General US Politics Discussion

[sivispacem]

Thankfully the DoJ IP address fishing expedition looks to be dead in the water. But the whole thing is a Kafkaesque farce to be honest. It rings of all the worst excesses of McCarthyism.

[Eutyphro]

In Germany they are taking similar measures against the militant left wing groups responsible for the G20 riots. I applaud it.

Where are the 'free speech' advocates at now?

Freedom of speech does not entail the freedom to organize and participate in violent riots.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

In Germany they are taking similar measures against the militant left wing groups responsible for the G20 riots. I applaud it.

Which bit? The arresting people for attending rallies even if they aren't involved in violence, or the compiling lists of political undesirables by compelling ISPs to tell them who visited websites?

 

Both have been done in Germany before. Neither ended particularly well.

 

Freedom of speech does not entail the freedom to organize and participate in violent riots.

It does or should, however, entail the freedom to peaceful political assembly. The onus should be on law enforcement to provide evidence of violent intent or action, but I guess you think that's a bit inconvenient.

 

Funny how you seem to be applying this mantra only to leftists and not to violent right wing extremists?

[make total destroy]

In Germany they are taking similar measures against the militant left wing groups responsible for the G20 riots. I applaud it.

Freedom of speech does not entail the freedom to organize and participate in violent riots.

 

 

Counter-protestors shutting down a Nazi rally: obvious attack on 'free speech'.

Unbridled state repression of social movements: totally not an attack on 'free speech'.

 

Sorry, I forgot 'free speech' is simply a dogwhistle, not a principle you actually believe in.

[Eutyphro]

 

In Germany they are taking similar measures against the militant left wing groups responsible for the G20 riots. I applaud it.

Which bit? The arresting people for attending rallies even if they aren't involved in violence

They took down a website from which militant and violent action had been organized.

 

or the compiling lists of political undesirables by compelling ISPs to tell them who visited websites?

I just read the Department of Justice reduced it to those actively involved in organizing.

 

It does or should, however, entail the freedom to peaceful political assembly.

Well, yes, but the incidents we are talking about were rather far from peaceful. So that's a red herring.

 

The onus should be on law enforcement to provide evidence of violent intent or action,

Which is what they are attempting, which is good. We can't have scumbags organize and participate in riots with impunity. The law should be enforced.

 

Funny how you seem to be applying this mantra only to leftists and not to violent right wing extremists?

Isn't that a bit rich coming from someone who refuses to criticize Antifa and actively panders to them consistently? If you make an appeal to hypocrisy, try not to make it a complete fabrication.

 

Sorry, I forgot 'free speech' is simply a dogwhistle, not a principle you actually believe in.

It's a dog whistle for you and authoritarian leftists like The Yokel. You only appeal to free speech when it suits you and your scumbag buddies. You don't believe in free speech for right wingers. In fact, you don't seem to believe in any moral principle except for the obligation of the rest of society to need to adapt to and accomodate your pathetic behaviour.

 

Counter-protestors shutting down a Nazi rally: obvious attack on 'free speech'.

Unbridled state repression of social movements: totally not an attack on 'free speech'.

Far left degenerates responding to a legal non violent protest with violence: attack on free speech.

The police taking action against rioting and left wing terror: not an attack on free speech.

 

But I've given my opinion on when the far right cross the line in public. I've been rather more nuanced than you pretend I've been.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Eutyphro

[El Dildo]

fiscal conservatives

yes.

the biggest political lie in American history. 'fiscal conservative' is the ultimate oxymoron.

 

 

You only appeal to free speech when it suits you and your scumbag buddies.

hola senor pot.

 

let me introduce you to senor kettle.

[sivispacem]

They took down a website from which militant and violent action had been organized.

Which is exactly nothing like LE using vastly disproportionate measures to try and identify visitors to a website belonging to an organisation which attended demonstrations which turned violent.

 

But even the former doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. If all websites which are used as a platform to organise violent action should be shuttered, then Facebook would probably be first on the chopping block. And yet it's taken unilateral action by tech companies to kick the Daily Stormer, a website more closely implicated in racist violence than just about any out there, off the internet.

 

I just read the Department of Justice reduced it to those actively involved in organizing.

Largely as a response to the endless mockery they got from all quarters, plus another recent ruling against overreach in LE fishing operations. They've tried to hush it up as an error in scope, but their requests were pretty explicit- and pretty much unquestionably a Fourth Amendment violation.

 

Well, yes, but the incidents we are talking about were rather far from peaceful. So that's a red herring.

It's not a red herring at all, because the vast majority of protesters at DisruptJ20, and the vast majority of visitors to its website, did not engage, and have not engaged, in violent action. Merely attending a protest that turns violent is not probable cause for criminal investigation.

 

Which is what they are attempting, which is good.

Only after it was made abundantly clear to the DoJ that such a broad-reaching attempt to gather information on website visitors without probable cause wasn't going to fly.

 

Isn't that a bit rich coming from someone who refuses to criticize Antifa and actively panders to them consistently?

Not really. I don't think I've ever "actively pandered" to Antifa in my life, and similarly I've never refused to criticise them. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to take a measured, coherent or rational perspective given that you're frothing with McCarthyist rage.

[Creed Bratton]

It's a dog whistle for you and authoritarian leftists like The Yokel.

1. I'm not a leftist;

2. I didn't say anything about free speech;

3. I'm not an American so my view on free speech, whatever they may be are naturally not going to be American.

[Eutyphro]

But even the former doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. If all websites which are used as a platform to organise violent action should be shuttered, then Facebook would probably be first on the chopping block.

