Is it better to Ignore People like KKK and ANTI FA?

[jimbo]

Neo-Nazis hate Jews. KKK hate Blacks. Who does Antifa hate?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

I'm not an Antifa supporter but they're not a hate group.

Sure they aren't. They absolutely love everybody.

CNN's version:

What is Antifa? - CNN

 

[AGENT J]

Do you wish to explain this post of yours, then?

sure because theres nothing to explain where in my post did i mention any groups. ill be waiting


heres my post

Theres never a yes no answer for a general question like this. it simply depends on what a vile hate group is doing as to whether its better to ignore or respond. They gather and just preach hat to eachother . . fine ignore them, they are committing crimes, infringing on rights etc it would be completely asinine to ignore them.

The answer is going to be circumstantial

heres the retarded unrelated and factually wrong assumption you mention and asked about

You're saying, for example, the hate group, white supremacists, can't be lumped with the hate group, antiFA - antiFirstAmendment, because one hate is more justified than the other? Do you think everyone agrees with your assessment of justifiable and unjustifiable hate?

LMAO your post factually makes no sense opcorn2:

 

[nota bene]

Neo-Nazis hate Jews. KKK hate Blacks. Who does Antifa hate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

I'm not an Antifa supporter but they're not a hate group.

"Antifas" is a loose coalition of discrete groups. From the BBC:

Much like the far-right, Antifa members around the world comprise a patchwork of groups, though the most active appear to be based in the US, the UK (under the name Anti-Fascist Action) and Germany (Antifaschistische Aktion).

The German movement was founded in 1932 to provide a militant far-left group to counter the fast-rising Nazi party.

They were disbanded in 1933 after Hitler took control of parliament and resurrected in the 1980s as a response to neo-Nazism after the fall of the Berlin Wall. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831

Have you heard about the "It's going down" website? http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/...violence-against-trump-supporters-capitalists

I guess it depends on how you define "hate group":

The Southern Poverty Law Center outlined its criteria for hate groups in a 2016 memo on why Black Lives Matter can't be classified as such. "Generally speaking, hate groups are, by our definition, those that vilify entire groups of people based on immutable characteristics such as race or ethnicity," wrote Richard Cohen, the organization's president. That means that Antifa wouldn't qualify either, since the movement's focus is on ideology, not demography, just like Black Lives Matter.

The SPLC doesn't include anti-fascism on its list of extremist ideologies (the alt-right made the cut because of its core "white identity" belief, alongside the Ku Klux Klan, and Neo-Nazism). However, the FBI defines violent extremism as “encouraging, condoning, justifying, or supporting the commission of a violent act to achieve political, ideological, religious, social, or economic goals.” Antifa does seems to meet that definition of extremism. https://www.bustle.com/p/is-antifa-a-hate-group-people-are-divided-but-the-criteria-is-clear-76285

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bustle_(magazine)

 

[cabse5]

sure because theres nothing to explain where in my post did i mention any groups. ill be waiting


heres my post


heres the retarded unrelated and factually wrong assumption you mention and asked about


LMAO your post factually makes no sense opcorn2:

Your explanation is as good as your grammar and spelling.

 

[ludin]

Yes, I think it is better to ignore these types of groups. When it comes to white nationalists groups and the KKK, they are trying to elicit reactions out of people. They are looking for attention. If people just took one look at them, laughed at their ridiculousness, and went about their day, then there would probably be less of these white racist rallies occuring.

both antifa and the alt-rights are extremist groups. while they usually die out on their own (tea party, OWS, even BLM is losing traction now).

these extremist groups tend to linger a bit more than others and antifa is growing. both groups should be condemned for the extremists that they are.

 

[TheGoverness]

both antifa and the alt-rights are extremist groups. while they usually die out on their own (tea party, OWS, even BLM is losing traction now).

these extremist groups tend to linger a bit more than others and antifa is growing. both groups should be condemned for the extremists that they are.

ANTIFA's tactics are pretty reprehensible. I don't care who they are protesting: inflicting violence on others is wrong.

 

[JamesBY]

It is better to politically and socially and culturally crush the KKK and the neo-nazis and the alt right, not ignore them.

 

[SDET]

Yes, I think it is better to ignore these types of groups. When it comes to white nationalists groups and the KKK, they are trying to elicit reactions out of people. They are looking for attention. If people just took one look at them, laughed at their ridiculousness, and went about their day, then there would probably be less of these white racist rallies occuring.

Perhaps they have reasonable grievances to consider. That often how Socialist (National or International Socialist) groups gain support. Address the underlying grievances and you cut off the fuel to the fire.

 

[SDET]

It is better to politically and socially and culturally crush the KKK and the neo-nazis and the alt right, not ignore them.

How does that make you any better than Nicholas Maduro or Raul Castro? You are advocating emulating them to crush them. That's ironic.

 

[ludin]

It is better to politically and socially and culturally crush the KKK and the neo-nazis and the alt right, not ignore them.

why did you leave out the antifa? they are just as violent and reprehensible as the alt right? so why are you ignoring them?

 

[TheGoverness]

Perhaps they have reasonable grievances to consider. That often how Socialist (National or International Socialist) groups gain support. Address the underlying grievances and you cut off the fuel to the fire.

I don't see any of what those hate groups advocate as the least bit reasonable.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

why did you leave out the antifa? they are just as violent and reprehensible as the alt right? so why are you ignoring them?

But antifa is anti-fascist and anti-racism. Most people agree with that. Aren't you against fascism and racism?

It's their violent tactics we disagree with. But they're not morrally equal to Nazis and KKK members.

 

[ludin]

But antifa is anti-fascist and anti-racism. Most people agree with that. Aren't you against fascism and racism?

It's their violent tactics I disagree with. But they're not morrally equal to Nazis and KKK members.

no i am against people mugging, beating, looting, and rioting which is what antifa does.

Why do you support a group attacking, looting and destroying businesses because people support a person that doesn't agree with their views?
They are the flip side of the same coin. it is morally bankrupt.

their message is no better than the KKK.

think like we want you to think or we are going to assault you.
only we are going to do it based on some morale high ground.

both groups can take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[Mycroft]

This is a political theory I have been working in since Trump got elected. When one of these groups starts getting traction...it always seems like that is because they get legitimized by the MSM. They get press. They get attention. And it seemed to me that when they were ignored...they were irrelevant. Politically they were in the abyss and it wasn't until we started looking into it...that they started coming up.

Do you think we could ignore them at this point and they would lose traction and go away? I don't think we WILL ignore them because Cui Bono says that there is too much to be gained by guilt by association. Or even false association.

We, the public, can safely ignore the extreme right people since they rarely cause much violence on their own. We, the public, should NEVER ignore Antifa because they will always...and deliberately...cause violence.

Law enforcement, on the other hand, should NEVER ignore either group nor shirk their responsibilities to ensure public safety.

 

[polgara]

That's hardly a political theory. That's a political reality.
I'm afraid our current media will decide what or who we are to condemn and what or who we are to value.
They don't report, they promote.
They've chosen sides.
More than ever before.

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

:agree: I noted with some interest that after ex-POTUS Obama recently announced that he was getting back into politics - I didn't realize he had ever left, based on the fact that his first foreign trip after he left office was to visit people like Merkel and others who agreed with him on political matters such as Trump being elected POTUS when Hillary was "unbeatable" - according to the MSM. Have they forgotten that he started his political career as a "community organizer?"

Now today on Yahoo I read that Obama had posted the "best tweet" on the Charlottesville incident, climbing up from third-place best tweet a few days ago, judging from the number of "likes" he got, again according to the MSM. I wasn't aware that this was a "contest," so why would the MSM take the time to keep a running record of the number of "likes" he got and then make an announcement about him being the "winner," assuming this is even true, and why should anyone even care about that? Was this done to just keep him in the news by any means possible, and why is that even newsworthy when they have proven that they are biased in his favor? He is entitled to his opinion, of course, but this was an unusual riot in view of the fact that the police involved in Charlottesville were told to stand down and not do the job they were hired to do, and as a result many people were injured and three died! Who made that decision and WHY? :thumbdown:

:rantoff:

 

[Manc Skipper]

no i am against people mugging, beating, looting, and rioting which is what antifa does.

Why do you support a group attacking, looting and destroying businesses because people support a person that doesn't agree with their views?
They are the flip side of the same coin. it is morally bankrupt.

their message is no better than the KKK.

think like we want you to think or we are going to assault you.
only we are going to do it based on some morale high ground.

both groups can take a long walk off a short pier.

On the contrary. There were nazi demonstrators on one side, and people who are unwilling to tolerate nazi marches on the other. The second group used to be called "normal".

 

[Manc Skipper]

We, the public, can safely ignore the extreme right people since they rarely cause much violence on their own. We, the public, should NEVER ignore Antifa because they will always...and deliberately...cause violence.

Law enforcement, on the other hand, should NEVER ignore either group nor shirk their responsibilities to ensure public safety.

The MSM are always blaming the stormtroopers for the battle of Endor, but they never criticise those horribly violent Ewoks, right?

 

[AGENT J]

Your explanation is as good as your grammar and spelling.

Translation: you can't defend the retarded and factually wrong claim you made, thats what I thought! LMAO
anything else?
opcorn2:

 

[PirateMk1]

I'm sure some people thought that in Germany too.

These people aren't out for attention. They want to recruit more members and take back their country. That's not a ****in catchphrase, these are literal ****ing Nazis.

Calling those dopes Nazis is like calling a domesticated dog a wolf. They are both part of the family canine and that's it. The real deal would make these wannabe **** their drawers.

 

[ludin]

On the contrary. There were nazi demonstrators on one side, and people who are unwilling to tolerate nazi marches on the other. The second group used to be called "normal".

your dishonesty is noted. sorry to hear that you support a group of people that attack, and destroy and loot businesses.
you do realize that antifa extend further than just this one incident yes?

they have been rioting on college campuses attacking people at trump gatherings, they were looting and destroying businesses
at the presidential parade.

sorry to hear that you support such a group.

 

[Manc Skipper]

your dishonesty is noted. sorry to hear that you support a group of people that attack, and destroy and loot businesses.
you do realize that antifa extend further than just this one incident yes?

they have been rioting on college campuses attacking people at trump gatherings, they were looting and destroying businesses
at the presidential parade.

sorry to hear that you support such a group.

Dishonest yourself. Don't even try to judge me, or them, by your mendacious standards.

 

[bubbabgone]

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

:agree: I noted with some interest that after ex-POTUS Obama recently announced that he was getting back into politics - I didn't realize he had ever left, based on the fact that his first foreign trip after he left office was to visit people like Merkel and others who agreed with him on political matters such as Trump being elected POTUS when Hillary was "unbeatable" - according to the MSM. Have they forgotten that he started his political career as a "community organizer?"

Now today on Yahoo I read that Obama had posted the "best tweet" on the Charlottesville incident, climbing up from third-place best tweet a few days ago, judging from the number of "likes" he got, again according to the MSM. I wasn't aware that this was a "contest," so why would the MSM take the time to keep a running record of the number of "likes" he got and then make an announcement about him being the "winner," assuming this is even true, and why should anyone even care about that? Was this done to just keep him in the news by any means possible, and why is that even newsworthy when they have proven that they are biased in his favor? He is entitled to his opinion, of course, but this was an unusual riot in view of the fact that the police involved in Charlottesville were told to stand down and not do the job they were hired to do, and as a result many people were injured and three died! Who made that decision and WHY? :thumbdown:

:rantoff:

That's funny.
That kind of thing is a tactic and it's no accident.
You get enough people to LIKE it, you feed it to the media, and the media reports it to establish the meme.
For various reasons it's much easier these days and there are "businesses" set up to help support causes that way.
Think David Brock and Media Matters but the Right has them too ... although they're not as good at it or with as extensive a reach.

 

[Lutherf]

I'm guessing some of them do have a lot to lose. Now there are definitely some who are proud of being racist assholes, and have no issue expressing it in public. But others aren't, because ithey understand it might affect their livelihood.

Those who struggle with their own lives often end up on the fringes of society. Purveyors of hate capitalize on those struggles and recruit the disenfranchised with promises of acceptance. It's generally a false promise. Acceptance in these fringe groups often requires the member to abandon more and more main stream thinking thus making leaving the group more difficult. In some cases the group will threaten violence against any member who decides to leave. From a practical standpoint it's no different than a gang or a cult.

 

[cabse5]

Translation: you can't defend the retarded and factually wrong claim you made, thats what I thought! LMAO
anything else?
opcorn2:

I'm not going to debate you if you intend to argue.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm not going to debate you if you intend to argue.

Translation: you STILL can't defend the retarded and factually wrong claim you made, so no you are deflecting. LMAO

opcorn2: