That AntiFa rioter that attacked people with a bike lock..

[Teddy Lop]

El stovey said:

Teddy Lop said:

El stovey said:

Again that’s not true either. On here we see loads of examples of decent people unwilling to denounce right wing thugs.

so what? I haven't observed it happening to the same degree but don't dispute ie as frankly its not relevent to this and a whataboutism diverson.

It’s relevant when I’m replying to someone saying the liberal left are less willing to denounce extremists than moderate right wingers.

for the sake of not diverting the thread on a side issue, lets agree they're just as bad then.

Do you feel this now changes or excuses the lefts pardoning of antifa?

[anonymous-user]

Mothersruin said:

Probably, but I don't see advocates of the hard right sitting on the government's side of the HoC. I see advocates of the hard left on the front row of the opposition's side.

That’s because the conservative government are fairly centrist and Corbyn isn’t.

The liberal left aren’t represented by Corbyn and McDonnell. Those two are hard left or far left wing.

The liberal left are the labour MPs and parliamentary Labour Party and moderate labour supporters that keep trying to get rid of Corbyn and hate the anti Semitism and the Marxism that labour has now become linked to.

[booboise blueboys]

Number of deaths caused by far right extremists over the last decade: 313

Number of deaths caused by Antifa: 0

Centrists: "OMG THEY'RE JUST AS BAD AS EACH OTHER!!!!1!1"

[Aphex]

Surely no one deserves to have their head smashed in for a disagreement.

To be fair though, hes really making the most of it

[Teddy Lop]

Aphex said:

Surely no one deserves to have their head smashed in for a disagreement.

To be fair though, hes really making the most of it

to be fair, if you had your head smashed in by people the bulk of the mainstream news are painting as various strains of non-threatening/ cheeky hero's you'd want to make the most of it no?



Mind you, when you look at acceptance of che guevara as a cult hero maybe I shouldn't be suprised

[irocfan]

booboise blueboys said:

Number of deaths caused by far right extremists over the last decade: 313

Number of deaths caused by Antifa: 0

Centrists: "OMG THEY'RE JUST AS BAD AS EACH OTHER!!!!1!1"

Lets wind that back by 100 years... I'm also fairly sure that leftists in Central and South America are responsible for quite a few fatalities

[booboise blueboys]

irocfan said:

booboise blueboys said:

Number of deaths caused by far right extremists over the last decade: 313

Number of deaths caused by Antifa: 0

Centrists: "OMG THEY'RE JUST AS BAD AS EACH OTHER!!!!1!1"

Lets wind that back by 100 years... I'm also fairly sure that leftists in Central and South America are responsible for quite a few fatalities

I'm talking about here and now, in this country. Though if you want to go down that route, almost 100 years ago Britain were the antifascists liberating Europe, taking in Jewish refugees.

The far right at it again I see, beating up elderly people.

https://twitter.com/JLRFB/status/11551083622809845...

Edited by booboise blueboys on Saturday 27th July 17:54

[anonymous-user]

booboise blueboys said:

irocfan said:

booboise blueboys said:

Number of deaths caused by far right extremists over the last decade: 313

Number of deaths caused by Antifa: 0

Centrists: "OMG THEY'RE JUST AS BAD AS EACH OTHER!!!!1!1"

Lets wind that back by 100 years... I'm also fairly sure that leftists in Central and South America are responsible for quite a few fatalities

I'm talking about here and now, in this country. Though if you want to go down that route, almost 100 years ago Britain were the antifascists liberating Europe, taking in Jewish refugees.

The far right at it again I see, beating up elderly people.

https://twitter.com/JLRFB/status/11551083622809845...

Edited by booboise blueboys on Saturday 27th July 17:54

This is a silly debate tbh.

It always ends up with assuming the nazis were right wingers and we have to add up whether they killed more that preachy lefty liberals like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot

[anonymous-user]

El stovey said:

This is a silly debate tbh.

It always ends up with assuming the nazis were right wingers and we have to add up whether they killed more that preachy lefty liberals like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot

We all know Mao did more good than harm...

[valiant]

El stovey said:

This is a silly debate tbh.

It always ends up with assuming the nazis were right wingers and we have to add up whether they killed more that preachy lefty liberals like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot

Unlike a recent thread where some were convinced Hitler was left wing!

