Antifa.....the joke that keeps on giving

Depp wrote: »

I've studied marxism at length and from this my take is it can only lead to authoritarianism.

Okay, I'll bite seeing as you bring it up.

What studies in Marxism/political science?

InTheTrees wrote: »

Okay, I'll bite seeing as you bring it up.

What studies in Marxism/political science?

I don't have a degree in it if thats what you're asking.

20Cent wrote: »

Watch the videos they are parodies.
Its totally obvious to anyone.

the same could be said for 90% of your posts on this thread aswel though to be fair, forgive me a little skepticism

Meanwhile in Greece antifa are keeping Golden dawn in their place.

https://sub.media/video/greek-antifa-march-in-fascist-neighborhood/

Depp wrote: »

Ironic one of the main deraillers of the thread posting that!

Oh, I see. You think derailing means disagreeing with you.

I see derailing as having a 5 page argument, without a single fact that I could see being presented, about the strict definition of communism.

On a thread about a rumble between extremists..

Seanachai wrote: »

There's a big difference between making sure that genuine fascists don't get a foothold in an area and causing riots where a threat doesn't exist.

White supremacists are the biggest terror threat in the US. They are making inroads in all sectors from the highest parts of government. They are even marching through universities. The threat is very real.

Red_Wake wrote: »

Have you any examples of their violence?

This is just murders.
Lots of other attacks and also failed attempts.


www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murders_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html?cq_ck=1486485587473

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you're going to provide lengthy video analysis you'd probably want to provide a link to the video that you're talking about.
In the one I watched she was looking straight at him at 32 seconds.

Same video. At 31.5 seconds she is looking in a different direction. Even if she had been looking in his direction, he is obscured behind yellow jacket.

I can't understand why you think it apparently makes it ok for him to deck her because at the moment of impact she has spun her head around so that it is facing him. If would be analogous to me running towards you as you are walking down the street away from me, shouting your name so that you turn just as my fist impacts your face and then me claiming "sure he was facing me at the time".

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And for someone not sticking up for any group you seem to be going to quite some effort to defend a bottle wielding thug who was out looking for a fight.

She wasn't wielding any bottle when he sought her out and decked her. How does my earlier post, copied below, fit into your theory?

Donald Trump wrote: »

RayM wrote: »

In fairness, it sometimes is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRxcp-T71gE

No, that's a disgrace. Man giving interview at the side of the road.  Gets blindsided with a sucker punch from some thug with his face  covered. It was a dirty sneaky cunt of a thing to do on anyone.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Wow, one reply and your already getting personal and suggesting that he's my hero.

I honestly don't know how else you could condone what he did. She was of no threat to him, he had already hit her. He sought her out again to do her more damage. He is also apparently the "leader" or spokesperson of some group. If you have a group where the "leaders" are behaving like that, then that is not a very good sign for the rest of them!

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Now you're straw manning. No one was suggesting that.

That was a response to another poster who said that she was "fair game". I was suggesting it by a simple extrapolation of the logic used to come to that opinion. A young girl had been seen holding a bottle. She was punched. Later on, despite not having the bottle any more, and being of no discernible threat, she was sought out, targetted and violently assaulted again. For posters suggesting that such violence is "fair game" I just wanted to know where the line would be drawn for such "fair gameness". Rape is frequently used as a weapon and means of violence against people. One punch like she received can very easily cause death of the recipient. All it takes is for her to fall backwards and smack her head

The second punch was in no way self defence (I don't think that the first one could be either as he ran across the street to hit her, but for now we will concentrate on the second, clearer incident). Would it have been ok for one of the people there with bats to run in from the side and hit her over the head while she stood there sans bottle? Or maybe for someone to stab her? She's either fair game or she's not. It seemed like other hippies were surrounded and outnumbered and lying on the ground while being kicked and punched. Would you have condoned that happening to her too?

All I am trying to ascertain is where the posters would draw the line? Up to what stage of unnecessary assault is acceptable because she happened to be in that physical location. Is anyone who goes to a protest also similar "fair game"?

Glenster wrote: »

Verbal, situational or dramatic?

so you do get the concept, and you don't see the irony in you complaining of a lack of evidence? I give up! :D:D

Help!!!! wrote: »

This happened today

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fresno-shooting-20170418-story.html

Your point being?