"White Civil Rights" Rally Approved for D.C. in August

[IUCrazy2]

@IUCrazy2 does have a valid point in that some of these decentralized antifa type groups, especially on college campuses, are waaaaay too undiscerning in what they consider to be fascist or “hate” speech. Because they can’t get their collective shit together and stop blowing air horns at guys like Ben Shapiro (who is an interesting fellow), they’re not to be taken seriously.

Thank you.

Nobody here is defending the actual opinions of Nazis. My Grandfather fought those dickheads in WW2. **** them.

 

[Zizkov]

A side note:

I read a LOT of news sources. From all ends of the spectrum. And the only place I’ve EVER seen the term “antifa” is from far right sources. The term is literally a creation of the far right- including Fox News.

And, I haven’t seen any articles, even from far left sources, that advocate for what “antifa” stands for. It’s a term created solely to create fear and division- and create even more of an “us vs them” mentality among the folks on. the right. It seems that fear really drives that side of the spectrum.

And, I despise violence. In any form. But always remember that without “white nationalists”, antifa wouldn’t exist. It’s a response to the Trump phenomenon, which has elevated these racist @sshats, and made them feel it’s ok to be out in the open with their views.

In other words, I don’t think “antifa” is an organized thing, and isn’t all that large.

JMHO.

Antifa most definitely exists, I walk by there meeting place here every day on my way to and from work.

That said, they are nothing like IUCrazy tries to paint them. The right in the US has created a caricature of them to fit their needs which doesn't resemble what they actually stand for or fight against.

Here is the website for the Czech group is here (Google translate does a decent job):

http://www.antifa.cz/

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I would totally want to punch them, but I would not. I understand wanting to punch people you disagree with. I have that knee jerk reaction on a bunch of things. But you know what, I have never punched a person over a religious or political disagreement. Never. If the actions of the people doing that chanting led law enforcement to take a closer look at them and they were found to be involved in other more nefarious activity which subsequently led to their incarceration, I would thoroughly revel in that. I would not physically attack them for being idiots though. I may say some mean stuff to them, but I would not physically engage them.

I do not believe in giving anyone the right to physically attack people over their views. Free speech is literally one of the classical liberal positions that this country is founded upon. You know who beats up political opponents to silence them? Fascists. You know who limits speech that they disagree with? Totalitarians and Fascists.

Can you hypothesize that your viewpoint might change if your brother was killed in the 9/11 attack? What if you were a descendant of a lynching victim and you’re now a UVA student?

For what it’s worth, I’m conflicted on whether or not I’d punch. I consider myself an enlightened fellow, but I can’t help but thinking that we’ve become “too civilized” and that there is an awfully large chance that people protesting white civil rights deserve a good punch.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Antifa most definitely exists, I walk by there meeting place here every day on my way to and from work.

That said, they are nothing like IUCrazy tries to paint them. The right in the US has created a caricature of them to fit their needs which doesn't resemble what they actually stand for or fight against.

Here is the website for the Czech group is here (Google translate does a decent job):

http://www.antifa.cz/

Again, I think their basic idea is just and moral. However their implementation in America, especially on college campuses, negates any credibility their sound moral imperative has created.

About the only thing they’ve done right here is punching Richard Spencer.

 

[IUCrazy2]

This is obviously true. It take a special type of cognitive dissonance to ignore that these antifa clowns wouldn’t show up without the tikis first showing up.

Except that you yourself acknowledge that they do show up at things like Ben Shapiro speeches on college campuses. There are no tiki torch clowns there. When you allow anyone to decide who is a legitimate target of violence because of their speech, everyone eventually becomes a target. And anyone can make the point that I would not have to be here to punch you in the face if you were not here. I have no cognitive dissonance on this at all. Don't punch people. Dumb Nazi, keep your hands to yourself. Antifa dude, tell him he is dumb, do not try to beat his brains in. I am dumbfounded that this is seen as some kind of radical position.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Except that you yourself acknowledge that they do show up at things like Ben Shapiro speeches on college campuses. There are no tiki torch clowns there. When you allow anyone to decide who is a legitimate target of violence because of their speech, everyone eventually becomes a target. And anyone can make the point that I would not have to be here to punch you in the face if you were not here. I have no cognitive dissonance on this at all. Don't punch people. Dumb Nazi, keep your hands to yourself. Antifa dude, tell him he is dumb, do not try to beat his brains in. I am dumbfounded that this is seen as some kind of radical position.

