Portland: Journalist injured during riot between Antifa and Proud Boys.

[mongrel]

So because freed slaves started Liberia before abolition in the US, you think a black free American should go back to anarchist Somalia?

You're right, I am the mathematician. There is literally nothing there. Nothing but the racism of telling a black free American to go back to anarchist Somalia.

You deserve an official 'freeeedoooooommm'

[Infidel144]

The antifa is supposed to go to nazi rallies to protest them. Regular people who go to nazi rallies are just people who are taken in by the hate rhetoric.

Antifa is "supposed to go to nazi rallies"...
Who decided that? Is there a law that says antifa is supposed to go to "nazi rallies", and no one else is allowed to?

Casting doubt on the media outlets of your country is what any sane person would do

and:

So me stating they omit and misrepresent is somehow a lie?

Again, what Kritias said was:
"A person was attacked holding the american flag - at a far-right rally, they omit. A veteran was verbally abused and thrown water on - at a rally, they omit. A woman was shouted at - at a rally, they omit."
Yet both of the media articles I quoted from regarded antifa attacking the Bernie supporting democrat stated that. Indeed, one even went further in its characterization. The article I linkedre the veteran noted the rally. The article I linked to regarding the woman noted the circumstances noted the rally.
Contra what Kritias asserted, none of them 'omitted'.
Kritias lied. If Kritias is willing to lie about such mundane things (including the two I directly quoted in a response to him) what else is Kritias willing to lie about?

Moving on. Regarding to mr. Ngo, I highly doubt that he’d not been disavowed as a journalist from any other country following his condemnably unethical behaviour.

Kritias claimed Ngo 'doxxed' masked journalists attending antifa rallies. Kritias sources did not support his assertion.
It seems Kritias is willing to lie about that.

The Japanese, during WW2, waged their own war of extermination based on their ‘whiteness’ compared to the ‘yellow dogs’

So Kritias is claiming the Japanese are 'white supremacists'... And seems to be equating modern Japanese to those who commited atrocities in WWII ("you think Japanese are this, while forgetting they were also this").

While you say I am victim blaming, you’ve yet to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these people were actually what Breitbart and Fox News claim they were –

I don't think I linked to Breitbart. And while I did use Fox as a source, I also used Newsweek, WaPo, Jake Tapper of CNN, Queally of the LA Times, and the Oregonian. And indeed Fox was one of those sources I quoted that noted the people being attacked by antifa were at rallies. Something Kritias lied about when he said that was omitted.
But of course, Who is saying something is always more important than what is being said (Leftist Pillar #1).

The article you provided states there where nowhere to be seen, so antifa attacked journalists. So, either the alt-right called for the rally and then bailed on it, or this story is bull. I call bull.

What the article actually states:
"So — you might expect that when antifa can’t find any fascists, it has nothing to fight. That seemed to be the situation this weekend, when a long-planned rally for far-right extremists fizzled into a paltry gathering of a few dozen white supremacists, unapproachable and nearly invisible behind a police blockade as they met without incident in a Washington, D.C., park."
Then again, Kritias also thinks an rally in Portland protesting the police in which antifa participated (despite his claim that antifa not attack the State) and a rally in Berkeley protesting marxism are the same rally.

On the case of the image from Greece you show your poor understanding of the argument.

The argument made by Kritias about police:
"The police can also use violence, but because it does so for the greater good we call that 'force', not violence"
Kritias argument about antifa:
"The antifa attack the fascists, not the State. In fact, most of the actions of antifa incorporate the State."
And then:
Kritias: "there's an instance of antifa beating down on a police man"
Perhaps Kritias is confused about what he has said. Or maybe Kritias should think it through before making declarative statements that he later contradicts.

From your conversation it is evident that you want to paint the thuggisness of the antifa as equal to the far-right.

The thread is about antifa, not the far-right. If Kritias desires to go on about the far-right, Kritias could start a thread...
But what is obvious is Kritias desire to cover up for and excuse antifa actions.

