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

[laklak]

Just shoot their commie asses. Let 'em sue you in civil court for lost wages. Hang on, you're bound to win, because you don't make any money living in mum's basement.

[Hermit]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

May as well get rid of road traffic laws. Just prosecute people who are at fault when accidents happen. Come to think of it, why require driving licenses at all? They do impinge on the freedom to move. You can become a safe and competent driver without going through the rigmarole and expense of obtaining a license, and statistics prove that possession of a driver license does not mean you won't cause an accident anyway. Drivers licenses are just another example of government overreach, not to say tyranny.

What does that have to do with this issue?

Speeding is not a crime, to pick an example demonstrating the unreasonability of road rules, as long as it does no damage to property or injures/kills someone. Generally speaking, people who speed do not intend to inflict property damage, injury or death. As long as they don't intend to any such things and don't in fact do such things, why enact laws limiting speed and then enforce them? No crime has been committed, nor was there an intention to commit a crime, or even an encouragement of others to commit a crime if someone chooses to drive past the front gate of a Kindergarten at 100 kilometres per hour.

[Svartalf]

technically, speeding is an infraction to the law, punishable by a fine, sure it's not a felony, but it's a breach of law nonetheless.

Now, I know your point is that the law is itself unjustified and excessive regulation, but such law have usually been passed because excessive speed was a common cause for accidents and deaths, including deaths of innocents.

[pErvinalia]

That's not what he's saying. On phone, he will explain

[Forty Two]

I wonder whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will also be labelled as terrorist groups?

Sure, if they meet the definition of terrorism. Their ideology alone does not do that. They have to engage in terrorism (violence to achieve political ends, as a policy/practice of the organization).

May as well get rid of road traffic laws. Just prosecute people who are at fault when accidents happen. Come to think of it, why require driving licenses at all? They do impinge on the freedom to move. You can become a safe and competent driver without going through the rigmarole and expense of obtaining a license, and statistics prove that possession of a driver license does not mean you won't cause an accident anyway. Drivers licenses are just another example of government overreach, not to say tyranny.

What does that have to do with this issue?

Speeding is not a crime, to pick an example demonstrating the unreasonability of road rules, as long as it does no damage to property or injures/kills someone. Generally speaking, people who speed do not intend to inflict property damage, injury or death. As long as they don't intend to any such things and don't in fact do such things, why enact laws limiting speed and then enforce them? No crime has been committed, nor was there an intention to commit a crime, or even an encouragement of others to commit a crime if someone chooses to drive past the front gate of a Kindergarten at 100 kilometres per hour.

What does that have to do with this issue? JimC wondered whether all the neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups will be labeled terrorist groups, and I stated that if they meet the definition of terrorism, then yes, sure. Then you said "may as well get rid of traffic laws..." Why would we get rid of traffic laws, and what does that have to do with labeling a group a terrorist organization?

[pErvinalia]

Hermit will correct me if I'm wrong, but I read what he's saying as this: If we say that Nazi's can't have their speech restricted by the law (because they haven't committed a crime yet), then how can we have precautionary laws like speeding etc? Shouldn't we allow people the freedom to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone?

[Hermit]

Now, I know your point is that the law is itself unjustified and excessive regulation, but such law have usually been passed because excessive speed was a common cause for accidents and deaths, including deaths of innocents.

Yes, and that is why I do regard traffic laws as justified. Granted, mere advocacy of fascist policies have not frequently resulted in them being turned into practice, but on the very few occasions where they have, the resulting catastrophe caused deaths, injuries and property damage that dwarfs all the road carnage in the history of all of the so called developed nations.

[Hermit]

Hermit will correct me if I'm wrong, but I read what he's saying as this: If we say that Nazi's can't have their speech restricted by the law (because they haven't committed a crime yet), then how can we have precautionary laws like speeding etc? Shouldn't we allow people the freedom to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone?