[irocfan]

booboise blueboys said:

I'm talking about here and now, in this country. Though if you want to go down that route, almost 100 years ago Britain were the antifascists liberating Europe, taking in Jewish refugees.

The far right at it again I see, beating up elderly people.

https://twitter.com/JLRFB/status/11551083622809845...

Edited by booboise blueboys on Saturday 27th July 17:54

and because you're obviously hard of thinking - what they did is abhorrent. Right thug, left wing thug, apolitical thug? wkers the lot. The extremists of all flavours are tossers

[Randy Winkman]

El stovey said:

booboise blueboys said:

irocfan said:

booboise blueboys said:

Number of deaths caused by far right extremists over the last decade: 313

Number of deaths caused by Antifa: 0

Centrists: "OMG THEY'RE JUST AS BAD AS EACH OTHER!!!!1!1"

Lets wind that back by 100 years... I'm also fairly sure that leftists in Central and South America are responsible for quite a few fatalities

I'm talking about here and now, in this country. Though if you want to go down that route, almost 100 years ago Britain were the antifascists liberating Europe, taking in Jewish refugees.

The far right at it again I see, beating up elderly people.

https://twitter.com/JLRFB/status/11551083622809845...

Edited by booboise blueboys on Saturday 27th July 17:54

This is a silly debate tbh.

It always ends up with assuming the nazis were right wingers and we have to add up whether they killed more that preachy lefty liberals like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot

I don't think it is a silly debate. There's a thread on PH about how intolerant left-wingers are like we're all supposed to join in and agree with the opening poster. And lots of PHers do join in and agree; the threads been going for ages. But it's all guff about people on Facebook and what someone's dinner party guest said to them. In the real world today it's extreme right wing nutters who go on gun rampages or drive cars into people and kill them. There are far fewer instances of left-wingers doing that. So it's a good point for debate because Isaac Hunt started a thread on the issue 4 years ago and it's still going.

[Countdown]

wsurfa said:

El stovey said:

This is a silly debate tbh.

It always ends up with assuming the nazis were right wingers and we have to add up whether they killed more that preachy lefty liberals like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot

We all know Mao did more good than harm...

It might be that I'm wrong but I always saw Mao, Stalin et al as fascist, totalitarian regimes and therefore "right wing" rather than "left-wing".

[booboise blueboys]

Randy Winkman said:

I don't think it is a silly debate. There's a thread on PH about how intolerant left-wingers are like we're all supposed to join in and agree with the opening poster. And lots of PHers do join in and agree; the threads been going for ages. But it's all guff about people on Facebook and what someone's dinner party guest said to them. In the real world today it's extreme right wing nutters who go on gun rampages or drive cars into people and kill them. There are far fewer instances of left-wingers doing that. So it's a good point for debate because Isaac Hunt started a thread on the issue 4 years ago and it's still going.

It's the age we live in I think. Some people work themselves up into imagining alternative realities and before you know it's considered fact.

[Escapegoat]

booboise blueboys said:

It's the age we live in I think. Some people work themselves up into imagining alternative realities and before you know it's considered fact.

Um... isn't that just what you did when you said "he had it coming"?

[NoVetec]

Countdown said:

wsurfa said:

El stovey said:

This is a silly debate tbh.

It always ends up with assuming the nazis were right wingers and we have to add up whether they killed more that preachy lefty liberals like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot

We all know Mao did more good than harm...

It might be that I'm wrong but I always saw Mao, Stalin et al as fascist, totalitarian regimes and therefore "right wing" rather than "left-wing".

Hard right socially and hard left economically overall I'd say, with some differences in theory and practice when each facet is broken down bit by bit. Same as the Nazis.

Certainly all authoritarian jebends.

[wc98]

Countdown said:

What's a "bit right"? Having had bad things happen to your parents doesn't give you the right to act like a twunt. If you read through the Wiki article it's not just the Far Left he seems to have issues with, it's liberals in general. Combined with the fact that he seems to be a Breitbart fanboi also suggests that he's more than a "bit right".

