One of the things you mentioned, protests, isn't a problem and by law the people have a right to protest. The majority of the protests have indeed been peaceful. This brings me to another point, ANTIFA is an ideology, a statement you and I have both agreed with. So individuals who identify as ANTIFA, are not members of a group but are individuals espousing a belief in an ideology.
Pro-Life is also an Ideology. Do you think every pro-lifer spends their time outside of abortion clinics shouting profanities at employees and scared women seeking abortions? I'm Pro-Life, but I don't do that. I also identify as ANTIFA (Now don't rush to judge or throw the baby out with the bathwater because what I have to say is monumentally important and it would benefit you and everyone on all sides of all ideological debates to hear it) but I am not out Looting or burning or assaulting anyone and even if Trump wins a second term, I still probably won't be doing any of that. I'm human and I've been angry at times and when we get angry we think of doing stupid things, sometimes we do those stupid things to different degrees. I wouldn't judge you in the slightest if you told me that the thought hadn't crossed your mind to go out and assault people you see protesting. We all have those kinds of thoughts from time to time, especially about the things that mean a lot to us.
Why is this? Because the modal quality of my ANTIFA ideology and my Pro-life Ideology are personal and based on my individuality, just like ANTIFA who are out on the streets looting and burning, and the ones PEACEFULLY protesting... Or, like you. In the last few messages to me you have expressed ANTIFA ideology, yet you're not out looting and burning either. Instead you are having a collaborative, open, equal, equitable and honest conversation on the internet with people who disagree with you. On a philosophy forum no less. You might say that the Modal quality of our ANTIFA beliefs are like a super hard Titanium alloy, while the looters and burners are but lithium, a soft metal. — MSC
but I am not out Looting or burning or assaulting anyone and even if Trump wins a second term, I still probably won't be doing any of that. I'm human and I've been angry at times and when we get angry we think of doing stupid things, sometimes we do those stupid things to different degrees. I wouldn't judge you in the slightest if you told me that the thought hadn't crossed your mind to go out and assault people you see protesting. We all have those kinds of thoughts from time to time, especially about the things that mean a lot to us.
Instead you are having a collaborative, open, equal, equitable and honest conversation on the internet with people who disagree with you. On a philosophy forum no less. You might say that the Modal quality of our ANTIFA beliefs are like a super hard Titanium alloy, while the looters and burners are but lithium, a soft metal. — MSC
I've already answered what I thought about Ngo being hit. It's in my previous post.
My problem with your comments was, that you claim multiple journalists were assaulted by Antifa. I haven't seen one example of it and the one you did give is a bad example for various reasons. Meanwhile, there was a lot of footage of journalists being assaulted by police in the beginning of the BLM protests. — Benkei
With real partisan talking points; once you scratch the surface most of it turns out to be untrue. Andy Ngo does not deserve to milk this situation and he certainly shouldn't be lying about his injuries. The guy that hit him should be fined. The rest is just milkshakes and spaghetti spray which a provocateur and probable criminal like Ngo deserved. — Benkei
Your identification of people being clad in black being part of Antifa is problematic because likely to be wrong. — Benkei
While it's true that some lone wolfs may identify as Antifa, it is not the case that Antifa falls within either category the FBI is really worried about. — Benkei
You said that it was criminal which is not the same thing as saying that it was wrong. Do you think it was wrong and that it shouldn't have happened?
For multiple journalists you've got Ngo and I said the "colored conservatives" which is a small youtube channel of conservative journalists/reporters. Those are a few I can name off the top of my head but I'm sure there's more. Antifa also routinely shouts down and tries to shut down conservative speakers on college campuses so it really should be no surprise that they've got an anti-conservative journalist bent. I'm sure there are more journalists who have faced assaults or threats; it fits with their view of "fighting fascism."
We're not talking about the police either and I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. The police doing bad things doesn't justify groups in opposition to the police also doing bad things. — BitconnectCarlos
Have you seen the medical reports on Andy Ngo? How do you know that he's lying about injuries? I've seen interviews with him and his speech definitely seems off and likely indicates some form of brain or face damage. I don't know how you can immediately conclude that he's lying. I don't even know how Rolling Stones can conclude it unless they've seen the medical reports. There were actually two separate assaults on Andy Ngo, according to Andy Ngo, but then we go down this rabbit hole of you probably not believing Andy Ngo and etc. etc.
