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

joeguevara

Overheal wrote: »

I’m in touch so post numbers don’t show up.

Poster at 12.35 yesterday said this@

"There is no group "Antifa", unless you mean that any people in close proximity constitutes a group, ie. a group of people in a pub, ie. the literal everyday version of the word?

But there's no organisation called Antifa, if that's what you mean.

There is only anti-fascism.

If you are anti-fascism you are antifa. It's just an abbreviation. "

ohnonotgmail

joeguevara wrote: »

I certainly didn't say that either. Please stick to what I say exactly. Much easier.

you said you use the dictionary definition of antagonistic.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antagonistic

antagonistic adjective

an·​tag·​o·​nis·​tic | \ (ˌ)an-ˌta-gə-ˈni-stik \
Definition of antagonistic
: showing dislike or opposition : marked by or resulting from antagonism
an antagonistic relationship
factions antagonistic to one another

joeguevara

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you said you use the dictionary definition of antagonistic.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antagonistic

Yes. And now show me where I said it is acceptable to assault someone who is antagonistic.

Overheal

Yes about sticking to what you said

joeguevara wrote: »

So firstly you are saying that Antifa exist. Perfect.

Now show me where anyone has said that violence is ok against Antifa (noting that they exist) where the people violence was perpetrated against were not antagonistic.

This clearly says in as much language that “violence is not okay against Antifa where the people violence was perpetrated against were not antagonistic”

Which by simple deduction is also as well as saying “violence is okay against Antifa where the people violence was perpetrated against were antagonistic.”

Are you sticking to what you said here or would you like to make some addendums so there is no confusion

Retr0gamer

Antifa is just an invented right wing boogie man to deflect away from how bad they are.

Right wing extremists: KKK, white nationalists, evangelical nutcases, religious extremists, neo Nazis etc.

Left wing extremists: people that want to give you free health care. People protesting for civil rights and lgbt rights.

There's a few gob****es going around who are just anarchists calling themselves antifa but there's no antifa organisation like there are with right wing extremists.

joeguevara

Overheal wrote: »

Yes about sticking to what you said



This clearly says in as much language that “violence is not okay against Antifa where the people violence was perpetrated against were not antagonistic”

Which by simple deduction is also as well as saying “violence is okay against Antifa where the people violence was perpetrated against were antagonistic.”

Are you sticking to what you said here or would you like to make some addendums so there is no confusion

Don't use simple deduction, especially when you cant do it correctly. Please show me where I said that I think it is acceptable to ever use violence. It helps in the long run when you don't lie about what someone says.

Overheal

joeguevara wrote: »

Don't use simple deduction, especially when you cant do it correctly. Please show me where I said that I think it is acceptable to ever use violence. It helps in the long run when you don't lie about what someone says.

I haven’t lied at all. Now you are simply posting in bad faith. I see no issues with the logic or the deductions I’ve made. The error is with the quote you made, which clearly spells out your feelings on violence toward Antifa: acceptable as long as they are “antagonistic”

ohnonotgmail

joeguevara wrote: »

So firstly you are saying that Antifa exist. Perfect.

Now show me where anyone has said that violence is ok against Antifa (noting that they exist) where the people violence was perpetrated against were not antagonistic.

joeguevara wrote: »

Yes. And now show me where I said it is acceptable to assault someone who is antagonistic.

right there. you make an exception for people who are antagonistic

joeguevara

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

right there. you make an exception for people who are antagonistic

I don't make an exception. I asked where it was said.

And I certainly never said violence is ever acceptable.

TomTomTim

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a few gob****es going around who are just anarchists calling themselves antifa but there's no antifa organisation like there are with right wing extremists.

I'm sure your definition of organized changes based on which group you are applying said standard to. Who are the organized far right? The Klan? Who have a few thousand members? The Alt Right? Which is a deeply fractured movement with no real figure heads? What events have either group been involved in lately?

Overheal

joeguevara wrote: »

I don't make an exception. I asked where it was said.

And I certainly never said violence is ever acceptable.

Are you going to actually say “violence is never acceptable” though?

Overheal

TomTomTim wrote: »

I'm sure your definition of organized changes based on which group you are applying said standard to. Who are the organized far right? The Klan? Who have a few thousand members? The Alt Right? Which is a deeply fractured movement with no real figure heads? What events have either group been involved in lately?

The KKK is an organization with leadership structure, initiation, rituals, chapters, and membership cards. They’re duly enfranchised and even used to be tax exempt back before the 1940s.

