LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
from the 'let's-prove-their-point!'-the-Major-Crimes-Division-exclaimed dept
Maybe the LAPD doesn't have the experience its counter-coastal counterpart has in inflicting damage to rights and liberties, but it's trying, dammit! The NYPD's brushes with the Constitution are numerous and perpetual. The LAPD may have spent more time working on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments during its Rampart peak, but now it's rolling up on the First Amendment like a repurposed MRAP on a small town lawn.
The Los Angeles Police Department ordered a confidential informant to monitor and record meetings held by a political group that staged protests against President Trump in 2017, a move that has drawn concern and consternation from civil rights advocates.
On four separate occasions in October 2017, the informant entered Echo Park United Methodist Church with a hidden recorder and captured audio of meetings held by the Los Angeles chapter of Refuse Fascism, a group that has organized a number of large-scale demonstrations against the Trump administration in major U.S. cities, according to court records reviewed by The Times.
Perhaps no entities show more concern about opposition to fascism than law enforcement agencies, for some weird and completely inexplicable reason. Somehow, this investigation involved the Major Crimes Division, which felt the need to get involved because of all the major criminal activity that is the hallmark of protest groups.
What sort of major crimes are we talking about? Well, let's just check the record…
Police reports and transcripts documenting the informant’s activities became public as part of an ongoing case against several members of Refuse Fascism who were charged with criminal trespassing…
I see the term "major" has been redefined by the Major Crimes Division to encompass anything it might feel the urge to investigate. Supposedly, this incursion on the First Amendment was the result of an "abundance of caution" following reports of violent clashes between anti-fascists and alt-right demonstrators at other protests/rallies.
Again, the LAPD seems to not understand the meaning of the words it uses, because an "abundance of caution" should have resulted in steering clear of First Amendment-protected activities, rather than infiltrating them.
Also, an abundance of caution might have resulted in the LAPD checking out the other set of theoretical combatants, but the Los Angeles Times reports a police official said no attempt was made to infiltrate any far-right protest groups.
"Major." "Caution." "Consistency." These words are beyond the department's comprehension. And here's the kicker: the Major Crimes Division did not send its informant in until after the demonstration was already over, the freeway had already been blocked, and criminal trespassing charges had already been brought. This wasn't an investigation. It was a fishing expedition targeting people who don't like fascists that used the First Amendment as a doormat. Calls to the LAPD's Irony Division were not returned.
I guess we're all supposed to feel better about this now that the LAPD has promised to investigate itself over its First Amendment-infringing infiltration. But it seems a department that routinely struggles to use words properly and cannot steer clear of the Constitutional shoreline shouldn't be trusted to run a fax machine, much less an internal investigation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, activism, antifa, free speech, lapd, major crimes, protests, refuse facisism, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
nauseating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look, I don't know what the surprise is supposed to be about. Both fascists and antifascists seek to change the existing political system to something different, and guess which of the changes would promote the relevance of police departments and get them more funding, more personnel, and more impact?
This is a completely natural direction of resources and attention. So it does not warrant cries of disgust as much as working regulation and oversight.
The U.S. embraces capitalism as the philosophy based on the assumption that nothing motivates people as much as selfishness. Yet when they encounter selfishness not in their interest, they are all up in arms. You can cry "foul" all you want, but unless you get your lawmakers and representatives to work on this problem, this is what naturally will occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I see the point of your argument. These is a slight problem though, law enforcement duties are supposed to be limited to .... enforcing the law.
"So it does not warrant cries of disgust "
And yet it is disgusting that law enforcement feels they are above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The U.S. embraces capitalism"
The Constitution doesn't get much into capitalism does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
Yes, the constitution demands that business pay their employees less than what it takes to survive and therefore need government assistance. It creates that much desired feeling of being in control of everything. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
It does have the "pursuit of happiness" bit. Capitalism proper wasn't really such a pervasive thing until industrialisation set it and put an entirely different weight to the accruement of money and its relation to the accruement of power.
After millennia of pushing the disreputable job of managing money to Jews kept at the mercy of their "Christian" regents (and often at the brink of pogroms), the balance of money and crumbling imperial power shifted and antisemitism flared up in basically all industrialised countries. The U.S. got off comparatively mild (though check out Henry Ford's ramblings) since the Calvinists already propagated a link between commercial success and being in God's grace, and before the mass exodus in the Nazi times, the U.S. was more a target for emigrating protestants of not-locally-loved denominations than for most other religions (though the railroads propspered with their own immigrant workers and cultures).
At any rate, capitalism is not in the Constitution as such because it wasn't a thing of similar size and importance at the time the constitution was written. But the spirit of letting people pursue their own interests to the best of their abilities and with at most the necessary interference is definitely there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
What did I just read?
I'm sorry, but that looks to me like a steaming pile, maybe I just need more covfefe.
btw, has any dictionary incorporated that "word" yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
That'd be the Declaration of Independence, champ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
"The Constitution doesn't get much into capitalism does it?"
But it does get into individual freedom quite a bit, something the collectivist systems of the world can't abide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
"the collectivist systems of the world"
What might those be exactly? Is this another dog whistle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
Crack a book and find out. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
And yet here you are posting mindless garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"
Diid you miss the carrot first, tho?
The dog whistle came only after this blanket absolution of banksterish, culturally Jewish criminality/polity, expressed thus:
"the disreputable job of managing money to Jews kept at the mercy of their "Christian" regents"
Ahhhh, the poor, helpless, collectivist, George Sorosy, frequently billionairish and Zuckerbergesque Joos. Always victims-because the polity of othering others kills off LOOOOOTS of others, whose kin then pay it forwards with actual anti-semitism.
Keep in mind that the Jewish-christian world order PREEMPTIVELY slaughters pagans, animists, atheists and everyone else wholesale, and then, cries wolf and antishemitis when these get wise to the Stanley and Ollie routine.
And who can forget how many altRight/white opinion leaders are also Jewish? I mean, why waste time talking in circles about dog whistles, when the Jewish-christian confabulation/ world order is the real conversation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many restraining orders you got against you?
You need some serious therapy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How many restraining orders you got against you?
Therapy? What do you recommend, genius?
Therapy, so that Sigmund Freud and the rest of the religious-tribalist infected can analyze me, as a reaction formation to Jewish-christian psychopathology, expressed through the DSM-5, which is heavily reliant upon pre-Nazi era/MHCHAOS era pseudo science, aka, labelling theory plus some Big Pharma dope?
Anyone who has lived through America needs some form of therapy. I personally prefer "not being in Jewish-christian infected environments," followed by week long binges on 7 dollar backrubs.
...but you need to stop hiding like a sniping coward, which is its own form of mental illness.
Or, maybe go kill yourself, which would be demonstrably good for the rest of non-Jewish-christian humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psychotherapy
Most twenty-first-century forms of psychotherapy are not based on the Freudian model. And no, the DSM-5 isn't used to assess whether someone needs to be sent into a padded room, rather it comes down to a single question: Is the subject an immediate danger to himself or others? In other words, is he (she) imminently about to do something that will trigger responders and make a news cycle?
As for the DSM, yes, it has a long (dark) history and some prior models of what was or wasn't crazy would be regarded pseudoscience now -- as is the case for basic mechanics or chemistry. The history of science is notably (and proudly) laden with missteps and cascade failures and paradigm shifts where the old model was discarded for one that better predicts reality. And when that science involves people, it means a lot of people are abused and hurt.
I would argue that it's generally a bad idea to get committed in the US, just as it's a bad idea to end up in jail. The US regards both groups to have too much cross section, and there is a lot of guard-on-detainee abuse in all of our brigs. But that's a specific problem that needs to be addressed on its own. It is not cause to condemn the whole field of psychology.
I might agree with you that much of the population in the United States could benefit from regular psychotherapy. We value the capacity to function under stress way more than we value actual mental health...or any health for that matter, and most people are unaware of their own deteriorating health while they try to sustain high-functionality for their job supervisors.
As for your suggestion to someone to KYS, Jesus spaketh thusly it shows a lack of awareness of the epidemic of suicide in the United States which is an order of magnitude larger than our gun violence problem, and it speaks poorly both of both your Christian values and your awareness of major matters in the psychiatric sector.
