Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

I actually consider the intolerance of others' ideas to be pretty bad too..

I think you can tell when someone is being driven by compassion or hate..
A lot of the antifa types are being driven by hate..

TomTomTim

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/iconic-portland-elk-statue-removed-from-downtown-after-fire-set-during-protest.html

These heroic revolutionaries were even attacking a statue of an elk. I don't blame them, elk's are well known for their support of the Reich.

Overheal

TomTomTim wrote: »

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/iconic-portland-elk-statue-removed-from-downtown-after-fire-set-during-protest.html

These heroic revolutionaries were even attacking a statue of an elk. I don't blame them, elk's are well known for their support of the Reich.

Probably incorrectly linked to the elk lodges which were historically racist/exclusionary organizations

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

Probably incorrectly linked to the elk lodges which were historically racist/exclusionary organizations

It was there, that is often the height of analysis for these mobs.

Bonniedog

Overheal wrote: »

Probably incorrectly linked to the elk lodges which were historically racist/exclusionary organizations

That's obviously the reason :rolleyes:

Vandals always get their research spot on prior to mindless acts of destruction.

Overheal

Bonniedog wrote: »

That's obviously the reason :rolleyes:

Vandals always get their research spot on prior to mindless acts of destruction.

But actually.

You’re not American I assume and aren’t seemingly aware of the pervasiveness of the elk lodges etc. but it would be common enough of people to know these clubs had for the longest time been whites only and even well into the 90s were still seeing high profile stories of discriminating against black members joining at a number of the lodges. So, people in these crowds would be able to casually associate an elk statue with elk lodges and their discriminatory nature.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I actually consider the intolerance of others' ideas to be pretty bad too..

I think you can tell when someone is being driven by compassion or hate..
A lot of the antifa types are being driven by hate..

Some ideas are terrible ideas. Why do we have to tolerate them? You yourself have very little tolerance of Antifa's ideas, that doesn't make you a bigot though.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Some ideas are terrible ideas. Why do we have to tolerate them? You yourself have very little tolerance of Antifa's ideas, that doesn't make you a bigot though.

Not really, I would have been quite(very) left wing for a long time..I would have more of an issue with their modus operandi..I do think their ideology has maybe become a bit too far removed from reality..

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Some ideas are terrible ideas. Why do we have to tolerate them? You yourself have very little tolerance of Antifa's ideas, that doesn't make you a bigot though.

What is a bigot then?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh absolutely Mike. I'm assuming you are referring to the tolerance paradox or is there another one I'm too stupid to understand the complexities of?

You are incredibly intelligent I'm sure and you know that the general plebs don't realise you need be intolerant of intolerance... It's just that you need to be able to clearly define what intolerance is.

Antifa and the like claim it would be proud boys et al who are the intolerant ones, whereas I say that antifa are absolute ****s that shouldn't be tolerated.

It is my opinion from brians postings on this thread, that Brian deems my opinion either stupid or false and would be tolerant of antifa.

I believe him to be bigoted. That's not necessarily an insult. I admit I am intolerant to a lot of bull**** too. It's just all dependant on one person's views on what constitutes bull****.

I know it's a different thread but we have people on other threads screaming bigot at the people who only believe in two sexes. Would that be included in your paradox of "intolerance"?

You seem to think I'm insulting you when I am not. I don't think you or your opinion is stupid. I think it's a false narrative that you've swallowed from liars and bigots who can't stomach anyone standing up to them or drawing attention to their activities. They've created the Antifa bogeyman and you're falling for it.

That a not to say Antifa are saints. They too often become violent.

I am not tolerant of violence, ever, which is why I don't actively support Antifa. Meeting intolerance with violence is a terrible idea. Passive resistance would be my preferred reaction.

Realistically Antifa are a largely ineffective non entity. They are not a terrorist threat of any kind. Unless it's to statues of course.

Bonniedog

Overheal wrote: »

But actually.

You’re not American I assume and aren’t seemingly aware of the pervasiveness of the elk lodges etc. but it would be common enough of people to know these clubs had for the longest time been whites only and even well into the 90s were still seeing high profile stories of discriminating against black members joining at a number of the lodges. So, people in these crowds would be able to casually associate an elk statue with elk lodges and their discriminatory nature.

They are a bit like the Lions and Rotary clubs. Harmless diversions for middle class old boys and raise money for charity.

Most institutions including the Democratic Party which is manipulating and bankrolling the BLM/antifa scum have some sort of racist skeleton in their cupboard.

I seriously doubt however that this was reason for attacking the poor oul elk!

These are same assholes who attacked a statue of a 13th century French saint
who didn't even know there was such a thing as America.

Overheal

What’s this about a French saint?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is a bigot then?

Do you think this is worthwhile? Honestly what’s the point of this kind of pettiness?

Brian?

Bonniedog wrote: »

.

