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

[pErvinalia]

Whatever do you mean? Are you implying some sort of bias on my part? Does this qualify as poisoning the well or an ad-hom?

It's straight out bias. Same as 42 and conservatives in general always whinging about the poor and welfare recipients, yet strangely quet about corporate welfare and massive tax avoidance. You guys aren't actually liberals. You're conservatives in (skimpy) liberal clothing.

I'm critical of the left associating with Antifa because I care about the viability of the left in electoral politics, and especially in the 2020 US presidential election. If the left loses all moral authority, as looks promising to happen if they remain affiliated with Antifa, there's an excellent chance for Trump to scoop the votes he needs to win a second term, and I don't want that. Apparently working to save the left from itself makes me a conservative.

Well keep up the good work with your hyperbolic broad-brush characterisations of "the left". With friends like you, what political spectrum needs enemies?

[pErvinalia]

Oh look, Cunt turns up for his bi-annual assumption fest...

So how many Nazis have you found and punched pErvin? Inquiring minds want to know.

None, thankfully, as they aren't as emboldened here as in the US. But if the opportunity presented itself, I would give good consideration to giving one a smack in the chops.

Eh sure. So Cunt's assumptions turned out to be correct. You're just a big talker.

I think you need remedial reading lessons. This is at least the 4th time you've misinterpreted something simple. I'm pretty sure you won't find me anywhere on this forum seriously encouraging people to punch Nazis, let alone [hyperbole alert] inciting anyone to violence [/hyperbole alert]. Man, your biases are off the charts.

[pErvinalia]

Is anyone actually standing firmly behind the 'punch a neo-Nazi' position?

On this forum? Ani and pErvin, maybe others.

Are neo-Nazis rare and difficult to find?

I'm betting that neither can show evidence that they have made even the smallest effort to DO any punching, instead trying to incite others to do it by their written, and MAYBE spoken support. There must be a name for that kind of activism...

I don't advocate punching them*. I just advocate not crying over Nazis when their free speech has consequences.


*Except in self defence.

Yeah, this.

We've seen plenty of words out of Siva and 42 screaming blue murder about antifa, yet strangely very little about actual murders by the extreme right.

[Animavore]

Very defensive of Nazis indeed. Makes you wonder.

[Cunt]

I don't advocate punching them*. I just advocate not crying over Nazis when their free speech has consequences.


*Except in self defence.

It sounds like you support free speech for those who agree with you, but won't cry about it when someone says something TRULY awful. Like a nazi. How about Rushdie? He said things which he KNEW would get him attacked. Would you advocate not crying over those consequences?

Very soft of you to phrase it that way. It is very clear that you would not put your fist where it doesn't belong. Good for you. Glad to know you are ok with violence against speakers with whom you disagree. It helps me understand your position a bit better.

It looks like everyone here does NOT support punching Neo-Nazis for exercising their freedom of speech. Glad to know it.

It's pretty funny how a few want to make it seem like they don't quite agree though. Almost brave enough to call them keyboard warriors.

[Animavore]

I don't advocate punching them*. I just advocate not crying over Nazis when their free speech has consequences.


*Except in self defence.

It sounds like you support free speech for those who agree with you, but won't cry about it when someone says something TRULY awful. Like a nazi. How about Rushdie? He said things which he KNEW would get him attacked. Would you advocate not crying over those consequences?

Very soft of you to phrase it that way. It is very clear that you would not put your fist where it doesn't belong. Good for you. Glad to know you are ok with violence against speakers with whom you disagree. It helps me understand your position a bit better.

It looks like everyone here does NOT support punching Neo-Nazis for exercising their freedom of speech. Glad to know it.

It's pretty funny how a few want to make it seem like they don't quite agree though. Almost brave enough to call them keyboard warriors.

Are you comparing Rushdie to Nazis?



Disingenuous as fuck.

[Animavore]

Yes, Rushdie knew what he was saying could get him killed, but he said it anyway. He was willing to die for his beliefs.

Coward Nazis go out into a public forum and say the most vile and sickening things about groups of people, and they must know that they could provoke and anger someone, but they act all surprised when they do. That look startled and say, "That was uncalled for", then play victim.

If they owned their position and were honest about it I'd have more respect for them. But they don't because they're spineless, coward fucks unwilling to take personal resposibility. And that is why I have zero sympathy for them.

[Cunt]

It's pretty funny how a few want to make it seem like they don't quite agree though. Almost brave enough to call them keyboard warriors.

Are you comparing Rushdie to Nazis?



Disingenuous as fuck.

Not sure what you mean by that word. Both are saying something which could be fairly called deliberately provocative. Both could conceivably provoke attack from the offended parties. (muslims in one case, nazi-punchers in the other)

Both are wildly different in WHAT they express. One you likely side with, one you do not. What I am pointing out is that, from what you have written here, it looks like you only support freedom of speech for the opinion which sides with yours.

Of course, it means very little, since you don't take any action.

I mean, you say some very brave things about 'them nazis', but my guess is that your strongest action will be hinting that you think they deserve violence for having a horrible opinion.

Almost brave enough to call you a keyboard warrior.

[Animavore]

It's pretty funny how a few want to make it seem like they don't quite agree though. Almost brave enough to call them keyboard warriors.

Are you comparing Rushdie to Nazis?