Maybe, Jesus spaketh thusly you should consider refraining commenting on internet forums, and in so doing, brighten the world a jot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How many yeast infections do you give your partner?
Interesting tool, those restraining orders that are widely used to subvert due process of law, fair trials, and insight into womens violence, directed at men, and children, in Judeo-christian, American households.
Martin Feibert examined that in the pre-DVIC era, and guess what? Yup....
Its a fancy tool of the banksters to get cash, property, and kids funneled into the DVIC systems, y overlooking womens violence, and gendering violence as male:
(.pdf warning)
http://newstripepolitics.com/feminism/fiebert-bibliography-of-partner-violence/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe because it's the far-leftist groups doing 99% of the violence out there. The right is busy working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Citation very much needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps he's thinking of the "Bowling Green Massacre?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or maybe what happened last night in Sweden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The thread started out discussing Los Angeles California which is located in the United States of America i North America.
And you respond with a story out of Sweden which is located in Europe.
As if they are the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That whooshing sound you just heard? It was the joke going over your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Woudn't be the first time :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Homegrown Terrorists in 2018 Were Almost All Right-Wing
I'm sorry, try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes terrorism.
Do not fell bad as the entire population of political members and their pundits have been unable to conquer this problem which seems to revolve about their lack of good communication skills.
If one labels violent acts as being from an individual acting alone it somehow shields same from being considered terroristic in nature, I'm not sure why this is but it sure seems to be the case.
Anyway - if you control the statistics you can say anything and not be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really need to work on your spin if that’s the best you got to defend that absolute tripe the OP shat out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's wrong with pointing out how those who are supposed to be legislating are incapable of communicating?
I was defending nothing, perhaps you are bent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's wrong with pointing out you're incapable of communicating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK so he didn't get the percentages exactly right - it's 3% not 99%. "Not intended to be a factual statement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have the self awareness of a sea cucumber
The fact that you paid real money, that your mom and dad had to go out and actually earn, to make that the first word. Made me laugh so hard I dislocated my spleen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is vaguely related to Poe's law
Maybe because it's the far-leftist groups doing 99% of the violence out there. The right is busy working.
When I see this comment as the first word I realize it's not relevant as an explanation of the incident discussed in the article, rather an example of the collective mindset that was a factor in its fruition.
As a note for future propaganda, sweeping statistics like 99% tend to be implausible and will lead skeptics to fact-check. In fact most criminal violence in the US is domestic and apolitical, and even when we start narrowing it to just political violence, hate crime rates remain at an elevated level during the Trump era (about 168% of the Obama era rates), which means the Far-Left Liberation Army (FLLA!) would have to be doing a hundred times that.
This is not to say extreme stats are always false (Grand juries indict about 100.00% of non-law-enforcement suspects, and about 0.00 law enforcement suspects), but they are going to be commonly subject to scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is vaguely related to Poe's law
"hate crime rates remain at an elevated level"
This is tainted, I can Jussie Smollett from here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is vaguely related to Poe's law
Here. Have some MSM propaganda.. You can do your own research from here, or (as I expect given the Smollett reference) not and believe what you want.
Attitude polarization is all the rage these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who's the chucklefuck that firstworded that drivel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Someone with an extremely small penis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOUR COMMENT IS SEXIST!
It could have been a woman, with an unimaginably huge, fist sized, flappy vagina!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like assaults with deadly weapons? Property damage? Rioting?
I've got nothing to say about this particular anti-fascist group - they may genuinely be anti-fascist and otherwise fairly peaceful - but let's not pretend antifa isn't a violent movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's the difference between matter and anti-matter?
Scientists tell us that any particle of matter and its anti-matter counterpart are exactly alike in every way, except for a few specific characteristics in which they are exactly alike except for being oriented in the polar opposite direction. And when the two meet, it results in a violent explosion.
What's the difference between fascists and anti-fascists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is the difference between a question, and a rhetorical question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anti-fascists only seem to cause violent reactions in the presence of fascists. Fascists, on the other hand, seem to cause violence wherever they appear, whether antifa are there or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antifascists commit acts of violence to defend themselves or others, even if the threat is only a perceived one.
Fascists commit acts of violence to terrorize people out of participating in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Almost as good as “There are good people on both sides.”
Except no one is laughing because people were killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does it really matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, we all know that one instance of a stereotype is indicative of all members of said stereotype, right? It then follows, using your logic, that all conservatives are violent because there have been multiple instances of violent behavior by so called conservatives - right? That is what you are saying.
Also, there never are any infiltrators who instigate violence are there?
Do you agree with those calling to outlaw protests? Id so, what color jackboots do you wear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
His jackboots are proudboy khaki. It’s why he has such a keen interest in AntiFa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Source)
“Antifa” is not an organization¹, but a political philosophy (antifascism). By labelling “Antifa” as a terrorist group, the government can label all antifascists as terrorists(-in-waiting) and justify infiltrating those groups, possibly with the intent to push people toward violent action². You have bigger problems than the Antifa boogeyman in your head if you see no issue with the police doing that bullshit.
¹ — Yes, there are groups that use “Antifa” in their names, but there is no one central “Antifa” organization.
² — See also: the FBI terrorism stings where the “terrorist” would have never come close to committing a terrorist act if not for the intervention of the FBI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, because it's definitely Antifa threatening helicopter rides...therefore police need to change their panties. /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And when we had a left-leaning president, the government (via DHS) would routinely send out bulletins to local law enforcement that warned of 'signs you might be dealing with a domestic terrorist or extremist'.
Included on the list were things like:
---Individuals who are unusually well-versed in the law, court decisions, and/or the Bill of Rights.
---Individuals who carry a copy of the Constitution on their person.
---Individual who insist on filming or recording encounters with law enforcement
---Individuals who do not trust the government or who advocate for a federal government with limited power.
---Individuals who belong to or advertise the NRA on their clothing and vehicles.
It's not real fun when the shoe's on the other foot now, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And somewhere in the Midwest there’s a farm absolutely covered in birds because you stole all their strawmen. Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left-leaning president
Obama was a corporatist neoconservative, and we're terrified that the DNC is going to prop up someone like Biden or another neocon who will just try to preserve the status quo.
If Obama ever leaned left it's only because he was standing on the steep right side of the hill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also...
It's not a good sign when law enforcement categorizes people for extra suspicion because they are well-versed in the law or carry a copy of the Constitution of the United States.
For one, it indicates that these are uncommon traits which is indicative of a failing state of the people.
For another thing, it means it's all too easy to be poorly versed in the law. Hamilton noted that this is a problem in Federalist #61
And given those, the police don't serve the people but the administration and are a direct threat to the people.
But that has been a lengthy discussion with continuously accruing evidence right here on TechDirt for... over a decade now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Based on the detail of your post I assume you have a reference handy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Want me to google it for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I want btr1701 to provide it, so I can see what he's talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
He is taking too long
Let me know if you want a more reliable source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Waiting for a source that actually contains the material referenced above. Your link does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"And when we had a left-leaning president ..."
How does your comment, in any way, address the comment to which you replied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I might be misreading something here - after multiple crimes are committed, you have a problem with the police infiltrating a group associated with those criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes he does, because they're the police and therefore inherently evil instruments of inherently evil State Power.
Welcome to the mental disease that is Libertarian thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If there were crimes committed, the cops are to go get the perps and the DA charges them - that is how it is supposed to work, no?
Why did the cops, rather than arrest someone, infiltrate a church group? Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm... because if you arrest someone without evidence, it doesn't actually work, so you need to gather the evidence first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why didn’t they arrest anyone bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With all the surveillance apparatus vacuuming up every little bit of data it is just too difficult to identity the perpetrators without violating a few laws of the land or maybe their surveillance is a bit lacking.
They were on a freeway in LA, where traffic is a huge problem so cameras were installed everywhere. I guess these cameras have suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Camera's work like crap when you're wearing a black mask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why bother getting copies of that video because it is crap, why not just infiltrate the church group - that will certainly be the best option here.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don’t wear masks at their meetings, idiot v
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Umm... because if you arrest someone without evidence, it doesn't actually work, so you need to gather the evidence first?"
Oh yeah - one more thing ... it never stopped them in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm... because if you arrest someone without evidence, it doesn't actually work, so you need to gather the evidence first?
But...
the freeway had already been blocked, and criminal trespassing charges had already been brought. This wasn't an investigation.
