Battle of Berkeley Proves Modern Left's Black Flag Movement Is Failing - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14798808
HongWu wrote:Here is the video.


I notice you get a worse visual angle, the video cuts off well before you could see what happens when she's on the ground, and it refers to her as, "moldylocks," which should be a tip off that it may not be on the level.

Regardless, even if we are to assume this is all true, again, he still at least gets real close to her while she's on the ground in a completely unnecessary way.

The other video seems to have her being assaulted on the ground.

But this is a lot of assumptions to be asked to be made and still end up with the guy punching (or at least physically threatening to do so) a girl that probably weighs 80 pounds while she's already on the ground.

Jakell wrote:Hopefully she will learn something from all this.


Rightwingers are such blubbering babies.

Can't we just all admit that this was an exculation by both sides with specific purposes instead of pretending that we believe that this white supremacist was just innocently walking around in the middle of a rightwing rally in Berkeley that was STUNNED when there was resistance to it? And that for this poor innocent victim, this scary woman came out of nowhere to attack him and he had no choice but to defend himself?

The Black Bloc is there to escalate, and they're usually open about that--as much as I find their specific tactics counterproductive (as are virtually all anarchist tactics). Can't we just admit that throwing a rightwing rally in Berkely was itself supposed to escalate? That a lot of the groups coming to support it were there to escalate?

Why do rightwingers insist on being seen as these pathetic victims all the time?
#14798813
The Immortal Goon wrote:I notice you get a worse visual angle, the video cuts off well before you could see what happens when she's on the ground, and it refers to her as, "moldylocks," which should be a tip off that it may not be on the level.

Regardless, even if we are to assume this is all true, again, he still at least gets real close to her while she's on the ground in a completely unnecessary way.

The other video seems to have her being assaulted on the ground.

But this is a lot of assumptions to be asked to be made and still end up with the guy punching (or at least physically threatening to do so) a girl that probably weighs 80 pounds while she's already on the ground.



Rightwingers are such blubbering babies.

Can't we just all admit that this was an exculation by both sides with specific purposes instead of pretending that we believe that this white supremacist was just innocently walking around in the middle of a rightwing rally in Berkeley that was STUNNED when there was resistance to it? And that for this poor innocent victim, this scary woman came out of nowhere to attack him and he had no choice but to defend himself?

The Black Bloc is there to escalate, and they're usually open about that--as much as I find their specific tactics counterproductive (as are virtually all anarchist tactics). Can't we just admit that throwing a rightwing rally in Berkely was itself supposed to escalate? That a lot of the groups coming to support it were there to escalate?

Why do rightwingers insist on being seen as these pathetic victims all the time?

Which other video? Thirdterm's video doesn't show this. It looks as if you just made up the argument that he hit her while she was on the ground. If you didn't imagine it, perhaps you could link the video.
#14798816
Hong Wu wrote:Which other video? Thirdterm's video doesn't show this. It looks as if you just made up the argument that he hit her while she was on the ground. If you didn't imagine it, perhaps you could link the video.


To be fair, TIG said that he 'followed through', not made a repeated attack. Following through though is what you do though when you are serious and don't think it's all theatre.
#14798817
And that for this poor innocent victim, this scary woman came out of nowhere to attack him and he had no choice but to defend himself?


I notice that he did not get all badass with the numerous large men standing around. This piece of shit is a typical coward-in-a-crowd. Besides. Real men do not beat up women for being stupid.


In the fray she looked like any other unisex dreadlocked antifa member. I'm pretty sure any 'soldier' would relate to what happens in a melee.


You have been playing too many video games. I was a soldier for 20 years. Soldiering is about controlled violence. Mistakes happen but this was no mistake. This was a dickless wonder picking on the least dangerous person around. Sadly he is typical of some of the Thugs who have emerged from the right these days. Old men carrying pistols in belly packs, skinheads with Bible versus on their colors and stunningly ignorant cucks who refer to anyone with a dark tan as a "goddam liberal".

Let me tell one and all what the most dangerous thing in the world is. It is a very smart person who is very pissed off. The far left is led by some extremely smart people. It is peopled by many very smart people. If they get angry enough I do not want to be around them when they decide what to do about it.

Dealing with the thugs and GI wannabee's on the right is easy enough. Dealing with smart, patient angry people is quite another thing.
#14798819
Drlee wrote:You have been playing too many video games. I was a soldier for 20 years. Soldiering is about controlled violence. Mistakes happen but this was no mistake. This was a dickless wonder picking on the least dangerous person around. Sadly he is typical of some of the Thugs who have emerged from the right these days. Old men carrying pistols in belly packs, skinheads with Bible versus on their colors and stunningly ignorant cucks who refer to anyone with a dark tan as a "goddam liberal".


I wouldn't assume that the smallest person is the 'least dangerous', possibly the opposite in fact.

