Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 2:29am

Nody wrote: »

red ears wrote: »

I predict over the next year we are going to see a large scale attack on american historical monuments, historical figures, named buildings etc. We will end up seeing ordinary people who disagree with this erasure getting assaulted by antifa and probably BLM (although BLM will likely be absorbed into antifa as it provides cover for violence.) I think many people who aren't white nationalist in the slightest will become upset about the sort of attacks american history will come under over the next year or so.

Quoted for history so I can refer back to this in a year to show you how utterly misguided your world view turned out to be. But fair is fair; I'm putting up the counter argument that white supremacists (to work as a general catch all from the nutty white wannabie NRA "soldiers" to the outright nazies) will have caused more terrorist attacks on American soil and will be seen as the more extreme of the two by the end of 2018 (to allow for statistical sources as they tend to measure in years). If Trump gets impeached I'd expect at least 1 major terrorist plot ala Oklahoma to happen or get stopped from such a group.

Let's see who's world view turns out to be true as we obviously have quite a difference in opinion on it.

"" Quoted for history so I can refer back to this in a year to show you how utterly misguided your world view turned out to be ""

Red Ears in correct in his/her assessment when he/she said

"" Antifa are simply labeling anyone on the right as nazi's. From real neo nazi's to ordinary Trump supporters to free speech advocates ""

The Boston free speech rally publicly acknowledged by the Adl as "" not a gathering of white supremacists "" got labelled by the left as "" a white supremacist rally "" + footage online from it of ordinary Trump supporters going about their business being called as guess what ? "" nazis "" their actions prove RedEars point .

Christy42 · 20-08-2017 3:04am

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Quoted for history so I can refer back to this in a year to show you how utterly misguided your world view turned out to be ""

Red Ears in correct in his/her assessment when he/she said

"" Antifa are simply labeling anyone on the right as nazi's. From real neo nazi's to ordinary Trump supporters to free speech advocates ""

The Boston free speech rally publicly acknowledged by the Adl as "" not a gathering of white supremacists "" got labelled by the left as "" a white supremacist rally "" + footage online from it of ordinary Trump supporters going about their business being called as guess what ? "" nazis "" their actions prove RedEars point .

He is quoting for the assault on public buildings part. The jury is out on whether the rally was peaceful cos they were outnumbered and starting a fight would have ended badly for them.

No violence from Antifa I note *who would have had bigger numbers). The turn out to oppose them was encouraging though. Obviously the Nazis being in the previous rally spurred people on to show opposition to them.

Nody · 20-08-2017 3:31am

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

their actions prove RedEars point .[/font][/size]

Where are then the antifa assaults he claimed would happen to prove his point or did you miss this part?

We will end up seeing ordinary people who disagree with this erasure getting assaulted by antifa and probably BLM (although BLM will likely be absorbed into antifa as it provides cover for violence.)

After all with a 20:1 ratio of protesters the Antifa should have easily won any attack to prove this point or are you trying to fall back on that the fact the protesters were there is an assault?

ancapailldorcha · 20-08-2017 9:24am

Posts deleted. No more Twitter link dumping.

Samaris · 20-08-2017 10:09am

There were a couple of incidents - no deaths or injuries, thank heavens. When you get 30-40,000 people more or less unplanned in one place with feelings running high, yes, there will be the odd incident. Fortunately, the vast majority were peaceful.

BLM (who are not domestic terrorists) were hardly rampaging through the streets eating Trump supporters. In the context of Charlottesville, the free speech rally right then and there was asking to be labelled as being pro- the Nazi and KKK side that were in Charlottesville, so yes, it's no wonder people were angry.

In terms of free speech, this is turning into "how far is it allowed to go". When the president and his administration are actively attempting to limit the rights of minorities and non-whites, the people do not trust KKK rallies and do not trust rallies to defend the KKK's right to advocate domination of other races and up to and including genocide and slavery. That is why the voice of the people was heard much more clearly by 30-40,000 protesters aligning against the voice of the couple of hundred (at best) at the "free speech" rally, who was, let it be added, mostly comprised of actual supremacists, Trump supporters (let me point out again that the administration is doing its best to limit actual freedom of many American citizens) and people who support white supremacists getting to spew their hate speech and worse against fellow citizens. It's the ugly side of free speech and tensions are high enough that many people want it limited. If your free speech rally is disturbingly close to a rights of white supremacists to white supremacist at people, yeah, people are going to not like it.

