Antifa and the KKK

[Mac1958]

Yet another predictable behavior similarity I'm seeing between the two "sides" of the spectrum is the way the Lefties here are now going out of their way to pretend they are not aligned in any way with Antifa.

Is it not obvious that, when you constantly attack and insult and mock people, when you communicate virtually all the time in cartoonish hyperbole (You're Hitler! Your side are Nazis!), when you absolutely refuse to publicly have a normal, adult conversation with someone who dares to disagree with you, when you expose yourself to people and "news" that only agree with your political agenda, that you and your "side" are going to create, nurture and enable crazy people who take things too fucking far?

Is this not blatantly obvious?

The ends of the spectrum are effectively aligned with the dangerous, destructive crazies, because they CREATED and ENABLED them.
.

Either the dems saw the polling on the wall or they think anti-fa is gearing up for something so big and destructive that they are getting their ducks in a row now before it happens.

I think they just see how radicalized Antifa is and don't want to be associated with it.

Like a Republican staying clear of David Duke.
.

It doesn't matter how clear you try to stay of him, progressives will try to make the link until the end of time.

But that goes back to my original point: We give the crazies cover when we constantly attack the other "side" as viciously as we possibly can.

If we'd act like decent adults, the crazies would be far more marginalized.
.

Then you have to determine who is a "crazy". There is of course the natural bias where people think their views are "mainstream" and most of the people on the other side are "the crazies". It helps your own argument to marginalize the other side to the maximum degree.

To some on this board I am one of the "crazies". The one thing I don't do is think my views are "mainstream" which to me is an amorphous blob of a term.

Sure, everything exists on a continuum. I still maintain that the partisans on both ends represent a minority of the country (hence my sig), but I can't back it up empirically.

But there are clearly people who have zero (0) interest in giving an inch in the most fundamental conversations, and I'd begin there when pointing out who the problem is.
.

 

[martybegan]

Either the dems saw the polling on the wall or they think anti-fa is gearing up for something so big and destructive that they are getting their ducks in a row now before it happens.

I think they just see how radicalized Antifa is and don't want to be associated with it.

Like a Republican staying clear of David Duke.
.

It doesn't matter how clear you try to stay of him, progressives will try to make the link until the end of time.

But that goes back to my original point: We give the crazies cover when we constantly attack the other "side" as viciously as we possibly can.

If we'd act like decent adults, the crazies would be far more marginalized.
.

Then you have to determine who is a "crazy". There is of course the natural bias where people think their views are "mainstream" and most of the people on the other side are "the crazies". It helps your own argument to marginalize the other side to the maximum degree.

To some on this board I am one of the "crazies". The one thing I don't do is think my views are "mainstream" which to me is an amorphous blob of a term.

Sure, everything exists on a continuum. I still maintain that the partisans on both ends represent a minority of the country (hence my sig), but I can't back it up empirically.

But there are clearly people who have zero (0) interest in giving an inch in the most fundamental conversations, and I'd begin there when pointing out who the problem is.
.

The problem is that on some topics an inch can't be given because either one side has so dominated the topic, or the two sides are mutually exclusive.

How can someone in NYC compromise on 2nd amendment rights when just to get a freaking home use handgun permit for a revolver requires 3-6 months of waiting time and around $500 in fees? That is obvious infringement, but gun control people see this as the "gold standard" for gun control measures (short of outright bans). This is an example of where one side has "won" the fight.

On the side of mutual exclusivity you have the battle between federalism and federal supremacy. In this case both sides cannot "win" without the other side losing.

 

[Mac1958]

I think they just see how radicalized Antifa is and don't want to be associated with it.

Like a Republican staying clear of David Duke.
.

It doesn't matter how clear you try to stay of him, progressives will try to make the link until the end of time.

But that goes back to my original point: We give the crazies cover when we constantly attack the other "side" as viciously as we possibly can.

If we'd act like decent adults, the crazies would be far more marginalized.
.

Then you have to determine who is a "crazy". There is of course the natural bias where people think their views are "mainstream" and most of the people on the other side are "the crazies". It helps your own argument to marginalize the other side to the maximum degree.

To some on this board I am one of the "crazies". The one thing I don't do is think my views are "mainstream" which to me is an amorphous blob of a term.

Sure, everything exists on a continuum. I still maintain that the partisans on both ends represent a minority of the country (hence my sig), but I can't back it up empirically.

But there are clearly people who have zero (0) interest in giving an inch in the most fundamental conversations, and I'd begin there when pointing out who the problem is.
.

