The Antifa Thread

[CM86]

Actually describes antifa types remarkably well. Maybe take out natuon and race and replace them with something else

I disagree.

For a start, you've just removed the entire reason for the definition of the word fascist...

And even then, it still doesn't work.

 

[Groin guru]

Given that this thread was created because of Antifa-related spillover in other threads, it'd make sense to move your post to this thread where it belongs. Cheers

It's typical. Antifa involved in a terrorist attack on an ICE facility and an apologist attempts to change the topic to "yeah but this is worse!"

That's a Mofra and Chief special.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I disagree.

For a start, you've just removed the entire reason for the definition of the word fascist...

And even then, it still doesn't work.

Here are the similar ticks:
Autocratic Government: YES. Perhaps not the government we see now, but a central thought base of ideas where no opposing view is tolerated
Dictatorial Leader: YES. The Antifa movement is ripe for this type of leadership. The followers don;t believe in allowing or accepting opinions beyond their own narrow beliefs, so the situation is once again ripe in future for a leader such as this to emerge.
Economic and social regimentation: YES. Antifa is the seed movement of the thought police. They consider their social ideas to be the only acceptable ideas. Economically they would take the world back to an agrarian society if they could
Forcible Suppression of Opposition: YES. Their violence in attempting to silence groups they disagree with is well documented.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

No, Charlie. They disagree with lots of groups. Why are they only in conflict with proto fascist groups like the proud boys?

And most are anarchists. They don’t want a central government. Plenty want to sort out the proud boys themselves, rather than involve the state.

 

[CM86]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/e...cassidy-resolution_n_5d33c982e4b0419fd32de46b

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has introduced a resolution that would brand anti-fascist group Antifa a domestic terrorist organization​

​

“Antifa are terrorists, violent masked bullies who ‘fight fascism’ with actual fascism, protected by liberal privilege,” resolution co-sponsor Sen. Bill Cassidy(R-La.) said in a statement Thursday.​

​

Cruz called Antifa a “terrorist organization composed of hateful, intolerant radicals who pursue their extreme agenda through aggressive violence.”​

​

The resolution calls for the “designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization,” and states that “Antifa is a movement that intentionally combines violence with the group’s alt-left positions.”​

Cruz and Cassidy’s nonbinding resolution wouldn’t change U.S. law, and no law currently exists specifically against domestic terrorism. But the senators’ resolution could serve to twist perceptions in the face of facts.​

 

[CheapCharlie]

No, Charlie. They disagree with lots of groups. Why are they only in conflict with proto fascist groups like the proud boys?

And most are anarchists. They don’t want a central government. Plenty want to sort out the proud boys themselves, rather than involve the state.

They might disagree with lots of groups but they dont bend their ideas or accept there is other viewpoints.

They seem to protest any right wing group. They'll be at trump rallies next if they havent been already

 

[CM86]

No, Charlie. They disagree with lots of groups. Why are they only in conflict with proto fascist groups like the proud boys?

And most are anarchists. They don’t want a central government. Plenty want to sort out the proud boys themselves, rather than involve the state.

The vibe.

Suppression of opposition... Their opposition are fascists...

Because the oppose fascists, they are fascists...??

It's just a rehash of the "You're a bigot because you're intolerant of other people's intolerance".

 

[CM86]

They might disagree with lots of groups but they dont bend their ideas or accept there is other viewpoints.

They seem to protest any right wing group. They'll be at trump rallies next if they havent been already

Why shouldn't they?

 

[TimmeT]

The vibe.

Suppression of opposition... Their opposition are fascists...

Because the oppose fascists, they are fascists...??

It's just a rehash of the "You're a bigot because you're intolerant of other people's intolerance".

So why does a gay person have the right to be intolerant of and hate religious extremists any more than a religious extremist has the right to hate a gay person?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

They might disagree with lots of groups but they dont bend their ideas or accept there is other viewpoints.

Huh?

They seem to protest any right wing group. They'll be at trump rallies next if they havent been already

Any? No.

They may appear at some Trump events. It's because Trump attracts fascist groups in support.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

So why does a gay person have the right to be intolerant of and hate religious extremists any more than a religious extremist has the right to hate a gay person?

Post-modernist garbage.

The religious person has the right to hate gay people; but we have the right to recognise a bigoted opinion is a shit opinion that isn't worth platforming.

 

[CM86]

So why does a gay person have the right to be intolerant of and hate religious extremists any more than a religious extremist has the right to hate a gay person?

Are you serious?

Why can a gay person be against religious extremists...
But religious extremists can't be against gays?


Why don't you stop and think about it, and if you really can't work it out ask again. Because that says a lot about you.

 

[TimmeT]

Are you serious?

