Fascist White Supremacist Rally in Portland Thwarted

[Purgatio]

His Twitter feed is just filled with tweet after tweet demonising ICE agents and supporting ANTIFA violence (https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton-shooter-connor-betts-may-have-supported-leftist-ideas-on-shadow-twitter-account/)

What more do you want, a tweet saying "hey guys, I'm gonna go on a mass shooting because I support ANTIFA violence"?? Is that the totally-reasonable and explicit level of 'proof' you are expecting here?

If demonizing ICE agents is proof, half of Twitter are terrorists. But something explicit would be nice, considering the alt-right is proudly releasing manifestos every time. But no, you don’t have that. So, you’re going to call it unreasonable.

....except half of Twitter doesn't go out and commit mass shootings. Dude, why is this so hard for you? He has a whole feed with numerous tweets, not just one or two, supporting ANTIFA violence and celebrating past ANTIFA attacks including on ICE facilities, then he commits a mass shooting. Draw the logical connection faster, please.

[Kowani]

If demonizing ICE agents is proof, half of Twitter are terrorists. But something explicit would be nice, considering the alt-right is proudly releasing manifestos every time. But no, you don’t have that. So, you’re going to call it unreasonable.

....except half of Twitter doesn't go out and commit mass shootings. Dude, why is this so hard for you? He has a whole feed with numerous tweets, not just one or two, supporting ANTIFA violence and celebrating past ANTIFA attacks including on ICE facilities, then he commits a mass shooting. Draw the logical connection faster, please.

That explains why he committed a mass shooting instead of attacking ICE.

[Purgatio]

....except half of Twitter doesn't go out and commit mass shootings. Dude, why is this so hard for you? He has a whole feed with numerous tweets, not just one or two, supporting ANTIFA violence and celebrating past ANTIFA attacks including on ICE facilities, then he commits a mass shooting. Draw the logical connection faster, please.

That explains why he committed a mass shooting instead of attacking ICE.

He advocates for ANTIFA violence and then kills people, it doesn't have to be ICE specifically for it to be a lone wolf political terrorist attack.

[Takso]

Happening to hold the same opinion as neo-Nazis on a particular issue doesn't make you a Nazi. A Communist and a centre-leftist might both agree that the estate tax should be raised, that doesn't make the centre-leftist a Communist.

If you hold Nazi beliefs like supporting ethnic cleansing or genocide (which Trump has never called for), then you are a Nazi. But happening to agree with a Nazi on a particular issue doesn't mean you are a Nazi yourself.

Let me explain it thusly:

Trump knows White Nationalist support him. We know this because they say it. They don't hide it. I don't need to guess it.

He spouts shit thay originated in their circles, and rhetoric that feeds into them. He takes great pains to never criticize them. It's only after they do something shitty that he comes out againsr them. Yet he spent weeks or months yammering about their talking points. His statements come off as utterly insincere because it's only after his supporters cause a problem that he hums and haws about it, amd then immediately starts belching the same dumbass rhetoric all over again.

He may not be a Nazi, but he sure as shit wants their votes, and acting.like a child who is only apologizing for getting caught isn't particularly convincing. It's a useful tool to point to to state "Look, I did it!" Naw, you don't get points for being forced to fix a situation you helped create.

I know he acts like it, but Trump is not stupid. I think actually he's a very smart man... I mean he has had all the resources available to him and access to quality education... Now that doesn't mean his intentions are good or that he is a good man, but I think he knows exactly what he's doing.

Yes, I agree with you that he's definitely "pandering" to racists... I don't think he himself is actually racist... Yes he carries racial biases... Everyone does. But does he actively carry racial views of superiority? Would he say... Call a black man inferior if he was an honest-to-truth Republican? No... I don't think he would. Now... Would he find fault in someone's background if they were a Democratic? Yes... But that's just because he doesn't like them to begin with. He's looking for easy logical fallacies that his supporters won't catch up on to bring other people down. Mind you... People have done plenty of unfair attacks on him too... Like going as far as to comment on irrelevant matters with his marriage or even the shape or size of his body parts. It's sickening really.

In actuality I don't think he really has any ideology beyond his own self-interests and boosting his ego. That can be said for a lot of politicians, Democrat or Republican.

Does he have a low view of poor people and people from poor nations? Yes, definitely. That can be found among all economic classes... The rich hate the poor and the poor hate the rich kind of thing etc.

His agenda definitely targets the xenophobic... Those afraid of immigration... Yes they will tell they are afraid of illegal immigration, but they also tend to want less immigration in general... Both legal and illegal... And they believe they are somehow morally superior simply because they had the fortune of being born in the United States... They lack the compassion for those born in less fortunate areas... That yes... Cross borders illegally in order to hope to find work and build a better life for themselves... Most illegals I would wager have a very difficult life... Especially in a xenophobic part of the United States.

