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

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

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





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.

I never used the word audacity, nor did I blame her for her injuries.

It is a statement of fact that those protests carry the potential to be dangerous and as such are best avoided. If I had stated that she got what she deserved for being there then you could rightly say I'm engaged in victim blaming, I never made a statement of that type however.

You are stretching the definition of victim blaming to suit your stance.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I never used the word audacity, nor did I blame her for her injuries.

No ****, I used the word audacity to make light of your victim blaming position.

You HAVE blamed her for her injuries! Because she was there! How do you still not see this?!

It is a statement of fact that those protests carry the potential to be dangerous and as such are best avoided. If I had stated that she got what she deserved for being there then you could rightly say I'm engaged in victim blaming, I never made a statement of that type however.

You are stretching the definition of victim blaming to suit your stance.

You're STILL doing it!

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

No ****, I used the word audacity to make light of your victim blaming position.

You HAVE blamed her for her injuries! Because she was there! How do you still not see this?!



You're STILL doing it!

Saying a dangerous situation is best avoided is not victim blaming.

I have repeatedly stated that she is not to blame for her injuries. These things are not the same.

We clearly won't agree on this, if you want to keep this going it's up to you, but I won't allow a cheap low blow by you to be the last word in this, I've soaked up enough of those from you already.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Saying a dangerous situation is best avoided is not victim blaming.

I have repeatedly stated that she is not to blame for her injuries. These things are not the same.

Yes it is! You've stated she is to blame for being there in as much prose. It is no better than saying a rape victim isn't to blame but 'jogging at night is best avoided.'

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Yes it is! You've stated she is to blame for being there in as much prose. It is no better than saying a rape victim isn't to blame but 'jogging at night is best avoided.'

Those things aren't remotely similar.

Rape and being shot by a rubber bullet for being involved in a protest that people have been warned to stay away from are not the same thing.
Again, more cheap shots.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Those things aren't remotely similar.

Rape and being shot by a rubber bullet for being involved in a protest that people have been warned to stay away from are not the same thing
Again, more cheap shots.

They're both victim blaming. It's really that simple.

Why don't you drop this ridiculous argument that people shouldn't protest their government. Just simply say you're horrified at what happened to her and move on. No, you feel the inherent need to inject that she didn't belong there. Victim blaming.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

They're both victim blaming. It's really that simple.

They're not remotely similar.

A rape victim is a victim of a horrific crime.
Somebody being shot by authorities at a protest that people have been encouraged to stay away from isn't anything like rape. It's a false equivalence.

I never said that people shouldn't protest their government. Show me where I once said that please.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

They're not remotely similar.

A rape victim is a victim of a horrific crime.
Somebody being shot by authorities at a protest that people have been encouraged to stay away from isn't anything like rape. It's a false equivalence.

They're both victim blaming and I'm baffled how you still fail to recognize this.

joeguevara

nullzero wrote: »

They're not remotely similar.

A rape victim is a victim of a horrific crime.
Somebody being shot by authorities at a protest that people have been encouraged to stay away from isn't anything like rape. It's a false equivalence.

I never said that people shouldn't protest their government. Show me where I once said that please.

If somebody is told to stay away from a dangerous part of town (through a tv ad campaign) as it is a known hotspot from crime, and a person ignored that and was assaulted by a criminal. What percentage is the person at fault for their injuries?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

They're both victim blaming and I'm baffled how you still fail to recognize this.

Nonsense.

You use rape as a means of engendering the maximum emotional response possible.

Rape is abhorrent, being shot by a rubber bullet for being somewhere people were warned to stay away from isn't the same thing.

Brian?

nullzero wrote: »

The Patriot Act probably has a special loophole just for this purpose. It's no coincidence that Antifa were declared a terrorist organisation recently.

Apart from a tweet what actually happened with this “declaration “?

nullzero

Brian? wrote: »

Apart from a tweet what actually happened with this “declaration “?

Very good question.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Nonsense.

You use rape as a means of engendering the maximum emotional response possible.

Rape is abhorrent, being shot by a rubber bullet for being somewhere people were warned to stay away from isn't the same thing.

So you're attacking my analogy but not actually refuting that what you're engaged in is victim blaming.

nullzero

joeguevara wrote: »

If somebody is told to stay away from a dangerous part of town (through a tv ad campaign) as it is a known hotspot from crime, and a person ignored that and was assaulted by a criminal. What percentage is the person at fault for their injuries?

In a perfect world the money spent on an ad campaign that stigmatizes people in that ara would instead be spent on policing which would hopefully stop that crime from happening.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

In a perfect world the money spent on an ad campaign that stigmatizes people in that ara would instead be spent on policing which would hopefully stop that crime from happening.

You didn't answer his question.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

So you're attacking my analogy but not actually refuting that what you're engaged in is victim blaming.

I'm refuting all of what you're saying.

Incidentally, did you find where I said that people shouldn't be allowed to protest against their government?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

You didn't answer his question.

I didn't answer the question in a manner that suits you.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I'm refuting all of what you're saying.

Not successfully. You've blamed the victim for being at the protest.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I didn't answer the question in a manner that suits you.

Or suited to the question:

What percentage is the person at fault for their injuries?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Or suited to the question:

What percentage is the person at fault for their injuries?

I identified that the question and the parameters that it was set within are inherently amoral and suggested a better allocation of funding that would stop the problem posed by the question at the root.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I identified that the question and the parameters that was set within are inherently amoral and suggested a better allocation of funding that would stop the problem posed by the question at the root.

'I dodged the question.'

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Not successfully. You've blamed the victim for being at the protest.

No, I suggested they would have been safer had they not attended and then stated that they were not responsible for the injuries they received whilst there.

Brian?

nullzero wrote: »

Very good question.

Do you have an answer, you are the one who referenced it?

My answer is: nothing. There’s even doubt whether Trump could declare Antifa a terrorist organisation.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

No, I suggested they would have been safer had they not attended and then stated that they were not responsible for the injuries they received whilst there.

'They were not responsible BUT...'

Blaming the victim for attending.

nullzero

Brian? wrote: »

Do you have an answer, you are the one who referenced it?

My answer is: nothing. There’s even doubt whether Trump could declare Antifa a terrorist organisation.

No I don't have an answer.

I don't claim to be omnipotent.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

'They were not responsible BUT...'

Blaming the victim for attending.

No, suggesting they would have been better of not attending and stating they were not at fault for their injuries.

Any sign of those quotes from me saying people have no right to protest against their government?

Brian?

nullzero wrote: »

No I don't have an answer.

I don't claim to be omnipotent.

Ok. Then why try to use it as a stick to beat Antifa with, it actually meant nothing.

It had as much legal power as Trump declaring the media as “the enemy of the people”.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

No, suggesting they would have been better of not attending and stating they were not at fault for their injuries.

Again: blaming the victim for attending.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Again: blaming the victim for attending.

Again missing the context of what I said.

Any joy finding where I said people have no right to protest their government?

nullzero

Brian? wrote: »

Ok. Then why try to use it as a stick to beat Antifa with, it actually meant nothing.

It had as much legal power as Trump declaring the media as “the enemy of the people”.

I didn't use it as a stick to beat them with.