Settle down Strawhattermadhatter wrote:seems DHS also concurs w the bold...7. Antifa conflates speech with violence, believing that “offensive” rhetoric, “hate” speech, and micro-aggressions should be counteracted with macro-aggressions, or physical violence. Internalizing the social justice warrior (SJW) gospel, Antifa has come to believe that speech itself is tantamount to physical assault. As a result, Antifa deploys violent tactics to shut down speech they don’t like. We saw that vividly in Berkeley.
“In the name of fighting for those ideals — and putting a stop to ‘hate speech’—some antifa protestors will employ militant tactics or violent means such as vandalism,” explains Time.
Antifa’s tactics aren’t just violent but counterproductive to their poorly-articulated goals.
“It just makes [antifa] feel good — they think they made a point,” Mark Pitcavage, a domestic political extremism researcher with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), tells Politico. “But their tactics are counterproductive. They haven’t made any dent over the years with those tactics. … And it gives the white supremacists an unbelievable amount of publicity.”
Couldn't be further from the truth buddy. I am never for violence other than self defense. I think of Antifa much the same that I think of White Supremacists or any other extremist groups. Yes, shout down hatred. Yes, work to educate and extinguish racism. No to physically assaulting those who hold those extremist views unless they are causing physical harm to others and need to be jailed.
What you often criticize me for, "the good hate", you and many conservatives have yourself towards extremist Muslims and it's completely justified. I agree with it.
Fact is that the majority of the counter protesters to the Unite the Right rally were residents of that city who didn't want white supremacists marching down their streets with torches spewing hate with many of them dressed in military garb while holding shields and high powered rifles. There was zero peaceful motive behind Unite the Right. It was all done in hate and as such, people responded in kind.
How the hell do think Rutland would respond to a bunch of Muslims marching down main street with torches, towels on their heads, AK47s on their waist and screaming hatred towards Christians like the Alt Right folks were doing towards Jews in Charlottesville this weekend? You don't think there would be a mass resistance to that extremism out of fear and wanting to protect their community? You think everyone would be like, "that's cool Ibrahim, America bro, 1st Amendment got your back."
Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg[/youtube]
Would you demand the same level of tolerance on the basis of the first Amendment if extremist Muslims were pulling the same crap? Even if it were only a couple hundred of them while the vast majority of Americans were playing soccer and eating ice cream thinking no big deal like that initial zerohedge piece you shared?
It would be totally cool right?
I mean, you are all for the Muslim nation ban right? Clearly that's a form of trying to shut out that kind of extremism from American society. But, Charlottesville should have just stood pat and let the White Supremacists do their thing right?
It all boils down to this Hatter. There is a good hate, a limit to our tolerance of the intolerant. You have it just as much as I do.
But keep screaming 1st Amendment freedom about Richard Spencer and those losers. Lord knows if his name was Mohammed, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;