If a violent riot is organized on Facebook, Facebook would be well advised to take down the page. But it's true that it is quite hard to fight extremism on the internet by taking down pages. But it is a good idea to at least monitor extremism on the internet closely.

 

It's not a red herring at all, because the vast majority of protesters at DisruptJ20, and the vast majority of visitors to its website, did not engage, and have not engaged, in violent action. Merely attending a protest that turns violent is not probable cause for criminal investigation.

Being part of groups that engage in violent rhetoric and action is probable cause for investigation. People like MTD are public safety hazards. I'm glad if they are investigated and kept track of, just as it is good to monitor possibly dangerous neo-nazis. A group that is explicitly premised on disrupting a public event, is not a 'peaceful protest'. It was organized as a riot and it turned out as a riot.

 

Not really. I don't think I've ever "actively pandered" to Antifa in my life, and similarly I've never refused to criticise them. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to take a measured, coherent or rational perspective given that you're frothing with McCarthyist rage.

Why would I take a measured response at your disingenuous pandering when you falsely accuse me of hypocrisy? You do almost nothing but pandering to them. I've actually never seen you criticize them even once.

 

1. I'm not a leftist;

You clearly are.

 

2. I didn't say anything about free speech;

You argued for extrajudicial killings of people with opinions you don't like, which doesn't exactly make you a proponent of free speech.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Creed Bratton]

You clearly are.

 

You argued for extrajudicial killings of people with opinions you don't like, which doesn't exactly make you a proponent of free speech.

1. Hating Nazis doesn't make me a leftist. It makes me sane.

2. Opinions I don't like? I argued for killing of Nazi and white supremacy leaders. Because unlike some people here, I think that we should learn from history and stop evil in its infancy before it's too late.

 

Republicans and other conservatives often claim that European laws make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate Europe. And that is true. But what about right-wing terrorist groups in the US? Why should they be treated differently than some assholes in the Middle East? Because they're white Christians? They were born in the right country so they get to terrorize it? Why should that make any difference?

 

This is not about a simple difference of opinion. Just like ISIS and Al Qaeda, Nazis and other white supremacists are defined by an ideology that is fundamentally genocidal. These people glorify Hitler and his atrocities. They see the Holocaust as the correct way to deal with minorities. They want to do those things. They simply lack the power and the opportunity to do the. For now. And if it were up to people like you, you'd gladly let them like a chump, because apparently you can't get a f*ckin' hint the size of the Empire State building.

 

Why should any civilized society let that kind of evil exist in their country? We know what happens when you let people like that have their way. We studied that sh*t in school. Our grandparents fought those monsters and they won. By promoting their sick ideology they've essentially declared war everything that the US and the entire western civilization stands for. Killing them would be self-defense. No different than killing a member of a Muslim terror group.

 

You're goddamn right that I want them dead. The fact that you don't doesn't make you the good guy. At best it makes you naive.

Edited August 25, 2017 by The Yokel

[Chiarii]

Fine whatever, although the problem then is more with EMTALA intentionally not being funded then the mere fact that people with metal poles sticking out of them have to be stabalised when they walk into an ER rather than being turned away. Good to know to the extent the Republicans support giving people health care, they flatly refuse to pay doctors.

 

Imagine thinking the problem isn't with the state withholding compensation, but with people seeking medical care at all.

 

Of the many problems that exist in regards to EMTALA, the least of them is 'funding' since gov't compensation is always low-balled anyways. The bigger issues with the act are: it is an instrument used to hold entire institutions hostage of Medicare funding based on ED activity, it encourages people to consume services they can't afford, it creates congestion in an already high-pressure setting, and it dictates the actions of what should be a fully autonomous field.

 

Imagine if I threatened to harm you based on whether or not someone else complied with my demands. That is EMTALA.

 

Complaints about congestion are complaints about a lack of access. Also what you intend to do is irrelevant, it's about what you support. You won't be creating any policies in your life time.

 

Complaints about congestion are complaints about congestion. Lack of access has nothing to do with it. In fact, more access can lead to more congestion. Turning people away can reduce congestion. As for the verbiage I used, I'm just following your lead since you said 'my plan'. As it stands, the only real defense against congestion in an ED is an ability to dictate triage.

 

 

lol.

 

 

You know it's funny I saw you the other day say something like "I don't know why you[El Diablo] think it's appropriate to even talk to me, but I'll play along and pretend we're equals" but I don't think it's appropriate for you to post in here at all, not because you're a jerk or you can't keep up but because I think you're too young and we'll end up upsetting you. You're what, 15?

 

It's pretty adorable that you imply I'm a jerk who 'can't keep up' while advocating for the destruction of property and making uncertain claims, leaving me to correct you on them. I can't help but wonder, do you really think I shouldn't be posting here out of some selfless care you have for me? You think I'm too fragile for criticism? More importantly, do you think I care enough about the opinions of you and your buddies here to actually be bothered by the false accusations and insults?? I sure hope you aren't that naive.

 

The man you're bringing up is an extremely repulsive, aggressive, and asinine individual, so the comment I made to him was totally warranted.

 

 

I am for free speech, in that free speech is about the government not censoring you. It says nothing of individuals and private companies. So if you want to exercise your free speech to preach hatred, that's great. We'll also exercise our free speech and help you lose your job, lose your friends, by exposing what a piece of sh*t person you are.

 

And when it comes to nazism, any and all force is completely justified.

