[noemon]

Too bad @Doug64 could not handle a specific member's closed minded intolerance and decided to leave the forum. Hopefully he will come back. He did this thread last year so I am posting it because it is literally the same thing that we are discussing today.

Arguing in a politics forum is what the politics forum is for. "Closed-minded intolerance", what kind of creature demands a safe-space where no-one ever challenges the nonsense you spew out of your mouths? Doug has never been sanctioned or censored for anything, the moment I confronted him with a single argument he run away, same with Kaiser who was so privileged in here and same with Ombrageux.

The moment someone proves you wrong, you just put your tails behind your legs & run. The funny thing is that you demand a safe-space and cry & whine simply for people addressing your political arguments. You have turned weakness into your flag.

[skinster]

The evidence of Antifa involvement in riots remains non-existent at this point.

And they know it.

[Godstud]

Bunkerbitch is unhinged and deranged, at this point.

He's a dictator getting photo ops of himself while Americans suffer for his apathy.

[Rugoz]

I'm trying to figure what the difference is between the piece of shit Antifa tyrants who riot, loot, and illegally shut down people's free speech using violence, versus the piece of shit cop thugs who use violence to violate people's constitutional rights such as beating the shit out of people. Nothing really. They both are tyrants who feel they have the moral authority to cause violence and illegally violate the rights of others.

Fuck violent Antifa thugs and fuck violent cop thugs who violate people's legal rights.

Waiting for Trump to declare the police a terrorist organization.

[Sivad]

The evidence of Antifa involvement in riots remains non-existent at this point.

You don't really have any credibility but if you did you would have lost all of it with that bullshit.

Much of the looting I'm assuming is done by marginalized youth, similar to what happened in Tottenham a decade ago.

I don't have any problem with looting giant corporations or burning down government buildings, it's the violence and intimidation against ordinary people that makes the antifa bitches such shitty little bullies. The antifa bitches deserve Trump, I hope Trump gives them the full national security state patriot act treatment so they get a strong dose of their own bully medicine.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The evidence of Antifa involvement in riots remains non-existent at this point.

You don't really have any credibility but if you did you would have lost all of it with that bullshit.

So far, we have evidence that a far right group set up a Twitter account to look like Antifa, but did it laughably badly; and the FBI saying there was no Antifa involvement in the riot in Washington DC. Donna's credibility looks fine. Where is your evidence?

I don't have any problem with looting giant corporations or burning down government buildings, it's the violence and intimidation against ordinary people that makes the antifa bitches such shitty little bullies. The antifa bitches deserve Trump, I hope Trump gives them the full national security state patriot act treatment so they get a strong dose of their own bully medicine.

You appear to be using "antifa" to mean "anyone currently doing something I condemn". You're just seeing individuals doing reprehensible things (attacking the property of blameless individuals), and then saying "we need a security state to stop these individuals". That's overkill (and would, in the end, literally be overkill). There are existing laws against the looting, arson and damage. You're going full authoritarian.

[maz]

And they know it.

The FBI is the official coverup intelligence agency so of course they are going to say that their assets Antifa and other agent provocateurs had nothing to do with the riots.



Always good to bring this back.

It’s Not Your Imagination: The Journalists Writing About Antifa Are Often Their Cheerleaders

On February 1, 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a talk about free speech at the University of California, Berkeley. But he was prevented from speaking by a group of 150 or so masked, black-clad members of a then-obscure movement calling itself “Antifa.” The protestors caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus and injured six people as they threw rocks and Molotov cocktails. Nine months later, again at Berkeley, an “anti-Marxist” rally descended into violence as approximately 100 masked Antifa members harassed journalists and beat rally organizers and attendees.

Berkeley was where Antifa rose to national attention, but it hasn’t been the only place where the group has engaged in sustained acts of violence. At a Washington, D.C. Unite the Right rally in August 2018, Antifa members hurled objects at police and assaulted journalists. In Portland, Oregon, violent street clashes involving Antifa have become regular events. Notwithstanding claims that Antifa is a peaceful, “anti-fascist community-defense group,” it has adopted tactics that often are more violent than those of the right-wing movements that the group opposes.

