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

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Again missing the context of what I said.

Oh no I got the context of what you said.

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

You've in many, many posts blamed the victim, a protester, for being at a protest. Clearly, you don't hold in high regard the right of Americans to protest their government. If I characterized that as you saying that they had 'zero right to,' I will walk that back now, but you clearly expect protesters to avoid protesting because it might be 'inherently dangerous.' You are 'horrified' by what happened to this victim but seem incapable of disconnecting that from your argument that they shouldn't have been there. You are blaming her for being there.

Brian?

nullzero wrote: »

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

Then why bring it up?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Why don't you drop this ridiculous argument that people shouldn't protest their government.

Just for reference this is what you mentioned earlier, if you could point out where I said anything like this I'd greatly appreciate it as I have no recollection of doing so.

nullzero

Brian? wrote: »

Then why bring it up?

It was relevant to the discussion at hand.

Is that ok?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Oh no I got the context of what you said.



You've in many, many posts blamed the victim, a protester, for being at a protest. Clearly, you don't hold in high regard the right of Americans to protest their government. If I characterized that as you saying that they had 'zero right to,' I will walk that back now, but you clearly expect protesters to avoid protesting because it might be 'inherently dangerous.' You are 'horrified' by what happened to this victim but seem incapable of disconnecting that from your argument that they shouldn't have been there. You are blaming her for being there.

I have never stated that people don't have the right to protest.

My feelings are that these particular protests have come to an impass.

It may be more productive to allow these particular protests to end and start over in a manner that can for one thing eliminate any malicious involvement from people turning up to cause trouble and nothing else. As it stands Portland will just get worse and nobody wins.

Overheal

Also we've gotten wires crossed with another protester who was also hit in the head (a woman, pictured earlier in the thread). The protester you are victim-blaming is Donovan La Bella:



Donavan La Bella, 26, was shot in the head by a U.S. Marshal and suffered a frontal lobe skull fracture during protests against racism and police violence in Portland. Two weeks later, before being released from the hospital, his mom said he still has cognitive problems and struggles with impulse control.

Donavan La Bella, the 26-year-old protester who a U.S. Marshal shot and severely injured on July 11, is slowly recovering and due to be released from in-patient rehab this weekend, according to his mother, Desiree La Bella.

Desiree said her son suffered a depressed skull fracture in the frontal lobe, and as a result has impaired impulse control and some lost cognitive function.

“He gets upset and frustrated and angry very quickly,” Desiree said. “He doesn't have that impulse control. He doesn't have the ability to stop himself and say, ‘Hey, I probably shouldn't throw the phone my sister just got me because I'm still stuck in [the hospital] and they won't let me out.”

A federal officer shot Donavan La Bella during downtown protests against racism and police violence in front of the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse. In a video of the incident posted online, La Bella is seen pushing a canister of smoke or tear gas away from his feet across the street from the courthouse. Moments later, he returns to holding a speaker over his head with both hands. An officer then fired an impact munition and La Bella collapsed to the ground, dropping the speaker. He was rushed to the hospital and needed emergency surgery that same night.

The incident led to outcry from city, state and national leaders including both of Oregon's senators, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General opened an investigation into the use of force by federal officers and Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said she would consider opening a criminal investigation against the deputy who shot La Bella.

Desiree La Bella said she had declined to take phone calls from politicians, saying she didn’t want to see a political screaming match over her son’s shooting.

“I don't care whose kid it was,” she told OPB. “To shoot any object at an unarmed person is just wrong. There was no need for it. It was excessive. And especially as highly trained as they are. They know better.”

La Bella’s injury has become a rallying cry for demonstrators in Portland, with some protesters spraying graffiti calling for justice in response to the police attack. One person gathered at the protest front lines even recently created a plein air painting of La Bella in a hospital bed.

Desiree lives in Oklahoma and said she can’t come to Portland to take care of her son because she doesn’t have a job in Oregon or a place to live. Instead, Donavan’s two older sisters are being trained on how to take care of him, and plan to help with his rehab.

Desiree said the family has received hate-filled messages on social media attacking Donavan and accusing him of being affiliated with antifa.

“You know, ‘I hope he goes to jail after.’ They're calling him antifa scum. ‘Too bad it wasn't a better shot,’” she said. “They're hateful.”

To keep Donavan safe, they plan to keep him out of Portland for the foreseeable future.

Doctors told Desiree that Donavan has recovered quicker than they expected but the ultimate prognosis is uncertain.

“They still won’t be 100% sure if he comes back completely and how long that would take,” she said. “There is a little bit of damage. They just don’t know the extent.”

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Just for reference this is what you mentioned earlier, if you could point out where I said anything like this I'd greatly appreciate it as I have no recollection of doing so.

You say it each and every time you blame the victim for being there.

I have never stated that people don't have the right to protest.

My feelings are that these particular protests have come to an impass.

It may be more productive to allow these particular protests to end and start over in a manner that can for one thing eliminate any malicious involvement from people turning up to cause trouble and nothing else. As it stands Portland will just get worse and nobody wins.

That's not your call to make.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

The protester you are victim-blaming is Donovan La Bella:[/I]

I never posted about this person so how am I victim blaming them exactly?

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I never posted about this person so how am I victim blaming them exactly?

Then, whomever you are blaming, you are still blaming.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

That's not your call to make.

I never said it was my call to make, I'm not some insane narcissist.
I just gave my opinion.

WrenBoy

Would it have been better if they stabbed them ?

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I never said it was my call to make, I'm not some insane narcissist.
I just gave my opinion.

That opinion is rubbish.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

That opinion is rubbish.

So you believe these protests should continue and become more violent?