 

So, you are pro-vigilantism? You think the government shouldn't have the ability to dispense consequences to speech you don't like, but you should? You don't have a higher moral ground than the people you hate if you're willing to financially or physically harm them. As an aside, since we're talking about the smallest of minorities here (white supremacists) it may be more effective to try to convert them, rather than justifying their hate for you by literally validating their paranoia.

[DEALUX]

 

rather to do with consistency in terms of interpreting statistics.

Eh? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

 

 

I think you're downplaying the significance of the answers in the often category. They are specifically asking about civilian targets or, in other words, innocent people.

That was it. My recollection was not quite right there. The question refers to suicide attacks and attacks on civilian targets as two separate entities, with support for one resulting in affirmative answer. So someone in support of suicide bombings against military targets but who did not support attacks against civilians may well still answer "yes", resulting in the latter, incorrect inference from their response.

 

 

What crazy scenario would you have to come up with to agree that hurting innocent people in the name of some personal belief is justifiable?

That depends on the definition of "civilian". If "civilian" means "not military" or "non-combatant", then police forces, intelligence apperatus and the political establishment are civilian.

 

One of the reasons you cited for dismissing the Pew poll was the lack of a control group, yet the trans suicide statistic that you cited in another discussion also suffers from a lack of a control group (as far as I can tell). There is no equivalent oppressed group that commits suicide at the same rate as trans people, right? But you infer from that statistic that society is largely at fault for the suicide rates (of trans) when you can't actually know that given that no other group that suffers from societal discrimination commits suicide as often as trans. I am merely pointing out an inconsistency in the way you interpret statistics\studies. Either you care about control groups or you don't.

 

That's very clever of you. I don't think the sentence splits the way you think it does. It's meant to be read as "suicide attacks against civilians and other forms of violence". I don't see room for interpretation. It's one sentence that addresses violent behavior against civilians.

 

It feels like we're splitting hairs here (I didn't even want to discuss this again). It's also kinda pointless because real world events do confirm that certain interpretations of Islam do pose a certain kind of threat for the world. There is no Christian equivalent of Isis and their leaders have publicly expressed the reason why they hate the west and it has something to do with religion (there was a Dabiq article where Isis themselves debunked the idea that they are motivated purely by politics or grievances that have to do with US military intervention).

 

It's also wise to remember that THE VAST MAJORITY in those polls showed no support at all for violence in any form. And other similar polls, conducted in America, resulted in other religious groups being more supportive of violence against civilians than Muslims.

What the vast majority thinks is not really relevant if you're only talking about these percentages that do show some support for violence, and specific forms of violence.

[sivispacem]

But it is a good idea to at least monitor extremism on the internet closely.

I don't fundamentally disagree, but we're a very long way from any kind of convincing argument that the DC Welcoming Committee constitutes "extremism".

 

Being part of groups that engage in violent rhetoric and action is probable cause for investigation.

Newsflash- visiting a website doesn't make you "part of a group". Even if this were the case, I've yet to see any actual evidence that DisruptJ20 as a group has "enraged in violent rhetoric and action".

 

A group that is explicitly premised on disrupting a public event, is not a 'peaceful protest'.

Why not? Are you saying that it's not possible to take direct, disruptive action without being violent? Because if you are, you're wrong.

 

Why would I take a measured response at your disingenuous pandering when you falsely accuse me of hypocrisy?

It's not a false accusation; on one hand you've defended the violent actions of white supremacists who murdered a woman and injured 19 people because they were "provoked" by leftists, and yet you effectively commend the prospect of 1.3 million website visitors being unmasked in a DoJ fishing expedition, and reporters facing criminal charges for attending an event which turned violent, because apparently anyone who attends protests that turn violent or visits the websites of those organisations involved in the protest is deserving of criminal investigation, even if they weren't actually involved? But those neo-Nazis, they were just defending themselves from the nasty leftists and they're therefore not culpable when one of them drives a car into a crowd of protesters.

 

How is that not hypocrisy?

 

You do almost nothing but pandering to them. I've actually never seen you criticize them even once.

This is facile drivel. I've never condemned Aum Shinrikyo explicitly, I suppose according to your logic I "pander" to them too? Pathetic.

 

yet the trans suicide statistic that you cited in another discussion also suffers from a lack of a control group (as far as I can tell).

Eh? This is complete nonsense. Baseline suicide statistics across societies, and detailed breakdowns of suicides by various demographics, prominently feature in reporting on the issue. There's a baseline that a comparison can be made with. The same is not true of the Pew polling, as there is no evidence presented that allows an evaluation of whether or not the prevalence of these views are elevated above either a baseline or other societal groups that are comparable in various ways.

 

I knew what point you were trying to make; it just happens to be complete and utter nonsense.

 

That's very clever of you. I don't think the sentence splits the way you think it does. It's meant to be read as "suicide attacks against civilians and other forms of violence".

That's not what it says, though. Hence you having to reword the statement in order to get it to actually say what you think it's trying to say.

 

I don't see room for interpretation.

Of course you don't; rather than taking the sentence as it's actually written you insist on rephrasing it so that the results drawn from it correlate with a preexisting bias of yours.

 

It feels like we're splitting hairs here

Allegations of pedantry always seem to be the last gasp of people who've run out of worthwhile things to say.

[Eutyphro]

1. Hating Nazis doesn't make me a leftist. It makes me sane.

Hating Nazis doesn't make you a leftist. Everyone hates Nazis. But you're still a leftist anyway.

 

But what about right-wing terrorist groups in the US?

If they are terrorists, treat them as terrorist. David Duke is not a terrorist though.

 

 

But it is a good idea to at least monitor extremism on the internet closely.

I don't fundamentally disagree, but we're a very long way from any kind of convincing argument that the DC Welcoming Committee constitutes "extremism".