So they brought charges of trespassing without evidence?
You're not helping their argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arresting people without evidence
We have a 90% conviction rate, the police are infamous for being able to build a case on an arrest without evidence, including by being willing to lie in court. But cheap drug tests and trick-pony detection dogs that alert for dog treats both work too.
Due process is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From the LA Times article:
Under the circumstances? Yeah, I see a couple of problems there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, it's known that trespassing is a gateway crime to such capital offenses as jaywalking, double parking, and copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Blocking highways can subject thousands, even tens of thousands, to false arrest (in their stalled cars) for hours, and even cost the lives of people seeking emergency medical attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IANAL, but I think that unless there's something preventing you from leaving a car, that's not unlawful confinement (it certainly wouldn't be false arrest because it's not a state actor).
So could any protest that blocks any right-of-way. In either case, it's an incredibly small risk. Do you think it's so great a risk that it's worth completely outlawing protesting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ridiculous strawman. There is a well-established law of "parade permits," allowing protesters to protest and police to plan traffic around them.
Police and the public don't make a big issue of occasional unplanned blockages of local streets. Interstate highways are a much more serious matter, however.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/15/protesters-block-traffic-southeast-express-nor thbound/G3aLvpDWRixI2I6SVyaErM/story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parade permits
I'm pretty sure parade and protest permits (which are often rejected to activism groups that run against the provincial grain) are in the same category as first amendment zones on campuses.
More specifically, in a state in which political speech is supposed to be free, it's rendering it not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parade permits
Yeah, content-based denials of parade-type permits are 1A violations; that sort of permitting is really a ministerial traffic-engineering function, anyway, that shouldn't even be subject to political-level review. Basically, "is your temporary traffic control consistent with the road you're occupying?" is the only question that really needs to be asked, no different than if it was a utility occupying the road instead of a protest group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hugo Chavez thought highway blockages were a cool way to overthrow the government of Bolivia in 2003. When hometown protesters started showing an interest in the idea, however, Chavez quickly banned highway blockages in Venezuela.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That right there is enough strawmen to need to qualify for a parade permit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention if that definition was upheld then you could arrest an entire traffic jam because they were preventing the cars ahead of them from leaving without cause. To call that a bad idea would be an understatement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's horrible! Those damned protesters blocking traffic, just horrible I say!
But if it's construction crews, no big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know how I know you didn’t comprehend the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bias
Los Angeles Times reports a police official said no attempt was made to infiltrate any far-right protest groups.
Say what you will about the anti-fascist movement - but why do the police seem to have such a strong bias when it comes to ignoring right-wing extremists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bias
TBF, in this instance, the LA Times article says this:
That could be a valid reason not to have similar investigations of right-wing groups.
Speaking generally, though, I'm with you; I'm pretty concerned with the approach toward white supremacist violence from both law enforcement and the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bias
So... basically what I've been saying all along? That these organizations, as abhorrent as their beliefs may be, simply are not big enough to warrant real concern?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bias
Oh I don't know ... all it takes is one crazed individual to plow a vehicle thru a bunch of innocent bystanders - but that is not big enough, yeah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
...Or shoot up a synagogue, because he thinks that Jews are behind the caravans at the US-Mexico border. Or shoot up a yoga studio, because he hates interracial relationships. Or shoot up a school after opining that that all Jews should die. Or...
There's a lot of blood on the far right's hands for them to be considered "not big enough to warrant real concern." Especially when there's so much insistence on investigating left-wing activists, when all of the stories about "left-wing violence" tend to involve milkshakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yards and the milkshakes therein
Kesha did try to warn us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yards and the milkshakes therein
That's Kelis, not Kesha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yards and the milkshakes therein
Well, shit. My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
Yes, that happened. I heard of that incident too. But here's the thing: that was an incident, a single thing that happened once. That does not constitute a pattern of violent or terroristic behavior such as we used to see from white supremacist organizations in the USA back in the KKK's heyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
And yet thinking that it's inappropriate to infiltrate and investigate an antifascist group, despite members of that having committed no violent crimes at all, is an example of, to quote yourself, "the mental disease that is Libertarian thought?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dig up next time bro
Ah but you’ve nailed it. The Klan and neo-Nazis never stopped. Just changed names. I believe you guys call yourselves proudboys these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I believe they call themselves “Trump voters”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, they call themselves "America". That's why they state that people not loving racism in their government and working for political change by working as political representatives "hate America" and "should go back where they came from" (Ohio, for example).
They may be Trump voters but they don't call themselves anything as narrowly categorized as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The U.S. government does not consider the Ku Klux Klan to be a domestic terrorist organization despite its century-plus history of hate-driven violence and murder that ended thousands of lives and terrorized minorities of all kinds.
If the Klan isn’t considered a terrorist group despite its documented history of fatal terroristic violence, for what reason should antifascists receive the same label?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, you have to start somewhere. And starting with the group that hates police most makes it more likely you'll stick around until you finished with all of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The masked Ku Klux Klan of the 1960s was certainly a (collection of) terrorist organization(s), but they have mostly died off or retired. They are not carrying out terrorist campaigns today, and know that aggressive actions while hooded (masked) will attract hostile LE attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Ku Klux Klan of the 1860’s,1960’s, and today, are a terrorist organisation.
Fixed for accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah! KKK leaders haven't shot any black people since 2018! And they haven't put on white hoods and burned crosses since the long-off days of 2017.
Truly their time as a terrorist organization is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
But there is (far) more Right-Wing violence than Anti-Fascist violence. So better to follow the statistics:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-t he-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s not like this is becoming a pattern...
Hey Mason them AntiFa cause an internet outage where you live? You seem to have disappeared as soon people got a chance to rub your face in your blatant hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
It only takes once.
You have forgotten about the many additional instances of violence perpetrated by white supremist types?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
If that's a real standard, it should be applied consistently, and that definitely makes the Antifa movement domestic terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
Ok, following along that thought process makes the proud boys a terrorist organization - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
Even if we grant that both use the same means the ends are polar opposites. Antifa seeks freedom and equality for all while the alt-right seeks discrimination, slavery and hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
If by "all," you mean "everyone who agrees with them," then yes. Which, again, makes them exactly the same as the fascists, who seek freedom and equality (though they tend to prefer the term "liberty" these days) for everyone who is on their side, at the expense of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
I guess the two "sides" would first have to agree upon what "freedom and equality for all" means. Because it is readily apparent that they do not agree upon this or anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
No he ment for all. Thanks for playing Semantics The Game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antifa
Having actually read the principles of Antifaschistische Aktion, (commonly abbreviated in the German style -- like Jasta or Nazi -- to Antifa). Sects of antifa regard any emergence of fascism as an existential threat. Fascism is (according to antifa) such a great threat to humanity that the cause of fighting it supersedes all arguments regarding human rights.
So yes, according to antifa, Nazi-talk is a punchable offense. Yes. This contradicts laws of nations that value free political speech.
Antifa is an extreme response to the holocaust, and yes, they believe that it is better if would-be fascists are dead then allowed to potentially revive fascism. Antifa may be extreme enough to prefer the fall of civilization or even human extinction rather than fascism rise again. The monstrosity of fascism is so great that it warrants the risk of becoming monsters themselves to fight it.
This is also the only principle of antifa. Antifa avoids opinions regarding what should exist in the place of fascism, only that it cannot be fascism. It also commands action to defend enemies of fascism and all entities who also fight fascism, and to mobilize whenever fascism and its advocates materialize.
Curiously, I'm not sure why they aren't mobilizing to liberate US detention centers which are nexi of fascism in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antifa
Because it's easier to cause trouble than to solve problems. Antifa is not a serious organisation (mostly because they're not organised and unified due to their being anarchists). So basically all they ever do is march and occasionally hit people (sometimes the "wrong" people) and all to be seen to be opposing fascism as opposed to actually effectively opposing fascism. It's just an excuse to be violent.
Having engaged with them on Twitter I can confirm this is correct and true and that they're basically violent idiots who couldn't organise a booze-up in a brewery. Violence is not okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not able to dismiss Antifa yet.
It turns out Nazis are great for challenging deontological ethics. Generally I think lying is wrong but fuck if I'm going to out the gays in my basement to Nazi SS. I'd even resist when interrogated.
