On the use of violence against those peacefully expressing views with which one disagrees.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Antifa almost never comes into contact with white supremacists. There simply aren't very man of them about. 

Right. So the guy living next door to me,  spouting Right Supremacy rhetoric, calling us race traitors, threatening my neighbors implicitly and explicitly, physically attacking my partner and a pregnant woman, using his vehicle to run a "race traitor" council member and his friends who "accidentally" did hit two people - the very same people this  asshole WS had already threatened  - with his car - are "so rare in Canada".  

As the article from ADL says, violence by antifa is counter productive, but the violence from extremist right-wing groups is more prevalent and has killed or injured more people than left wing or antifa.  To deny this is to deny reality.

 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Right. So the guy living next door to me,  spouting Right Supremacy rhetoric, calling us race traitors, threatening my neighbors implicitly and explicitly, physically attacking my partner and a pregnant woman, using his vehicle to run a "race traitor" council member and his friends who "accidentally" did hit two people - the very same people this  asshole WS had already threatened  - with his car - are "so rare in Canada".  

As the article from ADL says, violence by antifa is counter productive, but the violence from extremist right-wing groups is more prevalent and has killed or injured more people than left wing or antifa.  To deny this is to deny reality.

 

They are rare. Statistics trump anecdotes, you feeling they are more prevalent than they are, because one lives right next door, does not line up with the facts.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They are rare. Statistics trump anecdotes, you feeling they are more prevalent than they are, because one lives right next door, does not line up with the facts.

Yup I agree.  At the same time "statistics" tell us that they are increasing across the States and Canada.

If I can say "antifa exists and should not engage in violence", why can't right wingers on this thread say "right-wing extremists exist and should not engage in violence" instead of claiming they don't really exist?

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Oh, well no then.  I personally put the bar at actual violence.  

So I can show up with a placard saying 'I am going to kill you'?

[Yzermandius19]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yup I agree.  At the same time "statistics" tell us that they are increasing across the States and Canada.

If I can say "antifa exists and should not engage in violence", why can't right wingers on this thread say "right-wing extremists exist and should not engage in violence" instead of claiming they don't really exist?

Well that's because they are broadening the definition to include non white supremacists in with the white supremacists, that certainly explains the minimal level of growth that I'm seeing. The boy who cried racist is all it is, the media is making a mountain out of molehill, that even if it is slightly increasing in size and it's not all fake racist lumped in with the real ones, is still not a big issue in the grand scheme of things. Don't let the amount of media coverage fool you, they are inflating the problem ad nauseam.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[dialamah]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Well that's because they are broadening the definition to include non white supremacists in with the white supremacists. The boy who cried racist is all it is.

I can't recall any time that right wingers around here have ever unconditionally denounced right wing terrorism.  Yet they demand that every member of every other group that has extremists must denounce that violence.  So hypocritical.  

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So I can show up with a placard saying 'I am going to kill you'?

If you did, you could be charged with threatening behaviour.  Nowhere have I ever said you could threaten me.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I can't recall any time that right wingers around here have ever unconditionally denounced right wing terrorism.  Yet they demand that every member of every other group that has extremists must denounce that violence.  So hypocritical.  

Actual right wing terrorism, I denounce, but not unconditionally, same with left wing terrorism. No double standard.

People who are not right wing terrorists, being treated like right wing terrorists, I also denounce.

People be throwing these labels around willy nilly, and lumping people into categories they don't belong.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

If you did, you could be charged with threatening behaviour.  Nowhere have I ever said you could threaten me.

So if you are Jewish then I can't fly a swastika then?

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

So if you are Jewish then I can't fly a swastika then?

Yes you could.  When I earlier said I drew the line at actual violence, that would include a threat to kill.  A swastika is not a threat to kill. 

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes you could.  When I earlier said I drew the line at actual violence, that would include a threat to kill.  A swastika is not a threat to kill. 

Doesn't context matter too?  If someone flies a swastika in India, it may be seen as a symbol of good luck and prosperity, in Isreal an overt statement of an intent/desire to exterminate Jews.  In the West, our understanding of the swastika is closer to Isreal's context than India's.  I don't see how it's any less of a threat,  to Jews especially, than saying "I want to kill Jews".

Edited August 18, 2019 by dialamah

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Doesn't context matter too?  If someone flies a swastika in India, it may be seen as a symbol of good luck and prosperity, in Isreal an overt statement of an intent/desire to exterminate Jews.  In the West, our understanding of the swastika is closer to Isreal's context than India's.  I don't see how it's any less of a threat,  to Jews especially, than saying "I want to kill Jews".

