NationStates

Cedoria wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Ngo may be a cunt but what you are saying is false. The person he "doxxed" was already a media figure.

But it's fun to justify assaults, isn't it?

Not fun. But one figure being a public media person does not excuse the fact that he was openly working with violent hate groups, apparently without an issue till he got a light taste of his own medicine. The people he'd been working with would no doubt have been less restrained in dealing with the people he was unleashing them on.

Yeah, cry me a river this pillar of the community got a knock.

More uncited victim blaming. Typical.

Scomagia wrote:

Cedoria wrote:I think the whole 'context is important' line gives you a clue. It's not as simple as you like to pretend.

No, it's actually simple. Assault is wrong. Don't do it.

Sure. Right, if a race hater comes up to murder my black neighbours, I'll just invite him in for tea to talk it out. Thanks for the advice Sco, real practical and helpful here, totally not devoid of logic or nuance or context at all. What would we do without you?

Scomagia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Context. Is. Important. I'm not gonna say a blanket yes or no, simply because of that "context" part.

So you do support extra-judicial violence. It just depends on "context".

Not "context". Context. The world, shockingly enough, and as I'm sure you already know, isn't black and white.

Cedoria wrote:

Scomagia wrote:No, it's actually simple. Assault is wrong. Don't do it.

Sure. Right, if a race hater comes up to murder my black neighbours, I'll just invite him in for tea to talk it out. Thanks for the advice Sco, real practical and helpful here, totally not devoid of logic or nuance or context at all. What would we do without you?

That wouldn't be assault, sugar.

Scomagia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Context is important.

Is it wrong to commit assaults or isn't it?

Was it wrong to shoot redcoats?

Torrocca wrote:

Scomagia wrote:So you do support extra-judicial violence. It just depends on "context".

Not "context". Context. The world, shockingly enough, and as I'm sure you already know, isn't black and white.

Yeah, "context".

Scomagia wrote:

Cedoria wrote:Not fun. But one figure being a public media person does not excuse the fact that he was openly working with violent hate groups, apparently without an issue till he got a light taste of his own medicine. The people he'd been working with would no doubt have been less restrained in dealing with the people he was unleashing them on.

Yeah, cry me a river this pillar of the community got a knock.

More uncited victim blaming. Typical.

I never believed Ngo was an 'innocent', as I think I may have mentioned. Calling him a 'victim' is likewise a stretch. Justified defiance of someone who was actively doing things that would cause harm or even death to potentially large numbers of people. Yes.

Ifreann wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Is it wrong to commit assaults or isn't it?

Was it wrong to shoot redcoats?

The revolutionaries were morally wrong* because they shot first at personnel of the rightful governing body of the colonies.

*There's plenty of unironic reasons to paint the American revolutionaries as morally wrong, but shooting first isn't one of them.

Cedoria wrote:

Scomagia wrote:More uncited victim blaming. Typical.

I never believed Ngo was an 'innocent', as I think I may have mentioned. Calling him a 'victim' is likewise a stretch. Justified defiance of someone who was actively doing things that would cause harm or even death to potentially large numbers of people. Yes.

So, the violence against him was justified? You're using a lot of words that imply that's your meaning.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:Political violence and stable democracy are mutually exclusive. [snip]

I would argue quite the opposite. In times of social peace, where people either have faith in the electoral system or are politically apathetic, sure. But in times such as ours when most people are disillusioned with our political and media institutions, that is, when capitalist power structures feel vulnerable, fearing the rise of extra-parliamentary dissent and revolutionary perspectives, it is standard practice to enable and utilise the political violence of reactionaries, both inside and outside of repressive organs of the State. In this sense, most people, even antifascists, are on the wrong page in fearing some kind of fascist coup in America. Fascism is far more effectively being utilised as a minoritarian current to defend the status quo, i.e. our current democratic institutions.

It is in this sense that the targets of intensified violence - non-natives, socialists, and anarchists in particular - feel the need to organise themselves defensively, hence the proliferation of antifa activity.

Scomagia wrote:

Cedoria wrote:Sure. Right, if a race hater comes up to murder my black neighbours, I'll just invite him in for tea to talk it out. Thanks for the advice Sco, real practical and helpful here, totally not devoid of logic or nuance or context at all. What would we do without you?

That wouldn't be assault, sugar.

Neither was Ngo. Assault implies an innocent victim and a belligerent perp. Neither one really fits the context (yes, that nasty word that makes your simplistic jargon so wrong again) of what was going on.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, context matters. To say political violence is uniformly wrong anywhere and at any time is self-evidently untrue, as you've now acknowledged.

Scomagia wrote:

United States of Devonta wrote:
Or working with Fascist to dox leftist knowing they could be harmed, sounded like he enjoyed enabling violence till it came to him.

Ngo may be a cunt but what you are saying is false. The person he "doxxed" was already a media figure.

But it's fun to justify assaults, isn't it?

You mean multiple journalist who didn't want there info out there and then received death threats from the various groups he released their info to?

Oh and I already said Antifa assaults are wrong. Try again.

Long overdue

So, who exactly do they want labled domestic terrorists? The resolution talks about "groups that act under the banner of Antifa." What does that mean exactly? I'm antifascist, do I "act under the banner of Antifa" and therefore qualify as a terrorist? Can the Democrats introduce a resolution that says "anyone in a red baseball cap" is a domestic terrorist? It would be about as specific. Bottom line, if this were a law rather than a nonbinding resolution introduced for purely partisan political purposes it would be unconstitutionally vague on its face. Next case.

Scomagia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Not "context". Context. The world, shockingly enough, and as I'm sure you already know, isn't black and white.

Yeah, "context".

Ah, I see you're just going to keep on pretending that the world is black and white after all.

