[mikema63]

That you consider splc to not be credible is... Telling.

[maz]

That you decided to reply so fast without even an attempt to corroborate your source, as if the SPLC hasn't ignored all other hate and violence... Telling.

SPLC is only barely more credible than Snopes.

No worries though, I'll wait for you to find another outlet that backs up SPLC data.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since the SPLC is not a credible source, what other source can you post to corroborate the SPLC's questionable data?

I just clicked on their map and randomly chose Montana, where they say that the American Freedom Party is a hate group.

How does pro-America and pro-freedom equal hate? What are the SPLC's standards for judging hate?

From the website of the American Freedom Party:
http://theamericanfreedomparty.us/dear- ... americans/

White Americans should push back! Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!

Please note the references to white and European Americans.

Edit:

The AFP is run by William Johnson.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Daniel_Johnson

[mikema63]

Oh well if it's as bad as Snopes!

Apparently our resident conspiracy theorist Nazi sympathizer doesn't like sites that call out hate groups or that do fact checking.

[SpecialOlympian]

Excuse me but I don't consider the SPLC legitimate. Their silence on pizzagate speaks volumes.

[maz]

From the website of the American Freedom Party:
http://theamericanfreedomparty.us/dear- ... americans/

White Americans should push back! Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!

Please note the references to white and European Americans.

How is that any different that other groups wanting to preserve their heritage?

Alexandria Society for the Preservation of Black Heritage

ASPBH continues its mission to identify, preserve and educate the overall Alexandria community if it’s illustrious black heritage. We support our mission by:

Preserving, collections and promoting the early history and impressive contributions of the black community of Alexandria

Please note the references to African Americans, not declared a hate group and not on the SPLC hate map.

Asian & Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation

East at Main Street: National APIA History Mapping Project
National APIA Historic Preservation Forum

​​​​​​​Asian & Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation (APIAHiP) is a national network of preservationists, historians, planners, and advocates focused on historic and cultural preservation in Asian & Pacific Islander American communities.​​​​

Please note the references to Asian & Pacific Islander American communities, not declared a hate group and not on the SPLC hate map. And also it's a big fucking joke to claim that Asians and Pacific Islanders are one monolithic group. Asians are comprised of at least a dozen groups, and Hawaiians are some of the most racist people on the planet, both to blacks whites, and anyone not pure blood Hawaiian, and there are hardcore separatist groups on the Island.

By the way, here is one definition for "preservation."

What is PRESERVATION?

Keeping safe from harm; avoiding Injury, destruction, or decay. This term always presupposes a real or existing danger. See Gribble v. Wilsou, 101 Tenn. 612, 49 S. W. 736; Neuendorff v. Dur- yea, 52 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 269

Oh well if it's as bad as Snopes!

Apparently our resident conspiracy theorist Nazi sympathizer doesn't like sites that call out hate groups or that do fact checking.

I will accept that you have nothing besides some bullshit from SPLC, which is not credible.

[Hindsite]

Nobody's gonna tell you what to think, I guess.

But yeah the BLM is good because their message is basically: "Please stop shooting us."

These are the messages I heard:

“Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon!”

https://capitalresearch.org/article/blm-roots/

"What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now."

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The right has always played at identity politics. When they do it, it is often called "racism" or "sexism" or "classism". The right and conservatives pick a group, identify it as a threat and then use political tools to oppress said minority. This is identity politics.

Here you are demonstrating what I have described repeatedly in my previous posts: redefine the terms to suit your purpose and take it from there.

Leaving aside that your description of the right and conservatives is obviously inaccurate, this is not identity politics. Identity politics is always based on real, and in the west increasingly imagined and invented, marginalisation and oppression of the group that assumes the identity. It therefore usually also comes with a victim narrative and there must be an enemy that is responsible for the oppression. Today, the left has identified a single enemy group and a member can only redeem himself by denouncing his own group and by constantly virtue signaling to demonstrate that he is on the side of the "oppressed", the more frantic the better. This is because the default assumption is that the enemy can be oppressive by his mere existence and/or subconsciously, and hence he needs to disprove this assumption in order to gain the trust of the "oppressed".