Europe has limited free speech laws and has usually gotten along pretty well with them. I wonder is it because Europe has seen what comes of people marching through the streets chanting "Jew! Jew!" and waving swastikas?

(I have made my views on Antifa blindingly obvious (that I do not approve of them) in most other posts so far, so please take that as read.)

Billy86 · 20-08-2017 1:50pm

<snip - stop commenting on moderation in thread>

Seems the mayor of Boston would disagree about the protesters being racist, white supremacists and anti-Semites.

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/899021258599182336

Boston's police commissioner seems to share the same sentiment, calling the 'Free Speech' crowd bigots and noting that 99.9% of people were there for the right reasons.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/347237-boston-police-commissioner-999-percent-of-protesters-here-for

"Ninety-nine point nine percent of the people here were here for the right reason, and that's to fight bigotry and hate for the most part here today," Evans said.

Thousands of counterdemonstrators turned out Saturday to protest an event billed as a "Free Speech Rally." The demonstrations came a week after violence erupted in Charlottesville, Va., as white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups gathered in the usually quiet college town.

BabyCheeses · 20-08-2017 2:01pm

An organiser of the nazi rally has come out and said that the woman's death was payback for communism. <snip - trolling>

He has since blamed hacking and drugs for the tweet.

AnGaelach · 20-08-2017 2:55pm

Samaris wrote: »

In terms of free speech, this is turning into "how far is it allowed to go". When the president and his administration are actively attempting to limit the rights of minorities and non-whites

What? Have you a source for that? Presumably you're talking about them wanting to remove affirmative action, but you're aware that the group most ardently in support of its removal are non-white Asians?

Samaris wrote: »

Europe has limited free speech laws and has usually gotten along pretty well with them. I wonder is it because Europe has seen what comes of people marching through the streets chanting "Jew! Jew!" and waving swastikas?

I'd hardly hold Europe up as the beacon of civilisation when 55% of us want to ban all Muslim immigration (and more people are indifferent about it than think it's a bad idea, 25% to 20% resp.).

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 3:04pm

If twitter links aren,t to be posted, I hope 1 youtube link is alright .

From those still saying the Boston free speech rally was a " white supremacist rally " take a good look at one of the main speakers , An Indian american ( Shiva Ayyadurai&#160 ) have a listen to what he actually said, not " white supremacist rally " stop misrepresenting stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9X2ZRB9GCU

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 3:08pm

Nody wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

their actions prove RedEars point .[/font][/size]

""Where are then the antifa assaults he claimed would happen to prove his point or did you miss this part?

We will end up seeing ordinary people who disagree with this erasure getting assaulted by antifa and probably BLM (although BLM will likely be absorbed into antifa as it provides cover for violence.)

"" After all with a 20:1 ratio of protesters the Antifa should have easily won any attack to prove this point or are you trying to fall back on that the fact the protesters were there is an assault? ""

There was one assault an elderly African American targeted for the crime of bringing an American flag to the rally, videos online, main reason things didn,t end up like Berkeley or past events was down due to the big Police presence who done an excellent job at policing the event .

Fr Tod Umptious · 20-08-2017 3:17pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If twitter links aren,t to be posted, I hope 1 youtube link is alright .

From those still saying the Boston free speech rally was a " white supremacist rally " take a good look at one of the main speakers , An Indian american ( Shiva Ayyadurai ) have a listen to what he actually said, not " white supremacist rally " stop misrepresenting stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9X2ZRB9GCU

Yes that's what it ended up being.

No KKK, no malitia, no sudo Nazi symbols.

The counter protest looked more menacing than the original protest.

BillyBobBS · 20-08-2017 3:18pm

BLM are a hate group. Antifa are a hate group. KKK are a hate group.

They all deserve the right to free speech and to gather without the threat of violence.

pitifulgod · 20-08-2017 3:18pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

There was one assault an elderly African American targeted for the crime of bringing an American flag to the rally, videos online, main reason things didn,t end up like Berkeley or past events was down due to the big Police presence who done an excellent job at policing the event .

Kirra, you literally posted a load of videos that weren't from Boston as proof of violence. 40,000 or thereabouts showed up and it occurred in a largely peaceful fashion, it would seem since it occurred in a peaceful fashion, that you're engaging in confirmation bias.

BillyBobBS wrote: »

BLM are a hate group. Antifa are a hate group. KKK are a hate group.

They all deserve the right to free speech and to gather without the threat of violence.

BLM have more in common with historical civil rights groups than hate groups. They're grassroots groups that came to be as a result of racial inequality in the US, in particular police brutality. They have behave in a largely peaceful manner and condemn acts of violence.

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 3:26pm

Samaris wrote: »

There were a couple of incidents - no deaths or injuries, thank heavens. When you get 30-40,000 people more or less unplanned in one place with feelings running high, yes, there will be the odd incident. Fortunately, the vast majority were peaceful.

BLM (who are not domestic terrorists) were hardly rampaging through the streets eating Trump supporters. In the context of Charlottesville, the free speech rally right then and there was asking to be labelled as being pro- the Nazi and KKK side that were in Charlottesville, so yes, it's no wonder people were angry.

In terms of free speech, this is turning into "how far is it allowed to go". When the president and his administration are actively attempting to limit the rights of minorities and non-whites, the people do not trust KKK rallies and do not trust rallies to defend the KKK's right to advocate domination of other races and up to and including genocide and slavery. That is why the voice of the people was heard much more clearly by 30-40,000 protesters aligning against the voice of the couple of hundred (at best) at the "free speech" rally, who was, let it be added, mostly comprised of actual supremacists, Trump supporters (let me point out again that the administration is doing its best to limit actual freedom of many American citizens) and people who support white supremacists getting to spew their hate speech and worse against fellow citizens. It's the ugly side of free speech and tensions are high enough that many people want it limited. If your free speech rally is disturbingly close to a rights of white supremacists to white supremacist at people, yeah, people are going to not like it.

Europe has limited free speech laws and has usually gotten along pretty well with them. I wonder is it because Europe has seen what comes of people marching through the streets chanting "Jew! Jew!" and waving swastikas?

(I have made my views on Antifa blindingly obvious (that I do not approve of them) in most other posts so far, so please take that as read.)

"" In terms of free speech, this is turning into "how far is it allowed to go". ""

I have often I think the lines should be drawn at Libel/ Defamation of character- inciting violence + inciting terrorism, I do not beleive in nor accept the so called concept of " hate speech " the idea of hate speech is no more legitimate then the idea of thoughtcrime, unlike many of the left I don,t think anyone should be legally punished for expressing his/her opinion regardless of how distasteful or controversial someones opinion might be, those on the left in favour of hate speech laws ought to be very very careful what they ask for because such laws can also used against the left for example when they call for boycotts of Israeli goods.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

InTheTrees · 20-08-2017 3:28pm

pitifulgod wrote: »

Kirra, you literally posted a load of videos that weren't from Boston as proof of violence. 40,000 or thereabouts showed up and it occurred in a largely peaceful fashion, it would seem since it occurred in a peaceful fashion, that you're engaging in confirmation bias.

Yes, they're saying there were 40,000 attending the anti-hate gathering.

Only 33 arrests and all minor, no reports of trouble or violence. Today the mayor and police chief thanked all those who attended.

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 3:29pm

pitifulgod wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

There was one assault an elderly African American targeted for the crime of bringing an American flag to the rally, videos online, main reason things didn,t end up like Berkeley or past events was down due to the big Police presence who done an excellent job at policing the event .

Kirra, you literally posted a load of videos that weren't from Boston as proof of violence. 40,000 or thereabouts showed up and it occurred in a largely peaceful fashion, it would seem since it occurred in a peaceful fashion, that you're engaging in confirmation bias.

BillyBobBS wrote: »

BLM are a hate group. Antifa are a hate group. KKK are a hate group.

They all deserve the right to free speech and to gather without the threat of violence.

BLM have more in common with historical civil rights groups than hate groups. They're grassroots groups that came to be as a result of racial inequality in the US, in particular police brutality. They have behave in a largely peaceful manner and condemn acts of violence.

"" Kirra, you literally posted a load of videos that weren't from Boston as proof of violence ""

The fellows videos I posted, he only later stated the videos he was posting weren,t from Boston, he didn,t say so at the start when he posted the videos .