In fact, it is very interesting to note that when antifa went to fight the actual terrorism of ISIS, as volunteers from throughout the world under the US camp of the fight in Syria, there was no report of them. Instead, they are now being systematically shown as 'domestic terrorists' - even though this has not been proven to be anything but an exaggeration.

Says Kritias, while linking to an NPR report, which seems to contain links to other reports...

As a closing statement, I've been trying to show you that there's more to what you think you know in this story between the alt-right and the antifa, changing my arguments around to be better understood.

Changing his arguments around when he gets called on them... And then re-asserting them...

I've given you enough sources to back my claims.

Speaking of which, Kritias sources do not support Kritias claim that Ngo doxxed masked journalists who were attending antifa rallies....

I hold that if someone get's roughed up at a rally, especially when the alt-right strategy has been strategically pushing boundaries following the car killing in Charlottesville and the mass shooting at the church, is also partially responsible.

Back to victim blaming...

When you're an active political person in your community and elsewhere, you cannot claim ignorance of what you're supporting or what that entails.

Antifa gets to define who and what is nazi...

And bashing the fash, even though unconventional and very problematic in normalizing violence, isn't ethnic cleansing, putting people in internment camps or daydreaming of white-only homelands.

The 'fash' being anyone or anything that anitfa 'bashes' (police, reporters, Bernie supporters, random passers by, stores, banks, schools etc...).
And yet Kritias claims:
"No, I do not support violence. I believe that the ultimate refuge of the citizen is the law. I'm middle class like that."

[Heathen Hammer]

There is nothing wrong with letting groups like KKK, SPLC or antifa speak out. The problem is that in case of the latter two, mainstream media goes out of their way to defend them.

[Kritias]

Infidel, you seem very confused about what people are legally allowed to do. Let me make this clear for you. The Antifascists are a movement of people specifically coming together to protest the fascist rallies and fascist policies, spokespersons etc. The existence of some law allowing them to go to protest, ie your argument, shows how compromised and unsuited you are to debate this issue. If you believe in the existence of a free marketplace of ideas, then you must understand that people can go to the marketplace of ideas and shout that some ideas are trash.

If your problem is whether it's okay to go to fascist rallies or not, and you take offense for other people demonstrating against those rallies, then maybe you should reevaluate. Clearly you believe that the problem is that antifa are stiffing the right to free speech and the right of assembly. First, a group like the alt-right does not stand for free speech and the opening of ideas, when they declare that some race has a better claim to living than any other. Even less so when they trade in mora panic, misinformation, propaganda and conspiracy theories to divert attention from their ideas. This was the point where, if you were a democratic minded person, you should disavow these groups and understand that democracy and the alt-right in its many forms do not share the same values.

And since we're on the subject of freedom of speech, you also have a very vague, and very wrong, both factually and legally, definition of freedom of speech. Your first amendment guarantees that you can have this conversation without the government punishing you about it. It doesn't guarantee - nor it should - that private actors have no right to shout you down if you're being disagreeable with them. The right of assembly is equally guaranteed by the government but not from repercussions from individual actors. Insomuch as the government is concerned, people can hold their nazi rallies with their tiki torches but there's nothing stopping other people from shouting them down.

Now, since we're in the legal matters, let me tell you another thing. Antifas actions if seen by themselves, such as the ones the right wing media outlets publish again and again, constitute assault and battery, a felony. This is why such outrage is generated. However, is there any merit to the interpretation by antifa of their violence as self defense?

Well, according to most statures in your country, the mere threat of physical violence is itself a felony, assault sans battery, and justifies in some cases pre-emptive retaliation as self defense to imminent bodily harm. This is why antifa's violence is a very difficult problem to solve. Here's an example and a link to help you understand.

Snider is walking down a city street carrying a bottle of soda. Mantle, walking along the same street in the opposite direction, sees Snider approaching. Because of Snider's reputation as a hot-head, Mantle immediately becomes fearful that Snider will swing the bottle at him when their paths cross. As they walk past each other, nothing happens. Snider has not committed an assault. Snider has a right to carry a bottle of soda in public, and Mantle's fear of being hit was not the result of Snyder's intentionally threatening behavior. But now assume that, as they draw closer, Snider draws back his fist and tells Mantle "You're going to pay for stealing my collection of baseball pennants." As Snider begins to swing his fist in Mantle's direction, Mantle sprints away and escapes harm. Here, Snider has committed an assault. His intentional conduct placed Mantle in reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm.