This is the left in a nutshell, an alliance of mostly imagined victims who are justified in extracting privileges from the enemy. In fact, the more egalitarian and just societies are, the louder the left moans about injustice and oppression, because without the victimhood narrative the left becomes largely irrelevant and is nothing but an empty shell. In a political context, it is therefore imperative for the left to convince people that they are victims and ideally increase the potential pool from which to draw new ones, whether that's via immigration, making up new ways by which the enemy oppresses or ensuring that people stay hyper-vigilant and defensive.

Women are probably the most important group as they make up 50% of the population. Hence, they have to be convinced early on that men can't help preventing women from succeeding. In order to overcome the real-life experience of women that the vast majority of men are decent people, like women and want them to succeed, the notion of subconscious and systematic oppression must be introduced whereby men are totally oblivious to the fact that they destroy women's lives left, right and centre. Further, women who don't sign up to this nonsense have internalised a slave morality and are of course also unaware of it. Conveniently, this kind of invisible oppression where nobody is aware of anything can continue to be a problem indefinitely.

What inspires hope though is that while too many women still succumb to the temptation of identifying as a victim, a substantial number isn't fooled by this. Here's hoping that in the future more women will reject this artificial dependency on leftist saviours and again become self-confident in their own strength and take responsibility for their lives.

Then you are ignoring what I and others actually say and think, and instead are preferring to go with what you think we said, even after we explicitly deny what you think we believe.

I'm going by what mainstream media have written, our politicians have said and the arguments I've heard in real life and the Internet from self-identified progressives. Thankfully, we are hearing less of this now, as it must have become extremely difficult to uphold the cognitive dissonance. After all, as you demonstrate with respect to the right, the left insists that belief systems, and even words, are extremely powerful and can lead to, say, gas chambers in no time!

I see it as simply continuing the struggle. You may see it as "expanding" because sometimes the struggle goes unpredictable places, but this is more likely due to the fact that we were simply blind to the racism that has always been there.

The racism and other -isms must always be there, now and in the future, as without it your alliance will crumble and most likely tear itself apart, as the left usually does. If it didn't wreck havoc in our societies in the meantime, I would happily watch the left self-destruct from the sidelines.

And the left does not target thought criminals for violence. We target the militant right who go after women and minorities and the homeless. Why should we distance ourselves from people who are attacking violent thugs?

The left does not only violently attack thought criminals on the right but also among itself. I've already posted this in Gorky park, but here it is a again: When the Left Turns on Its Own.

Furthermore, an increasing number of progressives regard all Trump supporters as fascists - and antifa certainly does - which by your own logic means that they are free game to anybody who feels like "punching a nazi".

But regardless, I don't know what to tell you if you are actually condoning and supporting mob justice. In that case, civilised society has basically lost you and everybody who agrees with you. You are also no longer liberals.

Not really, seeing as how the right already controls the state, while the communists do not.

To get from where we are now to gas chambers only requires that the Nazis or their ilk get into power, which can be done without radically altering the state.

We, on the other hand, would need to organise the working class, develop a class consciousness, create a vanguard, infiltrate the military, have a revolution, and only then could we get to gulags.

To say that one is as easy as the other is to ignore modern and historical contexts and conditions.

Only in your alternative universe does the right control the state and the nazis wouldn't have to mount a revolution to capture it. In fact, in all public institutions and society as a whole there are far more people sympathising with communism than with fascism. Supporters of the latter are an utter fringe group, whereas there has always been a tendency by left-wingers to view communism as benign. They often even claim that real communism hasn't actually been tried and its next manifestation will surely bring about utopia. So again, if free speech was so dangerous, we should easily slide into a situation like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Again, not really.

What we had was a very clear and informative example of what Nazis will do in WWII. It is not panic or a visceral reaction to note that the Nazis and the far right killed millions of innocents.

Since then, we have had the Cold War, where right wing authoritarian governments were installed and propped up around the world theoretically in order to halt the spread of communism. They also killed thousand, perhaps millions, of innocents. The reason we do not discuss these examples is because they were the supposed good guys and so their crimes are swept under a rug by everyone except "left-liberals".

So if we look at history we see the exat opposite of what you claim. We see a very real and clear threat from the far right, while we also see a visceral and baseless fear of communism.

We actually have more clear and informative examples about atrocities by communists if they get into power, while we have one clear example of fascists.

