Antifa and the KKK

[JoeB131]

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

No, no, you see, Mac is all about "balance", doncha know?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

again, Trump has embraced the Nazis...
the left is not endorsing Antifa tactics.

Although I'm sure there's an Antifa protestor hiding right under your bed next to the scary Muslims and the PC Policeman...

 

[iceberg]

You're right. Crazies to the left of me, crazies to the right of me...evil doers on the fringes.

Hatred has gone mainstream...a turn of events I've not seen in my lifetime. When high profile public figures refer to nearly half the population of the country as the 'enemy', or 'deplorable', or desirous of putting black folk 'back in chains', or wanting old folks to die...and the establishment media carelessly (deliberately?) throw out terms like 'racists, extremists, right wingers, fascists,' when speaking of or writing about folks who don't share their ideology ...the crazies feel their hatred is acceptable and their violence is righteous.

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.
.

it's coming back. much of it is a mindset people get caught up in. "groupthink" and that's what makes what is happening easy enough to pull off, given the right conditions. anti-fa is all about taking the bullied kids and giving them a purpose and tell them it's for freedoms the bullies have taken away. while i don't think they were ever seen as serious, at least now they are seen as the joke they are.

progress.

the groupthink is changing if for no other reason than that's simply what it does in time. people get tired of something and move on. but given it *is* a mindset it will take us all changing our own mindset and tuning out the asswhipes causing the problems. or at least realizing they *are* the minority.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

You're right. Crazies to the left of me, crazies to the right of me...evil doers on the fringes.

Hatred has gone mainstream...a turn of events I've not seen in my lifetime. When high profile public figures refer to nearly half the population of the country as the 'enemy', or 'deplorable', or desirous of putting black folk 'back in chains', or wanting old folks to die...and the establishment media carelessly (deliberately?) throw out terms like 'racists, extremists, right wingers, fascists,' when speaking of or writing about folks who don't share their ideology ...the crazies feel their hatred is acceptable and their violence is righteous.

what makes me smile is more and more people are seeing it and backing away. the 80% of us caught in the middle of all this crap are starting to remember it didn't used to be this way and it doesn't need to be like this now.

But that 20% are doing everything possible to make sure it stays this way.

 

[iceberg]

You're right. Crazies to the left of me, crazies to the right of me...evil doers on the fringes.

Hatred has gone mainstream...a turn of events I've not seen in my lifetime. When high profile public figures refer to nearly half the population of the country as the 'enemy', or 'deplorable', or desirous of putting black folk 'back in chains', or wanting old folks to die...and the establishment media carelessly (deliberately?) throw out terms like 'racists, extremists, right wingers, fascists,' when speaking of or writing about folks who don't share their ideology ...the crazies feel their hatred is acceptable and their violence is righteous.

what makes me smile is more and more people are seeing it and backing away. the 80% of us caught in the middle of all this crap are starting to remember it didn't used to be this way and it doesn't need to be like this now.

But that 20% are doing everything possible to make sure it stays this way.

yep. that's what they do by definition. but for some reason we "normalized" that 10% on either side, but ONLY FOR the *other* side. kinda like setting traps for each other and we both get caught in them still fighting til we realize the only way out is together.

without them.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

No, no, you see, Mac is all about "balance", doncha know?

Mac is more balanced than you will ever be.

 

[Pop23]

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

I don't consider my race any more superior then yours. But it's obvious you do.

 

[Pop23]

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.
.

Honestly, I've seen most on the right attack the KKK and white supremacists as well as Antifa, but few on the left denouncing Antifa.

Just sayin.

 

[Crixus]

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

You don't because that hash has been settled over and over again. Notice no Japanese empire? You do know they killed thousands to for pretty much the exact same reason as the Nazi right? Ask a Jap what they think of Koreans. Thing is, normal people don't think like ANTIFA and the white Power crowd. Normal folks do not like anarchist. Honestly, until the news made them famous again, when was the last time you heard of any white power group? Never. ANTIFA and the KKK came out because Russia investigation is going nowhere and impeachment of the Donald ain't going to happen. That's why the race hate.

 

[martybegan]

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?
.

Devil's advocate is a great teaching tool for debating.

I can often understand progressive arguments, I just think they are idiotic.

 

[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?
.

Devil's advocate is a great teaching tool for debating.

I can often understand progressive arguments, I just think they are idiotic.

Well, understanding them is a start.
.

 

[Seawytch]

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

How do you have a normal conversation with someone who thinks the proper response to not baking a cake is a $150,000 fine?

And the prize for false equivalence (and misrepresenting the fine) goes to Marty!!!

 

[Mac1958]

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

No, no, you see, Mac is all about "balance", doncha know?

Mac is more balanced than you will ever be.

Ol' Joe doesn't understand the difference between "balance" (a term I've never used to describe myself or my positions) and (a sincere attempt at) dispassionate reason, which can land me on either "side" depending on the situation.

He also claims I brag about how liberal I am. (?)

Just two of a thousand or so distortions he's created in his mind about me, which is why I've given up trying to communicate with him.

It was never my intention to get up in his head like this, but it is what it is. It's, at once, flattering and creepy.
.

 

[martybegan]

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

How do you have a normal conversation with someone who thinks the proper response to not baking a cake is a $150,000 fine?