Again, you're stuck saying that I lied. That's a very typical behavioral pattern called 'denial' and it occurs when someone's beliefs are challenged. Maybe you should check it out. I am casting reasonable doubts on the stories you believe in. I presented scientific researches backing these doubts with dozens of contrast evidence. Read that and get back to the argument. Also, be mindful that the self-defense argument of the alt-right is not, conveniently, been challenged by the same media outlets you linked. Here's an example where it does.

On the matter of the Japanese. if there's a Korean, Manchurian or Chinese person reading this please educate Infidel on the fact that someone saying 'I am not a racist, I am Japanese' sounds as ridiculous an argument for you as ie a German claimed that their ancestry somehow made them unable to become racist or white supremacist. Gibson is just playing with your limited understanding of whiteness to include only western europeans and not any others. This is not the case and you shouldn't buy into this argument. Your nationality doesn't in any case absolve you a priori from criticism if you are believing and supporting stupid things. If you're a crap-head and a Maori, you're still a Maori crap-head. Fact remains: Joey Gibson is part Japanese, and he still supported with his goons alt-right thugs like the Proud Boys.

You also misrepresent my statements on police violence. We as a society accept violence in certain aspects ie when done by state mandated agents such as the police. If you don't understand the argument, and you've shown that you don't quite a lot, maybe you should read the argument again. My saying this is what we as a society agreed upon shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

This thread is only superficially about antifa violence. It has everything to do with reinforcing the beliefs you and some others have about the crazed, out of control leftists. Beliefs that researches show are forced top down through the right wing media outlets you source from. You want to debate and in your mind prove that the leftists are evil, or that antifa are terrorists. And this is just not true. Are you meaning to tell me that a handful of events -literally handful- allegedly carried out in the space of three years are cause for national panic?

Read the damned links I attach. Thoroughly. Ponder on what they mean. I'm getting tired of going in circles because you contribute nothing but denials to this conversation.

There is nothing wrong with letting groups like KKK, SPLC or antifa speak out. The problem is that in case of the latter two, mainstream media goes out of their way to defend them.

Not all ideas are good ideas, is something any school teacher should have said way more often. Thinking that any race is superior to any other like the KKK does is one of these ideas. Linking the KKK and the left and far left movements in the same sentence, as if they are somehow comparable is another example of not good ideas.

[Aexodus]

This was the point where, if you were a democratic minded person, you should disavow these groups and understand that democracy and the alt-right in its many forms do not share the same values.

But Nazis get equal access to these same democratic rights, as that is what Liberalism is fundamentally about.

[Kritias]

But Nazis get equal access to these same democratic rights, as that is what Liberalism is fundamentally about.

They do get the same rights. They can vote, they can assemble and they can speak about their ideas publicly and privately to name but a few. They should also face the repercussions for the content of their beliefs since, according to them, certain people who may or may not be citizens are sub humans who must be physically removed from the homeland.

In short they actively advocate for the suspension of citizen rights on the basis of colour, ancestry and religion. Things that liberalism protects as inalienable rights.

[Infidel144]

Infidel, you seem very confused about what people are legally allowed to do. Let me make this clear for you. The Antifascists are a movement of people specifically coming together to protest the fascist rallies and fascist policies, spokespersons etc. The existence of some law allowing them to go to protest, ie your argument, shows how compromised and unsuited you are to debate this issue. If you believe in the existence of a free marketplace of ideas, then you must understand that people can go to the marketplace of ideas and shout that some ideas are trash.

Notice Kritias lying, yet again. I made no argument about what antifa is legally allowed to do.
I questioned an assertion made by Kritias.
Ktitias said:
"The antifa is supposed to go to nazi rallies to protest them. Regular people who go to nazi rallies are just people who are taken in by the hate rhetoric."
I questioned his assertion:
Who decided that? Is there a law that says antifa is supposed to go to "nazi rallies", and no one else is allowed to?
Kritias has yet to provide an answer.

