U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

13 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

I went Googling and apparently the most recent KKK lynching are more recent than I thought, so I dont mean to mitigate or condone KKK violence, I just havent heard of the KKK anywhere but as a boogeyman on TV since I was a kid. I am not defending the KKK or carrying any water for them. 

When I was in the army, stationed in Alabama, me, another woman and a friend were driving to her in-laws place in South Carolina (she and I were both from the north). Our friend lived just a few miles from her in-laws. We were going though some small towns in Alabama, and our friend was hiding in the backseat.  We asked what him was doing, and he very seriously said he didn't want to get lynched for riding around with 2 white women. The so called "last lynching" had happened just 2 years earlier.

[SweetPea]

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Shitty behavior from the left like... protesting white supremacy?

Shitty behavior like.. throwing fireworks in people's faces because you don't like what they are saying.  That is not a very anti-fascist thing to do.

As I said, it's easy to justify any action when you can just dehumanize the victim. No matter what's done to them, it's okay, because they are white supremacists after all.

12 minutes ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

So you're not only a troll but you're a coward who doesn't reveal their true colours? A Harper Canadian then? Or an eastern European goon?

Remind me why my identity is relevant?

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

Shitty behavior like.. throwing fireworks in people's faces because you don't like what they are saying.  That is not a very anti-fascist thing to do.

As I said, it's easy to justify any action when you can just dehumanize the victim. No matter what's done to them, it's okay, because they are white supremacists after all.

Remind me why my identity is relevant?

Try reading your posts.

[Fragile Bird]

9 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

What if we weren't allowed to post on-line except using our real names and locations?  Would people still post in certain topics, on certain forums?  Look at all of us sitting her concealing our identities, we must be up to no good.

Seriously though, I could totally see this being the next step.  Am I alone in that thought?

I don't think you need to label yourself all times on the internet. But pretty well everyone identifies themselves for who they are in a thread like this. I don't care about books or movie threads, or PokemonGo or Soccer, or Small things that bug you threads, but Sweet Pea has been an utter troll in this thread without revealing who they are. An utter coward.

[Week]

6 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

No matter what's done to them, it's okay, because they are white supremacists after all.

LOL @ White supremacist as a dehumanizing term.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/7/14456154/dehumanization-psychology-explained

[Suttree]

28 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

I went Googling and apparently the most recent KKK lynching are more recent than I thought, so I dont mean to mitigate or condone KKK violence, I just havent heard of the KKK anywhere but as a boogeyman on TV since I was a kid. 

They still show up in FBI and DHS reports about the growing far right / white supremacist domestic terror threat. It's kind of crazy to think that we're talking about the dangers refugees and immigrants pose when the above have been responsible for 73% of violent extremist incidents in the US since 9/11.

Kinda makes the hand wringing over people not being tolerant of intolerance rather nonsensical.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

I don't think you need to label yourself all times on the internet. But pretty well everyone identifies themselves for who they are in a thread like this. I don't care about books or movie threads, or PokemonGo or Soccer, or Small things that bug you threads, but Sweet Pea has been an utter troll in this thread without revealing who they are. An utter coward.

Well no one asked them where they were from, so I think utter coward is kind of uncalled for.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SweetPea said:

The better question is, how can you possibly not support an action  that could punish people for going to rallies and protests covered in masks, body armor and carrying batons, and then being violent thugs.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

First of all, there are already laws on the books in EVERY state outlawing violence or incitement to violence. So if people are being violent, they should be arrested.

But laws against wearing masks or body armor are attempting to paint all similarly garbed protesters as being violent by definition.

Second, based on your posting history, I'd lay better than even odds that you're perfectly okay with right-wing protesters carrying rifles and other firearms in marches, but suddenly carrying batons is a bridge too far? And even if you try and retort that you personally don't support the carrying of firearms during protests I know for a fact that the sponsors of this bill do support it. So nice double standard there.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

3 minutes ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

I don't think you need to label yourself all times on the internet. But pretty well everyone identifies themselves for who they are in a thread like this. I don't care about books or movie threads, or PokemonGo or Soccer, or Small things that bug you threads, but Sweet Pea has been an utter troll in this thread without revealing who they are. An utter coward.

I was thinking more about laws banning anonymous political protest being greatly expanded.

[Larry of the Lawn]

33 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yeah, I know, it's very easy to use the "US is white supremacist!" card to excuse any and all shitty behaviour from the left. Doesn't matter what they do, in the end, it's always the evil white supremacists' fault.

I mean in this case it is exactly the white supremacists' fault, so yes.  

