Neo-Nazi roaming Seattle gets KO'd by ANTI-FA

[Not_A_German_Scientist]

@Confluency @Shadow

It is better to compare teh W.S and Antifa based on potential for violence. Both are stupid political ideas (eugenics and race-baiting isn't fun) which is allowed in this country but once violence plays into the mix then you gotta start shutting down certain voices to keep the peace. Therefore, your objective should be to determine what is the potential for violence in these groups and how does this violence influence the group.

For the W.S violence seems to be a part of what most White supremacists take part in. White Supremacy in and of itself is a preference for white people which may have connotations for how a white supremacist thinks about other races but doesn't explicitly mean a White Supremacist is commanded to take violence on other races as part of the ideology. So while it is on a dangerous slope of potential violence the LITERAL ideology of white supremacy should be allowed free speech (and thus criticism to that speech)

Even so, when you actually LOOK at current White Supremacists, they don't heed the warning. Most groups explicitly say they want to kill x, y, and z people if they don't get their way in government legislation. Many indiviudals like that one crying nazi in CHarlottesville, explicitly state they're out for maximizing violence. Therefore, most W.S groups and individuals threaten violence and should be charged for hte threats of violence they state to others (and be separated from those they and threatening violence towards). These groups and individuals also prepare themselves for violence (weapons, shields) which means their rallies aren't rallies but simple gangs in a community. They also support and wish to emulate those who killed millions in ALL ASPECTS (nazis) which obviously suggests they want to take part in violence. The similarity isn't enough to say "all white supremacists want to commit genocide" but it DEFINITELY is enough to consider them a potential threat. Some of these groups have long-lasting experience of BEING violent which obviously suggests they are going to STILL be violent.

As for ANTIFA, the ideology is LITERALLY being against facists so any of us could be in ANTIFA.

But the groups ANTIFA isn't purely like that. They revel in the horrible race relations by attacking what they consider as "white supremacists" which may include anyone that states views that oppose theirs, people who aren't attacking W.S, and of course an ACTUAL W.S. They don't attack based on how violent the person they're attacking are but based on ideology. So in most instances they simply attack another person who is talking to them. That isn't preventing violence. That is being the cause of violence as a means of political intimidation. In this regard, ANTIFA folks are similar to fascists.

But how prevalent are these actions? Well, just look at OP's video. The visuals and sounds seems to imply some sort of professional or at least high quality financial support behind the making of this video. It looks more like a campaign ad or a vox video as opposed to a vlog by some nobody. This suggests that an organization not only greenlit this video but deliberately wanted this up. Not to mention the prevalence of violence in any place ANTIFA is in. It doesn't have a clear structure to it , like many other Liberal groups, which works to its benefit (since it becomes harder to associate certain violent leaders and groups to being representative of ALL ANTIFA folks). The lack of history and lack of a clear vision of how much they are willing to go with their violence also works in favor for ANTIFA.

SO overall the W.S seems to be a greater threat that MUST be tackled quick and methodically but ANTIFA is still a threat that can't be left alone for long. If I was Trump I would've furthered stress the importance of ridding us of these backwards hooligans and still reminding the importance of restricting ANTIFA isntead of getting bogged down in the "all sides are equal" statements and being so dry in his condemnation of white supremacists.

- - - Updated - - -

Tl;DR

Look at last paragraph.

[[MPGH]Dave84311]

Antifacists and their movement came around because people were sick of their protesting not doing shit. Answering violence with violence and idiotic beliefs is a +1 in my book. Comparing the two is ignorant and stupid which @Shadow is

[niggo]

"Anti-nazi" I wouldn't be so generous with giving the Alt-Left that name. They're very alike to their fellow Alt/right counterparts.

i meant it more in a way that says that theyre like nazis just on the left side

often enough even worse with what they do aka trying to get people fired from their jobs etc

[[MPGH]Dave84311]

i meant it more in a way that says that theyre like nazis just on the left side

often enough even worse with what they do aka trying to get people fired from their jobs etc

There is nothing wrong with getting nazi fucks fired from their jobs

You obviously don't know what you're talking about

[Blizzard.]