If your problem is whether it's okay to go to fascist rallies or not, and you take offense for other people demonstrating against those rallies, then maybe you should reevaluate.

Where have I taken offense at other people demonstrating against rallies? In fact, it would seem Kritias the one who takes "offence", consider that he says that "Regular people" (those other than antifa and nazis, I presume) going to them "are just people who are taken in by the hate rhetoric." Indeed, Kritias has gone so far as to call a Bernie supporting Democrat counter-protester that antifa beat up, an "idiot".

Clearly you believe that the problem is that antifa are stiffing the right to free speech and the right of assembly.

Odd, free speech and now assembly, were introduced by Kritias. I don't recall giving my opinion on the subject to Kritias.
Perhaps Kritias can quote me...

First, a group like the alt-right does not stand for free speech and the opening of ideas, when they declare that some race has a better claim to living than any other. Even less so when they trade in mora panic, misinformation, propaganda and conspiracy theories to divert attention from their ideas. This was the point where, if you were a democratic minded person, you should disavow these groups and understand that democracy and the alt-right in its many forms do not share the same values.

This is irrelevant.

And since we're on the subject of freedom of speech, you also have a very vague, and very wrong, both factually and legally, definition of freedom of speech. Your first amendment guarantees that you can have this conversation without the government punishing you about it. It doesn't guarantee - nor it should - that private actors have no right to shout you down if you're being disagreeable with them.

Kritias, were he being honest, should quote my very vague, wrong factually and legally, defintion of free speech.
But Kritias is making up a position for me. I have not provided a definition, legal or otherwise, of free speech.

The right of assembly is equally guaranteed by the government but not from repercussions from individual actors. Insomuch as the government is concerned, people can hold their nazi rallies with their tiki torches but there's nothing stopping other people from shouting them down.

Kritias is not quite correct here. The right to peaceably assemble is "gauranteed". Though the government has been allowed to put requirements, such as getting permits.

Now, since we're in the legal matters, let me tell you another thing. Antifas actions if seen by themselves, such as the ones the right wing media outlets publish again and again, constitute assault and battery, a felony. This is why such outrage is generated. However, is there any merit to the interpretation by antifa of their violence as self defense?

Notice the "right wing media outlets" again. Yet I have provided articles and commentary from Newsweek, Washington Post, Oregonian, CNN (Tapper) and LAT (Queally). No doubt all part of the vast right wing conspiracy...

Well, according to most statures in your country, the mere threat of physical violence is itself a felony, assault sans battery, and justifies in some cases pre-emptive retaliation as self defense to imminent bodily harm. This is why antifa's violence is a very difficult problem to solve. Here's an example and a link to help you understand.

I have no doubt that I am much more familiar with these laws than is Kritias. The key point here is that the statutes tend to require "attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm;" as Kritias link says when quoting Mississippi law. (Laws may vary by state).

Again, you're stuck saying that I lied. That's a very typical behavioral pattern called 'denial' and it occurs when someone's beliefs are challenged. Maybe you should check it out. I am casting reasonable doubts on the stories you believe in.

Reasonable doubts equal Kritias saying the media does not report that people (who were not nazis) attacked by antifa were at rallies, when the quotes and articles I provided all stated that explicitly.
Or claiming that I asked why antifa goes to rallies.

I presented scientific researches backing these doubts with dozens of contrast evidence. Read that and get back to the argument. Also, be mindful that the self-defense argument of the alt-right is not, conveniently, been challenged by the same media outlets you linked. Here's an example where it does.

Another irrelevancy and attempt to change the subject. The thread is not about the alt-right or the alt-rights right to self defense.

On the matter of the Japanese. if there's a Korean, Manchurian or Chinese person reading this please educate Infidel on the fact that someone saying 'I am not a racist, I am Japanese' sounds as ridiculous an argument for you as ie a German claimed that their ancestry somehow made them unable to become racist or white supremacist. Gibson is just playing with your limited understanding of whiteness to include only western europeans and not any others. This is not the case and you shouldn't buy into this argument. Your nationality doesn't in any case absolve you a priori from criticism if you are believing and supporting stupid things. If you're a crap-head and a Maori, you're still a Maori crap-head. Fact remains: Joey Gibson is part Japanese, and he still supported with his goons alt-right thugs like the Proud Boys.