I agree. I’m talking more about “they don’t show up looking for a fight” unless the tikis are there first. Their presence at Shapiro or Peterson events is to suppress free speech and debate, and that negates their otherwise just cause.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Can you hypothesize that your viewpoint might change if your brother was killed in the 9/11 attack? What if you were a descendant of a lynching victim and you’re now a UVA student?

For what it’s worth, I’m conflicted on whether or not I’d punch. I consider myself an enlightened fellow, but I can’t help but thinking that we’ve become “too civilized” and that there is an awfully large chance that people protesting white civil rights deserve a good punch.

Again, you yourself have admitted that these Antifa groups have gone after more mainline conservatives. So you punch a "fascist" and that is ok, we are too civilized to allow their views. On college campuses, many of the same people who would take your side on that, also believe that College Republicans are fascist. So they get punched. And now the College Republicans think every Marx spouting dude is Antifa so they start punching them. And before you know it, we are beating and shooting each other in the street. When you allow this to happen you cannot control the beast. The crazies make the decisions then. The rest of us get swept up in the tsunami. (Kind of like the poor girl that the Nazi guy ran over. When these people get to fighting, innocent people get caught in the middle.)

 

[IUCrazy2]

Antifa most definitely exists, I walk by there meeting place here every day on my way to and from work.

That said, they are nothing like IUCrazy tries to paint them. The right in the US has created a caricature of them to fit their needs which doesn't resemble what they actually stand for or fight against.

Here is the website for the Czech group is here (Google translate does a decent job):

http://www.antifa.cz/

Is it not possible that the Czech group is more benign then what exists here? They are decentralized groups, I can point you to several articles where they are a problem here. I cannot speak for how they are in the Czech Republic.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Again, you yourself have admitted that these Antifa groups have gone after more mainline conservatives. So you punch a "fascist" and that is ok, we are too civilized to allow their views. On college campuses, many of the same people who would take your side on that, also believe that College Republicans are fascist. So they get punched. And now the College Republicans think every Marx spouting dude is Antifa so they start punching them. And before you know it, we are beating and shooting each other in the street. When you allow this to happen you cannot control the beast. The crazies make the decisions then. The rest of us get swept up in the tsunami. (Kind of like the poor girl that the Nazi guy ran over. When these people get to fighting, innocent people get caught in the middle.)

Shit. You’re right. I just haven’t punched anybody in a long time.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Shit. You’re right. I just haven’t punched anybody in a long time.

Amazon product ASIN B002UKJC20
A picture and a little tape and you can punch anybody you want...

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

And? This isn't WW2, nobody has permission to go and punch a Nazi. I do not understand why this is so hard for you guys to understand. No matter how deplorable you may find the statements of another person, you have no right to put your hands on them. Zero. That social compact is what keeps us civilized. Those asshats can march with their tiki torches and shout all sorts of nonsense and if the city has permitted them, then they are free to do so (although the torches could very well constitute a weapon, so take those away too). And Antifa can show up and yell about how stupid they are and they can all yell at each other until they are hoarse. That is how it is supposed to work.

I don't care if Antifa holds a moral ground that is a smidgen better than the Nazis and frankly I view the tactics of Antifa as very fascistic, they are Nazis without the racial component, so I guess that makes them a step better...but barely. Whether their viewpoint is slightly more moral, they still have zero right to attack anyone. ZERO. Period, end of discussion. Yeah, the racist douchebags may be worse douchebags but the Antifa crowd fighting them are douchebags too. My position is anti-douchebag. My position is pro-normal, i.e. the 90% of the people who showed up to protest with their presence and their voice, not with clubs and chemical agents. Everyone else was a bad actor.