Why can a gay person be against religious extremists...
But religious extremists can't be against gays?


Why don't you stop and think about it, and if you really can't work it out ask again. Because that says a lot about you.

LOL it says a lot about you if you think that one group has the right to make comments that are interpreted as disparaging towards another group while another group doesn't.

 

[CM86]

LOL it says a lot about you if you think that one group has the right to make comments that are interpreted as disparaging towards another group while another group doesn't.

One group is homosexuals.
The other group is religious extremists...

You've got them as equals.

They are not equals in any stretch of the imagination.
Religious extremists should be shunned from society by society... Homosexuals used to be, and now deserve to be welcomed into society.

Religious extremists throw homosexuals off the top of buildings because of how they were born...


You need to take stock of your beliefs, and find out how you've sunk so far.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Why shouldn't they?

They can be if they want.

It would be the natural progression for them, protesting soft right targets

 

[CM86]

They can be if they want.

It would be the natural progression for them, protesting soft right targets

Who are the soft right targets?


Natural progression? Weren't you just stating as fact that they already oppose everyone??
How do you progress to soft right, after already opposing everyone?

Is it possible you were embellishing or misleading with that post?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

LOL it says a lot about you if you think that one group has the right to make comments that are interpreted as disparaging towards another group while another group doesn't.

Timme, you only take this post-modernist 'Well, who's to say is right?' view when defending those who make bigoted statements.

It's transparent.

 

[Gough]

Your averaged lardy arsed red faced Trump supporter would be a very soft target indeed. Most them look about a KFC family bucket short of a coronary.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Huh?

Any? No.

They may appear at some Trump events. It's because Trump attracts fascist groups in support.

Oh.. its the fascists again...antifa always fighting the good fight eh?

 

[CheapCharlie]

Who are the soft right targets?


Natural progression? Weren't you just stating as fact that they already oppose everyone??
How do you progress to soft right, after already opposing everyone?

Is it possible you were embellishing or misleading with that post?

They oppose any idea other than their own

They physically protest selectively

Sometimes u are thicker than 2 bricks

 

[TimmeT]

One group is homosexuals.
The other group is religious extremists...

You've got them as equals.

They are not equals in any stretch of the imagination.
Religious extremists should be shunned from society by society... Homosexuals used to be, and now deserve to be welcomed into society.

Religious extremists throw homosexuals off the top of buildings because of how they were born...


You need to take stock of your beliefs, and find out how you've sunk so far.

LULZ now you've just gone full loon left. There are some people I would define as religious extremists (those who practice religion to a strict degree) like those evangelical and mormons who would never consider throwing a gay off a building or even hurting them but would not want to serve them by making a product which supports a thing which they fundamentally disagree with.

Again why should the rights of homosexuals reign supreme over rights of people who follow religion? By you saying religious extremists should be shunned from society shows that you are only tolerant to views which you will accept and that you want to control and limit what people can do and say just like how it occurs in far left political ideologies.

 

[TimmeT]

Timme, you only take this post-modernist 'Well, who's to say is right?' view when defending those who make bigoted statements.

It's transparent.

If a gay baker refused a religious pastor order to bake a cake for them because they disliked their religion or its position towards homossexuality then I wouldn't have a problem with it either. I'm not like floorpie who feels it is acceptable for discrimination to occur one way towards one group but tell us it is not acceptable when its the other way around.

 

[Gough]

If a gay baker refused a religious pastor order to bake a cake for them because they disliked their religion or its position towards homossexuality then I wouldn't have a problem with it either. I'm not like floorpie who feels it is acceptable for discrimination to occur one way towards one group but tell us it is not acceptable when its the other way around.

I agree if a retail premises wishes to discriminate against gays they should put a sign up in their shop stating this. Easily sorted and we all know where we stand.

 

[Jello_B]

Exactly. There are elements in truth to nearly all of it. It's whats done to it that changes it.
If there wasn't some truth, it wouldn't catch on.

Like every conspiracy theory. They can link to facts and evidence to give the idea of a solid case. But when rigour is applied it always falls short.
There is always something missing or something twisted.
And while based on truth, the outcome is a lie.

And to me it's not like one culture replacing another culture, but an ever evolving culture taking aspects from everywhere. Most good, some bad.

Thanks for engaging, Jello. I'm really enjoying your posts.

Anytime and ditto.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Again why should the rights of homosexuals reign supreme over rights of people who follow religion? By you saying religious extremists should be shunned from society shows that you are only tolerant to views which you will accept and that you want to control and limit what people can do and say just like how it occurs in far left political ideologies.

Timme, equating a natural sexual orientation with a bigoted ideology is post-modernist idiocy.

You may think someone who hates gays because Allah and Mohommad say they should are on par with those who are gay, but most don't/