Note Kritias subtle attempt to shift the argument re the Japanese being white supremacists, and his attempt to conflate modern Japanese with WWII era Japanese who committed atrocities.

You also misrepresent my statements on police violence. We as a society accept violence in certain aspects ie when done by state mandated agents such as the police. If you don't understand the argument, and you've shown that you don't quite a lot, maybe you should read the argument again. My saying this is what we as a society agreed upon shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

Lets see, I quoted what Kritias said about the police, about antifa and about antifa beating a cop:
"The argument made by Kritias about police:
"The police can also use violence, but because it does so for the greater good we call that 'force', not violence"
Kritias argument about antifa:
"The antifa attack the fascists, not the State. In fact, most of the actions of antifa incorporate the State."
And then:
Kritias: "there's an instance of antifa beating down on a police man"
And I commented something about police being part of the State, which Kritias claims antifa does not attack.
Not much there to mis-represent.

This thread is only superficially about antifa violence. It has everything to do with reinforcing the beliefs you and some others have about the crazed, out of control leftists.

I'm sure Pontifex will be glad to know what his thread is about...

Beliefs that researches show are forced top down through the right wing media outlets you source from. You want to debate and in your mind prove that the leftists are evil, or that antifa are terrorists. And this is just not true. Are you meaning to tell me that a handful of events -literally handful- allegedly carried out in the space of three years are cause for national panic?

And back to the "right wing media" meme (Newsweek, WaPo, LAT, Politico etc). Again Leftist Pillar #1 who is saying something is always more important than what is being said.
Oh, and mind reading as well.

Read the damned links I attach. Thoroughly. Ponder on what they mean. I'm getting tired of going in circles because you contribute nothing but denials to this conversation.

How many times has Kritias called "bull" or similar denials? Leftist Pillar #3 Whatever you accuse someone else of, always be more guilty.
And still Kritias sources do not support his claim that Ngo doxxed masked journalists attending antifa rallies.

And praise where it is due:
Good job putting the other poster's name in the quote.

[Kritias]

Your strategy of "replying" by talking about me to your "audience" shows you're more interested in convincing others I am a liar instead of answering my points. This shows you can't possibly argue back because you know I'm right and you're scared others will see that. You have no argument - only accusations.

[Heathen Hammer]

Not all ideas are good ideas, is something any school teacher should have said way more often. Thinking that any race is superior to any other like the KKK does is one of these ideas. Linking the KKK and the left and far left movements in the same sentence, as if they are somehow comparable is another example of not good ideas.

It is safe to say that liberalism in the last few decades claimed far more lives then any "extremist" ideology, and all of them put together. Overall, movements for equality tend to have a far bigger death toll as well. Which is why groups like SPLC, KKK or antifa are similar with superficial differences.

[Kritias]

It is safe to say that liberalism in the last few decades claimed far more lives then any "extremist" ideology, and all of them put together. Overall, movements for equality tend to have a far bigger death toll as well. Which is why groups like SPLC, KKK or antifa are similar with superficial differences.

This could be just historical revisionism on your part but lets see you attempt to prove it.

[Heathen Hammer]

This could be just historical revisionism on your part but lets see you attempt to prove it.

I don't think you understand what the word "revisionism" means, since I don't see how it applies here.
In the last 3 decades, American/NATO "exportation of democracy", done in the name of liberalism, caused more loss of life directly and indirectly then any other ideology put together.

[Kritias]

I don't think you understand what the word "revisionism" means, since I don't see how it applies here.
In the last 3 decades, American/NATO "exportation of democracy", done in the name of liberalism, caused more loss of life directly and indirectly then any other ideology put together.

Historical revisionism definition here.

American foreign policy is only nominally in the name of equality, but more in the name of freedom - that basically has turned out to mean freedom for enterprises to set up trade.