Most institutions including the Democratic Party which is manipulating and bankrolling the BLM/antifa scum have some sort of racist skeleton in their cupboard.
.

You’re stating it as a fact that the Democrats are funding BLM/Antifa. Is there any proof for this?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Do you think this is worthwhile? Honestly what’s the point of this kind of pettiness?

The point is/was that you claimed that it easy to avoid being called a bigot and were more than a little condescending to the person you addressed it to.

I'm asking you to define what a bigot is. Because from what I can garner from your posts, a bigot is someone who disagrees with you and your point of views and you can't seem to accept that you are a different cheek of the same ****ty arse when it comes to bigotry.

My argument that that word, along with racist, has become sadly so diluted through over use, it has begun to mean nothing which is counter productive and dangerous.

mynamejeff

Deleted User wrote: »

The paradox of intolerance might be too complex a topic for the people in this thread tbh.

the paradox of shoelaces would be too complex for quite a few here

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

My argument that that word, along with racist, has become sadly so diluted through over use, it has begun to mean nothing which is counter productive and dangerous.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point is/was that you claimed that it easy to avoid being called a bigot and were more than a little condescending to the person you addressed it to.

Intentionally condescending, yes. It’s very easy to avoid being called a bigot and a racist.

I'm asking you to define what a bigot is. Because from what I can garner from your posts, a bigot is someone who disagrees with you and your point of views and you can't seem to accept that you are a different cheek of the same ****ty arse when it comes to bigotry.

If you want to make up an entirely new definition for bigotry, then you can classify me as a bigot. But disagreeing with people doesn’t make anyone a bigot. Pointing out stupidity doesn’t either.

My argument that that word, along with racist, has become sadly so diluted through over use, it has begun to mean nothing which is counter productive and dangerous.

You are right about one thing, the term racist is over used. I very rarely use it because of this.

I would say that the incidences of racism and bigotry, especially online, are increasing though. Every thread in CA has some flavours of it. To deny that is to stick your head in the sand.

Tea drinker

Brian? wrote: »

If you want to make up an entirely new definition for bigotry, then you can classify me as a bigot. But disagreeing with people doesn’t make anyone a bigot. Pointing out stupidity doesn’t either.



You are right about one thing, the term racist is over used. I very rarely use it because of this.

I would say that the incidences of racism and bigotry, especially online, are increasing though. Every thread in CA has some flavours of it. To deny that is to stick your head in the sand.

A new definition of bigotry? But isn't it being redefined and recomputed every second, like a virtue bitcoin being generated by people. So you see how easy it is? Just redefine language and the righteous mob have all the ammo they need. Redefining what is or isn't racist based on whether you support BLM or redefining if it is OK to use coloured - then you get attacked, and that's what happened to me and probably loads of people.

I think philosophers dedicated their lives to examine human behaviour and plunge the depths of consciousness, deeply examining human behaviour
Nowadays, we have an idea burped out after breakfast in silicon valley, immediately hits the screens on millions of people who skim it, make the shallowest decision and post, never really questioning what they are liking promoting or demoting. There's little courage to confront, only eagerness to follow. Every discussion practically starts with a retreat to the moral high ground rather than at least ending there.
I think people are sick of the lie of political correctness. Like the Fermi paradox if these people really want the best for humanity, why are they so devoid of it?
Nasty nasty people can't hide behind the cloak of a cause, tourettsing out their hate.

Brian?

Tea drinker wrote: »

A new definition of bigotry? But isn't it being redefined and recomputed every second, like a virtue bitcoin being generated by people. So you see how easy it is? Just redefine language and the righteous mob have all the ammo they need. Redefining what is or isn't racist based on whether you support BLM or redefining if it is OK to use coloured - then you get attacked, and that's what happened to me and probably loads of people.

Are you equally as outraged at the dunne redefining the term bigot to include me? You should be if this makes you angry.

I think philosophers dedicated their lives to examine human behaviour and plunge the depths of consciousness, deeply examining human behaviour
Nowadays, we have an idea burped out after breakfast in silicon valley, immediately hits the screens on millions of people who skim it, make the shallowest decision and post, never really questioning what they are liking promoting or demoting. There's little courage to confront, only eagerness to follow. Every discussion practically starts with a retreat to the moral high ground rather than at least ending there.
I think people are sick of the lie of political correctness. Like the Fermi paradox if these people really want the best for humanity, why are they so devoid of it?
Nasty nasty people can't hide behind the cloak of a cause, tourettsing out their hate.

Have you tried ignoring it and getting on with life until it actually effects you in a real world situation? That's what I do.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Are you equally as outraged at the dunne redefining the term bigot to include me? You should be if this makes you angry.




Have you tried ignoring it and getting on with life until it actually effects you in a real world situation? That's what I do.

I did not redefine any term Brian. Its the dictionary definition.

