"Alt-left" Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[Forty Two]

Fake

http://www.snopes.com/antifa-member-pho ... e-officer/

Of course it's fake. There's no such thing as the "alt left". It's an Alt Right invention.

That particular image is fake. The video of the Berkeley riot was not fake.

[pErvinalia]

Fake

http://www.snopes.com/antifa-member-pho ... e-officer/

Oh dear. The right really are hooking into media manipulation, aren't they? And who can blame them really, given the amount of right wing idiots, for example, who think that Obama was president during Hurricane Katrina..

[pErvinalia]

Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis

Stopped reading at that point...

[pErvinalia]

Well that's an entirely different issue, of course.

But, the first answer to that is that we have a fundamental human right of freedom of speech, as an outgrowth of fundamental rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.

Natural rights of man. Yawn. Stopped reading at that point.

[Jason]

Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis

Stopped reading at that point...

But it's from WaPo...

[pErvinalia]

Explainer: what is antifa, and where did it come from?

Anti-fascist action, more popularly known as “antifa”, can be best described as international socialism on amphetamines. Driven by progressive ideology and “workers’ rights”, it has adopted violence and intimidation as a tactic to quash conservatives and nationalists – in Australia, Europe and, most recently, the US.

Antifa, or militant progressives, have always existed and flourished in democracies. Militant progressives were part of the the 1960s and 1970s counter-culture, and were active during the anti-globalisation protests of the 1990s and 2000s.

It is difficult to accurately state when antifa began. It is more of an evolution of progressive militancy than a birth.

What does it fight for?

Anti-fascist movements can be traced back at least to the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the ideological collective known as antifa evokes the historical struggles of the 20th century against fascists in Italy and Nazi Germany to explain its 21st-century existence.

Antifa believe if anti-fascists had mobilised and crushed fascism before it took root in Europe during the early-to-mid-20th century, then many of that period’s tragedies may have been avoided.

In some ways, antifa’s existence also relies on the political environment of the time. There must be a conservative government in power for it to have traction.

Antifa is a product of progressive thought struggling against conservative or capitalist governments. Without them, it would not enjoy its current prominence. Instead, it would have to content itself on countering the activities of radical nationalist fringe groups.

Antifa ideology features a pro-multicultural agenda, the protection of social and ethnic minorities, and the socialisation of government. The majority of its platform is rather mainstream for contemporary society, and can also be found in the policy platforms on the left of the ALP or the Greens.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-wh ... from-82977

This is just garbled nonsense. It's just a lame "red scare". Antifa, is largely politically anarchist. Does the clown who wrote this understand the difference between socialism and anarchism? It seems not. Either that, or he is engaging in propaganda (the obvious hint there is the mention of the ALP and the Greens). And looking at his mini bio, I see he is from The University of Podunk, Desertville, Australia. Probably not a surprise..

[NineBerry]

Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis

Stopped reading at that point...

But it's from WaPo...

Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

All the online newspapers do today have columns where they have people write controversial opinion pieces to generate ad revenues.

[pErvinalia]

"American Enterprise Institute"... bloody commie!

[Forty Two]

Well that's an entirely different issue, of course.

But, the first answer to that is that we have a fundamental human right of freedom of speech, as an outgrowth of fundamental rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.

Natural rights of man. Yawn. Stopped reading at that point.

I also explained the key difference between a law against speeding and a law against speaking. They aren't the same thing, as harm is not caused by the act of expressing opinions, whereas harm is caused by driving a car if an accident occurs. There aren't accidents that occur because someone expresses an opinion.

The harm that is suggested with speech is that people may be offended by it or have their feelings hurt, or that people may take violent action as a result of hearing certain kinds of speech. The former is not a harm the law protects in contexts like speeding - it's about physical harm, not hurt feelings. And the latter is different from the kind of harm speeding causes. We don't have speeding laws because someone else might speed too. We have speeding laws because of the danger of accidents at high rates of speed.

Further, if you're going to restrict speech because of the actions of the listener or reader, then it is as rational to stop antifa from speaking as it is white supremacists, because people are engaging in violence in furtherance of antifa political goals. So why not shut them up? I submit that the same reason society would not want to shut up antifa is the reason why we would not shut up NORML, NAMBLA or white supremacists.