Social movements for equality have nothing to with American foreign policy.

I fail to see how these two things are related. Can you be more specific regarding this interpretation of liberalism?

[Heathen Hammer]

Historical revisionism definition here.

American foreign policy is only nominally in the name of equality, but more in the name of freedom - that basically has turned out to mean freedom for enterprises to set up trade.

Social movements for equality have nothing to with American foreign policy.

I fail to see how these two things are related. Can you be more specific regarding this interpretation of liberalism?

So you agree that there is no revisionism in my above post then.
For the last 3 decades we observed US attacking other countries in the name of liberalism. Objectively, this foreign policy caused far more deaths and hardships then any other movement in the world.
Social movements for equality also don't really have positive human rights track record, in recent decades as well.

[Kritias]

So you agree that there is no revisionism in my above post then.
For the last 3 decades we observed US attacking other countries in the name of liberalism. Objectively, this foreign policy caused far more deaths and hardships then any other movement in the world.
Social movements for equality also don't really have positive human rights track record, in recent decades as well.

Historical revisionism also means altering the moral judgement on how an event, in this case a movement, is perceived. In this case whether movements for equality are a force for good or evil (which if they have a high death toll they must be). In this sense, yes, its historical revisionism.

The social actors for equality are not the same issue.

What do you mean social movements don't have positive human records? Which ones?

[Heathen Hammer]

Historical revisionism also means altering the moral judgement on how an event, in this case a movement, is perceived. In this case whether movements for equality are a force for good or evil (which if they have a high death toll they must be). In this sense, yes, its historical revisionism.

Are you asserting that American invasion of Iraq, for example, did not result with civilian casualties directly and indirectly?

The social actors for equality are not the same issue.

What do you mean social movements don't have positive human records? Which ones?

The ones that came to power in their respective countries.

[Kritias]

Are you asserting that American invasion of Iraq, for example, did not result with civilian casualties directly and indirectly?

The ones that came to power in their respective countries.

I'm asserting that the foreign policy of your country has nothing to do with the civil rights movements that sprung in America.

Care to explain where the connection between antifa, SPLC and American foreign policy is exactly?

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm asserting that the foreign policy of your country has nothing to do with the civil rights movements that sprung in America.

Care to explain where the connection between antifa, SPLC and American foreign policy is exactly?

American foreign policy has been ideologically justified as liberalism's "great crusade" to "spread democracy". Thankfully socialists are too inept to come to power in US, but we do have quite the track record of mass murder and famine by regimes that pursued "equality", so there's that.

[mongrel]

Revisionism what? You really beleive that forum members won't recall the greater toll (by orders of magnitude) inflicted by totalitarian regimes in living memory,including those of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao? More recently didn't Nato have to slap the Bosnian Serb republic because it reintroduced genocide to Europe? All because you dare not answer the question 'Care to explain where the connection between antifa, SPLC and American foreign policy is exactly? '.

[Kritias]

American foreign policy has been ideologically justified as liberalism's "great crusade" to "spread democracy". Thankfully socialists are too inept to come to power in US, but we do have quite the track record of mass murder and famine by regimes that pursued "equality", so there's that.

Hammer, the US as a government, the state apparatus and its armed forces have certain policies they enforce.

The citizens of the US have by large no word on the policies, they only vote on candidates depending the available information or lack of at any election.

The movements created by citizens have categorically no connection to the state's foreign policies. I do not understand the connection you see there.

Mongrel, reading your post I am not sure whether you are supporting heathens argument or mine. I read it again but no luck.

What do you mean by that?

[mongrel]

Hammer, the US as a government, the state apparatus and its armed forces have certain policies they enforce.

The citizens of the US have by large no word on the policies, they only vote on candidates depending the available information or lack of at any election.

The movements created by citizens have categorically no connection to the state's foreign policies. I do not understand the connection you see there.

Mongrel, reading your post I am not sure whether you are supporting heathens argument or mine. I read it again but no luck.

What do you mean by that?

Just criticising the very idea that liberals are the prime cause of war and mass murder, as suggested by HH. You can take it is read that I do't consider any of HH's works as worthy.