Is ANTIFA = recruitment tool for Neo Nazis?

[Clarke]

25 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

You suggested non-white people moving into your neighborhood or block would increase crime rates. Yes, that's racist. You are literally assuming solely on the basis of a hypothetical person or group of people are a bad, negative or dangerous consequence to tolerate because they're the wrong color.

I don't think I said crime rate specifically but that is a good example you bring up. Obviously that is ignorant as its throwing all races and groups of people into the one bracket, some are more likely to be problematic than others. Some races indeed integrate well and others not so much.

They're "negative" because they do not belong in the "tribe", they're outsiders. Some outsiders are outright dangerous which seems to be the problem with the world today. 

Color? No, DNA. 

[Sketchy]

50 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

-snip-

You made the claim that the left hasn't killed anyone so presumably you would know. If you don't that suggests you were making a claim without all the facts.

Either way, you missed the overall point I was making which is that it doesn't matter. ANTIFA are a problem and the left refuses to address it and in most cases encourages it. people would rather make defenses like "How dare you suggest both sides are equally bad" or other irrelevant points.

While I'm not super pleased with the rights response to Charlottesville in some cases, one thing that most of the right has done is denounce the people on their own side. The left isn't doing so and it'll ultimately just contribute to making the problem worse.

 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Lightning said:

I don't think I said crime rate specifically but that is a good example you bring up. Obviously that is ignorant as its throwing all races and groups of people into the one bracket, some are more likely to be problematic than others. Some races indeed integrate well and others not so much.

They're "negative" because they do not belong in the "tribe", they're outsiders. Some outsiders are outright dangerous which seems to be the problem with the world today. How much of a problem if you counted all your problems would equal? Perhaps 3/5ths of it? 

Color? No, DNA. Which contains the instructions necessary for your body to develop into one race or another.

 

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

You made the claim that the left hasn't killed anyone so presumably you would know. If you don't that suggests you were making a claim without all the facts. I don't know in those two specific cases yet. I do know that since at least the year 2000 the "left" in the United States has killed absolutely no one.

Either way, you missed the overall point I was making which is that it doesn't matter. ANTIFA are a problem (For whom?) and the left refuses to address it and in most cases encourages it. people would rather make defenses like "How dare you suggest both sides are equally bad" or other irrelevant points. Both sides are clearly the same which is why I'm sure I don't even need to suggest that you would be just as happy and complimentary to Hillary Clinton if she had been elected president just as you are with the conservative President Trump you post so extensively about.

While I'm not super pleased with the rights response to Charlottesville in some cases, one thing that most of the right has done is denounce the people on their own side. The left isn't doing so and it'll ultimately just contribute to making the problem worse. We're usually solving our problems like adults with laws, civil disobedience, protests and so on. Naturally the right's solutions of lynchings, war crimes, religious persecution, bombings, mass shootings, suicide plane attacks, gerrymandering to keep their state as WASP as possible and beginning to reintroduce laws like those they had during the Jim Crow era, now expanded to include the poor for reasons I've already explained.

 

[Rozalia]

Lol. To begin with that statement is a stricter version of what you usually say, which is that leftwing violence is solely centred on property (so not killing examples can be easily posted in abundance). Second. You affirm that the left hasn't killed anyone but when given two cases, one with deaths and the other thankfully with none (attempted however), you... cite ignorance when you're on the internet and could quickly search it no problem (I'd link it but you have shown you don't open them so won't waste my time). Yeah. Screw you. 

Big issues with all that cited with suciding via plane standing out in particular. Are you seriously trying to lump in Islamists with the right wing?

Edited August 28, 2017 by Rozalia

[Dubayoo]

To be fair, radical Muslims are excessively decent.  

I'll deal with them before feminists anyday, anyway.  It's easier to calm someone down whose manners are too restrictive than to expect someone to have better manners than they already have.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Dubayoo

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Lol. To begin with that statement is a stricter version of what you usually say, which is that leftwing violence is solely centred on property. Most anyone I've talked to, information I've read and normal opinion surrounding me is that property can't be subjected to meaningful violence because it is not a living thing. (so not killing examples can be easily posted in abundance). Second. You affirm that the left hasn't killed anyone but when given two cases, one with deaths and the other thankfully with none (attempted however), you... cite ignorance when you're on the internet and could quickly search it no problem (I'd link it but you have shown you don't open them so won't waste my time). Yeah. Screw you.  No one has yet announced the political affiliation of either of these attackers so I didn't include them. Jumping to conclusions is more your thing than mine.

