|
doverhog posted:When I use the term political violence I mean civilians using violence with no democratic mandate. And in doing so you're redefining the entire concept to exclude the political violence that you approve of. The problem here should be obvious. EDIT: doverhog posted:That's fine, but just admit it's acting outside of a democratic mandate and is in fact devolving society into political groups engaging each other with weapons rather than arguments. Have you ever tried engaging a mob of nazis all fired up to go cracking some skulls with arguments?
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
doverhog posted:That's fine, but just admit it's acting outside of a democratic mandate and is in fact devolving society into political groups engaging each other with weapons rather than arguments. Well, no I'd say that "stop nazis attacking people in the street" probably has a pretty strong democratic mandate. Again it's the job the police should be doing but for some odd reason don't.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no I'd say that "stop nazis attacking people in the street" probably has a pretty strong democratic mandate. Ok? Great that means the government has employed legal remedies against them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Ok? Great that means the government has employed legal remedies against them. What?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Ok? Great that means the government has employed legal remedies against them. No actually it doesn't. See, we don't actually live in a perfect democracy, where everything with democratic support reshapes the very earth itself by pure unconscious will of the people.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Guys, I'm not a nazi, in fact I'm a communist if anything. I have not given up hope with regard to the government, and think it is dangerous to in any way accept vigilante groups. You all seem to believe we must accept a society where antifa and nazi groups are at constant war. I don't want to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Guys, I'm not a nazi, in fact I'm a communist if anything. I have not given up hope with regard to the government, and think it is dangerous to in any way accept vigilante groups. What?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Why would I accept that? I would be much happier if we lived in a place where we had a well trained and equipped police ideologically bound to the public service regardless of race or creed, who would and could respond to any threat of fascist violence against anybody, arresting and detaining the fascists with minimal harm so they can receive treatment for whatever mental illness makes them think that immigrants and nonwhites are subhuman. But we don't so for the time being crack some nazi heads because gently caress if immigrants and nonwhites should get their cracked by loving nazis instead. Good is not the enemy of perfect. The response to fash/antifash violence is not to say "well the antifash are as bad as the fash clearly if we stopped them fighting then everything would be fine!"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
So you are for violence then.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Guys, I'm not a nazi, in fact I'm a communist if anything. I have not given up hope with regard to the government, and think it is dangerous to in any way accept vigilante groups. Re-read their arguments. They operate off almost the exact same logic the far-right groups do. Just replace nazi's with muslims or arabs and you have the mission statement as proud groupings such as the Soldiers of Odin. Both factions don't trust in the police, both see their perceived issue as unaddressed and, most importantly, both believe that there is no legislative solution within the democratic framework and that they must take matters into their own hands to protect the minorities/women&children. That's also why you have this weird notion of 'pre-emptive self-defence' which you also find in the arguments up above.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
doverhog posted:So you are for violence then. Yes I am 100% for violence all the time in all ways, never not be violenting all over everyone you meet. I'm glad that you got right to the core of my argument. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Re-read their arguments. They operate off almost the exact same logic the far-right groups do. Just replace nazi's with muslims or arabs and you have the mission statement as proud groupings such as the Soldiers of Odin. Both factions don't trust in the police, both see their perceived issue as unaddressed and, most importantly, both believe that there is no legislative solution and that they must take matters into their own hands to protect the minorities/women&children. That's also why you have this weird notion of 'pre-emptive self-defence' which you also find in the arguments up above. Hm, yes, truly both the people who want to murder all minorities for existing and the people who want to stop the aforementioned from happening are equally bad. This is some peak liberalism.txt right here.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Hm, yes, truly both the people who want to murder all minorities for existing and the people who want to stop the aforementioned from happening are equally bad. We had this argument over a year ago in the scandipol thread Bore, you didn't convince me then and you are not convincing me now. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
No, you dumb gently caress. It does not matter what the ideology behind it is, if you go on the street and assault people you are in the wrong. If you do it for political reasons you are a terrorist.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
I know I know it's hard to choose between supporting the expansion of the state and a police force founded on Peelian principles dedicated to the public trust, with strong oversight from independent bodies in all aspects of its operation, and direct self defence when the police aren't able or willing to defend you, but we all know you can only choose one of those and it's not possible to support both.doverhog posted:No, you dumb gently caress. It does not matter what the ideology behind it is, if you go on the street and assault people you are in the wrong. If you do it for political reasons you are a terrorist. Unless you do it with lots of your mates in another country and then it's called heroism. E: sorry you also need to all dress the same. Preferably in camouflage print that's important. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Re-read their arguments. They operate off almost the exact same logic the far-right groups do. Just replace nazi's with muslims or arabs and you have the mission statement as proud groupings such as the Soldiers of Odin. Both factions don't trust in the police, both see their perceived issue as unaddressed and, most importantly, both believe that there is no legislative solution within the democratic framework and that they must take matters into their own hands to protect the minorities/women&children. That's also why you have this weird notion of 'pre-emptive self-defence' which you also find in the arguments up above. https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 doverhog posted:No, you dumb gently caress. It does not matter what the ideology behind it is, if you go on the street and assault people you are in the wrong. If you do it for political reasons you are a terrorist. Is this categorical, or are you making the assertion that the collective nature of antifa is what's bad about it?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
