Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?

[TheDrake]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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? 

1990s in Chicago , when Union members beat up antiClinton protesters and the Chicago judge laughed it out.

[LetterRip]

Abortion groups have a long history of similar harassment to doctors.

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.

[yossarian22c]

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.

[LetterRip]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Wayward Son]

Bottom line--about 20 people from an organization called Smash Racism D.C. showed up in front of Carlson's house.  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.

[Pete at Home]

Bottom line--about 20 people from an organization called Smash Racism D.C. showed up in front of Carlson's house.  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?

[Crunch]

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.

[rightleft22]

I'm rubber your glue what ever you say bounces of of me and sticks onto you
 

[LetterRip]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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. :-(

[Wayward Son]

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.)

[Pete at Home]

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.

[LetterRip]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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:

 

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 --

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[LetterRip]

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.

[Fenring]

(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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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").

[Wayward Son]

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...

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Seriati]

First, I want to call those posters out who liked this post.  It doesn't have any analysis in it.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

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." 

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[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.

"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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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." 

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.

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

[rightleft22]

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?

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDrake]

Didn't take me more than 30 seconds to find white supremacy political violence.

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

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[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?

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 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.

[rightleft22]

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?

[Seriati]

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?

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.

In 2017, there were 4235 hate crimes reported 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).

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.