Fascist White Supremacist Rally in Portland Thwarted

[Scomagia]

Maybe...and this is just an idea...we imbue certain individuals with the authority to detain Nazis who are trying to kill people. At the same time, we establish a system whereby evidence is gathered and presented to determine the guilt of said Nazi. Finally, we construct facilities to hold those who are found guilty. A crazy theory, I know, but I'm a crazy kind of guy. Maybe it'll work better than randos wearing masks beating the shit out of people?

This may sound good on paper, but out in the real world there is the very real possibility of the police siding with the fascists.

---

Believe it or not, I'm against the White Supremacists going to Portland, but not because of what they believe. Its because Portland is too liberal of a city and they should let the Left be until such a time when Portland can be viable for poaching. The Left shouldn't visit Conservative locales. If the sides know where their audience is, there will be more peace.

They went to Portland to start a fight, in the hopes of winning and building their profile. You know, get a buzz going about the "brave free speech patriots" kicking ass in liberal Portland or what have you.

---

So you're fine with vigilantes who agree with your politics so long as they're marginally careful about who they hurt?

Not exactly. I'm fine with people going to rallies and protests and what have you with the intention of protecting their comrades and communities from fascists, with any and all necessary force. I accept that there will, inevitably, be mistakes, but I call on those brave people on the front lines to do everything they reasonably can to minimise those mistakes.

The police could possibly side with the fascists so I should trust some thugs who say they're on my side? Fuck that. Take your vigilantism and lynch mobs and keep them the fuck away from me.

[Takso]

Since healthcare is not universal in the United States, why not just legalize gladiatorial fights and take the riots off the streets? Both the radical left and radical right want at each other's throats... You could make it a televised event and earn millions from advertising. Companies could sponsor windows to be smashed by disaffected youth and bearded men.

[Cekoviu]

Since healthcare is not universal in the United States, why not just legalize gladiatorial fights and take the riots off the streets? Both the radical left and radical right want at each other's throats... You could make it a televised event and earn millions from advertising. Companies could sponsor windows to be smashed by disaffected youth and bearded men.

"This smashing was brought to you by: Andersen Windows & Doors, bringing quality in windows for over 115 years."

[Greater Carloso]

As was said earlier, ANTIFA is not an organisation that can be compared to something like al-Qaeda etc. Such is the nature of hateful leftist groups! It is deliberately designed to be decentralised in nature and difficult to identify; more of a brand then an actual sociopolitical entity that can be pinpointed and described. As a result, I imagine it would be legally impossible for the US government to declare such an 'organisation' to be a terrorist group, as it simply does not exist and it would be extremely impractical to crack down on the 'brand: as it can be easily switched out and, owing to its decentralised nature, is hard to root out entirely.

That said, most individuals that are involved in cells aligned with the Antifa identity appear to harbour extremely hateful and militant views, as we know of course being inclusive of assaulting members of the public whom they identify as fascist. The example of their shenanigans in Poland a few years ago was pointed out. I would not say this is a form of terrorism, rather simply a case of mass criminality stoked by infiltration of communist elements within US universities, who express explicitly anti-American and anti-patriotic ideals. A new HUAC is in order to deal with this problem!

As far as the so-called white supremacists in Portland are concerned, I don't believe it is fair to characterise the Proud Boys under that description.. White nationalism in the US has always puzzled me as an ideology, as it seems to be a sort of bootleg copy of European forms of nationalism. Fact of the matter is, the alienation of white Americans in the places they grew up and the demonisation of 'white trash' by an out of touch Washington establishment is driving formerly apolitical whites to join white nationalist organisations. If the US fixed its damn Mexican border, maybe it wouldn't have this problem on its hand. Oh well!

[Purgatio]

Wait, what? The fascists beat up that hammer guy themselves?

Yup. This whole thread covers it in all its beautifully stupid detail.

If you read that same thread, you'll notice Andy Ngo directly responds to Respectable Law, noting that people were lobbing and throwing rocks at the people on the bus in the first place, so the actions of the people on the bus was in self-defense. Respectable Law responds with an ad hominem, calling him a "snivelling little worm" without an actual argument.