And the prize for false equivalence (and misrepresenting the fine) goes to Marty!!!

No its basically the same concept, and how am I misrepresenting the fine?

 

[SeaGal]

.
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..

Anecdotal has high value in my eyes. Personal observations, daily experiences. Whatever happened to civil disagreement?...or patriotic dissent? It was all the rage during the Bush years, then morphed into "racism" during the Obama years.

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

Exactly.

At some point, beyond condemnation of both sides, we have to stand against the current crop of groups who use violence to suppress free expression...no matter how 'righteous' their 'cause' may be...and to remember that demagoguery in the public square should never be mistaken for a rational argument. That particular evil needs to be looked in the eye and called by its name.

 

[Mac1958]

.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..

Anecdotal has high value in my eyes. Personal observations, daily experiences. Whatever happened to civil disagreement?...or patriotic dissent? It was all the rage during the Bush years, then morphed into "racism" during the Obama years.

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

Exactly. At some point, beyond condemnation of both sides, we have to stand against the current crop of groups who use violence to suppress free expression...no matter how 'righteous' their 'cause' may be...and to remember that demagoguery in the public square should never be mistaken for a rational argument. That particular evil needs to be looked in the eye and called by its name.

I've always had a fascination (I have no idea why) with the psychology of partisanship, and its behaviors. To make a VERY long story short, I'm convinced that adherence to a partisan ideology literally distorts both perceptions and thought processes - in other words, such a condition allows us to talk ourselves into damn near anything, justifying damn near anything.

Further, I think that such a condition and intelligence are mutually exclusive, i.e., that a perfectly intelligent person can be afflicted, and turned into someone who simply isn't thinking clearly on political or politicized topics. I haven't yet cracked the code on how to effectively communicate with these folks, but I do have minor successes here and there - not necessarily in changing a mind, but just getting a normal conversation. That's enough, considering.
.

 

[Pete7469]

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

I've done it. English. Patience. Calm. Listen to them. I'm not obliged to agree, but I do want to understand.
.

How many people have you EVER spoken to came out and claimed to be superior because of their race?

I think in my entire adult life I've met 2.

They were idiots of course, but still not stupid enough to deny they were socialists. They certainly didn't want entitlements paid to anyone but whites either.

What I can not do is have a conversation with bed wetters who call libertarians "nazi" and parrot inane drivel about what they assume I believe even after I tell them I oppose everything the national socialist workers party promoted, and continue to oppose the same sort of nanny state policies promoted by regressives. As stupid as those skin head assholes were, they're not as deliberately ignorant as a moonbat.

 

[Mac1958]

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

I've done it. English. Patience. Calm. Listen to them. I'm not obliged to agree, but I do want to understand.
.

How many people have you EVER spoken to came out and claimed to be superior because of their race?

I think in my entire adult life I've met 2.

They were idiots of course, but still not stupid enough to deny they were socialists. They certainly didn't want entitlements paid to anyone but whites either.

What I can not do is have a conversation with bed wetters who call libertarians "nazi" and parrot inane drivel about what they assume I believe even after I tell them I oppose everything the national socialist workers party promoted, and continue to oppose the same sort of nanny state policies promoted by regressives. As stupid as those skin head assholes were, they're not as deliberately ignorant as a moonbat.

"Claimed to be superior because of their race"? I dunno, maybe a few. The far larger amount would be those who speak in demeaning ways about minorities, and I've seen that many times.

Since I'm of mixed race myself, since my family is, I take the term "racism" pretty seriously, and I don't throw it around and dilute like the Regressives love to. I'm serious with it. Disagreeing with Obama does not make you a racist, as much as many want to claim. But demeaning someone because of the ethnic group to which they belong is, it is a de facto inference of superiority, and I've seen plenty of that.
.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

No, no, you see, Mac is all about "balance", doncha know?

Mac is more balanced than you will ever be.

Ol' Joe doesn't understand the difference between "balance" (a term I've never used to describe myself or my positions) and (a sincere attempt at) dispassionate reason, which can land me on either "side" depending on the situation.

He also claims I brag about how liberal I am. (?)

Just two of a thousand or so distortions he's created in his mind about me, which is why I've given up trying to communicate with him.

It was never my intention to get up in his head like this, but it is what it is. It's, at once, flattering and creepy.
.

You may be all up in his head and shit...

But...

He's got the notion you got in his head by way of his anal cavity...

That, I think, is the problem.

 

[Pete7469]

"Claimed to be superior because of their race"? I dunno, maybe a few. The far larger amount would be those who speak in demeaning ways about minorities, and I've seen that many times.

Since I'm of mixed race myself, since my family is, I take the term "racism" pretty seriously, and I don't throw it around and dilute like the Regressives love to. I'm serious with it. Disagreeing with Obama does not make you a racist, as much as many want to claim. But demeaning someone because of the ethnic group to which they belong is, it is a de facto inference of superiority, and I've seen plenty of that.
.

My family is "mixed". I only see one race however. I don't view people as different species.

I do think people get a little fucking sensitive about ethnic jokes, we should be able to make fun of each other. You are aware that in other countries they pick on "gringos" right? I even understand not liking other cultures, but to HATE them and view yourself as superior? That's a special sort of stupid and it makes you an inferior human.