Civil Rights group revealed to be investigated by FBI for 'Terrorism' while 'KKK' violence ignored

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

Saelune:

Catnip1024:
Not at all. I don't believe evilthecat is violent, but I believe he is sympathetic to certain elements of those who are.

And to add to that, not all violence is a bad thing. The political system is held together by the unacknowledged understanding that if someone really tried to abuse power, violence would happen. Where I disagree with evilthecat is the boundary on when that is acceptable.

I could say the same to you.

What, you disagree with evilthecat as well?

No, and you know that.

It was a right-winger who shot up a synagogue in Pittsburg last year. It was a right-winger with his van literally covered in worship of Trump and the right who sent bombs to a bunch of left-wingers. It is Trump who is putting children in cages, leaving them to die, then whining that it is too hard to fix the problem he created.

If I am to believe #notallrightwingers, then right wingers need to put some actual effort into fixing the problems, not making up BS whataboutisms and false bogeymen. No, Antifa is not the problem right-wingers make them out to be. No BLM is not the problem right-wingers make them out to be, and no, Nazis are not as benign an issue as right-wingers make them out to be.

I get it, you're not an American, but you really should just not resort to going 'but what about the left' every time a real and valid criticism of the right crops up.

Leg End:
Try this. If that doesn't work, I'll upload it somewhere.

Still not working, sorry.

That's about all I can see of this group as well. Hell, I haven't even heard about them until today.

And that's fine. But the fact remains, they haven't done anything and the FBI is making a big deal of telling the world that THESE ARE SCARY PEOPLE with nothing but a name to justify it. You haven't even heard about them until yesterday, like you said. Meanwhile, White nationalists, Neo-Nazis, and Alt-right groups actively have members who carry out actual attacks. Not supposed problems in the future. Actual attacks.

By the way, attacks that might have been averted if Trump didn't cut funding to the FBI surveilling white nationalist groups in 2017.

I seriously question those numbers, especially if they're including Parkland, which they seem to be. Who they include gets suspect after the Synagogue shooting.

If you have no other reason to question those numbers other than... hell, you never even stated why you questioned these numbers. This is debating in bad faith, and it makes me have pause in continuing a conversation. I can't change ideals, nor do I want to. But if you're the type of person who is set in their ways and ignores information because it's counter to what they want to believe, this will be a pointless conversation.

If you read the summary in the OP, BAMN was classified as a Anarchist Extremist group, which the Feds would also throw in with any anti-government group. Imagine someone being as motivated as McVeigh and having even half the intelligence, and you've got a very bad recipe for anyone in the government.

But by who? And why? Think about this. The FBI knew about BAMN in 2002. And we as common people just heard about them in this thread? In the past couple of days with a few news articles?

They were formed in 1995 and we can't find hide nor hair of any real trouble they were linked to. This group is older than some members on this very Forum and still hasn't do anything.

Meanwhile the right-wing extremists have an actual body count and they get less focus. Again. It's inexcusable.

After looking at the wikipedia article on the riot(yes, wikipedia, too tired to crawl through a dozen pages on a bad computer, sorry), it looks like BAMN and Antifa, along with associated 'anarchists' and people sporting the flags assembled to counter the gathering by the Nazis, with many of them armed with weapons of all kinds. Considering Antifa's track record and the various flags present, there is no way you can say that one side is just 'willing to resort to violence'. They were there to do damage. I don't know what charges the stabbing victims were brought up on, but knowing who showed up, I don't have the opinion that anyone in that brawl was entirely innocent. Now imagine what a Federal agency would be thinking with that kind of turnout.

None of it is as simple as skinheads slicing peaceful protesters and the cops booking the victims. Hell, it's not even the feds that are pursuing charges. Considering this is California, they're likely to get what amounts to a slap on the wrist with a beanie baby, if the charges(whatever they are) stick at all.

You and I are willing to resort to violence. Me, I know I'm willing to do it to defend myself. That doesn't make me a criminal. Nor would it make you.

If Antifa and Anarchist are going up against people who make a point of walking around with Body armor and assault rifles, how do you think they should prepare themselves?

Do you think cops are there just to do damage? They always have a handgun on them. They have riot shields, shotguns, assault rifles, tear gas, tanks now... I thought they were tasked to keep the peace. If they were, why are they armed?

We both know why police are armed. In the course of keeping the peace, sometimes you will have to fight for your life. If you show up trying to counter a force yearning for your oppression with just words while they have firearms... Good luck.

erttheking:
I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to those who are violent. It's just that I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to the KKK

Probably because every single effing time we get a thread around her about the right doing something bad, you always, ALWAYS, either try and downplay it or talk about how the other side did something bad too.

It's not a good look.

You mean how I've consistently been against any form of political violence as expressed in the current system (while there is a time and place for it, we sure as hell are nowhere near it being warranted)? Damn, I really ought to change that...

Saelune:
No, and you know that.

Speak clearer then.

It was a right-winger who shot up a synagogue in Pittsburg last year. It was a right-winger with his van literally covered in worship of Trump and the right who sent bombs to a bunch of left-wingers. It is Trump who is putting children in cages, leaving them to die, then whining that it is too hard to fix the problem he created.

If I am to believe #notallrightwingers, then right wingers need to put some actual effort into fixing the problems, not making up BS whataboutisms and false bogeymen. No, Antifa is not the problem right-wingers make them out to be. No BLM is not the problem right-wingers make them out to be, and no, Nazis are not as benign an issue as right-wingers make them out to be.

I get it, you're not an American, but you really should just not resort to going 'but what about the left' every time a real and valid criticism of the right crops up.

To get the pedantics out of the way, more people were killed by a nutjob at a BLM rally than by the nutjob in Charlottesville. Doesn't exactly scream "we're all totally fine and non-violent" to outsiders.

But more importantly, I'm not actually right wing at all. I'm economically left wing, I'm socially pretty accepting of most things, but if you make an argument I will poke at it. And when half of the threads round here these days are on the lines of "someone told the newspaper that Trump said some thing, and that means Trump is a space-nazi", of course I'm going to poke at them. Trumps a buffoon, I've said that from the start. Which is why it is so ludicrous to see that the only criticisms of him are on the grounds of hearsay and gossip, with little interest in what actually occurs.

And do you know why you don't see me poking at other arguments? Because you tend not to get them in these parts...

Finally, this thread was about the left-wing group being investigated. My original comment was about said group. If anything, it's youse peeps bringing "what about the right" into it. I said previously they should also be under investigation. Doesn't change the argument against having an organisation named "by any means necessary" and complaining that people think you are militant.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to those who are violent. It's just that I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to the KKK

Probably because every single effing time we get a thread around her about the right doing something bad, you always, ALWAYS, either try and downplay it or talk about how the other side did something bad too.

It's not a good look.

You mean how I've consistently been against any form of political violence as expressed in the current system (while there is a time and place for it, we sure as hell are nowhere near it being warranted)? Damn, I really ought to change that...

Saelune:
No, and you know that.

Speak clearer then.

It was a right-winger who shot up a synagogue in Pittsburg last year. It was a right-winger with his van literally covered in worship of Trump and the right who sent bombs to a bunch of left-wingers. It is Trump who is putting children in cages, leaving them to die, then whining that it is too hard to fix the problem he created.

If I am to believe #notallrightwingers, then right wingers need to put some actual effort into fixing the problems, not making up BS whataboutisms and false bogeymen. No, Antifa is not the problem right-wingers make them out to be. No BLM is not the problem right-wingers make them out to be, and no, Nazis are not as benign an issue as right-wingers make them out to be.

I get it, you're not an American, but you really should just not resort to going 'but what about the left' every time a real and valid criticism of the right crops up.

To get the pedantics out of the way, more people were killed by a nutjob at a BLM rally than by the nutjob in Charlottesville. Doesn't exactly scream "we're all totally fine and non-violent" to outsiders.

But more importantly, I'm not actually right wing at all. I'm economically left wing, I'm socially pretty accepting of most things, but if you make an argument I will poke at it. And when half of the threads round here these days are on the lines of "someone told the newspaper that Trump said some thing, and that means Trump is a space-nazi", of course I'm going to poke at them. Trumps a buffoon, I've said that from the start. Which is why it is so ludicrous to see that the only criticisms of him are on the grounds of hearsay and gossip, with little interest in what actually occurs.

And do you know why you don't see me poking at other arguments? Because you tend not to get them in these parts...

Finally, this thread was about the left-wing group being investigated. My original comment was about said group. If anything, it's youse peeps bringing "what about the right" into it. I said previously they should also be under investigation. Doesn't change the argument against having an organisation named "by any means necessary" and complaining that people think you are militant.

To be more clear, THE HOLOCAUST. And yes, anyone who defines themselves by Nazism is guilty of the crimes of the Holocaust.

Second, the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting killed more people if you want to make it about more modern numbers. And what about the tons of people cops have wrongfully murdered? If you want to play numbers, you will lose. If you want to play 'one bad apple', you will lose. Any way you want to cut it, you will lose.

You are as left-wing as Trump is pro-LGBT. Holding a flag means nothing when everything you actually do is at their detriment. If you are left-wing, you never actually express any left-wing views and constantly and consistently defend and support right-wing people and views.

I could say I am not a left-winger, but my posting history says otherwise.

This thread was about the unfair treatment of left-wing groups compared to right-wing groups, so I assure you I am quite on topic.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to those who are violent. It's just that I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to the KKK

Probably because every single effing time we get a thread around her about the right doing something bad, you always, ALWAYS, either try and downplay it or talk about how the other side did something bad too.

It's not a good look.

You mean how I've consistently been against any form of political violence as expressed in the current system (while there is a time and place for it, we sure as hell are nowhere near it being warranted)? Damn, I really ought to change that...

Your passive aggressive attitude would be a little more earned if you didn't consistantly downplay and pull the whataboutism card every single time the right doing wrong is brought up, even when there's no violence to be seen.

Catnip1024:
To clarify, the above was another generalism, not you personally.

Sure, but it's still not a good generalism.

The concept of resistance by any means necessary is not advocating violence either.

By contrast, let me transcribe some footage from the Charlottesville Unite the Right protests. Apologies if I've already used this one, but it is kind of a brilliant example.

Speaker: "Did Hitler do anything wrong?"
Crowd: "No!"
Speaker: "Yeah!"
*crowd applauds and cheers*
Speaker: [inaudible in footage] "..repeat after me: I love my people!"
Crowd: "I love my people!"
Speaker: "Yeah!"
*crowd applauds and cheers again*
Speaker: "One more, one more, I want everyone to repeat after me, pay close attention because this is the first precept of the true alt-right. Remember it. Gas the k*kes, race war now!"
Crowd: "Gas the k*kes, race war now!"
Someone in the crowd: "Sieg heil!"
Crowd: "Sieg heil!"
Someone in the crowd: "Who brought the ovens?"

This is at a protest called Unite the Right, involving many disparate far right groups many of which claim not to be violent, and yet noone leaves, noone dissents or calls out the speaker. This how these people actually talk when they feel they don't have to put on the crypto facade, and this is what advocating violence actually looks like. On the outside, we get the dog whistles about free speech and it's okay to be white, but this is the interior of what those outside statements actually mean. This is not edgy memes, it is a sincere desire to carry out violence against people based purely on their percieved racial origins.

Any one of the people in this crowd, upon hearing this kind of speech, could realise they'd fallen in with a bad crowd, put down their Sonnenrad shields or kekistan flags, walk away and go home and antifascist actors would never bother them again. If you are a person of colour, or Jewish, or LGBT however, then the only way to avoid these people's violent intentions towards you is to stop existing, which is ultimately what they want.

If we're going to talk about "advocating violence" or violent intent, then being a white nationalist or white supremacist is an indication of violent intent. Declaring a willingness to resist the violent intent of white supremacists by any means necessary is not.

Catnip1024:
Depends whether you mean "globalist" or "global elite".

Well, I specifically used the term "globalist elite", so the former.

Catnip1024:
I was thinking more of Franco, to be fair. Which, while persecution occurred, was more along political lines than racial / cultural.

They were the same thing.

"Race is spirit. Spain is spirit. Hispanicity is spirit...For this we must soak ourselves in Hispanicity...to understand our racial essences and differentiate our race from others."
- Antonio Vallejo-Najera

This is often a thing that is difficult to understand about fascism from a modern perspective. Fascism does not have a clear distinction between political differences and racial differences, because race under fascism is a total system of eugenic purity, not solely limited to our modern understanding of different racial groups. Francoist propaganda very explicitly labelled political enemies of the regieme as racial inferiors.

Again, the core of fascism is the purification of the national spirit, and that is (at the end of the day) a racial principle.

Catnip1024:
See, even the language of "goading into dropping the facade of non-violence" reeks of hypocrisy. If you hit anyone enough, they will eventually hit you back.

True. Which is why violence must be permissable as a means of resisting fascism.

Catnip1024:
By turning up and forcing confrontation, you play into the victimisation and free speech narrative, and pretty much do their recruiting for them.

I mean, that's a common misconception among moderates and it's a key part of neo-Nazi propaganda, but it's also untrue, which is why fascists hate being counter protested. It's why they are so violent towards counter protesters and why they drive cars into them or bring knives to stab them, because counter protests are both very demoralising and very inconvenient to fascists.