Edit:

I am going to remove the racial component to try and make my point more clear. Antifa goes around deciding who they think are "fascists" and "Nazis". In some instances, most of us would agree that the people they are fighting are white nationalists (like Charlottesville). In others we massively disagree on who are fascists (Ben Shapiro and more recently ICE agents). When you accept that Antifa has the right to attack what most of us would consider "real Nazis", you also accept that they can be violent to the other people they label as fascists where there would be much more widespread disagreement with their assessment. You leave the decision on who is a legitimate target up to thewawwwwwwwwm.

To bring this full circle, anti-abortion groups feel that abortion is literally killing a child. In some instances a Doctor like Gosnell is going to be a guy that most of us would agree is a monster. So if he gets roughed up a bit by anti-abortion groups, then enh...not a big deal. He is a bad person. But if beating him up is ok, then so is going after anyone else who agrees with abortion. At the end of the day, the process is the same, he was just more inhumane. Do you see how this kind of thing gets out of hand really quickly? We have a social compact for a reason. I am not defending Nazis, I am saying that accepting political violence as discourse has ALWAYS ended bad.

LMAO! “And?”?

You’re trying to draw a moral equivalence between Nazis and people who use violence against Nazis because you’re, well, not trying to defend Nazis in any way, shape, or form.

“I’m not defending Nazis, I’m just trying to get you leftists to agree that people who stand up to Nazis and use violence against them are just as bad as Nazis because Fox and Trump say so.”

I can’t say I get all that upset when a Nazi gets their ass kicked or a child molester gets beat in prison.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Literally in almost every ****ing post I have said that their views are despicable. I have no problem saying that. I do not qualify it with a "but" or anything like that. Their views are despicable and they have every right to hold them and every right to express them. And we have every right to point and laugh at them because they are idiots.

What we do not have the right to do is physically attack them for holding those views.

I give up, you guys are so obtuse whenever this shit gets brought up. **** it all. Yell at people eating dinner. Take a baseball bat to an abortionist. Threaten the children of political opponents. It's all good because at least you are not a racist. I have never seen so many smart people try so hard to be so dumb. Congratulations on that.

I don’t get it either.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Thank you.

Nobody here is defending the actual opinions of Nazis. My Grandfather fought those dickheads in WW2. **** them.

Your position is classic liberalism. Modern liberals seem to have a problem with that.

 

[iu_a_att]

Your position is classic liberalism. Modern liberals seem to have a problem with that.

Hitler was elected. Classic liberal democracy allows/ed that to happen. Once that happens/ed Hitler leveraged power to eviscerate liberal democracy. Everyone who is modern, liberal or not, must deal with this fact.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Hitler was elected. Classic liberal democracy allows/ed that to happen. Once that happens/ed Hitler leveraged power to eviscerate liberal democracy. Everyone who is modern, liberal or not, must deal with this fact.

Hitler was not elected. He was appointed. Your view is not based on facts, it is based on your misperception of what actually occurred.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Hitler was elected. Classic liberal democracy allows/ed that to happen. Once that happens/ed Hitler leveraged power to eviscerate liberal democracy. Everyone who is modern, liberal or not, must deal with this fact.

So your position is that they should not permitted to speak, write or otherwise express their opinions?

It shouldn’t have to be said, but I know how you modern liberals here at the WC are, I think their opinions and positions are despicable and deserve condemnation.

 

[iu_a_att]

So your position is that they should not permitted to speak, write or otherwise express their opinions?

It shouldn’t have to be said, but I know how you modern liberals here at the WC are, I think their opinions and positions are despicable and deserve condemnation.

I don't have an answer to what should be done. I only meant to explain why "modern" people, be they liberal or conservative, may not have an absolutist position on free speech as their "classic" counterparts might have. Clearly there is a cost to banning speech but if the benefits include preventing Nazi takeover of the government and the hell that would entail for everyone on the planet...well that seems like a real upside to me. Claims that "it can't happen here" ring hollow too, given that slavery was legal here followed by 100 years of Jim Crow, ethnic terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

 

[iu_a_att]

Hitler was not elected. He was appointed. Your view is not based on facts, it is based on your misperception of what actually occurred.

The Nazis were elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

The 1932 German presidential elections were held on 13 March (first round) and 10 April (second round run-off).[1] They were the second and final direct elections to the office of President of the Reich (Reichspräsident), Germany's head of state under the Weimar Republic. The incumbent President, Paul von Hindenburg, first elected in 1925, was re-elected to a second seven-year term of office. His major opponent in the election was Adolf Hitler of the Nazi Party (NSDAP).

Under the Weimar system, the presidency was a powerful office. Hindenburg, who deeply distrusted and personally detested Hitler, had been motivated to run for a second term primarily by a desire to stop Hitler from winning the presidency.[citation needed] Nevertheless, following his re-election, Hindenburg failed to prevent the Nazis from assuming power. Two successive federal elections left the Nazis as the largest party in the Reichstag and far-right parties in control of a majority of its seats. Under this political climate, Hindenburg reluctantly appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933.​

 

[IUCrazy2]

The Nazis were elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

The 1932 German presidential elections were held on 13 March (first round) and 10 April (second round run-off).[1] They were the second and final direct elections to the office of President of the Reich (Reichspräsident), Germany's head of state under the Weimar Republic. The incumbent President, Paul von Hindenburg, first elected in 1925, was re-elected to a second seven-year term of office. His major opponent in the election was Adolf Hitler of the Nazi Party (NSDAP).

Under the Weimar system, the presidency was a powerful office. Hindenburg, who deeply distrusted and personally detested Hitler, had been motivated to run for a second term primarily by a desire to stop Hitler from winning the presidency.[citation needed] Nevertheless, following his re-election, Hindenburg failed to prevent the Nazis from assuming power. Two successive federal elections left the Nazis as the largest party in the Reichstag and far-right parties in control of a majority of its seats. Under this political climate, Hindenburg reluctantly appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933.​

You did not say the Nazis were elected, you said Hitler. Hitler never won an election. He was put into his position through power sharing agreements with other parties. We do not have a parliamentary system, this would be much harder to pull off in the U.S.

Additionally, you will find that he was able to consolidate power through violence against political opponents, the threat of violence against political opponents, and the outright ban of "free speech" against his policies. Literally everything I have been arguing against in this thread.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don't have an answer to what should be done. I only meant to explain why "modern" people, be they liberal or conservative, may not have an absolutist position on free speech as their "classic" counterparts might have. Clearly there is a cost to banning speech but if the benefits include preventing Nazi takeover of the government and the hell that would entail for everyone on the planet...well that seems like a real upside to me. Claims that "it can't happen here" ring hollow too, given that slavery was legal here followed by 100 years of Jim Crow, ethnic terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

Well I guess you can pray that whoever gets around to banning certain forms of speech does not eventually find yours to be of the undesirable variety.

Hitler started with the Communists. They only had 10% of the poulace's support in the elections. They had been another party brawling in the streets with the SA, so people were generally ok with that. Eventually he got around to shutting everyone else down too.

You are reading from the right book, you are just missing the lesson.

 

[iu_a_att]

Well I guess you can pray that whoever gets around to banning certain forms of speech does not eventually find yours to be of the undesirable variety.

Hitler started with the Communists. They only had 10% of the poulace's support in the elections. They had been another party brawling in the streets with the SA, so people were generally ok with that. Eventually he got around to shutting everyone else down too.

You are reading from the right book, you are just missing the lesson.

Democratic institutions routinely fail. They fail when dictators take over as has happened throughout eastern europe and south and central america. They fail when powerful minorities or small majorities disenfranchise and even enslave large swaths of the population. We have seen such failures as endemic to American democracy. I am a big believer in our democracy but we must be able to protect that democracy from such catastrophic failures. Free speech is essential for allowing the accountability that is at the heart of democracy. But unfettered free speech may also sometimes put democracy at grave risk of catastrophic failure. At that point we have to accept constraints on speech. We have done too throughout our history, particularly in war time.

I remember when the ACLU was the enemy of the right and the darling of the anti-war left. I remember too when they defended the right of the Nazis to March through Skokie Illinois where about 1/3 of the citizens were holocaust survivors. I supported the ACLU at that time. I support the right of the Nazis to rally in Washington this time too. I do it but with quite mixed feelings in both cases. I am not a free speech absolutist. If Nazis were gathering enough strength to represent a real threat to take power I believe I would support a crackdown and violation of their rights to free speech and free assembly in that event. It is better to take on the Nazis with the benefit of state power than to have to take them on when they are in possession of the state. The social contract will have fractured at that point but is plausibly recoverable with the Nazis out of power. But then I wonder if I support a crackdown in that situation wouldn't it be better to crack down on them before they became so popular and powerful? Where do I draw the line? I am not sure but I would draw a line well short of letting them take power.

 

[T.M.P.]

Again, you yourself have admitted that these Antifa groups have gone after more mainline conservatives. So you punch a "fascist" and that is ok, we are too civilized to allow their views. On college campuses, many of the same people who would take your side on that, also believe that College Republicans are fascist. So they get punched. And now the College Republicans think every Marx spouting dude is Antifa so they start punching them. And before you know it, we are beating and shooting each other in the street. When you allow this to happen you cannot control the beast. The crazies make the decisions then. The rest of us get swept up in the tsunami. (Kind of like the poor girl that the Nazi guy ran over. When these people get to fighting, innocent people get caught in the middle.)

You live your life in fear of slopes.

Again they're not on our side like you said yesterday. They don't have a side.

You called them the violent arm of the left. Laughable.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You live your life in fear of slopes.

Again they're not on our side like you said yesterday. They don't have a side.

You called them the violent arm of the left. Laughable.

Yes, and Spencer is not on my "side" yet somehow that is where he gets placed.

You're in denial.

 

[T.M.P.]

Yes, and Spencer is not on my "side" yet somehow that is where he gets placed.

You're in denial.

Do you support openly support Trump? Like Spencer and other white supremacists (like Stephen Miller) do?

 

[iu_a_att]

Yes, and Spencer is not on my "side" yet somehow that is where he gets placed.

You're in denial.

You yourself divied the "deplorables" onto sides. See below.

Well that should end up being a shit show. We can have another argument about which side's deplorables are more deplorable after they rumble on the Mall. (Sigh)

 

[IUCrazy2]

Do you support openly support Trump? Like Spencer and other white supremacists (like Stephen Miller) do?

You are making my point for me and you do not even realize it. Who do you think Antifa members are voting for? Republicans?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Do you support openly support Trump? Like Spencer and other white supremacists (like Stephen Miller) do?

Where are you going with this?

 

[IUCrazy2]

You yourself divied the "deplorables" onto sides. See below.

Because we view almost everything in this country on the left to right paradigm. If I had said that the Nazis were not on the right, we would have had 5 pages of you pedants arguing why they were. Sometimes it is easier to just concede a point that has nothing to do with the point one is trying to make because you know in advance that it is going to detour from the conversation you are trying to have.

For the sake of avoiding that, I accepted that the White Nationalists are considered on the right side of the political spectrum and that Antifa is the left. In reality I think the political spectrum as circular and believe that in reality those two groups are closer together on that spectrum than they are to my position. But people like you would get in a tizzy that I could think that they were close together and that completely derails the point I was trying to make. I tried to avoid that and still had to spend 3 pages saying I do not agree with Nazis.

 

[T.M.P.]

You are making my point for me and you do not even realize it. Who do you think Antifa members are voting for? Republicans?

Well, some vote Democrat. Some vote communist, Most of the American versions currently are Anarchists. They don't vote, because you know that would be hypocritical.

