Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Communal concils]

1. I said that people should have access to a fair trial,and I think a large amount of authorities should seek to find the truth. It's that simple.

2. I don't treat it as absurd, but rather as a stupid beliefs. Anyways, I thought the "Concern" was to allow the death penalty to be the main punishment.

And...you do realize that this is what is already exactly the case currently? And that innocents still are executed? Do you see now how that utterly fails to address thepoint, seeing as how you are basically saying "the same things that are done already will make sure that it doesnt happen this time"?

1. It isn't the case, because there are elites( the capitalist) that have corrupted the system.

2. corruption

3. straw-men again.

[The New California Republic]

3. straw-men again.

When you run out of arguments you can't just keep playing the strawman accusation card. It gets very tedious after a while.

[Highever]

And...you do realize that this is what is already exactly the case currently? And that innocents still are executed? Do you see now how that utterly fails to address thepoint, seeing as how you are basically saying "the same things that are done already will make sure that it doesnt happen this time"?

1. It isn't the case, because there are elites( the capitalist) that have corrupted the system.

2. corruption

3. straw-men again.

So... your point is saying that it will work because there magically wont be corruption, so in otherwords, once again waving away a valid point by just saying it will be different without any explanation. Glad we spent all that time to arrive right back where we were.

[Communal concils]

Strawmen of my beliefs. I believe all people should be treated equally under the law. Which means that I think people should all face the same restrictions.

It isn't a strawman at all, as you proposed a law that would de facto disadvantage gay people. It was pointed out to you and you carried on proposing it regardless, so you can't even try to use ignorance of that fact as an excuse.

that is what you think.

[The New California Republic]

It isn't a strawman at all, as you proposed a law that would de facto disadvantage gay people. It was pointed out to you and you carried on proposing it regardless, so you can't even try to use ignorance of that fact as an excuse.

that is what you think.

Another non-answer that is just fluff and filler. Wonderful(!)

[Communal concils]

3. straw-men again.

When you run out of arguments you can't just keep playing the strawman accusation card. It gets very tedious after a while.

You do the same thing with the concept of "Word salad" all the time( most likely will say whataboutism).

[Communal concils]

1. It isn't the case, because there are elites( the capitalist) that have corrupted the system.

2. corruption

3. straw-men again.

So... your point is saying that it will work because there magically wont be corruption, so in otherwords, once again waving away a valid point by just saying it will be different without any explanation. Glad we spent all that time to arrive right back where we were.

No, I advocate for the removal of the institutions that delay Justice. Judicial system would have to have a process of seeking out corruption, and using violent methods if necessary.

[The New California Republic]

When you run out of arguments you can't just keep playing the strawman accusation card. It gets very tedious after a while.

You do the same thing with the concept of "Word salad" all the time( most likely will say whataboutism).

When your sentences descend into a nonsensical cluster of words then I will call it what it is: word salad. And I dunno what salad has got to do with whataboutism, but whatever.

[The Black Forrest]

So... your point is saying that it will work because there magically wont be corruption, so in otherwords, once again waving away a valid point by just saying it will be different without any explanation. Glad we spent all that time to arrive right back where we were.

No, I advocate for the removal of the institutions that delay Justice. Judicial system would have to have a process of seeking out corruption, and using violent methods if necessary.

Well? Your desires are rather subjective from that comment. A delayed justice system is a good thing in such matters.

[Highever]

So... your point is saying that it will work because there magically wont be corruption, so in otherwords, once again waving away a valid point by just saying it will be different without any explanation. Glad we spent all that time to arrive right back where we were.

No, I advocate for the removal of the institutions that delay Justice. Judicial system would have to have a process of seeking out corruption, and using violent methods if necessary.

Again....this is already done. Ans so your solution to removing corruption and eliminating innocent executions is to implement executions on charges of corruption? Thereby making it even more possible for potential innocents, this time those accused of corruption, to be executed?

[Ifreann]

I see the thread is having some mad bantz.

[The New California Republic]

So... your point is saying that it will work because there magically wont be corruption, so in otherwords, once again waving away a valid point by just saying it will be different without any explanation. Glad we spent all that time to arrive right back where we were.

No, I advocate for the removal of the institutions that delay Justice. Judicial system would have to have a process of seeking out corruption, and using violent methods if necessary.