The objective of most far right activism is to present things like white nationalism as just another political position. Counter protesting won't deter the kind of person who thinks Antifa is a secret (((Soros))) funded conspiracy, but those people are already primed and immersed in the correct mentality for extremism. Most people are not. The moderate majority may wring their hands over antifascist protesters being scary and violent, but this doesn't drive them to supporting fascist movements.

The way fascists win, if they are ever to win, is to normalize their racist political position as acceptable to moderates. Fascists believe that most people are racist like them, but are too afraid to say so, and to some extent they are right. A lot of people who are not ideologically racist still don't like seeing non-white people in their neighbourhoods or feel uncomfortable living in a multiethnic society. If ideological racism became accepted as another political position, a lot of those people would be drawn to it. Counter protests work because even if people resent them, they are nonetheless a reminder that racism isn't just another political position, that being openly racist will attract opposition and controversy, and moderates hate and fear controversy far more than they are drawn to racism.

Catnip1024:
To get the pedantics out of the way, more people were killed by a nutjob at a BLM rally than by the nutjob in Charlottesville. Doesn't exactly scream "we're all totally fine and non-violent" to outsiders.

Pedantic and a little dishonest, if you're referring to the Dallas shooting. You know, the one where the shooter expressly stated his antipathy towards BLM?

I mean, one was a rally to end Jewish influence where an angry white boy attacked a crowd based on the premise of the rally, and...thje other was a shooting at an event, by someone whose actions were decried by the rally holders and who decried the rally holders.

This doesn't help the case that you have sympathy for hate groups.

Agema:
WAD policing.

The police have fundamentally always been about order and enforecement of order. When a bunch of Nazis march in quasi-military lockstep down the street, many will feel they're looking at an orderly, organised group of hard-working, reputable citizens who are prepared to get blood on their knuckles. Nazis hate groups like racial minorities, anarchists, hippies, namby-pamby bleeding heart liberals, etc... who are exactly the sorts of people the police predominantly arrest or don't much like.

In other words, plenty of police officers will look upon Nazis and see people perhaps substantially like themselves. We can hardly surprised if they're inclined to give them plenty of sympathy.

Sadly that is exactly right, they do see themselves as we still very much have a problem of white supremacy infiltration in US police, armed forced and numerous government offices. The vast majority don't get called out or caught until something serious happens.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/10/23/military-times-poll-one-in-four-troops-sees-white-nationalism-in-the-ranks/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/inside-a-neo-nazi-group-with-members-tied-to-the-u-s-military/
https://newsone.com/3826746/oklahoma-police-department-hires-white-supremacist/
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia

evilthecat:
The concept of resistance by any means necessary is not advocating violence either.

Except it flows into doing that when you (general) start to get over-eager with the labelling. It's the same labelling of people as enemies of the state / free world / democracy that leads to problems all over the shop, and has rings of "for the greater good" about it. In itself, it is not a violent statement. But it is very easy to subvert into one.

By contrast, let me transcribe some footage from the Charlottesville Unite the Right protests. Apologies if I've already used this one, but it is kind of a brilliant example.

SNIP

Again, not denying there are some absolutely vile elements which get targetted by these groups. The concern with vigilantism is always that you go too far, hence the totally legitimate investigation of vigilante counter-protest groups.

And yes, that particular speech is totally inciting violence, and should totally be acted against by the appropriate authority.

If we're going to talk about "advocating violence" or violent intent, then being a white nationalist or white supremacist is an indication of violent intent. Declaring a willingness to resist the violent intent of white supremacists by any means necessary is not.

Again, we have to differ on this. One can passively believe oneself or ones race superior without any action being taken which affects any other person adversely. White nationalism is a bullshit idea built on bullshit ideology (as is black nationalism in the US context, for that matter, at least in the extreme end goal posited by some), and at it's most extreme advocates for genocide through the definition of displacement at least. But it would be intellectually dishonest to categorically state that that's what all of these people actually want - much like the black nationalist movements back in their heyday, most people within them would probably be content with minor legislative / societal shifts in their favour.

Note that this isn't meant to equivocate the two - the civil rights movement had moral rightness on its side, whereas these peeps are a bunch of insufferable pricks. The comparison is made as an illustration against the whole advocation of violence argument. Driving for unfair legislation, while incredibly shitty, would not be considered as violence (but would still warrant significant protests at the very least, possibly escalating if needs be - but that's the point, you can't just leap straight to violence on hypotheticals).

Well, I specifically used the term "globalist elite", so the former.

Not in the bit I quoted, if you look back, but it's a minor point.

Again, the core of fascism is the purification of the national spirit, and that is (at the end of the day) a racial principle.

I mean, is it? Not being funny, but you could totally argue that attempts to integrate immigrants into the community could be considered largely the same thing, and that's not racist. The point being that groups that consider themselves apart are less integrated, which is bad for both them and the community around them. The means of integration is vastly different, but the principle is the same.

True. Which is why violence must be permissable as a means of resisting fascism.

Totally, but concerns about vigilante justice and broadening labelling of all opposition are still relevant.

I mean, that's a common misconception among moderates and it's a key part of neo-Nazi propaganda, but it's also untrue, which is why fascists hate being counter protested. It's why they are so violent towards counter protesters and why they drive cars into them or bring knives to stab them, because counter protests are both very demoralising and very inconvenient to fascists.

Again, we'll have to disagree on this one. The whole alt right movement is built around stirring controversy, and things like Charlottesville breaking onto the news creates far more publicity than any amount of isolated circle-jerking.

The objective of most far right activism is to present things like white nationalism as just another political position. Counter protesting won't deter the kind of person who thinks Antifa is a secret (((Soros))) funded conspiracy, but those people are already primed and immersed in the correct mentality for extremism. Most people are not. The moderate majority may wring their hands over antifascist protesters being scary and violent, but this doesn't drive them to supporting fascist movements.

Well, considering that the sort of person who joins these movements feels victimised and unfairly dealt with by whatever, surely it just validates them and pushes them towards that acceptance sooner?

The way fascists win, if they are ever to win, is to normalize their racist political position as acceptable to moderates. Fascists believe that most people are racist like them, but are too afraid to say so, and to some extent they are right. A lot of people who are not ideologically racist still don't like seeing non-white people in their neighbourhoods or feel uncomfortable living in a multiethnic society. If ideological racism became accepted as another political position, a lot of those people would be drawn to it. Counter protests work because even if people resent them, they are nonetheless a reminder that racism isn't just another political position, that being openly racist will attract opposition and controversy, and moderates hate and fear controversy far more than they are drawn to racism.

Again, I disagree. I think it actually plays to the "violence on both sides" argument which makes the former less loathsome because the violence in itself is becoming normalised. The quote about not wrestling pigs springs to mind...