The right as a whole, and especially the far right, is also becoming less hawkish with regard to foreign interventions, while the liberal left in particular seems to become more hawkish over time, with republicans now being more likely to want the US to keep to itself. Also, today more democrats want the US to actively work to limit Russia's influence and power than republicans.

[Igor Antunov]

delete post*

[Pants-of-dog]

How is that any different that other groups wanting to preserve their heritage?

Alexandria Society for the Preservation of Black Heritage

Please note the references to African Americans, not declared a hate group and not on the SPLC hate map.

Yes, it is as if blacks were forcibly taken from their homes generations ago and cannot celebrate their exact ethnic heritage, and so the only heritage they can celebrate together is their shared history of being black in the US.

This, of course, is not the same as the history of white people in the USA.

Asian & Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation

Please note the references to Asian & Pacific Islander American communities, not declared a hate group and not on the SPLC hate map.

Your link doesn't work. I think I fixed it for you.

But if you are actually comparing a historical preservation society to a group that wants to deport minorities, I have already won this debate.

And also it's a big fucking joke to claim that Asians and Pacific Islanders are one monolithic group. Asians are comprised of at least a dozen groups, and Hawaiians are some of the most racist people on the planet, both to blacks whites, and anyone not pure blood Hawaiian, and there are hardcore separatist groups on the Island.

No one is claiming that Asians and Pacific Islanders are one monolithic group.

Your opinion about how Hawaiians are racist is not only irrelevant but laughable as you try to excuse the racism of the AFP.

By the way, here is one definition for "preservation."

What is PRESERVATION?

And?

I will accept that you have nothing besides some bullshit from SPLC, which is not credible.

I guess you did not read the wiki aticle on the leader and his attempt to deport all the blacks and latinos.

---------------

Here you are demonstrating what I have described repeatedly in my previous posts: redefine the terms to suit your purpose and take it from there.

How do you define identity politics in such a way that it includes anti-racism but magically excludes racism?

Leaving aside that your description of the right and conservatives is obviously inaccurate, this is not identity politics. Identity politics is always based on real, and in the west increasingly imagined and invented, marginalisation and oppression of the group that assumes the identity. It therefore usually also comes with a victim narrative and there must be an enemy that is responsible for the oppression. Today, the left has identified a single enemy group and a member can only redeem himself by denouncing his own group and by constantly virtue signaling to demonstrate that he is on the side of the "oppressed", the more frantic the better. This is because the default assumption is that the enemy can be oppressive by his mere existence and/or subconsciously, and hence he needs to disprove this assumption in order to gain the trust of the "oppressed".

Leaving aside that your description of the left and progressives is obviously inaccurate...Seriously, it is.

Why do you incorrectly believe that it is the marginalised people who assume the identity and it is not an identity forced upon them? Racialisation is a thing. So this idea that it is the blacks who choose to be seen as blacks is wrong.

And so this idea of a victim narrative is unnecessary and incorrect. In fact, when we are actually doing grassroots activism, we try to avoid victim narratives because they create a myth of helplessness and they ascribe too much power to the oppressor.

I could go on with your myth about the single enemy group, and the myth about virtue signalling, or the myth about default oppression, or the myth about getting the oppressed to trust you. Seriously, all of that is just what people think about us and it is wrong.

This is the left in a nutshell, an alliance of mostly imagined victims who are justified in extracting privileges from the enemy. In fact, the more egalitarian and just societies are, the louder the left moans about injustice and oppression, because without the victimhood narrative the left becomes largely irrelevant and is nothing but an empty shell. In a political context, it is therefore imperative for the left to convince people that they are victims and ideally increase the potential pool from which to draw new ones, whether that's via immigration, making up new ways by which the enemy oppresses or ensuring that people stay hyper-vigilant and defensive.

Victim myth again.

Please quote where I have described myself as a victim. Please quote where any leftist on this forum has done so.

Women are probably the most important group as they make up 50% of the population. Hence, they have to be convinced early on that men can't help preventing women from succeeding. In order to overcome the real-life experience of women that the vast majority of men are decent people, like women and want them to succeed, the notion of subconscious and systematic oppression must be introduced whereby men are totally oblivious to the fact that they destroy women's lives left, right and centre. Further, women who don't sign up to this nonsense have internalised a slave morality and are of course also unaware of it. Conveniently, this kind of invisible oppression where nobody is aware of anything can continue to be a problem indefinitely.

