Antifa - freedom fighters, necessary evil, terrorists?

Post Reply New Topic

Before going on of course we are talking in general terms as there are free speech millennials/Generation Z and no platform them boomers.

I far from love everything my generation did. That is one reason why I got into Punk/New Wave at the time when that music when those ideas were truly "alternative".

You are right every older generation thinks the younger generations are going are going to ruin the world and younger generations think the older generations are out of touch and in the way. You would have loved to have been around to see what our parents said about us. It started with spoiled and entitled and went on from there. It was a member of the Greatest Generation that coined the term "Me Decade" for the 70's. As it turned out those "squares" as they were derisively called by the young knew a thing or two, they turned out to be right partially because of the reasons you mentioned above.

Democracy is not dead because the voters made a choice we did not like. That and other choices made have wounded it but it is far from dead. If you want to finish off democracy the fastest way to do so is to kill off the bedrock principles upon which it stands which are free speech and the related encouraging climate for the free expression of ideas.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 12 Aug 2018, 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When you have a country that is on the brink of civil war - that is not a good thing.

Also Boomers gave us Citizens United and Gerrymandering, two awesome accomplishments by the greatest generation of all time that gives plenty of gifts: the baby boomers. (sarcastic)

Being pessimistic, I think it might take a 100 years or more to clean up the stink pile that baby boomers are leaving behind.

Gerrymandering and generally making and using laws to one's advantage was around well before the boomers were even born.

I see the same worry signs of civil war others have but I wonder if people are too comfortable to shed blood on a mass scale. Being pessimistic myself I envision a continued slide into anarchy more than civil war. 600,000+ were killed the last time we had a civil war, It is hard to perceive what a civil war or anarchy would look like in the age of weapons of mass destruction including cyber.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 12 Aug 2018, 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If some one or some group in the government had the power to make it illegal to wave the Nazi flag, they would have the power to make it illegal to wave any flag. Free speech is free speech even when you disagree with it. I see people proposing they make "hate speech" illegal, but what happens when they determine that saying negative things about the president is hate speech? That can of worms should never be opened.

From what I'm seeing in Germany, it worked brilliantly over there and it can work similarly brilliantly over here.

I've yet to see fault in Germany's law. If anyone knows of one way that the law backfired in Germany, enlighten me - but, from what I've seen - it worked for Germany and can for the U.S. as well.

“Hate speech” can be very broadly defined. Which definition would we use?

Speech against a person’s race, gender, sexuality, country of origin, immigration status, and religion. May be missing some.

Also, yes, this includes the times it is used against White Christians as well.

It can but I don't think it will. Up until recently as I understand it the law in Germany was limited to specifically to Nazi-related displays and speech. Last year they passed Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgeset a hate speech law aimed at social media and started enforcing it. It is too early to tell if that law is abusive in practice.

I expect that any law or code or the enforcement thereof will be much broader than banning specific Nazi/KKK/Confederate symbols and speech because the concept of hate speech/racism is much broader here and the hate speech/codes enforced on college campuses and trendy influential companies have been much broader. The definition of hate speech/racism encompasses words and expressions that are or have been used as dog whistles/code words to disguise hate/supremacy. I would guess a wide adaptation of invasive silencing of people based on assumed "racist" intent would occur in the context of a "blue wave" followed by the impeachment and conviction of Trump or his decisive reelection loss. At that point, it would have been "proven" that the left is the smarter more righteous, people and the justification will be removing racists or racist enablers.

I’d personally still like to see where that new law in Germany goes then, give it a couple years - have Germany be the testing grounds - and if the law works, then introduce it into the states. If the law backfires, then no. But personally I always think if there’s a working model somewhere then it must be working to some degree.

I believe they're classified as anarchists, so they're basically neoleninists or neobolsheviks. That being said, the concern here is knowing whether or not these people are for liberalism or if they're just acting out violent fantasies regardless of their affiliation. This is the issue with politics these days; too much is shrouded in complications and social assassinations.

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to see such bannings put in place? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to display the Confederate/Nazi flag? It just makes them look stupid and makes their thought process clear and on display. I hate to say it, but it sounds like you're against freedom of speech and freedom of association. That sounds pretty similar to the groups you're complaining about.

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.