Now that is not to say that illegal immigration is not a genuine issue. Borders exist for a reason... In Singapore for example... The country would be totally ruined and overrun if it just allowed anyone to enter with no controls... The countries around Singapore objectively are worse off in terms of education and quality of life... So yes... You are going to have severe cultural issues and social problems if you just allow people from countries with drastically different levels of development mix with each other with no controls.

I think a united world would be a better place... And one with less borders... But one thing at a time... And for the moment... The United States has to protect its Southern borders... Because open borders between Mexico and the US would result in chaos for some time... And maybe one day Mexico will be developed enough to be ready for that arrangement... I think for instance the US, Australia, the UK, and Canada should pursue greater economic trade with each other... And be more lenient with each other with migration between citizens of their country. I think for example, it would be a fantastic idea to allow Canadians and Americans to work in either country without bureaucracy... As long as they are paying the proper taxes... I think it would be very beneficial. Canadians and Americans get along very well. They both are Christian countries and while differ in some respects... Have very compatible cultures... The same could be said for a lot of European countries...

I mean, let's be honest here... By and large... The countries with the best human rights are white nations... That being Northern or far Southern European descendants... Scandinavia... Switzerland... Canada... Australians... New Zealanders... Etc... And yes, I know we're not talking about the native populations of some of those countries. And the reason why they have better human rights isn't because of "race" or some kind of magical power of whiteness, but a complex assortment of reasons ranging from historical events and geographical location. It's hard to foster a smart population in a hot climate with regular violence and malnutrition. Countries on the equator tend to have a rough time... Although they are exceptions... Just like for some countries away from the equator...

What I am saying is... I think the United States should seek to reduce illegal immigration... But the way Trump is doing it or proposals to ban people based on background is not the way... Look at what your country needs... Does it need workers of a certain category for instance? And you could easily test for certain cultural qualities among immigrants... What is their view on women for instance? Do they think women who show too much skin deserve to be stoned or beaten or shamed? If so... They should be told that in the United States and many other white countries that is not an acceptable thing. In the US... All religions are accepted... So... Muslims and Christians alike... I think if you have an immigrant who is willing to be lawful and contribute to the economy... Then you have a good candidate. You don't need to be a Christian to live in the US... Just follow the laws... You can still go to mosques... Just follow the laws. And I think for the vast majority of Muslims in the US... That is exactly what they do.

I have a neighbour who is Jamaican... There are also many Muslims where I live... Everyone is respectful with each other... I think it would be a terrible thing to make those people feel less welcome... That despite them working and following the laws... That they somehow "don't belong" because of their religion or colour of skin. I think he would lose a lot of value if we didn't have immigrants.

I think Trump needs to soften his tone. And emphasize the good of immigrants rather than the bad. He needs to be more careful with his words. Because if he's not... It's going to coming across to some that he's actively endorsing their hateful views.

[Kowani]

That explains why he committed a mass shooting instead of attacking ICE.

He advocates for ANTIFA violence and then kills people, it doesn't have to be ICE specifically for it to be a lone wolf political terrorist attack.

You’ve yet to actually prove that it was his political leanings. You’ve circumstantial evidence, but that’s about it.

[Purgatio]

He advocates for ANTIFA violence and then kills people, it doesn't have to be ICE specifically for it to be a lone wolf political terrorist attack.

You’ve yet to actually prove that it was his political leanings. You’ve circumstantial evidence, but that’s about it.

Would you be this measured and cautious if a mass shooter were found by federal investigators to have a Twitter feed consistently denigrating minorities and praising right-wing terrorist attacks and right-wing violence as great and wonderful?

[Vassenor]

You’ve yet to actually prove that it was his political leanings. You’ve circumstantial evidence, but that’s about it.

Would you be this measured and cautious if a mass shooter were found by federal investigators to have a Twitter feed consistently denigrating minorities and praising right-wing terrorist attacks and right-wing violence as great and wonderful?

So do you have his manifesto or not?

[Purgatio]

Would you be this measured and cautious if a mass shooter were found by federal investigators to have a Twitter feed consistently denigrating minorities and praising right-wing terrorist attacks and right-wing violence as great and wonderful?

So do you have his manifesto or not?

I never said he has a manifesto, but you also don’t need a literal manifesto to be a terrorist.

[Kowani]

You’ve yet to actually prove that it was his political leanings. You’ve circumstantial evidence, but that’s about it.

Would you be this measured and cautious if a mass shooter were found by federal investigators to have a Twitter feed consistently denigrating minorities and praising right-wing terrorist attacks and right-wing violence as great and wonderful?

If he attacked a center full of minorities, no. You could draw a logical inference. But if he just started shooting random people on the street? I’d still ask for a manifesto.

