Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?

[Wayward Son]

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?? 

According the ADL, white supremacists have committed most of the extremist killings in 2017, 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” 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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Seriati]

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?? 

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

According the ADL, white supremacists have committed most of the extremist killings in 2017, 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.

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.

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.

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” 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Seriati]

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

[TheDeamon]

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.

[velcro]

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?

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.

[TheDrake]

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).

[TheDrake]

description

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.”

[velcro]

Oh what the hell, I'll find some sources.

Ipsos poll

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...

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[velcro]

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.

[velcro]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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. 

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDeamon]

Transcription of a screenshot crossposted from twitter over to facebook, the person posting it is a Democrat and someone I've known for years.

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[velcro]

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

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

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?

[TheDeamon]

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?

[Crunch]

To that point, it’s easy to find articles like “SHOULD THE LEFT SUPPORT ANTIFA?”

Nobody questions if there should be support of white nationalism, the answer is pretty uniformly and consistently “no”. 

[TheDeamon]

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.

[velcro]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.)

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[rightleft22]

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. 

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[velcro]

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.

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 ....

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?

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

Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

and later this

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.

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.

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[TheDrake]

I'll try again:

It's Going Down

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.

[Seriati]

Oh what the hell, I'll find some sources.

Ipsos poll

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).   

[Seriati]

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Seriati]

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

[velcro]

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:

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.

• 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.
• 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.
• no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism.  Provide facts that “no” intellectual movement did this.  Not a single one.
• that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity. Provide facts that “every” learning opportunity had this characteristic.  Every one.

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.

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:

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?

[Fenring]

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery

You do not.

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 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.

[velcro]

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 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.

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?

[Crunch]

The old, “I’m perfectly reasonable when people are stupid and lying” defense. Man, that never gets old.

[Fenring]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[velcro]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that nobody speaks for everyone on Ornery.

 

[D.W.]

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.