So you don't think Antifa constitutes extremism? You think their views and actions are moderate? They injured six police officers and caused in excess of $100.000 dollars of damage. "The bulk of the criminal acts happened at 10:30 a.m. when 400 to 500 people on 13th Street destroyed property, Interim Police Chief Peter Newsham said. The protesters were armed with crowbars and threw objects at people and businesses, destroying storefronts and damaging vehicles."

 

I've yet to see any actual evidence that DisruptJ20 as a group has "enraged in violent rhetoric and action".

You've seen all of that countless times, so you're purposely dishonest to pander to the leftist incrowd.

 

It's not a false accusation; on one hand you've defended the violent actions of white supremacists who murdered a woman and injured 19 people because they were "provoked" by leftists,

I "defended actions of white supremacists"? That's a unique level of dishonesty even for you. I know this is your tactic to lie in order to stay in offence in the discussion, but you are reaching new levels with it.

 

and yet you effectively commend the prospect of 1.3 million website visitors being unmasked in a DoJ fishing expedition, and reporters facing criminal charges for attending an event which turned violent, because apparently anyone who attends protests that turn violent or visits the websites of those organisations involved in the protest is deserving of criminal investigation, even if they weren't actually involved?

Many charges against innocent people and journalists have already been dropped from what I am reading, and the investigation against DisruptJ20 is aimed at the organizers, not the 1.3 million visitors. I support the effort of investigating left wing extremists, and the DoJ taking action. It's great that they are doing it. It's truly needed.

 

But those neo-Nazis, they were just defending themselves from the nasty leftists and they're therefore not culpable when one of them drives a car into a crowd of protesters. How is that not hypocrisy?

I'm not even really sure how to respond to this sort of tripe. Usually you are of higher quality than this garbage.

 

So, all in all, do you defend the actions of violent Antifa scumbags, or do you condemn them? Up until now all you've done is defending them time and time again.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Spaghetti Cat]

 

 

The DOJ is seeking the IP addresses of the 1.3 million people that visited disruptj20.org, while 200+ people--some of them journalists--still face charges carrying up to 70 years in prison for being at the DisruptJ20 march on Inauguration day.

 

Where are the 'free speech' advocates at now?

Right here, haven't gone anywhere.

 

Funny nobody seemed to bring this up when i was talking about it several pages ago. Guess defending the antifa got in the way.

 

Look up 18 US Code 2101.

 

 

 

Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

 

 

1) to incite a riot; or

2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;

 

 

 

If you are planing to riot and do it over the internet, yeah the feds are coming after you. So DON'T F-ING DO IT!

 

Now the guy who wants to destroy the Constitution suddenly wants fourth amendment protections, classic. The unfortunate thing is that I have to agree with you. Just visiting a website doesn't mean that you intend to commit violence in a riot. I'm glad the judge had the feds go back and have them put in protections for people just visiting. However, those people that organized the riot and encouraged others definitely should be prosecuted. The government is well within their rights in that case. Helping to shut down sites like this and expose the funding is a good thing. It's what I've been speaking out for.

 

BTW here is the link for a story on the court orders: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/347817-court-orders-company-to-produce-data-on-anti-trump-site

 

 

For all those in Texas, huddle down and stay safe!

[Cebra]

The piece of sh*t just pardoned Joe Arpaio.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon/index.html

 

What's the defense for pardoning a birther-peddling criminal and bona fide racist with absolutely no regard for the American justice system? Birds of a feather I guess. I keep telling myself I won't be as surprised by the next outrageous thing Trump does, but here I am. Disgusting. No excuse.

[Svip]

And he actually followed through on his transgender ban. I guess he really wants none of his legislative agenda to get passed come September.

 

Oh, and Gorka resigned. Gosh, I can only imagine how much Trump is going to f*ck up this Hurricane Harley when it hits Texas.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Svip

[Cebra]

And he actually followed through on his transgender ban. I guess he really wants none of his legislative agenda to get passed come September.

 

Oh, and Gorka resigned. Gosh, I can only imagine how much Trump is going to f*ck up this Hurricane Harley when it hits Texas.

It's been a wild night. The pardon, transgender ban, chaos around the incoming hurricane, and the first official word of Mueller seeking grand jury testimony.

 

I have a hunch that further leaks about the Russia investigation are coming. Trump seems to try to preemptively deflect as much as possible, and I don't think he's smart enough to analyze the repercussions of his actions before he acts. Everything he did tonight, as well as his even-more-erratic-than-usual behavior at his rally in Phoenix the other night, scream panic from a man who knows he's running out of time.

 

The only thing these terrible decisions will do is further alienate the GOP congress and people outside of his impenetrable ~30% base. There's literally not a single salient point to defend Arpaio's pardon - either he doesn't realize the backlash this could cause or he doesn't care. Mueller is closing in and his days are numbered.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Cebra

[Svip]

If you look at the numbers, Trump's 'floor' is probably in the mid-20s. But a lot of so-called 'reluctant Trump voters' are sticking with him because 'party above all else', but notice how most of Trump's approval comes from 'somewhat approval' rather than 'strong approval'.

 

Republicans in particular should be bothered about Trump, because he is ruining and tainting their agenda. Their Pyrrhic victory last November will only come back to haunt them for years to come. Of course, if the Democrats knew what they were doing, they would be in far worse shape. So at least they got that.

 

Edit: Although, he may be able to handle Hurricane Harvey OK. One of the few good things about Trump's presidency is that tends to hand over responsibility on certain issues that he doesn't really care about. Sometimes to responsible people!

