The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on October 31, 2018, 08:04:47 AM

Title: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on October 31, 2018, 08:04:47 AM
CNN's Don Lemon: "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no white guy ban. What are we going to do about that?"

Eric Holder: “when they go low, we kick them”

Hillary Clinton: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for”

Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents”  I particularly like the call to attack children... very nice.

Louis Farrakhan: “The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” and “ I'm not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.“

A total of 30 Republican members of Congress have either been attacked or revealed that they were the victim of a death threat since the beginning of May. list (https://freebeacon.com/issues/30-gop-congressmen-attacked-threatened-since-may/)

That’s all since “Bernie Bro” James Hodgkinson attempted a mass assassination and Paul Ryan was blindsided and hospitalized.

All this against the backdrop of Antifa that is routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons and engaging in unlawful activities designed to threaten and harass. Not to mention the near weekly attacks on Republicans as they quietly have dinner or walk around in public.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on October 31, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
The simplest answer is they believe their cause is just and adhere to Barry Goldwater's maximum, "Moderation in pursuit of justice is not virtue."

The more complicated answer is that they have controlled the media and education for so long that they've convinced themselves as a matter of definition that hate and violence always come from the right.  If the right is violent then it's evidently their fault, if the left is violent it's the fault of the right for provoking them.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on October 31, 2018, 01:36:31 PM
Quote
The Republican candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, former state Sen. Scott Wagner, drew national attention earlier this month with a campaign video in which he threatened Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. “Gov. Wolf, let me tell you between now and Nov. 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes."

That's not some random person. That's a violent threat from a Republican Gubernatorial candidate. This wasn't an off the cuff remark. This was a recorded video. So let's drop the one way street treatment, shall we?
 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on October 31, 2018, 01:43:24 PM
One way street?  This post is a sad knee jerk reaction to two high profile violent actors that fell squarely in the lap of the right just before election time.   :o

But OMG the Democrats as a whole embrace an ideology of hate and voilence!  Yep.  I always hated how Obama (or Sanders?) tried to divide us all and call out his detractors as enemies of the people and parroted conspiracy theories that shockingly weren't seen as harmless entertainment but rather as motivation by the disturbed in their camp... 

Just because some in the list above suggest or demand action and not being "civil" doesn't equate to hate or violence.  But overlooking that tiny detail, yep it's the exact same thing!  No wait, they're worse!  Someone will buy that... right?  I mean, people believe far crazier *censored*.  (such as what motivated this post in the first place)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on October 31, 2018, 06:28:28 PM
Quote
A Democratic state lawmaker in Missouri posted a now-deleted comment on Facebook expressing hope that the president would be assassinated.
It all started with a post from Missouri Democrat State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal on her personal Facebook page, where she voiced her disgust at President Trump and claimed he was "causing trauma and nightmares." Someone by the name of Christoper Gagne commented that he was thinking about his cousin, who worked for the Secret Service under Barack Obama for four years and has to spend two more protecting President Trump. Gagne then wrote cryptically, "But, what I posted earlier, I truly believe will happen, sooner...rather than later."

Gagne proceeded to quip, "I'll probably get a visit from the Secret Service smdh."

Chappelle-Nadal stupidly decided to reply with the following comment: "No. I will. I hope Trump is assassinated!"
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on October 31, 2018, 06:35:58 PM
One way street?  This post is a sad knee jerk reaction to two high profile violent actors that fell squarely in the lap of the right just before election time.   :o

But OMG the Democrats as a whole embrace an ideology of hate and voilence!  Yep.  I always hated how Obama (or Sanders?) tried to divide us all and call out his detractors as enemies of the people and parroted conspiracy theories that shockingly weren't seen as harmless entertainment but rather as motivation by the disturbed in their camp... 

Just because some in the list above suggest or demand action and not being "civil" doesn't equate to hate or violence.  But overlooking that tiny detail, yep it's the exact same thing!  No wait, they're worse!  Someone will buy that... right?  I mean, people believe far crazier *censored*.  (such as what motivated this post in the first place)


The post was about democrat leaders pushing a message a violence and those that have acted on it. As you can see from my previous post, it continues at all levels of the party, national and state. It’s nit two violent actors, it’s way more than that. How many Antifa members are there?

The left has moved from rhetoric to action. Antifa to restaurant assaults, shootings to bike locks in the head, the message of violence is being enacted.

The left is not going to like it when the right decides to play by these rules.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on October 31, 2018, 06:45:39 PM
Quote
The Republican candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, former state Sen. Scott Wagner, drew national attention earlier this month with a campaign video in which he threatened Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. “Gov. Wolf, let me tell you between now and Nov. 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes."

That's not some random person. That's a violent threat from a Republican Gubernatorial candidate. This wasn't an off the cuff remark. This was a recorded video. So let's drop the one way street treatment, shall we?

At worst it’s the whitest attempt at a threat ever heard. Did you really think he was gonna stomp his face with golf spikes unless wolf put on a catchers mask? Really? Okaaay. 

Did you think this is the same as hitting people in the head with a bike lock?

But , as I said, you won’t like it when the right decides to play by your rules.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on October 31, 2018, 09:37:22 PM
Quote
CNN's Don Lemon: "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no white guy ban. What are we going to do about that?"

No violence, just an evaluation of who has killed the most people lately.

Quote
Eric Holder: “when they go low, we kick them”
Has anyone actually been kicked?

Quote
Hillary Clinton: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for”
Oh my, incivility!  For shame!  (the topic is hate and violence)

Quote
Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents”  I particularly like the call to attack children... very nice.
Confronting people in public - not nice, but not violent.  If it gets violent, you may have a point, but not now.

Quote
Louis Farrakhan: “The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” and “ I'm not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.“
He is not a Democrat.  I condemn those comments.

Quote
A total of 30 Republican members of Congress have either been attacked or revealed that they were the victim of a death threat since the beginning of May. list
Valid.  It happens to both sides, (http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-death-threats-state-local-candidates-politics-cnn-bomb-explosive.html) so your point is not made.  Add up the 14 pipe bombs and you are halfway there.

Quote
That’s all since “Bernie Bro” James Hodgkinson attempted a mass assassination and Paul Ryan was blindsided and hospitalized.
That one qualifies. It was immediately condemned by pretty much every Democrat everywhere. No false flags, no blaming the victims for not having enough security.

Quote
All this against the backdrop of Antifa that is routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons and engaging in unlawful activities designed to threaten and harass. Not to mention the near weekly attacks on Republicans as they quietly have dinner or walk around in public.

Please provide sources for Antifa routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on October 31, 2018, 11:24:37 PM
Quote
Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents” 

Quote
Confronting people in public - not nice, but not violent.  If it gets violent, you may have a point, but not now.

Read it again.  Confronting someone ANYWHERE, making clear they aren't welcome anywhere, is harassment, low level violence, and tends to inspire high level violence.  Remember George Zimmerman?  Maxiwaters is arguing that Democrats need to go George Zimmerman on GOP politicians and their children.  That's unquestionably an ideology of hate and violence.

Where Crunch's argument hits the wall: Maxine Waters no more represents the Democrats generally than David Duke represents the Republican party.

Crunch, I'm working 5 hours a day promoting Stacey Abrams' campaign for Georgia governor.  She's a Democrat.  I defy you, Crunch, to show me how Stacey Abrams (a former Democrat minority leader in the GA legislature, with a reputation for working well across party lines)

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on October 31, 2018, 11:28:32 PM
Quote
That one qualifies. It was immediately condemned by pretty much every Democrat everywhere. No false flags, no blaming the victims for not having enough security.

Quote
All this against the backdrop of Antifa that is routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons and engaging in unlawful activities designed to threaten and harass. Not to mention the near weekly attacks on Republicans as they quietly have dinner or walk around in public.

Please provide sources for Antifa routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons.

2 points to Velcro there.  Antifa routinely threatens and assaults people with nonlethal weapons, and very rarely uses lethal weapons (far less than say, a typical antiabortion group, union, or anti-union group.)  I don't like Antifa; I see it as Stalin's last laugh on western civilization. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 01, 2018, 11:34:11 AM
Quote
some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 01, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote
some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.

And of course an aluminum baseball bat weilded by a 160+ pound male is never life threatening, particularly when dealing with someone who has intentions of using it on somebody. Heck, wood baseball bats can kill people.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 01, 2018, 01:28:37 PM
It's only life threatening when you swing it. That's when it becomes assault. Carrying it or using it in self-defense should be well supported by gun rights advocates. Unless you think there should be no-bat-zones.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 01, 2018, 03:57:29 PM
Drake is well informed on the law here. Well rebutted.

Yes, Antifa has demonstrated a pattern of bringing potential deadly weapons. But that’s not a routing. Just as Trump demonstrates a pattern but not a routine of racist statements. So as drake has pointed out, with anti-far has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near a problem that crunch describes.

 So as drake has pointed out, what anti-fa has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near the problem that crunch describes. The only thing that I would add to Drake’s legal analysis is that in the context of this sort of street protest, there would be a lower threshold for actions that cause a target to  “Reasonably Apprehend lethal violence,” the keystone of Assault.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 01, 2018, 05:13:37 PM
Drake is well informed on the law here. Well rebutted.

Yes, Antifa has demonstrated a pattern of bringing potential deadly weapons. But that’s not a routing. Just as Trump demonstrates a pattern but not a routine of racist statements. So as drake has pointed out, with anti-far has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near a problem that crunch describes.

 So as drake has pointed out, what anti-fa has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near the problem that crunch describes. The only thing that I would add to Drake’s legal analysis is that in the context of this sort of street protest, there would be a lower threshold for actions that cause a target to  “Reasonably Apprehend lethal violence,” the keystone of Assault.

There also is the matter with "intent to use it." The White Supremacists have decades of history of holding rallies, showing up armed to the teeth with guns and other assorted weaponry, and never used it. Heck even in Charlotte, they had guns, they didn't get used, what did get used, was a car.

AntiFa only has a few years of history behind it, and highly irregular reporting as to what they're doing or not doing. But they have established a very definite pattern of showing up with "improvised weapons" with both the intent and the track record of escalating situations until violence occurs so they can use what they brought.

Generally speaking, I'm not worried about somebody packing a baseball bat around of any particular size or tyep. I even have a small one in my truck, to check my tires.  8)

However, if I see someone walking around with a baseball bat, AND plainly associating themselves with AntiFa, that's intent to commit violence as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 01, 2018, 07:11:21 PM
Drake is well informed on the law here. Well rebutted.

Yes, Antifa has demonstrated a pattern of bringing potential deadly weapons. But that’s not a routing. Just as Trump demonstrates a pattern but not a routine of racist statements. So as drake has pointed out, with anti-far has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near a problem that crunch describes.

 So as drake has pointed out, what anti-fa has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near the problem that crunch describes. The only thing that I would add to Drake’s legal analysis is that in the context of this sort of street protest, there would be a lower threshold for actions that cause a target to  “Reasonably Apprehend lethal violence,” the keystone of Assault.

There also is the matter with "intent to use it." The White Supremacists have decades of history of holding rallies, showing up armed to the teeth with guns and other assorted weaponry, and never used it. Heck even in Charlotte, they had guns, they didn't get used, what did get used, was a car.

AntiFa only has a few years of history behind it, and highly irregular reporting as to what they're doing or not doing. But they have established a very definite pattern of showing up with "improvised weapons" with both the intent and the track record of escalating situations until violence occurs so they can use what they brought.

Generally speaking, I'm not worried about somebody packing a baseball bat around of any particular size or tyep. I even have a small one in my truck, to check my tires.  8)

However, if I see someone walking around with a baseball bat, AND plainly associating themselves with AntiFa, that's intent to commit violence as far as I'm concerned.

 And what I am saying is that you’re inference is more reasonable in a pack of Antifa counter-protesters, and less reasonable if applied to an Antifa member playing baseball on a break.   I recommend reading caselaw on the Assault crime.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 01, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Obviously there is a difference between "playing ball" or general goofing around(and going to/from such venues), and turning up to protest something with a baseball bat.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 01, 2018, 08:29:06 PM
I agree that it should be obvious, which is why I used it as an example to illustrate the general principle which is less obvious that what constitute a salt depends a great deal on context.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 02, 2018, 07:45:37 AM
Don Lemon and CNN double down:
Quote
Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 02, 2018, 08:06:51 AM
Quote
some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.

Routine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughAntifaSpam/
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 02, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
Don Lemon and CNN double down:
Quote
Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?

And that kind of rhetoric just increases the threat they're likely to pose. Brilliant!
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on November 02, 2018, 09:41:13 AM
And here I thought we were fighting enough wars that if our "angry white men" wanted to go "fight our enemies" all they had to do was enlist... 

Then again, I suppose their role model thought that was beneath him as well.  :P
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 02, 2018, 11:14:52 AM
Where Crunch's argument hits the wall: Maxine Waters no more represents the Democrats generally than David Duke represents the Republican party.

In what world is it true that Maxine Waters, who has been an elected representative in the House of Representatives for 28 straight years,  an elected representative in CA for 28 years before that, the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, which means she will be its chair assuming the Democrats take the house "no more a representative" of the Democratic Party than David Duke, who has repeatedly been denied any office by an electorate (Wiki says he once won in a LA special election).

Maxine Waters who runs a powerful marketing system that other Dems pay to be on, that is an invited speaker at Democratic events, and that as far as I know is not denounced by any Democrat.  Versus David Duke who is a persona non grata with Republicans, and really all people, not acknowledged by any part of the Republican party and pretty much rejected by the entire party.

Even writing that reflects a blanket unawareness of how insidious the constant lies of the left really are.

As far as violence, the left makes death threats constantly and the media chooses to barely cover them, whereas they put the reverse on a constant spin loop in the national media.  Go read the threats that Susan Collins received to herself and her family in connection with the Kavanaugh vote and tell me with a straight face the left doesn't have a problem. 

The police seize deadly weapons at every protest of any size, yet the vast majority of protests have little to no violence.  Antifa protests have a higher incidence of violence than other protests, which makes sense, given they explicitely endorse using violence in politics, but again, the media doesn't really want you to know that.  Do you recall the days of coverage that came from a claim that "someone heard" a racist insult at a Tea Party rally?  Which was never true.  Have you ever seen anything equivalent from the rallies of Antifa?  Not cause it doesn't happen, heck there was a rally where antifa thugs beat up someone on their own side because he brought a US flag to the rally to "reclaim" it for their cause.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 02, 2018, 12:41:05 PM
You must be watching TV news. Virtually every major written news outlet has had an in-depth article about the rise of Antifa and they are not portrayed favorably.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 02, 2018, 01:02:46 PM
Quote
Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents”  I particularly like the call to attack children... very nice.

F***ing-A, Crunch!  This is why you need to link to your quotes.  Because if you don't have a link, you often miss the context of the quote.

Check out CNN: (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html)

Quote
Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration in response to the "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of families at the border...

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents," Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building, according to video of the event.

Sounds pretty much like you said, right?  Go after their children.  Until you read the next statement.

Quote
"We don't know what damage has been done to these children. All that we know is they're in cages. They're in prisons. They're in jails. I don't care what they call it, that's where they are and Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are to let you know you cannot get away with this," she added.

She wasn't talking about attacking children.  She was talking about connecting the Cabinet members to the Trump Administration's actions of separating children from their parents.  The complete opposite of what you said!  >:(

Who twisted these words, Crunch?  Did you just glance over Maxine's words and jump to a conclusion?  Or were you lied to by some demagogue lie to you and tell you that's what she meant, because he knew you wouldn't bother to check his claim?  We're comparing Maxine Waters to David Duke because she encouraged people to scream at politicians they are mad at?  Or because she supposedly told them to go after these politicians' children, which she didn't do?

Here you are, calling for civility for those who will twist words to demonize their opponents, take children from their parents over misdemeanors, and then threaten her life over calling people to strongly protest these actions. (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624558078/report-death-threat-forces-rep-maxine-waters-to-cancel-events-in-texas-and-alaba)  And then you're horrified that they are calling for stronger measures!  ::)

I know, it's terrible to harass politicians when they go out to restaurants because you disagree with their politics.  But when their politics means taking children away from their parents to try to force people into complying with their politics, I'm not surprised that some people will get so upset that they will make it personal, or encourage others to do so.  Because you don't get more personal that that.  Or do you think you wouldn't take it personally if some politician took your friend's children away from them over a misdemeanor like speeding or jaywalking?

Before you go about demonizing the opposition, and make accusations that they are calling for attacks on children, make sure you got your facts right.  Because you pretty much blew it this time.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 02, 2018, 01:16:03 PM
Quote
some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.

Routine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughAntifaSpam/

Laughable that you think curated bad events supports your claim that when Antifa shows up they routinely engage in violence. But I'm coming to expect little of you and your ilk. Evidence by anecdote is routine for you.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: DJQuag on November 03, 2018, 04:21:02 PM
Don Lemon and CNN double down:
Quote
Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?

Maybe he's suggesting that we do the same for white men that the unhinged right suggest we do to Muslims? In an ironic way?

I mean, if you look at the terrorist attacks and mass shootings since 9/11, I know which ethnic/gender group looks more threatening to me. And even with 9/11, our government has and does kiss the asses of the people responsible. (The Saudis.)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 04, 2018, 11:43:30 AM
Antifa protests have a higher incidence of violence than other protests,

Source please.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 04, 2018, 11:59:51 AM
Don Lemon and CNN double down:
Quote
Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?

First of all, please point out, with actual, linked sources, where Lemon says white men should be banned.  Not that radicals on the far right are dangerous, which he said, but the words you attribute, "white men should be banned".

As far as I can tell, he never said that.  If you can prove it, I will leave it alone. If you can't, then the inevitable conclusion is that you are making stuff up to make your point.  As you know, that is frowned upon.

What indeed are they proposing?  Why don't we spend 30 seconds on Google to find the quote in context.

Quote
“So people who were angered about what I said are missing the entire point,” Lemon said about his earlier statements. “We don’t need to worry about people who are thousands of miles away. The biggest threats are homegrown. The facts prove that.”

Lemon was not proposing doing anything about far-right radicals (who are mostly white men).  He is saying don't distract from that issue by focusing on a caravan thousands of miles away.  He does not prescribe any solution to the problem, just to focus our efforts on the actual danger instead of the politically convenient but vastly less important danger.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 05, 2018, 10:16:32 AM
You must be watching TV news. Virtually every major written news outlet has had an in-depth article about the rise of Antifa and they are not portrayed favorably.

The impact of propaganda is in volume.  In depth write ups show the reality to those who choose to consume them, but they can't overwhelm the impact of a news cycle that puts them up once and then drops them, while playing a constant loop on the "other sides" problems.  Do you remember when Clinton won re-election despite his problems, the motto was, "It's the economy stupid," the way people feel about the current economy should have guaranteed a red wave if it was the "economy stupid." 

Honest opinion, if the media had spent the last 3 months touting the economy and not talking negatively about Trump, what do you think the impact on this election would have been?  That's just as "legitimate" a spin as what they have done, and exactly what they would have done if it was a Democrat in office.

Propaganda works on everyone, whether they are "too smart" for it or not.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 05, 2018, 11:11:07 AM
Trump's story could have been one about the economy, if he hadn't had so many gaffes, feuds, and controversial policies. Personally, I put a pretty low correlation between policy and economy at all times. Did FDR draconian economic measures speed the exit from the Depression or not? It's awfully hard to prove any correlation with such things.

Why would any free media talk about how awesome things are? That's what you see from state run media - like China. A free press is supposed to point out flaws and problems, not act like cheerleaders. They're not exactly suppressing information about the Dow or job numbers. But would you really devote more time to talking about how great job numbers are when there's been a mass shooting, Army border deployments, violent protests, systematic rollback of environmental and consumer protections, and the shaping of the Supreme Court? Would that be a newsroom, or a Trump propaganda machine?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2018, 11:46:58 AM
That would be all well and good, except for the matter of Republicans almost ivariably getting the "uphill fight" news byline whenever it is possible to spin it that way.

Economy doing well under a Democrat Admin? Republican prospects look poor in light of a good economy.

Republicans doing something else? News byline: What's it going to cost the Republicans, and how the Democrats are going to use it to their advantage.

Ditto just about every other policy change pushed by Republicans: What's it going to cost for _____?

Democrats push something? Let us show you how these programs are going to benefit many people....
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 05, 2018, 01:47:05 PM
Trump's story could have been one about the economy, if he hadn't had so many gaffes, feuds, and controversial policies.

Controversial policies from the left are routinely buried or labelled as "old news," meanwhile the first article I recall on Trump's impeachment was filed I think 2 minutes after his inaugeration.  Trump's uniquely positioned to be criticized with a lack of political background and constant tweeting, but open communication from Obama was labelled "refreshing" and from Trump "dangerous."  You don't get a Noble Peace prize for Obama and glowing coverage from the day he started running, versus 95% negative coverage on Trump as any reasonable result of their relative policies or even demeanor.

Quote
Personally, I put a pretty low correlation between policy and economy at all times.

That may be true for you personally.  But it's taken a massive negative media propaganda effort to keep the Trump economy from keeping Republican's in power.

Quote
Did FDR draconian economic measures speed the exit from the Depression or not?

No.  I thought it was generally known that they delayed the exit, are you thinking there is a debate there?

Quote
Why would any free media talk about how awesome things are?

Fairness.  The fact is this media has a side and they suppress news that doesn't support their side and blow news that does out of proportion.  it's exactly like what a state controlled media does, except in this case its only the non-elected part of the "state"  the bureaucracy and its Democratic allies.

Quote
That's what you see from state run media - like China. A free press is supposed to point out flaws and problems, not act like cheerleaders.

That's true, except they don't point out problems about Democrats, or they 'splain them away.

Quote
They're not exactly suppressing information about the Dow or job numbers. But would you really devote more time to talking about how great job numbers are when there's been a mass shooting, Army border deployments, violent protests, systematic rollback of environmental and consumer protections, and the shaping of the Supreme Court?

Well yes.  The economy is one of the most important factors in the direction of the country and the population understanding the impact of consumer and business confidence of the policies of one administration versus the next is something that ought to help direct the future of the country.  The idea that is' not material to the voters or the country is crazy.

Mass shooting?  More sensational than policy.