And yet, Antifa often receives media coverage that is neutral or even favorable, with its members’ violence either being ignored by reporters or vaguely explained away as a product of right-wing provocation. What’s more, anecdotal evidence has suggested that many of the mainstream reporters who are most active in covering Antifa also tend to enthusiastically amplify Antifa’s claims on social media.

In October 2018, my research partner and I decided to investigate the truth of this impression by using a mix of network mapping and linguistic analysis to see which prominent journalists who covered Antifa also were closely connected to leading Antifa figures on social media. We then inspected the Antifa-related stories these journalists had written.

We created a data set of 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts based on the follows of 16 verified Antifa seed accounts. Using a software tool that analyzed the number and nature of connections associated with each individual account, we winnowed the 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts down to 962 accounts. This represents a core group of Twitter users who are connected in overlapping ways to the most influential and widely followed Antifa figures. Of these 962 accounts, 22 were found to be verified—of which 15 were journalists who work regularly with national-level news outlets.

It should be stressed that a journalist’s close social-media engagement with any particular group should not be seen as incriminating per se. Many journalists follow—and even interact with—all manner of figures online, either out of personal curiosity, professional interest, or even as a means of developing sources. In identifying this group of 15 journalists whose engagement with Antifa is especially intense, our goal was not to accuse them of bias out of hand, but rather to identify them for further study, so as to determine if there was any overall correlation between the level of their online engagement with Antifa and the manner by which these journalists treated Antifa in their published journalism.

That correlation turned out to be quite pronounced: Of all 15 verified national-level journalists in our subset, we couldn’t find a single article, by any of them, that was markedly critical of Antifa in any way. In all cases, their work in this area consisted primarily of downplaying Antifa violence while advancing Antifa talking points, and in some cases quoting Antifa extremists as if they were impartial experts.

These journalists include, for instance, Kit O’Connell, a self-identified “proudly Antifascist” “gonzo journalist,” whose work often reads like an FAQ that one might find on an Antifa web site. In one piece, for instance, he wrote that protestors wear masks so that they may “creat[e] a sense of unity and common purpose [as they] protect other activists from attacks by police and fascists.” Another article is bluntly (and somewhat ominously) titled “Nonviolent Activists Must Never Work With Police.”

Interestingly, while other Portland journalists such as Genevieve Reaume of KATU News, Maggie Vespa of KGW News and Quillette’s own Andy Ngo (who has voiced concerns about Antifa’s actions) have been harassed and assaulted by Antifa activists, Wilson seems welcome to mingle freely among Antifa, and has even been photographed standing close to Marquez. In one piece, titled “How the world has fought back against the violent far-right and started winning,” Wilson effectively drops the pretense that he is a neutral reporter, and approvingly outlines the Antifa tactics set out in Bray’s book. He also defends such tactics as doxing, stalking, deplatforming and shaming as valuable means to attack individuals whose views he dislikes. In doing so, he cites both Bray and Emily Gorcenski, who runs a doxing site called First Vigil, and an associated Twitter account, which shame individuals she deems to be fascists before they have received due process.

Make no mistake: The original professed goal of Antifa—to oppose fascism—is laudable. And there are no doubt many Antifa activists who still reject violent methods. Moreover, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a journalist who has strong personal views about Antifa (or about any other radical group). But Wilson is not simply a pro-Antifa activist who also happens to write for the Guardian: He actively leverages his role as a regular Guardian writer to promote Antifa, whitewash its violence, and signal-boost its leaders (whom he presents as “experts”)—often under the guise of neutral news reporting.

Christopher Mathias, a senior reporter for the Huffington Post, applies the same cynical approach. Like Wilson, Mathias’ byline seems to pop up whenever Antifa stages violent protests—and he always can be counted on to deliver a play-by-play that favors Antifa. But he goes even further than his Guardian counterpart. Unlike Wilson, Mathias actually doxes individuals whom he suspects of being right-wing extremists. His doxing sources for an article about suspected extremists in the U.S. military included Unicorn Riot, an anarchic Antifa journalist collective, and other shady sites that exist as a sort of in-house 4chan for the Antifa movement. (Mathias cited similar sources when he published identifying details of a Texas schoolteacher, and of a Virginia police officer.)