So all in all, after reading the exchange in full, honestly Andy Ngo comes off as measured, objective, composed, and Respective Law comes off as angry and screeching and trying to push an agenda.

[Purgatio]

This may sound good on paper, but out in the real world there is the very real possibility of the police siding with the fascists.

---

They went to Portland to start a fight, in the hopes of winning and building their profile. You know, get a buzz going about the "brave free speech patriots" kicking ass in liberal Portland or what have you.

---

Not exactly. I'm fine with people going to rallies and protests and what have you with the intention of protecting their comrades and communities from fascists, with any and all necessary force. I accept that there will, inevitably, be mistakes, but I call on those brave people on the front lines to do everything they reasonably can to minimise those mistakes.

The police could possibly side with the fascists so I should trust some thugs who say they're on my side? Fuck that. Take your vigilantism and lynch mobs and keep them the fuck away from me.

Given they beat up a Bernie Sanders voter for waving an American flag, people who support ANTIFA because they are anti-fascist should remember the dangers of undermining the rule of law and allowing a non-State actor to unilaterally arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide who is a 'fascist' and in their mind undeserving of the right to have their bodily integrity respected

[Torrocca]

Yup. This whole thread covers it in all its beautifully stupid detail.

If you read that same thread, you'll notice Andy Ngo directly responds to Respectable Law, noting that people were lobbing and throwing rocks at the people on the bus in the first place, so the actions of the people on the bus was in self-defense. Respectable Law responds with an ad hominem, calling him a "snivelling little worm" without an actual argument.

So all in all, after reading the exchange in full, honestly Andy Ngo comes off as measured, objective, composed, and Respective Law comes off as angry and screeching and trying to push an agenda.

People on a completely lower platform threw rocks at a souped-up, armored bus, so that clearly justifies the Fascists storming out of it with hammers and attacking the people on the overpass who weren't throwing any rocks. /s

[Takso]

Since healthcare is not universal in the United States, why not just legalize gladiatorial fights and take the riots off the streets? Both the radical left and radical right want at each other's throats... You could make it a televised event and earn millions from advertising. Companies could sponsor windows to be smashed by disaffected youth and bearded men.

"This smashing was brought to you by: Andersen Windows & Doors, bringing quality in windows for over 115 years."

I'm picturing a beautiful image in my mind of Antifa gladiators enjoying a Frappuccino® after a round of bashing' the fash.

[Purgatio]

If you read that same thread, you'll notice Andy Ngo directly responds to Respectable Law, noting that people were lobbing and throwing rocks at the people on the bus in the first place, so the actions of the people on the bus was in self-defense. Respectable Law responds with an ad hominem, calling him a "snivelling little worm" without an actual argument.

So all in all, after reading the exchange in full, honestly Andy Ngo comes off as measured, objective, composed, and Respective Law comes off as angry and screeching and trying to push an agenda.

People on a completely lower platform threw rocks at a souped-up, armored bus, so that clearly justifies the Fascists storming out of it with hammers and attacking the people on the overpass who weren't throwing any rocks. /s

The bus had open windows and at some point the people in the bus needed to come out (given that's the purpose of transportation you know) and the people who were throwing rocks unprovoked at the passengers would throw it at the passengers as they exited.

Regardless, it was the ANTIFA thugs that committed the unprovoked violence, so Andy Ngo was not wrong to characterise them as the violent aggressors here, as they so often are

[Telconi]

If you read that same thread, you'll notice Andy Ngo directly responds to Respectable Law, noting that people were lobbing and throwing rocks at the people on the bus in the first place, so the actions of the people on the bus was in self-defense. Respectable Law responds with an ad hominem, calling him a "snivelling little worm" without an actual argument.

So all in all, after reading the exchange in full, honestly Andy Ngo comes off as measured, objective, composed, and Respective Law comes off as angry and screeching and trying to push an agenda.

People on a completely lower platform threw rocks at a souped-up, armored bus, so that clearly justifies the Fascists storming out of it with hammers and attacking the people on the overpass who weren't throwing any rocks. /s

Hey, like Ifreann said, in big public gatherings mistakes are bound to happen.

[Ifreann]

This may sound good on paper, but out in the real world there is the very real possibility of the police siding with the fascists.

---

They went to Portland to start a fight, in the hopes of winning and building their profile. You know, get a buzz going about the "brave free speech patriots" kicking ass in liberal Portland or what have you.

---

Not exactly. I'm fine with people going to rallies and protests and what have you with the intention of protecting their comrades and communities from fascists, with any and all necessary force. I accept that there will, inevitably, be mistakes, but I call on those brave people on the front lines to do everything they reasonably can to minimise those mistakes.

So that's a yes. See, I knew we could agree on something.

I suspect we'd agree on a fair few things if I could sit you down and get you to actually express your sincere beliefs and sincerely respond to mine, instead of just shitposting to piss people off.

I don't really care enough to try, though.

---

Wait, what? The fascists beat up that hammer guy themselves?

Yup. This whole thread covers it in all its beautifully stupid detail.

That looks like anti-fascists getting some digs in on hammer guy after he went for them with his hammer and they took it off him.

---

This may sound good on paper, but out in the real world there is the very real possibility of the police siding with the fascists.

---

They went to Portland to start a fight, in the hopes of winning and building their profile. You know, get a buzz going about the "brave free speech patriots" kicking ass in liberal Portland or what have you.

---

Not exactly. I'm fine with people going to rallies and protests and what have you with the intention of protecting their comrades and communities from fascists, with any and all necessary force. I accept that there will, inevitably, be mistakes, but I call on those brave people on the front lines to do everything they reasonably can to minimise those mistakes.

The police could possibly side with the fascists so I should trust some thugs who say they're on my side? Fuck that. Take your vigilantism and lynch mobs and keep them the fuck away from me.

I'm not telling you to do anything, or at least I don't mean to. But if you would be thinking of protesting against fascists, the police are not on your side.

---

Since healthcare is not universal in the United States, why not just legalize gladiatorial fights and take the riots off the streets? Both the radical left and radical right want at each other's throats... You could make it a televised event and earn millions from advertising. Companies could sponsor windows to be smashed by disaffected youth and bearded men.

Product exists: The Super Bowl.

[Torrocca]

People on a completely lower platform threw rocks at a souped-up, armored bus, so that clearly justifies the Fascists storming out of it with hammers and attacking the people on the overpass who weren't throwing any rocks. /s

The bus had open windows and

They had one open window which they quickly shut after somebody pointed a finger toward it and, presumably, said mean words that upset their feelings.

at some point the people in the bus needed to come out (given that's the purpose of transportation you know) and the people who were throwing rocks unprovoked at the passengers would throw it at the passengers as they exited.

Or they could've just driven their armored vehicle, which they were completely safe inside of, to a safer location, like rational people would.

Regardless, it was the ANTIFA thugs that committed the unprovoked violence, so Andy Ngo was not wrong to characterise them as the violent aggressors here, as they so often are

We all know that the totally reasonable response to having your armored Fascist battlebus pelted by rocks from a distance is to storm out of it with hammers and attack people next to the bus who weren't involved in the rock-throwing. /s

[Imperium of Dragonia]

Assuming that fascism was the only legitimate threat there is childish, narrow-minded, and reeks of willing ignorance.

[Purgatio]

The bus had open windows and

They had one open window which they quickly shut after somebody pointed a finger toward it and, presumably, said mean words that upset their feelings.

at some point the people in the bus needed to come out (given that's the purpose of transportation you know) and the people who were throwing rocks unprovoked at the passengers would throw it at the passengers as they exited.

Or they could've just driven their armored vehicle, which they were completely safe inside of, to a safer location, like rational people would.

Regardless, it was the ANTIFA thugs that committed the unprovoked violence, so Andy Ngo was not wrong to characterise them as the violent aggressors here, as they so often are

We all know that the totally reasonable response to having your armored Fascist battlebus pelted by rocks from a distance is to storm out of it with hammers and attack people next to the bus who weren't involved in the rock-throwing. /s

If I walk up to you in a Starbucks and threaten to punch you in the face unless you leave, are you under an obligation to leave? Just because I'm threatening you with violence? Of course not, I'm the one in the wrong and you have a lawful right to remain in the Starbucks and defend yourself, with violence, rather than be forced to submit to my unlawful threat.