"Army border deployment" how about we discuss the real issue?  An immigration policy that encourages illegal immigration that 80% plus of the country doesn't want and the party that won't allow it to be fixed (Democrats)?  It's a perfect example of an issue the media only covers in ways that help the Democrats notwithstanding the party position of the DNC is way off the main stream. 

Violent protests.  Please cover them and be honest about who is engaged in the violence and why.  Pretty please.

Roll back of environment and consumer protections?  Truly eye of the beholder, could just as easily charaterize as a return to normal from the anti-business abuses of the prior implementation in imposing unilateral changes for political reasons that were never justifiable under our laws.  It's just a fact that even with the "rollback" US environmental protections are still top notch.  Even consumer protections are way above standard.

Shaping of the SC?  Really, Republican replaces 2 Republican appointed Justices - the horror.  The real story is about how low and dishonest the Democrats went in trying to prevent it. 

Quote
Would that be a newsroom, or a Trump propaganda machine?

I'd accept any form of neutral reporting.  If I could flip the switch tommorrow and "lock-in" 55/45 favorable in favor of Democrats I'd still take it.  Anything to get off of the 90/10 we see today.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: scifibum on November 05, 2018, 04:41:44 PM
Trump's economy gets as much coverage as anyone's ever did. It's overwhelmed by his utter, bottomless dip*censored*tery. Blaming that on the media is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 05, 2018, 08:48:59 PM
It's just a fact that even with the "rollback" US environmental protections are still top notch.  Even consumer protections are way above standard.

Source please?  Especially since you claim it is a "fact".

BTW, I am not trolling.  I am just reading posts, and when someone makes a very clear statement that seems false, and has no sources, I ask for a source. If there is a valid source that supports the claim, I change my mind. [If you doubt that last statement, provide a counterexample].  That is how I learn new things.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 06, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
Another reason why the media doesn't cover more about the economy is Trump himself. He doesn't highlight it. Neither do pro-Trump outlets. How many articles on wildly pro-Trump Breitbart are about the economy versus immigration, deplatforming, ant-trump protests, blm, abortion, et al?

How much in a Trump rally is devoted to the economy versus other topics?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: scifibum on November 06, 2018, 02:49:12 PM
Right. Trump drives the news cycle. There are reports from WH staffers indicating this is a deliberate strategy.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 06, 2018, 02:56:57 PM
Right. Trump drives the news cycle. There are reports from WH staffers indicating this is a deliberate strategy.

What do you mean by "drives"?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: scifibum on November 06, 2018, 04:57:55 PM
He tweets or says things that he knows will generate negative news coverage. The birthright citizenship thing was an example. I believe he had two reasons: He was continuing his strategy of making the midterms about supposed dangers of immigrants, and wanted to move some of the coverage away from Pittsburgh.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2018, 07:26:43 AM
Quote
A left-wing mob showed up outside Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s house Wednesday evening, posted pictures of his address online and demanded that he flee the city of Washington, D.C.

Carlson, a co-founder of The Daily Caller and host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” was at the Fox News studio when the angry crowd showed up outside of his house.

At least one of the protesters went all the way up to Carlson’s front door, where they left a sign with his family’s home address written on it and rang his doorbell.

Video the group, “Smash Racism DC,” posted to Twitter shows one of the mob’s ringleaders leading the crowd in chants of “racist scumbag, leave town!” and “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”

Then some doxxing:
Quote
Hours after an Antifa mob showed up at the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, an affiliated Twitter account published his home address and the home address of his brother Buckley Carlson — along with the addresses of Ann Coulter, Daily Caller’s Neil Patel, and Sean Hannity.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 08, 2018, 12:39:50 PM
Yes, that is rude, and publishing home addresses is unacceptable.

Violent?  No, not yet.  Pipe bombs?  Just one woman talking about it.  Shooting? Nope. Any arrests? Not that I can tell.

And from a first amendment standpoint, it is horrible that a journalist should be threatened. No question, no matter who does it.

What do you have to say about hundreds of journalists being called "enemy of the people", over and over and over, by the President of the United States?
Yes, I am drawing that equivalence, because pipe bombs were actually sent.  Journalists have been killed.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2018, 02:39:39 PM
They pounded on the front door, actually cracking it. Carlson’s wife was justifiably terrified of a home invasion. It’s only a matter of time before this goes off the rails.

Nope, no arrests. They’re Democrats, it’s acceptable to attempt a home invasion. You know that.

No pipe bombs were sent, it’s my understanding they were fake. Kind of like a cool clock. I am unaware of any journalists killed by these or by the Trump administration. Can you point out who Trump has killed?

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2018, 02:43:36 PM
Matthew Yglesias:
Quote
I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson’s wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn’t be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

It is hard to identify with non-humans.  Right?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: yossarian22c on November 08, 2018, 03:03:48 PM
Matthew Yglesias:
Quote
I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson’s wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn’t be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

It is hard to identify with non-humans.  Right?

Great Matthew Yglesias (wtf is that?) is a grade A a**hole and is on the left (I assume). Should I respond with a quote from a random neo nazi to show there are bad people on the right too? That doesn't seem like a productive dialogue.

I hope the people going to Tucker's house get arrested for trespassing and potentially destroying property. If they want to protest him do it outside Fox News Headquarters, not at his house. The protesters actions were illegal, immoral, and dangerous.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 08, 2018, 04:32:37 PM
Yes, that is rude, and publishing home addresses is unacceptable.

Violent?  No, not yet.  Pipe bombs?  Just one woman talking about it.  Shooting? Nope. Any arrests? Not that I can tell.

Doxxing people and threating them at their house *is* violence. It doesn't have to be a hammer to the head to be a direct physical threat and putting the person's family in danger. Saying that doxxing isn't violence is like saying that giving someone's info to a hitman 'isn't violence' because the action you're doing isn't literally bodily assault. I would actually go even further than this and suggest that this action, assuming it is as it's being reported here, was terrorism.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on November 08, 2018, 04:35:14 PM
We have to be careful saying things like that are violence.  It can be far more serious than lawful/nonviolent/moral protest while still being short of actual violence.  There IS actual violence going on due to people's political beliefs.  We do ourselves a disservice blurring those lines.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2018, 05:28:04 PM
Whipping someone into a frenzy and then giving them the means to act against someone in person, knowing that some of the people you are whipping up are unapologetic destroyers of property and often get into physical fights....

That's encouraging violence.

WHO defines violence (my emphasis).

"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation,"

Screaming profanity at someone who is trying to eat a sandwich at a delicatessen IS violence.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 08, 2018, 05:45:50 PM
Quote
Nope, no arrests. They’re Democrats, it’s acceptable to attempt a home invasion. You know that.

What are the laws against "attempted home invasion?"  What are the penalties?

Or are you just making up laws?

And seriously, Antifa is as closely associated with Democrats as Nazis are associated with Republicans.  So why would the police not treat them like criminals?  ???

In fact, when has being a Democrat ever been a defense against arrest?  :o
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2018, 06:11:02 PM
Quote
Nope, no arrests. They’re Democrats, it’s acceptable to attempt a home invasion. You know that.

What are the laws against "attempted home invasion?"  What are the penalties?

Or are you just making up laws?
Have you heard of Google? The answers to your question are readily available. Trespassing, attempted unlawful entry, attempted burglary, home invasion, can apply when you try to break down the door of someone‘s home.

And seriously, Antifa is as closely associated with Democrats as Nazis are associated with Republicans.  So why would the police not treat them like criminals?  ???

In fact, when has being a Democrat ever been a defense against arrest?  :o
So why weren’t they treated like criminals? They are behaving criminally. CNN has come out in defense of Antifa.  Keith Ellison, deputy chair of the DNC,  has tweeted photos of himself holding the antifa handbook and calling out Trump. So yeah, Democrats and Antifa, you’re gonna have to own that.

As for defense against arrest, maybe check out Portland’s mayor and his handling of antifa.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2018, 06:17:06 PM
Matthew Yglesias:
Quote
I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson’s wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn’t be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

It is hard to identify with non-humans.  Right?

Great Matthew Yglesias (wtf is that?) is a grade A a**hole and is on the left (I assume). Should I respond with a quote from a random neo nazi to show there are bad people on the right too? That doesn't seem like a productive dialogue.

I hope the people going to Tucker's house get arrested for trespassing and potentially destroying property. If they want to protest him do it outside Fox News Headquarters, not at his house. The protesters actions were illegal, immoral, and dangerous.

From a random neo nazi, no.  But Yglesias is not just some random person.
Quote
Yglesias has written columns and articles for publications such as The American Prospect, The Atlantic, and Slate. Currently, he is an editor and columnist for the news website Vox, which he co-founded in 2014.



The people were not arrested - and they are not protestors.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2018, 06:30:37 PM
I guess he can always use the Trump defense. "I was making a joke."

There really isn't another defense for that kind of sentiment.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 08, 2018, 07:45:01 PM
Quote
Nope, no arrests. They’re Democrats, it’s acceptable to attempt a home invasion. You know that.

What are the laws against "attempted home invasion?"  What are the penalties?

Or are you just making up laws?

And seriously, Antifa is as closely associated with Democrats as Nazis are associated with Republicans.  So why would the police not treat them like criminals?  ???

In fact, when has being a Democrat ever been a defense against arrest?  :o
1990s in Chicago , when Union members beat up antiClinton protesters and the Chicago judge laughed it out.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: LetterRip on November 08, 2018, 09:15:12 PM
Abortion groups have a long history of similar harassment to doctors.

Quote
As part of that effort, it’s not uncommon for anti-choice activists to picket the homes of individual doctors who work at hospitals that still provide the service. In fact, home pickets are one of the explicit strategies detailed in Closed: 99 Ways To Stop Abortion, the unofficial handbook instructing activists on how to end legal abortion in the U.S.

https://thinkprogress.org/abortion-protesters-wont-be-punished-for-chalking-your-neighbor-is-a-monster-outside-doctor-s-home-7c73366ac6b5/

https://www.ocregister.com/2013/06/28/anti-abortion-group-protests-at-home-of-hoag-doctor/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-clinics-landlord-turns-the-tables-on-anti-abortion-protesters/2012/03/29/gIQAThgwiS_story.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8211828

https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/anti-abortion-group-distributes-fliers-with-doctors-home-addresses/459503675

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/04/08/abortion-foes-strike-at-doctors-home-lives/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/abortion-protesters-target-a-clinic-landlords-in-laws/

https://www.wdsu.com/article/residents-outraged-after-home-of-neighbor-targeted-by-anti-abortion-protestors/2989114

Everything that you are upset about (protesting at their home; publicizing their home addresses; pounding on their doors; etc.) are so common from abortion protestors that they almost never even make the news anymore.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: yossarian22c on November 08, 2018, 09:21:06 PM
Everything that you are upset about (protesting at their home; publicizing their home addresses; pounding on their doors; etc.) are so common from abortion protestors that they almost never even make the news anymore.

That doesn't make it okay to do it to someone else.

There are a**holes on the left and the right.
Can we consider point made? Lets accept that there are jerks throughout society and get over the ad hominem BS that is becoming extremely popular on both sides.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: LetterRip on November 08, 2018, 09:30:27 PM
That doesn't make it okay to do it to someone else.

I wasn't saying it was okay - I was merely pointing out he is discovering something as objectionable, that apparently he hasn't noticed has been regularly occurring by conservatives for more than 30 years.  I also find his 'well it was done by liberals, so of course they weren't arrested' - rather annoying since conservatives engaging in this BS haven't been arrested for 1000's of such similar incidents, so his trying to spin it as if this were a liberal tactic and being excused because they were liberals is frankly absurd.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 09, 2018, 02:43:35 AM
LR -- are you saying that conservatives aren't arrested for their antiabortion harassment?

I agree fully that it's common and doesn't make the news.  But I'd absolutely disagree that antiabortion folks get away with flouting the law that, say, groups like Know Thy Neighbor do in investigating and exposing individuals who have opposed same sex marriage.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 09, 2018, 05:13:18 PM
Bottom line--about 20 people from an organization called Smash Racism D.C. showed up in front of Carlson's house. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/08/they-were-threatening-me-my-family-tucker-carlsons-home-targeted-by-protesters/?utm_term=.1ecced5c0eb1)  Some of them rang the doorbell and hit the door so hard it cracked.  Some blocked both ends of the street.  When the police showed up a few minutes later, they were all on public property, shouting.  The police broke them up and sent them home.

Exactly what did you want the police to do, Crunch?

Arrest them all for trespassing, attempted burglary, assault?  They were doubtlessly all on the street when the police arrived.  Which ones tried to break the door down?  Which one said she should have brought a pipe bomb?  How were the police supposed to determine these things?  Or were they just supposed to have arrested everyone, those who committed a crime and those who hadn't?  Is that what you're advocating?

I would encourage Tucker to press charges for those who did try to bash in his door, once he figures out who they were.  But I don't see what else the police could have done at the time.  They apparently didn't witness any of the alleged crimes.  They had no witnesses that could point out exactly who hit the door.  Unless Mrs. Tucker happened to see, but then her husband has said multiple times that a victim's eyewitness testimony is not "evidence" (at least when it applies to Justice Kavanaugh ;) ).  So I don't quite see what the police were supposed to do.

I understand your outrage.  But the lack of arrests doesn't appear to be motivated by political position in this case.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 10, 2018, 12:54:22 PM
Bottom line--about 20 people from an organization called Smash Racism D.C. showed up in front of Carlson's house. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/08/they-were-threatening-me-my-family-tucker-carlsons-home-targeted-by-protesters/?utm_term=.1ecced5c0eb1)  Some of them rang the doorbell and hit the door so hard it cracked.  Some blocked both ends of the street.  When the police showed up a few minutes later, they were all on public property, shouting.  The police broke them up and sent them home.

Exactly what did you want the police to do, Crunch?

Arrest them all for trespassing, attempted burglary, assault?  They were doubtlessly all on the street when the police arrived.  Which ones tried to break the door down?  Which one said she should have brought a pipe bomb?  How were the police supposed to determine these things?  Or were they just supposed to have arrested everyone, those who committed a crime and those who hadn't?  Is that what you're advocating?

I would encourage Tucker to press charges for those who did try to bash in his door, once he figures out who they were.  But I don't see what else the police could have done at the time.  They apparently didn't witness any of the alleged crimes.  They had no witnesses that could point out exactly who hit the door.  Unless Mrs. Tucker happened to see, but then her husband has said multiple times that a victim's eyewitness testimony is not "evidence" (at least when it applies to Justice Kavanaugh ;) ).  So I don't quite see what the police were supposed to do.

I don't know what they should have done either, Wayward.  But since someone brought up abortion, would you feel satisfied if Tucker was an abortion doctor and the mob outside his door were antiabortion protesters?

If we're all agreed that the police should have handled Tucker's antagonists in exactly the same way that they should have handled antiabortion protesters under the same circumstances, then I'd say we've made unusual progress for an Ornery discussion.  Are you, Velcro and Pyr willing to make that stipulation?  Or is one of you going to argue that Abortion is some sort of holy civil sacrament that deserves greater police protection than, say, there mere right to manifest one's political opinions in peace in a free country?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 11, 2018, 02:56:37 PM
That doesn't make it okay to do it to someone else.

I wasn't saying it was okay - I was merely pointing out he is discovering something as objectionable, that apparently he hasn't noticed has been regularly occurring by conservatives for more than 30 years.  I also find his 'well it was done by liberals, so of course they weren't arrested' - rather annoying since conservatives engaging in this BS haven't been arrested for 1000's of such similar incidents, so his trying to spin it as if this were a liberal tactic and being excused because they were liberals is frankly absurd.

Whataboutism.  That’s precisely what you’re doing, you’re demonstrating it perfectly.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: rightleft22 on November 11, 2018, 03:54:33 PM
I'm rubber your glue what ever you say bounces of of me and sticks onto you
 :'(
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2018, 01:17:20 PM
Here is a description of the protest at Tucker Carlson's from someone who was there.  Paints a drastically different picture that what Carlson has claimed.

There is no way that the 'door was cracked', the 'pipe bombs' wasn't a threat - they were protesting the pipe bombs that had been sent to Democrats, and the attack on Synagogues.  They were in fact protesting, and they did in fact have specific things they were protesting.

https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the-protest-outside-tucker-carlsons-house-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/

I still don't approve of the tactic of protesting at peoples homes, but the truth is a far cry from what has been suggested by Crunch.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2018, 01:47:24 PM
Back that truck up. This wasn't some peaceful protest. The official police report includes an anarchy symbol spray painted on the driveway. There were signs on their vehicles. They left a sign on the front door, and I find it credible to believe that they pounded on it and rang the doorbell as described.

Your eyewitness describes these things and that a couple of protesters "expressed dismay about it". But it doesn't look like they were dismayed enough to identify who did it.

It is also weird that their headline describes "less than 15 people" as some kind of defense. Like you shouldn't be scared by a gang of 15 people screaming at you when you are home alone. Hey, look, its not like it was 100 people banging on your door, invading and damaging your private property.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 12, 2018, 02:08:38 PM
Massive self interest there LR, and I note, all they did was 'splain their pretty reprehensible conduct away, including admitting to banging on the door, making threats and engaging in vandalism.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 12, 2018, 02:17:30 PM
That doesn't make it okay to do it to someone else.

I wasn't saying it was okay - I was merely pointing out he is discovering something as objectionable, that apparently he hasn't noticed has been regularly occurring by conservatives for more than 30 years.  I also find his 'well it was done by liberals, so of course they weren't arrested' - rather annoying since conservatives engaging in this BS haven't been arrested for 1000's of such similar incidents, so his trying to spin it as if this were a liberal tactic and being excused because they were liberals is frankly absurd.

Whataboutism. 

 Sense 2001 on this forum, I have been frantically warning that if the left didn’t stop it’s abuse of certain dirty tricks, that the right but eventually master those tricks  and use them with far more devastating effect.

Exhibit 1: Donald Trump
Exhibit 2: crunch

Notice how he uses one made up word to sweep the whole discussion under the table? The shame on those that taught him to do this. Unfortunately they’re mostly leftists. :-(
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 12, 2018, 03:33:57 PM
Quote
I don't know what they should have done either, Wayward.  But since someone brought up abortion, would you feel satisfied if Tucker was an abortion doctor and the mob outside his door were antiabortion protesters?

If we're all agreed that the police should have handled Tucker's antagonists in exactly the same way that they should have handled antiabortion protesters under the same circumstances, then I'd say we've made unusual progress for an Ornery discussion.

To be brief, yes they should be treated the same way as anti-abortion protesters are treated.

And from reading a sample of LR's articles, apparently they were--even if they were Democrats. :)

(I suspect they purposely acted precisely the way anti-abortion protesters have acted in the past.)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 12, 2018, 06:53:55 PM
Quote
I don't know what they should have done either, Wayward.  But since someone brought up abortion, would you feel satisfied if Tucker was an abortion doctor and the mob outside his door were antiabortion protesters?

If we're all agreed that the police should have handled Tucker's antagonists in exactly the same way that they should have handled antiabortion protesters under the same circumstances, then I'd say we've made unusual progress for an Ornery discussion.

To be brief, yes they should be treated the same way as anti-abortion protesters are treated.

And from reading a sample of LR's articles, apparently they were--even if they were Democrats. :)

(I suspect they purposely acted precisely the way anti-abortion protesters have acted in the past.)

It’s curious but believable that treatment of anti abortion protesters would involve such mixed leniency. So intimidation and property damage are ok so long as no doctor gets killed? Because IIRC an antiabortion murderer is the only recent US case to receive an expedited death penalty with next to no news coverage. Even the anti death penalty folks were deathly quiet up to that execution.

I’m glad to hear it claimed that the wrongs are parallel but imho no one should have their home threatened like that. Crowd members should have been detained for questions no. Protesting outside the house of a non public figure without a permit is imho suspect activity sufficient imo for arrest and questioning.  When terrorism occurs, everyone manifesting sympathy for the cause after the act , within sight of the terror strike, and potential to have physically committed the act, satisfies 4a for detention and questioning. 

At the very least, Every protester’s cell phone at the scene should have been examined for photos that might shed light on the vandalism.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2018, 07:44:43 PM
Quote
So intimidation and property damage are ok so long as no doctor gets killed?

Actually he was condemning them equally.  They shouldn't be allowed regardless of who does it, but it is consistent with past treatment of anti-abortion protestors.

Something vague like "we know where you sleep" isn't sufficient to rise to the level of threatining or intimidating under the law.

The property damage was a spray painted anarchy symbol.  I hope the police pursue it.  There is no evidence that they aren't, but determining who did it is non trivial unless the police are on the scene when it happens.  The police did question some people on it.  The claimed damage to the door appears to have been a false statement by Carlson.

Quote
Because IIRC an antiabortion murderer is the only recent US case to receive an expedited death penalty with next to no news coverage. Even the anti death penalty folks were deathly quiet up to that execution.

If these people start murdering people, and then are convicted you will have a point.  But it is currently irrelevant to the current conversation.

Quote
I’m glad to hear it claimed that the wrongs are parallel but imho no one should have their home threatened like that.

Well he didn't have his house threatened.  But I agree - but as I said this has long been done by abortion protestors so apparently it is legal.

[quote[Crowd members should have been detained for questions no. Protesting outside the house of a non public figure without a permit is imho suspect activity sufficient imo for arrest and questioning.[/quote]

Sorry, you can't make ad hoc law.

Quote
When terrorism occurs, everyone manifesting sympathy for the cause after the act , within sight of the terror strike, and potential to have physically committed the act, satisfies 4a for detention and questioning.

There was no terrorism.  There was petty vandalism along with a quite lame protest.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 12, 2018, 08:16:27 PM
Quote
When terrorism occurs, everyone manifesting sympathy for the cause after the act , within sight of the terror strike, and potential to have physically committed the act, satisfies 4a for detention and questioning.

There was no terrorism.  There was petty vandalism along with a quite lame protest.

Hm, I find this objection questionable. On the one hand elevating a lame protest by calling by a grand title like "terrorism" does a disservice to what the actual tone and intent might have really been. But on the other hand we may be using too much of a Hollywood glamorized version of terrorism to define it, if we're thinking only in terms of running around with machine guns and bombs, or blowing up buildings. We've had discussions before about what terrorism even is, but it seems to me that on the face of it we should at least assume it involves:

-Making people scared (i.e. creating terror), either through an action or threat;
-For the purpose of carrying out an agenda, usually political;
-This agenda being one that requires some sort of compliance on the part of those threatened;
-And that the agenda is achieved chiefly through coercive means.