This is off topic.

What inspires hope though is that while too many women still succumb to the temptation of identifying as a victim, a substantial number isn't fooled by this. Here's hoping that in the future more women will reject this artificial dependency on leftist saviours and again become self-confident in their own strength and take responsibility for their lives.

Still off topic.

I'm going by what mainstream media have written, our politicians have said and the arguments I've heard in real life and the Internet from self-identified progressives. Thankfully, we are hearing less of this now, as it must have become extremely difficult to uphold the cognitive dissonance. After all, as you demonstrate with respect to the right, the left insists that belief systems, and even words, are extremely powerful and can lead to, say, gas chambers in no time!

Then you are ignoring what I and others actually say and think, and instead are preferring to go with what you think we said, even after we explicitly deny what you think we believe.

If that is the case, there is no reason to continue replying to my posts or otherwise enaging with me, since you supposedly know better than I what I think and believe.

And seeing as how it seems to be a whole bunch of myths about progressive people that conservatives came up with, (e.g. white guilt) and that progressives do not actually believe or support, your ideas will not match reality.

The racism and other -isms must always be there, now and in the future, as without it your alliance will crumble and most likely tear itself apart, as the left usually does. If it didn't wreck havoc in our societies in the meantime, I would happily watch the left self-destruct from the sidelines.

I would love to have my "alliance" (whatever the hell that is; I assume you mean my continued egalitarian stance) crumble due to uselessness. And as soon as racism and sexism are a thing of the past, I will happily set aside my "alliance".

This seems like you are basically accusing progressives and the left of having a secret ulterior motive for supporting egalitarian movements. Who cares if we do, if we are supporting the basic tenets that conservatives (as part of the larger groups of liberals) supposedly also support?

The left does not only violently attack thought criminals on the right but also among itself. I've already posted this in Gorky park, but here it is a again: When the Left Turns on Its Own.

Furthermore, an increasing number of progressives regard all Trump supporters as fascists - and antifa certainly does - which by your own logic means that they are free game to anybody who feels like "punching a nazi".

But regardless, I don't know what to tell you if you are actually condoning and supporting mob justice. In that case, civilised society has basically lost you and everybody who agrees with you. You are also no longer liberals.

Yes, you posted an editorial. Perhaps the author of that has the same myths about leftists and progressives that you do.

And then another myth about how leftists think all Trump supporters are fascists who deserve violence. Thanks for saying another wrong but insulting thing about me and mine. How am I supposed to address that? If I point out that I don't believe that nor know anyone who does, then you will ignore that and keep on with these myths.

Only in your alternative universe does the right control the state and the nazis wouldn't have to mount a revolution to capture it. In fact, in all public institutions and society as a whole there are far more people sympathising with communism than with fascism. Supporters of the latter are an utter fringe group, whereas there has always been a tendency by left-wingers to view communism as benign. They often even claim that real communism hasn't actually been tried and its next manifestation will surely bring about utopia. So again, if free speech was so dangerous, we should easily slide into a situation like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

I just pointed out actual conditions that make it impossible for us to attain power and oppress people right now. I also pointed out that fascists have none of these comdotions preventing them from being in power.

You are now replying by ignoring all that and discussing feelings.

If people's feelings about egalitarian goals were as you believe, then Trump would bever have been elected POTUS by saying that Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are terrorists. He did say these things, and he correctly predicted that it would get him elected.

The only condition that fascism requires is for people to stop fighting them when they come for our freedoms.

We actually have more clear and informative examples about atrocities by communists if they get into power, while we have one clear example of fascists.

Not really.

Even if we were far more oppressive, this does not change the fact that the Nazis and other white supremacists contribute nothing to the ongoing debate about how society should be run. Or to be more correct and specific, the ideas they have are already well known and we have already seen what happens when those ideas are realised. Thus, they have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion. In fact, their ideas are clearly and verifiably seen as horrendous and destructive.

So, what do we lose by punching them in the face every time we talk? Nothing, as far as I can tell, seeing as how we all know what they were going to say and we all know how it ends.

What do we gain by punching them in the face when they try to talk? We get to stop oppression before it becomes violent.