[aceluby]

57 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

I was being a bit cheeky; I’d actually be in favor of much fewer laws,  not more.  It’s just that most people seem to want fewer laws for their “side” and more for the other.  But as Sweetpea said, why are you wearing a mask, if not to conceal your identity.

Then work to outlaw masks (good luck!).  The problem I have with this is the vagueness of what constitutes oppression or intimidation.... well that and the 15 years in prison.  It's ridiculous and anyone supporting this kind of asinine law when there are already laws on the books for the type of behavior you want to curb (violence), the "scary mask" provision that adds 15 years is asinine.

[SweetPea]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean in this case it is exactly the white supremacists' fault, so yes.  

Are you referring to Portland? If yes, can you explain how it was the rally people's fault that the whole thing turned violent?

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

First of all, there are already laws on the books in EVERY state outlawing violence or incitement to violence. So if people are being violent, they should be arrested.

But laws against wearing masks or body armor are attempting to paint all similarly garbed protesters as being violent by definition.

Second, based on your posting history, I'd lay better than even odds that you're perfectly okay with right-wing protesters carrying rifles and other firearms in marches, but suddenly carrying batons is a bridge too far? And even if you try and retort that you personally don't support the carrying of firearms during protests I know for a fact that the sponsors of this bill do support it. So nice double standard there.

There is a difference between wearing masks and carrying weapons. By dressing in all black and wearing masks, even if you are not violent, you are helping the violent members of your group escape prosecution. The black bloc is an effective strategy. If it wasn't, Antifa wouldn't be using it.

Carrying guns (or batons) is harmless, so long as you are not using them. That said, I don't think that bringing guns to a protest is a good idea either.

[Darth Richard II]

Wow we all got trolled so hard. It's almost impressive.

Are their troll awards?

[Larry of the Lawn]

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Are you referring to Portland? If yes, can you explain how it was the rally people's fault that the whole thing turned violent?

There is a difference between wearing masks and carrying weapons. By dressing in all black and wearing masks, even if you are not violent, you are helping the violent members of your group escape prosecution. The black bloc is an effective strategy. If it wasn't, Antifa wouldn't be using it.

Carrying guns (or batons) is harmless, so long as you are not using them. That said, I don't think that bringing guns to a protest is a good idea either.

Huh?  You have the Proud Boys, a violent hate group marching with the whatever Patriot group.  How is marching through the streets to spread a violent message from a hate group not violent?  And this is after the Charlottesville murder of Heather Heyer.  

Your argument about masks is a strange one considering your position on marching with guns.  If marching with a mask helps violent members of your group avoid prosecution, wouldn't carrying a gun help violent members of your group to carry out violence?  Carrying a gun is NOT harmless, especially when it's being done by a hate group at a hate rally.  

One of these ideologies is responsible, using a very conservative estimate, for tens of thousands of murders and injustices in the US over the last century.  And actively promotes racism and ethnonationalism.  The other group is ok with punching Nazis now and then.  The fact that you're going after antifa is telling.  

You probably aren't aware since you aren't from here, but black people have only been close to legally equal citizens in this country try for the last fifty years.  And the US government and people have a long history of genocide and racism.  So we get kind of sensitive when people start beating that drum again and taking to the streets.  

And trying to equate antifa to white supremacists and racists is going to be met with bafflement at the very least. 

[Fragile Bird]

50 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well no one asked them where they were from, so I think utter coward is kind of uncalled for.

SP has said many things about the US without revealing they are not an American. To do so would undercut their credibility, no? Just jump in and pretend you're an American and don't get questioned. You know non-Americans are viewed with scepticism until they establish cred. SP didn't want to bother with that step. A coward.

[King Ned Stark]

56 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

how has he trolled you? by stating an opinion that isnt yours?

He hasn’t trolled.  You and Frog Eater, along with the hardline progressives in this thread, have boiled it down fairly quickly.  White people are bad.  They espouse the same prejudicial views that they claim to fight against; but fighting against white people is okay because...reasons, I guess.

This is poignant to me as a straight, white, Christian man; not because of all those labels.  I don’t care what people think of me, or if they call me names, sticks and stones and all that.  However, I do have four kids, the two oldest are girls and the two youngest are boys, whom by all appearances to me seem to be straight, white and Christian.  There seems to be a large segment of society that thinks they are inherently evil, or that I am inherently evil; or that at the least we are helping propagate something inherently evil.  This is important because the left are exceptional well versed at using guilt and semantics against people; as this thread and all the others have shown.  You have clowns like Sword of Doom who uses terms like anti-choice (and also says stuff like f*** white people), and that’s okay, because it works within the narrative they’re pushing.  I guess I should take my kids out behind the woodshed, because they are destined to grow up into nazis.

However, chikanary or whatever his name is, is right.  All you have to do is scroll back through the US politics thread to see how many of the posters are okay with violence against conservatives.  Which is shocking, because no one wins in that scenario, I dare say especially not the left/liberals/progressives (they use so much terminology I’m not sure what they want to be called).

As far as not being American and posting in a US politics thread, non-American left-leaning people far outweigh non-American right-leaning people post in this thread; even a self-proclaimed eurocommie, but that seems to be okay with you guys right?  Because he foolishly believes in socialism?

And then there is the guy (I forget his name, it’s inconsequential) who called me sophomoric and naive because I had the temerity to say both sides need to come more towards the middle.  Going across the aisle is the only way forward, IMHO, or this melting pot gonna truly melt.  That may sound cool while you sit at your laptop, but it won’t be.

[IamMe90]

Just now, Casablanca Birdie said:

SP has said many things about the US without revealing they are not an American. To do so would undercut their credibility, no? Just jump in and pretend you're an American and don't get questioned. You know non-Americans are viewed with scepticism until they establish cred. SP didn't want to bother with that step. A coward.

I loathe the opinions of this poster, but she/he has stated in a previous thread that he/she is not an American. Also, you can't equate not volunteering one's own nationality with "pretending to be American." That's ridiculous. If SweetPea was pretending to be American, she/he would have said such, or listed "United States" as his/her profile location. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

SP has said many things about the US without revealing they are not an American. To do so would undercut their credibility, no? Just jump in and pretend you're an American and don't get questioned. You know non-Americans are viewed with scepticism until they establish cred. SP didn't want to bother with that step. A coward.

I dont think that's really accurate.  SP might be a blatant racist apologist but I don't think it's necessary to reveal that your not a US citizen in these threads, particularly as US politics, by nature of the US's military and economy, has a significant influence on the entire world.  If this was the (insert small nation here) politics thread, I'd be more inclined to agree you should identify yourself as a non-denizen.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

He hasn’t trolled.  You and Frog Eater, along with the hardline progressives in this thread, have boiled it down fairly quickly.  White people are bad.  They espouse the same prejudicial views that they claim to fight against; but fighting against white people is okay because...reasons, I guess.

This is poignant to me as a straight, white, Christian man; not because of all those labels.  I don’t care what people think of me, or if they call me names, sticks and stones and all that.  However, I do have four kids, the two oldest are girls and the two youngest are boys, whom by all appearances to me seem to be straight, white and Christian.  There seems to be a large segment of society that thinks they are inherently evil, or that I am inherently evil; or that at the least we are helping propagate something inherently evil.  This is important because the left are exceptional well versed at using guilt and semantics against people; as this thread and all the others have shown.  You have clowns like Sword of Doom who uses terms like anti-choice (and also says stuff like f*** white people), and that’s okay, because it works within the narrative they’re pushing.  I guess I should take my kids out behind the woodshed, because they are destined to grow up into nazis.

However, chikanary or whatever his name is, is right.  All you have to do is scroll back through the US politics thread to see how many of the posters are okay with violence against conservatives.  Which is shocking, because no one wins in that scenario, I dare say especially not the left/liberals/progressives (they use so much terminology I’m not sure what they want to be called).

As far as not being American and posting in a US politics thread, non-American left-leaning people far outweigh non-American right-leaning people post in this thread; even a self-proclaimed eurocommie, but that seems to be okay with you guys right?  Because he foolishly believes in socialism?

And then there is the guy (I forget his name, it’s inconsequential) who called me sophomoric and naive because I had the temerity to say both sides need to come more towards the middle.  Going across the aisle is the only way forward, IMHO, or this melting pot gonna truly melt.  That may sound cool while you sit at your laptop, but it won’t be.

Well that post certainly confirms the thesis you attempt to counter in your last paragraph.  

And I haven't seen anyone advocate violence against conservative people.  I've seen people tolerate violence towards Nazis, white supremacists, and blatant racists. 

As for your naive and sophomoric both sides drivel, why should anyone negotiate with a hate group?  By saying both sides you're doing the same bs as Trump after Charlottesville.  You're putting the 'sides' on equal footing.  No is pissed that you're white or Christian.  They're angry that you're defending violent racist assholes by equating them with 'the left.'

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

Shitty behavior like.. throwing fireworks in people's faces because you don't like what they are saying.  That is not a very anti-fascist thing to do.

As I said, it's easy to justify any action when you can just dehumanize the victim. No matter what's done to them, it's okay, because they are white supremacists after all.

On some level, I think you have a point. Violence and intimidating behaviors should be discouraged and punished by the state. This is a no-brainer.

On the other hand this exchange is not taking place in a vacuum. Context matters.
1. When a law is passed, one may wonder if it has specific targets. If it does, the law may be about repressing a specific political or minority group. There are many precedents for this, especially in US history. History is generally not kind to them. It's difficult to support them in hindsight.
2. There is undoubtebly more than just xenophobia being rampant in the US right now. It has been called racism, fascism or nazism. Whatever one calls it, antifas are trying to fight it. One may disagree with their means, but one shouldn't disagree with the core of their ideas (which is certainly not fascist, as per its current definition), or confuse the means with the ideas themselves. You don't become a fascist just for being violent toward other people ; what the other people think matters. Otherwise, you're taking the position that using violence constitutes fascism. Which isn't a bad position, as long as you understand that makes the US one of the most fascist states in the history of humanity (it has been at war for more than 90% of its existence). 
3. If wearing a mask and carrying a baton to protests deserves a law against it, perhaps one should seriously think about what carrying guns to them deserves. Right-wing militias are terrifying for many people, but there seems to be little preventing it in many states. Before condemning antifas, one should remember the people they are targetting are not peaceful demonstrators, but people who also use intimidation methods of their own. In fact, right-wing terrorism has been a problem in the US for decades now if one is looking at its modern expression, for much longer if one is not.
4. Such a law thus may be interpreted as a support for certain ideas, to the detriment of others. If the US is trying to fight anti-fascist ideas right now, perhaps one should think twice about supporting such laws, even if it is to troll on a forum. Because it's hard not to see condemning antifa violence as a support for fascism.

Now, assuming you're not just trolling but also kind of believe in what you are writing and trying to make a point, I'd say that point has been discussed ad nauseam on these threads already. The main question being whether violence should be condoned against violent ideas.

White supremacism is a very dangerous idea, because of the actions and policies it entails in countries with minorities. Various forms of it are outlawed in several Western countries for this reason. So the questions here are:
1. Should free speech be absolute? There was a thread about this question a few months back. It certainly isn't easy to answer. I think one should be just as careful about supporting free speech as about supporting limits on it.
2. What should be condoned to fight violent ideas (ideas dangerous for other people) ? Can one punch a nazi? Should we be glad when nazis are punched? Most importantly, should one do it when the state itself obviously has some sympathy for such ideas?

Given what's happening right now in the US, I for myself feel relieved that the antifas exist. As long as they only target white supremacists they are clearly, in this specific instance, a form of violence that is reacting to another one.

And to move away from the trolling... This all raises a tough question for the future of the US. Assuming there is an end to the Republican/conservative domination of US institutions... Say, that demographics are stronger than voter suppression and the liberals get swept back in power... What should be done about right-wing militias and neo-nazi organisations? Should something be done about them?
Basically, even if "trumpism" loses power, it will remain. In fact, if it loses power, it's hard not to think all the right-wing nutjobs will go crazy. In fact, the recent Alex Jones bullshit was potentially explosive, I'm surprised no violence came out of it.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/alex-jones-heralds-a-second-civil-war-and-twitter-quickly-responds-1.6243984

2 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

However, chikanary or whatever his name is, is right.  All you have to do is scroll back through the US politics thread to see how many of the posters are okay with violence against conservatives.

Not conservatives. I don't think normal conservatives would support some things that the US government is doing.
You have to realize that trumpism is increasingly seen as a far-right movement in some European countries.

Quote

This is poignant to me as a straight, white, Christian man; not because of all those labels.  I don’t care what people think of me, or if they call me names, sticks and stones and all that.  However, I do have four kids, the two oldest are girls and the two youngest are boys, whom by all appearances to me seem to be straight, white and Christian.  There seems to be a large segment of society that thinks they are inherently evil, or that I am inherently evil; or that at the least we are helping propagate something inherently evil.

Well I'd say separating families and caging children is pretty evil, and that anybody still supporting the current administration are certainly deserving of a few labels indeed. Sorry if *you* feel indirectly threatened by all the policies targetting immigrants, women, and minorities.

Quote

As far as not being American and posting in a US politics thread, non-American left-leaning people far outweigh non-American right-leaning people post in this thread; even a self-proclaimed eurocommie, but that seems to be okay with you guys right?  Because he foolishly believes in socialism?

lol "eurocommie" is a joke around here, several people use that label. I wonder who you're thinking of.
Anyway my personal belief in socialism is certainly not foolish. Socialized medecine allowed me to not be a cripple for life and socialized education allowed me to get higher education. If I could have gotten those in the US, I'd actually be American.