Nazis = no good.

[niggo]

There is nothing wrong with getting nazi fucks fired from their jobs

You obviously don't know what you're talking about

from what ive seen it on facebook its not even nazi its often enough also people with just right wing tendencies

here we have a political party (the AFD if you care about the name) and its german centric and wants no immigrants

and theres nothing wrong with their official program (not that i agree) and the party itself is doing most things wrong, but theres left wing people ratting normal members and getting people who like the party fired for basically nothing


if theyre open nazis (which isnt allowed at all here) im totally fine with it, but if the people are just of a different opinion its hella fucked up

[Gaydow]

Antifacists and their movement came around because people were sick of their protesting not doing shit. Answering violence with violence and idiotic beliefs is a +1 in my book. Comparing the two is ignorant and stupid which @Shadow is

When those "Antifacists" are attacking non-fascists, that is when I am able to compare how retarded of a group they are. They don't care about whether you're Alt-Right or just the Right. These antifacists will attack anybody that is even moderately against their views. Their basically trying to wipe out any opposition. If they want to combat just the Alt-Right, go right the fuck ahead. But these retards will go to Trump rallies and attack non-white supremacists/non-fascists and pretend like they're doing the right thing. They're "movement" is more than just opposing Nazis/White supremacists. If you can't see that then you're blindfolded by the media. Such a movement is dangerous. Soon enough their ideologies will spread and they'll be Nazis 2.0 but with a different agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

@Confluency @Shadow

It is better to compare teh W.S and Antifa based on potential for violence. Both are stupid political ideas (eugenics and race-baiting isn't fun) which is allowed in this country but once violence plays into the mix then you gotta start shutting down certain voices to keep the peace. Therefore, your objective should be to determine what is the potential for violence in these groups and how does this violence influence the group.

For the W.S violence seems to be a part of what most White supremacists take part in. White Supremacy in and of itself is a preference for white people which may have connotations for how a white supremacist thinks about other races but doesn't explicitly mean a White Supremacist is commanded to take violence on other races as part of the ideology. So while it is on a dangerous slope of potential violence the LITERAL ideology of white supremacy should be allowed free speech (and thus criticism to that speech)

Even so, when you actually LOOK at current White Supremacists, they don't heed the warning. Most groups explicitly say they want to kill x, y, and z people if they don't get their way in government legislation. Many indiviudals like that one crying nazi in CHarlottesville, explicitly state they're out for maximizing violence. Therefore, most W.S groups and individuals threaten violence and should be charged for hte threats of violence they state to others (and be separated from those they and threatening violence towards). These groups and individuals also prepare themselves for violence (weapons, shields) which means their rallies aren't rallies but simple gangs in a community. They also support and wish to emulate those who killed millions in ALL ASPECTS (nazis) which obviously suggests they want to take part in violence. The similarity isn't enough to say "all white supremacists want to commit genocide" but it DEFINITELY is enough to consider them a potential threat. Some of these groups have long-lasting experience of BEING violent which obviously suggests they are going to STILL be violent.

As for ANTIFA, the ideology is LITERALLY being against facists so any of us could be in ANTIFA.

But the groups ANTIFA isn't purely like that. They revel in the horrible race relations by attacking what they consider as "white supremacists" which may include anyone that states views that oppose theirs, people who aren't attacking W.S, and of course an ACTUAL W.S. They don't attack based on how violent the person they're attacking are but based on ideology. So in most instances they simply attack another person who is talking to them. That isn't preventing violence. That is being the cause of violence as a means of political intimidation. In this regard, ANTIFA folks are similar to fascists.

But how prevalent are these actions? Well, just look at OP's video. The visuals and sounds seems to imply some sort of professional or at least high quality financial support behind the making of this video. It looks more like a campaign ad or a vox video as opposed to a vlog by some nobody. This suggests that an organization not only greenlit this video but deliberately wanted this up. Not to mention the prevalence of violence in any place ANTIFA is in. It doesn't have a clear structure to it , like many other Liberal groups, which works to its benefit (since it becomes harder to associate certain violent leaders and groups to being representative of ALL ANTIFA folks). The lack of history and lack of a clear vision of how much they are willing to go with their violence also works in favor for ANTIFA.