Just because a bunch of ANTIFA thugs start throwing rocks at you unprovoked doesn't mean you're now forced to disembark elsewhere. You are excusing criminality by imposing an obligation on people to submit to criminal threats of violence. Which I doubt you'd apply such reasoning to any other group, you just happen to not like this group's political views so you're unwilling to apply the usual standards of decency and protection to them. That's where you and I differ. I still believe my political opponents deserve to be treated with respect.

[Torrocca]

So that's a yes. See, I knew we could agree on something.

I suspect we'd agree on a fair few things if I could sit you down and get you to actually express your sincere beliefs and sincerely respond to mine, instead of just shitposting to piss people off.

I don't really care enough to try, though.

---

Yup. This whole thread covers it in all its beautifully stupid detail.

That looks like anti-fascists getting some digs in on hammer guy after he went for them with his hammer and they took it off him.

Eh, some of the slowed-down footage of the original video looked like other hammer guys were hitting their own dudes.

But I digress, because, clearly, these sweet, innocent Hammer Fascists (who were perfectly safe in their armored battlebus) were nearly murderized by AntiFA bikehammers.

[Saiwania]

If you participate in public protests, you're far more likely to be injured if not killed. I think it to be a bad risk regardless of what its about. There are plenty of other ways to use leverage in politics that're just as effective and safer than being apart of some unruly mob that is only going to get run over, dispersed by police/military, or interfered with by another crowd.

Long story short is that most of society, probably doesn't give a damn about your silly protest, go home.

Not unless there actually is cause for social unrest, such as Venezuela's economy being ruined and life for the majority there being unbearable. At least in their situation, they can only improve things by overthrowing their government for someone who'll stop doing what Maduro is doing and start doing what is needed to grow their economy back to normal.

[Torrocca]

They had one open window which they quickly shut after somebody pointed a finger toward it and, presumably, said mean words that upset their feelings.



Or they could've just driven their armored vehicle, which they were completely safe inside of, to a safer location, like rational people would.



We all know that the totally reasonable response to having your armored Fascist battlebus pelted by rocks from a distance is to storm out of it with hammers and attack people next to the bus who weren't involved in the rock-throwing. /s

If I walk up to you in a Starbucks and threaten to punch you in the face unless you leave, are you under an obligation to leave? Just because I'm threatening you with violence? Of course not, I'm the one in the wrong and you have a lawful right to remain in the Starbucks and defend yourself, with violence, rather than be forced to submit to my unlawful threat.

That's a complete non-sequitur. The Fascist militia was completely safe inside their armored bus; they had literally no reason to disembark and attack people who were entirely unrelated to the rock-throwers.

Just because a bunch of ANTIFA thugs start throwing rocks at you unprovoked doesn't mean you're now forced to disembark elsewhere. You are excusing criminality by imposing an obligation on people to submit to criminal threats of violence. Which I doubt you'd apply such reasoning to any other group, you just happen to not like this group's political views so you're unwilling to apply the usual standards of decency and protection to them. That's where you and I differ. I still believe my political opponents deserve to be treated with respect.

Nope; I'm claiming they had no right to wantonly attack people unassociated with other people who were throwing rocks at the bus. If their pants were in such a twist about it, they had a million other options besides "LOL STORM OUT OF OUR ARMORED BATTLEBUS AND SMACK THE FIRST PERSON YOU SEE WITH A HAMMER YOLO".

I'm not entertaining your ending snide comments, by the by.

[Scomagia]

So that's a yes. See, I knew we could agree on something.

I suspect we'd agree on a fair few things if I could sit you down and get you to actually express your sincere beliefs and sincerely respond to mine, instead of just shitposting to piss people off.

I don't really care enough to try, though.

---

Yup. This whole thread covers it in all its beautifully stupid detail.

That looks like anti-fascists getting some digs in on hammer guy after he went for them with his hammer and they took it off him.

---

The police could possibly side with the fascists so I should trust some thugs who say they're on my side? Fuck that. Take your vigilantism and lynch mobs and keep them the fuck away from me.

I'm not telling you to do anything, or at least I don't mean to. But if you would be thinking of protesting against fascists, the police are not on your side.