20Cent · 20-08-2017 7:11pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" In terms of free speech, this is turning into "how far is it allowed to go". ""

I have often I think the lines should be drawn at Libel/ Defamation of character- inciting violence + inciting terrorism, I do not beleive in nor accept the so called concept of " hate speech " the idea of hate speech is no more legitimate then the idea of thoughtcrime, unlike many of the left I don,t think anyone should be legally punished for expressing his/her opinion regardless of how distasteful or controversial someones opinion might be, those on the left in favour of hate speech laws ought to be very very careful what they ask for because such laws can also used against the left for example when they call for boycotts of Israeli goods.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

How can you believe defemation and inciting violence are lines to be drawn but not hate speech!
Attack one person bad attack whole race fine. Makes no sense.

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 7:31pm

20Cent wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" In terms of free speech, this is turning into "how far is it allowed to go". ""

I have often I think the lines should be drawn at Libel/ Defamation of character- inciting violence + inciting terrorism, I do not beleive in nor accept the so called concept of " hate speech " the idea of hate speech is no more legitimate then the idea of thoughtcrime, unlike many of the left I don,t think anyone should be legally punished for expressing his/her opinion regardless of how distasteful or controversial someones opinion might be, those on the left in favour of hate speech laws ought to be very very careful what they ask for because such laws can also used against the left for example when they call for boycotts of Israeli goods.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

How can you believe defemation and inciting violence are lines to be drawn but not hate speech!
Attack one person bad attack whole race fine. Makes no sense.

Because I don,t believe in or accept the concept of hate speech aka thought crime, ( 1 ) untruths/lies about someone can damage a persons reputation which I think should be a punishable offence, ( 2 ) inciting violence you re advocating to physically harm someone else which I think should be a punishable offence.

Whereas hate speech is almost anything & everything the left don,t like ranging from criticism of islam/advocating stronger border controls , over the years in Europe we have seen where hate speech laws can go from a Dutch politician being put on public trial over making a film critical of Islam to a woman in France faces a fine for daring to write about Halal slaughter condemning it, + I saved this for last from people in France on the left facing court for advocating a boycott of Israeli goods, as I said be be very very careful what you ask for because such laws can also used against the left.

pitifulgod · 20-08-2017 7:37pm

Do you think the chants in Charlottesville are not legitimate hate speech? Inciting hatred against groups was how the Nazis initially operated. So pre Kristallnacht etc, it was inciting hatred against groups. You wish to reduce that to thought crime?

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 7:53pm

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you think the chants in Charlottesville are not legitimate hate speech? Inciting hatred against groups was how the Nazis initially operated. So pre Kristallnacht etc, it was inciting hatred against groups. You wish to reduce that to thought crime?

I saw that Vice news documentary & heard their chants which I strongly disagree with + strongly condemn, the problem is when one set of chants gets classed as hate speech if you have hate speech laws, is other speech can get classed as hate speech too also, once again to come back & point out in France people urging boycott of Israeli goods faced court over it under hate speech laws there, if we had similar hate speech laws would campaigns such as this

http://www.ipsc.ie/campaigns/consumer-boycott

be allowed to publicly organise & operate ? its a slippery slope.

pitifulgod · 20-08-2017 8:01pm

It simply is not the same... One involves objections to a state's domestic foreign policy. You could totally argue it as hate if anti semetic tropes etc were used etc. Put it into a court room as hate speech and it simply would not be recognised as hate speech.

The logical progression of your argument would be to not recognise any form of hate crimes btw.

johnnyskeleton · 20-08-2017 8:01pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If twitter links aren,t to be posted, I hope 1 youtube link is alright

Mod note:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely uncertain about the rules. Theres no problem with links, in fact they are encouraged if they support your argument. But link drumps, news dumps, twitter dumps etc where there is no original content of the posters own is not permitted.

If the link is a video, please provide a summary in your post for posters on mobile devices. Again, you must provide your own views in the post, and not just rely on a link and a description of that link.

The link and point you are making must relate to the thread and must further the debate in some shape or form.

In evolving situations as have occurred in relation to this topic, we might not be able to sanction every link dump to breaking news, twitters etc. But that doesnt mean that the rules dont apply or that link dumps should be encouraged.

Please read the charter instead of commenting on it in thread in future.