The right as a whole, and especially the far right, is also becoming less hawkish with regard to foreign interventions, while the liberal left in particular seems to become more hawkish over time, with republicans now being more likely to want the US to keep to itself. Also, today more democrats want the US to actively work to limit Russia's influence and power than republicans.

And now we get to the part where the Democrats are considered progressive and leftist, despite the fact that almost every progressive and leftist thinks they are neither. The US will always be at war, and the Democrats are no better than the Republican party.

[SpecialOlympian]

If you look through the history of SPLC's lawsuits and research, as many very legitimate geocities sites and poorly formatted blogs have done for me, you'll see that the SPLC has made many accusations against Waffle House while remaining suspiciously silent on IHOP. This is pretty clearly Northern/progressive bias on their part.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

How do you define identity politics in such a way that it includes anti-racism but magically excludes racism?

This is a non-sequitur. Identity politics has a definition and you don't get to change it at will.

And so this idea of a victim narrative is unnecessary and incorrect. In fact, when we are actually doing grassroots activism, we try to avoid victim narratives because they create a myth of helplessness and they ascribe too much power to the oppressor.

I could go on with your myth about the single enemy group, and the myth about virtue signalling, or the myth about default oppression, or the myth about getting the oppressed to trust you. Seriously, all of that is just what people think about us and it is wrong.

I'm going to take a piece out of the left-wing playbook and just declare that you are obviously unaware of how the left is in reality, quite likely due to a subconscious denial of reality. If you come back to assure me that this is not true, I'm going to take it as proof just how deep your denial is.

This seems like you are basically accusing progressives and the left of having a secret ulterior motive for supporting egalitarian movements. Who cares if we do, if we are supporting the basic tenets that conservatives (as part of the larger groups of liberals) supposedly also support?

No, the left has overwhelming incentive to keep victimhood narratives alive to stay politically relevant, stay employed and be voted for.

Yes, you posted an editorial. Perhaps the author of that has the same myths about leftists and progressives that you do.

The opinion piece refers to actual events.

And then another myth about how leftists think all Trump supporters are fascists who deserve violence. Thanks for saying another wrong but insulting thing about me and mine. How am I supposed to address that? If I point out that I don't believe that nor know anyone who does, then you will ignore that and keep on with these myths.

I said an increasing number of progressives and the antifa.

I just pointed out actual conditions that make it impossible for us to attain power and oppress people right now. I also pointed out that fascists have none of these comdotions preventing them from being in power.

You are now replying by ignoring all that and discussing feelings.

If people's feelings about egalitarian goals were as you believe, then Trump would bever have been elected POTUS by saying that Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are terrorists. He did say these things, and he correctly predicted that it would get him elected.

The only condition that fascism requires is for people to stop fighting them when they come for our freedoms.

I'm not discussing feelings. I've given you reasons why you are wrong. The whole western world should already be communists if words were as powerful as you imagine and I would perhaps be in a gulag or dead.

Even if we were far more oppressive, this does not change the fact that the Nazis and other white supremacists contribute nothing to the ongoing debate about how society should be run. Or to be more correct and specific, the ideas they have are already well known and we have already seen what happens when those ideas are realised. Thus, they have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion. In fact, their ideas are clearly and verifiably seen as horrendous and destructive.

So, what do we lose by punching them in the face every time we talk? Nothing, as far as I can tell, seeing as how we all know what they were going to say and we all know how it ends.

What do we gain by punching them in the face when they try to talk? We get to stop oppression before it becomes violent.

Yes, Pod, we got the message. You support mob rule and mob justice.

And now we get to the part where the Democrats are considered progressive and leftist, despite the fact that almost every progressive and leftist thinks they are neither. The US will always be at war, and the Democrats are no better than the Republican party.

Democrats are obviously on the left on the political spectrum, but by using the left's impeccable logic it doesn't even matter what is objectively true. Democrats identify as left-wing and that means they are. This is your own logic: men can identity as women, whites as blacks, etc. You cannot deny democrats their left-wing identity. That would be oppressive.

[The Immortal Goon]

When you start using 'hate' to describe others and pass laws called 'hate laws', and support banning 'hate speech ' then you are the Nazis.
You think it is okay because you are right. Are you so foolish to believe the real Nazis did not think they were right?
You are blinded by self righteousness, just like all the people who have followed the same road you are on.
You have been led to freely give away your rights through righteousness.
You are stereotypes. Think Orwell and sheep. Think barn wall, because you refuse to see the print changing too.