The problem is that on some topics an inch can't be given because either one side has so dominated the topic, or the two sides are mutually exclusive.

How can someone in NYC compromise on 2nd amendment rights when just to get a freaking home use handgun permit for a revolver requires 3-6 months of waiting time and around $500 in fees? That is obvious infringement, but gun control people see this as the "gold standard" for gun control measures (short of outright bans). This is an example of where one side has "won" the fight.

On the side of mutual exclusivity you have the battle between federalism and federal supremacy. In this case both sides cannot "win" without the other side losing.

Step One might be to at least get to a point we can honestly understand and appreciate the other argument.

One of my kids took a debate class in high school, and one of her assignments was to prepare and participate in two debates on the same topic: One for, and one against. I was thrilled to see it, I helped her put it together, and she really got it, she really saw that there are two reasonable arguments to any debate.

That might be a start. How many partisans could do that, right now?
.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How do you have a "normal, adult" conversation with someone who thinks their race is superior to another?

Your implication that this board consists of nothing but white supremacists is absurd.

1. Put known idiots on ignore.
2. If it is why are you here?

 

[Correll]

Yet another predictable behavior similarity I'm seeing between the two "sides" of the spectrum is the way the Lefties here are now going out of their way to pretend they are not aligned in any way with Antifa.

Is it not obvious that, when you constantly attack and insult and mock people, when you communicate virtually all the time in cartoonish hyperbole (You're Hitler! Your side are Nazis!), when you absolutely refuse to publicly have a normal, adult conversation with someone who dares to disagree with you, when you expose yourself to people and "news" that only agree with your political agenda, that you and your "side" are going to create, nurture and enable crazy people who take things too fucking far?

Is this not blatantly obvious?

The ends of the spectrum are effectively aligned with the dangerous, destructive crazies, because they CREATED and ENABLED them.
.

So you are saying that the president was right when he said 'both sides' are to blame for the violence...?!

I've never said he was wrong about that. What I've said it was that it was completely tone-deaf and inappropriate for him to address it like that, and that it made him an easy mark. He could have chosen to put it differently, but he doesn't seem to mind making himself an easy mark.
.

And he is right to not live his life worrying about how what he says will be deliberately misinterpreted by the vile media.

Well sure, but no one can complain when they do what we know they're going to do.

The worse he is, the worse they'll be. If that's good with him, then great.
.

They are the ones lying, why would we not be able to complaint about their vile lies and smears?

 

[Correll]

It doesn't matter how clear you try to stay of him, progressives will try to make the link until the end of time.

But that goes back to my original point: We give the crazies cover when we constantly attack the other "side" as viciously as we possibly can.

If we'd act like decent adults, the crazies would be far more marginalized.
.

Then you have to determine who is a "crazy". There is of course the natural bias where people think their views are "mainstream" and most of the people on the other side are "the crazies". It helps your own argument to marginalize the other side to the maximum degree.

To some on this board I am one of the "crazies". The one thing I don't do is think my views are "mainstream" which to me is an amorphous blob of a term.

Sure, everything exists on a continuum. I still maintain that the partisans on both ends represent a minority of the country (hence my sig), but I can't back it up empirically.

But there are clearly people who have zero (0) interest in giving an inch in the most fundamental conversations, and I'd begin there when pointing out who the problem is.
.

The problem is that on some topics an inch can't be given because either one side has so dominated the topic, or the two sides are mutually exclusive.

How can someone in NYC compromise on 2nd amendment rights when just to get a freaking home use handgun permit for a revolver requires 3-6 months of waiting time and around $500 in fees? That is obvious infringement, but gun control people see this as the "gold standard" for gun control measures (short of outright bans). This is an example of where one side has "won" the fight.

On the side of mutual exclusivity you have the battle between federalism and federal supremacy. In this case both sides cannot "win" without the other side losing.

Step One might be to at least get to a point we can honestly understand and appreciate the other argument.

One of my kids took a debate class in high school, and one of her assignments was to prepare and participate in two debates on the same topic: One for, and one against. I was thrilled to see it, I helped her put it together, and she really got it, she really saw that there are two reasonable arguments to any debate.

That might be a start. How many partisans could do that, right now?
.

I could do it.

Mmm, we could do that right on this board, if you wanted...

 

[Mac1958]

Yet another predictable behavior similarity I'm seeing between the two "sides" of the spectrum is the way the Lefties here are now going out of their way to pretend they are not aligned in any way with Antifa.