Exactly. At least that is what the libertards keep saying. I don't. I was just doing some devil's advocacy to highlight the absurdity of their stance.

[NineBerry]

Fake

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

[Jason]

Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis

Last weekend in Berkeley, Calif., a group of neo-communist antifa — “anti-fascist” — thugs attacked peaceful protesters at a “No to Marxism in America” rally, wielding sticks and pepper spray, and beating people with homemade shields that read (I kid you not) “No Hate.” The Post reports how one peaceful protester “was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself.” Members of the Berkeley College Republicans were then stalked by antifa goons who followed them to a gas station and demanded they “get the [expletive] out” of their car, warning, “We are real hungry for supremacists and there is more of us.”

The organizer of the anti-Marxism protest is not a white supremacist. Amber Cummings is a self-described “transsexual female who embraces diversity” and had announced on Facebook that “any racist groups like the KKK [and] Neo Nazis . . . are not welcome.” The protest was needed, Cummings said, because “Berkeley is a ground zero for the Marxist Movement.”

As if to prove Cummings’s point, the antifa movement responded with jackboots and clubs — because their definition of “fascist” includes not just neo-Nazis but also anyone who opposes their totalitarian worldview.

And let’s be clear: Totalitarian is precisely what they are. Mark Bray, a Dartmouth lecturer who has defended antifa’s violent tactics, recently explained in The Post, “Its adherents are predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists” who believe that physical violence “is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.” In other words, they are no different from neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis are the violent advocates of a murderous ideology that killed 25 million people last century. Antifa members are the violent advocates of a murderous ideology that, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” killed between 85 million and 100 million people last century. Both practice violence and preach hate. They are morally indistinguishable. There is no difference between those who beat innocent people in the name of the ideology that gave us Hitler and Himmler and those who beat innocent people in the name of the ideology that gave us Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 0c3d117940

[Jason]

You know, come to think of it, aren't you some kind of Anarchist pErvin? That would explain much.

You can't even muster up a defence of your position..

Did you launch an attack that requires a defense?

trolololol...

Anarchist provocateur...

[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. This is enshrined not just in American law, but also in international law, in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, and most other liberal, western nations. The freedom of speech is required to have a functioning democracy, as it is the state that is beholden to the people in a democracy, at least conceptually, and not the other way around.

Further, 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.

So, the main reason why speeding is treated differently than political opinion is that speeding is not part of the right of free speech or expression.

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. So, the precaution of a speeding law is to guide people to drive safely so they don't crash. A restriction on speech does not prevent a "crash" caused by the speech. It might protect someone from getting pissed off by the speech, but it doesn't prevent an injury or a danger. The only danger you can point to from political speech is that someone might go off and engage in bad behavior or even violent behavior - like when the antifa folks whip each other and people into a frenzy by their words, and some of them go out and start clubbing people as a result. Are we to restrict antifa speech because some antifas go out and sucker punch people?

[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

Socialists that wish to use anarchy as a means to their end.

[Animavore]

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.

[Jason]

The Democratic silence on antifa is dangerous

There is a disturbing silence from leaders of the Democratic Party over those gangs of black-masked leftist thugs shutting down free speech and beating people to the ground with clubs at Berkeley.

We've seen such leftist violence before, and we saw it again just the other day at a protest in Berkeley, when the city police backed off and the thugs who call themselves antifa swarmed peaceful protesters of the right.

It's all over the internet, young men of the hard left in black masks, black gloves, armed with clubs, hunting down prey who dare speak their minds.

What's striking about all this is the silence.

There has been no concerted media effort to pressure Democratic politicians to denounce Democratic muscle. So Democratic politicians have been relatively silent, as have many of their loyal pundits. A few pundits of the left have even compared the thugs with American soldiers hitting Omaha beach, a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the violence.

This is all corrosive and dangerous. And in a loud political year, the silence of Democratic politicians explains so very much.

Because silence is consent.

And in this silence you may hear something terrifying: The rule of law breaking down.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... olumn.html