Similarly the presence of Nazis raises a point of when it is appropriate to engage in violence. Wendy do you think Von Clausewitz was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler in July of 1944? Unlike many of the other attempts, Von Clausewitz was part of a team determined to take over governance of Germany and surrender to the Allies. But Von Clausewitz himself got involved, himself, because he couldn't tolerate the genocide policies of Hitler's regime (even though Von Clausewitz was a Thulian and a German supremacist, himself).
Consider also all peaceful protests against Hitler and his policies had long been routed out, arrested and executed. Also, every hour was thousands more human beings processed through the death camp engines. Wendy, do you think Von Clausewitz should have not resorted to violence to bring the war, and the Holocaust to a quicker end in 1944?
Right now, it pains me that all efforts to liberate the detention camps are bogged down in legality. We're looking for a way to litigate the release of detainees or at least their proper treatment. But they're suffering today Their health is deteriorating as I write and more are going to die because no-one is doing anything of substance to stop it. Of the action that is taken, none of it considers actually freeing the detainees or providing just reparations for what we're doing to them.
Hence, I think liberating the US detention camps would be an acceptable use of force, if the means were available to seize each camp, neutralize its staff and security and free the detainees. I have little doubt they would be better off in the wilds of the United States than trapped in their current deteriorating conditions.
Regarding antifa, granted, they are not that organized or armed, and their resistance to pro-fascist protests is sloppy. But that is not to say those organizations shouldn't be resisted. They have been more than nuisances throughout the 20th century, and have done far more violence than antifa, usually against the most marginalized and most vulnerable of the public.
Also, antifa came to existence not as an organized defense front, but due to the failure of the international community to develop an institutionalized defense against fascists. Our institutions are corrupted. We're in a neo-feudal era where the people once again have no voice, and the public buys into the scheme through fascist propaganda. So descriptively antifa is the natural end result of the international failure to stop the Holocaust before it did considerable damage, and the international community giving too few fucks about genocide. Perhaps the best way to stop antifa violence is to create a coalition of international powers committed to actually confronting and overwhelming large powers (corporations and nations) that cease regarding human beings as human beings. (Such as the US Private Prison sector.)
And then, in current circumstances antifa has a point: If the US Republican Party (now totally a fascist, white nationalist institution) continues to stay in power (which they likely will given the degree they've corrupted the US election system), Fascism is, in delaying our response to the global ecology crisis, an existential threat to the human species.
Are we so repulsed by violence today that we'd rather let them kill us all than fight back? Especially given they really are going to kill us all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
Are you speaking about drone attacks with presidential mandate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
Ummm no - obviously.
Your similar situation involves a lot more crazy folk than just one crazed individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
Or firebomb a government facility...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False equivalencies half off aisle 2
Or blow up a government building. But hey it’s not like one killed 168 and the other only wilted some flowers. Both sides are equally bad right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False equivalencies half off aisle 2
Only because he was shot dead before he could finish his mission. Certainly not for lack of trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: False equivalencies half off aisle 2
Oh so what you’re saying is there’s a substantial difference there? How strange, It’s almost like you’re completely full of shit and are desperately grasping at straws to try demonise one side while giving the other a free pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: False equivalencies half off aisle 2
It's not even almost like that, let alone like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: False equivalencies half off aisle 2
Bro, that’s just sad and pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: False equivalencies half off aisle 2
Correct, it's not almost like that, it's exactly like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bias
So you agree they should be called terrorists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bias
Well, the LAPD seems so have a jurisdictional limit of...LA. LA, as a major metropolitan center in California, is known for its heavily left leaning population.
So that the LAPD feels it has "little organized far-right activity within the department’s jurisdiction" has nothing to do with the overall far-right activity, and much more to do with demographic makeup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if those organizations aren’t “big enough”, they still stay connected to other such organizations who share those beliefs. They still remain primed for the kind of violence that antifascists rarely (if ever) carry out. And they still have sympathetic ears within police forces across the country¹.
For what reason do police and other government agents hesitate to label White nationalist groups as “domestic terrorists”? And for what reason do those same authorities jump at the chance to slap that label on antifascists in general? Antifascists are provably less violent than White nationalist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. What, then, drives that disparity in treatment?
It’s almost as if some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses. Imagine that.
¹ — To wit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bias
In the context of LAPD jurisdiction? Perhaps, though I'd be interested in further context (who are the experts the article refers to, and what criteria do they base their claim on?).
That's not the same thing as saying there aren't any far-right groups that pose a threat anywhere in the country. It's not even saying that there aren't any in the LA area. The white supremacist Rise Above Movement operates in nearby Orange County, and a number of its members have been arrested and charged (though only after coverage by ProPublica).
Janet Reitman had a pretty thorough piece last November concerning law enforcement's difficulties in combating white supremacist terrorism: U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It. She does note that in many cases, violent white supremacists are the proverbial lone wolves who may perhaps read propaganda by the likes of Richard Spencer but not actually belong to any white supremacist organizations. However, she also discusses groups like the Proud Boys, RAM, the Traditionalist Worker Party, and Identity Evropa, whose members have committed violence but which do not seem to have been subject to the same level of police scrutiny that the LAPD gave Refuse Fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bias
"though experts have said there is little organized far-right activity within the department’s jurisdiction."
That does not seem to stop the NYPD does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bias
Well isn't it obvious? They are fascists. They even have the same "our enemies are simulationly strong and weak" hallmark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The biggest crimes committed were by the police
The irony is that the police have committed the biggest crimes by far and are left to investigate their own activities. I'm certain that no bias will interfere with a just and fair conclusion. I'm also certain that letting the fox run the hen house will result in dead hens due to no fault of the fox, according to internal fox investigators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The biggest crimes committed were by the police
As reported by Fox news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Press
One right-wing reporter gets hit and the Antifa are a terrorist group.
How many reporters have been beaten and arrested by the police for doing their jobs?
Any Google search will give you plenty of hits on that topic. Just try to record a police officer and you risk arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Press
How about listing some that you consider most important, best illustrating calculated anti-journalist violence like that perpetrated by Antifa against Andy Ngo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Press
How about listing some that you consider most important
Oh wait - you are serious, right?
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/blog/34-arrests-44-physical-attacks-and-more-chilling-numbers-us-pre ss-freedom-trackers-first-year/
https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/war-on-photography/
So Antiifa - 1, Cops - A few more.
It's Ok - it's just a few "Bad Apples." Antifa is holding an internal review of the violence and will publish their report later this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad Press
Interesting articles; thank you. Since the advent of Trump, there has been a surge in casual right-wing aggression against the press, comparable to what Antifa is accused of in the Andy Ngo incident. Some of the police actions, however, are understandable during disorders (riots), when it is not always clear who is a problem and who is not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad Press
I know it's harder to prove a negative, but the police could still try to clarify the situation by not being part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I’m not saying he was dressed like he was asking for it
One question bro. Did they attack Ngo because he was a journalist specifically, or did they attack him because he was marching with a bunch of fascists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I’m not saying he was dressed like he was asking for i
They attacked him because he was reporting on their activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I’m not saying he was dressed like he was asking f
He is a reporter - and a fascist, big Trump supporter. So kinda hard to separate the roles, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I’m not saying he was dressed like he was asking f
And of course you have a citation for that definitive statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Press
No, Anti-Fa repeatedly gets caught throwing bricks and concrete into crowds of people. That's attempted murder. That makes them terrorists. When you try to kill people. Sorry. They are terrorists. You lose. Thank you for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Press
If that's true you should have at least one link to back up that assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Press
"No, Anti-Fa repeatedly gets caught throwing bricks and concrete into crowds of people. That's attempted murder. That makes them terrorists. When you try to kill people. Sorry. They are terrorists. You lose. Thank you for playing."
Interesting ... those who actually terrorize and murder people are not terrorists but those who threaten with bricks and concrete are terrorists. Would it possible for you to expound upon this in a manner that others may be able to parse? Because on the surface, it seems to be self contradictory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Press
By "concrete," do you, by any chance, mean "milkshakes?" Because, fun fact, milkshakes have enough sugar in them to prevent concrete from setting.