You don't see how a symbol is less of a threat than inciting to violence? That's sad.

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You don't see how a symbol is less of a threat than inciting to violence? That's sad.

Would it be acceptable to bring an ISIS flag to a rally?

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You don't see how a symbol is less of a threat than inciting to violence? That's sad.

Even if the symbol incites violence, that in of itself is not an existential threat, this is the greatness of America, that they will assume the risk as the price of freedom.

What is sad is Canadians cowering under their beds in fear of the light of civilization itself.

[Argus]

Here is an example of what some here are both trying to excuse and justify from the demo on Portland the other day. Now try to guess which group are the noble defenders of society and which are the Nazis.

 

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1162830760815947776

Edited August 18, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

Part of American Exceptionalism is the resilience of freedom.

They can take a licking and keep on ticking, where regimes like Canada behind their iron curtains are as brittle as glass and live in fear of the slightest bit of boat rocking.

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Doesn't context matter too?  If someone flies a swastika in India, it may be seen as a symbol of good luck and prosperity, in Isreal an overt statement of an intent/desire to exterminate Jews.  In the West, our understanding of the swastika is closer to Isreal's context than India's.  I don't see how it's any less of a threat,  to Jews especially, than saying "I want to kill Jews".

And yet Jewish lawyers fought for the right for them to fly it, for the right of Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods. They understood that if a freedom wasn't for all, if it could be restricted on the basis of political beliefs, then it was like a roof with a hole in it.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Would it be acceptable to bring an ISIS flag to a rally?

Legally, yes. Same with a Nazi flag. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

this is the greatness of America, that they will assume the risk as the price of freedom.

Canada scores higher than US for freedom, at 99 vs. 86.  States has been giving up freedom for security since 9/11.

Link.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Legally, yes. Same with a Nazi flag. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal.

So ISIS and Nazi ideology should be freely disseminated in society?  Is that your opinion?  

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So ISIS and Nazi ideology should be freely disseminated in society?  Is that your opinion?  

Counter their ideology with a better one, freedom of speech. You shouldn't get to ban ideologies you don't like, that's not freedom. No wonder you think Canada is freer than America.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Right. So the guy living next door to me,  spouting Right Supremacy rhetoric, calling us race traitors, threatening my neighbors implicitly and explicitly, physically attacking my partner and a pregnant woman, using his vehicle to run a "race traitor" council member and his friends who "accidentally" did hit two people - the very same people this  asshole WS had already threatened  - with his car - are "so rare in Canada".  

Extremely rare, and ought to be in jail, if what you say is true.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

As the article from ADL says, violence by antifa is counter productive, but the violence from extremist right-wing groups is more prevalent and has killed or injured more people than left wing or antifa.  To deny this is to deny reality.

Bullshit. The far right is a wild collection of idiots, but fairly disorganized. Many of them are poorly educated and violent. What we used to call white trash, back in the day. They do tend to commit violence - all kinds of violence, but mostly in their personal lives. They hurt girlfriends and other relatives and friends, people at bars, police, store clerks they're robbing, etc. All of this gets lumped in as 'extremist right wing violence". But very little of it is political. Also, no one lumps the non-political violence of the Left in as 'left wing violence".

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Canada scores higher than US for freedom, at 99 vs. 86.  States has been giving up freedom for security since 9/11.

Link.

Hence why there is a flight to quality to Canada which makes Canada the destination of choice for all the power and money in the world rendering Canada into the global hegemon,

If you're going to go to fantasy land, might as well go all the way.
 

 

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Counter their ideology with a better one, freedom of speech. You shouldn't get to ban ideologies you don't like, that's not freedom.

Indeed - freedom of speech to campaign for the destruction of Jews and non-Muslims.  I think ISIS and neo-Nazis could support that wholeheartedly.

I don't entirely disagree that limiting the expression of ideas is a slippery slope to start down.  On the other hand, we've also seen that people are not equipped to examine ideas critically.   Flat-earthers, anti-vaccers and religious people are proof.  

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Indeed - freedom of speech to campaign for the destruction of Jews and non-Muslims.  I think ISIS and neo-Nazis could support that wholeheartedly.

I don't entirely disagree that limiting the expression of ideas is a slippery slope to start down.  On the other hand, we've also seen that people are not equipped to examine ideas critically.   Flat-earthers, anti-vaccers and religious people are proof.  

Incitement to violence is already illegal, don't need to ban Nazi and ISIS flags to do that.
/shrugs