doverhog posted:No, you dumb gently caress. It does not matter what the ideology behind it is, if you go on the street and assault people you are in the wrong. If you do it for political reasons you are a terrorist. I agree that the cops are basically terrorists, yes. MiddleOne posted:We had this argument over a year ago in the scandipol thread Bore, you didn't convince me then and you are not convincing me now. It's good to know that you're dead set against reevaluating your bad opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's good to know that you're dead set against reevaluating your bad opinions. And you're not? This is why I mentioned it, our positions and arguments are exactly the same as they were back then. We've done this dance already.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I agree that the cops are basically terrorists, yes. I hereby drat CB to posting hell, and will no longer respond to him. Brainiac Five posted:Is this categorical, or are you making the assertion that the collective nature of antifa is what's bad about it? Antifa is fine if it's working against Nazis in more or less any way other than attacking them on the street. Why is it so loving hard to understand that I'm against violence on the streets?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I hereby drat CB to posting hell, and will no longer respond to him. No you really should make a distinction between say, deployment of armed forces overseas in military intervention and antifascism. I mean there are distinctions but I'm curious as to which ones you will articulate. doverhog posted:Antifa is fine if it's working against Nazis in more or less any way other than attacking them on the street. Why is it so loving hard to understand that I'm against violence on the streets? It's not hard to understand that, or at least it's not hard to understand that you are against non state violence in the street. But we do think it a bit odd that your sticking point is just "non state violence is bad" rather than say "injustice is bad" or "nazis are bad". It's like if I came into a discussion about oh, economics and said "the use of currency is bad, you should avoid using currency" I mean yes it is a position but it seems kind of... tangential to the real crux of the discussion. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:22 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I agree that the cops are basically terrorists, yes. lol
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I hereby drat CB to posting hell, and will no longer respond to him. *drags brownshirt onto sidewalk before curbstomping him* Are you happy now, doverhog? No longer on the streets. Maybe we could commit the violence in buildings? Like, your position seems to suggest that you can't engage in any kind of violence unless you're a cop, which, um, seems highly immoral and also really loving stupid. So I asked a clarifying question, and you ignored the actual point for some reason.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
edit LIBERALS
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I hereby drat CB to posting hell, and will no longer respond to him. Nice meltdown. But for anyone reading, I'm going to point out the obvious here and that is that the very core of the neonazi movement is to go out and start violence on the streets. It might be hard to understand of you're not among their targets, but a mob of nazis isn't marching down the streets to engage in respectful discussion, they're there to intimidate and assault people. MiddleOne posted:And you're not? This is why I mentioned it, our positions and arguments are exactly the same as they were back then. We've done this dance already. It's good to see that you're dedicated to your false equivalencies.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Brainiac, restate your question, I swear, you'll get an answer.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Brainiac, restate your question, I swear, you'll get an answer. Is violence that is not performed by cops or soldiers ever permissible? If so, why is antifa violence categorically impermissible?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
There are still people opposed to political violence in 2016? I thought this was the European thread, not some other, lesser thread.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Because the political process is there to handle these things. You have elections, and the people voted in, with the mandate of the people, direct the machine of violence that is the police and army. ' If the current government fails at that, you remedy it at the next election. If you skip that, you reduce it to gangs having gang wars on the street.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
I think it's nice of doverhog to answer so promptly every time he promises to. Too bad it's never an answer to the question that was asked, but one of two ain't so bad.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Because the political process is there to handle these things. You have elections, and the people voted in, with the mandate of the people, direct the machine of violence that is the police and army. ' So, essentially, hope that the police will have all the structural issues that make them support or overlook fascists fixed by a single election, and until then, let the immigrants and Jews and so on die and be terrorized. Noice.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Because the political process is there to handle these things. You have elections, and the people voted in, with the mandate of the people, direct the machine of violence that is the police and army. ' Who are you responding to? What if the winning party's platform is "liquidate everyone who isn't us"?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Because the political process is there to handle these things. You have elections, and the people voted in, with the mandate of the people, direct the machine of violence that is the police and army. ' Perhaps we could try for both of those things? Would you suggest that fighting off an attacker is an undemocratic expression of political violence and you should allow yourself to get murdered and wait for it to be remedied at the next election?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Gang wars, noice.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Gang wars, noice. The police are a gang.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Gang wars, noice. Better or worse than simply gang murder of bystanders?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Who are you responding to? What if the winning party's platform is "liquidate everyone who isn't us"? Which European party would that be?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
I really really would like an articulation on the key differences between police deployment, individual self defence, armed forces deployment overseas, and collective self defence. Because I am genuinely curious as to what you feel the differences are.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
I never suggested that. Fighting off an attacker is never wrong. Why did you think I said that?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I never suggested that. Fighting off an attacker is never wrong. Why did you think I said that? Because you seem to take issue with people doing it in groups. Or at least, in groups smaller than the police and the army. There's this weird disconnect where individual self defence = OK, though it's violence in the streets. Collective self defence is wrong, because it's violence in the streets and undemocratic, sending the police in is fine, though it's violence in the streets and, well, democratic is arguable, and sending in the army to invade somewhere is also good though that is violence in the streets and extremely undemocratic. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
I take issue with groups attacking other groups for political reasons. There are no attacks taking place there before the conflict. By all means, all individuals and groups must defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:42
|
|