I'd also be interested to know whether you'd judge all of the right-wing shootings, where people have actually been killed (Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, Parkland, Tallahassee, just to name a few) by the same standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad Press
Thanks, but we really did not need yet another 9/11 conspiracy theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad Press
Are all right wing gatherings now going to demand the local burger joints refrain from selling milkshakes during their event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:member when you promised to leave forever
Sup liar. Why do you even post here anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right-wing terrorist groups..
Right-wing terrorist sending pipe bombs and shooting up churches.
Terrorist looking out for terrorist is LAPD good for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proactive Self-Defense
"Perhaps no entities show more concern about opposition to fascism than law enforcement agencies, for some weird and completely inexplicable reason."
Neither "weird" nor "inexplicable. Antifa groups might turn their focus on the police, if allowed to flourish and succeed against non-police fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proactive Self-Defense
I'm pretty sure you missed an attempt at humor. Actually I thought the line was hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proactive Self-Defense
There was an implied sarcasm marker after that sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a mirror
a mirror is probably all they need to understand (and completely justify to themselves) the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a mirror
I thought blood sucking vampires did not see their reflection, has hollywood changed this also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the man with a hammer...
To the man with a hammer, everything is a nail. To the man inspired by "anti-fascism," everything is fascist. Since real fascists are hard to find on the Pacific Coast, Left-wing militants have been bullying conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To the fascist with a hammer every brown person is a nail
Quite the nice little projection booth you have set up bro. I mean it’s not like you you’ve been caught several times making blanket statements without a shred of evidence on this thread alone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
A lot of conservatives summoned the beast of ten-thousand lies in the White House. And they seem to give no fucks about the havoc he wreaks. I can't find anyone willing to say Trump and Miller's detention policy has gone to far.
I'm still waiting for some self-identified conservative somewhere, a pundit, a representative or even a freaking neighbor to proclaim something (anything) to the effect of:
No. This is wrong. Locking civilians (including kids) in cages is wrong. Depriving civilians (including kids) of adequate food, water and hygiene is wrong. Separating children from their families is wrong. Separating families without means to reunite them again is extra wrong. Letting civilians (including kids) continue to be abused by the officers charged with caring for them is dehumanizing and against every ideal that defines the United States of America.
Regardless of my prior positions regarding immigration, regarding border security and regarding undocumented persons, I never would have endorsed a policy or candidate that led the United States to the current US detention center catastrophe. Had I known I would have voted differently -- even against my own party -- in order to prevent this current state of affairs.
Curiously, I haven't heard this once. Not once.
Mostly, I'm hearing Send her back! Send her back! Send her back! regarding Representative Ilhan Omar. Mostly I'm hearing complaints that calling them concentration camps is inappropriate.
It doesn't matter what we call them. They're fucked up is what they are. Every last one of them should be shut down and all the people released, preferably with supplies. Absolutely with amnesty and an apology from the United States.
You cannot condone the state (which is a core of conservatism) while it is declaring some people illegal and treating them as if they are not even human. That is fascist. The United States is currently acting like a fascist regime.
If you don't like the word fascist because of its connotations, how about: ruthless, cruel, inhumane, tyrannical, contrary to equality or rule of law. The United States is currently all these things.
The nation has crossed a line. It is impossible to be in favor of the United States as it is currently administrated and retain moral integrity. If you're pro-state you have to admit to condoning a grotesque fucked-up policy that fails to recognize human beings for what they are.
And if you don't, if you challenge the Trump Administraion immigration policies, then at least as far as immigration is concerned, you're not conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Ohai, Uriel.
Conservative here.
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2018/06/will-trumpism-destroy-america.html
http://on-t-internet.b logspot.com/2018/06/kids-in-cages-what-has-happened-to.html
All opinions are my own, I'm not interested in talking points.
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/search/label/Conservatism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I may not have been careful enough.
I was trying to specify American conservatives, Wendy. though I may have generalized too much. If you were on this side of the pond I'd be asking, what is there that remains to conserve?
Curiously, even the aspects of Christianity you hold dear (peacemongering, fighting hunger and poverty) are only preserved by those (smaller) churches on the left side of the spectrum. The big evangelist megachurches are right with the RCC fixate mostly on oppressing women and suppressing gays, also what a great guy Trump is and how their parishioners should keep voting for the man until we can canonize him.
Granted, the far right in the US has many allies in the UK but a wide range of objectors and downright enemies as well. That may be a good thing: we'll need you to lead the Allies this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I may not have been careful enough.
Thank you, Uriel.
I believe in liberal democracy and traditional Judeo-Christian values. I don't like cruelty and am communitarian at heart. Basically, all the values I grew up with in our small farming community.
There are some people on the Right in the States who would agree with you, Rick Wilson and David French being two of them. While I often disagree with French (whose views on healthcare and abortion are horrible, to say the least), both are vocal about it being wrong to mistreat the migrants and refugees who come over the border and would have them treated more humanely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
https://psmag.com/news/debate-democrats-slammed-trumps-treatment-of-detained-migrant-children
I don't seem to remember any progressives protesting Obama's treatment of illegal immigrants either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Did he treat them as badly as Trump is doing? In any case just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It doesn't say who was protesting but sure doesn't sound like conservatives:
https://hackinglawpractice.com/blog/immigration-advocates-arrested-outside-white-hous e-for-protesting-obama-immigration-policies/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/4/immigrat ion-advocatespressureobamaondeportations.html
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/politics/latino-obama-p rotests/index.html
And so on. Of course you could have found any of these sources if you were really interested, which makes me think you're just living up to your screen name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Protesters rail against Biden on deportations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Well, here, have an article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Were you waiting for Democrats to say the same thing when Obama doing just that at the border? Or was your concern suddenly birthed shiny and new the moment Trump took the reins?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Ballsy move to ask a question that was answered in the replies just above yours. And by ballsy I mean breathtakingly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Not the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Yes, yes, we know how it goes. The U.S. is the only country in the world that's not supposed to enforce its own borders and if it does, it's racist, and fascist, and probably a half-dozen other -ists and -phobias, too.
<yawn>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians doth protest too much
Guilty conscience eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians doth protest too much
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians doth protest too
Funny that. Because it’s been my experience that only racists get all bent out of shape the second they thinks someone calls them a racist. Then they go off on a tangental rant about what they think the other person was saying in a ridiculous and super defensive way. Kinda like you just did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians doth protest
Then you've had some bizarre experiences and have very little knowledge of basic human nature.
A person who is not racist would indeed 'get bent out of shape' if accused of being one, especially in today's climate where mere accusations can cost people their livelihoods.
Oh, and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians doth prot
“Then you've had some bizarre experiences and have very little knowledge of basic human nature.”
Bro you left the projector on again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-racists called racist
Really? I try to take into consideration what I did or said that was racist. Recently I was accused of racism in an old essay on the Yellow Peril in mystery fiction and considered if anything I wrote was, in fact racist. I was talking about racism, but I still don't think what I said was racist.
But I didn't get offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-racists called racist
Yes, really, because what we're talking about is someone who is falsely accused of racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-racists called racist
And, generally speaking, there are two kinds of people, who can be distinguished by how they react to such an accusation.
The first kind of person gets angry and immediately insists that the accusation is false, because they're not racist, and how dare you try to destroy their reputation by making this about race. Their reaction is anger.
The second kind of person considers what they've just said, and tries to figure out how it might be construed as racist, asking for clarification if they don't get it. Their reaction is confusion.
And, ten times out of ten, the people falling into the first group are going to be the ones who hold racist views, because they're unable and/or unwilling to critically examine their own beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-racists called racist
And since what we're talking about is someone who is falsely accused of racism, there will be no clarification that's satisfactory because no actual racism exists, at which point the person falsely accused will indeed 'get bent out of shape' (as it was described above) if the accusations persist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False accusations of racism
So this is the opposite of racists are in the eye of the beholder
So when you show blatant disregard for people in detention camps that's not racist because you don't mean it to be racist? Is that how it works?
It still sucks that you regard other people as less than human however you decide for yourself that it is acceptable to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US enforcing its own borders
The U.S. is the only country in the world that's not supposed to enforce its own borders and if it does, it's racist, and fascist
If the US -- or any country -- resorts to crimes against humanity in order to enforce border policy then you better motherfucking believe it's fascist.