Is it not obvious that, when you constantly attack and insult and mock people, when you communicate virtually all the time in cartoonish hyperbole (You're Hitler! Your side are Nazis!), when you absolutely refuse to publicly have a normal, adult conversation with someone who dares to disagree with you, when you expose yourself to people and "news" that only agree with your political agenda, that you and your "side" are going to create, nurture and enable crazy people who take things too fucking far?

Is this not blatantly obvious?

The ends of the spectrum are effectively aligned with the dangerous, destructive crazies, because they CREATED and ENABLED them.
.

So you are saying that the president was right when he said 'both sides' are to blame for the violence...?!

I've never said he was wrong about that. What I've said it was that it was completely tone-deaf and inappropriate for him to address it like that, and that it made him an easy mark. He could have chosen to put it differently, but he doesn't seem to mind making himself an easy mark.
.

And he is right to not live his life worrying about how what he says will be deliberately misinterpreted by the vile media.

Well sure, but no one can complain when they do what we know they're going to do.

The worse he is, the worse they'll be. If that's good with him, then great.
.

They are the ones lying, why would we not be able to complaint about their vile lies and smears?

Well, that's up to you. The point is, he's celebrated by his supporters for the way he behaves. The way he behaves makes him an easy target.

You have to take the good with the bad.
.

 

[Mac1958]

But that goes back to my original point: We give the crazies cover when we constantly attack the other "side" as viciously as we possibly can.

If we'd act like decent adults, the crazies would be far more marginalized.
.

Then you have to determine who is a "crazy". There is of course the natural bias where people think their views are "mainstream" and most of the people on the other side are "the crazies". It helps your own argument to marginalize the other side to the maximum degree.

To some on this board I am one of the "crazies". The one thing I don't do is think my views are "mainstream" which to me is an amorphous blob of a term.

Sure, everything exists on a continuum. I still maintain that the partisans on both ends represent a minority of the country (hence my sig), but I can't back it up empirically.

But there are clearly people who have zero (0) interest in giving an inch in the most fundamental conversations, and I'd begin there when pointing out who the problem is.
.

The problem is that on some topics an inch can't be given because either one side has so dominated the topic, or the two sides are mutually exclusive.

How can someone in NYC compromise on 2nd amendment rights when just to get a freaking home use handgun permit for a revolver requires 3-6 months of waiting time and around $500 in fees? That is obvious infringement, but gun control people see this as the "gold standard" for gun control measures (short of outright bans). This is an example of where one side has "won" the fight.

On the side of mutual exclusivity you have the battle between federalism and federal supremacy. In this case both sides cannot "win" without the other side losing.

Step One might be to at least get to a point we can honestly understand and appreciate the other argument.

One of my kids took a debate class in high school, and one of her assignments was to prepare and participate in two debates on the same topic: One for, and one against. I was thrilled to see it, I helped her put it together, and she really got it, she really saw that there are two reasonable arguments to any debate.

That might be a start. How many partisans could do that, right now?
.

I could do it.

Mmm, we could do that right on this board, if you wanted...

Y'know, I thought about starting a thread like that. I'm sure some would only pretend to be arguing for the other side and make it look as dumb as possible.
.

 

[The Original Tree]

Yet another predictable behavior similarity I'm seeing between the two "sides" of the spectrum is the way the Lefties here are now going out of their way to pretend they are not aligned in any way with Antifa.

Is it not obvious that, when you constantly attack and insult and mock people, when you communicate virtually all the time in cartoonish hyperbole (You're Hitler! Your side are Nazis!), when you absolutely refuse to publicly have a normal, adult conversation with someone who dares to disagree with you, when you expose yourself to people and "news" that only agree with your political agenda, that you and your "side" are going to create, nurture and enable crazy people who take things too fucking far?

Is this not blatantly obvious?

The ends of the spectrum are effectively aligned with the dangerous, destructive crazies, because they CREATED and ENABLED them.
.

• ANTIFA & THE KKK both were born out of Nazi Germany.
• Both are Totalitarian
• ANTIFA is Communist while Nazis are Fascists
• Both Identify with and support The Democrat Party, believe in Large Central Government Controls on Society
• Both are agitators and propagandists

Calling someone a Nazi is just a way to cowardly avoid debate.

The Truth is, there are no REAL NAZIS in the US.

The Nazis were a heavy handed political party in Germany that believed in Fascism and were Opposed to Democracy, and this is why they launched a Soft Coup based on Violence and Intimidation against The Democratic Wiemar Republic until they overwhelmed it and illegitimately took power using The Wiemar Republic's own Democracy & their own courts against them.

There is no such party or government sanctioned group in The US with it's own Army, Navy and Governmental Structure. Groups like this in fact make up only 0.003% of the population, yet The Left, and The Press would have you believe there is a Nazi behind every bush, and roving armies of them raping looting and pillaging all over the country to scare black folk.

ANTIFA, totalitarian itself, competed with The Nazis for supremacy in Germany. They were Marxist-Communists and remain so today. They adopted many of the tactics of The Nazis, but The Nazis had more momentum, and more numbers on their side & in the end when the Nazis had completed a successful soft coup in The Democratic Wiemar Republic, they outlawed ANTIFA in Germany.

ANTIFA and Nazis are a Sibling Rivalry with identical goals but drastically different visions on how to implement them.

Both are opposed to Individual Rights, Individual Liberties, Personal Responsibility, and both are Diametrically Opposed to American Culture.

Sadly, The Democrat Party, is The Womb that gave birth to both of these groups in THE US, and Sadly they willingly use them when they are convenient, and deny they are Their Mother when they aren't useful.

The Democrat Party takes the position of a Knocked Up Whore who uses her illegitimate children to commit crimes for her, while proclaiming them fatherless and motherless bastards when they are caught committing their wicked deeds, never taking responsibility for the way they raised their child, nor acknowledging their own motherhood, and always asking the rest of America to clean up their messes.

 

[Correll]

So you are saying that the president was right when he said 'both sides' are to blame for the violence...?!

I've never said he was wrong about that. What I've said it was that it was completely tone-deaf and inappropriate for him to address it like that, and that it made him an easy mark. He could have chosen to put it differently, but he doesn't seem to mind making himself an easy mark.
.

And he is right to not live his life worrying about how what he says will be deliberately misinterpreted by the vile media.

Well sure, but no one can complain when they do what we know they're going to do.

The worse he is, the worse they'll be. If that's good with him, then great.
.

They are the ones lying, why would we not be able to complaint about their vile lies and smears?

Well, that's up to you. The point is, he's celebrated by his supporters for the way he behaves. The way he behaves makes him an easy target.

You have to take the good with the bad.
.

You still blaming the target of the lies for the lies.


This is right up there with , she asked for it by wearing that short skirt.


Lesser degree, same game.

 

[Correll]

Then you have to determine who is a "crazy". There is of course the natural bias where people think their views are "mainstream" and most of the people on the other side are "the crazies". It helps your own argument to marginalize the other side to the maximum degree.

To some on this board I am one of the "crazies". The one thing I don't do is think my views are "mainstream" which to me is an amorphous blob of a term.

Sure, everything exists on a continuum. I still maintain that the partisans on both ends represent a minority of the country (hence my sig), but I can't back it up empirically.

But there are clearly people who have zero (0) interest in giving an inch in the most fundamental conversations, and I'd begin there when pointing out who the problem is.
.

The problem is that on some topics an inch can't be given because either one side has so dominated the topic, or the two sides are mutually exclusive.

How can someone in NYC compromise on 2nd amendment rights when just to get a freaking home use handgun permit for a revolver requires 3-6 months of waiting time and around $500 in fees? That is obvious infringement, but gun control people see this as the "gold standard" for gun control measures (short of outright bans). This is an example of where one side has "won" the fight.

On the side of mutual exclusivity you have the battle between federalism and federal supremacy. In this case both sides cannot "win" without the other side losing.

Step One might be to at least get to a point we can honestly understand and appreciate the other argument.

One of my kids took a debate class in high school, and one of her assignments was to prepare and participate in two debates on the same topic: One for, and one against. I was thrilled to see it, I helped her put it together, and she really got it, she really saw that there are two reasonable arguments to any debate.

That might be a start. How many partisans could do that, right now?
.

I could do it.

Mmm, we could do that right on this board, if you wanted...

Y'know, I thought about starting a thread like that. I'm sure some would only pretend to be arguing for the other side and make it look as dumb as possible.
.

Then all they would prove was that they could NOT do it.

 

[Mac1958]

I've never said he was wrong about that. What I've said it was that it was completely tone-deaf and inappropriate for him to address it like that, and that it made him an easy mark. He could have chosen to put it differently, but he doesn't seem to mind making himself an easy mark.
.

And he is right to not live his life worrying about how what he says will be deliberately misinterpreted by the vile media.

Well sure, but no one can complain when they do what we know they're going to do.

The worse he is, the worse they'll be. If that's good with him, then great.
.

They are the ones lying, why would we not be able to complaint about their vile lies and smears?

Well, that's up to you. The point is, he's celebrated by his supporters for the way he behaves. The way he behaves makes him an easy target.

