What's interesting is her advocating no one to show up to oppose the kkk. I think the larger (and hopefully peaceful) counter demonstration is much more effective.
So the neo-nazis little protest about the removal of a Confederate statue seems to have led to cities all over the country removing their Confederate statues. Well that backfired spectacularly, didn't it?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Swift For This Useful Post:
For decades, far-right extremists have marched through Wunsiedel in Bavaria every year, to the despair of those who live there. This year, the organisers of Rechts gegen Rechts (Right against Right) took a different approach.
Neo-Nazis are attracted to the town because Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess was once buried there. Though his remains were exhumed in 2011 and his grave was destroyed, far-right extremists still flock to the town year after year. Residents have attempted protests and numerous legal complaints to no avail – Wunsiedel is still treated as a place of pilgrimage for neo-Nazis all over Europe.
Without the marchers’ knowledge, local residents and businesses sponsored the 250 participants of the march on 15 November in what was dubbed Germany’s “most involuntary walkathon”. For every metre they walked, €10 went to a programme called EXIT Deutschland, which helps people escape extremist groups.
Campaigners hung humorous posters to make the march look more like a sporting event, with slogans such as “If only the Führer knew!” and “Mein Mampf” (my munch) next to a table laden with bananas. They even hung a sign at the end, thanking the marchers for their “donations”.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
I think we tend to focus too much on the comedy that the late night set use to challenge our thought processes, and write off much of what these people say as a result of them being "jesters" meant to entertain us. But I think people forget that another role of the "jester" is to shine a light on the bad behaviors of the royal court, and keep them honest. Sometimes the jester makes a poignant soliloquy that says a lot more than we thought them capable. Here is one of those moments.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I think we tend to focus too much on the comedy that the late night set use to challenge our thought processes, and write off much of what these people say as a result of them being "jesters" meant to entertain us. But I think people forget that another role of the "jester" is to shine a light on the bad behaviors of the royal court, and keep them honest. Sometimes the jester makes a poignant soliloquy that says a lot more than we thought them capable. Here is one of those moments.
Interesting. He's not wrong except I'm not sure about the end.. "the american voter will" I don't think anyone has any idea what the American voter will do. You're stats above show that 62% of adults opposed removing the monuments. That's a much higher percentage of people than are Republicans, Trump voters, or Fox viewers. I suspect a lot of it could be explained by white people who vote Democratic but feel uncomfortable "accommodating" or "making concessions to" black people and/or leftist activists.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Interesting. He's not wrong except I'm not sure about the end.. "the american voter will" I don't think anyone has any idea what the American voter will do. You're stats above show that 62% of adults opposed removing the monuments. That's a much higher percentage of people than are Republicans, Trump voters, or Fox viewers. I suspect a lot of it could be explained by white people who vote Democratic but feel uncomfortable "accommodating" or "making concessions to" black people and/or leftist activists.
I also think people who don't live in the south generally don't know much about their symbolism one way or the other. They're "just statues" to them, and people tend to be against taking down statues for reasons they don't understand.
This is a real warm and fuzzy take on antifa, but neglects to mention a few things.
Namely, not one mention or photo of the sheer amount of communist flags ect that they parade around. Hard to claim they have no political affiliation when they are screaming it from the rooftops. It's easy to say they are but simple anarchists when you fail to address this point.
They have been declared a terrorist organization by the state of New Jersey.
We need anitifa about as much as we need nazis. But let's not pretend they are sweet little defenders of democracy. They just prefer a different brand of totalitarianism.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
This is a real warm and fuzzy take on antifa, but neglects to mention a few things.
Namely, not one mention or photo of the sheer amount of communist flags ect that they parade around. Hard to claim they have no political affiliation when they are screaming it from the rooftops. It's easy to say they are but simple anarchists when you fail to address this point.
They have been declared a terrorist organization by the state of New Jersey.
We need anitifa about as much as we need nazis. But let's not pretend they are sweet little defenders of democracy. They just prefer a different brand of totalitarianism.
I dunno, I'm going to go ahead and say the types of people who believe in ethnic cleansing and white supremacy are at least marginally less-needed than the people who believe the world needs to be cleansed of those types of people.
Not to say antifa is great, but I think everybody but the worst types of people would side with them over nazis, if forced to make a choice.
Not to say antifa is great, but I think everybody but the worst types of people would side with them over nazis, if forced to make a choice.
"They're not quite as bad as actual Nazis" is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
This is a real warm and fuzzy take on antifa, but neglects to mention a few things.
Namely, not one mention or photo of the sheer amount of communist flags ect that they parade around. Hard to claim they have no political affiliation when they are screaming it from the rooftops. It's easy to say they are but simple anarchists when you fail to address this point.
They have been declared a terrorist organization by the state of New Jersey.
We need anitifa about as much as we need nazis. But let's not pretend they are sweet little defenders of democracy. They just prefer a different brand of totalitarianism.
I get that communists regimes have killed a lot of people but communism as an ideology doesn't advocate for ethnic cleansing. Nazism does.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I get that communists regimes have killed a lot of people but communism as an ideology doesn't advocate for ethnic cleansing. Nazism does.
Yeah communism as an ideology celebrates crossing and even abandoning national, ethnic and gender boundaries. This is also the way the far-left activists of today see things, which I think everyone knows.
Which is why I think suggesting that somehow the current far-left activist generation would be supportive of Soviet style genocides is really just intellectually dishonest and thus pretty bad argumentation.
That's not to say there are no problems with the far-left ideology, there are a lot, but those are not actually problems. In fact I consider those attempts to attack the far left to be ridiculous bad faith arguments.
I also think pretty much everything people say about the violence of the far-left is based on a certain amount of ignorance and misunderstanding. This isn't really an accusation because the far-left activist community actually has thought a lot, lot more about the use of violence as political tool than pretty much any other group. There's a ton more nuance to political violence (and really violence in general) than people commonly realize.
Really the only other group that has spent such an extensive time considering the use of violence as a political tool is the Nazis. (Quite specifically Nazis, not fascists in general.)
One of the things that make the far-left and far-right so opposite is their relationship to violence. For the far-left it's considered a necessary evil, the use of which is to be constantly analyzed and examined, as is the question of valid targets for certain levels of violence. (That's not to say I agree with I the far-left tactics or that they always get things right. But they do try, hard.)
Somewhat unfortunately this is impossible to see from the outside, as for example the media and the police that come into conflict with the far-left are so nonchalant about facts and disinterested in the far-left considerations.
(I have a lot of disrespect towards the police forces for their tendency to regurarly outright lie about facts surrounding protests to justify and cover up for their failed responses. This tendency to lie is a major reason why in so many protests today the police are actively trying to block media access to areas of protest. Attacks against media by the police are sadly also extremely common. In Hamburg for example this was a major issue. (Which is one of the reasons for the major media backlash against the police even in conservative German media.)
All that said; "what do you expect". The far-left has put so much effort into creating tactics which exploit the weak spots of police ability to response, while simultaneously not doing enough to curb the hotheads who actively provoke the police. Excessive use of force is what you get as result, and trying to cover up for it is the result of that. I could really go on about the morality and reality in the dynamics between protesters and authorities, but that's a really, really long story and this is already turning into a long post.)
The key difference between the far-left and the Nazis is that for the Nazis, use of violence is a central part of their ideology and a primary tool to be used not as little as needed, but as much as they can get away with. Nazis (already in the 20's and 30's) also on their side put a lot of thought into how to use violence effectively in a democratic society, but their goal is specifically to turn the society into a place where they can get away with violence against ethnic minorities and other undesirable groups while turning the society in general against those same minorities and the people who oppose them. Even though your average street Nazi tends to kind of dumb, their leaders usually know how to read, and they share these ideas. For example the Nazis in Charlottesville specifically mentioned using tactics adopted from the Golden Dawn in Greece. (Who btw came quite close to succeeding in taking over their country.)
There's quite a bit more to that story too, but there's a larp I have to go to so I have limited time
I guess if there's a point I'd like to make it's this:
- The use of physical force is a lot more complicated topic than the binary of "violent / non-violent", and there is no way you can really understand what went on for example in Charlottesville without at least some personal experience and understanding of the goals and methods of the groups involved.
- The lack of understanding regarding violence is a problem. That lack of understanding is one of the reasons why I think for example the whole discussion around US policing is borderline impossible. I think the media should do a lot more to give the people at least a chance to understand the nuances. Then people could make informed decisions on what they agree with and what they don't.
Last edited by Itse; 08-19-2017 at 04:07 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I don't understand why this is so complicated for some people to understand.
The central tenant of the white nationalists is to remove the human rights of other people they deem inferior, which is essentially everyone else. Some even still believe in ethnic cleansing, aka murder/genocide. This particular group in Charlottesville were chanting "the Jews will not replace us" and "the ovens will be hotter". If you don't understand their intent than you are either being willfully ignorant or you're a racist or you're just not that bright.
The central tenant of the antifa is to not allow that to happen. They are literally "anti-fascists". As a person of Jewish heritage I'm somewhat grateful that the antifa are standing up for my right to exist, even if they have to respond to violence with violence.
Equating the two groups is either ignorant, ingenuous, or hateful. Trump and the other nazi apologists can go #### themselves.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I disagree that communism doesn't support ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing doesn't just mean killing. Stripping people of their culture, religion, language, identity, history and forced relocation are all mechanisms for genocide.
But the Antifa are not communists. That would be like saying animal rights activist are vegans. A small group might be communists, but most are just normal people.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
