The Power of the ANTIFA Myth

[mjr]

And fuck LaPierre. He cited violent video games as a cause of Sandy Hook. The man is an asshole. He pushed back on universal background checks even when the majority of members of his own organization ( and the majority of Americans ) supported it.

Gee, why am I not surprised you responded this way?

Someone else using your login? I specifically asked in that thread why Antifa had come up and you specifically pointed me to your own post. A post in which you specifically tied Antifa as an example to a point about the dangers of the American frontier. You're also the first one to even mention Antifa in the entire thread.

When I challenged that point by specifically asking you "You brought up Antifa in response to a point about the dangers of the frontier?" to which you responded it was "relevant". Then when I challenged that point you attempted to change the subject a couple of times before accusing me of making a semantic argument. A charge you still have not explained.

So where did I miss the record and if I did miss the record why did you try to defend the record you claim you didn't put forth? Let alone point me right to your own post in response to my original question?

I don't know why I am even going to try to explain this to you, because I know how this works. Deny all you want, you'll flat out reject what I am about to say.

Part of the right to keep and bear arms is about protection. You and I both know that Antifa here in the U.S. has become violent. And yes, they have. So if a person on the frontier could carry a gun for protection, why can't someone in modern-day society? The principle is the same. But instead of being attacked by a bear or whatever, they're reducing the chance of being attacked by an Antifa thug.

I know I've been away for a while but do you have any method of debating that is not a whataboutism or an attempt to change the subject?

I do. With civilized people.

[Greenday]

Gee, why am I not surprised you responded this way?

I don't know why I am even going to try to explain this to you, because I know how this works. Deny all you want, you'll flat out reject what I am about to say.

Part of the right to keep and bear arms is about protection. You and I both know that Antifa here in the U.S. has become violent. And yes, they have. So if a person on the frontier could carry a gun for protection, why can't someone in modern-day society? The principle is the same. But instead of being attacked by a bear or whatever, they're reducing the chance of being attacked by an Antifa thug.

I do. With civilized people.

https://youtu.be/SVOuY7hoqEs

A very good video by Cracked on the piss poor media coverage of Antifa and the Nazis. At any of the rallies where people complained about Antifa going there to pick a fight, they are ignoring the fact that this was the reason the Nazis were there in first place. They SAID they were going there to fight. They SAID they were going there to try to troll people. They went with weapons and body armor. Yet Antifa and there cloth masks get treated worse by the cops and media then those assholes. To quote the video, "If you aren't sure who the bad guy is, ask your self if one of the groups has the word 'Nazi' in their name. They do? They're the bad guy."

[Gravekeeper]

Gee, why am I not surprised you responded this way?

Responded as one should to someone that looked at a pile of dead children and said "Yeah, this is okay"? LaPierre has no credibility, let alone humanity, and shouldn't be used as a citation in any discussion about gun legislation.

I don't know why I am even going to try to explain this to you, because I know how this works. Deny all you want, you'll flat out reject what I am about to say.

I'm not the one who immediately evaded and tried to change the subject multiple times when directly challenged on their argument. Stop trying to play the martyr. You wouldn't any problem here had you simply responded on the same point you were challenged. Instead of evading, trying to change the subject or trying to blame the person challenging you.

Part of the right to keep and bear arms is about protection. You and I both know that Antifa here in the U.S. has become violent. And yes, they have. So if a person on the frontier could carry a gun for protection, why can't someone in modern-day society? The principle is the same. But instead of being attacked by a bear or whatever, they're reducing the chance of being attacked by an Antifa thug.
how this works. Deny all you want, you'll flat out reject what I am about to say.

Okay, so you went from linking Antifa to the dangers of the American frontier, to denying you did that, to linking Antifa to the American frontier again? And as I said in the other thread, that is not the argument we were having. Stop using the far right playbook to try and change the subject. I made no argument on gun control and directly told you as such.

So far in answering this *one* criticism against your argument you have:
1) Made a semantic argument to change the topic instead of responding.
2) Accused *me* of making a semantic argument when I pointed that out.
3) Tried to change the topic away from the criticism instead of answering it.
4) Claimed you didn't start the argument in the first place despite being the one that directly pointed me to your own post with that argument.
5) Accused me of doing the thing I was criticizing you for like I've been around here oppressing you on a daily basis.
6) Played the indignant victim.
7) Conceded it was actually your argument but tried to change the topic of it again.

You did all of that just to avoid answering a single criticism of your words. And that's just on *this* one point. You likewise seized one off hand remark of this thread and tried to change the subject of it entirely. While continuing to make attempts at topic changes with comments like "You can say they aren't" and "You'll flat out reject what I'm about to say".

I am not having those arguments with you and never was. Those are things you are inserting to try and shift the conversation away from what you're being criticized for and make it sound like you're the one being attacked. Instead of responding to the actual point you invent an argument that wasn't happening between us than you preemptively set it up like you're the victim.

You are being disingenuous. You are not arguing in good faith. You are changing the subject when something looks unfavourable to you. You are trying to change the topic of threads entirely. You pulling a straight Bush era Karl Rove playbook by accusing others of the thing you yourself are guilty off. You're pulling straight Trump era far right playbook moves by trying to move the discussion off of an unfavourable point to one you can ardently defend. As if the last point had been settled.

