SPEECH IN POLLING AND IN ACTION

Stating right-wing overall instead of a fringe, in other words most right-wingers aren't as first amendment friendly as they comically falsely lead themselves into believing.

FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[1]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble[2], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Polling found:

[1]51% of Republicans (only 24% Democrats) believe that the press shouldn't be allowed to criticize political leaders
[2]68% of Republicans (whereas 88% of Democrats) believe that non-violent protest should be allowed

http://www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential-for-democracy/democracy_3/

So much support for the first amendment among the right. Not a surprise though, the Declaration of Independence being tweeted triggered many of them as well. (I wish I was joking)

Plus:

Trump and many to most of his supporters called for a "Muslim ban" (Trump's own words)

All Trump supporters and their fuhrer repeatedly attack the fourth estate (the press) calling them "the enemy of the American people" [nazis also did this, Trumpsters yell "fake news" Nazi yell "luggenpresse" (lying press)]

Many right wingers have called for laws against the right to peacefully assemble:

https://www.nlg.org/conservative-led-anti-protest-legislation-already-doubled-since-last-year/

Thank you for posting signs of right-wing weirdness for us to all look at and laugh about though.

I have some questions for free speech absolutists.

A man yells "white power" into an angry crowd. The nearest minority just happens to get beat up shortly afterwards. Given the context, should this be protected speech?

Do you believe Nazis argue out of good faith?

Are challenges towards authority and power equal to mindless hatred directed towards marginalized groups?

Do you believe people with the best ideas always have the most charisma, or are always the best at debating?

Is my life worth debating over?

Precisely. All excellent points.

There is a difference between free speech and influencing others to violent action against a group of people. “Jews will not replace us” isn’t free speech - it’s a THREAT. Threats should be treated differently- the ability to incite violence (which is what the right wants) should never be tolerated. Threats with the intent to strike terror (which is what their tiki threat march was) is different from free speech (free speech doesn’t threaten someone’s life).

The other term the right likes to throw around to hide their intent “it’s just my opinion.”

Etc. “Jews are controlling the world and destroying my way of life!! !” “That’s anti semitism” “Nah, just my opinion. Stop being bigoted about my opinion!! !”

Bigotry ISN’T an opinion - bigotry is bigotry.

The way the far right defines “free speech” and “opinion” is different from the way the rest of the world does. The far right have repeatedly shown it’s a way of dressing up “I should be able to use my bigoted views to harass people without consequence.”

For example, they’d see getting fired over calling me a “fag” due to workplace harassment as an encroachment on their “free speech rights.” That definition of it, allowing harassment and forcing private institutions into accepting it, is f-ed up and shouldn’t be normalized.

Authoritarians be it left or right use freedom of speech as a weapon to destroy freedom of speech. They always have and always will.

Terrorists be it Nazis or Jahids want us to be afraid, very afriad. That is why they are labeled terrorists. They want us to overreact. Overreaction creates martyrs and moral equivalence where there should not be. Americans have easily and willingly given up bedrock principles and freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. Now so many of us want to give up more so that a few dozen or a few hundred Nazis/KKK types can’t threaten people. It is all very distressing.

Postulate lacks important details. I could model this as a single white nazi shouting that at a crowd of angry non-white people and then getting beat up for it. In this context, the white guy is the minority and while I'd agree his opinion is s**t, I think his right not to be beaten for it should be protected.

But in the way that you probably intended this postulation to be interpreted: can you imagine someone in police custody arguing that "I can't be held responsible for my beating that guy up; someone nearby shouted a slogan I like!".



No, but I don't believe Antifa does, either.



Equal how? As in "is combating the latter worth sacrificing the means by which we do the former"? I say no, and furthermore that the climate created by people like Antifa, in which people with real and reasonable concerns about things like the effect of large-scale immigration on the labour market are branded as fascists, nazis and bigots, has contributed to the increase of the proportion of rreal nazis in the public discourse AND provided the actual nazis with a functional victim narrative.



Not necessarily, but ideas need to stand on their merit and be defended on the basis of the same. This just makes it seem like you're trying to have your ideas be proclaimed superior a priori. Accepted on faith, if you will...




That's a weird phrasing. Makes it seem like your life is worthess. Can I instead suggest that your life is not up for debate? And that free speech is no threat to that proposition?

Yes it should. Obviously the people who attacked the minority should get punished because they took the violent action of their own free will. The person who yelled, "white power" in no way forced them to take such an action.


No, not really.


Definitely not.


Again, definitely not.

What’s the point in suppressing threats? If someone is determined to harm you, it’s better to be warned.

In most cases, the threat is the harm. The aim is to create an atmosphere of intimidation and scare people. This can be used to get someone you don't like to leave Twitter, or to stop them from leaving their house.

Also, people need to stop conflating the concept of hate speech and incitement.