Edited August 26, 2017 by Svip

[Tchuck]

 

So, you are pro-vigilantism? You think the government shouldn't have the ability to dispense consequences to speech you don't like, but you should? You don't have a higher moral ground than the people you hate if you're willing to financially or physically harm them. As an aside, since we're talking about the smallest of minorities here (white supremacists) it may be more effective to try to convert them, rather than justifying their hate for you by literally validating their paranoia.

 

Vigilantism? Nope, I'm for the government not interfering as long as people are just exercising their right to free speech, and interfere when things step out of free speech and into hate speech. These white supremacists are free to preach their hate; I am also free to cut people like that off of my life, and warn others, who may not know about their supremacist affiliations, about them. And business owners are also able to exercise their own free speech and fire those people if they don't think their ideals align. How is that vigilantism?

 

Vigilantism would be me taking the law into my own hands; and the law is already clear that those people are exercising their free speech. There's no law protecting them from me telling people I know who may have contact with them that such and such thinks whites are superior and blacks are inferior. Much like there's no law stopping me from gossiping to others about things that happen. I'm all for free speech since it makes it clear who is clearly a racist bigot, and gives me the freedom to no longer associate with them.

 

As for converting them, I believe that no-one is born a racist/supremacist. Those are things people learn from their family, from their friends, from people who influence their lives. The real solution to this kind of problem would begin at school, with proper education. For those who are already in their adult years, shaming them is what we can do while they don't take the time to self-analyze. Some people have been successful converting some of them, but for others conversion will be more complicated due to very deeply held beliefs and their worldview being built around them. People hate having to change themselves.

[make total destroy]

They took down a website from which militant and violent action had been organized.

 

IndyMedia didn't organize the Welcome to Hell march lol. IndyMedia (as in, Independent Media) is an international left-wing media collective. There may have been vague 'calls to action' posted to the site, as well as analysis and news about the Welcome to Hell march, but it was not a space where anything was actively organized. People typically aren't planning 'violent actions' on the internet. A lot of actions during black bloc marches are spontaneous, but anything that's planned ahead of time is going to be planned amongst affinity groups well off the internet. The raid on IndyMedia was just repression, plain and simple. I can't say I'm shocked, but I'm confused as to why somebody who is supposedly so adamant about the liberal notion of 'free speech' would be happy about the state shutting down and raiding an independent media collective? Is that a victory for 'free speech'?

 

 

The onus should be on law enforcement to provide evidence of violent intent or action,

Which is what they are attempting, which is good. We can't have scumbags organize and participate in riots with impunity. The law should be enforced.

 

 

 

 

 

Funny how you seem to be applying this mantra only to leftists and not to violent right wing extremists?

Isn't that a bit rich coming from someone who refuses to criticize Antifa and actively panders to them consistently? If you make an appeal to hypocrisy, try not to make it a complete fabrication.

I can recall at least one occasion where sivis was critical of AUNT EEFAH, but mostly he seems pretty indifferent to it. Like a lot of people that don't necessarily endorse militant anti-fascism, he doesn't seem to particularly care about Nazis getting kicked in the teeth, either. In fact, he, like many other people that aren't RAD XTREME LEFTISTS, might not think it's that unreasonable of an idea. I don't think that's pandering, it's just...normal. Like, most people aren't thrown into violent fits of rage anytime the subject of anti-fascism comes up. They don't start frothing at the mouth and angrily dismissing any 'leftist' or antifascist as 'scumbags', or 'public safety hazards'--i'm actually a really sweet person irl tyvm--or whatever else while furiously slapping away at their keyboard. It just ain't normal bruh.

 

 

It's a dog whistle for you and authoritarian leftists like The Yokel. You only appeal to free speech when it suits you and your scumbag buddies. You don't believe in free speech for right wingers. In fact, you don't seem to believe in any moral principle except for the obligation of the rest of society to need to adapt to and accomodate your pathetic behaviour.

 

That's cute, because the only time I even talk about 'free speech'--aside from when I'm making fun of those who use it to defend bigotry and literal holy f*cking sh*t neo-Nazis--is when I'm calling out moronic liberals on their hypocrisy. And I'm doing both of those things right now. I don't really believe in 'free speech', though, so you're not entirely wrong. That isn't to say, though, that I think the state should be regulating speech, but rather that 'free speech' is only afforded to those willing to work within the confines of liberal democracy and the capitalist mode of production more generally. Historically, it has not been afforded to popular left-wing movements. It's a lovely, flowery idea conceptually, doesn't really seem to actually hold up to even those who supposedly believe in it--like you. People taking it upon themselves to shut down the far-right really has nothing to do with 'free speech' anyway. If the state were kettling 'right-wing' marches, performing mass arrests, and then threatening it's participants with 70 years in prison, then one might be able to argue that the 'free speech' of 'right-wingers' is under attack.

 

 

 

[Creed Bratton]

The piece of sh*t just pardoned Joe Arpaio.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon/index.html

 

What's the defense for pardoning a birther-peddling criminal and bona fide racist with absolutely no regard for the American justice system? Birds of a feather I guess. I keep telling myself I won't be as surprised by the next outrageous thing Trump does, but here I am. Disgusting. No excuse.

Pardoning a convicted racist now, huh?

 

Go on Trumpets, tell us how Trump's not a racist.

[Clem Fandango]

Euty if this is such an open and shut case of Indymedia being used to 'plan riots' (pretty sure riots don't depend on intricate planning) why do they need to dishonestly claim that Indymedia and its readers constitute an organisation, and that their goals are specifically to undermine the German constitution with no wider context? They wouldn't need the legal run around.

