Let’s talk about Antifa.

[decay]

Oh no, there are plenty of things I give enough of a shit about. One of those things is sleeping peacefully on my chest at this very moment. I have no shortage of things that I care about. I don't however submit to this delusion that fascism is not only tolerated, but perpetuated by the current government (at least any more than any previous administration or to the extent that would justify terrorist acts.) What I do see is a bunch of larpers playing revolution in the streets and a local government that is too feckless to allow law enforcement to do their jobs.

jesus, people

i didn't say you don't give a shit about *anything*, i said you don't give a shit about *this*

and i ended the sentence with "and that's okay" which should make clear it's not a judgmental statement

take your criticism up with the city of portland if you're that pissed, i was just answering z31's question

[cale]

well, your thinking is wrong, because you made an assumption- i questioned his tactics *because they got him killed* and that should have been fairly clear if you read the entire sentence you copypasta'd part of

it's okay. nuance isn't your thing and you're super-excited to have an effigy on r3v to set fire to. i get it



i don't have to, because you're presenting a false premise. actions taken under this presidency are happening at a scale unprecedented by any other

You should probably learn the difference between inference and assumption, because what I took from your post was your explicit condemnation of tactic while also acknowledging yet selectively choosing not to condemn the intent. This is no different than any other extremist who harbours sympathy for those who are willing to do the dirty work, your rationalizing his behavior says enough about where you stand, textbook apologist. You're no effigy, you're a willing combatant in this.

[decay]

You should probably learn the difference between inference and assumption, because what I took from your post was your explicit condemnation of tactic while also acknowledging yet selectively choosing not to condemn the intent. This is no different than any other extremist who harbours sympathy for those who are willing to do the dirty work, your rationalizing his behavior says enough about where you stand, textbook apologist. You're no effigy, you're a willing combatant in this.

you’re goddamned right i am, and there’s a reason i’m not dead or arrested yet

[cale]

And that very choice to participate is why you're scrutinized so heavily on this forum, so stop with the constant self-victimization nonsense we both know you're not entitled to.

Don't overlook the first part of that though, why do you purposefully choose to condemn his tactic and not his intent? And if you continue not to, why are you an apologist for this sort of extreme violence? I look at this no different than right-wing extremists murdering doctors outside abortion clinics and lighting their clinics ablaze.

[decay]

why do you purposefully choose to condemn his tactic and not his intent? And if you continue not to, why are you an apologist for this sort of extreme violence?

probably because i was trained in this sort of extreme violence by a government that keeps finding new ways to employ it

once again, we are back to the question: does the government have a monopoly on violence?

I look at this no different than right-wing extremists murdering doctors outside abortion clinics and lighting their clinics ablaze.

if you want to have that viewpoint, you need to show me an example of american antifa murdering anyone, or that's a false equivalency

[z31maniac]

once again, we are back to the question: does the government have a monopoly on violence?

Legally, yes.

Morally, that's a different question. And I know that's what you're getting at.

I think even more relevant is, "Is this violence working?" People beating each other up in the streets isn't going to bring about any meaningful change.

[decay]

i've discussed escalation of force in this thread already.

anti-fascism also involves pursuing legal options to see the changes we want to happen.

that part doesn't usually wind up on the news, because there's no blood involved.

[naplesE30]

probably because i was trained in this sort of extreme violence by a government that keeps finding new ways to employ it

once again, we are back to the question: does the government have a monopoly on violence?



if you want to have that viewpoint, you need to show me an example of american antifa murdering anyone, or that's a false equivalency

Not sure that govt has a monopoly on violence as you say. That’s a rather absolute statement. In fact I would venture to guess more civilians perpetrate violence on any given day than our govt entities do in a year. The govt or military/police have clear policies about when they can engage an individual or civilian, which I am sure you are well aware of. Breaching those policies will lead to prosecution in both entities, and commonly does.

[cale]

probably because i was trained in this sort of extreme violence by a government that keeps finding new ways to employ it

once again, we are back to the question: does the government have a monopoly on violence?

You're not the only one who was or is in the military. Others including myself who serve can see just how pitiful his attempt to carry out an attack was. The issue here is motive and intent, not the poor execution of that motive.

The government has a monopoly on the enforcement of borders and law yes. There is no legal merit behind throwing molotov's at a government building. If you want to talk false equivalencies then great job providing one, that the detainment of illegal pers is equivalent to arson.

if you want to have that viewpoint, you need to show me an example of american antifa murdering anyone, or that's a false equivalency

It's an act of the extreme left compared to acts from the extreme right, I don't believe any of these outliers speak for anyone but themselves with their actions.

[decay]

Not sure that govt has a monopoly on violence as you say. That’s a rather absolute statement. In fact I would venture to guess more civilians perpetrate violence on any given day than our govt entities do in a year. The govt or military/police have clear policies about when they can engage an individual or civilian, which I am sure you are well aware of. Breaching those policies will lead to prosecution in both entities, and commonly does.

Can you all kindly stop putting words in my mouth?

I did not say that. I asked whether everyone else thought it was true. That’s why it was phrased as a *question*, not an assertion.

[decay]

You're not the only one who was or is in the military. Others including myself who serve

Most unintentionally funny post ITT.

Sorry, but no public service in Canada rates with being combat arms in our military.

Thanks for the laugh, though.

[naplesE30]

Do you think Decay should be allowed to continue beating his wife?

That wouldn't exactly be a true question either would it. Your "question" has an implied factual statement

[decay]

Do you think Decay should be allowed to continue beating his wife?

That wouldn't exactly be a true question either would it. Your "question" has an implied factual statement

No it doesn’t. It is intended to make anyone who reads it ask themselves more questions. z31 got it.

[naplesE30]

Which is completely based on a false premise. Just as I outlined. I have a right to defend myself if one were to break into my home. That does not mean I have a right to commit violence.

[decay]

JFC. There is no premise. It’s a fucking question intended to make you think about your answer. You sound like you’re a couple steps down that path now, but I don’t understand why you’re upset that I asked it.