Overheal

WrenBoy wrote: »

Would it have been better if they stabbed them ?

No, now you're being obtuse.

Speaking of the boombox kid, Donovan, knifing him would have been a retaliatory assault, they were in no jeopardy of being harmed or killed by Donovan. As it is, the round that crushed in his skull was retaliatory and unlawful.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

So you believe these protests should continue and become more violent?

I believe these protests should continue.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Then, whomever you are blaming, you are still blaming.

Riiiiight....

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

I believe these protests should continue.

Even though people are being seriously injured?

Surely hitting the reset button and coming back to it again isn't unreasonable in the face of how things have developed.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Riiiiight....

Indeed. You've repeatedly blamed a victim for being at the protest.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Indeed. You've repeatedly blamed a victim for being at the protest.

I dispute that. You feel you're correct in saying it. Can we park our disagreement here on this issue?

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Even though people are being seriously injured?

Yes.

What, someone gets injured at a protest and suddenly the protest should come to a screeching and moral halt? Come off it. The injuries being inflicted on protesters by the federal agents only serve to fuel and re-fuel these protests and inform the cause for these protests. Supposedly Libyan protesters should have just gone home and continued living under Ghadaffis violent regime? This isn't Libya but the same idea that violence nullifies a protest is in play by you.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I dispute that. You feel you're correct in saying it. Can we park our disagreement here on this issue?

If you can stop blaming the victim I will stop calling it out. There is no other purpose in mentioning that the protester shouldn't have been there than to attribute blame to them and lessen the outrageous nature of their injury.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

There is a huge difference between Bloody Sunday and the protests in Portland.

I have "failed to provide any evidence"? For what exactly? You haven't listed any facts, you posted your opinion. There is a distinct difference between soldiers carrying weapons loaded with live rounds and police carrying non lethal weapons.

Trying to conflate the Portland protests with Bloody Sunday is reaching, and to be quite honest some of the content of the above post (one particularly sickening out take is; "How does deaths or live rounds make one bit of difference to whether a person should have been at the protests?").

You are at once attempting to suggest that I would have been cheering on British forces whilst they carried out the atrocity that was Bloody Sunday whilst at the same time stating that the deaths on that day are in some way inconsequential when weighed against the great suffering of white guilt riddled middle class white people being hit with non lethal rounds in a much more inconsequential protest in Portland.

You have consistently failed to put forward a cohesive argument. You have insulted the people who died on Bloody Sunday to make a point, you consistently use preposterous terms like "apologist" and "victim blaming" and have no evidence to back any of it up.

Here are facts I previously posted as to why the protesters on Bloody Sunday would have known it was likely there would be violence that day and you haven't refuted any of them:

Foxtrol wrote: »

- Marches were banned at the time of Bloody Sunday
- There was a march the weekend before that turned violent when the protesters weren't allowed go the route they wanted
- Republicans used minor acts of violence against British forces that then responded with excessive force

Even your post describing what happened in Portland fits exactly what happened on Bloody Sunday - 'shot by authorities at a protest that people have been encouraged to stay away from'.

I don't understand the mental gymnastics you're doing to say people in Portland 'should have known better' to stay away from their protest that would likely turn violent without saying the same for people in NI. For you whether someone should or shouldn't attend a protest completely boils down to whether you agreeing with their cause.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Yes.

What, someone gets injured at a protest and suddenly the protest should come to a screeching and moral halt? Come off it. The injuries being inflicted on protesters by the federal agents only serve to fuel and re-fuel these protests and inform the cause for these protests. Supposedly Libyan protesters should have just gone home and continued living under Ghadaffis violent regime? This isn't Libya but the same idea that violence nullifies a protest is in play by you.

More false equivalences, wonderful.

America isn't a dictatorship.

Would you agree then that people participating in these protests can expect to be injured when they attend them?

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

More false equivalences, wonderful.

America isn't a dictatorship.

Would you agree then that people participating in these protests can expect to be injured when they attend them?

Still teeing up to blame victims for their injuries if they attend a protest. Brilliant.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Here are facts I previously posted as to why the protesters on Bloody Sunday would have known it was likely there would be violence that day and you haven't refuted any of them:



Even your post describing what happened in Portland fits exactly what happened on Bloody Sunday - 'shot by authorities at a protest that people have been encouraged to stay away from'.

I don't understand the mental gymnastics you're doing to say people in Portland 'should have known better' to stay away from their protest that would likely turn violent without saying the same for people in NI. For you whether someone should or shouldn't attend a protest completely boils down to whether you agreeing with their cause.

There is a huge difference between what is being protested against, and people died in Bloody Sunday.
You trivialised those deaths to make a point, which is a shameful thing to do and anyone thanking you should be thinking about what that means.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Still teeing up to blame victims for their injuries if they attend a protest. Brilliant.

So now I'm "teeing up" victim blaming?

Hilarious, you stated that the more people who get injured the more protests there will be, which you seemed happy about.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

So now I'm "teeing up" victim blaming?

Hilarious, you stated that the more people who get injured the more protests there will be, which you seemed happy about.

Show me where I expressed jubilance please.

Indeed, as more people are injured by law enforcement the more outraged the public will become.

Mr E

nullzero / Overheal - take a breather and stop posting to this thread for a bit. It's getting tiresome. Neither of you are willing to concede.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

The injuries being inflicted on protesters by the federal agents only serve to fuel and re-fuel these protests and inform the cause for these protests.

That isn't necessarily jubilation but it is talking about it in a positive light.

nullzero

Mr E wrote: »

nullzero / Overheal - take a breather and stop posting to this thread for a bit. It's getting tiresome. Neither of you are willing to concede.

Only seeing this now, apologies.