Something Amyss:
Pedantic and a little dishonest, if you're referring to the Dallas shooting. You know, the one where the shooter expressly stated his antipathy towards BLM?

I mean, one was a rally to end Jewish influence where an angry white boy attacked a crowd based on the premise of the rally, and...thje other was a shooting at an event, by someone whose actions were decried by the rally holders and who decried the rally holders.

This doesn't help the case that you have sympathy for hate groups.

Yes, it's funny how rally holders decry the members who turn to violence after the fact across the board.

It's not dishonest - the state of politics in the US is leading to the normalisation of confrontation and violence. For BLM, this was stoked by a number of isolated policing incidents (at least a number of which were quite rightfully protested against), but inflamed by certain actions of certain members of the crowd - the action of the guy I referred to being one of them. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of a crowd is peaceful if the 0.01% starts shooting, particularly in crowds of thousands.

In Charlottesville, this was stoked probably initially by whatever crap the guy had been listening to, and compounded by the confrontations and anger throughout the day.

Pretending that these events are not potentially dangerous is dishonest. Accepting that emotions are running high and that there is the potential for issues to arise allows people to mitigate it - whether that be the policing tactics, statements from the organisers, etc. Less polarised media might help, too, but god forbid we try and deal with that.

evilthecat:

True. Which is why violence must be permissable as a means of resisting fascism.

Violence should only be permissable in self defense. With all the constrains that that entails. No preemptive strikes allowed, no retaliation allowed.

The monopoly on violence is a central pillar of a modern state and a modern justice system. If you leave that behind, you are either a criminal or a terrorist.

I mean, that's a common misconception among moderates and it's a key part of neo-Nazi propaganda, but it's also untrue, which is why fascists hate being counter protested. It's why they are so violent towards counter protesters and why they drive cars into them or bring knives to stab them, because counter protests are both very demoralising and very inconvenient to fascists.

Counterprotests work very well qand should be encouraged (or participated in in possible). Nonviolent counterprotests that is. Violent protests are bad. Which is exactly why some Nazis try to provoke counterprotesters thus aiming to delegitimize the protest.

The objective of most far right activism is to present things like white nationalism as just another political position. Counter protesting won't deter the kind of person who thinks Antifa is a secret (((Soros))) funded conspiracy, but those people are already primed and immersed in the correct mentality for extremism. Most people are not. The moderate majority may wring their hands over antifascist protesters being scary and violent, but this doesn't drive them to supporting fascist movements.

Antifa are mostly violent idiots, their ideology a crude mix of Anarchism and Communism but far more violent than what traditional Anarchocommunists believe in. That is if they have an ideology beyond fighting police, burning cars, smashing windows and maybe once in a while fighting neonazis. Luckily they mostly behave like hooligans and rioters not like genuine communist terrorists like the Red Army Faction.

Antifa is bad. Yes, Neonazis are (occasionally) worse and have (certainly) a far worse idology, but that doesn't make Antifa the good guys.

Satinavian:

evilthecat:

True. Which is why violence must be permissable as a means of resisting fascism.

Violence should only be permissable in self defense. With all the constrains that that entails. No preemptive strikes allowed, no retaliation allowed.

The monopoly on violence is a central pillar of a modern state and a modern justice system. If you leave that behind, you are either a criminal or a terrorist.

If this is the case, then we all have to agree on what Self Defense actually means.

Systematic Oppression that last generations, that ensured your ancestors a horrible life with barely any improvements due to work arounds... Is that not something to defend against?

Like if we're just saying "You should only hurt someone if they are about to hurt you right at that second", it's paving the way for a lot of people to continue under horrible dictatorships and regimes simply because Death Squads aren't banging at their door right this second.

"The only thing for Evil to succeed is for Good Man to do Nothing" is a stupid idea. Because not everyone is good. Not everyone wants to share in their strength and resources. The majority of people are lazy and selfish. There's only a percent of people who are uniquely good and uniquely bad. The majority of Earth's population just wants to keep their head down and deal with their own stuff.

We've seen this play out in almost every civilization or culture that has had a crime against humanity. South American Countries, Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, Africa, the United Kingdom... so what is the solution for people who live under these conditions? Keep their head down and pray for the best?

ObsidianJones:
Systematic Oppression that last generations, that ensured your ancestors a horrible life with barely any improvements due to work arounds... Is that not something to defend against?

It's defence of ones human rights. Which most reasonable people would class as self-defence.

I think the point we disagree is mainly on the point at which human rights become threatened and hence when such action would be justified.

Satinavian:
Violence should only be permissable in self defense. With all the constrains that that entails. No preemptive strikes allowed, no retaliation allowed.

The monopoly on violence is a central pillar of a modern state and a modern justice system. If you leave that behind, you are either a criminal or a terrorist.

What? No. For starters this assumes alliances aren't things. Literally the only real defence of the Malacca strait from potential Chinese blockade and occupation is the fact that the rest of the world would align to protect it. It's not as if people can reasonably abandon Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam to fall to simply say; "Well, the Chinese aren't threatening me directly."

Appeasement is historically villified for a reason.

Secondly this assumes neo-Nazis aren't cowardly fucks that will willingly target minority groups they feel reasonably assured that nobody else will directly get in their way. It's almost as if that's their modus operandi.

Thirdly, there is systemically no separation between police who allow fascist violence, and police endorsement of fascist violence. In the end any successful action against fascists involves a reorientation of values to protect the targets of fascist violence and ending that systematic targeting of the usual victims of its machinations. If the police aren't willing to, then fighting the police is all that remains to people.

If the fascists are the government, then it's morally conducive to fight it. It's almost as if partisans were a good thing to see in the face of a Third Reich...

Catnip1024:
Yes, it's funny how rally holders decry the members who turn to violence after the fact across the board.

Except that's not honest, either.

If you're willing to bend over this far to equate hate groups that were fine with and defended shots being fired at their rallies with an organisation interrupted by a man who had publicly decried them, don't be surprised when people view you as sympathetic to Nazis and the KKK. I'm not saying you are, but for someone who's this concerned with the optics of a peaceful black rights group, you sure don't seem to mind the optics of lying for hate groups.

Catnip1024:
Except it flows into doing that when you (general) start to get over-eager with the labelling.

Can you prove that this is happening?

Which innocent, non-fascist people have BAMN targeted, to your knowledge?

Catnip1024:
The concern with vigilantism is always that you go too far, hence the totally legitimate investigation of vigilante counter-protest groups.

We're talking about a country where the people whose job it is to investigate crimes routinely carry out racist murders, who abuse a significant proportion of LGBT people they are called upon to process and are frequently found to have been infiltrated by or in cooperation with white supremacists.

Define going too far?

Catnip1024:
One can passively believe oneself or ones race superior without any action being taken which affects any other person adversely.