You have to take the good with the bad.
.

You still blaming the target of the lies for the lies.


This is right up there with , she asked for it by wearing that short skirt.


Lesser degree, same game.

I'm not blaming anyone. I know that Trump's behaviors make him an easy target. I know the press is biased against him. I'm just looking at reality.

What are you expecting?
.

 

[Correll]

And he is right to not live his life worrying about how what he says will be deliberately misinterpreted by the vile media.

Well sure, but no one can complain when they do what we know they're going to do.

The worse he is, the worse they'll be. If that's good with him, then great.
.

They are the ones lying, why would we not be able to complaint about their vile lies and smears?

Well, that's up to you. The point is, he's celebrated by his supporters for the way he behaves. The way he behaves makes him an easy target.

You have to take the good with the bad.
.

You still blaming the target of the lies for the lies.


This is right up there with , she asked for it by wearing that short skirt.


Lesser degree, same game.

I'm not blaming anyone. I know that Trump's behaviors make him an easy target. I know the press is biased against him. I'm just looking at reality.

What are you expecting?
.

I'm expecting the constant Media propaganda to drown this last chance of saving America.

 

[Norman]

How do you have a "normal, adult" conversation with someone who thinks their race is superior to another?

I suppose you could start by researching the science. Different races excel at different things, a fact. Just look at NBA, not many Asians there... and in a similar fashion, not many blacks in tech.

It sounds like you have a problem with natural diversity to be honest. It's difficult to have a conversation with someone who is that close minded... even to call anyone who disagrees a Nazi.

 

[SeaGal]

Yep. I go back and forth between thinking there is no coming back from this, to thinking maybe we'll finally reach a point at which the backlash will begin.

50/50 right now.
.

We seem to have an affinity for approaching the brink of disaster, then collectively regaining our senses, cooler heads prevail and we pull back. I find it hard to believe that cooler heads won't prevail this time too...and I realize much of the hyperbole and demagoguery expressed on this board is not representative of the majority of the country. But, when I hear the same hyperbole and demagoguery coming from elected officials and establishment journalists - it's worrisome.

If a cooler head were to say 'both sides are to blame, both sides need to curtail the violence' - how would that be received, I wonder?

 

[Lovebears65]

Yet another predictable behavior similarity I'm seeing between the two "sides" of the spectrum is the way the Lefties here are now going out of their way to pretend they are not aligned in any way with Antifa.

Is it not obvious that, when you constantly attack and insult and mock people, when you communicate virtually all the time in cartoonish hyperbole (You're Hitler! Your side are Nazis!), when you absolutely refuse to publicly have a normal, adult conversation with someone who dares to disagree with you, when you expose yourself to people and "news" that only agree with your political agenda, that you and your "side" are going to create, nurture and enable crazy people who take things too fucking far?

Is this not blatantly obvious?

The ends of the spectrum are effectively aligned with the dangerous, destructive crazies, because they CREATED and ENABLED them.
.

So you are saying that the president was right when he said 'both sides' are to blame for the violence...?!

He was right.. Antifa was there , BLM was there both there and attacked the other side who had a permit to be there to protest and they were protesting peacefully until the agitators came. They came and were violent too. If you dont think ANTIFA is a Terrorist group there is a problem with your brain.. . What KKK and the white supremacist did was awful but if the other groups did not show up and start crap this would not have happened to begin with , would it..

 

[Mac1958]

.

I realize much of the hyperbole and demagoguery expressed on this board is not representative of the majority of the country.

My concern is that, and this is just anecdotal, more and more people in "real life" I'm speaking to are prone to the behavior. Seeing that happen a few times is what made me begin to worry.

But, when I hear the same hyperbole and demagoguery coming from elected officials and establishment journalists - it's worrisome.

Yeah, that's where everything gets exacerbated, because they're normalizing and essentially legitimizing the behavior.
.

 

[Mac1958]

How do you have a "normal, adult" conversation with someone who thinks their race is superior to another?

/----/ Ahhh the first straw man argument of the day. How cute.
View attachment 147005

That's a straw man? How?
.

 

[PredFan]

How do you have a "normal, adult" conversation with someone who thinks their race is superior to another?

You don't know how to do that? It isn't hard at all.

 

[Cellblock2429]

How do you have a "normal, adult" conversation with someone who thinks their race is superior to another?

/----/ Ahhh the first straw man argument of the day. How cute.
View attachment 147005

That's a straw man? How?
.

/----/ Apparently I misunderstood your post. Sorry about that Chief.