Big issues with all that cited with suciding via plane standing out in particular. Are you seriously trying to lump in Islamists with the right wing? If you had to include them somewhere, yes, though that's not the plane crash I was referencing and not included in what I considered in measuring fatalities caused by the right versus the left.

 

1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

To be fair, radical Muslims are excessively decent.  

I'll deal with them before feminists anyday, anyway.  It's easier to calm someone down whose manners are too restrictive than to expect someone to have better manners than they already have. Feminists want equality, not special treatment. Perhaps learn about a group before judging it?

 

[Rozalia]

From memory the first (the killer) was BLM and Bernie supporter. Second was a really hardcore Bernie supporter who took the whole "why don't we just kill the Republicans?" thing seriously. 

You are putting together two groups which are heavily against each other. These Muslims committing terror attacks actually tend to be left wing also, not right wing. You can of course say that Islam is a far-right ideology, but Islam is not a party and officially they'll support left wing parties such as Labour and Respect in Britain (just Democrats in America).

[Caecus]

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Ah yes. Unarmed black men as those physically assaulting officers. The poor innocent criminals angle has so been overused that any sympathy that may be given is quite used up. They have been driven to despise the police and thus resist. Those who resist often get put down. The level of hate and resistance leads to other officers being jumpy with black officers being the most jumpy (they kill black suspects at higher rates than white officers). As many smart black men have said before, or those "uncle Toms" as they are often called, respect the officer and even if you don't like it do as he commands. He wants you out of the car then get out. He wants to check you, your car, whatever, then let him. 

Now for the second bit. No one invented racism and if you want to talk who started it I'm sure you can go back further than white people. The Ancient Chinese saw all surrounding non-Chinese as lesser people for a start. Oh and white people were enslaved in the Arab Slave trade so you are laughably wrong in thinking that the Romans/Gauls were the last time they were enslaved. 

This statement disregards the countless incidents where the use of deadly force is entirely unjustified, and hell, even the courts agree sometimes. I'm sure you are very well-informed of these incidents.

My bad, I forgot the Arab Slave trade. I also forgot Hitler's "extended vacation" centers for Jews regardless of their color of skin. What was the context of my statement again? 

[ComradeMilton]

29 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

From memory the first (the killer) was BLM and Bernie supporter. Your memory is hardly evidence. Second was a really hardcore Bernie supporter who took the whole "why don't we just kill the Republicans?" thing seriously. That's not a thing and since it's not a thing it can't actually be accomplished. I have seen no official determination of either attackers political beliefs still.

You are putting together two groups which are heavily against each other. These Muslims committing terror attacks actually tend to be left wing also, not right wing. Very few refugees who support Islam as a religion absolutely do not support the "left wing" as you keep mentioning despite it not existing in any meaningful way here.  You can of course say that Islam is a far-right ideology, but Islam is not a party and officially they'll support left wing parties such as Labour and Respect in Britain (just Democrats in America). Are you suggesting New Labour is now "left wing"? Because lol.

 

10 minutes ago, Caecus said:

This statement disregards the countless incidents where the use of deadly force is entirely unjustified, and hell, even the courts agree sometimes. I'm sure you are very well-informed of these incidents. You can actually view summary executions, torture, wrongful arrests, sexual assaults, toleration of the police not complying with laws if they are harming someone the officer views as an opponent or the law would somehow force police to actually conduct themselves lawfully; quite a change from the status quo.

My bad, I forgot the Arab Slave trade. I also forgot Hitler's "extended vacation" centers for Jews regardless of their color of skin. What was the context of my statement again? You might as well not even listen to him. His apparent issue with accuracy when making statements just leads to providing more information for him to consider while he thinks up a few new "stupid head"-style insults and citation-less claims.

 

[Rozalia]

34 minutes ago, Caecus said:

This statement disregards the countless incidents where the use of deadly force is entirely unjustified, and hell, even the courts agree sometimes. I'm sure you are very well-informed of these incidents.

My bad, I forgot the Arab Slave trade. I also forgot Hitler's "extended vacation" centers for Jews regardless of their color of skin. What was the context of my statement again? 

Of course there are examples of such things. Promoting events where they get shot after resisting and saying the violent thug attacking an officer is a innocent boy, doing tactics like showing younger photos of the killed and even lightening the skin on the famous case of Zimmerman to change him from Hispanic to White to better fit the narrative don't help. Talk of Black/Asian officers shooting blacks as well, more in the case of Blacks, being explained away as them "trying to fit in with the boys" and borrowing "white privilege" also don't help. A rash of bad promoted cases will make people not give time to the legitimate ones. Simple. One thing is for certain. Promoting anger against the police and promoting resisting (which leads to getting killed) is not how you bring deaths down.