Drlee wrote:Let me tell one and all what the most dangerous thing in the world is. It is a very smart person who is very pissed off. The far left is led by some extremely smart people. It is peopled by many very smart people. If they get angry enough I do not want to be around them when they decide what to do about it.

Dealing with the thugs and GI wannabee's on the right is easy enough. Dealing with smart, patient angry people is quite another thing.


I agree, it is pretty smart to garner a bunch of young impressionable useful idiots, ie antifa, and let them absorb all the emotional and physical knocks. They are sort of self-sustaining though and there's plenty more where they came from, so it's hard to say when these 'leaders' will make a decisive move, if they ever do.
Last edited by jakell on 20 Apr 2017 16:23, edited 2 times in total.
#14798821
Hong Wu wrote:There was no violence at the Auburn Antifa event because the police there didn't allow people to wear masks, so they didn't dare try anything. It's too bad that the Berkeley police are unlikely to emulate this common sense policy since the city is full of cucks who want someone else to stab people who disagree with them.


There was some violence.

https://genderidentitywatch.com/2017/04 ... ansen-usa/

Benjamin Lee Hansen, a man who identifies as a “trans femme,” was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for fighting (along with two other men) on April 18 following a speech by white nationalist Richard Spencer at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama.

Hansen, who also identifies as an antifascist, is seen on video bashing another man with a padlock, presumably over their differing political views.

This is male violence.

Image
#14798848
Thanks for the update @maz :) Apparently there was a professor (possibly, 4chan attempted a thorough doxxing) who brained someone at the same event where "Moldylocks" got punched for trying to bottle people.

I think I presumed that TIG meant he was hitting her because "following through" without actually hurting the other person more doesn't mean anything in this context. He was being pretty vague. The guy might have just stumbled forward on his own momentum or something since he wasn't pressing the attack after she was down.

Really this white knighting for someone who said she was going to other people's rally to hurt them and brought multiple illegal weapons is too much, I need a new hobby.
#14798853
Now those idiots have successfully blocked Coulter from a scheduled speech. I hate Coulter, but she has the right to speak. Stone walling people doesn't really help anyone, unless you want to live in an echo chamber because you know you are absolutely right. She said that she will speak from the city anyway, though.
#14798854
Hong Wu wrote:Thanks for the update @maz :) Apparently there was a professor (possibly, 4chan attempted a thorough doxxing) who brained someone at the same event where "Moldylocks" got punched for trying to bottle people.


At first I thought of this:



But this is no 'professor' but some faceless ninja sneaking up behind a crowd. It's very nasty and hard to identify at first - you can hear it though (at 15:00). It's another 'padlock attack' which can't be a complete coincidence even though they are different events, very likely a shared tactic using something that seems innocuous.

This is the sort of thing I meant when I said to Drlee about who may be the most dangerous, and it's not necessarily big strong confident people, but nasty sneaky little creeps waiting for their 'moment'.
Last edited by jakell on 20 Apr 2017 18:05, edited 1 time in total.
#14798855
Hong Wu wrote:Really this white knighting for someone who said she was going to other people's rally to hurt them and brought multiple illegal weapons is too much, I need a new hobby.


White knighting?

I have explicitly accepted all of the premises that you put forward in the argument. I even stated that she was there to escalate the situation. What I was arguing was that it seems pretty cowardly to me to try and make this guy into a victim of a 90lbs girl and try to deny that the right was also interested in escalating:

TIG wrote:Can't we just all admit that this was an exculation by both sides with specific purposes instead of pretending that we believe that this white supremacist was just innocently walking around in the middle of a rightwing rally in Berkeley that was STUNNED when there was resistance to it? And that for this poor innocent victim, this scary woman came out of nowhere to attack him and he had no choice but to defend himself?

The Black Bloc is there to escalate, and they're usually open about that--as much as I find their specific tactics counterproductive (as are virtually all anarchist tactics). Can't we just admit that throwing a rightwing rally in Berkely was itself supposed to escalate? That a lot of the groups coming to support it were there to escalate?

Why do rightwingers insist on being seen as these pathetic victims all the time?


I get accused of going to this argument too much, but it's because it keeps happening. Here I'm supposed to support the clearly absurd premise that, I guess, this white nationalist was minding his own business thinking this was going to be a peaceful Trump rally in Berkley. Then this rabid girl risks overpowering him, and he is forced to act against these people in what he hoped would be a peaceful hippy style protest full of flowers and good vibes.

Then, the evil media came along and distorted this poor innocent snowflake's good deeds and naiveté and tried to make him look like he was something other than a defenseless hippy.

And you, poor you. Here you were pointing out that this poor innocent man was in clear danger—confused at how there could be conflict at a Trump rally backed up by Montana militia in Berkley California—and the aggressive and irrational white knight comes in to point out that both sides were probably there to escalate. What a victim I have made of you! No wonder you, "need a new hobby!" What a difficult situation this must be for you.