Beyond these clauses we could specify "international terrorism" versus "small-scale terrorism", but the term itself should imply a type of activity, not a scale of activity. We should also not require as part of the definition that the terrorists have already demonstrated their threats in practice. For instance if someone writes a note threatening to bomb city hall, they are a terrorist; it's not necessary for them to blow up the post office first, and then leave a crayoned note saying "That is only the appetizer...UNLESS YOU WISH TO ALSO EAT THE MAIN COURSE!!! AHAHAHA"

I would suggest that the most evident and straightforward way to both define and identify terrorism would be to consider if these clauses (or ones like them) have been checked off, and never mind about whether the format or effectiveness of the terrorism is "lame" or flimsy. Let's hope most terrorism is lame! Like I said, I don't really know what the details on the ground were in this case. But if the reality - and I mean the thoughts in the heads of the 'protesters' - was something in the vein of "we'll put some fear into them so they know better than to oppress people and be generally evil," then that is terrorism. But I suppose I should mention as a caveat that as I say this I don't unequivocally say that I'm certain such actions are never under any circumstances justified. For instance, would this have been a proper tactic to scare literal slavers back in the day? I don't know! Or what about in a dictatorial regime, under the moniker 'freedom fighters', a la Star Trek DS9? So I don't want to reduce such issues to silliness but using grand-sounding terms. But I also don't want to have to avoid calling a thing what it is.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 12, 2018, 09:09:27 PM
Quote
So intimidation and property damage are ok so long as no doctor gets killed?

Actually he was condemning them equally.
I agree.  He was morally consistent.  I celebrate his equal treatment of the two cases.

However, I think that both are equally wrong.  While I celebrate that anti-choice and militant PC stalkers should be treated equally under the law, I think that police need more tools to address terrorism by either group.  You basically restate my position when you say:

 
Quote
They shouldn't be allowed regardless of who does it, but it is consistent with past treatment of anti-abortion protestors.

I also agree that --
Quote
Something vague like "we know where you sleep" isn't sufficient to rise to the level of threatining or intimidating under the law.

If you're saying that's all that happened here, then one of us has misunderstood the facts.  May well have been me; I've had a hard day. 

Also, your reply doesn't fully address my contention, which is that if that's all the law does, that perhaps we need a tougher law. Because I wouldn't want folks getting stalked to their homes by anti-choice protesters and have their doors publicly tagged with some bleeding baby symbol, either.


Quote
The property damage was a spray painted anarchy symbol.  I hope the police pursue it.  There is no evidence that they aren't, but determining who did it is non trivial unless the police are on the scene when it happens.  The police did question some people on it.  The claimed damage to the door appears to have been a false statement by Carlson.

Too tired to make sense of that.

Quote
Because IIRC an antiabortion murderer is the only recent US case to receive an expedited death penalty with next to no news coverage. Even the anti death penalty folks were deathly quiet up to that execution.

Quote
If these people start murdering people, and then are convicted you will have a point.


What point would that be?  I'm not sure what point I would have at that point,  or if it truly is my point.

Quote
But it is currently irrelevant to the current conversation.

It would also be irrelevant to what I was actually saying, which is that IF anti-choice advocates get a lamentable pass for stalking, that no such pass exists for actual murder.  The religious right doesn't celebrate a Mumia murder exemption.

Quote
I’m glad to hear it claimed that the wrongs are parallel but imho no one should have their home threatened like that.
====
Well he didn't have his house threatened.  But I agree - but as I said this has long been done by abortion protestors so apparently it is legal.

Three slightly different subsets:
1. That which is allowed for apparently privileged groups.
2. That which is currently allowed by law.
3. That which the constitution protects even if statutes forbade.

Quote
Crowd members should have been detained for questions no. Protesting outside the house of a non public figure without a permit is imho suspect activity sufficient imo for arrest and questioning.
--
Sorry, you can't make ad hoc law.

Sorry; I wasn't making law.  I was exercising my first amendment right to opine on what the law should be.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 12, 2018, 09:14:41 PM
Terrorism involves (1) an intentional act (2) to inflict physical harm to noncombattants or to cause noncombattants reasonable apprehension of harm
(3) for a public relations purpose.

Normally the PR purpose is to terrorize (like we did to the Japanese people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but a PR purpose to galvanize support among one's potential allies (the PR objective of all of Bin Laden's terrorism) has always been called terrorism.  Bin Laden wanted to unite the Muslim world under a Califate, and the US was just the most convenient target, like the big guy in the prison lunch room that you beat up to convince folks that you're the new big guy on the block.

John Brown was a freedom fighter and a terrorist.  There's no rule saying that you have to be one or the other.  George Washington assigned a flunky with terrorist tactics against the Iroquois at the same time that he was fighting for independence from the Brits.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2018, 09:23:50 PM
Pete, also it looks like the police are investigating the anarchy spray painting as a "possible hate crime",

http://time.com/5449787/fox-news-host-tucker-carlson-hate-crime-protest/

I don't consider them 'freedom fighters' - I consider them clueless morons.

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 12, 2018, 10:26:17 PM
(1) an intentional act (2) to inflict physical harm to noncombattants or to cause noncombattants reasonable apprehension of harm

While a threat of literal physical harm would certainly qualify, I think an undisclosed "or if..." without a defined threat would be just as valid. The point of the threat is to make someone fear the consequence of refusing to capitulate; it's not relevant whether the actual harm that would be done is disclosed or even clear. I don't even think it needs to be asserted that there needs to be a physical threat, although that's the classical version of it of course. But imagining for a moment you could make people afraid without needing to inform them about what (if anything) would happen if they refuse to comply, that might achieve the same result. So I would at any rate specify that "harm" should include various things which more often than not will include physical harm. But "you'll never sleep easy again" is a sort of threat that doesn't exactly nail down what will happen, other than "you'll never know when we'll be back." Fear of such could be just as damaging as an attack.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2018, 10:43:51 PM
Terrorism involves (1) an intentional act (2) to inflict physical harm to noncombattants or to cause noncombattants reasonable apprehension of harm
(3) for a public relations purpose.

Alternate option: Something that could be pulled out of the KKK Playbook for how to wage a terror campaign against "undesirables" of whichever skin color/political persuasion you desire.

Funny how the people who are loudly proclaiming that they're trying to fight against the return of something as vile as the KKK, are the ones employing the tactics of the Klan.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 12, 2018, 11:08:57 PM
Pete, also it looks like the police are investigating the anarchy spray painting as a "possible hate crime",

http://time.com/5449787/fox-news-host-tucker-carlson-hate-crime-protest/

I don't consider them 'freedom fighters' - I consider them clueless morons.

Clueless morons are as capable of terrorism as Freedom fighters or Nobel Peace Prize winning presidents.

 terrorism by clueless morons:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5QmMcNnqdo

Terrorism by Nobel peace prize administrations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike

The latter was a US terrorist strategy targeting ambulance crews after a strike on terrorists.  By sending our bombers back to kill any rescue personnel on the scene of our first strike, we send the PR message that anyone offering help or shelter to our enemies is our enemy.  Essentially the same aim as Edward Longshank's use of the Dragon Banner against Robert the Bruce -- humanitarian codes abrogated and anyone offering so much as a cup of water to the state's enemies is subject to being killed horribly without trial.  (A clearly intentional parallel bombing takes out the protagonist's sister in book and film "Mockingjay").
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 13, 2018, 12:16:23 PM
Quote
We've had discussions before about what terrorism even is, but it seems to me that on the face of it we should at least assume it involves:

-Making people scared (i.e. creating terror), either through an action or threat;
-For the purpose of carrying out an agenda, usually political;
-This agenda being one that requires some sort of compliance on the part of those threatened;
-And that the agenda is achieved chiefly through coercive means.

It appears that there is a fine line between peaceful protest and terrorist threat.

I recall a while back about some gun nuts protesting a mothers against guns meeting by gathering outside their venue (a restaurant, IIRC), armed with rifles.  Would this not qualify as a terrorist thread by your definition, Fenring?

Would not the antifa protesters in Charlottesville also qualify?

How about the white nationalists themselves, armed with shields and clubs?

If no group can protest without every single member being detained and questioned because one or two members (or false flags? ;) ) committed misdemeanors, then what good would the First Amendment be?  Who could ever gather to protest?

While I have argued that hate crimes ("Making people scared (i.e. creating terror), either through an action or threat") are basically terrorism, making entire groups suspect and/or guilty for the actions of individual members is a slippery slope I don't want to start down on.  Not in these times...
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 13, 2018, 12:50:23 PM
Wayward,

I think the fine line is to be found in (a) motive, and (b) being armed. It's tricky to parse whether someone's motive is to create fear, as it doesn't merely pass muster if someone claims to be afraid. That's when we get into the "I felt I was threatened" territory, which is hazy and in my view inadmissible by itself. This one requires context and judgement...which is what judges are for in cases where people feel seriously threatened and it needs to be determined whether any threat was actually intended. This leads into (b), where being armed might certainly threaten someone even if the weapons aren't the overt text of the threat itself. Again, judgement is needed: are they armed for the purpose of self-defence? Is being armed part of the protest itself, i.e. right to bear arms? Is it a preventative thing or an intimidation tactic? So these all require defining on a case by case basis. We wouldn't want it to be declared that showing up to a protest with a bat means you're a terrorist, if you've only got the bat because you expect to be attacked. But I would say that if people show up to Carlson's house armed with guns (let's say) and claim it's to "defend themselves" we can probably be a lot more skeptical of that than if people showed up armed to a potential riot zone during a massive protest.

So I'm not proposing a simple catch-all that can apply to all cases. But I am saying that in a clear-cut case where people are trying to make others afraid in order to achieve a political/social agenda, that's more or less the definition of terrorism. Whether you would want to prosecute all such cases is an issue of enforcement and severity, but not of defining words.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2018, 02:03:38 PM
The most powerful statements have been made by protesters who deliberately waive their right to defend themselves. It completely negates the "on both sides" response. It does require a singular will and dedication to get beaten, shot, bitten by dogs, blasted with water cannons, and all the other tools of a state bent on stopping the protest message.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 13, 2018, 02:29:37 PM
The most powerful statements have been made by protesters who deliberately waive their right to defend themselves. It completely negates the "on both sides" response. It does require a singular will and dedication to get beaten, shot, bitten by dogs, blasted with water cannons, and all the other tools of a state bent on stopping the protest message.

My point about being armed was mainly that being faced with someone wielding a weapon could reasonably frighten you even if they haven't intended to intimidate you with the weapon. It's the grey line between "I wanted them to be afraid" and "I don't care what they wanted, they made me afraid." I do think the first clause has to be satisfied for it to be terrorism.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2018, 02:52:09 PM
Yeah, Fenring, I get that. My point is - don't go to protests armed even if you expect to have someone intimidate you with violence. The fact that you are armed may or may not be some kind of legal whatever, including terrorism, but you've already lost your message when you showed up waving a pitchfork at a protest.

Wielding a weapon is different than having a weapon. That's brandishing, whether it is a club, a rock, or a firearm.

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 13, 2018, 03:04:03 PM
First, I want to call those posters out who liked this post.  It doesn't have any analysis in it.

Quote
We've had discussions before about what terrorism even is, but it seems to me that on the face of it we should at least assume it involves:

-Making people scared (i.e. creating terror), either through an action or threat;
-For the purpose of carrying out an agenda, usually political;
-This agenda being one that requires some sort of compliance on the part of those threatened;
-And that the agenda is achieved chiefly through coercive means.

It appears that there is a fine line between peaceful protest and terrorist threat.

Really?  Peaceful protests rarely make anyone scared, don't involve threats and don't achieve their goals through coercion. 

There are certainly less peaceful protests and riots that begin to blur some of those lines, but that's because they're on the same scale as terrorist actions. 

Quote
I recall a while back about some gun nuts protesting a mothers against guns meeting by gathering outside their venue (a restaurant, IIRC), armed with rifles.  Would this not qualify as a terrorist thread by your definition, Fenring?

Given that the group was protesting guns, I'd say that calls for a context exception on what would otherwise be very provocative.  I think showing up to protest any private group that is not activist on a gun debate, armed to the teeth, is conduct that is clearly designed to intimidate or coerce their behavior.

Quote
Would not the antifa protesters in Charlottesville also qualify?

As terrorists?  Yes.  Antifa should be treated as a domestic terrorist organization before they go too far and kill someone.  Showing up at a rally specifically to cause violence to end someone else's legally protected speech is low grade terrorism.

Quote
How about the white nationalists themselves, armed with shields and clubs?

It would depend on context.  Showing up at their own rally.  No.  No more than a Black Panther rally is terrorism. 

Quote
If no group can protest without every single member being detained and questioned because one or two members (or false flags? ;) ) committed misdemeanors, then what good would the First Amendment be?  Who could ever gather to protest?

First of all, assault (not battery, assault) is not a misdemeanor.  Showing up at child's school to intimidate a parent, or at a person's home (or the home of their family member) to intimidate the family and coerce them to comply is terrorism.  If you want to protest at someone's home it should be on you to ensure there is no part of what you are doing that go be deemed frightening.

This group grossly failed that, showing up at night, chanting threats and banging on a door.  None of that is reasonable and all of it is an invasion of the other persons' rights. 

Quote
While I have argued that hate crimes ("Making people scared (i.e. creating terror), either through an action or threat") are basically terrorism, making entire groups suspect and/or guilty for the actions of individual members is a slippery slope I don't want to start down on.  Not in these times...

I do agree that collective accountability isn't reasonable.  However, I think the conduct in question here should represents individual guilt, not just guilt by association for vandalism.

Not stating this, by the way, as an opinion on whether its legal, just an opinion that it shouldn't be.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 13, 2018, 06:36:27 PM
Quote
Quote
Would not the antifa protesters in Charlottesville also qualify?

As terrorists?  Yes.  Antifa should be treated as a domestic terrorist organization before they go too far and kill someone.  Showing up at a rally specifically to cause violence to end someone else's legally protected speech is low grade terrorism.

Quote
How about the white nationalists themselves, armed with shields and clubs?

It would depend on context.  Showing up at their own rally.  No.  No more than a Black Panther rally is terrorism. 

One group should be treated like terrorists "before they go too far and kill someone."  Meanwhile, the other group at Charlottesville, the one with a member who actually killed a woman, you say "it would depend on context."  :o

While I find antifa's tactics despicable, you definitely seem to have a double standard here.  Violence by liberals should be crushed before someone gets hurt, but white nationalists we need to look carefully at before taking action--no matter how many people they've murdered over the years.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 13, 2018, 08:09:36 PM
The KKK and other supremacist groups, since the 1970's have been toothless when they hold rallies/demonstration "with the proper permits," it wasn't until Anti-Fa introduced themselves into the mix, with the intent of instigating violence, that somebody was killed. Arguably, while it was a Supremacist that was behind the steering wheel, it was AntiFa who instigated the event in the first place. Blame does ultimately belong with the operator of the car, as AntiFa didn't make him do anything, they just helped to escalate things until he reached his breaking point.

Scheduled KKK/Supremacist rallies and events were not flash points of violence, it was the unscheduled ones you needed to be worried about. At least until Anti-Fa turned up.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2018, 08:37:54 PM
That is simply BS - there were thousands and thousands of counter-protesters in Charlottesville, far outnumbering the anti-fa contingent.  And the crowd into which the white supremacist drove his car was in no way a group of anti-fa instigators.  Anti-fa is a handy bogeyman that can be used to excuse any actions taken by white supremacists, it would seem.

It would also seem that personal responsibility is no longer a thing in conservative circles.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 13, 2018, 08:47:20 PM
That is simply BS - there were thousands and thousands of counter-protesters in Charlottesville, far outnumbering the anti-fa contingent.  And the crowd into which the white supremacist drove his car was in no way a group of anti-fa instigators.  Anti-fa is a handy bogeyman that can be used to excuse any actions taken by white supremacists, it would seem.

It would also seem that personal responsibility is no longer a thing in conservative circles.

huh?

Blame does ultimately belong with the operator of the car, as AntiFa didn't make him do anything, they just helped to escalate things until he reached his breaking point.

Which part of the above was unclear?  Accountability ultimately belongs to the person who drove the car into the crowd.

It doesn't mean others don't share in creating the conditions that led up to it. Or are you(Donald) walking back on Trump being "at fault" for a lot of things going on in the United States at present? As it seems, by your stated standard, creating a condition isn't the same thing as committing an action.

From press reports at the time, the Rally was cancelled because "tensions were escalating" undoubtedly due in large part due to "new elements"(such as Anti-Fa) making themselves known and deliberately trying to escalate things into violence, again something without historical precedent anytime within 40 years or so before then.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2018, 09:24:39 PM
Quote
The KKK and other supremacist groups, since the 1970's have been toothless
<snip>
it wasn't until Anti-Fa introduced themselves into the mix, with the intent of instigating violence, that somebody was killed.
<snip>
Arguably, while it was a Supremacist that was behind the steering wheel,
<snip>
it was AntiFa who instigated the event in the first place.
<snip>
Blame does ultimately belong with the operator of the car, as AntiFa didn't make him do anything, they just helped to escalate things until he reached his breaking point.
If you can't see how what you wrote is a denial of accountability (especially the "arguably" and "breaking point" bits - we must not trigger white supremacist snowflakes by opposing them - otherwise, well of course they will snap and mow down completely random protesters) then there is little hope for you.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 13, 2018, 10:28:48 PM
Quote
The KKK and other supremacist groups, since the 1970's have been toothless
<snip>
it wasn't until Anti-Fa introduced themselves into the mix, with the intent of instigating violence, that somebody was killed.
<snip>
Arguably, while it was a Supremacist that was behind the steering wheel,
<snip>
it was AntiFa who instigated the event in the first place.
<snip>
Blame does ultimately belong with the operator of the car, as AntiFa didn't make him do anything, they just helped to escalate things until he reached his breaking point.
If you can't see how what you wrote is a denial of accountability (especially the "arguably" and "breaking point" bits - we must not trigger white supremacist snowflakes by opposing them - otherwise, well of course they will snap and mow down completely random protesters) then there is little hope for you.

Nonsense.  Other groups have been effectively opposing the sheet-head protests since the 1970s.  It's left wing violence that caused the rise of Hitler and Franco, and you clowns are repeating the same stupidity over again.  It's not about "not triggering" the white supremacists.  It's about not challenging Mike Tyson to a fist-fight.  White Supremacists are simply better at the violent crap than you nihilists.  All you've done is expand their platform.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2018, 11:04:07 PM
Don't be an idiot Pete - I assume that if you can call people clowns, then you can be called an idiot.

What I wrote has nothing to do with the counter-protesters and everything to do with TheDaemon's need to lay the primary blame for the murder on the anti-fa bogeyman, notwithstanding his use of weasel words to give himself an out.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2018, 01:26:21 AM
What I wrote has nothing to do with the counter-protesters and everything to do with TheDaemon's need to lay the primary blame for the murder on the anti-fa bogeyman, notwithstanding his use of weasel words to give himself an out.

"Primary Blame" remains in the hands of the person who drove the car into that crowd. Anti-Fa is in line "somewhere" behind the driver, but where exactly is hard to call without a lot of information that very few people can claim to have.

The Nazis and Supremacy groups were on decline until a few years ago, Anti-Fa didn't "trigger" their ascendancy, which is more of a feckless sputter than anything else.

Other "Liberal" groups deciding they wanted change now and ratcheting up the various social pressures on "unacceptable things" were the ones that started building momentum for both the inevitable backlash, and the grooming of ready recruits for Anti-Fa. Some of this is stuff several of us have been warning about for at least 10 years now, although the irony is while "the left" claims to be powerless, they're still the ones calling the shots on this circus. Trump just has them utterly flummuxed and oblivious as it stands. 

What people are failing to distinguish properly is backlash against "PC culture" and related auxillaries, vs the Supremacist groups. Failure to discern which is which is only serving to further compound the issue, and growing both. And in the meantime that proverbial pendulum keeps getting ratcheted up even higher, I'm not looking forward to when "the left" loses their vice-like grip on the thing They're deluded in the belief that they're going to keep it under their control indefinitely.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 14, 2018, 04:00:09 AM
Don't be an idiot Pete - I assume that if you can call people clowns, then you can be called an idiot.

No problem here. That post was the politest and most thoughtful thing you've said to me in a decade. Thank you.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2018, 09:48:44 AM
Quote
Quote
Would not the antifa protesters in Charlottesville also qualify?

As terrorists?  Yes.  Antifa should be treated as a domestic terrorist organization before they go too far and kill someone.  Showing up at a rally specifically to cause violence to end someone else's legally protected speech is low grade terrorism.

Quote
How about the white nationalists themselves, armed with shields and clubs?

It would depend on context.  Showing up at their own rally.  No.  No more than a Black Panther rally is terrorism. 

One group should be treated like terrorists "before they go too far and kill someone."  Meanwhile, the other group at Charlottesville, the one with a member who actually killed a woman, you say "it would depend on context."  :o

Antifa's statement of beliefs includes meeting unwelcome speech with violence. Antifa's history has been to commit violence on speakers with which they disagree, and occasionally on those who do not agree with them enough.

Meanwhile the racists while completely repugnant ideologically, have a long history of protest without violence.  I'd go so far as to say they are cowards.

So yes, a group that advocates violence and carries it out is a much higher terrorist threat than a more repugnant ideology that doesn't.  Confronting skinheads peacefully has had their ideology on the decline for at least 50 years,.

More ever though, I take your comment as a personal failing on your part.  Instead of making a rationale argument, you just fell back to some form of it's okay to punch a Nazi.

Quote
While I find antifa's tactics despicable, you definitely seem to have a double standard here.  Violence by liberals should be crushed before someone gets hurt, but white nationalists we need to look carefully at before taking action--no matter how many people they've murdered over the years.

Find violence by the white nationals and I'm happy to see it crushed as well.  I have zero tolerance for the suppression of speech by violence or physical intimidation (another area the racists have utterly failed in).

Put more simply, I don't have a double standard, you do.  And it's simple and obvious.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2018, 09:53:02 AM
Nonsense.  Other groups have been effectively opposing the sheet-head protests since the 1970s.  It's left wing violence that caused the rise of Hitler and Franco, and you clowns are repeating the same stupidity over again.

It's more the media than the left as a whole.  The MSM has given more hours of coverage to white racists than I can count.  Like any propaganda, selling that it's on the rise will embolden those who want it to rise.  Effectively the media is recreating a problem that was almost dead, and largely so they can pin it on their ideological enemies.  It's a real win-win for them, and lose-lose for the entire rest of the country.

Quote
It's not about "not triggering" the white supremacists.  It's about not challenging Mike Tyson to a fist-fight.  White Supremacists are simply better at the violent crap than you nihilists.  All you've done is expand their platform.

I've seen no evidence that white supremacists are any good at violent.  As far as I can tell, since the entire concept became self-evidently repugnant to the average citizen, they've only had success in the shadows and the dark - and even that's been on the decline.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2018, 10:53:24 AM
Quote
I've seen no evidence that white supremacists are any good at violent
the movement has become much more "sophisticated" and subtle in there methods over the last few years.  The violence is no longer only physical or in your face

Does anyone really believe that the democrats or republicans embrace hate and violence?
Sure some of the more extremist elements might and there are definitively useful idiots on both sides... but how do we address this problem constructively?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2018, 10:56:48 AM
the movement has become much more "sophisticated" and subtle in there methods over the last few years.  The violence is no longer only physical or in your face

And that rhetoric is why "it is okay to punch a nazi in the face" because "hurtful words" are violence, and violence in response to violence is acceptable.

The Nazi's are dispicable, they do a lot of vile, disgusting, and hurtful things, but disgusting or hurtful != violence.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2018, 11:17:24 AM
Didn't take me more than 30 seconds to find white supremacy political violence.

Quote
At a Huntington Beach "Make America Great Again" rally in March 2017, Rundo, Boman and Laube allegedly attacked multiple people, including two journalists, prosecutors said.

According to the affidavit, Laube grabbed one journalist by the shoulder then punched him in the face three times. Members of RAM later celebrated the assault when it was highlighted on a neo-Nazi website, "Daily Stormer," the affidavit alleges.

Rundo was also arrested at an April rally in Berkeley for punching a "defenseless person" and a police officer, prosecutors said. Boman and Eason were allegedly violent at the rally, too, according to the affidavit.

Members of the group attacked counter-protesters at an "Anti-Islamic Law” rally in San Bernardino in June 2017, the affidavit also alleges.

link (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/24/robert-rundo-rise-above-movement-charlottesville-huntington-beach-berkeley/1755798002/)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2018, 11:44:54 AM
Scheduled KKK/Supremacist rallies and events were not flash points of violence, it was the unscheduled ones you needed to be worried about. At least until Anti-Fa turned up.

Perfectly addressed Drake's latest post, IMO.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2018, 12:21:28 PM
In fairness, he didn't make an argument, he provided a link.  The link was pretty good, and I'd say I would be 100% satisfied if Anti-fa was treated in the same manner as these people (who were arrested and charged based on their conspiracy to commit violence at rallies). 

The most interesting part to me, was of the course the date, 2017, which also supports what I said.  The racist movement was essentially dead and ineffective until the media started breathing new life into it, and anti-fa started attacking it.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 14, 2018, 12:44:32 PM

Antifa's statement of beliefs includes meeting unwelcome speech with violence

Do you have an actual statement by Antifa itself?  Or is this just your opinion?

The most interesting part to me, was of the course the date, 2017, which also supports what I said. The racist movement was essentially dead and ineffective until the media started breathing new life into it, and anti-fa started attacking it.

So if I understand correctly, your premise is that the racist movement was dead in 2017?

In 2017, there were 4235 hate crimes reported (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-hate-crime-statistics-released-111318) based on race in the US. Those were about 60% of all hate crimes.   In 2016, there were 3486, and before that 3444 and 2567.  The percentages varied between 47 and 58%.

How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.


Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2018, 12:56:37 PM
Quote
the movement has become much more "sophisticated" and subtle in there methods over the last few years.  The violence is no longer only physical or in your face

And that rhetoric is why "it is okay to punch a nazi in the face" because "hurtful words" are violence, and violence in response to violence is acceptable.

I don't follow? Is saying that the white supremacist movement has become more sophisticated... invoking violence?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2018, 01:28:59 PM

Antifa's statement of beliefs includes meeting unwelcome speech with violence

Do you have an actual statement by Antifa itself?  Or is this just your opinion?

There is no unitary organization named Antifa, ergo I don't have an actual statement from it.

Is it just my opinion?  No.  There are numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa and/or organizing events where its "members" showed up specifically endorsing a philosophical right to violence to shut down others speech.

This request seems to be in bad faith, unless you are claiming you have no awareness of Antifa's position, in which case why are you commenting?

Quote
The most interesting part to me, was of the course the date, 2017, which also supports what I said. The racist movement was essentially dead and ineffective until the media started breathing new life into it, and anti-fa started attacking it.

So if I understand correctly, your premise is that the racist movement was dead in 2017?

As you can see from the quote I said essentially dead, and I didn't date the media influence and antifa as starting in 2017.  But in substance it has been dying for decades and prior to the latest shot in the harm it was an irrellevant fraction of a fraction.

Quote
In 2017, there were 4235 hate crimes reported (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-hate-crime-statistics-released-111318) based on race in the US. Those were about 60% of all hate crimes.   In 2016, there were 3486, and before that 3444 and 2567.  The percentages varied between 47 and 58%.

Hate crime reporting is a questionable measure.  Its grossly overinclusive of acts that are not committed by actual racists. 

It's also a measure that is relatively new and therefore is ramping upwards as more areas start making reports and get more sophisticated about the reports (which may mean an upward trend doesn't actually reflect an increase in the number of events).

Quote
How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.

Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

That litigation against blatant racism has petered out as it's extremely difficult to actually find real cases of overt racism anymore, and new theories of hidden and faceless racism have become the only game in town.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 14, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
What I wrote has nothing to do with the counter-protesters and everything to do with TheDaemon's need to lay the primary blame for the murder on the anti-fa bogeyman, notwithstanding his use of weasel words to give himself an out.

On reflection, I can appreciate that " escalate things until he reached his breaking point" does shift responsibility as you said.

I think that a lot of us came to the Charlottesville prejudiced by AntiFa's previous anti-free speech activities on the West Coast, and its outright terrorism in Berkeley.  But the facts at Charlottesville are different.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 14, 2018, 03:19:07 PM
Quote
Antifa's statement of beliefs includes meeting unwelcome speech with violence. Antifa's history has been to commit violence on speakers with which they disagree, and occasionally on those who do not agree with them enough.

Meanwhile the racists while completely repugnant ideologically, have a long history of protest without violence.  I'd go so far as to say they are cowards.

So yes, a group that advocates violence and carries it out is a much higher terrorist threat than a more repugnant ideology that doesn't.

Where the f**k did you get the idea that white supremacists don't commit violence?  Have you been living under a rock for the past--heck, forever??  :o

According the ADL, white supremacists have committed most of the extremist killings in 2017 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-supremacists-committed-most-extremist-killings-2017-adl-says-n838896), accounting for 71 killings in 2016, and 69 in 2015.  That isn't violence?  That's so much better than what Antifa has done that they shouldn't be considered terrorists while Antifa should?  What the heck is wrong with you?

Sure, they're cowards.  Deadly cowards.  They kill people when they have the best chance to get away with it, or when the odds are in their favor (like when they're in a car up against pedestrians).  So they don't go after Antifa.  They go after defenseless people in surprise attacks.  Isn't that exactly what terrorists do?

But, no, a group that advocates a “willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly” (https://the1a.org/shows/2017-08-21/the-antifa-handbook) are the ones we must fear, the ones we must call terrorists.

Do a quick body count, Seriati.  How many people have Antifa killed?  Compare that to 71 in 2016 and 69 in 2015.

How can you sit there and say Antifa is a greater threat than white supremacists?  That Antifa are terrorists and these people are not?  That's nuts.

No, I don't condone what Antifa does.  But to say that they are terrorists, while white supremacists who also beat people up and kill people, are not, is screwed up.

You might find it a personal failing that I'm not horrified at people punching Nazis, when the Nazis have little compunction at punching people, and their rhetoric inspires some of them to kill people.  But I find your dismissing the people white supremacists have killed an intellectual and moral failing.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 14, 2018, 03:35:41 PM
The sheet-heads were founded as a terrorist organization.  At their most dangerous and murderous point in history, they were supported by teachers and leaders of the land, including Woodrow Wilson.

There's no question that at this point that White Supremacists are more numerous commit more violence than AntiFa.  Even if we reject the left wing baloney counts.  (For example, the black guy that shot up a bunch of white cops at a BLM march gets counted by Leftwits as a "white supremacist" because he was "anti-government ... "if she weighs as much as a duck, she's made of wood and is therefore a witch").

The reason that I see AntiFa as more dangerous than the White Supremacists at this point in history (despite the fact that I've personally had my life threatened by white supremacists this year) is that AntiFa and other violent Jacobin leftwits have the sympathy of University educators and their poisonous anti-speech ideology is outright taught at places like Evergreen and Berkeley. V is for Vendetta is their "Birth of a Nation."  I'd rather crush the bedbug before it bites me.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2018, 03:48:41 PM
Where the f**k did you get the idea that white supremacists don't commit violence?  Have you been living under a rock for the past--heck, forever??  :o

I didn't say that.  I said they don't have a history of violence at their protests.

Quote
According the ADL, white supremacists have committed most of the extremist killings in 2017 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-supremacists-committed-most-extremist-killings-2017-adl-says-n838896), accounting for 71 killings in 2016, and 69 in 2015.

The ADLs count has been debunked for years.  It counts any person killed by a known skin regardless of reason in its count (including, things like a skinhead killing his pregnant white girlfriend).  Most of the people it is tracking for that stat are members of a an actual criminal gang, many of whom are felons.

Meanwhile, they only attribute kills from other hate groups if they can prove membership and reason for the death to hate.

I think they mean well but their methodology is complete crap.

Quote
That isn't violence?  That's so much better than what Antifa has done that they shouldn't be considered terrorists while Antifa should?  What the heck is wrong with you?

Well like I said, the people that make up the majority of the white nationalists ADL stats are actual criminals many of whom have been arrested for crimes unrelated to their racism and their associates.  Not a faceless movement of general impact.

I totally agree that criminal gangs engage in violence.  Meanwhile, the ADL does not track in its metrics latino or black gangs killing people of other races in the same manner.

Your kind of engaging in a "Trump" style of attribution the way he does with MS-13 there.

Quote
Sure, they're cowards.  Deadly cowards.  They kill people when they have the best chance to get away with it, or when the odds are in their favor (like when they're in a car up against pedestrians).  So they don't go after Antifa.  They go after defenseless people in surprise attacks.  Isn't that exactly what terrorists do?

When do they do that Wayward?  Where's the media coverage, it'd be every where if there were any murders attributed to actual racism these days.

Quote
But, no, a group that advocates a “willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly” (https://the1a.org/shows/2017-08-21/the-antifa-handbook) are the ones we must fear, the ones we must call terrorists.

It's just a lie to claim "punch a nazi" is a defensive posture.  It's just a lie to claim that Anti-fa only engages in or advocates violence in defense.

And yes, Anti-fa is a terrorist organization and should be treated as one.  I have no issue whatsoever with treating any white nationalists that represent a credible threat in exactly the same manner.

I do have a problem with creating a bogey man out of an impotent group of poseurs to justify massive violence with a broad brush.

Quote
How can you sit there and say Antifa is a greater threat than white supremacists?  That Antifa are terrorists and these people are not?  That's nuts.

Scale.  Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.  Acceptance, otherwise normal people defend the repugnant tactics of Antifa, whereas even extremists condemn white nationalists.

And frankly, white nationalists are no threat to us as a country, whereas Antifa is a direct threat to our civil liberties.

Quote
No, I don't condone what Antifa does.  But to say that they are terrorists, while white supremacists who also beat people up and kill people, are not, is screwed up.

Well again, you've misrepresented what I said.  I acknowledge that some white nationalists are terrorists, others are criminals.  I'm just pointing out that the actual threat is being overstated, and that most of them were hapless morons that were no threat at all.

Quote
You might find it a personal failing that I'm not horrified at people punching Nazis, when the Nazis have little compunction at punching people, and their rhetoric inspires some of them to kill people.

Then why did you have to lie to defend yourself?  There's no evidence that the people claiming to be Nazis "have little compunction at punching people," and the DECADES of evidence on their rallies shows that to be a lie.  Face it, you have to lie about it because the conduct you support is not justifiable, and to make it work in your head you need to "flip" it to "the Nazi's started the violence."

Their rhetoric sucks, but until the media started broadcasting it non-stop, it was inspiring next to no one.  They were literally a dieing breed that only attracted losers.

Quote
But I find your dismissing the people white supremacists have killed an intellectual and moral failing.

Of course I never dismissed anyone.  Put any white supremacist that kills someone in jail.  Put any that conspire to harm others in jail.  Heck, I don't even mind if you default to suspicion and investigation of them, they have a demonstrably faulty mental process. 

But don't pretend you understand what it is to be American or to support free speech if you're going to sign off on suppressing their speech.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2018, 04:11:56 PM
Scale.  Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

Uh, I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that Antifa is massive. What is massive, however, is the amount of people who share their theoretical doctrines. Most of those people are not part of Antifa and don't want any violence, but it seems to me that the sort of rhetoric I hear from some non-violent crusaders ("punch a Nazi" is a catchphrase I've heard even from otherwise peaceable people who are not affiliated with violent counter-protest) has a dangerous edge to it that makes me believe that Antifa is only a slightly more zealous strain of a similar ideology. I'm talking largely about the rage-filled epithets I see on social media; the desire to excise people who disagree; the vitriol about anything "right-wing"; all of that doesn't feel very peaceful to me, even if most people using that kind of language aren't actually looking to engage in violence.

To use an analogy, if there was a Neo-Nazi group that used the racist vitriol we expect of Nazis but that insisted it didn't believe in violence, I might believe that they believe that, but I doubt many of us would accept that the violence some Nazis use can simply be set totally aside from the people who believe more or less the same thing but aren't engaged in violence. We'd be wary of all of them and would take the non-violent position with a grain of salt. This is not a direct parallel with left-wing vitriol, although there's a similarity in my opinion, which creates a troubling link between Antifa and more 'mainstream' crusaders who aren't violent but say the same things Antifa members do.

So I do object to how you made your statement above, but it's possible the idea behind the statement is similar to what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2018, 04:24:04 PM
I didn't realize there's a term for what I was reacting to.  It's an Overton window.  The racist ideas expressed by White Supremacists are clearly outside of the Overton Window,  the violent ones expressed by Anti-fa should be as well.  However, I think the left is doing it's best to stretch the Overton window to include advocating violence to suppress speech the Left deems unacceptable (and only softly condemns inspired violence).  Make no mistake, speech advocating violence in the other direction would always be condemned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2018, 04:48:29 PM
What I wrote has nothing to do with the counter-protesters and everything to do with TheDaemon's need to lay the primary blame for the murder on the anti-fa bogeyman, notwithstanding his use of weasel words to give himself an out.

On reflection, I can appreciate that " escalate things until he reached his breaking point" does shift responsibility as you said.

I think that a lot of us came to the Charlottesville prejudiced by AntiFa's previous anti-free speech activities on the West Coast, and its outright terrorism in Berkeley.  But the facts at Charlottesville are different.

Yes and no, it is very likely that specific individual had "a breaking point" that was considerably below any "reasonable man" threshold that could be applied to the situation. It is correct to say that Anti-fascist antics had a high probability of being involved in his snapping.

It probably is not correct to say a member of Anti-Fa was proverbially in the passenger seat egging him on.

For that matter, maybe he just received a poor performance review at work the week previous, and was dumped by his girlfriend the night before. All of which would be "contributing factors" in such a scenario. It doesn't mean his Boss/manager or his (ex)Girlfriend had any expectations he was going to act out Carmageddon in real life.

Although in the context of Anti-Fa's likely encounter with him, the expectation of a violent response had to be present on Anti-Fa's part. Even if their expectation was more along to lines of pushing/shoving and maybe a fist getting thrown, not Carmageddon.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 16, 2018, 12:56:17 PM

Antifa's statement of beliefs includes meeting unwelcome speech with violence

Do you have an actual statement by Antifa itself?  Or is this just your opinion?

There is no unitary organization named Antifa, ergo I don't have an actual statement from it.

Is it just my opinion?  No.  There are numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa and/or organizing events where its "members" showed up specifically endorsing a philosophical right to violence to shut down others speech.

This request seems to be in bad faith, unless you are claiming you have no awareness of Antifa's position, in which case why are you commenting?

You originally cited a statement of beliefs.  Thank you for your clarification that such a statement does not exist.

I have no awareness of Antifa's position, other than, as you admit, they have no position.

So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

Quote
Quote
How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.

Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

I disagree with just about all of the opinions that make up your statement  I could find the sources that disprove your statements, but the burden is on you to back them up.  As soon as you do, I look forward to the discussion.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2018, 01:17:39 PM
itsgoingdown.org is the closest thing to knowing what Antifa believes. It is the view of a leaderless, anarchist movement, so obviously it is subjective. But they link to guides on how they arm themselves to beat racists, and how they describe tactics to disrupt and push through barricades designed to separate them from the rally of the day, and also after action reports that not only endorse but celebrate their violence.

I'd copy some things here, but this site is barred from my corporate network, undoubtedly due to their embrace of violent action (or maybe just that multinational companies don't want the proletariat to overthrow them).
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2018, 01:20:22 PM
description (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/its-going-down/)

Quote
The Guardian describes IGD News as “a website that promotes anti-fascist organizing.” However, IGD News states on their about page “IGD is an anarchist news website and platform. We do not organize demonstrations or carry out actions, therefore we cannot represent something we did not organize.”

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 16, 2018, 01:31:08 PM
Oh what the hell, I'll find some sources.

 Ipsos poll (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017-Reuters-UVA-Ipsos-Race-Poll-9-11-2017.pdf)

Obvious racists: 3% to 16%
All races are equal: Strongly disagree 4%, Somewhat disagree 3%
All races should be treated equally: Strongly disagree 1%, Somewhat disagree 2%
Marriage should only be allowed between people of the same race. Strongly agree 10%, Somewhat agree 6%

You don't like this poll?  Feel free to supply your own.

While I was looking at the poll...

Quote
Scale.  Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

12% of respondents said they know someone in Antifa.  White nationalists?  13% This is with 2,225 Democrats, 1,915 Republicans, and 689 independents.

I have a serious question. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but in order have meaningful communication, I would like to have a better understanding of your thinking process.

Do you do research before you publish your comments? You sound very confident of your statements, and you appear to be very knowledgeable in general, so readers are inclined to take you at your word.

If this is just an opportunity for you to confidently state your opinion, then I have no issue.  Opine to your heart's content.  But please make that clear so we can treat it as such.  And please note that "My opinion is that Antifa is massive compared to white nationalism" doesn't make sense, since that is not really a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of mathematics.)

If you claim your statements to be fact, then I will continue to research them and point out when they are not.  Nothing personal, as long as there are no personal attacks on me.

It seems that the best way to post is to make factual statements with sources, and then state opinions clearly as such. Stating facts without sources, and having it turn out that they are completely wrong seems like a very inefficient way to have a discussion.  Just my opinion.

Please let me know your thoughts.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2018, 01:31:19 PM
You originally cited a statement of beliefs.  Thank you for your clarification that such a statement does not exist.

I have no awareness of Antifa's position, other than, as you admit, they have no position.

So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

This strikes me as an exercise in sophistry to try to make Seriati look like he wasn't making sense. It's entirely consistent to say that a group's message is clear, without also being able to pinpoint a signed affidavit from the headquarters of that group confirming it to the letter. If a group that has a clear set of beliefs and tactics is also de-centralized, that isn't a carte blanche to deny that any statement at all can be attributed to them. That's like saying that despite clear evidence that a swarm of wasps is trying to sting you since there's no official written document drafted by the wasps then it's just hearsay that they like to sting things. "just your opinion" sounds to me like a potential way to minimize a data-based observation.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 16, 2018, 04:16:03 PM
Quote
Scale.  Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

12% of respondents said they know someone in Antifa.  White nationalists?  13% This is with 2,225 Democrats, 1,915 Republicans, and 689 independents.

I have a serious question. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but in order have meaningful communication, I would like to have a better understanding of your thinking process.

Seriati's processes are his own, but I hold to Fenring's take on this:

Scale.  Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

Uh, I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that Antifa is massive. What is massive, however, is the amount of people who share their theoretical doctrines. Most of those people are not part of Antifa and don't want any violence, but it seems to me that the sort of rhetoric I hear from some non-violent crusaders ("punch a Nazi" is a catchphrase I've heard even from otherwise peaceable people who are not affiliated with violent counter-protest) has a dangerous edge to it that makes me believe that Antifa is only a slightly more zealous strain of a similar ideology. I'm talking largely about the rage-filled epithets I see on social media; the desire to excise people who disagree; the vitriol about anything "right-wing"; all of that doesn't feel very peaceful to me, even if most people using that kind of language aren't actually looking to engage in violence.

To use an analogy, if there was a Neo-Nazi group that used the racist vitriol we expect of Nazis but that insisted it didn't believe in violence, I might believe that they believe that, but I doubt many of us would accept that the violence some Nazis use can simply be set totally aside from the people who believe more or less the same thing but aren't engaged in violence. We'd be wary of all of them and would take the non-violent position with a grain of salt. This is not a direct parallel with left-wing vitriol, although there's a similarity in my opinion, which creates a troubling link between Antifa and more 'mainstream' crusaders who aren't violent but say the same things Antifa members do.

The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base. It doesn't even get to violent vs non-violent, the differences start a long time before then.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive, and about the only meaningful dispute that exists for many is over methods(violent vs non-violent), not doctrines.

Which is why Anti-Fa is freaking so many people out.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 16, 2018, 10:19:20 PM
You originally cited a statement of beliefs.  Thank you for your clarification that such a statement does not exist.

I have no awareness of Antifa's position, other than, as you admit, they have no position.