If you don't like fascist I can give you a dozen other descriptors. How about Unamerican?
btr1701 in Wannsee justifications for the final solution were based on budgetary concerns and the inability to expatriate Jews to other countries. How does none of this make sense to you? Are you that heartless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
But Mom ... everyone else is doing it !!!!111111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To the man with a hammer...
"Since real fascists are hard to find on the Pacific Coast"
Do you read anything other than right wing dogma?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To the man with a hammer...
Nah, just talked to people who lived under (and survived) actual real fascism, and they shake their heads sadly at the shit people like Antifa label 'fascist', which more and more has come to equal 'anyone who isn't a progressive leftist'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To the man with a hammer...
That’s a hard no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"real fascism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Actual real fascism"
The implication of which is some kinds of fascism threats being faced in the present day are not real.
Is this something like real concentration camps? Is it just a device by which to dismiss the actual real violence committed by less-than-real fascists?
Protip for the future: Get specific. Rather than saying...
I just talked to people who lived under actual real fascism
tell the whole experience like,
I talked to relatives of families massacred in Lidice, and they think US Antifa are cowards... for not bringing arms (rifles, bombs and flamethrowers) to face the neo-nazi menace as they cloak themselves in German iconery of genocide and preach hate and racial supremacy. Even mere shadows of fascism must be put down lest it rise again. Laws and propriety will not matter once the fascists twist laws to their own end, so why should they matter before they seize power?
Antifa comes from those who hold a grudge and a valid concern that next time the Allies may not win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Actual real fascism"
These whiny neo-fascists bitching about being given milkshakes makes me laugh. My grandpa gave them free bullets and they didn’t complain. At least not so as he could understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"
It's fascinating that the people who believe that throwing a milkshake in someone's face shouldn't be considered assault are often the same people who believe that 'saying things' should be.
--Ricky Gervais
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"
Except that not what I actually said. But hey why let facts stand in the way of your stupid little rants. You haven’t in this thread or the last one where you shredded your reputation like it was mozzarella cheese.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Actual real fascism"
No, it's a way to keep people like you honest and prevent you from falsely appealing to emotion by pretending that Eloy is remotely comparable to Auschwitz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"
There were many, many types of camps. Very few were like Auschwitz. Most were labor and/or prison camps. It would do you a world of good to stop showcasing your ignorance and pick up a book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"
And yet if you're being remotely honest, you'd admit that Auschwitz is exactly the image you want to conjure in people's minds when you and people like Occasional-Cortex use the term 'concentration camp' so that you can gin-up as much outrage as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Occasional-Cortex"
You know when you signal so blatantly that you don't have respect for someone, it clarifies you can't be trusted to think rationally about them or their positions.
Also, when you use phrases such as people like [representative Ocasio-Cortez], it highlights you don't actually interface with people, but just assume that an example or two (say from memes or dubious news articles) defines an entire sector. (Then it's inconsistent to take offense when the rest of us get outraged at the law enforcement institutions for officers doing bad-cop things.)
Or you can just seal the deal by calling us all libtard SJW cucks. Rolls right off the tongue, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Occasional-Cortex"
LOL! So commenters on this site routinely and daily use made up derogatory nicknames for Trump and other conservatives without any criticism from you or anyone else, but the moment someone does it to a 'progressive' it's somehow beyond the pale and evidence of irrationality.
You're a cartoon. A hypocritical cartoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Occasional-Cortex"
“You're a cartoon. A hypocritical cartoon.”
Such lovely projection and whatabouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"
I am being completely honest when I said that bro. I expect most people commenting here to know basic history. Something you seem unwilling or unable to grasp. And while we are being honest it’s doing your talking points zero favours to call a United States Congressperson by a childish nickname. It is quite telling about your mentality though. And if you want the complete truth. Just stop bro. I’m tired of humiliating you and your basic bitch trailer trash rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"
I'll await your scathing rebuke of the next person here that calls Trump a childish nickname, something that happens on this site with notable regularity.
I mean, if you're not a hypocrite or anything, dood...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"
Bro it applies equally to them too. I’m just telling you how it is. If you don’t like the implications, don’t do it. Not that it matters much because your reputation on this site is somewhere between hamilton and blue right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keeping me honest
Ah, btr1701 it turns out you can't keep yourself honest, let alone serve as a check on others. Our peerless leader seems to have the same problem when what the President of the United States has make a statement representing his office and his nation that runs in conflict with his own beliefs. Sooner or later his true colors unfold like a peacock tail.
This tells me you'd be the sort that would sign up for Heydrich's Einsatzgruppen thinking you're doing good service for the motherland...and then would puke yourself unconscious in the face of the human corpses. Don't worry, even Heydrich couldn't stomach it either. You'll get accustomed.
But it's become clear to me you think some of us are human and worthy of regard and rights, and others of us are not and can be dismissed, dispensed with, or left to suffer. That's totally a hallmark of fascism, but I'll let you call it whatever you want. I get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keeping me honest
You know way to much about Nazis....
But, prolly, not a lot about how the KKK is/was an FBI tool, or how the JDL-ADL bombers terrorized Americans.
Or, how the famous "free speech”cases taken up by the ACLU were actually defending Jewish Nazis, and other terrorists like Frank Collin~nee~Cohen.
Or, how the FBI/Anti Defamation League sponsor/instigate nearly all forms of violent pseudo protest, as we see with antifa, aka Kommunity Klubs and Kovens (K4) of today.
JDL and KKK Terrorism: Sponsored By ADL And Supervised By The FBI:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1GRIbpmmz0
America hasnt had actual, non-infiltrated/controlled or real dissent since the IWW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Keeping me honest
America [hasn't] had actual, non-infiltrated/controlled or real dissent since the [WWI]
The FBI in its pursuit of Soviet spies in the US was inserting agents within their designated gangs and sects since WWII, yes. They still have a tendency to insert themselves into new religious movements assuming they're dangerous cults. Very few of them are, which means a lot of agents salaries are spent investigating benign groups.
But the KKK existed (in three separate movements) before the Pinkertons became the FBI. It's doubtless some staff of the FBI were KKK, themselves when they were fighting booze runners.
Yes, the ACLU received a lot of support in the 60s from the KGB who regarded it as a state-subversive organization US culture, but this isn't to say the ACLU didn't address real problems or do good work. Strange bedfellows and all that. In fact the KGB contributed a lot to the non-profits that are still seeking to shed sunlight on government corruption to this day. This is expected in an open state. It's also the origin of a lot of the animosity between state law-enforcement agencies and watchdog non-profits. Old grudges.
You know way to much about Nazis
And I don't see how one can know way too much about Nazis. It's like saying one knows way too much about the Challenger explosion or the 9/11 attacks or the Titanic disaster: the way we avoid failures in the future is by analyzing the fuck out of the ones in the past and engineering new stuff to not fail when the old stuff did.
And given our steady lockstep march towards a new holocaust, it's useful to let the naysayers know what to expect as they find themselves dehumanizing others. How they resign themselves to help pack the trains, and how they were find themselves totally shocked when the police come to arrest them and send them to be processed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Keeping me honest
Jewish Nazis! You heard it here first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To the man with a hammer...
"just talked to people who lived under (and survived) actual real fascism"
Funny that as I was just reading a story about survivors of the death camps and they were saying that it is indeed fascism, those are concentration camps and they are a bit concerned about it.
But hey, I suppose one could find someone to say just about anything these days huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To the man with a hammer...
Behold the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To the man with a hammer...
very concerning.
I am concerned.
This concerns me.
I cannot concentrate with all this ADLified concern trolling getting in the way.
Sincerely,
Mike Concernovich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st Amendment?
What does any of this have to do with the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Protest as a right falls squarely under the first amendment. It's political expression, assembly and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
Whenever this is restricted by the government, or infiltrated by law enforcement in order to fish for wrongdoing, it's an encroachment of the first amendment.
Granted, if we had a functional justice system that could ascertain fair consistent legal limits of the first amendment, we might be able to put (few, restricted) limits on these rights. But we don't.
The police is not treating all activism organizations equally which demonstrates the failure of the legal system in this regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Yeah, the key word there is "peaceably", a notion that is antithetical (antifetical?) to a SJW extremist domestic terror organization. There is no right, First Amendment or otherwise, to riot or to run "demonstrations" and "protests" that assault people or commit property crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Heather Hayer, may she rest in peace, would have had me ask you (were she still alive to do so) whether not not these "non-rights" you enumerated include ploughing a car into a crowd in order to hurt or kill people.