Having said all that being a "bit right"/far-right doesn't mean you should get punched in the mouth. But, generally speaking, "acting like a twunt" increases the risks of it happening.

what in the wiki article (would be interesting to know the background of those that wrote/edited it) suggests he has acted as a twunt ? he appears to have political views i don't agree with and keeps company with people i wouldn't, but he is a journo. in this day and age young journalists have a lot of competition and appear to be out to create as well as report news. none of that justifies the kicking he got by a bunch of masked up fannies that couldn't fight sleep (i saw the video of his attack), he is built like "twa ply reek" and looks like he would have a struggle getting a bag of crisps open never mind defending himself.

utterly shameful behaviour by those that attacked him, and all because he has a different political outlook and reports on their bullying, thuggish, pack behaviour.

[rscott]

Teddy Lop said:

As this seems to be the most recent post discussing antifa, this seems appropriate.

What do we make of how Andy Ngo has been treated?

Andy Ngo is a journalist beaten up by antifa thugs, left with brain haemorrhages affecting long term health. Much of the press seem to be glossing it over, or twisting it to blame "right wingers", or even blaming Andy himself.

Discussed On Rogan #1323 and other outlets.

To me somethings always smelt off regarding how the protests/riots/ what have you have been reported the last few years, and Andy hits the nail on the head - the established press in their post-trumps victory hangover are giving antifa thugs a free pass and mis reporting everything as being the fault of the right wing. (Anything but introspection hey.) Even to the point of Andy Ngo - a gay immigrant journalist beaten by thugs for doing his job is being victim-blamed by the "liberal", oh the irony.

I also think that Joe Rogans (mentioned a few times) bit about the danger that when the right-leaning people watch their tv's and internet and see other right-leaning people being not only attacked, but their attackers being excused and the narrative being to blame the right-wing by mealy mouthed excusers, that you risk waking the real nazis. And you won't enjoy that when it happens.

Yet he was discharged from hospital within a few hours of the attack, despite standard procedure being to keep anyone with that sort of head injury in under observation for 24 hours.

[Teddy Lop]

Randy Winkman said:

I don't think it is a silly debate. There's a thread on PH about how intolerant left-wingers are like we're all supposed to join in and agree with the opening poster. And lots of PHers do join in and agree; the threads been going for ages. But it's all guff about people on Facebook and what someone's dinner party guest said to them. In the real world today it's extreme right wing nutters who go on gun rampages or drive cars into people and kill them. There are far fewer instances of left-wingers doing that. So it's a good point for debate because Isaac Hunt started a thread on the issue 4 years ago and it's still going.

but "what about those right wingers over there" is a stupid road to go down, and leads directly to the excusing of the thugs being highlighted here, dont get me wrong the loner nutjob gunmen is a terrible and an important issue, but its a different thing and about as relevant to this example of organised violence with a clear political agenda as the evil capitalists at Boeing killing a bunch of people recently with a shonky plane design.

If liberal is your value set then uphold it, get your house in order, how do you expect to win people over with such flagrant hypocrisy? The left markets itself as the "nice" guys yet excuse thugs turning up to turn a stupid demonstration that most of us would just roll our eyes at into a violent conflict - then wonder why people find the likes of trump a more seemingly honest option?

[andy_s]

NoVetec said:

Countdown said:

wsurfa said:

El stovey said:

This is a silly debate tbh.

It always ends up with assuming the nazis were right wingers and we have to add up whether they killed more that preachy lefty liberals like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot

We all know Mao did more good than harm...

It might be that I'm wrong but I always saw Mao, Stalin et al as fascist, totalitarian regimes and therefore "right wing" rather than "left-wing".

Hard right socially and hard left economically overall I'd say, with some differences in theory and practice when each facet is broken down bit by bit. Same as the Nazis.

Certainly all authoritarian jebends.

Orwell, the go-to man on this sort of thing, was a socialist (democratic) and his 1984/Animal Farm were criticisms of authoritarianism rather than socialism per se, and indeed directed to the left as a warning about going too far.

I think that the classification of left or right is of increasingly diminished value the more to the extremes you go; we have seen that both are capable of the same thing (tyranny), and the side of the spectrum you are on is almost an aside when other factors are taken into consideration - Eric Hoffa wrote a good book in the fifties on the subject of mass movements that showed that sociological and societal factrors were the main mechanisms rather than a particular ideology in and of itself. The 'politic' is the bull fighters flag, it isn't the bull fighter.

As Solzhenitsyn wrote: "Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes.... That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations... Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago".