7 ms·

> On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves

> On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views. With all due respect, "Antifa" in their use of the word is almost completely a straw man created by the extreme right to justify their insane and violent behavior. A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland doesn't equivocate to me with a group of people that are using stochastic terrorism tactics to murder hundreds of people. I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).

afiori 7y ago
I don't think there is any respect in this reply. > They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false). Literally it was a police officer who saw and reported "what looked like" quick drying concrete. > lie that was completely false There were people associated with antifa publicizing this. > I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. There is no "both side" there is violent extremists, whether they agree or not between themselves is irrelevant. > hasn't even killed a single person yet. Is this seriously the threshold for political violence and abandoning political rationality? (And anyway after Tacoma it is not for a lack of trying). Right now what I see is one side being allowed with mainstream opinion of defending political violence. Antifa is performing political violence. Throwing a milkshake is not self-defense, it is political violence. Alt-right extremism is also political violence. I only see despicable people in both groups. I see no reasons why one side faults should excuse the other.
- marmada 7y ago
  By equating "milkshake throwing" with the violence of the alt-right (using guns to murder tens/hundreds of innocent civilians) you portray both sides as equal when one side has clearly done something that is much more morally reprehensible. This form of "enlightened centrism" is insidious because while it claims to be "neutral" and "unbiased", in reality, it artificially gives a moral advantage to one side (in this case the alt-right). It also ignores that sometimes sacrifices are necessary for the greater good. Do you disagree with either of the following two points? 1. Even if milkshake throwing is bad, it is objectively less bad than shooting innocent civilians. 2. The "political violence" committed by the left is much smaller compared to the political violence committed by the right.
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    There is also the danger that if you keep equating Antifa with the right wing extremists shooting people you create a space on the ultra left for people who would do those things and I’m sure in any large movement those people are there. It’s not like left wing groups haven’t done horrible things in decades past. That said at the moment in the US it’s pretty clear that the body count (literal) is piling up on the right wing side. Honestly if people could just stop shooting people for stupid reasons it would be awesome. As an external observer it seems like the US is slowly sliding towards a worse state of affairs, the government seems unable to get it in hand, dangerous times. Not much better over in the UK either, we have the ever present threat of the islamists, the border question in Northern Ireland hanging over everyone’s heads (I’m just old enough to to remember the IRA blowing up town centres on the mainland) and a group of people who are seriously pissed off brexit hasn’t happened yet, We already had a lovely MP shot to death by a right wing nut bag and there is a really ugly mood, people are really pissed off with the present state of affairs and another recession caused by economic fallout of brexit could light the touch paper. I think there is a significant (though small) chance we’ll see troops on the streets peacekeeping over the next two years.
  - afiori 7y ago
    I literally see no reason to compare them. Not one. To answer: 1. true 2. agree. So What? The only thing you are doing is painting a romantic ideal of antifa as freedom fighters, robin hoods of the people. Stop. They answer violence with violence.
bossybeagle 7y ago
A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland... How about Antifa putting the journalist Andy Ngo in the hospital? Or the professor who hit a guy in the head with a bike lock? a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. Congressman Steve Scalise couldn't be reached for comment.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "Congressman Steve Scalise couldn't be reached for comment." Steve Scalise is alive... I just googled his wikipedia page.[0] [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise
  - filoleg 7y ago
    He got shot, but not killed, so you are technically correct in stating that he is alive. I guess you totally defeated the parent commenter's point, good thing the shooters didn't have good aim, right?
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I take the OP's original point to be that far-right ideological extremists have targeted, injured, and killed orders of magnitude more people than far-left ideological extremists during the last few years, which seems to me to be incontrovertible without resort to sophistry. Also, given that the larger context of this discussion is terrorist attacks rather than political confrontations that turned violent, it's relevant to ask "how many random bystanders have been killed when self-identified white supremacists opened fire on crowds vs. bystanders killed when self-identified 'antifa' have done so."
bena 7y ago
Side note: I find the dismissal of the milkshakes to be a very disingenuous tactic. From a group that promotes the idea that speech can be violence, the act of throwing any sort of projectile at anyone should be classified as a violent act without qualification. You could argue that those milkshakes are also a form of stochastic terrorism as it demonstrates that those politicians are vulnerable. So those with the desire can reach them with something other than a milkshake. I don't want to hear about how milkshakes aren't violence. I want to hear why that violence is acceptable. Because, deep down, according to your actions, you think that sometimes violence is necessary.