SO overall the W.S seems to be a greater threat that MUST be tackled quick and methodically but ANTIFA is still a threat that can't be left alone for long. If I was Trump I would've furthered stress the importance of ridding us of these backwards hooligans and still reminding the importance of restricting ANTIFA isntead of getting bogged down in the "all sides are equal" statements and being so dry in his condemnation of white supremacists.

- - - Updated - - -

Tl;DR

Look at last paragraph.

Alt-Leftist sympathizers won't acknowledge/realize that the Alt-Left is basically the Alt-Right with different ideologies. All they can see is that they're against the Alt-Right. What they fail to realize is that the Alt-Left will oppose you with violence if you're even a Trump supporter. We hear about all this violence at Trump rallies but whenever I watch videos it's always the Alt-Leftists starting it.

[Not_A_German_Scientist]

When those "Antifacists" are attacking non-fascists, that is when I am able to compare how retarded of a group they are. They don't care about whether you're Alt-Right or just the Right. These antifacists will attack anybody that is even moderately against their views. Their basically trying to wipe out any opposition. If they want to combat just the Alt-Right, go right the fuck ahead. But these retards will go to Trump rallies and attack non-white supremacists/non-fascists and pretend like they're doing the right thing. They're "movement" is more than just opposing Nazis/White supremacists. If you can't see that then you're blindfolded by the media. Such a movement is dangerous. Soon enough their ideologies will spread and they'll be Nazis 2.0 but with a different agenda.

- - - Updated - - -



Alt-Leftist sympathizers won't acknowledge/realize that the Alt-Left is basically the Alt-Right with different ideologies. All they can see is that they're against the Alt-Right. What they fail to realize is that the Alt-Left will oppose you with violence if you're even a Trump supporter. We hear about all this violence at Trump rallies but whenever I watch videos it's always the Alt-Leftists starting it.

That same logic applies to Alt-Right sympathizers being apologetic of the Alt-Right. Unless these "Alt-Left sympathizers" is synonymous with all Liberals, there is no difference between the two apologist groups other than the reason why they're apologists.

Neither does your personal experience denote which group is more violent than the other. It simply means you gravitate towards certain media (like how Dave gravitates towards buzzfeed news since they have pro-Antifa statements).

Therefore, your point is void.

[Gaydow]

That same logic applies to Alt-Right sympathizers being apologetic of the Alt-Right. Unless these "Alt-Left sympathizers" is synonymous with all Liberals, there is no difference between the two apologist groups other than the reason why they're apologists.

Neither does your personal experience denote which group is more violent than the other. It simply means you gravitate towards certain media (like how Dave gravitates towards buzzfeed news since they have pro-Antifa statements).

Therefore, your point is void.

You either are an Alt-Leftist or you aren't. When I mentioned the sympathizers I was referring to the people who obviously share the same ideologies with Alt-Leftists thus also making them Alt-Leftists. Leftists and the Right are two separate groups not in correlation to either Alt groups.

With a biased leftist media what they're reporting on is more in favour of the Alt-Left. How often do you see a media outlet rooting for the Alt-Right? This isn't my personal experience, if you were to go out and find videos of confrontations you can see who is the agitator. This has nothing to do with media I gravitate towards because I don't lean towards the left or right. Even though I find some news outlets are biased left/right I will still look at them. If you think i'm leaning to the right I just cited CNN (Left biased news outlet) a page ago.

Therefore, my point is valid.

[Not_A_German_Scientist]

You either are an Alt-Leftist or you aren't. When I mentioned the sympathizers I was referring to the people who obviously share the same ideologies with Alt-Leftists thus also making them Alt-Leftists. Leftists and the Right are two separate groups not in correlation to either Alt groups.

Your point here is Alt-Leftists are Alt-Leftists just like how Alt-Rights are Alt-Rights? Or are you saying the Left sympathizes with the Alt-Left?

I just don't understand the very important point you're trying to make here as it concerns my post about violence.

- - - Updated - - -

isn't my personal experience, if you were to go out and find videos of confrontations you can see who is the agitator. This has nothing to do with media I gravitate towards because I don't lean towards the left or right. Even though I find some news outlets are biased left/right I will still look at them. If you think i'm leaning to the right I just cited CNN (Left biased news outlet) a page ago.

Since you mentioned your CNN point I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have bothered to see alt-right extremists attack people (and thus I won't say you have a right wing bias).

However, "Videos" of confrontations isn't statistics. Declaring the the left-wing extremists as worse than the Alt-right on the basis of how many "videos" you see from the two is not reliable since it doesn't have any numbers behind it (and whatever numbers it does have is dubious at best). If for example, there were 900 cases of attacks by left-winged extremists and 600 cases of attacks by alt-right extremists in 2014 then your point has an OBJECTIVE truth to it. If not, then you're just saying you see more videos of "x" and less videos of "y". I have no interest in anyone's eye-witness account when it comes to "how many" questions. Humans are subjective and riddled with potential for error in judgement. I'd much rather look at statistics that work regardless of human error.

- - - Updated - - -

Terrorists have murdered 3,342 people on U.S. soil from 1992 through August 12, 2017 (Figure 1). Islamists committed 92 percent of all those murders and are, far and away, the deadliest group of terrorists by ideology. The 9/11 attacks accounted for 2,983 of the 3,085 Islamist-inspired terrorist deaths—an overwhelming 97 percent. The chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by an Islamist during this period was about 1 in 2.5 million per year (Table 1).

Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists are the second deadliest group of terrorists by ideology and account for 219 murders and 6.6 percent of all terrorist deaths. The chance of being murdered in a Nationalist or Right Wing terrorist attack was 1 in 33 million per year. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the second deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history after 9/11, killed 168 people and accounted for 77 percent of the murders committed by Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists. Left Wing terrorists killed only 23 people in terrorist attacks during this time but 13 since the beginning of 2016. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have only killed 5 since then, including Charlottesville. Meanwhile, the annual chance of being murdered by a Left Wing terrorist was about 1 in 330 million per year. Regardless of the recent upswing in deaths from Left Wing terrorism since 2016, Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have killed about 10 times as many people since 1992. Terrorists with unknown or other motivations were the least deadly

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-...sville-anomaly

There you go right wing terrorists have killed more people than left wing terrorists. Terrorism is the epitome of political intimidation. Therefore, if you are looking for which group poses a greater threat due to their ultimate political intimidation, then you're looking at Islamists, then W.S, and then Leftists.

If you want to look at the reporters in today's age, her are some key findings about journalists
https://archive.news.indiana.edu/rele...y-findings.pdf
https://www.people-press.org/2004/05/...and-the-press/
https://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06...an-journalist/
https://www.washingtonpos*****m/blogs...=.24b20e796ccc

It seems at least to me after viewing these sources that Journalism DEFINITELY is left-leaning (which sucks a whole lot) but they are moderate to center left so while they are likely to be respondent to Liberal viewpoints, they shouldn't be respondent to extreme leftist viewpoints (like ANTIFA).

As for the outlets that control their reporting, I don't know. You'll have to help me out on that. They most likely are Left leaning (since they're headquarters are mostly in places like NYC) but do they support Extremists? Hmmmm. I don't know.

[ERYHse5rhrerhjetheth]

I'm not sure if this is supposed to make ANTIFA look like good guys...

[Confluency]

No, what i'm saying is that if you want to think that they're somehow not on the same level then you are free to think that. I'm just not pushing my views on you which I believe that both groups are equally as bad. Nazis want to be the superior while a lot of black people/minorities want to make white people less "superior" than they apparently are. Please explain to me how that in an overall perspective that is different? Don't give me some bullshit about the Nazis in the 30s/40s. The current Nazis may be shit people but at least they're not acting on their ideologies.

How exactly do you rationalize thinking that a group of people that want white people to be apologetic, are in the same realm of literal Nazi supporting White supremacists? Like how blurred are the lines for you?

The entire discussion isn't about acting on their ideologies, it's ON their ideologies.

Nazis want to be the superior while a lot of black people/minorities want to make white people less "superior" than they apparently are.

Do you not realize that literally ALL Nazi's want to be superior and want to get rid of all minorities, meanwhile SOME black people/minorities want white people to be apologetic? And what do you even mean by "a lot" of minorities want to be superior? These SJW are mainly WHITE people.

That is basically what you are doing. You're trying to say Nazis are worse but in fact they're the same as Alt-Leftists in correlation to they're organizational actions.

I really think you're arguing for the sake of just arguing.

"Alt leftists" (by your definition)
- Want whites to be apologetic
- Make it easier to be a minority than being white
- SJW
- Violent at times.

Alt-right

- Violent at times.
- Supportive of a political party that decimated millions of people.
- Wishes to get rid of all minorities in the country.
- Wants white people to have advantages over every other race.

It's like picking up basket of different colored apples, and then saying "OH THEY ARE ALL THE SAME FLAVOR, THEY ARE ALL APPLES AFTERALL RIGHT?!"

What that quote is basically saying is that because tens of millions of white people don't stand up against white supremacists, they're white supremacists. This exact type of idiotic Alt-Left logic is what is plaguing this country spread in the form of "media".
Why is that this same logic isn't brought up in places like Chicago? Where black people are killing each other. Should we say that since black people not involved in gang/drug wars, shootings and murders done by black people against each other are also responsible because they're not stepping in to stop it? NO. This would cause riots. People would be hunting down whoever made that statement because it offends them.

Oh no! They called us White supremacists! In retaliation to biased left news I better become an actual white supremacist!

By the way, there have been MANY efforts to try and help black on black violence, as a matter of fact the "BLM" that is so hated by the right side has done many things for poor neighborhoods in efforts to try and reduce gang promotion and violence in inner cities.


To sum it up, your entire argument on how the "Alt-right" and "alt-left" are equal in regards to their "badness" is that they are both sometimes violent and the skewed message they try to spread to the masses. The thing you don't understand is that they have other "qualities" that outweigh each other.

As previously said

"YOU'RE WHITE AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD"

is a lot different then

"WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF A GENOCIDAL POLITICAL PARTY AND WANT TO RID OUR COUNTRY OF ALL MINORITIES, WE ARE THE SUPERIOR RACE"

- - - Updated - - -

As for the outlets that control their reporting, I don't know. You'll have to help me out on that. They most likely are Left leaning (since they're headquarters are mostly in places like NYC) but do they support Extremists? Hmmmm. I don't know.

https://www.quor*****m/What-are-the-m...rces-in-the-US

The "right" outlets are by far the most biased. For fucks sakes just look at what Fox news passes as news, remember the "Terroristic fist bump"? Or the whole birther situation? Or "OBAMAS A MUSLIM" campaign? I find it ironic when the right cries "BIASED MEDIA" while their media is just as biased, or even worse!

[Not_A_German_Scientist]

[FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][COLOR="Black"][SIZE="2"]
https://www.quor*****m/What-are-the-m...rces-in-the-US

The "right" outlets are by far the most biased. For fucks sakes just look at what Fox news passes as news, remember the "Terroristic fist bump"? Or the whole birther situation? Or "OBAMAS A MUSLIM" campaign? I find it ironic when the right cries "BIASED MEDIA" while their media is just as biased, or even worse!

More outlets are on the left. Therefore, the left has a greater influence on journalism.

- - - Updated - - -

[Confluency]

More outlets are on the left. Therefore, the left has a greater influence on journalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Does that change the fact that the Left is no more or even less so biased than right media outlets? Nobody is arguing who has greater influence, I'm saying that the right are just as culpable for "Fake news" as the left is.

[Not_A_German_Scientist]

Does that change the fact that the Left is no more or even less so biased than right media outlets? Nobody is arguing who has greater influence, I'm saying that the right are just as culpable for "Fake news" as the left is.

Well, that is obvious though, right? I haven't heard anything that suggests that anyone considers any Right Media outlet as infallible.