the alt-right

Peaceful because of numbers, and on that occasion.

^^^^internet hardman

You wouldn't have had those numbers out without the events in Charlottesville. Sad but true.

*goes elsewhere on the internet to find pictures of Mussolini's hanged, smashed body - will use if necessary* xp

People have the right to gather, march, and demonstrate peacefully. Retaliatory violence/self-defense is obviously acceptable, but initiating violence on otherwise peaceful/non-violent demonstrators is not.

glad that's cleared up!

They are peaceful...about denying others their right to live.

statement is an oxymoron

Yes, anti-racist demonstrators are noted worldwide for initiating physical violence.

Like, I'm sure it's happened somewhere at some point but I've never, ever seen that happen

xxp

People have the right to gather, march, and demonstrate peacefully. Retaliatory violence/self-defense is obviously acceptable, but initiating violence on otherwise peaceful/non-violent demonstrators is not.

I think as far as public demonstrations go, this is correct. (Military conflicts, political assassinations, etc. are a different story)

Like, I'm sure it's happened somewhere at some point but I've never, ever seen that happen

um really

I mean

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/19/berkeley-middle-school-teacher-yvette-felarca-arrested-charges-inciting-riot/

http://i.imgur.com/YcQT4OI.gif

this is p blatant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tt0lYQCTxA

there was that video of a woman wearing a red hat that said "Make Bitcoin Great Again" being interviewed by the local news and someone comes up and hits her in the face with a bike lock.

punching Richard Spencer I approve of because it was more like a media stunt than inciting a riot or whatever. Felarca's actions were just kind of stupid and counterproductive, even tho I totally support and understand her motivations.

xp

um really

I meant at events I've personally attended over the years

oh, well yeah that's different

if it isn't clear my stance is that different situations and different contexts call for different tactics. I don't get xyzzz's bloodthirst, which seems like the kind of thing stupid kids like to indulge in while cosplaying previous conflicts (hmm who does that remind you of)

Have we solved it yet

I'm sure we're very close

and while I do think that instances of antifa/black bloc/etc striking first are mostly aberrations (or, in some cases, specifically instigated by undercover cops), I'm not about to cry over people who advocate genocide getting a whack or seven

yeah me neither

dwarf the fash with vastly superior numbers and violence is unneccesary

Point is advocating initiating violence against peaceful demonstrators is fucked and morally indefensible. Organizations like the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church affirm our right to free speech. Silencing & intimidating people with violence is a fascist tactic. Charlottesville was a different situation - they got violent.

xp jim OTM

Organizations like the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church affirm our right to free speech.

Affording organizations like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church platforms normalized their messaging and gave us President Trump. "Free speech" means you are free to criticize the government, not that you are entitled to a platform to disseminate hateful rhetoric.

And, even you do gain a platform to spew bigoted garbage, that doesn't mean that others are disallowed from violently contradicting you or shutting you down.

Can we all agree that the absolute most effective counterprotest tactic was bringing a camera, and documenting the individuals present?

the notion that people who advocate mass murder can express that "peacefully" is...a sketchy idea at best. what they are doing is not peaceful.

Charlottesville was a different situation - they got violent.

They will get violent again. Its pretty naive to think they will not target and kill others and are just around to spread hate as a verbal message and chant.

They must be denied their right to march in the first place. When they march, they deny non-white ppl their space, they make the town where they march unsafe. They must be stopped by whatever means necessary. So yeah, violence against these ppl = good. xps

Can we all agree that the absolute most effective counterprotest tactic was bringing a camera, and documenting the individuals present?

― tactical piñata (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 22 August 2017 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No agreement from me.

Those individuals belong in a shut coffin, not in the unemployment queue.

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Initiating violence against peaceful protestors, no matter how loathsome and vile their views may be, is not acceptable. Denying their right to march is a very slippery slope.

Change the 1st amendment. By whatever means necessary.

lol Americans are obsessed with that amendment just amend it to add "except nazis" and it's still good

xp!

Change the 1st amendment. By whatever means necessary.

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:13 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cuckoo cuckoo

great idea let's give Donald Trump a big old present to legally shut down anything he wants

I think that it's important to remind the xyz that, as of yet, we're not actually in the midst of a civil war and that killing people for what they believe is bad, no matter how vile their beliefs are.

There are plenty of ways to counter extremist rhetoric, and aggressive counter-protesting is oen, but advocating for deadly violence is not ok just because you're angry online

*is one

but its so easy and look at the attention you get for it

Affording organizations like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church platforms normalized their messaging and gave us President Trump. "Free speech" means you are free to criticize the government, not that you are entitled to a platform to disseminate hateful rhetoric.

― this iphone speaks many languages (DJP), Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:07 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

And, even you do gain a platform to spew bigoted garbage, that doesn't mean that others are disallowed from violently contradicting you or shutting you down.

― this iphone speaks many languages (DJP), Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:08 PM (seven minutes ago)

1) saying trump resulted from affording the KKK and WBC seems like a stretch. these sorts of organizations have always existed. in fact in the past they've been more popular and influential
2) free speech also means (from the government's POV) you get to march and assemble just like everyone else. it doesn't refer only to criticizing the government. i know you know this but if we're going to debate constitutional rights let's at least keep basic things straight
3) actually violently responding to a peaceful march is illegal, even if it's by the good guys. like what?? lol.

in other words, flappy bird....otm?

who gives a fuck about legal

i mean we can have a (probably dumb) conversation about whether it's good tactics to rough up right-wing marchers, that's fine. but it's probably helpful that we not confuse morality and legality

Noam Chomsky: Antifa is a 'major gift to the right'

Chomsky's also pro-US-intervention in Syria at the moment sooooo

Change the 1st amendment. By whatever means necessary.

you are a ridiculous person

regardless of this silly statement, I do think there's a legit legal argument to be made (and the ACLU would appear to agree on this point) that armed, marching groups chanting hateful rhetoric is an explicit threat of violence that should not be protected by the 1st Amendment.

xxp

jim otm about numbers, which is in its way a warning of potential violence. 'If you choose to get violent again, we will overwhelm' you is a pretty effective tactic.