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

Annasopra

nullzero wrote: »

It's no coincidence that Antifa were declared a terrorist organisation recently.

It is though really


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I don't think a knife is a good choice for self defense.

I'm also discussing the facts at hand. If that doesn't suit you I'm sorry.

You used the statutory arrest and bail to attack me for my view that a knife is indeed a reasonable thing to carry and in most jurisdictions lawful for use in self defense so don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

nullzero

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is though really


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

It's asking for me to register to read it for some reason.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Overheal, calm the hell down please.

How dare you make a statement like that regarding rape victims? I take offence to that. That is completely out of line.

You’re the one victim blaming someone who is in hospital right now for doing SFA, not me.

Annasopra

nullzero wrote: »

It's asking for me to register to read it for some reason.

Click on the X

1800_Ladladlad

They're like those remedial kids who are brought on a nature walk on the school grounds to pick leaves and sh*T for art class. Absolute window lickers


https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1288090135968374786

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

You used the statutory arrest and bail to attack me for my view that a knife is indeed a reasonable and in most jurisdictions lawful for use in self defense so don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

Whether or not a person is permitted to carry a knife isn't a point I was arguing.

The dangers peculiar to knives are what I took issue with, namely the capacity to cause more damage than would be considered reasonable and the possiblity that a knife could be taken off of its owner and used against them.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

You’re the one victim blaming someone who is in hospital right now for doing SFA, not me.

I haven't "victim blamed" anyone.

Stating that staying away from a dangerous situation is a better course of action isn't victim blaming.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Whether or not a person is permitted to carry a knife isn't a point I was arguing.

The dangers peculiar to knives are what I took issue with, namely the capacity to cause more damage than would be considered reasonable and the possiblity that a knife could be taken off of its owner and used against them.

No you were just mocking my position because of the statutory arrest:

“ Charged with felony assault and bail set at 250k

Makes a mockery of the notion that it was a cut and dry act of self defence.”

nullzero

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Click on the X

It's odd, I went back in and the pay wall wasn't there (never encountered it on the Guardian before) just the yellow box with the x as you mentioned. I'll check it out ASAP, thanks.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I haven't "victim blamed" anyone.

Stating that staying away from a dangerous situation is a better course of action isn't victim blaming.

‘I haven’t “victim blamed” anyone.

Stating that not wearing a skirt is a better course of action isn’t victim blaming.’

That’s how you sound. It is victim blaming whether or not you recognize it as such.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

No you were just mocking my position because of the statutory arrest:

“ Charged with felony assault and bail set at 250k

Makes a mockery of the notion that it was a cut and dry act of self defence.”

Yes because I have felt from the start that your position was incorrect.
Just to be clear I was mocking your position and not you personally.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

‘I haven’t “victim blamed” anyone.

Stating that not wearing a skirt is a better course of action isn’t victim blaming.’

That’s how you sound. It is victim blaming whether or not you recognize it as such.

No its not.

You are appropriating it as such.

Again with the rape/skirt angle, I still take exception to that, the undertones of what you are saying are extremely unpleasant, an apology is in order I think.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Yes because I have felt from the start that your position was incorrect.
Just to be clear I was mocking your position and not you personally.

I have a hard time believing you because this was also you:

“ I don't like your answer because it's completely off the wall and out of touch with reality.
I won't get into a 30+ post discussion about it, but it isn't reasonable for you to use a warning about a previous discussion to close down this discussion whilst posting a lengthy post about how you think you think you are right and shouldn't be challenged.

You are making a lot of assumptions about stalking, when what we have amounts to less than one minute of actual footage. We don't know what transpired before the video and the very notion that stabbing somebody in the torso is a reasonable form of self defence is alarming, and makes me question your state of mind.”

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

No its not.

You are appropriating as such.

Again with the rape/skirt angle, I still take exception to that, the undertones of what you are saying are extremely unpleasant, an apology is in order I think.

No such apology will be given. I use the analogy to challenge you to see that what you are engaged in is victim blaming.

Dyr

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

trump loves dictators

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/trump-xi-jinping-dictators/554810/

Duterte and Erdogan are dictators, fascinating.

Trump was bang on about Gadaffi anyway. Another cluster**** caused by his warmongering predecessor.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

I have a hard time believing you because this was also you:

“ I don't like your answer because it's completely off the wall and out of touch with reality.
I won't get into a 30+ post discussion about it, but it isn't reasonable for you to use a warning about a previous discussion to close down this discussion whilst posting a lengthy post about how you think you think you are right and shouldn't be challenged.

You are making a lot of assumptions about stalking, when what we have amounts to less than one minute of actual footage. We don't know what transpired before the video and the very notion that stabbing somebody in the torso is a reasonable form of self defence is alarming, and makes me question your state of mind.”

That is a different post to where I said the charges passed down made a mockery of your position.

And yes I do question your state of mind when you defend that type of action. Not to mention to various insulting comments you've made towards me today.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

That is a different post to where I said the charges passed down made a mockery of your position.

And yes I do question your state of mind when you defend that type of action. Not to mention to various insulting comments you've made towards me today.

So you’re doubling down on attacking me. Grand, just as I thought.

I don’t see how calling out your posts for victim blaming is insulting to you. If you don’t think it’s victim blaming it should be water over a ducks back. Hmm.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

No such apology will be given. I use the analogy to challenge you to see that what you are engaged in is victim blaming.

I'm not engaged in victim blaming.

I'm suggesting she should have stayed away from the protest. I haven't said I agree with what happened to her, she didn't shoot herself in the face, somebody else is responsible for that and should take the blame for it.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

So you’re doubling down on attacking me. Grand, just as I thought.

In light of your behaviour here today you really have some neck making that statement.

Just seeing you added some extra lines to your post now.

I don't appreciate the way you went straight to rape as a reference, the upshot being that it looks like I would blame a woman for being raped.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not engaged in victim blaming.

I'm suggesting she should have stayed away from the protest. I haven't said I agree with what happened to her, she didn't shoot herself in the face, somebody else is responsible for that and should take the blame for it.

Shoulda woulda coulda is part and parcel of victim blaming.

’I’m suggesting she should have stayed away from the nightclub...’

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Shoulda woulda coulda is part and parcel of victim blaming.

I haven't once blamed this woman for what happened to her. Show me where I did.
I made a point tangential to this issue, staying away is safer. That isn't victim blaming.

Again more lines added.

A nightclub isn't an inherently dangerous place, a protest in Portland these days is. That's a false equivalence.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I haven't once blamed this woman for what happened to her. Show me where I did.
I made a point tangential to this issue, staying away is safer. That isn't victim blaming.

You’re doing it right now. You’re blaming her for being there.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

You’re doing it right now. You’re blaming her for being there.

I suggested she would have been safer had she not attended.

I didn't blame her for anything.

Do you want to keep this going?

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I suggested she would have been safer had she not attended.

I didn't blame her for anything.

Do you want to keep this going?

"I suggested she would have been safer had she not gone for a jog that evening."

Yessir, you are victim blaming.

A nightclub isn't an inherently dangerous place, a protest in Portland these days is. That's a false equivalence.

My hole it is!

https://twitter.com/LylaMoon5/status/1285093050541174784?s=20

https://twitter.com/DavidENorman/status/1285447564762865665?s=20

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1286528805906120704?s=20

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

"I suggested she would have been safer had she not gone for a jog that evening."

Yessir, you are victim blaming.



My hole it is!

https://twitter.com/LylaMoon5/status/1285093050541174784?s=20

https://twitter.com/DavidENorman/status/1285447564762865665?s=20

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1286691167145345025?s=20

Oh a load of twitter links, they'll put me in my place.

So you are saying there is no danger involved in going to a protest in Portland but we are discussing people who have been injured at the same protests while you say that?

Please show me where I blamed this woman for what happened to her as opposed to your opinion on my supposed victim blaming.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Oh a load of twitter links, they'll put me in my place.

So you are saying there is no danger involved in going to a protest in Portland but we are discussing people who have been injured at the same protests while you say that?

You said inherently dangerous.

in·her·ent·ly
/inˈhirəntlē,inˈherəntlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
"the work is inherently dangerous"

It is not inherently dangerous to go and exercise your First Amendment right, in Portland or anywhere else.