[Purgatio]

Would you be this measured and cautious if a mass shooter were found by federal investigators to have a Twitter feed consistently denigrating minorities and praising right-wing terrorist attacks and right-wing violence as great and wonderful?

If he attacked a center full of minorities, no. You could draw a logical inference. But if he just started shooting random people on the street? I’d still ask for a manifesto.

Then you're asking for excessive evidence to withhold from drawing a logical inference from the facts. The reality is this guy had a whole Twitter feed in which he repeatedly and consistently praised ANTIFA violence and terrorism, and committed a mass shooting, which looks to me like the makings of a lone wolf terrorist radicalised by ANTIFA's ideology. Maybe there's a tiny chance that isn't the case, but that possibility is miniscule at best.

[Kowani]

If he attacked a center full of minorities, no. You could draw a logical inference. But if he just started shooting random people on the street? I’d still ask for a manifesto.

Then you're asking for excessive evidence to withhold from drawing a logical inference from the facts. The reality is this guy had a whole Twitter feed in which he repeatedly and consistently praised ANTIFA violence and terrorism, and committed a mass shooting, which looks to me like the makings of a lone wolf terrorist radicalised by ANTIFA's ideology. Maybe there's a tiny chance that isn't the case, but that possibility is miniscule at best.

Antifa’s ideology is quite literally: “Fascism bad.” Not exactly radical.

[New Hennig]

Remember what happened to the insel subreddit when someone who posted on that committed a crime?

Exactly, these are the kinds of reasonable inferences we draw all the time in the wake of a tragedy or mass shooting. People are just pretending not to draw the inference here because they can't stand the idea that, hey, ANTIFA might be a domestic terrorist group that is radicalising lone-wolf attacks like Dayton and like other terrorist movements, it's wilful and deliberate blindness

How about we recognize the proud boys and Antifa as domestic terrorist groups? The both of them seem to have similar methods.

[New Hennig]

Then you're asking for excessive evidence to withhold from drawing a logical inference from the facts. The reality is this guy had a whole Twitter feed in which he repeatedly and consistently praised ANTIFA violence and terrorism, and committed a mass shooting, which looks to me like the makings of a lone wolf terrorist radicalised by ANTIFA's ideology. Maybe there's a tiny chance that isn't the case, but that possibility is miniscule at best.

Antifa’s ideology is quite literally: “Fascism bad.” Not exactly radical.

Actually, I figured it goes deeper than just anti-fascism. I’m a classical liberal which gives you an idea how I think about fascism, but antifa seems to hold the idea that anyone right of Mao is a “fascist”, which one include me.

[Kowani]

Antifa’s ideology is quite literally: “Fascism bad.” Not exactly radical.

Actually, I figured it goes deeper than just anti-fascism. I’m a classical liberal which gives you an idea how I think about fascism, but antifa seems to hold the idea that anyone right of Mao is a “fascist”, which one include me.

“Antifa” isn’t a group. It’s a catch-all for a lot of disparate groups that are united by their hatred of fascism.

[Purgatio]

Then you're asking for excessive evidence to withhold from drawing a logical inference from the facts. The reality is this guy had a whole Twitter feed in which he repeatedly and consistently praised ANTIFA violence and terrorism, and committed a mass shooting, which looks to me like the makings of a lone wolf terrorist radicalised by ANTIFA's ideology. Maybe there's a tiny chance that isn't the case, but that possibility is miniscule at best.

Antifa’s ideology is quite literally: “Fascism bad.” Not exactly radical.

....you know very well that's not the end of it. Otherwise all of us, except for a tiny few, would be members of ANTIFA.

ANTIFA goes further in actually advocating violence against persons they deem to be fascists. It's why they post things on Twitter like 'bash the fash' or why they started that whole 'punch a Nazi' debate online.

[Dresderstan]

Then you're asking for excessive evidence to withhold from drawing a logical inference from the facts. The reality is this guy had a whole Twitter feed in which he repeatedly and consistently praised ANTIFA violence and terrorism, and committed a mass shooting, which looks to me like the makings of a lone wolf terrorist radicalised by ANTIFA's ideology. Maybe there's a tiny chance that isn't the case, but that possibility is miniscule at best.

Antifa’s ideology is quite literally: “Fascism bad.” Not exactly radical.

Pretty sure there's more to it than that.

[New Hennig]

Actually, I figured it goes deeper than just anti-fascism. I’m a classical liberal which gives you an idea how I think about fascism, but antifa seems to hold the idea that anyone right of Mao is a “fascist”, which one include me.

“Antifa” isn’t a group. It’s a catch-all for a lot of disparate groups that are united by their hatred of fascism.

They are chapters and Facebook groups for local Antifa sympathizers. Plus, my point still stands that they consider people like myself “fascist”

[Kowani]

Antifa’s ideology is quite literally: “Fascism bad.” Not exactly radical.

....you know very well that's not the end of it. Otherwise all of us, except for a tiny few, would be members of ANTIFA.