You asked to correct you if you were wrong and I did...? What are you trying to spin exactly?

Edited August 28, 2017 by Rozalia

[Dubayoo]

6 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Feminists want equality, not special treatment. Perhaps learn about a group before judging it?

Feminists presume history has resulted in systemic prejudice boring down to the very ways that society perceives and judges reality around it which includes treating retributive justice as a patriarchic institution.

Believe me, I've studied and debated the ideology plentily for decades.  You can start studying it here if you want: 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-law/ 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-social-epistemology/

[ComradeMilton]

5 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Of course there are examples of such things. Promoting events where they get shot after resisting and saying the violent thug attacking an officer is a innocent boy, doing tactics like showing younger photos of the killed and even lightening the skin on the famous case of Zimmerman to change him from Hispanic to White to better fit the narrative don't help. Talk of Black/Asian officers shooting blacks as well, more in the case of Blacks, being explained away as them "trying to fit in with the boys" and borrowing "white privilege" also don't help. A rash of bad promoted cases will make people not give time to the legitimate ones. Simple. One thing is for certain. Promoting anger against the police and promoting resisting (which leads to getting killed) is not how you bring deaths down.

Is there any effort being put forth by the police to reduce harming people, torturing restrained prisoners, disregarding the original reasons police were being issued Tasers not as a pain compliance tool but an additional level of escalation in force just before deadly force is used, killing random people and then being caught on camera with another officer after they had just rammed their cruiser into one person walking along the road, killing him, and were now discussing who they might kill next. Customs and Border Protection officers (a pair of them) discovered highly concentrated liquid methamphetamine (he appears to not know this) then the officers giggle as each urges him on and on to take more sips until he obviously dies to the laughter of the officers having done it all caught clearly on camera. Jails could probably do a lot more for inmate safety, avoidance of torture, avoidance of permanent physical harm, avoidance of murdering people, avoiding attempting to make the prisoners slaves to their needs, attempting de-escalation of suicide by cop and deescalating the situation to try to save this man after getting him calmed down. The police mostly do not stop questioning and interviews once a suspect has stated clearly that they are going to be exercising their right to remain silent, or the police who do the same thing only with the suspect clearly requests an attorney which is supposed to also immediately stop any interviews or questioning until the attorney arrives to provide advice to the suspect, neglecting the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures by immediately calling for a canine unit to walk around the car making the indicator gesture it's been taught wherever the handler points and tells it to do so to provide a reason to search the vehicle now, and start preparing for the civil asset forfeiture (the best part about this one is if you're found not guilty criminally to recover the seized properties you have to basically prove the items are yours from a beginning status of illegal and forcing the victims to act as though they are prosecutors to even have an opportunity to have your assets returned via civil court rather than criminal system where they take anything even remotely suspect that you own, cars, boats, houses, electronics, cash of any kind, firearms, prescription drugs, illegal drugs (this one is okay if they don't keep using the evidence room to continue taking as much of the seized drugs as they can with the sample remaining the correct weight and having just enough residue to continue to test positive for the drug in question? There're a lot more, but these are all thoroughly recorded with audio and video, body cams, dash cams, cell phone cams, as routine police, DEA, NSA, CBP, FBI, FPS, USSS, DSS, and other agencies can request information from the Five Eyes program and the NSA is now essentially grabbing anything it possibly can from whoever it can. DEA is very fond of having the NSA hand over the details of the lives of many types of drug dealers, drug wholesalers, manufacturers and so on from NSA data and this being an illegal abuse of NSA power and after the DEA covers this by creating reversed, alternative investigations, crime tips, and case progress on to allow for these actions to appear as though they are the result of skilled DEA professionals with the reverse, fictional explanations of their investigations (fabricated), fictional tip offs, and the other details needed to provide an entirely plausible and legal method of reaching the same conclusions reached way back when the NSA abused its power by giving the data to the DEA necessary to ensure conviction?

You asked to correct you if you were wrong and I did...? What are you trying to spin exactly. I have decided to employ your system of discussion and debate. I will provide neither evidence or citations, call posters by childish insults, create fictional political positions attributed to other posters in a given thread and then debate yourself from two sides of the same issue, complain about someone quoting in a way that I believe is universally accepted otherwise, assign random political beliefs and party memberships to people who don't know me well and the politics will vary wildly from thread to thread, and so on.

 

16 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

Feminists presume history has resulted in systemic prejudice boring down to the very ways that society perceives and judges reality around it which includes treating retributive justice as a patriarchic institution. Feminism seeks equal treatment in the world for women and men and nothing more. Tangential versions of feminism and slivers of its many subgroups exist, but aren't actually valid to the base belief of feminism stated above.