---

Since healthcare is not universal in the United States, why not just legalize gladiatorial fights and take the riots off the streets? Both the radical left and radical right want at each other's throats... You could make it a televised event and earn millions from advertising. Companies could sponsor windows to be smashed by disaffected youth and bearded men.

Product exists: The Super Bowl.

I don't have time to protest, particularly not against a fringe movement with zero traction. But if I do, the Antifa fucks in masks beating people are going to be pretty high on my list of people to avoid, right up there with fascists, police, and girls named Shannon.

[Necroghastia]

They had one open window which they quickly shut after somebody pointed a finger toward it and, presumably, said mean words that upset their feelings.



Or they could've just driven their armored vehicle, which they were completely safe inside of, to a safer location, like rational people would.



We all know that the totally reasonable response to having your armored Fascist battlebus pelted by rocks from a distance is to storm out of it with hammers and attack people next to the bus who weren't involved in the rock-throwing. /s

If I walk up to you in a Starbucks and threaten to punch you in the face unless you leave, are you under an obligation to leave? Just because I'm threatening you with violence? Of course not, I'm the one in the wrong and you have a lawful right to remain in the Starbucks and defend yourself, with violence, rather than be forced to submit to my unlawful threat.

Ah, so you agree that the white supremacists are the ones in the wrong here and any violence by antifa would have been justified.

[Ifreann]

Yup. This whole thread covers it in all its beautifully stupid detail.

If you read that same thread, you'll notice Andy Ngo directly responds to Respectable Law, noting that people were lobbing and throwing rocks at the people on the bus in the first place, so the actions of the people on the bus was in self-defense. Respectable Law responds with an ad hominem, calling him a "snivelling little worm" without an actual argument.

Don't dissemble. Respectable Lawyer is asking Andy Ngo, the snivelling little worm, if the actions of these people on the lower underpass justify his fascist militia friends attacking other people with a hammer.

So all in all, after reading the exchange in full, honestly Andy Ngo comes off as measured, objective, composed, and Respective Law comes off as angry and screeching and trying to push an agenda.

Bollocks.

[Purgatio]

If I walk up to you in a Starbucks and threaten to punch you in the face unless you leave, are you under an obligation to leave? Just because I'm threatening you with violence? Of course not, I'm the one in the wrong and you have a lawful right to remain in the Starbucks and defend yourself, with violence, rather than be forced to submit to my unlawful threat.

That's a complete non-sequitur. The Fascist militia was completely safe inside their armored bus; they had literally no reason to disembark and attack people who were entirely unrelated to the rock-throwers.

Just because a bunch of ANTIFA thugs start throwing rocks at you unprovoked doesn't mean you're now forced to disembark elsewhere. You are excusing criminality by imposing an obligation on people to submit to criminal threats of violence. Which I doubt you'd apply such reasoning to any other group, you just happen to not like this group's political views so you're unwilling to apply the usual standards of decency and protection to them. That's where you and I differ. I still believe my political opponents deserve to be treated with respect.

Nope; I'm claiming they had no right to wantonly attack people unassociated with other people who were throwing rocks at the bus. If their pants were in such a twist about it, they had a million other options besides "LOL STORM OUT OF OUR ARMORED BATTLEBUS AND SMACK THE FIRST PERSON YOU SEE WITH A HAMMER YOLO".

I'm not entertaining your ending snide comments, by the by.

They weren't unassociated persons, the people on the bus (whom you call 'fascists') disembarked, and knowing rocks had been continuously thrown at them, needed to defend themselves from the rocks now being thrown in their direction as they disembarked. Yes, there were people who were not throwing rocks who were right outside the bus, but it was impossible to not hit them whilst using your hammer to defend yourself from the rocks that were being thrown in your direction. The law recognises that defensive use of force sometimes involves collateral damage, this is inevitable even in self-defense. If punches you, you are allowed to punch back in self-defense even if it carries the risk that a bystander could get hit.

[Torrocca]

If I walk up to you in a Starbucks and threaten to punch you in the face unless you leave, are you under an obligation to leave? Just because I'm threatening you with violence? Of course not, I'm the one in the wrong and you have a lawful right to remain in the Starbucks and defend yourself, with violence, rather than be forced to submit to my unlawful threat.