ANTIFA goes further in actually advocating violence against persons they deem to be fascists. It's why they post things on Twitter like 'bash the fash' or why they started that whole 'punch a Nazi' debate online.

There are no “members of antifa” because Antifa isn’t an organization!

Antifa’s ideology is quite literally: “Fascism bad.” Not exactly radical.

Pretty sure there's more to it than that.

You can be sure, but it doesn’t make you right.

“Antifa” isn’t a group. It’s a catch-all for a lot of disparate groups that are united by their hatred of fascism.

They are chapters and Facebook groups for local Antifa sympathizers. Plus, my point still stands that they consider people like myself “fascist”

There are no chapters either-because Antifa isn’t a fucking organization!

[Dresderstan]

Pretty sure there's more to it than that.

You can be sure, but it doesn’t make you right.{/quote]
Same goes for you pot.

[Purgatio]

....you know very well that's not the end of it. Otherwise all of us, except for a tiny few, would be members of ANTIFA.

ANTIFA goes further in actually advocating violence against persons they deem to be fascists. It's why they post things on Twitter like 'bash the fash' or why they started that whole 'punch a Nazi' debate online.

There are no “members of antifa” because Antifa isn’t an organization!

I'm sure you've never said the words "KKK members" or "members of the KKK" before in your life, because the KKK also isn't a unified organisation, but there are individual organisations and groups and local chapters, same as ANTIFA.

"Members of ANTIFA" is simply shorthand for "members of ANTIFA local chapters, local organisations, and local groups organising their members to attend rallies under the ANTIFA banner", stop being semantic and address the underlying point.

[New Hennig]

....you know very well that's not the end of it. Otherwise all of us, except for a tiny few, would be members of ANTIFA.

ANTIFA goes further in actually advocating violence against persons they deem to be fascists. It's why they post things on Twitter like 'bash the fash' or why they started that whole 'punch a Nazi' debate online.

There are no “members of antifa” because Antifa isn’t an organization!

Pretty sure there's more to it than that.

You can be sure, but it doesn’t make you right.

They are chapters and Facebook groups for local Antifa sympathizers. Plus, my point still stands that they consider people like myself “fascist”

There are no chapters either-because Antifa isn’t a fucking organization!

Well, there are locally formed groups that identify as “Antifa”. And you fucking keep ignoring the fact that they practically call anyone that disagrees with their ideology( Anarcho-communism) and/or their tactics as “fascist “

[Necroghastia]

There are no “members of antifa” because Antifa isn’t an organization!


You can be sure, but it doesn’t make you right.


There are no chapters either-because Antifa isn’t a fucking organization!

Well, there are locally formed groups that identify as “Antifa”. And you fucking keep ignoring the fact that they practically call anyone that disagrees with their ideology( Anarcho-communism) and/or their tactics as “fascist “

I'm sure they do. Maybe some fringe people, but by and large?

[Kowani]

There are no “members of antifa” because Antifa isn’t an organization!

I'm sure you've never said the words "KKK members" or "members of the KKK" before in your life, because the KKK also isn't a unified organisation, but there are individual organisations and groups and local chapters, same as ANTIFA.

"Members of ANTIFA" is simply shorthand for "members of ANTIFA local chapters, local organisations, and local groups organising their members to attend rallies under the ANTIFA banner", stop being semantic and address the underlying point.

“The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups and individuals in the United States.”

Gee, that sounds the same advice the KKK-“The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group.”

See how one’s a movement and one’s a group?

[Telconi]

I'm sure you've never said the words "KKK members" or "members of the KKK" before in your life, because the KKK also isn't a unified organisation, but there are individual organisations and groups and local chapters, same as ANTIFA.

"Members of ANTIFA" is simply shorthand for "members of ANTIFA local chapters, local organisations, and local groups organising their members to attend rallies under the ANTIFA banner", stop being semantic and address the underlying point.

“The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups and individuals in the United States.”

Gee, that sounds the same advice the KKK-“The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group.”

See how one’s a movement and one’s a group?

Why is Antifa not a group?

[Purgatio]

I'm sure you've never said the words "KKK members" or "members of the KKK" before in your life, because the KKK also isn't a unified organisation, but there are individual organisations and groups and local chapters, same as ANTIFA.

"Members of ANTIFA" is simply shorthand for "members of ANTIFA local chapters, local organisations, and local groups organising their members to attend rallies under the ANTIFA banner", stop being semantic and address the underlying point.

“The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups and individuals in the United States.”

Gee, that sounds the same advice the KKK-“The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group.”

See how one’s a movement and one’s a group?

Still doesn't change the fact that the KKK is not an organisation (which was your original point), but you still understand perfectly what people mean when they say "KKK member". You just refuse to apply the same generous interpretation when people say "ANTIFA member".