Akrasia · 20-08-2017 8:08pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Because I don,t believe in or accept the concept of hate speech aka thought crime, ( 1 ) untruths/lies about someone can damage a persons reputation which I think should be a punishable offence, ( 2 ) inciting violence you re advocating to physically harm someone else which I think should be a punishable offence.

You think it's wrong to say untruths about individuals, but if someone spreads lies about a group of people and damage their reputation, that's ok?

Eg, "John Doe is a rapist" = Slander
"Muslim immigrants are all rapists" = ???

There are Websites and organisations that devote all their time to spreading lies about whatever group they hate. They know they're lies, but they also know that a certain percentage of people will believe them and will become racist or become more motivated to take racist actions against them.

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 8:15pm

pitifulgod wrote: »

It simply is not the same... One involves objections to a state's domestic foreign policy. You could totally argue it as hate if anti semetic tropes etc were used etc. Put it into a court room as hate speech and it simply would not be recognised as hate speech.

The logical progression of your argument would be to not recognise any form of hate crimes btw.

The problem is you are wrong there, it has being recognized as hate speech in France already, see the links.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/337679/french-bds-activists-lose-hate-speech-appeal/

Once you have hate speech laws its about how the courts will Interpret things if a court case is brought.

The Legend Of Kira · 20-08-2017 8:19pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Because I don,t believe in or accept the concept of hate speech aka thought crime, ( 1 ) untruths/lies about someone can damage a persons reputation which I think should be a punishable offence, ( 2 ) inciting violence you re advocating to physically harm someone else which I think should be a punishable offence.

You think it's wrong to say untruths about individuals, but if someone spreads lies about a group of people and damage their reputation, that's ok?

Eg, "John Doe is a rapist" = Slander
"Muslim immigrants are all rapists" = ???

There are Websites and organisations that devote all their time to spreading lies about whatever group they hate. They know they're lies, but they also know that a certain percentage of people will believe them and will become racist or become more motivated to take racist actions against them.

If someone says one group are all rapists = libel, when news is reported about events like Cologne new years eve 2015, its not hate speech nor libel to point out when people engage in wrongdoing regardless of what group they are a member of/belong to .

pitifulgod · 20-08-2017 8:31pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The problem is you are wrong there, it has being recognized as hate speech in France already, see the links.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/337679/french-bds-activists-lose-hate-speech-appeal/

Once you have hate speech laws its about how the courts will Interpret things if a court case is brought.

Quick check on French law is that their hate crime law is far broader than standard hate crime laws and includes a mention of "national groups". So it only applies to one piece of hate crime legislation in one country. Not applicable to Ireland for example. So more of a matter of wording with legislation which applies to every piece of legislation.

Sweetemotion · 20-08-2017 9:41pm

So after all the statues are gone what next?

Paintings, books, street names. What then after that? because there always has to be something.

This is just insane, what is wrong with these people? Most of the videos I've seen of Antifa et el, are just a bunch of little spoiled white kids who want everything in life paid for by the tax payer. What's going to happen when they are the tax payer with their useless gender studies phd and other useless degrees. There is even a Beyonce professor at Rutgers University wishing someone would just shoot Trump. I mean c'mon a Beyonce professor??? Pure madness.

pitifulgod · 20-08-2017 9:53pm

The statue of General Lee is being moved to a museum so hardly forgotten. Also it was literally erected during the 20s as part of Jim Crowe era politics. It was very much so a jab at black Americans. Moving things to a more suitable location does occur. Queen Victoria used stand outside of Leinster House, it now stands in Sydney.

Sweetemotion · 20-08-2017 9:58pm

pitifulgod wrote: »

The statue of General Lee is being moved to a museum so hardly forgotten. Also it was literally erected during the 20s as part of Jim Crowe era politics. It was very much so a jab at black Americans. Moving things to a more suitable location does occur. Queen Victoria used stand outside of Leinster House, it now stands in Sydney.

Do you think after these lunatics have moved all the statues they think might offend people are going to stop at that?

pitifulgod · 20-08-2017 10:03pm

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Do you think after these lunatics have moved all the statues they think might offend people are going to stop at that?

The local government took a vote to remove the statue, your rant implies the destruction of history. In fact, it's still remembered in a museum. You consider the moving of a statue into a museum to be the work of lunatics? Locals for the most part had no objection to moving it with the exception of the white supremacist who arranged the rally.....

Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

Comments