Right, and one can passively believe that fascism must be confronted by any means necessary without any action being taken which affects another person adversely. It's interesting that you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to white supremacists that they will never act on their violent ideology, but can't do the same for antifascists.

Also, I just fundamentally reject the deeply authoritarian idea that all violence by non-state actors is inherently equal in its cosmic wrongness and only agents of the state can be trusted to wield the awesome responsibility of shooting people of colour for no reason. The legitimacy of violence isn't defined by its legality, but by the motivation and consequences. You cannot draw a moral equivalency between racist or homophobic violence and resistance against people who are attempting to spread or legitimize racist or homophobic violence, and yes, even if you are this mythical pacifist white supremacist who would never hurt a fly, your political goal is still to create a racist political system in which POC are subject to indiscriminate violence by the state.. oh whoops, we already live in that political system.

Catnip1024:
I mean, is it? Not being funny, but you could totally argue that attempts to integrate immigrants into the community could be considered largely the same thing, and that's not racist.

I mean, if integrating immigrants into your community involves systematically murdering the adults and putting the children in special institutions to try and civilize them out of racial degeneracy, you'd have a point.

I mean, it's not like supposedly liberal societies haven't done that as well, but it was really, really racist when they did it too.

Catnip1024:
The whole alt right movement is built around stirring controversy, and things like Charlottesville breaking onto the news creates far more publicity than any amount of isolated circle-jerking.

Charlottesville was a huge, huge disaster for the alt-right. We know it. They know it. They actually talk about it pretty openly amongst themselves.

Almost all alt-right commentary on Charlottesville is people trying to spin it as not as bad as it looked while also frantically deleting their livestreams so you can't actually see how it looked.

Catnip1024:
Well, considering that the sort of person who joins these movements feels victimised and unfairly dealt with by whatever, surely it just validates them and pushes them towards that acceptance sooner?

People don't magically become more racist because they feel victimized.

Catnip1024:
Again, I disagree. I think it actually plays to the "violence on both sides" argument which makes the former less loathsome because the violence in itself is becoming normalised.

I mean, again, if you want to talk about normalised violence, you should really start by considering the forms of violence which you don't think are big deal or are okay with ignoring, like violence by state actors.

Fascist violence is normalized, sure, but it's normalized because its targets, overwhelmingly, are minorities who are already subject to many forms of violence (including violence by state actors).

Antifascist violence is about as far from normalized as you can get. The response it gets from moderates is downright hysterical. That isn't actually a problem, however. Unlike most of the far right, antifascist actors aren't generally motivated by looking good or seeking approval from moderates (which I suspect is a big part of why the reaction from white moderates to antifascist violence is so extreme, moderates feel safer with violent people who are also seeking their approval). However, moderates also tend to be a very poor judge of what is and isn't a normal level of violence.

That feeling of concern you have that antifa super soldiers will "go too far" and beat you up. That's been my day to day reality for most of my life, because I never know walking out the house if someone's going to take offence to me existing. I've been beaten up multiple times, I've been put in hospital, I still have emotional flashbacks to violent incidents which have happened to me. Apparently, this is the normal level of violence someone like me just has to expect and live with, and yet punching a Nazi at a literal neo-Nazi rally is going to normalize violence. Yeah, sure it is.

ObsidianJones:

Meanwhile, in 2018, every domestic terror attack on US soil has been done by Right-Wing Extremists.

Don't take reports like that seriously, they're not being honest. That report isn't so much a list of all domestic terrorism as it is a list of every crime they could associate with a swastika. Guy serial bombs Austin Texas? Well, that wasn't terror motivated, let's not count it. Couple kills their own baby, hides it in a freezer, and runs? Well, he was in whites-only prison gang, so that's got to be a right-wing terrorism incident. Or when we got the slew of reports that 2/3 of terrorism in the US in 2017 was right-wing violence, but if you dig past the headlines, you see a long list of crimes that they suspect were racially motivated. And like, 3 of their incidents were an unknown assailant shooting a pellet gun at a mosque. They call that 3 incidents of right-wing terrorism. Meanwhile, they leave out all the times GOP or DNC offices get vandalized, shot at, or set on fire, because for some reason attacks on ideological opponents is less terrorist than probably a kid with a pellet gun.

And like, the title of this thread is just as bad as the report it's criticizing. First, it refers to a group that was investigated for an event labeled "NO FREE SPEECH" as "civil rights group" as though they were being investigated for promoting civil rights, and then for some reason just assumes the FBI doesn't investigate the KKK. Like, are we actually pretending that white supremacists aren't on the FBI watch list? I know Trump has made stupid moves at focusing less on that, but the FBI definitely has a file on the KKK.

tstorm823:

ObsidianJones:

Meanwhile, in 2018, every domestic terror attack on US soil has been done by Right-Wing Extremists.

Don't take reports like that seriously, they're not being honest. That report isn't so much a list of all domestic terrorism as it is a list of every crime they could associate with a swastika. Guy serial bombs Austin Texas? Well, that wasn't terror motivated, let's not count it. Couple kills their own baby, hides it in a freezer, and runs? Well, he was in whites-only prison gang, so that's got to be a right-wing terrorism incident. Or when we got the slew of reports that 2/3 of terrorism in the US in 2017 was right-wing violence, but if you dig past the headlines, you see a long list of crimes that they suspect were racially motivated. And like, 3 of their incidents were an unknown assailant shooting a pellet gun at a mosque. They call that 3 incidents of right-wing terrorism. Meanwhile, they leave out all the times GOP or DNC offices get vandalized, shot at, or set on fire, because for some reason attacks on ideological opponents is less terrorist than probably a kid with a pellet gun.

And like, the title of this thread is just as bad as the report it's criticizing. First, it refers to a group that was investigated for an event labeled "NO FREE SPEECH" as "civil rights group" as though they were being investigated for promoting civil rights, and then for some reason just assumes the FBI doesn't investigate the KKK. Like, are we actually pretending that white supremacists aren't on the FBI watch list? I know Trump has made stupid moves at focusing less on that, but the FBI definitely has a file on the KKK.

And why should we trust you on this?

tstorm823:

ObsidianJones:

Meanwhile, in 2018, every domestic terror attack on US soil has been done by Right-Wing Extremists.

Don't take reports like that seriously, they're not being honest. That report isn't so much a list of all domestic terrorism as it is a list of every crime they could associate with a swastika. Guy serial bombs Austin Texas? Well, that wasn't terror motivated, let's not count it. Couple kills their own baby, hides it in a freezer, and runs? Well, he was in whites-only prison gang, so that's got to be a right-wing terrorism incident. Or when we got the slew of reports that 2/3 of terrorism in the US in 2017 was right-wing violence, but if you dig past the headlines, you see a long list of crimes that they suspect were racially motivated. And like, 3 of their incidents were an unknown assailant shooting a pellet gun at a mosque. They call that 3 incidents of right-wing terrorism. Meanwhile, they leave out all the times GOP or DNC offices get vandalized, shot at, or set on fire, because for some reason attacks on ideological opponents is less terrorist than probably a kid with a pellet gun.

And like, the title of this thread is just as bad as the report it's criticizing. First, it refers to a group that was investigated for an event labeled "NO FREE SPEECH" as "civil rights group" as though they were being investigated for promoting civil rights, and then for some reason just assumes the FBI doesn't investigate the KKK. Like, are we actually pretending that white supremacists aren't on the FBI watch list? I know Trump has made stupid moves at focusing less on that, but the FBI definitely has a file on the KKK.

I dont think anyone said they dont have a file. The file is not a priority over Left wing files. Just becuase something is created, doesnt mean it gets used.

Saelune:
And why should we trust you on this?

You can click the link in the post above and see that they included that case of infanticide and didn't include the Austin bombings from last year. You don't have to trust me.

Calling back to the reports of 2017 that 2/3 of domestic terrorism was right wing, the actual numbers they were using said 37/65 which isn't fairly estimated as 2/3 to begin with, they were referring to this database, which list "right wing extremism" as the motive exactly once in 2017. If you put together every motivation on the list that isn't islam, environmentalism, anti-white, anti-republican, pro-lgbt, or "unknown", you still only get to 32. And in fairness if you dig into each incident, some of those unknowns could probably be labelled as right-wing extremists, though if you can't even state a motive calling it terrorism is a stretch, but if you're digging in deep, you're going to find that not all the "anti-government extremists" were right wing. A few months ago when those reports were coming out, I tried to figure out where their number was from for a few hours, and I still have no idea. And then of the incidents they probably counted as right-wing, 12 of them are (suspected) cause they don't know who did it or why, vs only 2 times they suspected someone they wouldn't count as right wing, which was hypothetically environmentalists setting port-o-johns on fire. And some of those suspected ones are things like "someone spraypainted KKK after breaking in and robbing a store, so we can only assume that's an authentic confession."

I can only assume these analyses of right-wing domestic terrorism are agenda driven. In my attempt to vet this anti-defamation league report, I've found no other lists counting most of their incidents (likely cause they choose to include things like domestic violence as terrorism if the guy liked nazis, which I guess is sort of lampshading the normal view that it's only reported as terrorism if they're not white), but they left out a serial bomber, a guy setting his van on fire and crashing into an air-force base, and one they mentioned was a psychopath who confessed to stabbing two other kids because of his Muslim faith but there's evidence he had "interest in white supremacy" at some point, so they can count that as "linked to right-wing extremism".

trunkage:
I dont think anyone said they dont have a file. The file is not a priority over Left wing files. Just because something is created, doesnt mean it gets used.

Well, the title of the thread says "while KKK violence ignored". The title is what I was criticizing, and making a file isn't quite "ignored".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A

There's an insidious danger hidden in the argument that this is what the alt-right "wants" you to do, or this is what the Nazis "want" you to do.

Playing this game is a losing proposition.

Something Amyss:
Except that's not honest, either.

If you're willing to bend over this far to equate hate groups that were fine with and defended shots being fired at their rallies with an organisation interrupted by a man who had publicly decried them, don't be surprised when people view you as sympathetic to Nazis and the KKK. I'm not saying you are, but for someone who's this concerned with the optics of a peaceful black rights group, you sure don't seem to mind the optics of lying for hate groups.

Except it is honest, whether you like it or not. The Charlottesville mob were happy to try and paint the one nutjob as one isolated nutjob acting alone. Whether or not that is the case, this is a common theme by all organisations whenever there is any violence. Saying "the organisers denounced X" doesn't make them any less ultimately responsible for that persons actions.

Your problem is that you are so obsessed with the moral rightness aspects of the discussion that you allow it to prevent you from making actual objective comparisons. The comparison I made doesn't attempt to equivocate the morality of the various groups, rather it recognises the fact that both use marches in a highly emotional environment and both have seen people die as a result, in response to Saelune's assertion that there was no danger involved with BLM. Angry political marches have an inherent danger about them, particularly in a nation full of guns, pretending otherwise is to stick your head in the sand.

ObsidianJones:

If this is the case, then we all have to agree on what Self Defense actually means.

Systematic Oppression that last generations, that ensured your ancestors a horrible life with barely any improvements due to work arounds... Is that not something to defend against?

Like if we're just saying "You should only hurt someone if they are about to hurt you right at that second", it's paving the way for a lot of people to continue under horrible dictatorships and regimes simply because Death Squads aren't banging at their door right this second.

Well, yes, i extend that so far.

You can fight systematic oppression by either democratic means or by civil disobedience or simply by protesting. You can do all that without violence.
Yes, in a dictatorship some of that might technically be criminalized and might get you in trouble. But morally all of that is fine.

But as soon as you resort to violence you are starting a violent uprising and hopefully revolution, the nation is justified in using violence against you including the army and have you all gunned down as terrorists and enemies of the state. And that might even have fewer overall deaths than letting a violent revolution run its course with the inevitable purges afterwards and switching from one tyrannical regime to another.

Keep their head down and pray for the best?

I was part of a peoceful revolution abolishing a real dictature without firing a single shot. I have little patience for "Oh, but our enemies who suppress us have all the power and our peoceful protests can't force them to anything. So let's get violent, that will show them we mean it." It is stupid, it is counterproductive. And it is only an excuse to let of steam by hurting other people.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

What? No. For starters this assumes alliances aren't things. Literally the only real defence of the Malacca strait from potential Chinese blockade and occupation is the fact that the rest of the world would align to protect it. It's not as if people can reasonably abandon Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam to fall to simply say; "Well, the Chinese aren't threatening me directly."

I mentioned the monopoly on violence for a reason. For nations the rules are different than for individuals.

If the fascists are the government, then it's morally conducive to fight it. It's almost as if partisans were a good thing to see in the face of a Third Reich...

I don't like the glorification of partisans at all. They are irregulars blurring the lines between civilians and soldiers and technically pretty much all of them are war criminals according to Geneva conventions and Hague conventions.
Now i do admit that international law has big, glaring whole as to all those freedom fighters/terrorists and there probably should be rules about how to conduct assymetrical warfare on both sides but none of the big players nowadays want such rules. They might forbidding drone strikes to kill prominent enemy leaders at a wedding or whatever now counts as counterterrorism.
Abd no, there is no fundamental difference between partisans fighting Nazis, IRA terrorists fighting the English and Palestinensian suicide attackers fighting Israeli occupiers. And while not completely the same, there are disturbing similarities between Nazis detroying a village harboring partisans and airstikes at villages containing Taliban or things like operation Cast Lead.