And all the while you are acting the victim. Stop it.

I have been out in the wilds watching this kind of shit go on for over a year now on other forums and social media. These same standard tactics and repeated cycles of bullshit. I expect better from Fratching compared to shitholes like /pol/ or Reddit.

So stop it. I don't want to see that kind of crap here in the era of Trump. Fratching is the one quiet, relatively sane place I still know of on the Internet.

As I said in the other thread, if you can't defend a point you make without having to resort to these kind of deflection tactics then don't make the point in the first place.

[Talon]

I know I've been away for a while but do you have any method of debating that is not a whataboutism or an attempt to change the subject?

Clearly mjr does not. I don't know why anyone around these parts expects anything different at this point.

[Canarr]

To quote the video, "If you aren't sure who the bad guy is, ask your self if one of the groups has the word 'Nazi' in their name. They do? They're the bad guy."

False dichotomy. Yes, Nazis are bad guys. But that doesn't necessarily make anyone fighting them the good guys by definition. My enemy's enemies may still be a bunch of assholes.

And Antifa isn't showing up to those protests just in cloth masks, either. They, too, are wearing body armor or helmets, using weighted gloves and batons. They, too, are going there to fight - preferably Nazis, but they're not always that discriminating about who they consider a Nazi.

[protege]

But that doesn't necessarily make anyone fighting them the good guys by definition. My enemy's enemies may still be a bunch of assholes.

Yep, those Soviets were such wonderful people After the Nazis were defeated, they instituted their own oppressive regimes.

And Antifa isn't showing up to those protests just in cloth masks, either. They, too, are wearing body armor or helmets, using weighted gloves and batons. They, too, are going there to fight - preferably Nazis, but they're not always that discriminating about who they consider a Nazi.

They've become exactly what they claim to be fighting against. While I disagree with the message of the Nazi-wannabes, using force in an attempt to squelch their rights to free speech--even if they disagree with it--is the definition of fascism. Free speech runs both ways. I find the Nazi "ideals" disturbing. However, the minute we start imposing limits on things we disagree with, we no longer have free speech.

[Greenday]

Hate speech isn't covered by free speech so squelch away in my opinion. Hate speech has no place in society and should be shut down hard.

[Tanasi]

Hate speech isn't covered by free speech so squelch away in my opinion. Hate speech has no place in society and should be shut down hard.

So who defines hate speech?

We either have free speech for everyone or we don't for anyone.

[Greenday]

So who defines hate speech?

We either have free speech for everyone or we don't for anyone.

Hate speech is well defined. It's not acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated. You'd have to be trolling to think no one can have free speech if hate speech can't be included. The nazi scumbags don't deserve to be tolerated.

[Tanasi]

Hate speech is well defined. It's not acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated. You'd have to be trolling to think no one can have free speech if hate speech can't be included. The nazi scumbags don't deserve to be tolerated.

I say again who is going to define hate speech?
Just because a few or many do not like what someone has to say doesn't mean the should be muzzled.
I guess with some sets, some hogs are more equal than others. Sounds a lot like Nazi and commie practices. There's a lot being said that I don't like but I don't call for them being silenced because it's just talk. Do you remember "Sticks and stones might break my bones but words will never harm me."

[protege]

I guess with some sets, some hogs are more equal than others. Sounds a lot like Nazi and commie practices. There's a lot being said that I don't like but I don't call for them being silenced because it's just talk.

That's exactly what it sounds like. Even now, in certain countries--like North Korea, for example--you can be jailed for speaking your mind. Not even hate speech either. You can get sent to prison for daring to criticize their "dear leader." Such speech is seen as "hateful" against the government. Also, the US Dept of Homeland Security actually claimed that anyone daring to criticize Bush's regime (remember his speech about "you're either with me or against me?") is a "potential terrorist." Naturally, he and his cronies were widely blasted for that remark. If our government starts trying to restrict what we can and cannot say, they're no better than the Nazis and Commies.

[Greenday]

I say again who is going to define hate speech?

There's a group of people who want genocide and you're honestly going to say, "Well, what REALLY is hate speech?" Are you kidding me? If we as a society don't agree with genocide, then we shouldn't tolerate people advocating it either.

[Canarr]

Okay, so hate speech contains advocacy for genocide. That’s a fairly low-hanging fruit. Is there anything else that’s hate speech? Or does that cover it?

[Greenday]

Okay, so hate speech contains advocacy for genocide. That’s a fairly low-hanging fruit. Is there anything else that’s hate speech? Or does that cover it?

Suggesting any kind of violence or discrimination against people because of their race/creed/sexuality/nationality/etc. Suggesting we take power away from those groups.

This should be blatantly obvious.

[Tanasi]

There's a group of people who want genocide and you're honestly going to say, "Well, what REALLY is hate speech?" Are you kidding me? If we as a society don't agree with genocide, then we shouldn't tolerate people advocating it either.

Tolerating things we don't like is part of being an adult. I don't like what they're saying but until they act then it's just talk. When speech is restricted for some it's restricted for all and while currently your ox isn't being gored one day it might be.