The Alt Right is not an organization.

joeguevara

Overheal wrote: »

Are you going to actually say “violence is never acceptable” though?

100% violence is never acceptable. In any situation. Except in organised events such as Boxing and UFC. Is that clear enough for you.

Tony EH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a few gob****es going around who are just anarchists calling themselves antifa but there's no antifa organisation like there are with right wing extremists.

Unfortunately, they're useful idiots for some people to point their fingers at and scream about a "left wing" bogeyman.

TomTomTim

Overheal wrote: »

The KKK is an organization with leadership structure, initiation, rituals, chapters, and membership cards.

I agree that they are, but they are all but irrelevant in the modern world is my point. You can't compare them to the supposedly fictitious Antifa, who have a real world presence, and can be seen at nearly every "progressive" event, dressed in the according attire. When we see the Klan with a similar level of presence I'll agree that they are an equal or bigger threat.

Overheal

joeguevara wrote: »

100% violence is never acceptable. In any situation. Except in organised events such as Boxing and UFC. Is that clear enough for you.

Lovely thank you. You set the terms, and demanded I don’t deduce anything from your post, ergo I needed you to be explicit and categorical, so if you’re upset about the question be upset at yourself and your style of posting tbph.

joeguevara

Overheal wrote: »

Lovely thank you. You set the terms, and demanded I don’t deduce anything from your post, ergo I needed you to be explicit and categorical, so if you’re upset about the question be upset at yourself and your style of posting tbph.

Live and let live. I do think Antifa cause more violence than they receive though. None are acceptable.

Overheal

TomTomTim wrote: »

I agree that they are, but they are all but irrelevant in the modern world is my point. You can't compare them to the supposedly fictitious Antifa, who have a real world presence, and can be seen at nearly every "progressive" event, dressed in the according attire. When we see the Klan with a similar level of presence I'll agree that they are an equal or bigger threat.

They do have presence they just aren’t that overt about it. They don’t go burning crosses or raiding homes on horseback anymore but they are the driving force behind organizations like the Proud Boys, their fingerprints were all over the tiki torch rallies and the Charlottesville calamity.

Bonniedog

Antifa turned up to disrupt a peaceful legal protest. They had no business doing so, no more than anyone would have in doing likewise to a left wing meeting or protest.

These scum have gloried in their forcing meetings to end and intimidating hotels and other venues and educational institutions cancelling speakers who they don't like.

They got a small taste of their own medicine. Big Boy and Girl Pants for the whinging reds.

ohnonotgmail

Bonniedog wrote: »

Antifa turned up to disrupt a peaceful legal protest. They had no business doing so, no more than anyone would have in doing likewise to a left wing meeting or protest.

These scum have gloried in their forcing meetings to end and intimidating hotels and other venues and educational institutions cancelling speakers who they don't like.

They got a small taste of their own medicine. Big Boy and Girl Pants for the whinging reds.

everybody has the same right to protest. they instigated no violence. it was NP thugs that instigated violence.

Overheal

Bonniedog wrote: »

Antifa turned up to disrupt a peaceful legal protest. They had no business doing so, no more than anyone would have in doing likewise to a left wing meeting or protest.

These scum have gloried in their forcing meetings to end and intimidating hotels and other venues and educational institutions cancelling speakers who they don't like.

They got a small taste of their own medicine. Big Boy and Girl Pants for the whinging reds.

So the people who counter protested Gemma O’Doherty - they would have deserved violent retribution as well? They also made use of music and amplifiers.

Perhaps instead we should recognize that the right to protest applies to everyone and it is not a freedom from being inoculated from counter protest or criticism.

excludedbin

Bonniedog wrote: »

Antifa turned up to disrupt a peaceful legal protest. They had no business doing so, no more than anyone would have in doing likewise to a left wing meeting or protest.

These scum have gloried in their forcing meetings to end and intimidating hotels and other venues and educational institutions cancelling speakers who they don't like.

They got a small taste of their own medicine. Big Boy and Girl Pants for the whinging reds.

They turned up to protest a gang of thugs calling for the execution of a left-wing politician because he's left-wing. The same kind of thugs who set hotels on fire because they hate asylum seekers so much.

As always, fascists are hard men and love making threats against innocent people until they meet their match. Then they start crying about how they're being oppressed and they can't have freedom of speech. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no. Just no. The Germans had a string of victories in mainland Europe, which they would have had without the Soviets. At that stage the British stopped little beyond the invasion of Britain itself, which was a half baked plan on the part of the Germans anyway, involving converted canal barges. Hitler had hoped(and Goering convinced him) that his Luftwaffe would drive them to the negotiating table for a political out and leave him free to take on the Soviets. Hitler was a great admirer of the British and their empire, something he regularly mentioned to people around him. They hadn't even fully prepared for the air campaign against Britain. Most German planes weren't allowed to traverse more than 10km of open water before it.