One of your heroes did that, AC, and he couldn't possibly be considered left wing or Antifa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Or trying to blow up government buildings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Indeed, Cesar Sayoc is an excellent example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble
So is Willem Van Spronsen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For as misguided as his actions were, at least Van Spronsen had noble intent (shutting down an American concentration camp and freeing the prisoners therein). What did Timothy McVeigh want to accomplish with the Oklahoma City bombing besides killing a shitload of innocent people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People who lived through actual concentration camps laugh sadly at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually I knew someone who had the tattoo on her arm. And she would slap the stupid out of your head for saying shit like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll take "Things That Never Happened" for $500, Alex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or are we going for the daily doubledown
The only thing in the world that made her mad was people like you, who defend monsters. Not the monsters themselves mind you. Because she understood monsters don’t act alone and are near powerless by themselves.
I eagerly await your apology and $500 donation to the https://www.adl.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:ROGS BINGO
....this is a ROGS BINGO (Google it)
PLAYROGSBINGO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actual Concentration Camps
Oh my. Actual concentration camps is the same as real concentration camps, btr1701. It's like arguing over true Scotsmen, but way more repugnant.
You're dismissing the suffering of detainees of the United States (malnutrition, infection, trauma, hard sleeping, abuse by detention officers) because... it's not concentration-campy enough for you? Do I have that correct? You're using the processing of German prisoners in the holocaust to justify dismissal of human suffering in twenty-first-century United States effected by pernicious policy because it's not macho enough.
I bet when Rumsfeld was arguing from the White House that waterboarding isn't really torture you were right there nodding along with him. You better start practicing your snappy salute and your lockstep marching. You're in like Eichmann.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actual Concentration Camps
Don't forget dying. 24 immigrants have died in government custody since Trump took office. Oh but that's way less than the 5+ million in the holocaust so I guess it's OK. Wait is "not as bad as the Holocaust" the standard the US is going for now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not as bad as the holocaust
I'm pretty sure that was btr1701's point, yes. We [special snowflakes] shouldn't be [whining] about US detention centers because they're not as bad as German death camps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actual Concentration Camps
More than twice that number died during Obama's first two years in office. Where was your pearl-clutching then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actual Concentration Camps
A rare whataboutobama has just been sighted in the wild! Thought extinct since 2018 this once common species of whatabout seems to still be hanging on by a thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actual Concentration Camps
What point are you trying to make? That it's OK that it's happening now because it used to be worse? That nobody should criticize the current administration because people are dying at a somewhat lower rate now? That you don't actually care about the deaths and just want to score political points? I can't tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Concentration Camps
Nope. That the people who are so upset about it now are disingenuous and insincere because it used to be worse and they said nothing, or at least didn't make such a public spectacle of it, gnashing their teeth and beating their breasts about 'concentration camps' and whatnot.
Nope. That their criticism can be both valid and hypocritical if they didn't levy the same or more criticism at the administration in power when the problem was even worse. Or, more likely, that their current criticism is motivated more by political advantage than any real humanitarian concern. Like Rahm Emanuel famously said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whataboutism
Heh. btr1701 I got your new replies in an email and three in succession were an example of whataboutism or Tu quoque, never actually addressing your disrespect for those on the left, or -- what I'm much more interested in -- your outright dismissal of the humanitarian crisis currently faced by the United States in its US detention facilities.
(Incidentally you keep imagining Obama was much more popular here on TechDirt than he actually was. The rise of the private prison sector, the police state, the surveillance state and ICE' authority overreach including serving as corporate mercenaries all happened on his watch despite promises of hope and change. Your repeated accusations of partisanship are on false, unchecked pretenses.)
As you've already demonstrated insincerity and inconsistency in your own ideology in this forum your arguments of whataboutism -- if valid -- would be susceptable to whataboutism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Concentration Camps
Everything you just said was a bunch of assumptions. There absolutely was criticism and protests of Obama's treatment of immigrants, and you don't actually know who was doing it. And everything you're saying comes across as an attempt to deflect criticism of the current administration for reasons that are to me unclear. You haven't actually offered any defense of it, because it's indefensible, but you're doing everything you can think of to make people look somewhere else. Because you think Trump is great? I suspect not. Because you really hate the Democrats? You consider yourself conservative so feel a need to defend anything conservatives are doing? Something else? I'm not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actual Broken Fingernails
Ever notice how those with a free ticket and dual passports to Escape Pod Israel are dead silent about Escape Pod Israels human rights recrd,and al the Ngevbillies burning babies to death, cuz, CHOSEN!®
https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/charts/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Broken Fingernails
....and the ADL/SPLC/Hillel/JFeds, etc. and that form of white supremacy all too silent about the US Prison Industrial Complex (full of US citizens) and “the blacks”who they dont give an actual shit about, other than to dangle them from invisible metaphorical political ropes when one of their Chosen!®,like Obama feigns CHANGE!
I am calling spades on the whole distraction of immigrant “concentration camps,” and hoping “the blacks” figure it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was trying to burn the place down, FFS. They killed him as he was trying to ignite a large propane tank that would have exploded part of the building. The victims would have included the people inside that you're so worried about.
Noble intent, my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to asse
Jerry Drake Varnell wants a word with you bro. When he gets out of prison of course. You wanna triple down there champ? Or maybe we can switch to mass shootings. In which case I’ll open with Anders Breivik.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to
I'll close with leftist murderers Stalin and Mao.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably
World leaders don’t qualify as terrorists. Mass murders though they may be. Though oddly yo boy Trump seems to like the idea of jailing political opponents. Bro seriously just stop embarrassing yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peace
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people p
Brutal comeback. Not sure how I can breach such unshakable logic. Seriously bro, if your goal was to make sure no one here ever took anything you said seriously again.
Mission accomplished!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ...right of the speech police
Now that I am in heaven/sssheol( same thing), I cccan freely admit that I was PREMIER ADL-JDL卍® terrorist.
HEIHEIHEI....
JK
That was the other mentally deranged Jewish bomber/radical, my kith and kin Irvy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irv_Rubin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peace
Wow. You clearly don't know nearly enough about Stalin to be participating in this conversation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"World leaders don't qualify as terrorists"
St. Augustine of Hippo would like to have a word with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stalin and Mao
Stalin believed in persuing soviet communism (note lower case) even less than President Trump believes in democracy (or checks and balances, or the wide distribution of power).
Dunno about Mao enough to comment, but dictators by definition are on the far right (pro-administration) not the left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stalin and Mao
Best part is. BRT couldn’t even argue against such an obviously wrong point. Talk about knocking the plastic ball off the tee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
But enough about Timothy McVeigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
“SJW” is a weak-ass insult. It is also a phrase so vague that you can define it to mean whatever you want for the sake of an argument. Use a stronger, more concrete term next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anti-Fa tries to kill people. That makes them terrorists. End of discussion. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anti-Fa tries to kill people. That makes them terrorists. End of discussion. Sorry.
The discussion can end when you can post a link to this assertion. And not until.
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Members of far right groups have actually killed people. The government doesn’t consider them, or the groups from which they came, to be domestic terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Prove it bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree, much like 'fascist' and 'alt-right' have become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well since alt-right is a term made up by neo-Nazis to soften their image I agree that it’s not much of an insult. But you knew that of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Fascism” describes a specific political ideology and the sociopolitical philosophies therein. “Alt-right” is a term created by White supremacists and other racist assholes to make their racism sound “hip” — and if they now consider that term an insult, that is their problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which doesn't even remotely apply to the merely conservative speakers at college campuses and other places where Antifa tries to 'deplatform' them. Hence my comment that it's become a vague term that is defined to mean whatever they want in the moment, just as you described SJW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Which doesn't even remotely apply to the merely conservative speakers at college campuses and other places“
Good thing we were taking about actual fascists and not your stupid strawman. But hey you’ve grasped so many straws in this thread you could build a couple more at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want you to read the dictionary definition of fascism. If you still cannot understand that antifascism is opposition to what is described in that definition, that is your problem to solve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know that merely being a conservative commentator is not fascism, yet we have Antifa there on one college campus after another using violence or the threat of violence to shut them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know how I know you didn’t click on the link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how many of the conservative commentators who have been “shut[ ]up” by antifascists also peddle fascist ideas, including White supremacy, and show open support for the fascist actions of the Trump administration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect that that particular Venn Diagram is just a circle. But hey let’s see if BeatsByDre1701 can embarrass himself further by attempting to disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
"There is no right"
I think you have found the GOP campaign slogan for their 2020 platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SJW
When this term is used in derision, it not only implies the speaker is against social justice (id est social equality), but also implies that the speaker has no respect for those who want a truly equal society by assuming people who pursue such ends are insincere in their efforts.