Also, its' a function of equal treatment under the law. The government is not the arbiter of truth or of the value of opinion, particularly political opinion. The government responds to the people in a democracy, not the other way around.

[Jason]

Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis

Stopped reading at that point...

But it's from WaPo...

Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

All the online newspapers do today have columns where they have people write controversial opinion pieces to generate ad revenues.

And you think they escape editorial review? How irresponsible!

[Jason]

Explainer: what is antifa, and where did it come from?

Anti-fascist action, more popularly known as “antifa”, can be best described as international socialism on amphetamines. Driven by progressive ideology and “workers’ rights”, it has adopted violence and intimidation as a tactic to quash conservatives and nationalists – in Australia, Europe and, most recently, the US.

Antifa, or militant progressives, have always existed and flourished in democracies. Militant progressives were part of the the 1960s and 1970s counter-culture, and were active during the anti-globalisation protests of the 1990s and 2000s.

It is difficult to accurately state when antifa began. It is more of an evolution of progressive militancy than a birth.

What does it fight for?

Anti-fascist movements can be traced back at least to the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the ideological collective known as antifa evokes the historical struggles of the 20th century against fascists in Italy and Nazi Germany to explain its 21st-century existence.

Antifa believe if anti-fascists had mobilised and crushed fascism before it took root in Europe during the early-to-mid-20th century, then many of that period’s tragedies may have been avoided.

In some ways, antifa’s existence also relies on the political environment of the time. There must be a conservative government in power for it to have traction.

Antifa is a product of progressive thought struggling against conservative or capitalist governments. Without them, it would not enjoy its current prominence. Instead, it would have to content itself on countering the activities of radical nationalist fringe groups.

Antifa ideology features a pro-multicultural agenda, the protection of social and ethnic minorities, and the socialisation of government. The majority of its platform is rather mainstream for contemporary society, and can also be found in the policy platforms on the left of the ALP or the Greens.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-wh ... from-82977

This is just garbled nonsense. It's just a lame "red scare". Antifa, is largely politically anarchist. Does the clown who wrote this understand the difference between socialism and anarchism? It seems not. Either that, or he is engaging in propaganda (the obvious hint there is the mention of the ALP and the Greens). And looking at his mini bio, I see he is from The University of Podunk, Desertville, Australia. Probably not a surprise..

Seems quite cogent and factual to me, but why accept facts when you have a job to do as an Anarchist provocateur eh?

[Hermit]

we're not saying that "Nazi's" can't have their speech restricted, we're saying "people" can't have their speech restricted. Because it's not just Nazis as a special class of people whose speech could be restricted. All people would be subject to the same restriction.

That is what you are saying. I am saying, and it's safe to assume I am not the only one, that all people have freedom of speech - as long as they do not advocate policies that deny the same freedom everyone else has to Jews, African Americans or any other ethnicity. Advocacy of, say ethnic cleansing, even if that is supposed to be executed by "peaceful means", is such a denial.

From a practical standpoint, too, there is a difference between driving a car and speaking in the public square. Driving itself poses a danger of physical injury. Speaking or writing does not.

From a historical point of view the advocacy of fascism has - in very practical terms indeed, and directly so - posed more than a danger of physical injury. It has resulted in the deaths of about 55 million people, injuries to many millions more and the flattening of many entire cities. So, to be consistent, you ought to either argue against traffic laws or in favour of making activities promoting fascist policies illegal.

[NineBerry]

The harm that is suggested with speech is that people may be offended by it or have their feelings hurt, or that people may take violent action as a result of hearing certain kinds of speech. The former is not a harm the law protects in contexts like speeding - it's about physical harm, not hurt feelings

There are actually speeding limits based on protecting people living close-by from noise...

[Jason]

we're not saying that "Nazi's" can't have their speech restricted, we're saying "people" can't have their speech restricted. Because it's not just Nazis as a special class of people whose speech could be restricted. All people would be subject to the same restriction.

That is what you are saying. I am saying, and it's safe to assume I am not the only one, that all people have freedom of speech - as long as they do not advocate policies that deny the same freedom everyone else has to Jews, African Americans or any other ethnicity. Advocacy of, say ethnic cleansing, even if that is supposed to be executed by "peaceful means", is such a denial.

In America, at least, the incitement you speak of has to be 'imminent' for the speech to be non-protected.

[NineBerry]

I guess that is why America is such a shit place