Mathias’ apparent modus operandi is to gather doxes of individuals whom Antifa or Antifa-friendly groups suspect of being right-wing extremists. He (or a colleague) at Huffington Post then reach out to the target’s employer asking for comment, leveraging the media outlet’s name to ensure the individual is called out. Then Mathias posts the doxes in his column while investigations are ongoing. As with Emily Gorcenski’s First Vigil site, Mathias broadcasts detailed personal information whose release seems designed to destroy the reputation of the accused, no matter the results of any subsequent investigation. It’s unclear how this behavior differs from ordinary, everyday Antifa-style online activism.

Of course, all investigative journalists rely on tips from the general public. But collecting tips isn’t what Wilson and Mathias appear to be doing. Like other prominent writers whose names appear among the 15 journalists most closely engaged with Antifa, they seem to function not at professional arm’s length from their sources, but rather as cogs in an activist enterprise that churns out both pro-Antifa propaganda and doxing information about real or imagined ideological enemies. Their allies in this mission include trolls such as AntiFashGordon, the pseudonym of a Twitter user who declares that “I expose fascists, get them fired, de-homed, kicked out of school etc,” and brags that he passes “dossiers” of doxes to national-level journalists, whom he refers to as “our contacts.” His entire online mission is to ruin other people’s lives, and it is a mission being supported by “contacts” like Mathias and Wilson. In providing such support, they are discrediting their publications and misinforming their readers.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of the individuals targeted by Antifa trolls and protestors do indeed harbor noxious, hateful, bigoted and even fascistic opinions. But the intellectual dishonesty and disreputable methods being used to target these individuals is an example of the cure being as bad as the disease.

[Finfinder]

The evidence of Antifa involvement in riots remains non-existent at this point.

Much of the looting I'm assuming is done by marginalized youth, similar to what happened in Tottenham a decade ago.

Yea and there is no deep state the Russian hoax wasn't fake and Santa Claws is Jewish.

You should know gaslighting causes global warming.

[Sivad]

:lol: The FBI is the official coverup intelligence agency so of course they are going to say that their assets Antifa and other agent provocateurs had nothing to do with the riots.

And when the FBI isn't covering up it's framing up. Remember when the fibs went around recruiting mental defectives to participate in fake terror hoaxes and then they busted them and pretended like they saved us all from massive terror attacks? The FBI's credibility is more shot than Donna's.

[Sivad]

Where is your evidence?

So let's pretend that there aren't hundreds of video clips of antifas attacking people in these protests, we've all seen antifas attack people at many other protests so we know that's something they definitely do and we know there are antifas participating in these protests so we don't even need to see video evidence to know what the antifa bitches are up to. It's not even a question, there's zero doubt that the antifas are out in droves attacking people in the streets. It's what antifa does.

You appear to be using "antifa" to mean "anyone currently doing something I condemn".

No, I've been pretty clear about who I mean, what the antifas are doing, and why I condemn it.

You're just seeing individuals doing reprehensible things (attacking the property of blameless individuals), and then saying "we need a security state to stop these individuals".

I'm not saying we need a security state or that I support the security state, all I'm saying is I wouldn't have any sympathy for the antifas if Trump patriot acted their bitch asses.

That's overkill (and would, in the end, literally be overkill). There are existing laws against the looting, arson and damage. You're going full authoritarian.

I don't support what Trump is doing, I'm just saying it would be funny if the antifa bullies got a taste of their own medicine. They think violence and intimidation are legitimate politics so maybe the masters of violence and intimidation can help them understand why we don't resort to those tactics.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

So let's pretend that there aren't hundreds of video clips of antifas attacking people in these protests, we've all seen antifas attack people at many other protests so we know that's something they definitely do and we know there are antifas participating in these protests so we don't even need to see video evidence to know what the antifa bitches are up to. It's not even a question, there's zero doubt that the antifas are out in droves attacking people in the streets. It's what antifa does.