My turn...

How many Antifa appointees were on Democratic presidential staffs?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Well, some vote Democrat. Some vote communist, Most of the American versions currently are Anarchists. They don't vote, because you know that would be hypocritical.

My turn...

How many Antifa appointees were on Democratic presidential staffs?

Don't know. They tend to cover their faces when they are beating people up in the streets...kind of like the KKK.

I am not doing another 3 pages arguing that Antifa are leftists and allies of the far left fringe of the Democratic Party and various other leftist groups. If you do not think they are then feel free to wallow in your own delusion, I won't be joining you.

 

[T.M.P.]

Where are you going with this?

He's saying Antifa is on our side and claimed yesterday that they were the violent arm of the left. Now he's saying that that statement was false but okay because Spencer is as much not on his side, as Antifa is not on ours. His side being Trumpublican our side being Democrats. I don't know where non Trump Republicans fit into this. They really need a party.

My point is .. Trump appointed a white nationalist and known supremist to a position on his staff, (actually two but one was let go) and white supremacist groups have openly given Trump support and have admittedly been empowered by him. Something dems never did with Antifa nor Antifa with dems.

I want to know how that fits into Crazy's shifting rationalizations on sides. Especially Stephen Miller. Consider it a mental gymnastics exhibition with an 8.2 degree of difficulty.

 

[T.M.P.]

Don't know. They tend to cover their faces when they are beating people up in the streets...kind of like the KKK.

I am not doing another 3 pages arguing that Antifa are leftists and allies of the far left fringe of the Democratic Party and various other leftist groups. If you do not think they are then feel free to wallow in your own delusion, I won't be joining you.

lol .. that was weak.

You admit defeat then.

I win, again.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And? This isn't WW2, nobody has permission to go and punch a Nazi. I do not understand why this is so hard for you guys to understand. No matter how deplorable you may find the statements of another person, you have no right to put your hands on them. Zero. That social compact is what keeps us civilized. Those asshats can march with their tiki torches and shout all sorts of nonsense and if the city has permitted them, then they are free to do so (although the torches could very well constitute a weapon, so take those away too). And Antifa can show up and yell about how stupid they are and they can all yell at each other until they are hoarse. That is how it is supposed to work.

I don't care if Antifa holds a moral ground that is a smidgen better than the Nazis and frankly I view the tactics of Antifa as very fascistic, they are Nazis without the racial component, so I guess that makes them a step better...but barely. Whether their viewpoint is slightly more moral, they still have zero right to attack anyone. ZERO. Period, end of discussion. Yeah, the racist douchebags may be worse douchebags but the Antifa crowd fighting them are douchebags too. My position is anti-douchebag. My position is pro-normal, i.e. the 90% of the people who showed up to protest with their presence and their voice, not with clubs and chemical agents. Everyone else was a bad actor.

Edit:

I am going to remove the racial component to try and make my point more clear. Antifa goes around deciding who they think are "fascists" and "Nazis". In some instances, most of us would agree that the people they are fighting are white nationalists (like Charlottesville). In others we massively disagree on who are fascists (Ben Shapiro and more recently ICE agents). When you accept that Antifa has the right to attack what most of us would consider "real Nazis", you also accept that they can be violent to the other people they label as fascists where there would be much more widespread disagreement with their assessment. You leave the decision on who is a legitimate target up to them.

To bring this full circle, anti-abortion groups feel that abortion is literally killing a child. In some instances a Doctor like Gosnell is going to be a guy that most of us would agree is a monster. So if he gets roughed up a bit by anti-abortion groups, then enh...not a big deal. He is a bad person. But if beating him up is ok, then so is going after anyone else who agrees with abortion. At the end of the day, the process is the same, he was just more inhumane. Do you see how this kind of thing gets out of hand really quickly? We have a social compact for a reason. I am not defending Nazis, I am saying that accepting political violence as discourse has ALWAYS ended bad.

I sure hope that's a typo on your part, because I find it incredible that someone could call anti-Nazis just a "smidgen" better than Nazis morally.

 

[hoosboot]

Your position is classic liberalism. Modern liberals seem to have a problem with that.

Oh, the irony.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I sure hope that's a typo on your part, because I find it incredible that someone could call anti-Nazis just a "smidgen" better than Nazis morally.

The current White Nationalists hate people because of their ethnicity. They seek to silence them and marginalize them. They are willing to use any means necessary to accomplish their goals including violence.

Antifa groups hate people because of their politics. They seek to silence and marginalize those they disagree with (and we have already established that those they disagree with are not just people we would all agree are white supremacists). They are willing to use any means necessary to accomplish their goals, including violence.

Yeah, just a smidgeon better. I guess if push came to shove, you can always see the light and convert to a luny leftist while they are bashing your brains in. A non white person can not change their skin color. So yeah, Antifa is not as low on the moral degenerate scale as racists, but that is not saying much.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The current White Nationalists hate people because of their ethnicity. They seek to silence them and marginalize them. They are willing to use any means necessary to accomplish their goals including violence.

Antifa groups hate people because of their politics. They seek to silence and marginalize those they disagree with (and we have already established that those they disagree with are not just people we would all agree are white supremacists). They are willing to use any means necessary to accomplish their goals, including violence.

Yeah, just a smidgeon better. I guess if push came to shove, you can always see the light and convert to a luny leftist while they are bashing your brains in. A non white person can not change their skin color. So yeah, Antifa is not as low on the moral degenerate scale as racists, but that is not saying much.

Wow.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Wow.

I know this blows your mind but I view it like I do the difference between the Soviets and the Nazis in WW2. The Soviets were actually on our side in that conflict and they helped us, but Stalin is said to have been responsible for around 20 million deaths.

Now he may have had less racist reasons for all those deaths, but he still presided over the killing of 20 million people. Is he as low on the degenerate scale as Hitler? Probably not. But in the scheme of things, he is still a shit bag.

 

[cosmickid]

Antifa most definitely exists, I walk by there meeting place here every day on my way to and from work.

That said, they are nothing like IUCrazy tries to paint them. The right in the US has created a caricature of them to fit their needs which doesn't resemble what they actually stand for or fight against.

Here is the website for the Czech group is here (Google translate does a decent job):

http://www.antifa.cz/

I'd say the pics on that website which show various Eastern European Fascists posing next to photos of depictions of Waffen SS helmeted busts (representing their particular nation) are pretty hard to ignore.Here's a perfect example...


Tuesday14/11/2017
Political Leaders of European Fascism, Anti-Semitism and Ultranationalism Plan to Meet in Brno

Gee I wonder where all those US Neo-Nazis find their "inspiration"...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I know this blows your mind but I view it like I do the difference between the Soviets and the Nazis in WW2. The Soviets were actually on our side in that conflict and they helped us, but Stalin is said to have been responsible for around 20 million deaths.

Now he may have had less racist reasons for all those deaths, but he still presided over the killing of 20 million people. Is he as low on the degenerate scale as Hitler? Probably not. But in the scheme of things, he is still a shit bag.

You don't need to keep explaining it. I get it. It's just incredible, is all.

 

[iu_a_att]

I know this blows your mind but I view it like I do the difference between the Soviets and the Nazis in WW2. The Soviets were actually on our side in that conflict and they helped us, but Stalin is said to have been responsible for around 20 million deaths.

Now he may have had less racist reasons for all those deaths, but he still presided over the killing of 20 million people. Is he as low on the degenerate scale as Hitler? Probably not. But in the scheme of things, he is still a shit bag.

Well, it is mind-blowing because one group--the Nazis--literally celebrates all the most horrible stuff including the holocaust. The other group does not advocate let alone celebrate all that horrible stuff of Stalin...it doesn't advocate communism. It only advocates not extending free speech rights to literal fascists. Germany currently outlaws Nazis and they are not some Stalinist gulag.