Again that's about as much use as saying "because reasons", i. e. a vague non-answer that doesn't get us anywhere.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

No, I advocate for the removal of the institutions that delay Justice. Judicial system would have to have a process of seeking out corruption, and using violent methods if necessary.

Again....this is already done. Ans so your solution to removing corruption and eliminating innocent executions is to implement executions on charges of corruption? Thereby making it even more possible for potential innocents, this time those accused of corruption, to be executed?

That is, quite literally, what Stalin and Mao and the Kims and basically every communist leader did under a different wording.

[The Black Forrest]

I see the thread is having some mad bantz.

At least by a round to make it more fun.

[Communal concils]

that is what you think.

Another non-answer that is just fluff and filler. Wonderful(!)

Very close minded, I see.

You see it as being "unegalitarian" and "Disadvantage" because you perceived it through your own ideology. Therefor, that is what you think.

[Communal concils]

I see the thread is having some mad bantz.

YES

[The New California Republic]

Another non-answer that is just fluff and filler. Wonderful(!)

Very close minded, I see.

You see it as being "unegalitarian" and "Disadvantage" because you perceived it through your own ideology. Therefor, that is what you think.

It's unegalitarian because it disadvantages certain sections of society. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. It is just by definition unegalitarian.

[Fahran]

I'm not making an argument that anyone is a self-defence organisation, and I don't know why you think I am. I'm just saying that people aren't automatically the aggressors, regardless of their behaviour, because of how they dress or what they carry. I think that's absurd.

You're alluding to it by completely ignoring the context that goes into wearing a mask to conceal your identity, bringing weapons to what was planned as a peaceful protest in many instances, and coordinating on social media and prior to actual demonstration to employ riot tactics to inflict maximum harm on the political opposition. You're painting activities as innocuous and innocent by completely ignoring the likely motivations and personalities of the sort of people that bring a bat wrapped in barbed wire to a protest. That's not self-defense. It's premeditation. There's also the fact that some activists blatantly say that their goal is to not let Nazis and white nationalists speak.

Oh grow up.

Quit making excuses for terrorists by trying to grasp at straws.

Not really.

Street brawls and political violence are contrary to the state's monopoly on violence, to agreeable social order, and to civil society on the whole, so, yes, allowing such behavior is contrary to the public interest. We have as much of a reason to stamp down on people exhibiting the behaviors we've discussed as we do to stamp down on certain street gangs and militias. Infiltration is already a viable option and one that would plausibly lead to hundreds of arrests on a national scale.

I'm not holding anyone to be aggressors based on your standard, so maybe quit telling me I'm not applying it consistently when I'm not applying it at all.

Didn't you liken Patriot Prayer stashing firearms on a roof to domestic terrorism? I seem to recall you doing that earlier today. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm pulling up examples and telling you that the standard seems to be inconsistent.

He probably wasn't an immediate threat, but people he doxxes are in danger, so stopping him from doing so protects people. Maybe that defence wouldn't hold up in court, but some of us do not hold the law to be the final arbiter of good and evil.

He wasn't a threat then. I mean... if we get to hit people for doxxing, many people associated with Antifa become targets almost overnight given the large-scale doxxing campaigns that have occurred. But, again, that's not a realistic, mature, or moral stance. That's you rationalizing violence against people you don't like.

It would indeed be silly, because they were on a rooftop with guns, they weren't in danger from anyone. Whereas the people on the ground, at a protest, are rather more likely to be in danger. Preparing to address that danger with more than just harsh language doesn't make one the aggressor. It really baffles me that you don't seem to think it matters who starts the fight, only how the participants were dressed and what they were carrying. As if the fight somehow actually started that morning, when someone was at the wardrobe picking out their favourite black hoody.

You can act in defense of others from a rooftop by deploying lethal force against violent thugs. And the reason who initiates a fight isn't the only consideration is because you're engaging in premeditated behavior when you make weapons, bring them to a protest, and then coordinate how you're going to fight against fascists. And that does happen. We know this because some veteran Antifa activists who have participated in street brawls have stated that in ideal circumstances they go in with a strategy and a broad tactical framework. Don't get separated. Don't get blocked in. Block them in this way. Bigger, stronger people to the front. Use pepper spray and then bring in the bats. Etc.

I'm not saying that anyone is an innocent victim. I told you very clearly what I saying. Maybe try believing me?

Alright. So is it acceptable to hit someone for what they say or no?

Having a weapon and being attacked means that fighting back isn't self defence? Or seeing someone else attacked and intervening? That's now aggression because you have a weapon?

Planning to engage in violence before hand is aggression, yes. Because these people aren't going there planning to be peaceful and then being forced into a fight. They're going with the intention of fighting and then rationalizing it after the fact as self-defense, even when they're nakedly the aggressors.

I'm not aware that the police allowed the anti-fascist rally back then to carry weapons. Any more than they were always allowed to carry weapons anyway.

They had weapons and weren't arrested. That's pretty suggestive of the fact that enforcement was minimal on both sides.

So it's only big political goals that count. Were the people resisting the Nazis terrorists? They used criminal violence to achieve big political ends. If they were terrorists then clearly sometimes terrorism is good, and you're surely about to say that modern neo-Nazis aren't the same as the actual Nazis in the 40s, and that's true, but the point is that your definition of terrorism includes actions that are good, so you can't just use "they're terrorists" as a criticism, you have to explain why they are bad terrorists.

No, any political goal counts. "I don't want to go to jail because jail sucks" isn't a political or religious goal. It's a personal goal. The people resisting the Nazis were often affiliated with governments-in-exile and were resisting an occupying military force - a touch different that the people we call terrorists today. I do agree with that general argument though.

My argument against anti-fascist terrorism at present is that it's largely unnecessary given that white nationalists aren't likely to gain positions of permanent power, it causes property damage and injuries to innocent bystanders, it results in further radicalization towards the right and left at a time when polarization is incredibly high, it allows white nationalists and Neo-Nazis to lionize or martyr themselves since their ideologies inherently profit from violence and machismo, it impedes and degrades civil society by interrupting dialogue and debate, it robs intellectuals of the opportunity to discredit alt-right ideologies, and we have far more effective institutional methods of counteracting white nationalists and Neo-Nazis such as infiltration, surveillance, and, when necessary, arrest.

Actually there were several instances of people being abused by the police. But people were arrested without any more evidence than how they were dressed and their presumed affiliation with rioters and not in one case out of hundreds could an actual crime be proven. But from what you've been telling me actually that should have been enough, those people were all definitely aggressors.

It's hard to prove a particular person committed a crime when everyone was wearing a mask and keeps mum about it. We do know that crimes were committed by Antifa activists and others during the inauguration. We just can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt who committed what crime and we can't obtain a warrant to get Facebook posts released either, so that evidence isn't going to materialize. They didn't arrest people for no reason. They arrested people with a reasonable suspicion. Quite different. And do you have a credible source on someone being abused by the police in police custody after taking part in that rowdy behavior?

[The Black Forrest]

One does have to ask. What does this have to do with the two Senators?

[Highever]

One does have to ask. What does this have to do with the two Senators?

Yikes....very fair. Oops..

[The New California Republic]

One does have to ask. What does this have to do with the two Senators?

It's about Antifa too.

[Diopolis]

One does have to ask. What does this have to do with the two Senators?

It's about Antifa too.

Homosexuality and the death penalty for rape doesn't have anything to do with antifa either.

[Communal concils]

Again....this is already done. Ans so your solution to removing corruption and eliminating innocent executions is to implement executions on charges of corruption? Thereby making it even more possible for potential innocents, this time those accused of corruption, to be executed?

That is, quite literally, what Stalin and Mao and the Kims and basically every communist leader did under a different wording.

I do think that such things should have limits, mostly from laws of a legislator.

[The New California Republic]

It's about Antifa too.

Homosexuality and the death penalty for rape doesn't have anything to do with antifa either.

Well I think they were used as examples and it kinda spiralled. But nvm, that train of thought is finished.

[Fahran]

One does have to ask. What does this have to do with the two Senators?

We're quibbling a bit about the definition of terrorism. But I think most people can agree that a blanket label is a bit excessive. I'm more in favor of implementing surveillance of protests when people show up actively looking for fights and infiltrating organizations/associations that have a history of engaging in political violence to make arrests as necessary. Really, treat more violent Antifa groups like gangs or alt-right militias.