I STAND FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
It's very clear that you stand for something you don't understand. Thank you, and good night.
I STAND FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
Walking the same route that the Neo Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us", and "Blood and Soil" had used last Friday night, Wed. night candles replaced torches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2aaWxwd5iI
Sympathizer, for me, someone who adscribe to their points of view or ideology at least partially.
Enabler, someone who helps make their points of view or ideology a reality.
Why?
BTW, the first couple of minutes of the Vice News mini-doc were shown by various networks,
with voiceovers of Trump, talking about "peaceful protestors" and "some fine people", in order to show the disconnect between what the cameras show was actually the case(and that mini-doc is being described as a defining moment in the development of the Vice News/HBO platform. Chuck Todd said "it gave me the chills") and what Trump said he saw. If anybody here can watch the first couple of minutes of that Vice mini-doc and kindly tell me who the "fine people" are, I'd be interested in knowing. Just curious....
I interpreted his quotes as weaselly as I imagine him in his life. "Isn't it possible that not every person..."
That margin, although legally arguable, is not realistic. Certainly not indicative of the crowd as a whole.
His excuse rings hollow to me for this reason. If there is a march or protest that I was part of and this group showed up I'd either demand they leave or I'd leave myself. I'd flat out refuse to march with them. Then I'd make it as public as possible that I'd either kicked them out or left myself. That I detested their message and refused to even appear to be with them.
I have yet to see that anywhere.
Because whether it's sympathizing or enabling, it's still support. Which appears to be what you're doing.
As a nation, we can not move, nor be moving towards hate. Even if you label them Antifa, they're not generating hate(which WILL lead to violence) like Unite the Right is. Reacting to, sure, but not generating.
If you really don't want violence, you can't just wait it out. The violence will happen. You have to be open, and you have to actually discuss it. You have to weed it out from the stem. The government shouldn't need to get involved. The public should. And they are.
Suppressing speech is a facist thing to do though.
I'm sure some of them are an anarchist, some are communist and some are just people who want to oppose the alt-right. Probably a mix of ideologies who share a few common goals in the current climate.
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Imagine we are sitting around a table enjoying a holiday feast. I turn to you and say "Will you pass me the ham." You pass me the plate of ham but I say "No, the ham" as I Point to the mashed potatoes. you say "Uh, that's potatoes." I reply I eat ham and I eat that therefore that is ham." Imagine the look you would have on your face. That's the look I have on my face right now.
Many times, as is the case with ham or potatoes, the concept isn't all that complex and a simple dictionary search will be enough to educate you. In the case of fascism, as used here, a dictionary search would be enough to inform you that you have the wrong word but not really enough for you to understand the term. Our political thought is complex and often requires a little more reading, context, and historical perspective. If you are unwillingly to put in the effort to understand a term then you really shouldn't use it. This only debases language which in turns stifles thought. You can point at political things you don't like and say "That's bad.", but don't say fascist when you are pointing at a potatoe.
It's tiring to go against something that's only happening in your head, if you really want to think that I'm supporting Nazis and KKK by saying and showing why I don't like ANTIFA go have it, be happy and believe you have done your part to "stop fascism"
You know what is really funny though? You saying "You have to be open, and you have to actually discuss it" Hard to discuss something when you are automatically labeled as something you aren't.
No civility here indeed.
I think you have a very naive view of what ANTIFA really is and what are their goals, here is a very constructive read from the Red Guards, an ANTIFA chapter from Austin: http://redguardsaustin.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/fight-fail-fight-again-fail-again-fight-again-until-victory/
You got one thing right though, ANTIFA will not hate you based on your skin tone, orientation or religion, they will hate you if you just disagree with them.
Your analogy makes 0 sense as I didn't call anything "fascist", I just said they share a certain tactic of fascist. Repressing speech is a tactic of fascist regimes.
How have your messages been anything short of sympathetic or enabling for a hate group? The "ANTIFA" you seem to be referring to is a bastardized American thing, and an extreme, extermist minority of the left. You appear to believe that they're the only people counter protesting, and stand on that platform as can be seen from the response to Stroked's post here:
When facing the likes of the Klan, and other various demonstrably hate oriented militant groups, of course people are gonna fall behind a militant shield. But they're not the leaders, they're not the heart of the message. I can't say the same for the Unite the Right movement.
Who other than the obvious trolls have said this?
I started to talk about ANTIFA because people started to talk wonders about them. Did anywhere I say they are the only ones counter protesting? No. Did anywhere I say something against the other organizations counter protesting? No. Did anywhere I say any organization, including ANTIFA, haven't the right to counter protest? No. See how you build something in your head just to find the enemy in me? How often you do the same with others?
In the other hand, you acknowledge that ANTIFA is an "extremist minority of the left", but you have no problems associating with them because "they're not the leaders, they're not the heart of the message". Isn't that the same thing that was criticized about the alt-right and their relations with extremist right wing groups? Why something that was obviously bad for a group now is a good thing for another? Or do you think there's a "good" extremism and a "bad" extremism?
The nationalist right is saying that the Nazi was attacked first and he was trying to get away to save himself.
/grabs popcorn
No, and the reason why is because of the message. ANTIFA, in this situation, is coming under the message of a group not born of hate. I can't say the same for the opposite side.