The British offered support to Poland and did nada knowing they couldn't(and left them high and dry after the war including the Poles who had fought so valiantly for them. Ditto for the Czechs). They and the French were utterly routed in France and Norway and ran back to Blighty with their singed tails between their legs. Remember the Dunkirk spirt chaps!! AKA run, run away!! They lost the battle of the English Channel and U-Boats were really doing damage to their supplies(Churchills biggest fear of the whole war) and the Americans were pretty much "you're on your own guys, sorry". Even in the Battle of Britain which they won(though would have had to try hard to lose) the German fighter pilots had a higher kill rate than the British. Even though they were operating over enemy territory and running on fumes half the time.

At that stage in the war the British stopped bugger all really. That's war and post war propaganda still running strong. Hitler lost because he invaded the USSR(though they came bloody close to victory, or at least of capturing Moscow. Stalin's special train in Moscow was sitting steamed up and ready to go and him on it, only he was convinced to stay) and America got on board after Pearl Harbor. Their combined manufacturing might and sheer manpower in the case of the Soviets is what won the war for the allies. Britain on her own would have stood zero chance.

The Brits wasnt routed in Norway,they pulled out with the French because of Dunkirk,and actually gave Hitler his first defeat in ww2.

Overheal

excludedbin wrote: »

They turned up to protest a gang of thugs calling for the execution of a left-wing politician because he's left-wing. The same kind of thugs who set hotels on fire because they hate asylum seekers so much.

As always, fascists are hard men and love making threats against innocent people until they meet their match. Then they start crying about how they're being oppressed and they can't have freedom of speech. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

This was not clearly added to the thread before: they wanted to execute someone? Would that be Corcoran?

If so it’s been very disingenuous of many posters to heavily imply the Antifa counter protestors were simply pedophilia apologists.

Bonniedog

Disrupting legal gatherings is thuggery pure and simple.

What is difference between AFA doing this and if some group was to turn up and try to drown out speakers at an SF or Green Party or farmers meeting?

Besides which, for a group that styles itself as anti system, AFA's last two manifestations at Dáil have been in support of two government ministers!

That is what the blueshirts used to do to republicans in 1930s. Not that I would expect the dumbasses of AFA to make the connection.

Overheal

Furthermore this idea of tolerating violence against Antifa because they got a “taste of their own medicine” ... essentially makes you Antifa: a movement that sprung up as a “taste of their own medicine” crowd against neo nazis, with the ever famous “punch a Nazi” line, the idea of being intolerant of the intolerant. It may be time for some folks to self reflect here.

Mr. Karate

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

everybody has the same right to protest. they instigated no violence. it was NP thugs that instigated violence.

So you have no problem with Antifa looking they endorse pedophilia? Because that's how it looked like to the sane world.

The saying "Choose your battles wisely." exists for a reason. Antifa chose wrong.And in the process looked like they endorse pedophiles and thus ruined what little credibility they had.

Overheal

Bonniedog wrote: »

Disrupting legal gatherings is thuggery pure and simple.

What is difference between AFA doing this and if some group was to turn up and try to drown out speakers at an SF or Green Party or farmers meeting?

Besides which, for a group that styles itself as anti system, AFA's last two manifestations at Dáil have been in support of two government ministers!

That is what the blueshirts used to do to republicans in 1930s. Not that I would expect the dumbasses of AFA to make the connection.

So we are saying the Gemma counter protesters were thugs engaged in thuggery??

Overheal

Mr. Karate wrote: »

So you have no problem with Antifa looking they endorse pedophilia? Because that's how it looked like to the sane world.

The saying "Choose your battles wisely." exists for a reason. Antifa chose wrong.And in the process looked like they endorse pedophiles and thus ruined what little credibility they had.

This is an example of what I mean about spinning the Antifa protestors there as pedophilia apologists. Can’t you tell me was the other poster correct, was the pedophilia protest calling for a political execution? Honest answers only please

ohnonotgmail

Mr. Karate wrote: »

So you have no problem with Antifa looking they endorse pedophilia? Because that's how it looked like to the sane world.

The saying "Choose your battles wisely." exists for a reason. Antifa chose wrong.And in the process looked like they endorse pedophiles and thus ruined what little credibility they had.

so you dont deny that the NP instigated the violence?