 

If I didn't think you were completely insincere I might be surprised at the obvious contradiction between harping on about free speech and 'applauding' violent raids against people who run a leftist media outlet. Just so we're clear here: the Berkley riots and possibly other forms of antifascist action are 'heckler's vetos' that undermine social norms of free expression. The cops kicking in your door for running a website is a brazen institutional violation of freedom of speech as a legal right.

 

It's also funny that you now accept the threat posed by the far-right but still take such a hardline and emotional stance against Antifa. Do you understand the difference between undermining and violating something? Or the difference between social and institutional forces? I mean it's definitely strange that you think the state has more of a right to restrict fascist organising than the citizenry does.

[El Dildo]

The man you're bringing up is an extremely repulsive, aggressive, and asinine individual, so the comment I made to him was totally warranted.

...says the guy who would rather people die than be provided with basic human welfare from their own government.

 

you're a pig.

 

David Duke is not a terrorist though.

the man was leader of - and is still a loud proponent for - an organization who exists solely for the elimination of Jews and black people and homosexuals from American society. how is this not a domestic terrorist?

 

does the man have to blow himself up in a crowded market to earn your high and mighty distinctions?

your logic is pathetic.

Edited August 26, 2017 by El Diablo

[sivispacem]

Hating Nazis doesn't make you a leftist. Everyone hates Nazis. But you're still a leftist anyway

I love the way "leftist" has just become an ad hominem for you to typecast just about anyone critical of your views, even if they possess almost no hallmarks of actual left-wing views.

 

So you don't think Antifa constitutes extremism? You think their views and actions are moderate?

DisruptJ20 isn't Antifa, you dingus. Why the insistence on these ridiculous and obvious straw men?

 

You've seen all of that countless times

What utter drivel. You've presented not one single scrap of evidence that DisruptJ20 itself as an organisation was involved in or directly encouraged violent action. "Countless times"? Hyperbolic nonsense.

 

I "defended actions of white supremacists"? That's a unique level of dishonesty even for you.

I don't think it's dishonest at all. Based on your previous comments, as long as they keep their views out of the public space you're happy for them to continue being bigots. But woe betide you if you want to visit a left-wing website, because that makes you an associate of violent radical groups.

 

Many charges against innocent people and journalists have already been dropped from what I am reading, and the investigation against DisruptJ20 is aimed at the organizers, not the 1.3 million visitors.

Largely as a result of intense legal and political pressure. It should be bad enough that people not involved in violent action are getting arrested and charged in the first place, surely? Or are you a proponent of the DoJ "catch and release" style detention used to disrupt the administration's nonviolent political opponents?

 

I'm not even really sure how to respond to this sort of tripe. Usually you are of higher quality than this garbage.

Again, not really. Your whole narrative, peppered with appeals to hypocrisy aimed at MTD and other posters, could essentially be boiled down to "well it was just the actions of a lone individual and anyway Antifa throw a rock at his car." It's your narrative against the radical left that's embraced rounding up ideological associates and curious bystanders just in case they might have violent sympathies.

 

You talk about the line being the threat of violence- what do you make of the militia nuts strolling around the outside of the demo in full military regalia carrying assault rifles? Presumably you'd consider an armed leftist attending a demonstration an obvious and immediate threat but you seem perfectly happy to gloss over an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary display of force under waving Wolfsangel and Celtic crosses.

 

So, all in all, do you defend the actions of violent Antifa scumbags, or do you condemn them? Up until now all you've done is defending them time and time again.

I shouldn't need to publicly condemn their actions any more than all Muslims should be demanded to publicly condemn Salafist Jihadism. It should be abundantly clear that I've got no affinity for the far left, given I'm a well-off bourgeoisie technocrat and ex-company owner. I don't agree with their sociopolitical ideology or the radical left as a whole, and view violence perpetrated in the name of furthering it as largely counterintuitive, unhelpful and unnecessary.

 

However, unlike you I don't see it as a significant societal threat worthy of particular consideration. I don't see much of what's happened with the radical left in recent months as particularly exceptional in the wider context of the last 20 or so years of political strife. It's not like we're talking about the Red Army Faction car-bombing buildings and assassinating political leaders, or the Revolutionary Nuclei torching banks full of customers. I also don't buy into the idiotic false dichotomy of either condoning their actions or believing their a sizeable, significant and existential threat deserving of significant LE time and resource. Or for that matter welcoming campaigns of political harassment directed at the wider left.

 

And I'm not going to shed a tear when white supremacists get attacked, regardless of who does it. It could be literal roaming gangs of transvestite bikers for all I care.

[Eutyphro]

 

David Duke is not a terrorist though.

the man was leader of - and is still a loud proponent for - an organization who exists solely for the elimination of Jews and black people and homosexuals from American society. how is this not a domestic terrorist?

For someone to be a terrorist, they have to be involved in planning or partaking in political violence. He hasn't done so, so he's not a terrorist.

 

I can't say I'm shocked, but I'm confused as to why somebody who is supposedly so adamant about the liberal notion of 'free speech' would be happy about the state shutting down and raiding an independent media collective? Is that a victory for 'free speech'?

My answer was clear when I posted 'freedom of speech does not entail the freedom to organize and participate in violent riots'.

 

 

Hating Nazis doesn't make you a leftist. Everyone hates Nazis. But you're still a leftist anyway

I love the way "leftist" has just become an ad hominem for you to typecast just about anyone critical of your views, even if they possess almost no hallmarks of actual left-wing views.