Satinavian:
I was part of a peoceful revolution abolishing a real dictature without firing a single shot. I have little patience for "Oh, but our enemies who suppress us have all the power and our peoceful protests can't force them to anything. So let's get violent, that will show them we mean it." It is stupid, it is counterproductive. And it is only an excuse to let of steam by hurting other people.

Congrats?
So what exactly are we supposed to do when protest fails and the "Democratic way" is a system that is opposed to change?

MLK said that riots are the language of the unheard, and even Ghandi recognized that it was better to be violent than to be "impotent". Violence has a place and use, though it is more often than not misused and misdirected.

Dr. Thrax:

So what exactly are we supposed to do when protest fails and the "Democratic way" is a system that is opposed to change?

You have to carefully examine if the situation really is so bad that a violent revolution with maybe a coupl of years civil war and a new regime recruited from successful revolutionary fighters starting some new tyranny that lasts for at least a generation, is really a better option.

If it is better, yes, you can resort to violence.

But if not, well, you have to suck it up if peaceful protest and democratic means fail.

Satinavian:
But if not, well, you have to suck it up if peaceful protest and democratic means fail.

You heard it here, folks.
If protest and democratic means fail, deal with it.

Satinavian:

If the fascists are the government, then it's morally conducive to fight it. It's almost as if partisans were a good thing to see in the face of a Third Reich...

I don't like the glorification of partisans at all. They are irregulars blurring the lines between civilians and soldiers and technically pretty much all of them are war criminals according to Geneva conventions and Hague conventions.

There has been a big push here, in recent years, to glorify certain subset of partisans, that were active during and after WWII.
That is, those who refused to leave the forests, after WWII formally ended, and continued to fight now established communist authorities. Many of them with a good reason, since they could face being shot on the spot as enemies of the state. But that's one side of the dodecahedron.
The other is that many of these partisan groups, nowadays uncritically cheered by the right wing, and far-right parties, often acted on their own nationalist agenda, and harrased jewish populace or other "undesirables". In some cases that turned into outright, though circumstantial, collaboration with the Nazi occupant. And in some cases they were simply bandits, targeting civilians, on a very flimsy political grounds. Of course the far right realises all of that, and doesn't care, because jumbling all those people together, and acting on that kind of black and white mindset works in their favor.

So, yeah, that's my little tangent on why "partisan good, The Man bad", isn't exactly that simple.

Because Ireland and the US gained freedom by asking really really nicely.

CheetoDust:
Because Ireland and the US gained freedom by asking really really nicely.

Greenland did. Norway did. Slovakia did. It is just less famous without a big bloodbath attached, but happens all the time.

I love the way OPs post makes it sound like innocent victims of a Nazi stabbing attack are being prosecuted for crimes for some unknowable reason that's clearly about how CA law enforcement are clearly in bed with Nazis.

The FBI files further included mentions of Yvette Felarca, a Bamn member who was stabbed at the rally, but is now facing state charges of assault and rioting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux_rShZsza8

That's a news clip about the protest in question, showing why she likely got hit with an assault charge, given she shoves a guy off the street, punches him repeatedly in the stomach, and he goes down at which point several others continue where she left off. She's easily identifiable there, and she was clearly committing assault against someone who was clearly not harming or threatening to harm her. It turns out getting stabbed sometime later in an event does not absolve you of what you'd done before.

ObsidianJones:

This makes all the difference in the world. This, in fact, is the problem. Note, not ONE of us would say anything if BAMN are out there committing habitual attacks to a populace. They would be a rogue group and in need of increased FBI scrutiny.

Many antifa and antifa-like groups have members or associates engage in mostly low-level violence with some regularity. The preferred form seems to be beatings, often with improvised bludgeons of various sorts.

ObsidianJones:

I've looked for any arrests or links to any crime that BAMN has done. All I've seen is that the group 'believed to be' or 'can shift to violence at any time'. Meanwhile, in 2018, every domestic terror attack on US soil has been done by Right-Wing Extremists.

I'd love to see their source data. There's a bad habit in these kinds of things to cast a very wide "right-wing" net so that otherwise unrelated groups can be added together. To put it another way, what do sovereign citizens, quasi-Christian cults, incels (not even a political position), the militia movement, miscellaneous anti-government wackos of different varieties and the KKK have in common? They all get filed as "right-wing", and that's really about it.

With groups like BAMN, we turn that around, and anyone caught engaging in violence isn't *really* part of the group, or is just vaguely "associated with anti-fascist groups" to pretend otherwise. For example Eric Clanton who beat Trump supporters with a bike lock (4 counts of felony assault with a deadly weapon, causing great bodily harm, and wearing a mask during the commission of a crime - plead down to one misdemeanor assault charge and got 3 years probation) was "associated with anti-fascist groups" in the Berkeley, CA area. I wonder which such groups are noteworthy there, and were involved in protesting the event when he committed the assaults?

Wasn't the first time there was violence at one of those protests, won't be the last. Was the first time someone got video footage of an assault good enough to identify the perp online.

More recently, there was a case where Christopher Andrew Marquez was attacked by a group a black youths after he tried to ignore them when they started demanding he tell them if he thought black lives matter. Another case in December where Alejandro Godinez and Luis Torres were in Philly, not knowing a small right wing rally was going on somewhere nearby. They were approached by a group of around a dozen, asked if they were "proud", then beaten and robbed after answering the question with "We are Marines." They were declared "Nazis" and white supremacists by the group, and when one argued he couldn't be a white supremacist because he was Mexican it changed to "spic" and "wetback."

Mind you those were all examples I remembered hearing about when they happened, so I searched a couple of key words to track them down quickly.

We just don't get to stick all those sorts of incidents under the same umbrella, despite the groups they were associated with being much closer ideologically than the KKK are to incels are to sovereign citizens.

evilthecat:

The question of who is and isn't a fascist isn't helpful because any fascist can conceal themselves behind crypto language. Defining who is and isn't a real fascist isn't going to stop violence by fascists, and it isn't going to stop fascists from mainstreaming their political beliefs and gaining support. Instead, the useful question becomes who is doing the most to advance the cause of fascism.

...

Again, it doesn't matter who is and isn't a "real" fascist, because anyone who supports a fascist political agenda is still ultimately pursuing the same aims. Fascism is not like socialism, it isn't a nice idea which can in practice lead to totalitarianism and genocide, it is totalitarianism and genocide.

It doesn't matter who is and isn't a fascist, so long as you declare yourself to be an antifascist and mostly attack white guys you're fighting the good fight, did I get that right? Especially if they do something monstrous that proves their fascism like trying to ignore you or not knowing WTF you're going on about when you ask if they're proud.

erttheking:

I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to those who are violent. It's just that I'm pretty sure she's accusing you of being sympathetic to the KKK

Probably because every single effing time we get a thread around her about the right doing something bad, you always, ALWAYS, either try and downplay it or talk about how the other side did something bad too.