"a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

Chris_Heilong

I do believe a lot of the worst of humanity hide behind a just cause, they know they are bad so hope by taking up virtuous activism it will purify them of their sins, it is the same reason a lot of male feminists end up being found out to be sexual abusers. I think a lot in Antifa just want to see the world burn and it is easy to not be called a bigot if your side/group is the ones calling everyone a bigot.

Brian?

Deleted User wrote: »

I did not redefine any term Brian. Its the dictionary definition.

"a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

That's not quite right though is it?

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

That's not quite right though is it?

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

The one I copied and pasted was the first that came up in my search. Says it's from the Oxford dictionary

My point being, I did not redefine any term.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The one I copied and pasted was the first that came up in my search. Says it's from the Oxford dictionary

My point being, I did not redefine any term.

No however you picked the vaguest available definition of it to shoehorn it into places it doesn’t really fit.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

No however you picked the vaguest available definition of it to shoehorn it into places it doesn’t really fit.

(Or the first search result which was one from a globally recognised dictionary)

But thank you for confirming that Brian was wrong.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

The one I copied and pasted was the first that came up in my search. Says it's from the Oxford dictionary

My point being, I did not redefine any term.

can you link to that definition?

the OED definition i can find says

From the second edition (1989):
bigot, n. and a.
(ˈbɪgət) [a. F. bigot, of unknown origin: see below.]

A. n.


†1. a. A hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite. b. A superstitious adherent of religion.

1598 Speght Chaucer, Bigin, bigot, superstitious hypocrite [1602 adds or hypocriticall woman]. 1653 Urquhart Rabelais i. xl, He is no bigot or hypocrite. 1656 Blount Glossogr., Bigot (Fr.), an hypocrite, or one that seems much more holy then he is, also a scrupulous or Superstitious fellow. 1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 436 One part of their Church becomes Sotts and Bigots.

2. A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual.

1661 Cowley Cromwell Wks. II. 655 He was rather a well-meaning and deluding Bigot, than a crafty and malicious Impostor. 1741 Watts Improv. Mind i. Wks. (1813) 14 A dogmatist in religion is not a long way off from a bigot. 1844 Stanley Arnold II. viii. 13 [Dr. Arnold] was almost equally condemned, in London as a bigot, and in Oxford as a latitudinarian.

b. transf. (Of other than religious opinions.)

1687 Congreve Old Bach. i. v, Yet is adored by that bigot Sir Joseph Wittol as the image of valour. 1838 Hallam Hist. Lit. i. vii. §14 I. 395 Lord Bacon, certainly no bigot to Aristotle. 1863 Kingsley Water-Bab. vi. 290 The children of Prometheus are‥the bigots, and the bores.

3. Comb., as bigot-maker.

a1720 Sheffield (Dk. Buckhm.) Wks. (1753) II. 155 The best of all the Bigot-makers that ever I read of.

B. adj. [Often merely attrib. use of n.]

1623 Ld. Herbert in Ellis Orig. Lett. i. 298 III. 164 The most common censure, even of the bigot party. 1680 Dryden Kind Kpr. Ep. Ded., In a Country more Bigot than ours. 1751 Smollett Per. Pic. lxii, The crazed Tory, the bigot Whig. 1844 Kinglake Eothen xxvii. (1878) 345 Old bigot zeal against Christians.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(Or the first search result which was one from a globally recognised dictionary)

But thank you for confirming that Brian was wrong.

No his definition is spot on, yours is an obvious attempt at a dig despite your plea that it was “the first search result from bla bla bla words to make myself feel smug search engine”

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

No his definition is spot on, yours is an obvious attempt at a dig despite your plea that it was “the first search result from bla bla bla words to make myself feel smug search engine”

Good man. You believe what you want.

And to be honest, I may have been wrong.

When I checked again after being asked by ohnonotgmail, I noticed that while it was the first one that popped up, it says it is from Oxford Languages, which is Lexico, which is part of the Oxford University Press, who publish the Oxford Dictionary.

Armed with this information, I concede that the definition I gave in good faith may be a more simplistic version than the one in the Oxford Dictionary proper (I think Lexico is mainly used for bilingual Spanish speakers) I would still say it is not unreasonable to call it a definition.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Good man. You believe what you want.

And to be honest, I may have been wrong.

When I checked again after being asked by ohnonotgmail, I noticed that while it was the first one that popped up, it says it is from Oxford Languages, which is Lexico, which is part of the Oxford University Press, who publish the Oxford Dictionary.

Armed with this information, I concede that the definition I gave in good faith may be a more simplistic version than the one in the Oxford Dictionary proper (I think Lexico is mainly used for bilingual Spanish speakers) I would still say it is not unreasonable to call it a definition.

i would say it is not reasonable to call it the correct definition. and perhaps you could share the link.