"Alt-left" Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[pErvinalia]

You know, come to think of it, aren't you some kind of Anarchist pErvin? That would explain much.

You can't even muster up a defence of your position..

Did you launch an attack that requires a defense?

trolololol...

[Forty Two]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

[Forty Two]

The justness of it isn't the point; it's the fact that Antifa has pushed the legitimate left to the point of being associated with a group many would have labeled 'terrorists.' Antifa is bad mojo. They need to be shutdown so that reason can prevail. The legitimate left needs to distance themselves from these people immediately and in no uncertain terms.

Shouldn't CNN and MSNBC be asking politicians to "disavow" antifa? Why didn't you disavow earlier? Why didn't you disavow in clearer, stronger terms? You didn't disavow right away, did you? Why?

The modern left lives, or dies, by identity and movement politics which depend heavily on their having the moral authority to assert their dominance. Without that there is no political power on the left. Electoral politics will be dead for every liberal.

I suspect this is exactly what Antifa, many of whom are Anarchists anyway, wants. To turn people away from legitimate process.

The footage of antifa in Berkely the other day is eye-opening. Those aren't just kids looking to be all protest-y and "stick it to the man" kind of stuff. It's not just some crazy college kids doing their college-kid stuff. This is beyond that. These folks mean business.

[Svartalf]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Certainly not, they are respectable traditionalists and conservatives.

[rainbow]

They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

...so all armies and police forces are terrorist organisations?

[pErvinalia]

[Animavore]

Still struggling to figure out who this supposed "alt left" are I see. You're talking about Antifa now. Start an Antifa thread.

Has anyone else figured out how Islamists count as "alt left" too while we're at it? Do the Alt Right just call everything under the umbrella of "things we hate" "alt left"?

[Forty Two]

More false equivalence. Punching people who advocate for mass genocide isn't morally equivalent to killing people and advocating for mass genocide.

Punching people is, of course, less morally reprehensible than "killing people and advocating for mass genocide." That's obvious, and nobody ever said it was morally equivalent.

Moreover, morality isn't really the key factor here. It doesn't matter is antifa is out there attacking NAMBLA or an association of pro-rape KKK skinheads. It is not tolerable in a free society to have vigilante groups taking it upon themselves to physically attack or intimidate other groups, no matter how reprehensible the VIEWS of the groups.

Some people view communists as negatively as you may view white supremacists, and atheists too are often viewed by many people as the least trustworthy and most reprehensible characters. We cannot have a society where ideas alone warrant violence which is tolerated or tacitly supported. If a group of right wingers attacked communists and antifa folks in Berkely and beat them and drove them out of the campus, I certainly wouldn't shed any tears for the communist scumbags and antifa douchebags, but I absolutely would condemn the right wingers and if the police were "standing down" and not arresting people or quelling the violence, that would be wrong. Communists and antifa douchebags have every right to march and spread their message.

[Forty Two]

They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

...so all armies and police forces are terrorist organisations?

Well, they might be. Terrorism is broadly defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. An army or police force which does that could be engaged in terrorism. Like, Lt. Calley at My Lai in Vietnam -- I'd say massacring civilians is terrorism.

[pErvinalia]

More false equivalence. Punching people who advocate for mass genocide isn't morally equivalent to killing people and advocating for mass genocide.

Punching people is, of course, less morally reprehensible than "killing people and advocating for mass genocide." That's obvious, and nobody ever said it was morally equivalent.

Not that i expect you to not argue this point to death, but Siva most certain did say that punching Nazi's before they do anything more than just use free speech, makes the puncher worse than the Nazi.

Moreover, morality isn't really the key factor here. It doesn't matter is antifa is out there attacking NAMBLA or an association of pro-rape KKK skinheads. It is not tolerable in a free society to have vigilante groups taking it upon themselves to physically attack or intimidate other groups, no matter how reprehensible the VIEWS of the groups.

As with all these arguments, it comes down to how one defines freedom. And as with all these arguments there's an inherent difference between how Americans tend to view freedom compared to how Europeans/Canadians(ex.Siva)/UKians(ex.BrendonO'Neil)/Australians tend to view it. I'm sure your in-built 42 response is going to be to ask what those differences are. You know what they are, this conversation has been done to death on this forum and pretty much every forum on the internet for a long time now. It's a fundamental difference that I'm not sure there is an answer to.

Some people view communists as negatively as you may view white supremacists, and atheists too are often viewed by many people as the least trustworthy and most reprehensible characters. We cannot have a society where ideas alone warrant violence which is tolerated or tacitly supported. If a group of right wingers attacked communists and antifa folks in Berkely and beat them and drove them out of the campus, I certainly wouldn't shed any tears for the communist scumbags and antifa douchebags, but I absolutely would condemn the right wingers and if the police were "standing down" and not arresting people or quelling the violence, that would be wrong. Communists and antifa douchebags have every right to march and spread their message.

This is just a rehash of the arguments that we've all been debating for the last year or more. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it should be legal for people to go around punching others. But morality and legality are separate things. It could be that it's morally ok to punch certain nazis and socialists, while still understandably remaining illegal to do so. So we really are only left with debating the morality of punching person A vs person B vs no one. And you know my position on this. I believe in the principle (badly stated by me) of 'you tacitly except evil if you let it pass you unchallenged'. And I, like a number of others, think that "explaining to a nazi why they are wrong" doesn't pass as "challenging" someone.

[Hermit]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

May as well get rid of road traffic laws. Just prosecute people who are at fault when accidents happen. Come to think of it, why require driving licenses at all? They do impinge on the freedom to move. You can become a safe and competent driver without going through the rigmarole and expense of obtaining a license, and statistics prove that possession of a driver license does not mean you won't cause an accident anyway. Drivers licenses are just another example of government overreach, not to say tyranny.

[rainbow]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

May as well get rid of road traffic laws. Just prosecute people who are at fault when accidents happen. Come to think of it, why require driving licenses at all?

Nanny-statism.

[Forty Two]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

May as well get rid of road traffic laws. Just prosecute people who are at fault when accidents happen. Come to think of it, why require driving licenses at all? They do impinge on the freedom to move. You can become a safe and competent driver without going through the rigmarole and expense of obtaining a license, and statistics prove that possession of a driver license does not mean you won't cause an accident anyway. Drivers licenses are just another example of government overreach, not to say tyranny.

What does that have to do with this issue?

[Forty Two]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

May as well get rid of road traffic laws. Just prosecute people who are at fault when accidents happen. Come to think of it, why require driving licenses at all?

Nanny-statism.

Just punch them.

[rainbow]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

May as well get rid of road traffic laws. Just prosecute people who are at fault when accidents happen. Come to think of it, why require driving licenses at all?

Nanny-statism.

Just punch them.

Just go to your safe-space and cry.