You appear to be using "antifa" to mean "anyone currently doing something I condemn".

So I was correct. You are calling anyone attacking people "antifa". No, there aren't clips that identify them as "antifa". If there are any potential 'fascists' involved here, it's the police officers, I presume you'll agree; but that doesn't mean that anyone attacking a police officer must be "antifa". You don't have to regard the police as fascists to end up attacking them (and, given the large numbers of police assaults on the public we've seen recently, a short clip alone is not evidence enough; it could be self-defence, or defence of other members of the public, against a violent police officer. You'd need to see the full context.)

"We don't even need to see video evidence to know what the antifa bitches are up to" is an admission that you're just making it up. You have a preconceived notion of what happens at protests and riots. You imagine it, and then claim that others who actually want evidence from the real world have lost their credibility. It's laughable.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. Trump is not trying to ban any ideology.

Exactly. He is not actually trying to ban opposition to fascism. Instead, he wants to criminalise dissent. And now all he has to do is claim someone is part of AntiFa.

Again no. Right-wing anti-government extremists are not terrorists.

Most alt-right people are peaceful. Hence, alt right has become a mainstream political wing in America and Europe.

No, the vast majority of terrorist attacks these days come from right wing extremists.

[Donna]

Yea and there is no deep state the Russian hoax wasn't fake and Santa Claws is Jewish.

You should know gaslighting causes global warming.

Not an argument. Where is the evidence?

You don't really have any credibility but if you did you would have lost all of it with that bullshit.

Also not an argument. Where is the evidence?

[Finfinder]

Not an argument. Where is the evidence?



Also not an argument. Where is the evidence?

Of course it's an argument. I can't help it when people decide to participate on a politcal message board about current events and are obvious very ill informed if not informed at all. Go back and look all these facts up and get back to us other than that you are proving that in fact you are gaslighting.

[Sivad]

Exactly. He is not actually trying to ban opposition to fascism. Instead, he wants to criminalise dissent. And now all he has to do is claim someone is part of AntiFa.

It's funny how you can understand why that's dangerous when it's being done to you but you have no problem doing the same shit to your political opponents. You people really do need this to happen to you so you really understand why you shouldn't go around trying to get your opposition censored or deplatformed or officially designated as terrorists by falsely labeling them racists and fascists.

I guess it's all fun and games until you're the one on the business end of the patriot act.

[Donna]

Of course it's an argument. I can't help it when people decide to participate on a politcal message board about current events and are obvious very ill informed if not informed at all. Go back and look all these facts up and get back to us other than that you are proving that in fact you are gaslighting.

Gaslighting? All I'm asking for is some goddamn evidence.

[Sivad]

Of course it's an argument. I can't help it when people decide to participate on a politcal message board about current events and are obvious very ill informed if not informed at all. Go back and look all these facts up and get back to us other than that you are proving that in fact you are gaslighting.

Yeah, trying to deny that antifa attacks people at protests is so fucking stupid that it just ends the conversation. When someone stoops to such a ludicrous level of bad faith there's no point in continuing.

[Pants-of-dog]

I remember the last time you guys tried to provide evidence of AntiFa attacking people.

It became one long Andy Ngo fest, because he is literally the only person who ever gets attacked by them. Because he deliberately asks for it.

Meanwhile the cops are actually terrorising people.

[Donna]

Yeah, trying to deny that antifa attacks people at protests is so fucking stupid that it just ends the conversation. When someone stoops to such a ludicrous level of bad faith there's no point in continuing.

It's not bad faith to ask for evidence to support an assumption. It is however bad faith to feign incredulity and pretend that there is a consensus about that assumption.

[Finfinder]

Gaslighting? All I'm asking for is some goddamn evidence.

Do you know what a "given" means? Evidence? There are 25 threads on the subject and its common knowledge. I expect you to understand this stuff before you feign incredulity.

It's not bad faith to ask for evidence to support an assumption. It is however bad faith to feign incredulity and pretend that there is a consensus about that assumption.

Yea that's called gaslighting and it's what you are doing.