afiori 7y ago

I don't think there is any respect in this reply. > They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false). Literally it was a police officer who saw and reported "what looked like" quick drying concrete. > lie that was completely false There were people associated with antifa publicizing this. > I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. There is no "both side" there is violent extremists, whether they agree or not between themselves is irrelevant. > hasn't even killed a single person yet. Is this seriously the threshold for political violence and abandoning political rationality? (And anyway after Tacoma it is not for a lack of trying). Right now what I see is one side being allowed with mainstream opinion of defending political violence. Antifa is performing political violence. Throwing a milkshake is not self-defense, it is political violence. Alt-right extremism is also political violence. I only see despicable people in both groups. I see no reasons why one side faults should excuse the other.

marmada 7y ago
By equating "milkshake throwing" with the violence of the alt-right (using guns to murder tens/hundreds of innocent civilians) you portray both sides as equal when one side has clearly done something that is much more morally reprehensible. This form of "enlightened centrism" is insidious because while it claims to be "neutral" and "unbiased", in reality, it artificially gives a moral advantage to one side (in this case the alt-right). It also ignores that sometimes sacrifices are necessary for the greater good. Do you disagree with either of the following two points? 1. Even if milkshake throwing is bad, it is objectively less bad than shooting innocent civilians. 2. The "political violence" committed by the left is much smaller compared to the political violence committed by the right.
- noir_lord 7y ago
  There is also the danger that if you keep equating Antifa with the right wing extremists shooting people you create a space on the ultra left for people who would do those things and I’m sure in any large movement those people are there. It’s not like left wing groups haven’t done horrible things in decades past. That said at the moment in the US it’s pretty clear that the body count (literal) is piling up on the right wing side. Honestly if people could just stop shooting people for stupid reasons it would be awesome. As an external observer it seems like the US is slowly sliding towards a worse state of affairs, the government seems unable to get it in hand, dangerous times. Not much better over in the UK either, we have the ever present threat of the islamists, the border question in Northern Ireland hanging over everyone’s heads (I’m just old enough to to remember the IRA blowing up town centres on the mainland) and a group of people who are seriously pissed off brexit hasn’t happened yet, We already had a lovely MP shot to death by a right wing nut bag and there is a really ugly mood, people are really pissed off with the present state of affairs and another recession caused by economic fallout of brexit could light the touch paper. I think there is a significant (though small) chance we’ll see troops on the streets peacekeeping over the next two years.
- afiori 7y ago
  I literally see no reason to compare them. Not one. To answer: 1. true 2. agree. So What? The only thing you are doing is painting a romantic ideal of antifa as freedom fighters, robin hoods of the people. Stop. They answer violence with violence.

bossybeagle 7y ago

A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland... How about Antifa putting the journalist Andy Ngo in the hospital? Or the professor who hit a guy in the head with a bike lock? a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. Congressman Steve Scalise couldn't be reached for comment.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"Congressman Steve Scalise couldn't be reached for comment." Steve Scalise is alive... I just googled his wikipedia page.[0] [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise
- filoleg 7y ago
  He got shot, but not killed, so you are technically correct in stating that he is alive. I guess you totally defeated the parent commenter's point, good thing the shooters didn't have good aim, right?
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
I take the OP's original point to be that far-right ideological extremists have targeted, injured, and killed orders of magnitude more people than far-left ideological extremists during the last few years, which seems to me to be incontrovertible without resort to sophistry. Also, given that the larger context of this discussion is terrorist attacks rather than political confrontations that turned violent, it's relevant to ask "how many random bystanders have been killed when self-identified white supremacists opened fire on crowds vs. bystanders killed when self-identified 'antifa' have done so."

bena 7y ago

Side note: I find the dismissal of the milkshakes to be a very disingenuous tactic. From a group that promotes the idea that speech can be violence, the act of throwing any sort of projectile at anyone should be classified as a violent act without qualification. You could argue that those milkshakes are also a form of stochastic terrorism as it demonstrates that those politicians are vulnerable. So those with the desire can reach them with something other than a milkshake. I don't want to hear about how milkshakes aren't violence. I want to hear why that violence is acceptable. Because, deep down, according to your actions, you think that sometimes violence is necessary.