If you look on the video though there were numerous men who attacked him with fists and hit him with objects. You can't dispute that. I feel like we should move on from this point because it's not too important to our central discussion. — BitconnectCarlos
Once the diagnosis is confirmed, admission to an intensive care unit may be preferable, — Wikipedia
I never said everyone clad in black is antifa, but some % of them are likely to be. The truth is we're just dealing with uncertainty and this makes plenty of people uncomfortable. I'm happy to extend the definition/our conception of antifa to militant far-left groups in general, here in the states we just mostly refer to that group or groups as "antifa." Would you be more satisfied if we referred to them as far left militants? There's also quite a bit of documentary footage and literature out there about these groups. I think the umbrella term used here is just the "antifascist movement." They consider themselves warriors, fighters. — BitconnectCarlos
Antifa isn't destabilizing the government anytime soon. I've never claimed them to be a massive threat to US national security. And yes, like you've said earlier they're often difficult to identify and we can doubt whether random people dressed in black and assaulting others are antifa - but whether we like it or not that's the clothing we've come to associate them with. It could be some other far left group, who knows. The crips and the bloods and other gangs have their own dress codes and we could see people in these dress codes committing crimes but we'll never know for certain whether it's them until much later after they've been arrested and interrogated. I don't think antifa's violence is a real security threat to the US, but the way they go after conservative speakers and try to shut down discourse is disconcerting. — BitconnectCarlos
You fill American’s heads with fear and nonsense about being killed by police for their skin color, when they are clearly being killed for resisting arrest. — NOS4A2
What are you saying!!? Do you think resisting arrest is sufficient reason to be killed?
There is a wide variety of reasons why an individual will resist arrest, starting with the situation when one perceives oneself to be innocent, and the arrest to be unjust. In no way does resisting arrest warrant being killed, irrespective of how stupid it may be.
Do you think resisting arrest is sufficient reason to be killed? — Metaphysician Undercover
I am saying resisting arrest is wrong, illegal, dangerous and stupid. Had resisting arrest not occurred people would be alive today. — NOS4A2
I believe antifa is both an ideology and a group, but not a centralized group as far as I can tell. It seems to be organized more on a regional/local basis. If we're going strictly by ideology then in the original sense of the word I'd consider myself an antifascist (as any decent person should be) - my issue is that the antifa of, say, the 1930s is not the same as the antifa of 2017-2020.
I think we need to be really careful in regard to whether we refer to it as an ideology or a group. My criticism is really geared towards the group - the (mostly) men who clad themselves in black and assault journalists and burn down stores and harass business owners. There's been many, many incidences where this has been documented. — BitconnectCarlos
Sure, I don't think anyone is to blame for their thoughts. You can certainly be blameworthy if you actually execute on those thoughts/fantasies though. To be perfectly honest, I've never fantasized about hurting the protesters though. I don't see anything wrong with protesting. I'm not mad at the protesters, but if you look at the facts of the destruction I think it's been pretty widespread. I know it's happened all across the country and now parts of my home city of Boston (entire blocks, many, many stores) have been destroyed. I don't even fantasize about hurting the rioters I just wish they would stop or maybe that there would be a stronger police response. — BitconnectCarlos
literature has been written on the group -- and they're not a democratic movement that supports open, free discussions. They very routinely shout down and try to shut down conservative speakers on college campuses. I honestly don't think the movement believes in free speech. They believe in de-platforming and not allowing conservative speakers to express their ideas because anything outside of their little box is labeled "fascist." I know you might just consider me
paranoid conservative, but I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the group a little, not just the philosophy. — BitconnectCarlos
I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil
Resisting arrest, assaulting the officer, going for his gun, chasing him with a knife, shooting at him—all are ways to increase your chance of being shot by police. — NOS4A2
In the absence of a confession, the only evidence you have of their thoughts is propaganda or projection. — NOS4A2
Yes, your position is that trained professionals are actually baby brained individuals that require such immense coddling that we should consider it acceptable if they unload on a civilian if they are resisting arrest, regardless of how that manifests itself, and regardless of their mental state and capacity. Hope you don't startle a cop yourself!
Senate GOP have released their findings in the Hunter Biden probe... — NOS4A2
That is a commonly held false belief. Evidence of an individual's thoughts are patterns of their behaviour. Habits of thought directly influence how one acts during certain situations. Look no further than your child mind king of the playground. His racist belief system is put on clear display anytime and every time we look at a timeline of his own behaviour regarding racially relevant events.
With regard to whether or not individual police and law enforcement officers are acting based upon the color of one's skin, we need look no further than the patterns of police behaviour towards blacks, and actually policies and practices of departments across the land.
They most certainly do.
...the use of excessive force is routinely investigated and punished. — NOS4A2
Another mind reader. — NOS4A2
Please. Support your claims here.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.