Let’s talk about Antifa.

[frankenbeemer]

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted August 14-15, 2018
By Rasmussen Reports



1* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of the so-called “antifa” protestors?

2* Which is closer to your point of view – The antifa protestors are primarily a valid protest movement representing the concerns of many Americans, or the antifa protestors are primarily troublemakers looking to cause a public disturbance?



NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Care to guess the results?

[decay]

1000 is a pretty tiny sample set given our country's population. it'd be very easy to select that size of a polling group of "likely voters" from some gerrymandered red-state district. but sure, let's hear it.

[mrsleeve]

Or gerrymandered blue states too let's be honest here. Other than the furthest left fringes groups the antifa is pretty universally mocked by everyone

[Exodus_2pt0]

1,000 people can actually give you a very good idea.

[decay]

ok, now that we've heard "logical fallacy: appeal to popularity" and "contrarian ackshually", let's have the actual "data".

[cale]

ok, now that we've heard "logical fallacy: appeal to popularity"

The evaluation by the civil majority of a very small destructive minority is definitely relevant, and in no way a logical fallacy. You and your ilk will always be judged by the destructive actions your group is responsible for, and rightfully so. The popular opinion of a fringe group is extremely relevant.

[MrBurgundy]

Fifty-four percent (54%) have an unfavorable opinion of these protesters, including 39% with a Very Unfavorable one. Twenty-eight percent (28%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This is from the survey mentioned above

[decay]

The evaluation by the civil majority of a very small destructive minority is definitely relevant, and in no way a logical fallacy.

1000 people is not a civil majority, and any argument that starts with "everyone says" is and always will be an appeal to popularity, but i was still politely asking for the answer that was left out as trollbait, even though i already know the provided data source was debunked 8 years ago:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-rasmussen-reports-biased/

canada's educational system has failed to train you on debate. i suppose that's one reason i'm an anarchist and not a socialist :P

You and your ilk will always be judged by the destructive actions your group is responsible for, and rightfully so.

it's very telling exactly *which* fringe groups you are so upset/concerned about.

meanwhile, in good news, this murderer is standing in front of an actual judge. closing arguments today, hopefully.

https://wjla.com/news/local/closing-arguments-expected-in-trial-of-man-accused-of-killing-woman-in-charlottesville

i'm really sorry for not falling in line with what you expect of a liberal: meet violence with peace, flowers, and empathy. that shit doesn't work, and i'm not a liberal.

[cale]

Everyone says vandalism is wrong, is this also dismissable as a fallacious argument? Don't worry, the people on the other side of the trash can fights are also just as laughed at.

It's very telling that I'm discussing a fringe group for whom the thread is based on? C'mon now, for someone who's criticizing anothers ability to provide a compelling argument, you sure are resorting to some mighty shit ones yourself.

[decay]

Everyone says vandalism is wrong, is this also dismissable as a fallacious argument?

yes, but not for the reason you think- you're wrong because not everyone says that. example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Liberation_Front

context: that was done right after hurricane katrina.

what's your analysis? is that vandalism, art, or political messaging?

It's very telling that I'm discussing a fringe group for whom the thread is based on?

uh, that's not what i said, dude.

a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of people and killed someone- which is absolutely relevant to this thread- and the fact that you don't appear to care too much about that, because you're avoiding the subject, is a tell.

[cale]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize not explicitly condemning mass murder was indicative of some hidden motive to target antifa. Murder is wrong, he was a horrible person. Satisfied? Now are you done bringing up topics for the sole purpose of trying to diminish me as a participant in this topic?

Ps vandalism

[decay]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize not explicitly condemning mass murder was indicative of some hidden motive to target antifa. Murder is wrong, he was a horrible person. Satisfied? Now are you done bringing up topics for the sole purpose of trying to diminish me as a participant in this topic?

if i were trying to diminish you as a participant, i'd just put you on ignore.

is it fair to say that what people complain about is what they care about?

Ps vandalism

disagree. it's political messaging, because it's pointing out that the tax dollars we all pay to fund FEMA weren't, and still aren't (sorry puerto rico) being allocated or utilized properly.

[MrBurgundy]

disagree. it's political messaging, because it's pointing out that the tax dollars we all pay to fund FEMA weren't, and still aren't (sorry puerto rico) being allocated or utilized properly.

That's vandalism with a political message.

It's not just a political message.

[decay]

That's vandalism with a political message.

It's not just a political message.

ok, fair point. i don't agree that it's wrong or unjustified, because i care more about the residents of new orleans & mississippi & puerto rico & (insert_natural_disaster_locale_here) than i do about clearchannel's property rights, but i get where you're coming from.

[cale]

Now change that politically motivated graffiti for tossing trash cans into Starbucks windows or tossing piss bottles and you'll be able to get a reasonable guesstimation on how the general public perceives those actions. They're not the same.