Disingenuous as fuck.

Not sure what you mean by that word. Both are saying something which could be fairly called deliberately provocative. Both could conceivably provoke attack from the offended parties. (muslims in one case, nazi-punchers in the other)

Both are wildly different in WHAT they express. One you likely side with, one you do not. What I am pointing out is that, from what you have written here, it looks like you only support freedom of speech for the opinion which sides with yours.

Of course, it means very little, since you don't take any action.

I mean, you say some very brave things about 'them nazis', but my guess is that your strongest action will be hinting that you think they deserve violence for having a horrible opinion.

Almost brave enough to call you a keyboard warrior.

No. I explained it clearly above. It's not that I think they deserve violence, it's that I think they shouldn't act surprised and play the victim. I have no more sympathy for them than any other person who abuses people, calls them horrible names, insults their family, then ends up getting a slap off one of them. Speech has consequences and you should be prepared to accept those consequences or say nothing.

Read what I actually say. Not what you think I'm saying.

[Jason]

Oh look, Cunt turns up for his bi-annual assumption fest...

So how many Nazis have you found and punched pErvin? Inquiring minds want to know.

None, thankfully, as they aren't as emboldened here as in the US. But if the opportunity presented itself, I would give good consideration to giving one a smack in the chops.

Eh sure. So Cunt's assumptions turned out to be correct. You're just a big talker.

I think you need remedial reading lessons. This is at least the 4th time you've misinterpreted something simple. I'm pretty sure you won't find me anywhere on this forum seriously encouraging people to punch Nazis, let alone [hyperbole alert] inciting anyone to violence [/hyperbole alert]. Man, your biases are off the charts.

That's right pErvin, take a big step back from that untenable position you find yourself in and keep that big mouth running.

[JimC]

Is anyone actually standing firmly behind the 'punch a neo-Nazi' position?

I would if punching a neo-Nazi were an effective aversion therapy. It isn't, so I don't. Nothing personal, of course, if I did.

Except for JimC. JimC is evil - a fascist masquerading in a threadbare cloak of centrism. Delenda est Iacobus! Oh, how I long to get within striking distance of that monster. When I do, I'll hit him with every weapon of maths instruction at my disposal. I already carry a specially customised protractor in my pocket at all times for that very purpose. Among other enhancements it has 184.7°s. Watch out, traitor. Your defection from the SDS will never be forgiven.

[JimC]

Typically of many positions adopted in Ratzian debates, polarisation has occurred, in the sense that both sides are assuming that every antifa protest involves violence and punching (one side horrified, rEv saying "punch the cunts" )

The reality is that the majority of the confrontations between antifa or similar groups and the neo-Nazis and their ilk involve lots of noisy chanting and spleen venting on both sides, with a bit of push and shove at times. Violence on both sides is mostly some retaliatory stuff, and the actual cold-blooded deliberate punch is rare.

And the neo-Nazis simply have to accept that advocating their abhorrent racist ideology in public is going to bring (as it should) a robust reaction. Deal with it, snowflakes...

[Cunt]

It's pretty funny how a few want to make it seem like they don't quite agree though. Almost brave enough to call them keyboard warriors.

Are you comparing Rushdie to Nazis?



Disingenuous as fuck.

Not sure what you mean by that word. Both are saying something which could be fairly called deliberately provocative. Both could conceivably provoke attack from the offended parties. (muslims in one case, nazi-punchers in the other)

Both are wildly different in WHAT they express. One you likely side with, one you do not. What I am pointing out is that, from what you have written here, it looks like you only support freedom of speech for the opinion which sides with yours.

Of course, it means very little, since you don't take any action.

I mean, you say some very brave things about 'them nazis', but my guess is that your strongest action will be hinting that you think they deserve violence for having a horrible opinion.

Almost brave enough to call you a keyboard warrior.

No. I explained it clearly above. It's not that I think they deserve violence, it's that I think they shouldn't act surprised and play the victim. I have no more sympathy for them than any other person who abuses people, calls them horrible names, insults their family, then ends up getting a slap off one of them. Speech has consequences and you should be prepared to accept those consequences or say nothing.

Read what I actually say. Not what you think I'm saying.

Do you mean Rushdie? Or just the groups you despise?

[Cunt]

And the ******* simply have to accept that advocating their abhorrent racist ideology in public is going to bring (as it should) a robust reaction. Deal with it, snowflakes...

Rushdie or Nazi's?

Those who were offended by Rushdie and his deliberate, intelligent and well -researched abhorrent ideological attack have as much right to outrage as you do, don't they?

[JimC]

And the ******* simply have to accept that advocating their abhorrent racist ideology in public is going to bring (as it should) a robust reaction. Deal with it, snowflakes...

Rushdie or Nazi's?

Those who were offended by Rushdie and his deliberate, intelligent and well -researched abhorrent ideological attack have as much right to outrage as you do, don't they?

I'm not saying that the robust response should include attempts to completely silence the neo-Nazis, though I'm aware that some on the left say that shutting down their speakers is a legitimate move. What I am saying is that I think that it is a very healthy thing that every time fascists or the KKK etc. have a march, that there is a large number of noisy counter-demonstrators, showing the rest of the world that their evil crap will be answered. This need not involve either violence (unless in self-defence) or demanding that the nazis have no right to a public display, just lots of yelling!