I didn't intend it as a slur. But he kept denying it, though it's obviously true. Technically I'm still more on the left than on the right myself. The political compass proved that.

 

DisruptJ20 isn't Antifa, you dingus. Why the insistence on these ridiculous and obvious straw men?

There's no clear distinction. DisruptJ20 supports all the violence that was used, and thought it was a great success. Their political views and intent also seem rather identical to Antifa.

 

You've presented not one single scrap of evidence that DisruptJ20 itself as an organisation was involved in or directly encouraged violent action.

You are aware of the amount of rioting and violence that occurred. If the DoJ wants to investigate DisruptJ20 then they probably have some ground to think they were involved, which is likely anyway, because DisruptJ20 as an organization publicly thinks all of it was a great success.

 

I don't think it's dishonest at all. Based on your previous comments, as long as they keep their views out of the public space you're happy for them to continue being bigots. But woe betide you if you want to visit a left-wing website, because that makes you an associate of violent radical groups.

No, I'm actually being consistent. If people start organizing riots and other violent actions on Stormfront, then it's a good idea to take down the page. I'm not against people discussing ideas, however bigoted they may be, but the situation changes when you become a threat to public order.

 

It should be bad enough that people not involved in violent action are getting arrested and charged in the first place, surely? Or are you a proponent of the DoJ "catch and release" style detention used to disrupt the administration's nonviolent political opponents?

It's a good idea to not march with vandalizing scumbags if you don't want to be arrested. From the CBS news article it seems that the amount of people marching in the group that perpetrated most of the violence was even several hundred people more than the amount of people that ended up being arrested. But I'm not really in a position to judge whether it was necessary to arrest the specific amount of people that they did.

 

"well it was just the actions of a lone individual and anyway Antifa throw a rock at his car." It's your narrative against the radical left that's embraced rounding up ideological associates and curious bystanders just in case they might have violent sympathies.

Maybe if you use quotation marks, do it for something I actually said. I remember I was posting something I had read, that Antifa had thrown a rock at his car. Maybe in hindsights they should've really thrown more and bigger rocks, and optionally bashed him in the head with those rocks.

 

Technically, it does seem to have been a lone wolf attack though. That seems to be true.

 

You talk about the line being the threat of violence- what do you make of the militia nuts strolling around the outside of the demo in full military regalia carrying assault rifles? Presumably you'd consider an armed leftist attending a demonstration an obvious and immediate threat but you seem perfectly happy to gloss over an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary display of force under waving Wolfsangel and Celtic crosses.

The fact that a civilian can carry a firearm in public is strange to me, because I'm from Western Europe, but that is besides the point. I'm unsure what your point is though. The police should consider anyone violent that they estimate is intent on using violence, and in the case of masked armed black clad Antifa goons that is generally the case.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Clem Fandango]

brb googling Jordan Peterson's position on this to see how much has been ripped from his rants verbatim. Although I'd actually assume Peterson- despite his laughable cookie cutter anti-Communism that reminds me of myself at 15, arrogant little sh*t that he is- is too principled to 'applaud' state repression of independent media because of tenuous links to broken windows.

 

It's a good idea to not march with vandalizing scumbags if you don't want to be arrested.

OK so say you're one of however many people protesting Trump's inauguration, and someone throws a bin through a window (crime of the century, I know). You're obligated to run in the other direction screaming 'police, police!' at the top of your lungs? Or maybe they should have predicted that bins would be thrown through windows (the horror!) and simply given up on protesting Trump, lest they end up in one of America's infamous prison camps.

 

 

 

Their political views and intent also seem rather identical to Antifa.

Yeah I mean, smashing a window, smashing a guy's face, what's the difference? They both wear BLACK CLOTHES and that's all I need to know.

 

And on the other side, antifa is broader than physical confrontations on the street. If I were to go and hand out leaflets about how Reclaim Australia can go f*ck themselves I'd do it under the banner of antifa.

[sivispacem]

I didn't intend it as a slur. But he kept denying it, though it's obviously true.

In what way is he "obviously" a leftist? Because he supports racist fascists getting seven bells of sh*t beaten out of them? Someone should tell circa 1943 America that fighting Nazis is "leftist".

 

Frankly I doubt many people really care enough about white supremacists getting bottled and tear gassed. You're probably more likely to hear people express disappointment that it wasn't Sarin gas than you are any kind of sympathy.

 

There's no clear distinction.

Perhaps not to someone so bizarrely obsessed with waging a societal war against the largely mythical spectre of the advancing, violent radical left.

 

Conversely, some of us live in the real world and are capable of making rational distinctions that you doubtlessly see as "pedantry" because it's more convenient for your argument.

 

DisruptJ20 supports all the violence that was used

*Citation needed

 

If the DoJ wants to investigate DisruptJ20 then they probably have some ground to think they were involved

So we've gone from "DJ20 was absolutely and unequivocally the antagonist and organiser behind violence" to "well the DoJ is investigating them so they must have done something wrong". That's a pretty epic climbdown in a few short posts.

 

It's almost like you've forgotten about the House UnAmerican Activities Committee or COINTELPRO, where the US government and law enforcement engaged in large scale repression of nonviolent civil rights organisations. The DoJ has a long history of using the threat of criminal investigation as a tool to repress political dissent.

 

No, I'm actually being consistent. If people start organizing riots and other violent actions on Stormfront, then it's a good idea to take down the page.

On what basis are you asserting that active planning of violent acts has taken place on left wing forums? This is something that doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.

 

Anyway, what about the praise lavished on Dylann Roof on far-right boards, and encouragement for others to continue his legacy? What about the ongoing spate of noosing prominent civil rights symbols, effectively threatening black communities with lynchings? What about the reaction to the death at Charlottesville? All of these constitute condoning or encouraging acts of violence, or making threats of violence. I appreciate this could be a lack of awareness on your part- I mean dogmatic and slavish devotion to attacking the phantom of violent left wing extremism must be time consuming...

 

It's a good idea to not march with vandalizing scumbags if you don't want to be arrested.

I don't think people are generally clairvoyant. This might be a shock to you, but people who go to protests to...well, protest...don't typically expect to be embroiled in running street battles. To be honest, the whole thing reads like victim blaming- "well if you didn't want to get raped you shouldn't have work that slutty dress".

 

I don't know about you but I don't think it's appropriate to address, detain and charge with extremely serious crimes journalists who simply attend marches for the purposes of covering them. Or for that matter people who simply attend rallies and marches. Then again, I also don't live in your bizarre McCarthyist alternate reality where armed and aggressive leftists hide behind every lamppost and wheelie bin ready to smash the state.

 

I'm starting to get the impression you think the Turkish brand of state sponsored political repression and harassment is something to be aspired to. Except the spectre of "leftists" is your Gülan movement. And in this analogy, you're

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

 

Maybe if you use quotation marks, do it for something I actually said.

Typically, if you want to complain about people misrepresenting you, you don't agree with their characterisation in the next sentence. It's a bit contradictory.

 

I'm unsure what your point is though

My point is that you don't appear to see heavily armed militias conducting shows of force alongside full blown Nazis as a violent threat, yet you think journalists armed with nothing more than cameras are deserving of arrest and detention for reporting on protests.

 

At least you aren't banging your idiotic "hurr durr you support Antifa" drum anymore, thank god.

[Eutyphro]

 

I didn't intend it as a slur. But he kept denying it, though it's obviously true.

In what way is he "obviously" a leftist? Because he supports racist fascists getting seven bells of sh*t beaten out of them? Someone should tell circa 1943 America that fighting Nazis is "leftist".

It's not 1943 anymore though. This is not WWII. These are Neo-Nazi's. Don't compare Antifa losers to war heroes.

 

the largely mythical spectre of the advancing, violent radical left.

Which is a dogma you've adapted, that the left can't be extremist or violent, which has in practice proven to be increasingly possible, but you turn a blind eye, because for some reason you sympathize.

 

*Citation needed

You could try reading their website.

 

"DJ20 was absolutely and unequivocally the antagonist and organiser behind violence"

I never said that, but then again you are a disingenuous hack, as always. What I said is that I sympathize with investigating left wing extremists, such as DJ20, who were probably involved with rioting, because they are great fans of the riots that occurred, and practically organized them.

 

I'm starting to get the impression you think the Turkish brand of state sponsored political repression and harassment is something to be aspired to. Except the spectre of "leftists" is your Gülan movement. And in this analogy, you're

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Most of your comment is really an incoherent off topic rant that doesn't apply to what I've said, but this really takes the cake.

 

yet you think journalists armed with nothing more than cameras are deserving of arrest and detention for reporting on protests.

That's such a bunch of horsesh*t. There was a group of up 500 people throwing dangerous objects at the police, injuring police, and vandalizing wantonly. If you don't want to get in trouble, distance yourself from that group. That's rational advice, regardless of whether you are a journalist, against whom charges have already been dropped generally.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

It's not 1943 anymore though. This is not WWII. These are Neo-Nazi's. Don't compare Antifa losers to war heroes.

Now you're being deliberately stupid. I wasn't comparing them, just mocking the idea that conducting violence against fascists and Nazis, neo or otherwise, makes one a leftist.

 

Which is a dogma you've adapted, that the left can't be extremist or violent

Holy straw man, Batman! You really are a mook sometimes. I've never suggested that the left can't be extremist or violent, just that much if what you characterise as either one or both actually isn't, and questioned whether the additional LE scrutiny on the left you've welcomed would actually be better served redirected elsewhere.

 

But at this point you've become so accustomed to the stench of your own flatulance that you've becomes convinced it's normal.

 

You could try reading their website.

You could at least pretend you know how to debate and cite it.

 

I never said that

Well actually...

 

"A group that is explicitly premised on disrupting a public event, is not a 'peaceful protest'. It was organized as a riot"

 

Does rather suggest that you believe DJ20 to have been instrumental in organising violence at the protest. Or do you not believe that? Either you do, and I'm right, or you don't, in which case I'm struggling to see what your point in attacking the validity of criminal investigations into them over X pages actually is.

 

Most of your comment is really an incoherent off topic rant that doesn't apply to what I've said, but this really takes the cake.

And most of your rebuttal consists of cherry picked responses, fake hysteria, as hominems and straw men, with the utmost care taken to avoid actually responding to any salient points in a way that could be construed as meaningful.

 

But that aside, I don't think it's an unreasonable analogy. We're looking at two sets of events precipitated by violent confrontations, ascribed to the actions of a singular monolithic conspiring group of which there is very little evidence. In both cases, guilt comes by merest and most tenuous of association with nonviolent political opponents and the media being the chief targets.

 

So yeah, I'd say it's totally fair and I quite enjoy his offended you are by the characterisation.

 

That's such a bunch of horsesh*t.

No it's not. You literally said "don't go to marches where trouble breaks out if you don't want to be arrested". That's a validation. Exactly how is one supposed to react when violence breaks out? What if you don't see it, are you supposed to be able to identify it through some kind of extrasensory perception? Or should we just ban all left wing gatherings in case some violence happens and criminally taints everyone there?