Ah, so you agree that the white supremacists are the ones in the wrong here and any violence by antifa would have been justified.

B-But it's different! The Proud Boys and their allies only stormed into Portland from all across the United States to threaten harm onto Anti-Fascists unless they left, they weren't an individual walking up to another individual in a Starbucks and threatening to harm them unless they left!

[Purgatio]

If you read that same thread, you'll notice Andy Ngo directly responds to Respectable Law, noting that people were lobbing and throwing rocks at the people on the bus in the first place, so the actions of the people on the bus was in self-defense. Respectable Law responds with an ad hominem, calling him a "snivelling little worm" without an actual argument.

Don't dissemble. Respectable Lawyer is asking Andy Ngo, the snivelling little worm, if the actions of these people on the lower underpass justify his fascist militia friends attacking other people with a hammer.

So all in all, after reading the exchange in full, honestly Andy Ngo comes off as measured, objective, composed, and Respective Law comes off as angry and screeching and trying to push an agenda.

Bollocks.

I was making a point about how the two men debate with each other. Andy Ngo addressed the factual assertions and substantive criticism of Respectable Law by making a counter-argument, whereas Respectable Law resorted to gutter and uncivil attacks on Ngo as a "snivelling little worm". Objectively, one person comes off better than the other, just as a human being.

[Telconi]

So that's a yes. See, I knew we could agree on something.

I suspect we'd agree on a fair few things if I could sit you down and get you to actually express your sincere beliefs and sincerely respond to mine, instead of just shitposting to piss people off.

I don't really care enough to try, though.

---

Yup. This whole thread covers it in all its beautifully stupid detail.

That looks like anti-fascists getting some digs in on hammer guy after he went for them with his hammer and they took it off him.

---

The police could possibly side with the fascists so I should trust some thugs who say they're on my side? Fuck that. Take your vigilantism and lynch mobs and keep them the fuck away from me.

I'm not telling you to do anything, or at least I don't mean to. But if you would be thinking of protesting against fascists, the police are not on your side.

---

Since healthcare is not universal in the United States, why not just legalize gladiatorial fights and take the riots off the streets? Both the radical left and radical right want at each other's throats... You could make it a televised event and earn millions from advertising. Companies could sponsor windows to be smashed by disaffected youth and bearded men.

Product exists: The Super Bowl.

You're probably right, but it's all a bit of a moot point. I'm sure people on both sides of the trenches in every war have had similar traits.

[Torrocca]

That's a complete non-sequitur. The Fascist militia was completely safe inside their armored bus; they had literally no reason to disembark and attack people who were entirely unrelated to the rock-throwers.



Nope; I'm claiming they had no right to wantonly attack people unassociated with other people who were throwing rocks at the bus. If their pants were in such a twist about it, they had a million other options besides "LOL STORM OUT OF OUR ARMORED BATTLEBUS AND SMACK THE FIRST PERSON YOU SEE WITH A HAMMER YOLO".

I'm not entertaining your ending snide comments, by the by.

They weren't unassociated persons

Yes they were. They weren't throwing rocks; the people on the underpass were.

the people on the bus (whom you call 'fascists')

It's definitely curious how you put 'Fascists' in quotes for the American Guard, a Fascist group with multiple chapters across the United States.

disembarked, and knowing rocks had been continuously thrown at them, needed to defend themselves from the rocks now being thrown in their direction as they disembarked.

So they attacked people who had thrown precisely zero rocks at them. That'll definitely hold up as self-defense in court.

Yes, there were people who were not throwing rocks who were right outside the bus, but it was impossible to not hit them whilst using your hammer to defend yourself from the rocks that were being thrown in your direction.

As we all saw from the videos, the Hammer Fascists were clearly using their hammers to smack wayward rocks out of the air, and only accidentally committed collateral damage against the nearby bystanders.

The law recognises that defensive use of force sometimes involves collateral damage, this is inevitable even in self-defense. If punches you, you are allowed to punch back in self-defense even if it carries the risk that a bystander could get hit.

It was obviously just collateral damage for them to storm out of the bus in force and attack the bystanders on the overpass who weren't throwing any rocks, while the people on the underpass faced no such hammer assault.