The Black Bloc is open that they're there to escalate. Why the right needs to blubber about being victims is completely beyond me. And why anybody looks on that with some kind of pride doesn't sit well with my admittedly old fashioned view that you don't punch girls.
#14798857
Both sides most definitely came looking for a fight. I'm conflicted on this one.

The old fashioned part of me agrees that it is abhorrent to strike a woman - but then when the other part of me reads her posts about "collecting fascist scalps" and watches her wade into the melee with a glass bottle, my sympathy goes out the window. I believe this particular woman was firmly capable of enacting violence and had every intention of doing so - and if that is indeed the case, then she only has herself to blame for catching shit. Myself, I wouldn't have full-on punched her like that, and certainly wouldn't have laid into her once she was on the deck, but I think some form of action against her was justified.
#14799014
Myself, I wouldn't have full-on punched her like that, and certainly wouldn't have laid into her once she was on the deck, but I think some form of action against her was justified.


Nor would I. The action that should have been taken against her is for the cops to charge here with assault with a deadly weapon, menacing, or armed riot.

I'm still with TIG. Men don't beat up women. Even when it is easy. Even when they have an excuse.
#14799050
Drlee wrote:Nor would I. The action that should have been taken against her is for the cops to charge here with assault with a deadly weapon, menacing, or armed riot.

I'm still with TIG. Men don't beat up women. Even when it is easy. Even when they have an excuse.


How about dreadlocked crazies of indeterminate sex (c/w Lauren Southern for instance), are you suggesting that people pause and consider how their actions may be appear in hindsight to unknown people? This could also apply to the black clad ninjas who can only be assessed by their voices (I've heard a few attempts to interview them, and several of them are female)
I know that general consideration of actions is a good idea, but your own estimations here have been solely on size and sex, not actual threat level.

The 'padlocking' video is a good example of how this threat level is not an easy assessment. Anyone regardless of age, sex, size, physical ability,and mental state can carry out such an indiscriminate and extremely nasty attack in the space of a few seconds and then slip away.
#14799094
MistyTiger wrote:Did anyone mention that UC Berkley cancelled Ann Coulter's visit to the campus? Well she calls it cancelled while UC says it's been postponed. But same difference, right?

I would not want to see that kind of person at my college either. Good for them for forbidding her to speak there. :)


Really? Why should she not speak there (or anywhere else for that matter)?

Berkeley have very likely canceled her because of the violence and property damage that is, by now, fairly predictable and I can't really blame them for putting this before free speech concerns, it's only a matter of time before a very serious injury or even death occurs, the padlock guy could have come off a lot worse and that looked like a pretty serious impact.
#14799097
Drlee wrote:Nor would I. The action that should have been taken against her is for the cops to charge here with assault with a deadly weapon, menacing, or armed riot.

I'm still with TIG. Men don't beat up women. Even when it is easy. Even when they have an excuse.


Will you stop that paternalizing sexist crap? We have equality now, so if you go out to stir up shit, bear the consequences, regardless of your vagina. :roll:
#14799105
Frollein wrote:Will you stop that paternalizing sexist crap? We have equality now, so if you go out to stir up shit, bear the consequences, regardless of your vagina.


Seeing as how this was largely an out-of-state attempt by the right to have a pro-Trump rally in one of the more famously left-leaning areas of the country, would you be willing to admit that Nathan Damigo (the white supremacist felon that punched the girl) should bear the consequences of his actions, regardless of vagina or not—or is this another in a long line of the right portraying themselves as blubbering victims?

Because I still wouldn't hit a girl. But I'm hardly portraying her as some innocent bystander in this thing, nor is she. She and the rest of the Black Bloc were pretty open about their intentions. It seems to be only the right that is whining endlessly about what special snowflake victims they are, and how they deserve special treatment for the terror they were subjected to, and on and on and on and I can't imagine why you'd want to identify with so many insufferable losers and cry-babies.
#14799107
Frollein wrote:Will you stop that paternalizing sexist crap? We have equality now, so if you go out to stir up shit, bear the consequences, regardless of your vagina. :roll:


I don't think it's quite that bad. Drlee's comments are relevent, but don't really apply here because the ground has shifted so much, I mean we have men and women looking (and acting) pretty much the same and there are Transgender folks too who reckon these labels mean nothing any more. Anyone see the big guy in the red dress? (I think it was a man but might be wrong)

Here's a female perspective that is coming from a similar place as Drlee's (ie traditional gender realities), but is not sentimentally old-fashioned either
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

You can't be right just because you say you are, a[…]

These days we hear mainly how the European far rig[…]

"There is a diversity of sources that provide[…]

With due respect he was intimately involved in th[…]