Believe me, I've studied and debated the ideology plentily for decades. Really? How old did you begin doing this? Do you have any special abilities or training to do this? You can start studying it here if you want: 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-law/ 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-social-epistemology/

ild

[Rozalia]

Oh just !@#$ yourself Milton coming in here with that. You don't get to attribute the garbage you've been doing since the start on me and get away with it. 

[ComradeMilton]

I have video of everything I described, often multiple examples of it in each of actions I have described in the very thorough reply you seemed to so desperately need. Perhaps I can link a number next to each action so you can easily see the violence I'm describing on video and often with audio. Would you prefer that to so fundamentally be proven so wrong it's as if you've never had a moment to even conceive the nature of the definition of truth, accuracy or good judgment. I'm willing to help you understand how comprehensively you are as wrong, misleading, insulting, evidence-less and inclusive of only publications tailored to your values and politics or it's biased. Please let me know if you would like to show you a movie for each of the things described to better assist you in more accurately understanding the situation.

[Dubayoo]

12 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Feminism seeks equal treatment in the world for women and men and nothing more. Tangential versions of feminism and slivers of its many subgroups exist, but aren't actually valid to the base belief of feminism stated above.

If you want to oversimplify like that, we're not going to get very far.  This isn't about subgroups.  This is about the implications of what's first intended.

Put similarly, you're saying a triangle has three sides.  I'm saying that implies the inscribed angles add up to 180 degrees.  You're pointing out how there are isosceles, scalene, and equilateral triangles (like how there are second, third, and ecofeminists), but I never pointed that out.

[ComradeMilton]

Feminism had no subgroups at the time and when it started seeing them added to the argument just returned and reinstated what feminism is. It's not really oversimplifying it's what the early founders of the movement assigned as the goal of the movement. There are very few splinters of significance and if you want them included you'd need to include them in your post and indicate which are the binding, accurate, and simple goal of the movement at the time of its origins and now.thing.

I'm not saying anything added described in the manner you appear to be using with geometric paraphrasing. Feminism am, buts it is defined by the bulk of people (including me) is what I stated earlier. Other variations may exist with more or less odd and severe definitions with the the bulk of feminists are as I described to this day, There is nothing to use the second element of your geometric thing as I am pointing out that the original and current purpose of those identifying as feminists is literally as simple as I initially posted. Piling on every weird variant that have developed independently since without qualifications included the defined statement of feminism is all that is there to accurately describe it.

[Dubayoo]

Well... if you really want to get to the origins of the ideology, then you should know it's a marketing campaign conjured by public relations psychologists, not a political movement.  The following is an acclaimed documentary released by the BBC, not a fringe conspiracy theory.  Watch the 10 minutes that follow after the timestamp: 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Sketchy]

Well it looks like the FBI and Homeland both agree with me because ANTIFA are being referred to as domestic terrorists now.

[Buorhann]

On 8/28/2017 at 2:36 AM, Sketchy said:

The guy who shot up the cops in Baton Rouge?

The guy who tried to kill the republicans at the baseball game? Oh I guess he doesn't count because hes not good at killing people.

I'm sure there is other examples, and if it were anyone else making the claim I'd probably try and find them, but I'm certain you'll just label them extremists or try and say they aren't on the left.

Either way its just another distraction from the real problem. You are clearly a far left ideologue so I doubt there is anything I'd say to convince you.

 

Don't forget the Bernie supporter who shanked two Muslims.

[ComradeMilton]

I wonder who was just fired from the FBI before that determination was made.... ?

[Rozalia]

21 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Well it looks like the FBI and Homeland both agree with me because ANTIFA are being referred to as domestic terrorists now.

Police have been stepping back and letting terrorists crack heads as that was determined in 2016. Some guys should be losing their jobs at the very least for that blunder.

[ComradeMilton]

Those liberals I group together even if they aren't together and their usage of that silly fine print regarding free assembly...

[Rozalia]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-antifa-gang-20170904-story.html

Even California, CALIFORNIA, of all places seems like it is going to drop the hammer on Antifa now by possibly classifying them as a criminal street gang (they don't want to classify them as terrorists). 

[ComradeMilton]

Probably due to their lack of being a gang or terrorists. Have you seen any Antifa troops in uniform committing acts of violence against others or sabotaging critical American infrastructure? I remain ever vigilant about all of these obese people exercising that right of assembly thing someone put in the bill of rights.

[Rozalia]

HAHAHA! The Black Bloc you dumb !@#$.