Very well, carry on with your bullshit but don't expect any further response from me.

Scomagia wrote:

Cedoria wrote:I never believed Ngo was an 'innocent', as I think I may have mentioned. Calling him a 'victim' is likewise a stretch. Justified defiance of someone who was actively doing things that would cause harm or even death to potentially large numbers of people. Yes.

So, the violence against him was justified? You're using a lot of words that imply that's your meaning.

Justified is a hard word. From what I know of the case, necessary is probably accurate. But it's a judgement call made by someone who was not present and heard the case only second-handedly. But yes, someone arranging to injure or kill their political opponents is probably a valid target for direct action in self or collective defence. It's hardly as though he were an innocent bystander as you were claiming a few pages ago. Far from it. But at least you're off that stupid train now.

Torrocca wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Was it wrong to shoot redcoats?

The revolutionaries were morally wrong* because they shot first at personnel of the rightful governing body of the colonies.

*There's plenty of unironic reasons to paint the American revolutionaries as morally wrong, but shooting first isn't one of them.

Well shooting the King's men was certainly a crime. Maybe Washington should have tried civil debate. Bring this "America" concept to the free marketplace of ideas.

Kassimo wrote:I would argue quite the opposite. In times of social peace, where people either have faith in the electoral system or are politically apathetic, sure. But in times such as ours when most people are disillusioned with our political and media institutions, that is, when capitalist power structures feel vulnerable, fearing the rise of extra-parliamentary dissent and revolutionary perspectives, it is standard practice to enable and utilise the political violence of reactionaries, both inside and outside of repressive organs of the State. In this sense, most people, even antifascists, are on the wrong page in fearing some kind of fascist coup in America. Fascism is far more effectively being utilised as a minoritarian current to defend the status quo, i.e. our current democratic institutions.

It is in this sense that the targets of intensified violence - non-natives, socialists, and anarchists in particular - feel the need to organise themselves defensively, hence the proliferation of antifa activity.

Unless your view of "stable democracy" is a conflict (violent presumably) between revolutionaries and the status quo, nothing you just said countered my claim.

Ifreann wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
The revolutionaries were morally wrong* because they shot first at personnel of the rightful governing body of the colonies.

*There's plenty of unironic reasons to paint the American revolutionaries as morally wrong, but shooting first isn't one of them.

Well shooting the King's men was certainly a crime. Maybe Washington should have tried civil debate. Bring this "America" concept to the free marketplace of ideas.

Surely if ol' George Washington had just spoken kindly to the Redcoats occupying Boston, the British parliament would've accepted colonial representation within its ranks with open arms! Washington was obviously a domestic terrorist for not doing that.

The irony: Antifa itself is fascist. It targets groups of people based on race. And worse still, it’s militant. It is a right-wing terrorist organization, and should be treated as such.

And no one start the “yOuRe a duMb ignoRanT cOnsErvatIve” nonsense, IRL I’m a bolshevist. Liberalism is a disgrace to the Left.

US-SSR wrote:So, who exactly do they want labled domestic terrorists? The resolution talks about "groups that act under the banner of Antifa." What does that mean exactly? I'm antifascist, do I "act under the banner of Antifa" and therefore qualify as a terrorist? Can the Democrats introduce a resolution that says "anyone in a red baseball cap" is a domestic terrorist? It would be about as specific. Bottom line, if this were a law rather than a nonbinding resolution introduced for purely partisan political purposes it would be unconstitutionally vague on its face. Next case.

Or even if we just label local groupings, like the Rose City 'organisations' for lack of a better word, how do you enforce that? If I live in Rose City and have an Antifa label on my Facebook page, am I a member? Do I get called a 'terrorist' or 'supporter' or 'sympathiser'? Remember US anti-terror laws are notoriously wide-ranging on those latter terms. This is not a law that could be enforced. It's just state-sponsored crushing of dissent.

Greater Kongo-Zaire wrote:The irony: Antifa itself is fascist. It targets groups of people based on race. And worse still, it’s militant. It is definitely a terrorist organization.

And no one start the “yOuRe a duMb ignoRanT cOnsErvatIve” nonsense, IRL I’m a bolshevist. Liberalism is a disgrace to the Left.

I'm not a fan of Antifa for the most part, but when the hell do they engage in racial targeting?

US-SSR wrote:So, who exactly do they want labled domestic terrorists? The resolution talks about "groups that act under the banner of Antifa." What does that mean exactly? I'm antifascist, do I "act under the banner of Antifa" and therefore qualify as a terrorist? Can the Democrats introduce a resolution that says "anyone in a red baseball cap" is a domestic terrorist? It would be about as specific. Bottom line, if this were a law rather than a nonbinding resolution introduced for purely partisan political purposes it would be unconstitutionally vague on its face. Next case.

It means whoever they want it to mean, whenever they want someone locked up.

On Trump's inauguration day, hundreds of people were arrested. None were convicted, because the police had no evidence beyond "Was at a protest" or "Was wearing black".

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

US-SSR wrote:So, who exactly do they want labled domestic terrorists? The resolution talks about "groups that act under the banner of Antifa." What does that mean exactly? I'm antifascist, do I "act under the banner of Antifa" and therefore qualify as a terrorist? Can the Democrats introduce a resolution that says "anyone in a red baseball cap" is a domestic terrorist? It would be about as specific. Bottom line, if this were a law rather than a nonbinding resolution introduced for purely partisan political purposes it would be unconstitutionally vague on its face. Next case.

I'm Anti-Fascist but am against street violence via civilians.

But under anti-terror legislation, labelling yourself Anti-Fascist alone would probably be enough to arrest you if it's declared a terrorist organisation.

"Antifa" is so extremist it seems they are closer to fascism than their opponents. The fascists of the future call themselves anti-fascists.