It also implies a lack of respect for the dialog itself when you can't help yourself but show contempt for the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SJW
What's the difference betwee 'social justice' and 'justice'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SJW
With social justice, everyone can afford a dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Justice vs. Justice
Related to the difference between injustice and social injustice. Where injustice includes personal conflicts of parity, social injustice regards trends of injustice affecting subsets of the population in different proportion.
In a socially just world, injustice would happen proportionately or so rarely that it's impossible to determine disproportions due to an inadequate amount of data to create a large enough sampling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SJW/communist manifesto
Um...not even a nice try:
... those who want a truly equal society
Idealists? Or, others who read the Communist Manifesto?
I have lived in countries where those who preach your doctrine bulldoze ten thousand km at a time, displacing the residents, because the "land belongs to all the people.”
Then, they drive home in a new Mercedes every year, because those who push this idealism in the US, also fund these communist party Mercedes dealerships.
And guess who NEVER lives an "equal” life?
crickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, Let's Do This Math
Anti-Fa is a terrorist organization. The clue being the attempted murder. They routinely throw bricks into crowds of people, attempting to commit murder. This is established.
Refuse Fascism has been linked to Anti-Fa repeatedly.
I'd be angry if the police were NOT doing their jobs, and in the very least monitoring known murderers and terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Let's Do This Math
I await with bated breath the appearance of even one link to justify your assertion, Zof.
The real threat is on the right and while I don't approve of Antifa violence, to paint them as some kind of monolithic entity is misleading at best, fear-mongering and whataboutery at worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Let's Do This Math
This is established.
Within the confines of your pointed little head doesn't count. Got a link or are you just gonna continue to say the same thing like a trained parrot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Let's Do This Math
"The clue being the attempted murder."
Does this mean all attempted murder is terrorist? There seem to be many instances where the perps were not called terrorist - or are you conveniently forgetting about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Let's Do This Math
Antifa is exactly as much an "organization" as, say, "pro-life" is. That is, it's a philosophy that a bunch of people espouse, and some organizations working towards that philosophy have used the name of the philosophy as part of their organization's names.
If "antifa," and anyone who labels themselves as such, is a "terrorist organization" for the fact that some people using that identifier have been beating up other people while protesting, then "pro-life" is also certainly a "terrorist organization" for the abortion clinics they've bombed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antifascism is a political philosophy, not an organized group. A fascist government will always want to slap the “terrorist” label on everyone who self-identifies as an antifascist. That makes curtailing the civil rights of antifascists a much easier act to justify.
For what reason could the U.S. government want to label antifascists as terrorists regardless of whether they’re violent, yet refuse to slap that label on provably violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan despite their history of (sometimes lethal) political violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Let's Do This Math
You lie you lose, good day sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hm?
When were the last times the "fascists" got together, rioted, blocked roads, beat up old people and reporters, or wore masks and used bike locks on anyone they didn't like? Any time in the 21st century will do.
Can you even name any fascist groups in America? Okay, you might know about the American Nazi Party, which occasionally issues press releases and sells pamphlets. They're probably the largest outfit, with perhaps a few hundred members nationwide. Without resorting to a search engine, can you name another? Hint for cheaters: most of the ones you'll find listed by the SPLC have literally dozens of members, or have been defunct since the 20th century.
The only people out there who are a problem are... the pantifa.
So, if you're a PD trying to keep tabs on potential rioters and civil unrest, where are you going to put your limited resources?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know when the last time was, but 2017 in Charlottesville comes to mind.
Far-right, authoritarian, nationalist groups? The Ku Klux Klan, Patriot Prayer, and Proud Boys are the three that first come to mind without resorting to Google, and I'm pretty sure that they each have more than "dozens of members."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"When were the last times the "fascists" got together, rioted, blocked roads, beat up old people and reporters, or wore masks and used bike locks on anyone they didn't like? Any time in the 21st century will do."
When was the last time you read news from a source other than Fox, WorldNewsDaily, Inforwars, Breitbart, Stormfront ....... you get the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would use those resources to kee tabs on groups that show the capability and express the desire to forment civil unrest. I would then start with keeping an eye on White supremacist groups, which deliberately choose to march where they know they won’t be welcome — often so they can instigate violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Proud boys. I win.
By the way what are a pantifa? Are they the group that hates sweat pants? God bless those mad bastards.
Pro tip cowboy. Don’t ask questions with answers already given in this thread. And wipe the spittle off your keyboard as you type. It will help in future avoid making humiliating mistakes like misspelling the group you raving about like a lunatic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The fuck is a pantifa?!?
June 29 3019
I love how Trump has emboldened you mouthbreathing shitstains to pop up from whatever chan you’ve been festering under and try your stupid bullshit in the real world. Where you are promptly humiliated and run away like a bitch. The best part is, in the end you actively hurt the cause you are trying to promote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Major Crimes was involved because that's the intelligence arm of the LAPD. The name of the division is historical (much like the Secret Service, which isn't actually secret but whose names comes from the fact that it was originally staffed in the 1800s by members of the Union Army that spied on Confederates behind enemy lines). Actual "major crimes" in LAPD are investigated by the Robbery-Homicide Division. And yes, they should probably consider renaming Major Crimes, if, for no other reason, than to give the Cushings of the world one less thing to snarkily bitch about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well and here I thought you’d lay low for a bit after the time you got your shit pushed in. And here I was interested in what you were saying until you started pouting like a three year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the intelligence arm of the LAPD"
LOL - good one!
Oh wait, yer serious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one said it was a particularly long arm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look, the reason why they're not infiltrating those groups is something like this
"Hey dick, what are you doing here?"
"Oh hey Tom, nothing nothing"
"Hey, wait a minute, didn't you just trasfer out of patrol into Major Crimes? I think my Sergeant mentioned it when we were on patrol yesterday..."
And from Adrian Schoolchild, to Donna Jane Watts, back to Serpico, we know how cops feel about informing on cops.
That's not to say all cops are in these far right groups, but some are. And the problem is that with police Omerta, they can't risk informing on any, because they're always buddies with 5 other cops, and then it goes on.
And yes, we know White supremacists and other far-right groups mix, and it doesn't matter if it's cops joining far right groups, or far right group members joining the cops. It doesn't matter either way it's an internal investigation, and that's bad for the 'branding'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antifa
antifa was started by the communists in 1931, they were a propaganda group in the begining, they were the cause if Hitlers rise to power in the mid 30's.
You "know it alls" should really look into the origins, and how they helped Hitler rise to power.
If not for "antifa" there may have not been aq hitler at all.
funny huh?
but of course, none of you want to hear that do you.
look up barvarin communists 1931
if you want the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antifa
Finally get kicked off infowars eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bavarian communists
These guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antifa
Or are you talking about these guys?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
The Bavarian Soviet Republic ended in 1919 so I don't see how that could have anything to do with Hitler's rise. In 1919 he was pretty much a nobody. Antifaschistische Aktion was, as the name indicates, opposed to fascism and in case you didn't know, the Nazis were fascists. So they definitely didn't help Hitler. Kind of sounds like you're totally full of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Antifa
Maybe referring to this bit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Antifa
Interesting, that might be what he was referring to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“(Source)
“Antifa” is not an organization¹, but a political philosophy (antifascism). By labelling “Antifa” as a terrorist group, the government can label all antifascists as terrorists(-in-waiting) and justify infiltrating those groups, possibly with the intent to push people toward violent action². You have bigger problems than the Antifa boogeyman in your head if you see no issue with the police doing that bullshit.
¹ — Yes, there are groups that use “Antifa” in their names, but there is no one central “Antifa” organization.
² — See also: the FBI terrorism stings where the “terrorist” would have never come close to committing a terrorist act if not for the intervention of the FBI.
made the Last Word by Gary