It's not a good look.

Not like you could say "a pox on both your houses", can you?

I personally just get tired of all the pretending that it's unidirectional violence. Especially when it involves things like arguing someone smirking and yelling slogans is not "peaceful protest" while also ignoring people being beaten by "antifascist" groups.

Catnip1024:

Your problem is that you are so obsessed with the moral rightness aspects of the discussion that you allow it to prevent you from making actual objective comparisons.

My problem is that I'm concerned with whether things are accurate, and you had to pretend the guy who hated BLM was somehow related to BLM because you desperately needed an example to compare to Nazis. The facts don't bear out your lie, and you don't like that.

You're about as objective as I am a witch.

Something Amyss:

Catnip1024:

Your problem is that you are so obsessed with the moral rightness aspects of the discussion that you allow it to prevent you from making actual objective comparisons.

My problem is that I'm concerned with whether things are accurate, and you had to pretend the guy who hated BLM was somehow related to BLM because you desperately needed an example to compare to Nazis. The facts don't bear out your lie, and you don't like that.

You're about as objective as I am a witch.

So he was acting on the same issues as BLM, timed his act to coincide with the protest, but hated them? Source plx.

Various excerpts originally sourced via the wikipedia article on it.

During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that "he was upset about Black Lives Matter," Chief Brown said. "He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers."
- New York Times

So whether or not he was part of the protest, he was clearly influenced by it. That's the thing about protests - you don't have to show your membership card to rock up...

Officials said they had found no evidence that the gunman, Micah Johnson, 25, had direct ties to any protest or political group, either peaceful or violent, but his Facebook page showed that he supported the New Black Panther Party, a group that has advocated violence against whites, and Jews in particular.

Charmin' fella. Who was actually kicked out of said supposedly militant group for being too militant.

Admittedly, the guy probably had some severe mental health issues, and had been through a lot. But still.

Schadrach:

I'd love to see their source data. There's a bad habit in these kinds of things to cast a very wide "right-wing" net so that otherwise unrelated groups can be added together. To put it another way, what do sovereign citizens, quasi-Christian cults, incels (not even a political position), the militia movement, miscellaneous anti-government wackos of different varieties and the KKK have in common? They all get filed as "right-wing", and that's really about it.

https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download

For your reference, that's the source there. Descriptions of every event they counted start on page 23, and sources are at the bottom, but they're basically all just news articles corroborating the existence of the incidents they list. Their notes on methodology doesn't actually list a methodology, but instead goes to a proactive defence of "For example, white supremacists, who often display many racist and white supremacist tattoos, or who may be documented as white supremacists by gang investigators or corrections officials, are often more easily identifiable... It is likely that non-ideological murders committed by extremists other than white supremacists are underrepresented in ADL's data... As with any such list, the inclusion or exclusion of certain borderline cases may be judgment calls based on the best evidence available, judgments with which others may reasonably disagree."

Basically, the line of logic they use to connect "right-wing extremism" is usually: right-wing meant conservative when they made up the term cause the right side favored monarchy, so right-wing means conservatives now, and conservatives like law and order, and nazis also liked law and order, and nazis are ethno-nationalists, and ethno-nationalists are racists, and some anti-government people are racists, and anarchists are anti-government, so 6 degrees of separation, conservatives are basically anarchists, and everything in between those options is "right-wing".

evilthecat:
Can you prove that this is happening?

It happens all over the shop. It doesn't have to have been done by this particular group to make it an issue. It happens when one accuses (say) Jordan Peterson of being a fascist. He's a conservative and a contrarian, but faaar from a fascist.

Define going too far?

Well, for starters, targetting people who don't really fall under the label but who you disagree with. Initiating violence against currently peaceful people. The sort of thing you'd teach a toddler, really...

Right, and one can passively believe that fascism must be confronted by any means necessary without any action being taken which affects another person adversely. It's interesting that you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to white supremacists that they will never act on their violent ideology, but can't do the same for antifascists.

Except I don't. I clearly stated that I believed that all political movements should be monitored, because that's the point of an investigative policing body.

Also, I just fundamentally reject the deeply authoritarian idea that all violence by non-state actors is inherently equal in its cosmic wrongness and only agents of the state can be trusted to wield the awesome responsibility of shooting people of colour for no reason. The legitimacy of violence isn't defined by its legality, but by the motivation and consequences.

If you think that you are sufficiently above the law that you can decide who lives and who dies better than the system set up on the combined knowledge and morality of society, you are totally the wrong person to be making that judgement.

Charlottesville was a huge, huge disaster for the alt-right. We know it. They know it. They actually talk about it pretty openly amongst themselves.

I think it was a clusterfuck for everyone. The gist of it from the outside was, y'all were a bunch of angry pricks that shouldn't be trusted with safety scissors. But when you already assume one side are arseholes, the other side has more to lose.

People don't magically become more racist because they feel victimized.

They become more segregated, though. It prevents integration.

I mean, why do you think such a large part of the anti-extremism work in the UK is to bring communities together and to deal with the issues that people feel are based on race / etc?

I mean, again, if you want to talk about normalised violence, you should really start by considering the forms of violence which you don't think are big deal or are okay with ignoring, like violence by state actors.

Not really part of this issue though, is it? Probably a different thread.

That feeling of concern you have that antifa super soldiers will "go too far" and beat you up. That's been my day to day reality for most of my life, because I never know walking out the house if someone's going to take offence to me existing. I've been beaten up multiple times, I've been put in hospital, I still have emotional flashbacks to violent incidents which have happened to me. Apparently, this is the normal level of violence someone like me just has to expect and live with, and yet punching a Nazi at a literal neo-Nazi rally is going to normalize violence. Yeah, sure it is.

There's a difference between secluded violence down a dark alley and public violence in a crowd that's theoretically been organised by politically active groups. Sure, both are horrible and can have horrible consequences, but the former is not normalised, it's just mainly out of sight.

And personally, idgaf about any of these groups. I'm unassuming enough to go unnoticed, and don't give enough of a damn about any political cause to consider it worth buying a train ticket for. I ain't threatened. I'm genuinely neutral in this, whether or not you accept that.

Catnip1024:

During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that ?he was upset about Black Lives Matter,?

Yeah, I know when I'm supporting someone, I say I'm upset about them.

Dude, you can't even quote your own source honestly. Give it up.

And personally, idgaf about any of these groups.

Except you will go to any length to defend violent hate groups.

A shame you won't apply your own standards to your own image.

A shame the "ignore" function doesn't work. I've got no time left for white supremacist apologists.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here