So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

This strikes me as an exercise in sophistry to try to make Seriati look like he wasn't making sense. It's entirely consistent to say that a group's message is clear, without also being able to pinpoint a signed affidavit from the headquarters of that group confirming it to the letter. If a group that has a clear set of beliefs and tactics is also de-centralized, that isn't a carte blanche to deny that any statement at all can be attributed to them. That's like saying that despite clear evidence that a swarm of wasps is trying to sting you since there's no official written document drafted by the wasps then it's just hearsay that they like to sting things. "just your opinion" sounds to me like a potential way to minimize a data-based observation.

Two points: 

Seriati said, explicitly, "Antifa's statement of beliefs".  He didn't say message, or clear set of beliefs, the words you are putting in his mouth.  He said "statement".  Words have meaning.  Making interpretations on his behalf so that they mean something other than what he said does not change anything.  I do deny that any statement exists until one is provided.  Seriati has declined to provide it, or any evidence that one exists.  He went to a fallback position, which also requires data, yet to be provided.

There is empirical data that wasps sting things.  Sources can be cited.  But in this case, Seriati did not make a data-based observation, because he provided no data.  Not a drop.  I asked for some.  If he provides some, we can have a discussion.  But until then, it is just his opinion.

Or since you claim there are data-based observations, could you please point out the data you refer to?  Please don't introduce new data, that is not the point.  I respectfully request that you specify the extant data in this thread you refer to.  Or you could simply retract your claim of data-based observation.

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 16, 2018, 10:30:11 PM

The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

Not to be repetitive, but do you have any sources to support this claim? 

The Ipsos poll I linked to earlier says that 8% support Antifa and 8% support white nationalism.(I used the right column which takes into effect rounding)

Again, find your own poll to support your claim if you can, but so far the data says you are wrong.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 16, 2018, 11:43:12 PM

The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

Not to be repetitive, but do you have any sources to support this claim? 

The Ipsos poll I linked to earlier says that 8% support Antifa and 8% support white nationalism.(I used the right column which takes into effect rounding)

Again, find your own poll to support your claim if you can, but so far the data says you are wrong.

Your data compares only one violent leftist group to an entire group of right wing groups.  This is the sort of typical bait and switch that entire universities full of social science specialists use to prop up the far left, which is precisely why groups like Antifa and Black Block are so insidious.  Because they are part of the established order. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2018, 09:22:57 AM

The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

Not to be repetitive, but do you have any sources to support this claim? 

The Ipsos poll I linked to earlier says that 8% support Antifa and 8% support white nationalism.(I used the right column which takes into effect rounding)

Again, find your own poll to support your claim if you can, but so far the data says you are wrong.

I misread your poll, you should have been able to figure it out, as I quoted it, and cited the same number, just in a slightly different way. 12%/13% as AntiFa or White Supremacist was actually "Knows someone who is" although I do now find it interesting that there was an 8% number you didn't share previously. ;)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2018, 11:37:45 PM
Transcription of a screenshot crossposted from twitter over to facebook, the person posting it is a Democrat and someone I've known for years.

Quote
zellie
@zellieimani
Stop demonizing riots. Without riots you'd still be working 10-12 hours six days a week.
black-culture
Stop demonizing riots.-@zellieimani

quazi-normalcy
The main contradiction of liberal democracy is that it has largely been shaped through a history of various forms of illegal civil disobedience against entrenched power structures. Such civil disobedience is (retrospectively) seen as justified, and the people committing it are (retrospectively) seen as heroes...but each successive generation is asked to believe that any further civil disobedience would be unreasonable.

So much wrong with the above, so much "selective history" being practiced here, and a number of other issues presented. But considering the (LDS) background of the person posting it, among other factors, that he doesn't see a problem with it is very highly disturbing. This is why many Conservatives are so freaked out about Anti-Fa.

That the numerous Labor riots at the close of the 19th Century only truly led to the prohibition on the use of US Troops on US Soil without Congressional approval is probably issue number 1. That every 20th Century (United States, non-prison) Riot did exactly nothing to benefit(actively harmed is a better description) the people who happened to live in the areas where the rioting happened also doesn't speak well for the practice. Sure rioting may "bring attention" to an issue, but it generally isn't the kind of attention you want to get.

Ok, as I think about it, the Vietnam War protestors getting shot by National Guard Troops probably helped cement public opinion against that war a little more quickly than might have happened otherwise, but that wasn't the rioting causing the change.

Edit to add: Also doubly ironic for me in regards to the one comment, as I typically work 8 to 14 hour days 6 to 7 days a week. :)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 18, 2018, 05:02:12 AM
Part of the problem is that the pro-violence losers are backed by decades of false teachings in school that among other things, attribute US independence to the Boston tea party rioters (duh, the actual founders were against them), women getting the vote to women's rioters (duh, the places that rioted were the last ones where women got the vote) etc.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 18, 2018, 08:50:54 AM
Don't forget the Prohibitionists who would forcibly enter bars and saloons to smash anything that contains alcohol.

Bastille Day(and the Reign of Terror that followed), Kristallnacht, the Baltimore riots(1860's edition), and onward. Rioting is an awesome way to virtue signal.

Bastille Day is the only one of the three above I will give some positive feedback on, but its aftermath left a LOT to be desired while the mob exacted it's own form of Justice.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 18, 2018, 10:51:57 AM
Nicely said. I would add that the principal difference to tween Bastille day on the one hand versus Kristallnacht in the rain of terror on the other, Is that the latter were state sponsored riots. The most horrible example of a state sponsored riot was the Cultural Revolution.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 18, 2018, 03:35:30 PM

The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

Not to be repetitive, but do you have any sources to support this claim? 

The Ipsos poll I linked to earlier says that 8% support Antifa and 8% support white nationalism.(I used the right column which takes into effect rounding)

Again, find your own poll to support your claim if you can, but so far the data says you are wrong.

I misread your poll, you should have been able to figure it out, as I quoted it, and cited the same number, just in a slightly different way. 12%/13% as AntiFa or White Supremacist was actually "Knows someone who is" although I do now find it interesting that there was an 8% number you didn't share previously. ;)

With all due respect:
I shared the entire report.  It's 5 freaking questions.  It's not like there was some major hidden flaw on page 743 that I was trying to hide. I don't appreciate the insinuation.

But more to the point - you misread it again.  The 8% is
Quote
Q4: Do you support or oppose the following group or movement...?
Second to last column.
Antifa Support (Net) 8%
White nationalism Support (Net) 8%
That disproves your "support" claim.

You are confusing it with
Quote
Q5. Do you personally have...?  no one among your social connections who is an
active supporter of the group or movement.
If 12% say "no", then that 12% has someone they know in the group.
That casts serious doubt on Seriati's "Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny" claim, since the same number of people know someone in each of the groups.

Two different questions, two different answers.
But in both cases, the two groups have about the same numbers.

And more importantly, nothing in the poll supports your actual statement, even remotely.

[/quote]The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive[/quote]

8% can not be "lacking any meaningful support base" for white nationalists, but "massive" support base for Antifa at the same time.
Do you disagree with the mathematics involved here?

Do you have any data to support that statement?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 18, 2018, 04:14:21 PM
Did you miss the post I made last night. I seriously doubt that friend of mine is associated with AntiFa. He certainly seems to be sympathetic to "their cause" and methods all the same.

Meanwhile anybody who espouses views that seem either "overly sympathetic" or specifically so on certain items best watch out for how they phrase things. Or everybody and their dog, including most Conservatives, are going to be "after them."

Ergo, AntiFa is massive as support is very easy to find. White Nationalism is tiny, because they're much more likely to be met with condemnation than support, by all quarters except fellow white nationalists.


Starting to feel like broken record here. Which part of "they're not welcome anywhere" with regards to White Nationalists is hard to understand?

Which part of AntiFa sympathizers are "a dime a dozen" in the general population?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 18, 2018, 04:27:45 PM
To that point, it’s easy to find articles like “SHOULD THE LEFT SUPPORT ANTIFA? (https://www.theperspective.com/debates/politics/left-support-antifa/)”

Nobody questions if there should be support of white nationalism, the answer is pretty uniformly and consistently “no”. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 18, 2018, 04:38:08 PM
Starting to feel like broken record here. Which part of "they're not welcome anywhere" with regards to White Nationalists is hard to understand?

Which part of AntiFa sympathizers are "a dime a dozen" in the general population?

Actually on futher reflection, I guess I see one point of confusion. Conservatives are, to an extent, acting to protect the 1st Amendment Rights of those groups. Which therefor means that Supremacists are "welcomed" into their circles.

This used to be the domain of the ACLU up until this past decade or so. The Voltaire attribution applies, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It's kind of a very sad state of affairs that it probably is only the Conservatives(and a select, and shrinking, number of Liberals) who are "intellectually capable" of engaging in discourse with a Supremacist and actually stick to logic and reason while detailing why the Supremacists are wrong.

But no Conservative with a lick of sense is going to present themselves in such a situation in the present environment because it's a borderline Kafka Trap for them at this point. Because on certain points, they'll have to agree with the supremacists, and the moment that happens, their ability to do anything meaningful with so-called Liberals goes out the window. Because all they will hear about from that day forward is how they're a terrible person because they agreed with a White Supremacist on something.

But this cycles us back to an old World Watch Essay by OSC about tolerance applied in a slightly different way. Conservatives will tolerate White Supremacists up to a point(mostly related to speech, but limits apply even then) before even they'll start objecting, but tolerance is not to be confused with welcoming them with wide open arms, or even edorsing their activities(actions are almost universally condemned).

But then I guess that is part of the Liberal complaint about Conservatives only wanting to have to tolerate "those of alternative backgrounds/persuasions" as the end-goal isn't tolerance of ______, it's acceptance. It's understandable to an extent, living in a community where I'm held in the same esteem as the local Skin-Heads isn't a community I'd want to stick around in(even as a White, Straight, Male; or maybe particularly because of it these days).... But the means by which they("Liberals") have gone about pursuing said acceptance IS resulting in justified pushback.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 18, 2018, 09:09:04 PM
Did you miss the post I made last night. I seriously doubt that friend of mine is associated with AntiFa. He certainly seems to be sympathetic to "their cause" and methods all the same.

Meanwhile anybody who espouses views that seem either "overly sympathetic" or specifically so on certain items best watch out for how they phrase things. Or everybody and their dog, including most Conservatives, are going to be "after them."

Ergo, AntiFa is massive as support is very easy to find. White Nationalism is tiny, because they're much more likely to be met with condemnation than support, by all quarters except fellow white nationalists.


Starting to feel like broken record here. Which part of "they're not welcome anywhere" with regards to White Nationalists is hard to understand?

Which part of AntiFa sympathizers are "a dime a dozen" in the general population?

I did briefly read about your friend (singular). Had he taken the survey, he would have been one of the 8% who support Antifa.  How does that demonstrate that Antifa support is "massive"?

You can have the opinion that white nationalists are not welcome everywhere, and Antifa sympathizers are a dime a dozen.  You can personally know dozens of Antifa sympathizers, and no white supremacist sympathizers.

I am not sure how to say this more clearly - with all due respect, your personal impressions and opinions are not data, and do not constitute proof.

If you can find actual data about literally thousands of people surveyed in a scientific poll, that supports your claims, please provide them.  I have provided such data saying your claim is clearly false.  Your opinions do not change the data, or the facts they represent.

I am not trying to troll, or be difficult.  But do you acknowledge that a properly conducted survey has more validity than the opinion of one person of what people think?  If not, please let me know, and I will stop trying to make that point with you.

I disagree with your gross generalizations about tolerance and free speech for Conservatives and Liberals.  But please note that my comments here are only addressing the facts, and the validity of specific numerical claims.

I also observe that you do not correct your insinuation that I was trying to hide something, or acknowledge that the survey shows equivalent levels of support for the two groups in question.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 18, 2018, 09:20:31 PM
I also observe that you do not correct your insinuation that I was trying to hide something, or acknowledge that the survey shows equivalent levels of support for the two groups in question.

You did notice the smiley/winky face immediate after "That insinuation" didn't you? I knew you linked to the study directly, that's why the comment was made toungue-in-cheek. I wasn't aware a retraction was needed for a joke. It still also is correct that you didn't state the 8% numbers "up front"(someone would need to follow the link to find it), but I wasn't really implying and kind of dark or sinister motive behind your having left that one out.

And I am fairly certain that facebook friend would NOT identify as being Anti-Fa. His position wasn't one of advocacy in favor of rioting, he was presenting the argument that "If rioting is happening, it's because things are bad for the people who are rioting." And as such, it isn't our place to condemn them and so on and so forth.(Much like white males are disqualified from the onset by many "left-wits" as Pete terms it when it comes to either "Racial Issues" or "Gender Issues" rioting is now evidently "a virtue signal" rather than a bunch of people causing mayhem just because they can.)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 18, 2018, 10:47:59 PM
Velcro, another matter:

As far as I can tell, your survey says nothing about support and only looks at membership, or knowledge of people who are believed to have membership with said groups.

You're also ignoring a prior post by others pointing out that your study only looked at Anti-Fa specifically in relation to a collection of other groups. So there are valid questions about methodology in play here.

That you also require a survey to demonstrate something which most of us are plainly seeing on our social media feeds and/or daily lives on a regular basis raises other questions but they're not entirely relevant to this board.

I cited an example that I considered representative, it isn't the only time I've seen something like that come across my feeds, or encountered it in person elsewhere. It just happened to be the one example I decided to use as an illustration of things I'm seeing and encountering, and not just from "random people" at that. That Facebook friend isn't a Russian Bot, he's somebody I've known for years.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2018, 06:47:38 AM
I think it is useful to separate support for Antifa goals and actions. Many more people support the goals of Antifa. Few self identify with them, lend material support, or defend their tactics. It's going down regularly talks trash about mainstream liberals because they won't join their violent struggle. So I think most people can empathize with punching somebody who wears the symbol of a group that incinerated millions of human beings, but most people don't act on it.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 19, 2018, 08:22:48 AM
I think it is useful to separate support for Antifa goals and actions. Many more people support the goals of Antifa. Few self identify with them, lend material support, or defend their tactics.
Few say anything about them at all. Their silence is the support and defense of Antifa.

It's going down regularly talks trash about mainstream liberals because they won't join their violent struggle. So I think most people can empathize with punching somebody who wears the symbol of a group that incinerated millions of human beings, but most people don't act on it.
But when they do say something, it’s to Antifa’s targets to Nazi’s. Justifying antifa. Just like you do.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2018, 08:41:25 AM
Anybody with a moderate attention span on this board knows that I have been vocal and consistent in my opposition to Antifa. Anybody who doesn't know that would be wise not to make such an assumption.

It is a bizarre standard to interpret indifference as support.

An intelligent person can separate motives and tactics, like being in favor of a united Ireland but abhorring the bombing of civilians. Only someone in a binary Trump mode would say anybody who doesn't go all in against somebody is actually in favor of them.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: rightleft22 on November 19, 2018, 10:51:10 AM
I don’t know much about Antifa goals but deplore their methods. For me they play into the hands of those they are opposing. You can’t utilize the same methods of those you are against without sooner or latter becoming what you hate. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on November 19, 2018, 11:03:20 AM
I don’t know much about Antifa goals but deplore their methods. For me they play into the hands of those they are opposing. You can’t utilize the same methods of those you are against without sooner or latter becoming what you hate.

More broadly, hate in general is a bad emotion to dwell on in the first place. The more you dwell on it, the more likely you are to fall into the trap of that which you hate.

Which makes it ironic that it is some/many of the more Conservatively inclined types who are talking about love, peace, and acceptance as the path forward rather than fighting hate with hate. But evidently the Left has given up on love and flowers.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 19, 2018, 08:44:28 PM
I don’t know much about Antifa goals but deplore their methods. For me they play into the hands of those they are opposing. You can’t utilize the same methods of those you are against without sooner or latter becoming what you hate.

More broadly, hate in general is a bad emotion to dwell on in the first place. The more you dwell on it, the more likely you are to fall into the trap of that which you hate.

That's the principal threat of Accusatory Enmity. (Remember that the Hebrew/prebiblical word "Satan" literally means nothing more than "The Accuser.")  In some forms of rhetorical analysis, what you described is called Subversion.

The flip side of Subversion in Subversion/Containment analysis is that some of the accused take on the very traits that they were once falsely accused of.  There are black gangsters who aspire to fill the very same hated/feared charicatures that the KKK and other haters developed in order to justify Jim Crow.  There is at least one subsect of Russian Judaism that seems almost like it used Protocols of the Elders of Zion (setting only aside the most outrageous blood libels) to define themselves as an insular community.  I have met leftists who define liberalism in terms they heard from Fox News, and some Feminists that seem to have modeled themselves on memes that Rush Libaugh attributed to Feminism in the early 1990s.  And German Nazis themselves committed some of their most outrageous atrocities (e.g. those involving leather made from human skin) specifically to fulfill antiGerman war falsehoods that had been invented by British Intelligence as war propaganda during World War ONE.

This is one reason that I see lies about Trump as at least as dangerous as those told about Trump.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 19, 2018, 08:45:22 PM
I also observe that you do not correct your insinuation that I was trying to hide something, or acknowledge that the survey shows equivalent levels of support for the two groups in question.

You did notice the smiley/winky face immediate after "That insinuation" didn't you? I knew you linked to the study directly, that's why the comment was made toungue-in-cheek. I wasn't aware a retraction was needed for a joke. It still also is correct that you didn't state the 8% numbers "up front"(someone would need to follow the link to find it), but I wasn't really implying and kind of dark or sinister motive behind your having left that one out.


I did not think the smiley/winky implied that your "joke" was completely unserious.  I inferred an insinuation pretending to be a joke.  But even though you brought it up again as not being "up front", I take you at your word that it was not meant to be an accusation.

As I said, the original question was the size of the movement, 12% of people know somebody, not the size of support 8% support it.  So I didn't mention the size of support.  I also didn't mention the number of pages, or the font, because it was not relevant.  Please stop implying that I left out something relevant when I clearly did not.

Quote
As far as I can tell, your survey says nothing about support and only looks at membership, or knowledge of people who are believed to have membership with said groups.

I am really at a loss to explain it any more clearly.  I made it very, very clear in a previous post (November 18, 3:35 PM) and it is right there in the link. I even provided the question number.

I apologize in advance for the shouting ....

Quote
Q4: Do you SUPPORT or oppose the following group or movement...?

8% SUPPORT Antifa
8% SUPPORT white nationalists

Can you please acknowledge that the numbers I provided are, in fact, for support, not membership?

Quote
You're also ignoring a prior post by others pointing out that your study only looked at Anti-Fa specifically in relation to a collection of other groups. So there are valid questions about methodology in play here.

Is your impression that Antifa is a specific group, and white nationalism is a collection of groups? 

Indeed, someone said "Your data compares only one violent leftist group to an entire group of right wing groups." I did not address it, since it had been disproven earlier.  But since it appears to be a thing, I will quote someone on the thread who disagrees with me.

"There is no unitary organization named Antifa"  So it is a collection of groups.

The Wikipedia article that says "The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant[7] groups in the United States." 

Do I need to provide more sources?

More importantly, the statement I was disproving was this

Quote
Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

and later this

Quote
The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

So I didn't choose to compare "Antifa specifically [sic] in comparison to a collection of other groups".  That is exactly how it was framed by others.  The survey matches their claims exactly, and proves them wrong. That is my only point, that all the data available right now says these claims are wrong.

Quote
That you also require a survey to demonstrate something which most of us are plainly seeing on our social media feeds and/or daily lives on a regular basis raises other questions but they're not entirely relevant to this board.

I don't require anything.  Please acknowledge that.

And my response is still the same as it was last time.

Quote
I am not trying to troll, or be difficult.  But do you acknowledge that a properly conducted survey has more validity than the opinion of one person of what people think?  If not, please let me know, and I will stop trying to make that point with you.

With all due respect, what you see on your "social media feeds and/or daily lives on a regular basis" is anecdotal. It most emphatically is not reliable data all by itself.

I really don't like getting confrontational like this.  I will politely request that you address this comment so we can move forward respectfully.

When determining the opinions and views of a large, diverse population, a properly conducted survey of over 5000 people has more validity than the opinion of one person based on his or her individual social interactions.

If you disagree with that statement, let me know, and we will agree to disagree.  But please respond one way or the other.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 19, 2018, 09:57:11 PM
Another reason that I see Black Block and AntiFa as more dangerous that American White Supremacists at this exact point in  history:

White Supremacists and other conservative hate groups appear to currently receive indirect financial support and/or media facebook "promotion" (in fact false flag pseudosupport) from Putin's agents.

While

Black Block, AntiFa and even BLM have been actually infiltrated by folks bought off by Russian agents (e.g. Marissa Johnson).

The fact that AntiFa, BLM, as well as the contemporary sheetheads have some useful idiots that appear to renounce violence, makes all of those groups more opaque and gives cover to dangerous terrorists within the ranks.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 26, 2018, 10:47:50 AM
There is no unitary organization named Antifa, ergo I don't have an actual statement from it.

Is it just my opinion?  No.  There are numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa and/or organizing events where its "members" showed up specifically endorsing a philosophical right to violence to shut down others speech.

This request seems to be in bad faith, unless you are claiming you have no awareness of Antifa's position, in which case why are you commenting?

You originally cited a statement of beliefs.  Thank you for your clarification that such a statement does not exist.

I see, so it is bad faith.  I said there are multiple statements of belief, not that none exist.  Anti-fa is a cell based organization, it's a classic organizational model for organizations that intend to violate the law as prevents actions of one cell from rolling into and exposing others.  The IRA used the same structure in Ireland, and there is a ton of historical evidence showing that it's leaders and it's cells often went in different directions.

I read multiple statements from self proclaimed cells advocating violence.  The only way you could have not done so is to be willfully blind.  I have not bookmarked them, but I note you can find online descriptions from multiple newspapers that include quotes about Antifa violence.

Quote
I have no awareness of Antifa's position, other than, as you admit, they have no position.

That's quite the reading comprehension fail.  Is it bad faith or just trolling again?

Quote
So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

I have memories, and you have google, knock yourself out.  Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar, notwithstanding the information being widely available, and then sit back to nit pick citations that will always have failings.

There literally hundreds of quotes on this topic, I'm giving you an F on your research.

Quote
Quote
Quote
How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.

Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

I disagree with just about all of the opinions that make up your statement  I could find the sources that disprove your statements, but the burden is on you to back them up.  As soon as you do, I look forward to the discussion.

That's nice. Of course, very little of that was opinion.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on November 26, 2018, 10:56:50 AM
I'll try again:

It's Going Down (http://itsgoingdown.org)

This semi-autonomous group glorifies and advocates violence of the type generally associated with Antifa. They are the best source for what that particular group of anarchist revolutionaries thinks. I would start there, velcro. It isn't edited by some news organization, manipulated by the alt-right, and it regularly contains contributions that describe tactics to be used against the police in order to get at white nationalists at a rally or march.

I'd copy their statements of beliefs, but my company is smart enough to block access.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 26, 2018, 05:01:04 PM
Oh what the hell, I'll find some sources.

 Ipsos poll (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017-Reuters-UVA-Ipsos-Race-Poll-9-11-2017.pdf)

Obvious racists: 3% to 16%
All races are equal: Strongly disagree 4%, Somewhat disagree 3%
All races should be treated equally: Strongly disagree 1%, Somewhat disagree 2%
Marriage should only be allowed between people of the same race. Strongly agree 10%, Somewhat agree 6%

You don't like this poll?  Feel free to supply your own.

I don't find that the poll was relevant to the question. 

You questioned why I thought racism was essentially dead as a movement until the media recently brought it back to life.  It's because of things like the massive decline of organizations like the KKK.  Going from millions of followers openly influencing state, local and even federal government, to less than 10,000 followers with virtually no political power, openly reviled by everyone, and fired from any jobs they get if their connections become public (one of Antifa's public services is doxxing anyone that is a (or that they believe) is a racist).

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan)

I also recall, but can't locate, a CNN chart that was on the Rachel Maddow show that reflected the actual level of racists by political party from a few years back, where on air they claimed it showed Republican racism, yet, the chart showed pretty clearly that the amount of white racists in the two parties were about equal.  Not citing it to start the political debate, but only because they were looking to maximize the numbers and they were (from memory) under 1% for each party.  Let's be honest, other kinds of racism have been increasing but that's not what anyone is concerned about.

I don't have ton of confidence in an online poll such as the Ipsos one you cited to.  They can't even calculate expected error, and don't use random sampling. 

In any event, Antifa is again - a cell based organization - that means secrecy is about who is in the organization is part of the MO.  That would mean you would be very unlikely to know that an acquantence is a member. 

Not the quality of something I'd rely on, but given you seemingly want "numbers of citations" rather than quality of input, here's a large write up from the scary side of what Antifa is.  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235)

Quote
Quote
Scale.  Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

12% of respondents said they know someone in Antifa.  White nationalists?  13% This is with 2,225 Democrats, 1,915 Republicans, and 689 independents.

The Southern Law Poverty Center counts out the number of "hate groups" rather than the numbers of members, and they do this for a reason.  It's very difficult to determine exactly how many people are white nationalists, and I have not convincing evidence on actual numbers in quite a while.  In my view, that's largely because the actual numbers were too unthreatening to maintain the "threat."  I mean, the SLPC saying that there are 600 hate groups, is a lot scarier than saying there are  10k or even 100k white nationlists in a country of 350million.  Meanwhile, it's similarly difficult to count the size of Antifa, but it's not remotely difficult to see the difference in tolerance.   

Or you could just acknowledge that after decades of decline, from millions to a few thousands, after the increased coverage they are apparently increasing in numbers.  SLPC says that white and black hate groups have been increasing over the last 2 years, not clear though whether the two groups follow the same trend (over the last few decades the pro-white groups have tended to be fairly small, and I don't have an info on the pro-black ones or the newest white ones).  SLPC steadfastedly refuses to track Antifa (again, because the left openly tolerates them no matter how terroristic they become).

As to why I think the support is different, your own survey, flawed though it is, shows that the "opposition" to Antifa is only 39%.  That may reflect that those surveyed  are confused about who they are, which may be why the "Alt Right" isn't as opposed as the neo nazis or white nationalists, notwithstanding they are fairly similar ideological.  I think the numbers show a high level of disengagement by survey participants, where 52% "don't know" or "neither support or oppose" Antifa and 42% have the same response on the Alt Right.

Quote
I have a serious question. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but in order have meaningful communication, I would like to have a better understanding of your thinking process.

Do you do research before you publish your comments? You sound very confident of your statements, and you appear to be very knowledgeable in general, so readers are inclined to take you at your word.

And you wonder why I think you're a troll.  So to translate, you mean to be insulting and disrespectful, so you'll start your statement with the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm not a racist but...."

Do I research every sentence immediately prior to posting it? No.  Before a typical post, have I read dozens to hundreds of articles, reports and studies on a topic prior to posting?  Yes.

Do I flag my opinions as opinions, often, maybe even usually.  Do I state things a facts that I don't have a reasonable basis to believe?  Almost never, and almost always only by accident.  Do I respond to good faith requests for more information - yes.  Do I respond to bad faith ones where the poster is only attempting to undermine my credibility so that he can score a rhetorical point without doing the work?  Only if I feel like it.

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that using a rhetorical trick to claim that which someone else does not support is disproven is just that, a trick.  Whether I choose to provide a citation has no bearing on whether what I said is a fact or not.

I already know that you've rarely done the homework yourself, that's why you just tell me to prove it and the act like you proven the contrary.

Quote
If this is just an opportunity for you to confidently state your opinion, then I have no issue.  Opine to your heart's content.  But please make that clear so we can treat it as such.

"we"?  Who's the "we" to which you refer? 

Like everyone on a message board, the comments are opinions, even when they are informed by facts.  Intelligent people who disagree about whether the better plan is to increase welfare or decrease welfare to help the poor, are not often disagreeing about the facts, they are usually disagreeing about their relative importance, about their interpretation and mostly about what will happen with them going forward.

Quote
And please note that "My opinion is that Antifa is massive compared to white nationalism" doesn't make sense, since that is not really a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of mathematics.)

No that's just a mess, and a strawman.  The problem of Antifa is massive compared to the problem of white nationlism, and that's specifically because the first is tolerated by those on the left, while the latter is repugnant to both the left and the right.  Violence in politics should be something that all good people oppose, not something that leads to some people arguing that the victims deserved it in a country that values free speech.

As to the math point, the number of white nationlists and the number of antifa are facts, whether there's anything but a guess by an "expert" is not something that seems to be the case.  It is my opinion, based on extensive reading that Antifa is bigger in raw numbers.  It is a fact that they are tolerated by a larger part of the population.

Quote
If you claim your statements to be fact, then I will continue to research them and point out when they are not.  Nothing personal, as long as there are no personal attacks on me.

If might more productive to a discussion if you actually think you've found a false claim that I've made to put the evidence out there.  I think you rarely fail to make personal attacks, but you are always quick to claim the high road and claim you are not.

I've noted you seem to be an extremely black and white thinker.  You find a cite that seems to agree with you and declare the matter settled as if it's unimpeachable, with the only medium of argument that you accept another random citation - that you then gleefully tear apart (only other people's sources have credibility problems).  It's the kind of thing that's made me occasionally want to publish on a topic so I can cite to it later.

Quote
It seems that the best way to post is to make factual statements with sources, and then state opinions clearly as such. Stating facts without sources, and having it turn out that they are completely wrong seems like a very inefficient way to have a discussion.  Just my opinion.

I am willing to cite to things that I think are difficult to find, or that I happen to have read recently.  I'm not willing to dig for articles that I've accrued over decades of education, or try and unwind search engine bias to find things that have substantial time lags since they were published.  Nor is it remotely reasonable to ask someone to do so. Lucky for you I'm rarely wrong on remembered facts.

Like I said, I'm willing to look for sources to clarify confusion or to correct misunderstandings.  I'm less willing to waste my time to respond to unnecessary demands made solely as an agrumental tactic.

Quote
Please let me know your thoughts.

My thought is that you're still trolling.  You almost always make a personal attack rather than a response to the argument put forward.  You routinely pretend like a lack of citation is proof of the opposite conclusion, where at best there's no logical inference from a lack of citation.  You almost never ask for any clarification in good faith, for example, I've never once seen you say, I did some research on this point, and I think "x". 

You also routinely fail to differentiate between a fact in question and an entire argument, which compounds your habit of believing that you can assume the negative of any statement of fact with which you disagree (usually without any basis).   
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 26, 2018, 05:12:13 PM
Seriati said, explicitly, "Antifa's statement of beliefs".  He didn't say message, or clear set of beliefs, the words you are putting in his mouth.  He said "statement".  Words have meaning.

And he also clarified his statement.  I should mentioned this tactic as well, focusing on a hyper specific interpretation or misfocusing on a few words out of context (as you did with the parenthetical in the guns debate) to strawman an entire argument.

I have read quotes from many self proclaimed members that express that belief.  Is that a "statement" of beliefs?  The belief as been attributed to the group by multiple sources as a material part of their philosophy.

But I'm going to flip this.  Are you seriously asserting its not part of their core beliefs?  I don't there's any reasonable basis for that claim, which means this is nothing more than a tactic in an argument and not a serious attempt to add to the knowledge or the debate.  Seriously, it's like calling someone out for spelling.

Quote
There is empirical data that wasps sting things.  Sources can be cited.  But in this case, Seriati did not make a data-based observation, because he provided no data.

What a logic fail.  The fact that data was not handed to you does not necessitate the conclusion that a data based observation was not made.

Quote
Not a drop.  I asked for some.  If he provides some, we can have a discussion.  But until then, it is just his opinion.

Again a logic fail and faulty argument.  Facts exist independent of whether I spoon feed them to you.  And they don't become "just an opinion" simply because you decree it.  Again, and this is basic logic, you can't assume the inverse of a factual claim just because you decide to do so.

Quote
Or since you claim there are data-based observations, could you please point out the data you refer to?  Please don't introduce new data, that is not the point.  I respectfully request that you specify the extant data in this thread you refer to.  Or you could simply retract your claim of data-based observation.

And this is why I conclude that you make these claims in bad faith.  You seem to be demanding a citation from a poster about my lack of citations that you find satisfying.  Congratulations, you win the internet!
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on November 27, 2018, 09:37:38 AM
As to why I think racists are completely not tolerated and at risk of losing their jobs and being ostracized, you have stories like this, where that's exactly what happened.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/fsu-fan-behind-racist-post-of-coach-willie-taggart-is-fired (https://www.foxnews.com/sports/fsu-fan-behind-racist-post-of-coach-willie-taggart-is-fired)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 29, 2018, 10:29:31 PM

Quote
So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

I have memories, and you have google, knock yourself out. 

I carefully read all your responses, and your explanation for why you don’t provide sources.

I ask this respectfully:

Do you expect readers here to trust your statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because you “have memories” that back them up?

Do you expect that when you make a controversial statement, we are responsible for finding the external verification, not you?


I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that the answer to those questions need to be “no” in order to have any fact-based and rational discussion here.

You don’t like my “internet poll”, conducted by Reuters/ipsos/University of Virginia?  As I said, show us another one.  But right now that is the only data anyone has provided.

A few more points I would like to make:

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.

Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

I disagree with just about all of the opinions that make up your statement  I could find the sources that disprove your statements, but the burden is on you to back them up.  As soon as you do, I look forward to the discussion.

That's nice. Of course, very little of that was opinion.

In order to prove that is is not opinion, you need to provide facts to back the statements up.  That is the definition of opinion - if you have no facts, it is opinion.

These are perfectly valid opinions.  I would not disagree with some of them, if they were not grossly exaggerated to the point of absurdity.   But they simply are not facts. I pointed out the true characterization, but your reply seems to disagree.  Prove me wrong. Or admit that they are opinions.  I don't care which.

One more thing.

Quote
That's quite the reading comprehension fail.  Is it bad faith or just trolling again?

Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar,
I'm giving you an F on your research.

And you wonder why I think you're a troll.  So to translate, you mean to be insulting and disrespectful, so you'll start your statement with the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm not a racist but...."

Do I respond to bad faith ones where the poster is only attempting to undermine my credibility so that he can score a rhetorical point without doing the work

I already know that you've rarely done the homework yourself, that's why you just tell me to prove it and the act like you proven the contrary.

You find a cite that seems to agree with you and declare the matter settled as if it's unimpeachable, with the only medium of argument that you accept another random citation - that you then gleefully tear apart (only other people's sources have credibility problems). 

My thought is that you're still trolling.  You almost always make a personal attack rather than a response to the argument put forward.  You routinely pretend like a lack of citation is proof of the opposite conclusion, where at best there's no logical inference from a lack of citation.  You almost never ask for any clarification in good faith, for example, I've never once seen you say, I did some research on this point, and I think "x".  

You also routinely fail to differentiate between a fact in question and an entire argument, which compounds your habit of believing that you can assume the negative of any statement of fact with which you disagree (usually without any basis).   

What a logic fail.

Facts exist independent of whether I spoon feed them to you.  And they don't become "just an opinion" simply because you decree it
.  Again, and this is basic logic, you can't assume the inverse of a factual claim just because you decide to do so.

 I think you rarely fail to make personal attacks, but you are always quick to claim the high road and claim you are not.

Hard to tell exactly, but I count somewhere around 11 or 12 direct personal attacks.  Certainly false accusations, unsupported in any way. Many of your statements are flatly contradicted by things I have posted.

You claimed I “rarely fail to make personal attacks”.

Here I go claiming the high road:

Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.  Hell, quote one personal attack I made in the last 6 months.  Then say where I called you a liar.

I will donate $25 to the charity of your choice if you can find one personal attack. $50 if you can find 11 in 6 months, to compare to your 11 in 3 days.

I looked back a few months and the worst I found was that I said that if you made claims and did not provide sources, people on Ornery would not trust you. And I made a crack about “semantic gymnastics” in reference to your distracting from the actual points being made.  After calling me a liar, you attributed a false quote to me, and I replied that if you don't provide sources to back up your quote, I would call you a liar, with a smiley face after.  I never followed through, even though you never provided the documentation for the false quote. 

I also noticed that you called me a liar multiple times, but never actually got around to proving it, or even providing a single quote of where I lied.

Please stop calling me a liar when you have nothing to back it up.
Please stop saying I attack you unless you have quotes to back it up.


But back to the actual discussion.

I have linked to a poll. You have explained why you don’t like the poll, but provided no actual data to support your claims. That is how it stands.

You asked a question:
Quote
Are you seriously asserting its not part of their core beliefs?  I don't there's any reasonable basis for that claim, which means this is nothing more than a tactic in an argument and not a serious attempt to add to the knowledge or the debate.  Seriously, it's like calling someone out for spelling.

Nope, I am not seriously asserting that.  I am not jokingly asserting that.  I never asserted anything like that.  You accuse me of a tactic based on behavior that never happened. In essence, you made up a statement and attributed it to me with no evidence at all, then used that as evidence that I am arguing in bad faith.  Kind of funny, if it were the first time you did that.

My statement was not that "violence is not a part of their core beliefs".  It was a question about whether an anarchistic collection of isolated groups had a specific statement of beliefs, as you stated, before you "clarified".  I asked for sources to prove your claim, which you have not provided.  That is all I did.

If you can find where I made the assertion you claim I made, then please quote it.  I fully admit I could be wrong.

If you can’t quote it, then your accusation is false.  Would you admit you are wrong?

Do you wish to clarify your question?

Oh, and this is not trolling.  I simply point out when you say things and can't back them up.  Looking back at your unsubstantiated assertions about Richard Blumenthal's  claims to have served in Vietnam, (another donation to charity in that thread, left unclaimed) your claims about my math errors in the Air Force One thread (you never pointed them out), and others over the years, you do it on a regular basis. 

I don't trust anyone who just types something on a website. You seem to expect that trust.  I trust sources, and you don't provide them when asked.  I provide sources when asked, every time, or I retract the statement.  I made that claim before, and I stand by it.  You don't.

I don't want to be confrontational.  All I ask is that you provide sources for claims you make,  just like I do. Why is that so difficult?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 29, 2018, 10:46:41 PM
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery

You do not.

Quote
Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.

For reasons that are your own, you seem to have made it a personal project to pick a bone with Seriati. I will grant that there is ample material among the posts of various people here to levy objections or refutations, but little that I can see to have engaged in what looks to my eye like a straight quarrel. You can deny that it's an attack, but it certainly looks personal.

Quote
I don't want to be confrontational.

Lol?

Just bear in mind, velcro, no one here is under any obligation to agree with anything you say, even if it's accurate and reasonable (in your opinion). Someone who disagrees is not obliged to admit you were right all along when you provide a source, and even what you see as irrational defense of indefensible positions it their prerogative so long (IMO) as it remains collegial and civil.

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on November 29, 2018, 11:21:11 PM
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery

You do not.

What, specifically, do you disagree with?  If you don't give specifics, your response is not particularly informative.

Quote
Quote
Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.

For reasons that are your own, you seem to have made it a personal project to pick a bone with Seriati. I will grant that there is ample material among the posts of various people here to levy objections or refutations, but little that I can see to have engaged in what looks to my eye like a straight quarrel. You can deny that it's an attack, but it certainly looks personal.

I deny that it is an ad-hominem attack. I was using Seriati's phrasing, which I should not, because it was unclear.
I deny that my asking for sources is personal.  When anyone here makes statements that I believe are false or misleading, and I can't find any corroboration for that statement, I ask for sources.  Seriati does not provide them, and then makes ad-hominem attacks.  Do you deny that?
Once the ad-hominem attacks on me start, yes, that becomes personal.  But again, the record shows who makes the ad-hominem attacks.

Quote
Quote
I don't want to be confrontational.

Lol?

Just bear in mind, velcro, no one here is under any obligation to agree with anything you say, even if it's accurate and reasonable (in your opinion). Someone who disagrees is not obliged to admit you were right all along when you provide a source, and even what you see as irrational defense of indefensible positions it their prerogative so long (IMO) as it remains collegial and civil.

I am perfectly aware of that, thank you. You are implying attitudes that I do not demonstrate. 

I don't expect people to agree with *anything* I say even if it is accurate and reasonable.   
I don't expect people to admit I was right all along when I provide a source
If you have quotes that demonstrate that I believe that, please provide them.  Otherwise, you are making false inferences.  I don't appreciate that.

I expect people to acknowledge that, when I provide a specific link from a reputable source that establishes certain facts, that they stop repeating their claims in direct contradiction to the established facts.

I expect people to acknowledge when they do not have any factual basis for their statements, or at least stop repeating the claims as if they were established facts.

I expect people to defend their positions with sources, not belittle me for declining to believe their memories are infallible.

I have no problem with irrational defense of indefensible positions, when they are stated as opinion, or they are acknowledged as irrational or indefensible.

I do have a problem with irrational defense of indefensible positions when they are stated as fact, and when they are repeated after debunking.  That is called lying, and I have a problem with that. Do you?

I point out the lack of sources or the false claims collegially and civilly.  I receive ad-hominem attacks in return.  Do you deny this?


Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on November 30, 2018, 07:53:19 AM
The old, “I’m perfectly reasonable when people are stupid and lying” defense. Man, that never gets old.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on November 30, 2018, 11:42:29 AM
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery

You do not.

What, specifically, do you disagree with?  If you don't give specifics, your response is not particularly informative.

It's sad that you think I need to qualify why you don't speak for everyone on Ornery.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on November 30, 2018, 02:10:48 PM
Quote
I carefully read all your responses, and your explanation for why you don’t provide sources.

I ask this respectfully:

Do you expect readers here to trust your statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because you “have memories” that back them up?

Do you expect that when you make a controversial statement, we are responsible for finding the external verification, not you?

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that the answer to those questions need to be “no” in order to have any fact-based and rational discussion here.

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on December 02, 2018, 09:17:07 AM
I'm just checking in to see if Seriati provided any documentation for his claim that I made "personal attacks".  I will check in again in a week, since I did promise to make a donation if he actually provides it.

Other than that, the way it stands is this:

A claim was made that Antifa was much larger than white nationalism.  No evidence was provided to support the claim.

I provided evidence that the size of the groups, and the size of the support, was about equal for both groups, indicating the claim was false. 

My evidence was dismissed as flimsy (I disagree), but no other evidence to support the claim was provided.

I don't think these facts are in dispute.

Somehow my disputation of an unsupported claim was distorted into me insisting everyone agrees with me.

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery

You do not.

What, specifically, do you disagree with?  If you don't give specifics, your response is not particularly informative.

It's sad that you think I need to qualify why you don't speak for everyone on Ornery.

Let me make this clear:

I don't claim to speak for everyone on Ornery as a blanket statement, as your last line implies. You left out the rest of the sentence, which distorts the meaning.  Please try to refrain from doing that.

For example, I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that ad hominem attacks are unacceptable.

Does everyone agree with that statement?  Then I do speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that.  Fact.

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that

In order to have rational and fact-based discussions:

-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.

If you agree, then "I speak for you when I say" them.  That is what that phrase means.

My question was which elements of those specific statements you disagree with, so I could understand why you disagree.  That's all.

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on December 02, 2018, 11:06:46 AM
velcro,

Even if the entire clause following "I think I speak for everyone on Ornery" was a statement that was agreeable to me it would still be true that you don't speak for me when you say it. I hope that's clear. So when I omitted the ensuing clause from me previous post it was in no way a distortion of your statement, because any clause at all following your claim would have met with the same reaction from me, no matter how much I agree or disagree with it. And let's be clear: you used that deliberately strong language to create the impression that everyone here is united against what you perceive Seriati was doing in his posts, and that is flatly untrue. I'm not going to let you weasel out of that, which I why I called you on it.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 03, 2018, 06:44:29 AM
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that nobody speaks for everyone on Ornery.

  ;)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on December 03, 2018, 09:51:32 AM
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that nobody speaks for everyone on Ornery.

  ;)
Easy to get mixed up and think you are on The Agreeable American website.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on December 03, 2018, 06:50:13 PM
I carefully read all your responses, and your explanation for why you don’t provide sources.

I do provide sources velcro, I just think you ask for them in bad faith.  It's a tactic for you.

Quote
I ask this respectfully:

Do you expect readers here to trust your statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because you “have memories” that back them up?

I do expect that readers here react in good faith, and you know what, for the most part they do so.  Very little of the statements that anyone makes on here are so far out of the common knowledge as to require exceptional proof.  And I do think that people can trust I've read what I say I've read, though I've never required they do so.