The links are to highlight to you once more that these protests have also occurred in a very peaceful manner just as at times they have not; there is no inherently peaceful or inherently dangerous about it. But if you want to walk back your remark, grand, but it is still placing some level of blame on the victim for simply being there.

"Victim-blaming doesn’t have to involve accusing survivors of directly causing their own misfortune. It can involve the simple thought that you would have been more careful, implying that the tragedy was at least partially their fault."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/supersurvivors/201803/why-do-people-blame-the-victim

"Victim blaming is a devaluing act that occurs when the victim(s) of a crime or an
accident is held responsible — in whole or in part — for the crimes that have been
committed against them.1
This blame can appear in the form of negative social
responses from legal, medical, and mental health professionals2
, as well as from
the media and immediate family members and other acquaintances.
Some victims of crime receive more sympathy from society than others. Often,
the responses toward crime victims are based on the misunderstanding of others.
This misunderstanding may lead them to believe that the victim deserved what
happened to them, or that they are individuals with low self-esteem who seek
out violence. As a result, it can be very difficult for victims to cope when they are
blamed for what has happened to them."

https://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

You said inherently dangerous.

in·her·ent·ly
/inˈhirəntlē,inˈherəntlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
"the work is inherently dangerous"

It is not inherently dangerous to go and exercise your First Amendment right, in Portland or anywhere else.

The links are to highlight to you once more that these protests have also occurred in a very peaceful manner just as at times they have not; there is no inherently peaceful or inherently dangerous about it. But if you want to walk back your remark, grand, but it is still placing some level of blame on the victim for simply being there.

Victim-blaming doesn’t have to involve accusing survivors of directly causing their own misfortune. It can involve the simple thought that you would have been more careful, implying that the tragedy was at least partially their fault.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/supersurvivors/201803/why-do-people-blame-the-victim

Victim blaming is a devaluing act that occurs when the victim(s) of a crime or an
accident is held responsible — in whole or in part — for the crimes that have been
committed against them.1
This blame can appear in the form of negative social
responses from legal, medical, and mental health professionals2
, as well as from
the media and immediate family members and other acquaintances.
Some victims of crime receive more sympathy from society than others. Often,
the responses toward crime victims are based on the misunderstanding of others.
This misunderstanding may lead them to believe that the victim deserved what
happened to them, or that they are individuals with low self-esteem who seek
out violence. As a result, it can be very difficult for victims to cope when they are
blamed for what has happened to them.

https://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf

We have been discussing the dangers of these protests for weeks here. They carry an inherent risk of becoming violent. If they didn't we wouldn't be discussing this is this manner. Sure some protests pass of peacefully but if you put yourself there you may expect to be involved in something unpleasant.

I never apportioned any of the blame for this woman's injuries on her. Stating that these protests are dangerous is not victim blaming.
The person who shot her is to blame for her injuries, I have stated this already. So any notions you have about me blaming her are not taking this issue into account.

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise both peaceful people and non peaceful people can be present at the same time? The Reuters piece does not group of women as arsonists or rioters... Did the guy with the boom box with who ended up facially disfigured start it?

Any group serious about presenting themselves as peaceful protesters would not associate with violent groups - at best its guilt by association, at worst its complicity.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

We have been discussing the dangers of these protests for weeks here. They carry an inherent risk of becoming violent. If they didn't we wouldn't be discussing this is this manner. Sure some protests pass of peacefully but if you put yourself there you may expect to be involved in something unpleasant.

I never apportioned any of the blame for this woman's injuries on her. Stating that these protests are dangerous is not victim blaming.
The person who shot her is to blame for her injuries, I have stated this already. So any notions you have about me blaming her are not taking this issue into account.

You're trying very hard to revision what you already said:

I suggested she would have been safer had she not attended.

I made a point tangential to this issue, staying away is safer.

I'm suggesting she should have stayed away from the protest.

Stating that staying away from a dangerous situation is a better course of action isn't victim blaming.

I never condoned what happened to that woman with reference to the rubber bullet in the face. I'm as horrified by it as anybody by it, my argument was that she wouldn't have been in a position for that to happen had she not been there.

You repeatedly laid a partial blame on this woman for the audacity of being present at a protest. It's victim blaming, I don't know how else to get you to understand that.