First, a Nazi is an actual thing. Nazis aren't simply people that oppose freedom of speech.

Second, the 20,000 people in Boston opposing Nazis were using their freedom of speech, not stifling it. It reads as if you are saying that people opposing Nazis shouldn't be allowed to use their speech.

Thirdly, bluntly, someone is correct to say that you should hate Nazis. And even if that weren't true, it's their goddamned right to be able to say it--again something that you seem to oppose.

Finally, I'll be the tenth person to point out the irony that someone is using Orwell to try and defend Nazis

[MB.]

This whole series of events has basically proven that neo-Nazis are still assholes but they are outnumbered by a factor of about 5,000,000 to 1 in terms of people who are not Nazis. How about we all agree to move on. It's not like the neo-Nazis are burning down the Congress and executing Jewish shopkeepers and union leaders.

In fact, it seems to me like they blew it pretty badly with this. The tikkitorch rally and chanting white supremacists really scared people. Daily Stormer got taken down. Confederate statues got removed everywhere. Nazis are crying about being arrested. I think they got fucked frankly.

[Igor Antunov]

Man stabbed after haircut gets him mistaken for a neo-Nazi
This Colorado man is avowedly not a neo-Nazi.

But he believes his long-on-top, buzzed-on-the-sides haircut got him mistaken for one — and nearly stabbed to death by a confused anti-fascist.

Joshua Witt, 26, escaped his brush with hairdo-doom with a defensive slice to the hand and three stitches.
“Apparently, my haircut is considered a neo-Nazi statement,” he told The Post Saturday, as his account on Facebook garnered 20,000 shares.

Witt says he’d just pulled in to the parking lot of the Steak ’n Shake in Sheridan, Colo., and was opening his car door.

“All I hear is, ‘Are you one of them neo-Nazis?’ as this dude is swinging a knife up over my car door at me,” he said.

“I threw my hands up and once the knife kind of hit, I dived back into my car and shut the door and watched him run off west, behind my car.

“The dude was actually aiming for my head,” he added.

“I was more in shock because I was just getting a milkshake.”

Witt says he has no tattoos or regalia that would finger him for a fascist. His pals are messaging him on Facebook with the only rationale they can come up with: “They say it’s my haircut.”

He’s thinking of changing his look, he says.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/19/man-stabbe ... -nazi/amp/

An atmosphere of fear propped up by the usual suspects. When they try this on a gun wielding man, the media will no doubt side with the attackers. And this is why faux-moral panics are lame, SJW's. Stop inducing one. It was lame when the fundamentalist Christians did it in the 80's, it is lame now.

[SpecialOlympian]

This whole series of events has basically proven that neo-Nazis are still assholes but they are outnumbered by a factor of about 5,000,000 to 1 in terms of people who are not Nazis. How about we all agree to move on. It's not like the neo-Nazis are burning down the Congress and executing Jewish shopkeepers and union leaders.

I'm actually glad this shit happened because sunlight is the #1 ideological disinfectant. As soon as /pol/ and r/the_donald stepped out of their echo chambers and into the streets, waving kekistani flags and shouting memes, they realized that nobody likes them and most of the people they see online are either bots or duplicate accounts.

Like this I mean just fucking look at this guy lol

[One Degree]

Please explain why these great anti-Nazis , after the free speech rally disbanded, attacked police? They had to have their violence even when their supposed enemy had already left. Not to mention the organizers did everything they could to disassociate from neo Nazis.
Approving of mindless violence as free speech is pathetic.

[ingliz]

Approving of mindless violence as free speech is pathetic.

A comparison:

'Nazis'

30 protesters bother to turn up to the "Free Speech" rally in Boston; eight are arrested.

'Leftists'

40,000 counter-protesters (Boston police estimate); 27 arrested.

[One Degree]

A comparison:

'Nazis'

30 protesters bother to turn up to the "Free Speech" rally in Boston; eight are arrested.

'Leftists'

40,000 counter-protesters (Boston police estimate); 27 arrested.

I missed the free speech people getting arrested. Can you direct me to the article?

[ingliz]

Can you direct me to the article?

Boston 'free speech' rally dwarfed by thousands of counter-protesters