Quote
Do you expect that when you make a controversial statement, we are responsible for finding the external verification, not you?[/b]

Depends on what makes it "controversial"?  For the most part, the only thing that makes the things I've said "controversial" is that you personal object to them.  Not because you have any evidence they are untrue mind, if that were the case it would be something else, only because as a tactic if you "object" you seem to believe it proves the opposite.

And I would be happy to give more support for something that is more controversial.  Though, to the extent it's a conclusion there may not be such a thing as support in the way you seem to want.

Quote
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that the answer to those questions need to be “no” in order to have any fact-based and rational discussion here.

I think others have told you you don't speak for them.  Fact-based rational discussion is benefited by sourcing, but it's not a necessary condition.  The sky is blue, whether or not a citation to it is proffered.  Of course, the sky is also not blue, in other circumstances, again whether or not a citation is proffered. 

Even without a citation, one can often contribute by pointing out logical fallacies and inconsistencies. 

I'm still not seeing what actual benefit there is to your apparent rule - Seriati is always wrong and the inverse is true - unless Seriati deigns to provide the entire record of his facts process, the "analysis" that you seem to think I'm having someone else do on my behalf and the conclusions that are reached.  Are you under the mistaken impression that conclusions I reach are the work of someone else, to whom I could cite?

In this case, I think it's fairly indisputable the basis on which I described that Antifa is more of a threat than racists - specifically the size of the group that tolerates them.  I've put forward a number of reasonable explanations, and even some references (not just links) to why I think that.  It's still a conclusion.  Whether they are larger in raw numbers, I believe so based on indirect reporting and their impact, but I don't have any good direct sources for that proposition.

It's also a conclusion that the numerous statements you can find from their members endorsing violence, the media summaries of their beliefs, the famous "quotes" attributable to them (like 'punch a nazi') that it should have stood to common knowledge that political violence is core to their beliefs.  It's not even clear to me that you dispute this, only that much like a grammar argument, you want a very specific recitation to be added to the record or for me to acknowledge a loss of points? 

Quote
You don’t like my “internet poll”, conducted by Reuters/ipsos/University of Virginia?  As I said, show us another one.  But right now that is the only data anyone has provided.

Is it?  Or did you miss the rest?

In any event, I found the poll non-credible, I don't have a like/not like view on it.  It also doesn't address the question that was presented in the thread so even by your count there is no data on the thread.

Quote
Quote
Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

In order to prove that is is not opinion, you need to provide facts to back the statements up.  That is the definition of opinion - if you have no facts, it is opinion.

Removed the garbage banter that was between the two points.  You are correct, if I wanted to prove it in a court I would have to do so.  Do I have to do so on an internet board?  Not really, most people are capable of reaching a conclusion based on what I said and their own personal knowledge on the topic.  Only someone who doesn't know enough to discuss would ask for proof from ground zero, or alternatively, someone using the demand as a tactic. 

There's an entire history of legal theory development that has blended into social science research specifically because of the decline and disapparence of open racism.  How do you maintain the claim of a racist society when you can't find racists in numbers?  Whether you believe it or not really doesn't trouble me.  Asking me to "prove" it just seems childish. 

In any event, I pointed you the the SLPC, which is a source after your own heart, and even there you'd have trouble showing anything but a massive decline over decades.

Quote
No person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization. Provide facts, not anecdotes, to prove this.

Lol.  You didn't like the story I linked?   I don't know what walk of life you are in that an open racist is not ostracized, but this is as close to common knowledge as it gets. 

Quote
Even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  Provide facts about the “well below 1%”, and about “virtually everyone was a racist”  Polls, not anecdotes.

You need a poll to know that the history of America was racist?  That whites owned blacks and justified it as a natural right of the superior race?  That in our living memories, open racism was common and the KKK had millions of members?

You understand the entire premise of the claims people have made on here about the Southern Strategy are premised on the general level of racism being common knowledge?

The 1% number is what I remember from an MSNBC graphic on the Rachel Maddow Show.  I've also seen over the years various surveys that show self identified racists as a vanishingly small portion of the population.  It's hard to find any such older data on Google because of the way it's algorithms work.  I did link to the 538 data a while back, and it definitely showed the declining trend - in both parties - up to exactly the point of Obama's election (but it was tracking the much broader category of attitudes - not hard racism).

Quote
no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism.  Provide facts that “no” intellectual movement did this.  Not a single one.

I'm just declining that nonsensical request.  it's certainly possible that there are some out there, however, I don't think any reasonable person misunderstood what I meant when I said that.  Nor is the inability to prove a negative even remotely prejudicial to the validity of what I said.

On the other hand if you think I'm "lying" or whatever the heck you think I'm doing, evidence of a major intellectual movement endorsing racism should be easy to find and cause me to "eat" my words.

Quote
that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity. Provide facts that “every” learning opportunity had this characteristic.  Every one.

I don't think anyone was confused by what I said.  But on the off chance everyone else here is so dogmatic that they can't parse the meaning of that sentence, which I serious doubt, anti-racism dominates higher education to such an extent as to be virtually the exclusive credo and any contrary credo is ruthlessly suppressed.

I'm not aware of any institution of higher learning that openly endorses white on black racism.

Quote
These are perfectly valid opinions.  I would not disagree with some of them, if they were not grossly exaggerated to the point of absurdity.   But they simply are not facts.

What's interesting is that you're almost being logical here, but not quite.  You don't know if they are facts, well except in a purely hyperbolic sense that no one in conversational English is acting legitimately when they use it dispute a statement.  It's actually, once a again, a false conclusion (that they are not facts) that you are asserting.

They may be facts, they in theory may not, that's independent of whether I prove them.

Quote
I pointed out the true characterization, but your reply seems to disagree.  Prove me wrong. Or admit that they are opinions.  I don't care which.

Well except, you didn't point out "true characterizations."   You no more established facts than you claim I did, in fact in many cases you seem to think objecting to a statement is proof of its inverse (unless I jump through imaginary hoops set by you to "reestablish the fact," in which case you can throw out a conflicting link and think you've won the day). 

I think I've spent a good bit more time on substantive argument than you have.

Quote
That's quite the reading comprehension fail.  Is it bad faith or just trolling again?

You've pulled this out like it was unfair?  Your response grossly mischaraterized my response, leading me to conclude that it was a failure to comprehend them or just a troll.  You seem to think your highly technical and essential non-substantive response was good faith of some sort? 

Quote
Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar,
I'm giving you an F on your research.

The inference from your challenge about whether I have sources or its "just" my opinion after my statement that I read it in multiple places from multiple members of Anti-fa, is that I am lying.  I also seriously doubt that anyone looking into the topic in good faith failed to find similar quotes, hence the "F."

But I do find your selective editing, once again, interesting and deliberately designed to mislead.  The full quote is here:

"I have memories, and you have google, knock yourself out.  Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar, notwithstanding the information being widely available, and then sit back to nit pick citations that will always have failings.

There literally hundreds of quotes on this topic, I'm giving you an F on your research."

What legitimate purpose was there to edit the quote?

Quote
This is literally true.  Demanding a source for every claim and then assuming the inverse is true is a burden shift.  No one has time to track down a citation for every sentence.

You seem to find this insulting?  It's just true, the standard to cite every sentence exists no where.  Not to mention, in compiling this list you ignored all substance, every reference and every citation, which kind of proves to me that there is no good faith behind your requests.

Quote
Hard to tell exactly, but I count somewhere around 11 or 12 direct personal attacks.

You seem to have confused personal attacks with critiques of style and argumentation in many cases.  Given that you seem to dedicate entire posts to complaining directly about me to an "audience" for whom you seem to think you speak, it seems incredible that you'd make the claim.

Quote
Certainly false accusations, unsupported in any way. Many of your statements are flatly contradicted by things I have posted.

Well I'm not going to reread your entire history of obsessive focus on my posts to see if you've "contradicted" me.  Mostly you seem to think a challenge is the same thing as a response and then move forward as if it were a refutation.  Once again, I find myself "feeding" you when I probably shouldn't.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on December 08, 2018, 07:51:45 AM
velcro,

Even if the entire clause following "I think I speak for everyone on Ornery" was a statement that was agreeable to me it would still be true that you don't speak for me when you say it.

That may be your interpretation, but to the best of my knowledge it is in contradiction to common usage. We can agree to disagree on that point.

To avoid the conflict of your interpretation, could you please just tell me if you agree or disagree with the statements?

-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.


Quote
you used that deliberately strong language to create the impression that everyone here is united against what you perceive Seriati was doing in his posts, and that is flatly untrue.

Ok, prove that it is flatly untrue.  Find someone besides Seriati who disagrees with the two statements above.  It should be very simple if you know that my statement is flatly untrue.  And note, this is independent of what I perceive Seriati has done.  This is an independent statement of expectations of readers.  So any distractions on this point that Seriati does or does not practice them is worthy of discussion separately, but should not be used to, well, distract.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on December 08, 2018, 08:22:51 AM

You claimed I “rarely fail to make personal attacks”.

Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.  Hell, quote one personal attack I made in the last 6 months.  Then say where I called you a liar.

I will donate $25 to the charity of your choice if you can find one personal attack. $50 if you can find 11 in 6 months, to compare to your 11 in 3 days.

I looked back a few months and the worst I found was that I said that if you made claims and did not provide sources, people on Ornery would not trust you. And I made a crack about “semantic gymnastics” in reference to your distracting from the actual points being made.  After calling me a liar, you attributed a false quote to me, and I replied that if you don't provide sources to back up your quote, I would call you a liar, with a smiley face after.  I never followed through, even though you never provided the documentation for the false quote. 

I also noticed that you called me a liar multiple times, but never actually got around to proving it, or even providing a single quote of where I lied.

Please stop calling me a liar when you have nothing to back it up.
Please stop saying I attack you unless you have quotes to back it up.


With about 2000 words in the last post, Seriati did not address this.

The offer for the $25 donation has been retracted.

Back to the actual argument, Seriati initially said

Quote
Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

Now he says

Quote
Whether they are larger in raw numbers, I believe so based on indirect reporting and their impact, but I don't have any good direct sources for that proposition.

Thank you for the clarification.  That agrees entirely with my point all along, i.e. you have no solid facts to support the original statement. Memories, claims of reading things (that we have no sources for, so we must trust your interpretation of your readings implicitly), social media feeds, but no facts.

I have polls from respected news organizations/universities to say that the two groups have equivalent size and support.

That simple summary of the situation has not changed.

And please note, despite what Seriati says, I did not claim anything about Antifa, or their non-existent "statement of belief".  I am only saying that Seriati is getting out over his skis when he makes sweeping claims like this without evidence.

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on December 11, 2018, 10:32:11 AM
-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.

Quote
Find someone besides Seriati who disagrees with the two statements above.

That's a fools errand, since even I don't disagree with those statements.  No is expected to trust statements implicitly (by which you seem to mean that one can't dispute claims).  I do expect them to understand the claims are made in good faith and with a basis (which is were you routinely fail).  Relying on the honesty of the other person (while acknowledging they may be wrong or you may disagree with their conclusions) is the basis of conversation.  Disputing a claim in good faith is always welcome, disputation as a tactic not so much.  People on here share their knowledge and expertise all the time, and you either trust that they are honest in what they share or not.

Again you are not remotely the arbiter for what is controversial.  If I said Donald Trump is 100% truthful in all things that would be a controversial statement requiring extraordinary proof, if on the other hand I said those fact checking Donald Trump are often being misleading as well that's not a controversial statement.

Quote
It should be very simple if you know that my statement is flatly untrue.  And note, this is independent of what I perceive Seriati has done.  This is an independent statement of expectations of readers.  So any distractions on this point that Seriati does or does not practice them is worthy of discussion separately, but should not be used to, well, distract.

And you wonder why I say you're trolling me.  You seem to have an obsessive focus on me.  Very little of which is focused on disputing the actual arguments made, and almost all of it on process attacks (which again, are not proof of the inverse).
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on December 15, 2018, 12:08:43 PM
Quote
Relying on the honesty of the other person (while acknowledging they may be wrong or you may disagree with their conclusions) is the basis of conversation.

This is a good starting point.  But when people make claims that are false, "relying on honesty" is no longer the guiding principle.  You may honestly believe your claim is true, but the claim is in fact false.  It is not about your honesty.  It is about the truth or falsity of your claim.

For example:

Seriati wrote:
Quote
Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  [that Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

I searched carefully, and there were just "two occasions".  I say your claim is false. I am focusing "on disputing the actual arguments made"

I do not "rely on your honesty".  I ask that you provide some evidence besides "I read it somewhere".

You may have misremembered.  That is fine. I will not criticize you for that.
You may have some other sources that you have drawn your conclusion from.  Provide the sources and the reasoning, and we can discuss it.

Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

But in this case, you have provided absolutely no external verification.  If you have something, show it.  If I missed it in your link, pull out the actual quotes.  If it is somewhere else, provide the source.  If you don't, then do not expect anyone to trust your statements.  As the bolded words above say.  The words you "don't disagree with".

I offered $50 to the charity of your choice if you provide evidence for more than two occasions.  Twice.  You never responded.
I will extend that for a week.

I call out people who post things that I believe are false.  I don't have an obsessive focus on you.  You happen to be the person who does it the most often.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on December 15, 2018, 12:25:59 PM
So let me get this straight: good faith conversation requires not only honest intent...but that all statements made accurate and true? Does this include repetitions of news items, or also statements about philosophy/metaphysics? Like if you say "I think I speak for everyone on Ornery", according to your own standard you need to be called out as making a false statement, since you provided no signed affidavit or link to a source showing that others have acknowledged that you speak for them. So what you said was apparently both cited without source and also factually false. But then maybe I could also call it out because speaking on behalf of others without their consent is rude (a social impropriety) or even prideful (by a Christian standard a sin, and therefore wrong by definition). So you can see how many angles of attack can be levied against a statement that from your perspective seemed self-evident, and that using your standard (that only true and cited statements are permissible in civilized dialogue) you would have it be nearly impossible to discuss anything at all in a civilized fashion. Posts would end up looking like an academic paper with more citations than content.

I could call you out on "then do not expect anyone to trust your statements" line: is this meant to be a moral point, about human trust, or a point about academic cleanliness? If the former, why should one have to morally trust a statement made on the internet? Take people's comments for what they are and enjoy (or not). If the latter, I would argue that our conversations rarely even intend to have that level of rigor. So you see, again, statements that you think are self-evident would require intense amount of explanation, possible requiring upwards of a 50 page paper to begin to justify. Even a working definition of what "trust" might mean in this context could be an insurmountable goal. It's difficult to imagine that you've taken up the project of enforcing standards of discourse on the internet, and so that's why one is left with the notion that you're hounding one particular user.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on December 15, 2018, 02:20:26 PM
Quote
Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  [that Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

I searched carefully, and there were just "two occasions".  I say your claim is false. I am focusing "on disputing the actual arguments made"

It's interesting that you included the link I provided in your quote.  There are more than 2 instances referenced in that link, and there is express claim that Blumenthal acknowledge one of them and said that he may have made misstatements on other occasions (plural) as well.  How then am I to take your response?  Did you not read the linked materials, did you ignore them?  You failed to acknowledge that one could speak to people in CT and have discovered other instances as well.

Quote
I do not "rely on your honesty".  I ask that you provide some evidence besides "I read it somewhere".

Why, so that you can not read it?  And then restate your original claim as if it were not provided?

Quote
But in this case, you have provided absolutely no external verification.  If you have something, show it.  If I missed it in your link, pull out the actual quotes.  If it is somewhere else, provide the source.

And this is why I say you're trolling.  If you read the piece you'd have seen more than two instances.  If you spent anytime actually looking for sources you would have similarly found more than two instances.

I read that failing as either proof that your demand is nothing more than a tactic and not a true request for actual information, or worse proof that you don't comprehend what you read, which makes the idea of providing you with basic citations an even bigger waste of time.

Quote
I offered $50 to the charity of your choice if you provide evidence for more than two occasions.  Twice.  You never responded.
I will extend that for a week.

I did respond.  I just didn't agree to play your game.

Quote
I call out people who post things that I believe are false.  I don't have an obsessive focus on you.  You happen to be the person who does it the most often.

Lol, sure you do, and if I'm not the only who's noticed your focus, how do you explain that away?  Or do I need to provide you quotes on that too?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2018, 03:25:18 PM
 Maybe I’m missing something, but I feel that Velcro‘s three marks are being taken out of context, and some of these arguments feel like out right bullying to me.   From people that I’ve never thought of as bully us.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on December 15, 2018, 04:00:38 PM
Maybe I’m missing something, but I feel that Velcro‘s three marks are being taken out of context, and some of these arguments feel like out right bullying to me.   From people that I’ve never thought of as bully us.

Not sure which clauses you mean exactly. I'm mainly reacting to what I perceive as bullying.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 15, 2018, 09:43:00 PM
I see us more as sitting around the lunch table shooting the breeze and not so much in a courtroom under oath providing evidence on a case. Maybe that's just me though. If I have an issue with something I just state my case and then someone has their rebuttal and usually that's it and it's time to move on. Everyone has their say and it's all good. No need to make a federal case out of everything. But it's all good. If people want to play the paper chase like we're law school students in Harvard, you know whatever floats your boat.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: oldbrian on December 17, 2018, 10:31:12 AM
I just re-read Seriati's NYTimes article, and could only find 2 instances where Blumenthal was quoted as saying he was 'in vietnam' or 'we returned from vietnam'.
The rest of the article was about other publications describing him as having been there, and that Blumenthal never corrected them.  The quote later on sounded like it was the same "when we returned" as the 2nd quote.

So yeah, Seriati, the NYT article only provided 2 instances, although they alluded to others, insinuating that the 3rd party descriptions must have been told that by Blumenthal.
I didn't go back and re-read the entire thread, so Seriati might have mentioned some other actual quotes


From an outside point of view, it looks like Velcro and Seriati are sensitized to each other by now, and everything seems like a big deal, which if it was any other poster (in either direction) they would not even notice it.

ADDED:
Ah.  The 3rd quote was from a dedication of a Vietnam memorial.  Probably different from the 'Bridgeport rally' in 2003.
So 3 instances, but 2 were almost verbatim of each other, so I thought they were the same thing.

So Seriati was right on the article.  Velcro and I both failed reading comprehension.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on December 17, 2018, 11:13:00 AM
So since this seems to be causing undue confusion, to clarify this is a NY Times article, reporting on a controversy that had already been reported in CT papers, that was written pre-Trump and contemporaneously to the conduct in 2010.

As support for what I said, you have the following, emphasis added:

Quote
But what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.

Quote
Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.

You seem to be running from the negative assumption that because they cited to specific events the claims they make about frequency are "unproven."  The article goes to flat out say things like

Quote
But the way he speaks about his military service has led to confusion and frequent mischaracterizations of his biography in his home state newspapers. In at least eight newspaper articles published in Connecticut from 2003 to 2009, he is described as having served in Vietnam.

Which is unlikely to have resulted from 2 (or 3 statements) never repeated again.  It's also incredibly improbable that a politician in campaign mode who may make multiple speeches to multiple groups a day, says anything, just once.  Repeating the same formulation over and over again is how a "misconception" (of if we were talking about Trump on this thread a "lie") ends up in a person's public biography on a state and national basis.  I can't reasonably read an article that talks in plural terms throughout, and clearly involved contemporaneous research into multiple events and probably multiple local media sources should be reconstrued nearly a decade letter as a statement that he only made such claims 2 or 3 times.

In any event, the constrast on this thread where statements from Trump that may in fact have been true are labelled lies is in fact telling, which was half the point.

Pete, I'd be happy to have pleasant conversations again.   But I'm not agreeing to play a game where I (and only I) have to provide academic journal writing levels of citation or "concede" that whatever claim I made must be false and the opposite unproven claim be true. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2018, 06:04:31 AM
 Thank you for explaining, Seriati.

 I thought the objection was only to the phrase “I think I speak to everyone when I say  X”  which really means nothing more then  “Don’t we all agree with X as a general principle? “
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Fenring on December 18, 2018, 12:44:43 PM
I thought the objection was only to the phrase “I think I speak to everyone when I say  X”  which really means nothing more then  “Don’t we all agree with X as a general principle? “

I was objecting to precisely this, in context of it being used to suggest that everyone was against Seriati on that particular point.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on December 20, 2018, 08:42:44 AM
Seriati said there were three statements.  Here are two:

Quote
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

Quote
In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

"Sometimes" does not prove 3.
"Other times" does not prove 3.
"unlikely to have resulted from 2 (or 3 statements) never repeated again (your opinion)" does not prove 3.

Seriati still says
Quote
There are more than 2 instances referenced in that link,
and
Quote
And this is why I say you're trolling.  If you read the piece you'd have seen more than two instances.  If you spent anytime actually looking for sources you would have similarly found more than two instances.

I have asked you over and over and over to just list the actual words.  You don't.  You just keep repeating that the proof is in the link.  I think you are mistaken. 

If you provide those words, I will admit I missed an important detail.  I will apologize profusely if you show me the clear link.  I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice if you just type those words.

Or, you can continue your insistence that they exist, but for some reason you don't supply them.

You have absolutely no reason to avoid providing that third statement.  Unless of course, it does not exist.

Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: velcro on December 20, 2018, 08:50:21 AM
I see us more as sitting around the lunch table shooting the breeze and not so much in a courtroom under oath providing evidence on a case. Maybe that's just me though. If I have an issue with something I just state my case and then someone has their rebuttal and usually that's it and it's time to move on. Everyone has their say and it's all good. No need to make a federal case out of everything. But it's all good. If people want to play the paper chase like we're law school students in Harvard, you know whatever floats your boat.

if I am at a lunch table shooting the breeze, and my friend says "Everybody knows that Tom Brady has the most completed passes in the NFL!", I am going to politely point out that he is wrong.  Because he is wrong, and because he is stating it as an obvious hard fact.  If he said "Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever", I wouldn't bat an eye.

That is not making a federal case.  That is not requiring "academic journal writing levels of citation".  That is not "playing the paper chase".  That is calling BS when someone makes stuff up and expects you to just believe it because they said it.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on December 20, 2018, 10:39:17 AM
Quote
If he said "Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever".

Four pinnochios. By any objective standard, it is quite clear that Drew Brees is the best quarterback ever, the GOAT, and shall never be surpassed as long as people continue to play football. Even after genetically modified quarterbacks are playing on a 500 yard field on Mars Colony.

GEAUX SAINTS!
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on July 01, 2019, 06:55:14 PM
The attack on Andy Ngo this weekend reminded me of this thread. For those unaware, Ngo is a journalist in Portland that covers a lot of demonstrations, particularly Antifa.

During the demonstration last weekend, Ngo was coated with “milkshakes” that were really made of quick dry cement- the idea is that an alkaline burn would result as it dried. He was robbed and severely beaten and ended up hospitalized with a brain bleed. On social media, many of the blue check journalists were silent or supported the beating to varying degrees. The vast majority of media and activists came down on the side of “he was asking for it” whether they condemned it or not (some lightly objected).

The police did not get involved as Portland’s mayor has directed them to allow Antifa to run amok. The police may get involved later as there’s tons of video and people can be identified. Or maybe they won’t. Who really knows.

That there was not universal condemnation of this is unbelievable. That so many justified or supported it is alarming. The violence and support for it is ratcheting up.

 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 01, 2019, 07:45:32 PM
Quote
The police did not get involved as Portland’s mayor has directed them to allow Antifa to run amok.
Was this confirmed?  The story I found on this (had to google it as I got no idea who this is, or what you were talking about), had one person quoted who was speculating that was probably the case.

As a rule I'm skeptical about Antifa hysteria.  (aka "leftist savages" in the piece I read)  But sounds pretty bad for the mayor and chief of police if it they were issuing orders to do nothing as it got out of control. 

If they are pants-on-head-crazy enough to order the police not to do their job to avoid... what?  A violent response?  Then they're all on their way out and gonna be spending a long time in courtrooms.  Self-solving problem. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Pete at Home on July 01, 2019, 11:24:48 PM
Velcro, thank you for succinctly and thoroughly explaining your view.  I am well answered.  (In retrospect I’m embarrassed for not having followed. Thank you for your In retrospect I’m embarrassed for not having followed. Thank you for your patience. You feel that an adversary is mischaracterizing an exchange.  I’ve done shocking things on and off this forum when I felt that way.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 12, 2019, 11:17:13 AM
Quote
During the demonstration last weekend, Ngo was coated with “milkshakes” that were really made of quick dry cement- the idea is that an alkaline burn would result as it dried.

Well, you source Crunch was full of it.  There was no cement in the milkshake.  Because if there were, it would have been immediately noticeable.

We know this because, unlike those who made the accusation, someone tried putting cement in a milkshake to see what would happen. (https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/07/10/is-it-possible-to-mix-cement-into-a-vegan-milkshake-we-did-it/)

Quote
The splatter looked nothing like a milkshake. It looked like wet concrete.

Two hours later, the cement-milkshake mixture coating our dummy was still squishy and wet. It had not dried, as quick-drying concrete is supposed to do.

Conclusion: It's definitely possible to mix quick-drying cement with a vegan milkshake—but the result would be immediately obvious and would leave behind a telltale mess that's tough to clean up....

But a concrete milkshake is distinctive, as we learned. It's gritty, clumpy and a dark color.

Take a look at a photo of Ngo doused with a milkshake. (https://www.google.com/search?q=ngo+concrete+milkshake+photos&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS807US807&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Rdbv2oR7ctVdoM%253A%252CW0zz8kmalJV0sM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kS895F7CcSECTl66Hm78lgBqFBPGA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkyZGr1a_jAhWSm-AKHUUwC6sQ9QEwAXoECAgQBg&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=Rdbv2oR7ctVdoM:&vet=1)

Compare it to the photos in the article.  Which type of "milkshake" looks most similar?

This was more "fake news" from the purveyors of, and creators of, the term "fake news." :)

Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 12, 2019, 11:29:06 AM
When one is attempting to contradict conspiracy plots or an outrageous claim, it's best to do so with something more... concrete.  :P 

Honestly, I don't think anyone cares how fast / if the mixture hardens, nor would consistency of the mixture prove or disprove much of anything. 

It either did or did not contain chemical irritants. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on July 12, 2019, 12:21:45 PM
Quote
During the demonstration last weekend, Ngo was coated with “milkshakes” that were really made of quick dry cement- the idea is that an alkaline burn would result as it dried.

Well, you source Crunch was full of it.  There was no cement in the milkshake.  Because if there were, it would have been immediately noticeable.

We know this because, unlike those who made the accusation, someone tried putting cement in a milkshake to see what would happen. (https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/07/10/is-it-possible-to-mix-cement-into-a-vegan-milkshake-we-did-it/)

Quote
The splatter looked nothing like a milkshake. It looked like wet concrete.

Two hours later, the cement-milkshake mixture coating our dummy was still squishy and wet. It had not dried, as quick-drying concrete is supposed to do.

Conclusion: It's definitely possible to mix quick-drying cement with a vegan milkshake—but the result would be immediately obvious and would leave behind a telltale mess that's tough to clean up....

But a concrete milkshake is distinctive, as we learned. It's gritty, clumpy and a dark color.

Take a look at a photo of Ngo doused with a milkshake. (https://www.google.com/search?q=ngo+concrete+milkshake+photos&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS807US807&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Rdbv2oR7ctVdoM%253A%252CW0zz8kmalJV0sM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kS895F7CcSECTl66Hm78lgBqFBPGA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkyZGr1a_jAhWSm-AKHUUwC6sQ9QEwAXoECAgQBg&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=Rdbv2oR7ctVdoM:&vet=1)


Compare it to the photos in the article.  Which type of "milkshake" looks most similar?

This was more "fake news" from the purveyors of, and creators of, the term "fake news." :)

They have pictures of Antifa doing it at the event. Many bragged online about doing it. Perhaps the photos were faked and everyone is lying. IT could happen.

Andy Ngo still ended up in the hospital so what's your excuse for that?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on July 12, 2019, 12:41:19 PM
Does it really matter what was in it? It's still assault, any way you slice it. If you don't want people to distort what you threw on somebody, don't throw anything at people. If I threw a shamrock shake at you, I doubt you'd be less angry knowing that it wasn't toxic.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 12, 2019, 01:11:42 PM
Umm, having your day ruined and being embarrassed is a far cry from being chemically attacked.  Yes.  I'd be less angry.  I'd also not need medical treatment or risk permanent scarring / disfigurement or permanent blindness. 

Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on July 12, 2019, 01:28:52 PM
I just get the sense that people are far too willing to laugh off pies, paint, custard, and whatnot. Tee hee hee, look at the bad man with the dirty suit. Don't be daft about him going to the hospital, it didn't have to be about the "milkshake chemicals", he was f-ing beaten.

And as far as that substance goes?

Quote
His lawyer claims Ngo suffered a "brain bleed" from the assault. Jim Ryan, a reporter for The Oregonian chronicled the competing rallies by protestors from the left and right, as well as the attack on Ngo.
According to Ryan, police said that some of the masked goons may have laced their favorite milkshake projectile with "a substance similar to quick-drying cement." And so, a conservative journalist received his -- in the view of these radical left protesters -- "just desserts."

The Oregonian isn't really known for being a right wing lunatic website. Nor are the Portland police given to calling a beverage similar to cement. Note that the police didn't say it WAS cement, and by the way, cement != concrete (https://www.ccagc.org/resources/whats-the-difference-between-cement-and-concrete/).

Quote
Cement comprises from 10 to 15 percent of the concrete mix, by volume. Through a process called hydration, the cement and water harden and bind the aggregates into a rocklike mass. This hardening process continues for years meaning that concrete gets stronger as it gets older.

The gritty stuff is sand and rock. Which is not cement, it is concrete. Now, it is always possible that the police didn't understand that nuance, but I think they'd know the difference between a milkshake and one that had irritating chemicals in it.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 12, 2019, 02:06:57 PM
Quote
They have pictures of Antifa doing it at the event. Many bragged online about doing it. Perhaps the photos were faked and everyone is lying. IT could happen.

And pigs could fly, too.  Let's talk about what actually did happen instead of what maybe, might, could've, etc.  The photos we have indicate there was no concrete involved.  And exactly who bragged about putting concrete in the milkshakes?  Obviously it was not the person who threw it at Ngo.  If there is no evidence that photos were faked and no evidence that there was concrete in the shake, let's not assume it "could" be true.  Otherwise, you can start a discussion about why pigs fly. :)

Quote
Andy Ngo still ended up in the hospital so what's your excuse for that?

Well, he apparently didn't end up in the hospital because of a milkshake that was thrown on him.  So what am I excusing?  ???

And his hospital stay, from whatever reason, does not affect the fact that, from the evidence that we have, there was no concrete in the milkshake.  You were wrong in saying that there was.

And while we're on the subject, what about this: (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/07/12/too-much-truth/)

Quote
Man it sure is weird how every time a fascist gets hit in the face with some food we have a week long discourse about left wing political violence but every time a fascist murders people we're treated to a smorgasbord of excuses of how it's not political.

Maybe we need a bit more perspective on the degrees of violence.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 12, 2019, 02:12:43 PM
[hyperpartisanship]With almost 24/7 accusations of being hypocrites slung at the right, they salivate at attempts to pin that label on the left.[/hyperpartisanship]  ;)
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on July 12, 2019, 02:22:18 PM
Quote
They have pictures of Antifa doing it at the event. Many bragged online about doing it. Perhaps the photos were faked and everyone is lying. IT could happen.

And pigs could fly, too.  Let's talk about what actually did happen instead of what maybe, might, could've, etc.  The photos we have indicate there was no concrete involved.  And exactly who bragged about putting concrete in the milkshakes?  Obviously it was not the person who threw it at Ngo.  If there is no evidence that photos were faked and no evidence that there was concrete in the shake, let's not assume it "could" be true.  Otherwise, you can start a discussion about why pigs fly. :)

Quote
Andy Ngo still ended up in the hospital so what's your excuse for that?

Well, he apparently didn't end up in the hospital because of a milkshake that was thrown on him.  So what am I excusing?  ???

And his hospital stay, from whatever reason, does not affect the fact that, from the evidence that we have, there was no concrete in the milkshake.  You were wrong in saying that there was.

And while we're on the subject, what about this: (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/07/12/too-much-truth/)

Quote
Man it sure is weird how every time a fascist gets hit in the face with some food we have a week long discourse about left wing political violence but every time a fascist murders people we're treated to a smorgasbord of excuses of how it's not political.

Maybe we need a bit more perspective on the degrees of violence.

Did you miss my entire post?

Police said it had something like cement, reported by a reputable news outlet. Does your photo matter more than that? Nobody ever said concrete.

Any degree of violence is unacceptable, especially punching someone in the head. And particularly unacceptable when directed at a journalist while covering an event.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on July 12, 2019, 02:23:50 PM
Just to make it perfectly clear, THIS (https://www.dickblick.com/products/plastruct-bondene-cement/?clickTracking=true&wmcp=pla&wmcid=items&wmckw=24205-1002&gclid=CjwKCAjw36DpBRAYEiwAmVVDMMYw-gESfvhz2dqtovioUqzYzbDNpRDGoeRgcpJwNQ3c-t1X7vD2xhoCT-sQAvD_BwE) is quick drying cement.

edit: after reading a lot more, apparently everybody and their cousin thinks cement is concrete so I withdraw the distinction.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 12, 2019, 02:44:59 PM
IDK if it's a northeastern thing, but even I use them interchangeably in all but official documents on blueprints.  :P

The only people who seem to care much are the vendors selling cementicious such-and-such product.  ;)

Further, the linked type of cement tends to be "liquid applied _" or "bonding agent"  Just to further complicate things.

Either way, none of which would I want splashed on my person.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on July 12, 2019, 02:57:12 PM
Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference.

Just out of curiosity, would you still be in favor of a lighter punishment if it were say anti-gay activists throwing Shamrock shakes on people at a gay pride parade?  Or it were people throwing animal blood on PETA activists? 

To me if we're going to have an idea of "hate crimes" then people who engage in hate should be accountable.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 12, 2019, 04:32:36 PM
Just to make it perfectly clear, THIS (https://www.dickblick.com/products/plastruct-bondene-cement/?clickTracking=true&wmcp=pla&wmcid=items&wmckw=24205-1002&gclid=CjwKCAjw36DpBRAYEiwAmVVDMMYw-gESfvhz2dqtovioUqzYzbDNpRDGoeRgcpJwNQ3c-t1X7vD2xhoCT-sQAvD_BwE) is quick drying cement.

edit: after reading a lot more, apparently everybody and their cousin thinks cement is concrete so I withdraw the distinction.

I don't? Cement is an ingredient in Concrete. But it isn't exactly the same thing. but as all concrete has cement, the layperson tends to consider it one and the same.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 12, 2019, 04:37:56 PM
Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference.

Just out of curiosity, would you still be in favor of a lighter punishment if it were say anti-gay activists throwing Shamrock shakes on people at a gay pride parade?  Or it were people throwing animal blood on PETA activists? 

To me if we're going to have an idea of "hate crimes" then people who engage in hate should be accountable.
I would yes.  There is a huge difference to me between 'attacks' which are more vandalism of clothing / embarrassment type attacks and those that are genuinely dangerous.

As was pointed out, the discussed incident also involved physical assault.  But that put aside, WHAT is being thrown or splattered onto someone means a lot to me in determining the penalties/charges the perpetrator should face.

In case I was unclear, I don't suggest giving people throwing 'just a milkshake' or 'just an egg' a free pass.  I just would suggest you hit someone throwing dangerous things at people with more strict charges/sentences.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: DJQuag on July 12, 2019, 07:21:26 PM
Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference.

Just out of curiosity, would you still be in favor of a lighter punishment if it were say anti-gay activists throwing Shamrock shakes on people at a gay pride parade?  Or it were people throwing animal blood on PETA activists? 

To me if we're going to have an idea of "hate crimes" then people who engage in hate should be accountable.
I would yes.  There is a huge difference to me between 'attacks' which are more vandalism of clothing / embarrassment type attacks and those that are genuinely dangerous.

As was pointed out, the discussed incident also involved physical assault.  But that put aside, WHAT is being thrown or splattered onto someone means a lot to me in determining the penalties/charges the perpetrator should face.

In case I was unclear, I don't suggest giving people throwing 'just a milkshake' or 'just an egg' a free pass.  I just would suggest you hit someone throwing dangerous things at people with more strict charges/sentences.

I disagree. If you throw a milkshake to embarrass someone it's obviously just as bad as throwing acid or going old school and punching them in the face.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 12, 2019, 07:30:53 PM
I've never had a milkshake thrown in my face but I have been punched in the face. 

I'm totally for trying the milkshake next time instead of the fist... 

But maybe that's just me. 

as long as it's not mixed with super glue type stuff that could blind me or hits me like a minty smelling brick I suppose...  :P
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on July 13, 2019, 02:25:45 PM
I can't imagine a scenario where somebody throws a milkshake on me that doesn't end in a fist fight.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 14, 2019, 09:02:42 AM
IDK if I've always been prone to deescalation or if my time with a CPL changed my opinion, but I can't imagine a scenario I started a fist fight over a milkshake.  Though several where that could be a prelude to someone else starting it I guess. 

If your assumption is A automatically leads to B, then I guess I understand why some see it as 'just as serious'.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 14, 2019, 09:18:51 AM
IDK if I've always been prone to deescalation or if my time with a CPL changed my opinion, but I can't imagine a scenario I started a fist fight over a milkshake.  Though several where that could be a prelude to someone else starting it I guess. 

If your assumption is A automatically leads to B, then I guess I understand why some see it as 'just as serious'.

So if we changed "milkshake" for "whiffle bat" does the calculation change much?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on July 14, 2019, 10:12:13 AM
Well, I'd have to modify things somewhat. If a friend threw a shake on me as a joke. But a masked figure who has been yelling profanities and insults at me first? Maybe different from the one off milkshake tossing we've seen in Europe, which obviously didn't end in physical reprisal.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 14, 2019, 01:46:11 PM
Quote
So if we changed "milkshake" for "whiffle bat" does the calculation change much?
I grew up with siblings.  The whiffle bat I DO have experience being hit with.  :P

So no.  No change haha
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 14, 2019, 01:48:13 PM
Drake does bring up a good point though.  If I thought I was likely to be the target of a hate crime, and someone was berating me in public before the event, I may very well believe they meant me a lot more harm than some viral video of me covered in a normal shake.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on July 15, 2019, 10:25:07 AM
I think you guys are missing the point.  How likely is someone to avoid expressing their political opinions where there is a risk of physical violence.   The point of the milkshakes, the beatdowns, the full on masks and riot gear is to make it clear that engaging in Constitutionally protected political speech will cause you to risk your life.  Mothers with children, better stay home, elderly?  keep it to your self cause it may kill you.  Disabled?  Taking your life into your hands if you show up.  Heck, walking by yourself to a legitimate protest?  Too bad for you you that was stupid.

It's political terrorism, and it works, there are already people afraid to express perfectly legitimate positions because they fear being assaulted.  This is a direct assault on our ability to operate as free society.  Everyone should be taking it seriously.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 15, 2019, 11:16:02 AM
I'm confident in saying everyone DOES take it seriously.  Just about every incident gets a lot of coverage.  And not just because of partisan outrage on one side.  It's thankfully a rare occurrence, and thus, newsworthy. 
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Seriati on July 15, 2019, 11:27:47 AM
D.W., I disagree.  Coverage in this case actually spreads the intimidation message, especially in how its done.  If they were trying to help they'd be condemning it and holding police and mayor's to account for how they are policing, instead they are doing exactly what the terrorists want and focusing on the views of the victims and the real harms they are receiving.

Most common line to me in these stories, is the one liner, "The police did not make any arrests in connection with the event."   That tells you everything you need to know.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: D.W. on July 15, 2019, 12:16:04 PM
Don't know what to tell ya.  If these things didn't make the news, that omission would be shown as "proof" that the 'left controlled media' were trying to hide it.  If it is reported on, apparently it's playing into the hands of terrorists.

Quote
Most common line to me in these stories,
Makes it sound like an epidemic.  Which I don't agree that it is. 

Any time police or mayor's don't do their job, they should be held to account (and/or sued).  As some like to point out often, our country is still a lot better off than the alternatives in this regard.

At the risk of pushing buttons, I will say that my generation and, I would think the one before it, were raised with some not too subtle propaganda against certain far-right themes.  That some are susceptible to (what they view as) provocation is not shocking to me.

Those breaking the law should be arrested and prosecuted, beyond that I find it hard to get worked up about it as a threat to civil discourse rather than isolated criminal acts.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDrake on July 15, 2019, 12:49:30 PM
I will say there is always a "but" in the coverage. It is perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about what violent actors want. News should be telling us what Antifa wants, just like describing what ISIS wants.

CNN and other outlets do bring people on who downplay and excuse the Antifa actions. Kind of like how you saw coverage of the IRA where people condemned the methods, and then went on to talk about the oppression of the Irish by the English and the root causes of the conflict. And then pointing out how nice the IRA was to call the pub they were bombing so that people would get out in time. Which, of course, didn't always work out.

It isn't so monolithic. For instance, this piece (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/opinions/antifa-andy-ngo-gagliano/index.html) on CNN is a full on condemnation, full stop.

This quote is particularly poignant.

Quote
Let us cease viewing this issue as too complicated. It really is not. While some minimize assaults like the one on Ngo because the assembly may have been "mostly peaceful," this risks tacitly condoning the behavior of those in the group who are prone to violent acts. Making excuses for violence because the offenders are adherents to your particular political views makes you a partisan apologist and a hypocrite.

Another article in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.456da7e6b69b)

This article also makes no apologies.

However you have this:

Quote
Dartmouth College lecturer Mark Bray has gone from a relatively unknown academic to a sought-after news commentator in the short time since white supremacists clashed with counterprotesters at the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

Bray is the author of a new book on antifa, the far-left activist movement whose members advocate using any means necessary, including violence, to combat white supremacy. In the span of just a couple of weeks, dozens of national news outlets have turned to him to help explain the movement as debate has raged over how the country should deal with a rising tide of violent racism.

But Dartmouth officials are unsettled. Bray has made no secret about his belief that violence is, in some circumstances, justified. In turn, the university has sought to distance itself from him.

During an appearance on “Meet the Press” last week, Bray argued that “when pushed, self-defense is a legitimate response to white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence.”

“We’ve tried ignoring neo-Nazis in the past. We’ve seen how that turned out in the ’20s and ’30s,” Bray told host Chuck Todd. “A lot of people are under attack, and sometimes they need to be able to defend themselves.

Dartmouth President Philip J. Hanlon repudiated Bray in a statement, saying he was “supporting violent protest.”

“As an institution, we condemn anything but civil discourse in the exchange of ideas,” Hanlon said. “The endorsement of violence in any form is contrary to Dartmouth values.”

I once again recuse myself from how the TV programs work for the most part, I've abandoned them entirely. There may be a completely different vibe by the babbling heads compared to the written articles in many outlets.

I'm not sure if you can say Bray and his ilk are not taking it seriously, but they are condoning it.

Of course BLM and other events have turned into violence as well, but the right doesn't need vigilantes when they have cops to use tear gas, pepper spray, and other violent methods disproportionate to the situation. Or have we all forgotten the peaceful UC Davis protestors that got soaked in pepper spray?

There were a whole lot of cop-apologists who didn't care much about those rights to free speech.
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 16, 2019, 01:30:32 PM
I'm confident in saying everyone DOES take it seriously.  Just about every incident gets a lot of coverage.  And not just because of partisan outrage on one side.  It's thankfully a rare occurrence, and thus, newsworthy.

Not really. If it's a conservative on the receiving end, especially a white male, it's likely to be ignored.

But if it is a racial minority, or a woman, particularly if they're liberal, it's getting wall to wall coverage. Jussie Smollet anyone?
Title: Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
Post by: Crunch on October 11, 2019, 08:05:36 AM
Quote
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey proclaimed Thursday as “Love Trumps Hate Day” in the city, in solidarity with protests against Trump.

Thus

Quote
Left-wing rioters attacked supporters of President Donald Trump leaving a rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Thursday evening — assaulting them in groups, setting fire to pro-Trump hats, and attacking the police.

Quote
Local Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter Liz Sawyer noted there were several hundred rioters, and that some were singling out Trump supporters and surrounding them in groups before attacking them.

The left is ratcheting up the violence.