|
Should it be legal for other people to assault you if they disagree with you? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
183 | 49.06% |
| No |
|
190 | 50.94% |
| Total: | 328 votes | ||
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Yeah if you're OK with the police arresting a thief (a use of violence against a person displaying a trivial form of antisocial behavior) and not OK with a dude punching a fascist (a comparatively weaker use of violence against a much more serious form of antisocial behavior), you've got hosed up priorities, lad. What's your opinion on vigilantism in general? If your standards are "if the police can do it, then the average citizen can do it", than the violence you're OK with the average person using goes quite a bit beyond punching Nazis. I'll admit I'm genuinely conflicted by this. I'm happy the dude got punched in the face, and I 100% think he deserved it, but like any black bloc tactic, things get way murkier and uglier when you get beyond the obvious black and white cases. What if, instead of Richard Spencer, it was some random person who identifies as Alt-Right, is obviously racist, but isn't calling for or behind genocide in particular? Alt-right is a big umbrella, and there's probably people in it who range from just "hating SJWs" to "kill all the jews / blacks". Normalization of this sort of stuff always leads to more questionable usage of the tactic. Black Bloc vandalism against obvious targets like corporate sponsors or state property turns into random breaking of windows. When you add 100%, undeniably violent actions into the mix, it seems like something that is dangerous to be quite so gleeful about.
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:If our institutions have failed us to the point that crypto-Nazis with sympathies toward real actual Nazis have attained the highest positions of power in our country, then our institutions are nearly worthless and that includes the police. It would be one thing if we lived in a country where advocating global black genocide would get you arrested for hate speech or inciting violence, but we don't live in that country. Not yet, anyway. So if the police are blind to it, and if the Nazis are using that blind spot to creep into power, then vigilantism against them is all we have left. I completely get what you're getting at, but if our starting point is that institutions are worthless, isn't suckerpunching random Nazis that don't directly hold power sort of a weak response? If you legitimately believe that the police / goverment institutions are illegitimate, what is punching some (admittedly evil) random dude 2 degrees removed from actual power going to accomplish? Has the sucker punch shut Richard Spencer up? Has it had a cooling effect on the alt-right, or has it just emboldened them? I don't want to come off as completely against this, I'm genuinely conflicted by it. In some cases, like in Greece where there was documented cases of fascists being violent towards minorities, I have pretty much zero problems with punching fascists. And in isolation, yeah, I'm glad Richard Spencer got punched. But if the message is "punch any Nazi you see", coupled with "anyone who defines themselves with the alt-right in any way is a Nazi", it seems like a dangerous combination. quote:And as I pointed out earlier, it is absolutely true that reestablishing those norms, after you've bashed the fash back into the shadows, is a difficult thing and that's a very serious problem. It's important to bear in mind that Nazis are going to tear down those norms anyway and they don't even intend to build them back up once they've won. This is why you're not supposed to tolerate Nazis even in times of peace and stability, but too late for that, so welp I think the other thing I'm having trouble with is the feeling that this is a temporary state. White supremacists always exist. There's no end state where every white supremacist has been punched and the world can return to normal. Don't get me wrong - things can get worse and they have got worse, but what does it mean to say they're in the shadows? Stormfront has been a thing for pretty much forever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:We sit on our asses while nazis infiltrate our government and our police and then when they do start breaking windows and faces it's off to the gas chambers for us when we retaliate. No one in this thread is saying "do nothing". I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure a good number of people aren't saying "no direct action", or "no destruction of property". I'm certainly down with it given appropriate targets. Actual violence (as opposed to just property violence or whatever), is a pretty big line to cross though, particularly in response to people who have only tenuous links to power, and haven't been violent themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:Here are the appropriate targets: nazis Again, I don't have a lot of problems with punching Richard Spencer, who is obviously, unequivocally, 100% a nazi in the face. If your point is, it's OK to punch people who have literally themselves endorsed the genocide of a race, then sure. My point is that the absolute lack of reflection on when this *is* appropriate is going to lead to a lot of people being defined as "nazis" and punched for tenuous reasons. And yeah, deciding when violence and direct action is an appropriate measure in protest is difficult, and should be. Do you think it's better that people don't give thought and reflection to their actions and just punch whoever they think might be a nazi?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
botany posted:yes let's politely ignore the people arguing for genocide until we're personally impacted. what could go wrong. An argument literally no one ever has made.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Uhhh there is a refrain dedicated to the viewpoint dude quote:literally the post above me had a quote with that exact argument Sorry, I missed that one (and I meant this thread more). But yeah, anyone proposing no action whatsoever is an idiot. There's a big gap between that and "punch everyone you think might be a nazi".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:Who needs to think about anything? Why the gently caress are people saying this? You need to think about what exactly constitutes a Nazi. We're all firmly on the side of Richard Spencer belonging in the "actual Nazi" category, but even by your standards: - He doesn't call himself a Nazi. - He hasn't directly advocated for literal genocide (he has hosted an article on his site authored by someone else that calls for literal genocide) Do I think he's a nazi? Absolutely. Do I think he, in particular, needed to be punched? Without question. But even in his case, the most nazi-ish nazi in America it's not *absolutely* black and white. And I think a lot of people are approaching this incident and nazi punching in general from "Nazi punching is good, if I think someone is a Nazi I can punch them", and that's going to result in a lot of supposed "nazis" getting punched or worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Yeah, sure, fair enough. Like I said, you won't find an argument from me that he's not a Nazi or worthy of punching. If your argument is "is it OK to punch Richard Spencer", then go hog wild.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:As someone who used to be involved in some Antifa poo poo, I feel like I have some authority here. Thanks, this is super helpful. I have zero experience with antifa stuff, so having an actual perspective rather than yuk yuk's nazi punching comedy special that the rest of the thread apparently is is awesome. quote:Generally speaking, Nazis and Antifa seek each other out to beat each other up as a form of catharsis. It's a lot of angry teenage poo poo. I'm unusual in that I'm "Old Money became no money (during the Great Depression)" in terms of my background. Most on both sides were more "Raisin in the Sun" types, where their families had dreams of social mobility that didn't work out. The parents displaced this frustration onto their kids.* And the kids found out that punching their feelings was good therapy To attempt to steer things in a more useful direction, I'd like to know more about Antifa folks in general. Did they tend to be active outside of the punching, or is it more people looking for a fight and finding an excuse for one. Is it all just catharsis in your opinion, is there an aim / goal to the fighting? I know in Greece a lot of the Golden Dawn / antifa stuff was instigated by Golden Dawn beating on / harassing minorities. In this case, it feels like there's less of a link to defending against actual violence, just perceived violence. Do people think about that kinda stuff? I know this is a lot of questions. Basically I'm just saying I want to understand the viewpoint of these folks more, so anything you want to share would be great. quote:The mythology of "maybe someone will be confused with someone else when everyone involved can totally tell each other apart but they all look the same to me because I'm not involved" is the laziest form of concern trolling. Like, be better. Like, how many people do you think sneak into churches of the wrong denomination to "defile" them by violating their rules on eating some bread? Is that a credible threat? I think the lens I was using comes from what I know, which is general black bloc stuff without antifa or actual violence (as opposed to property damage) specifically. With black bloc tactics, the pattern I've seen time and time again has been what was justified and reasoned approaches to when more direct action was necessary used as a jumping board for idiots who just want to smash anything without thought of consequence or justification. And I do genuinely feel that there's a feeling on the left that any tactic in a protest is immune to criticism (until after the fact, when it was obviously provocateurs who were doing the worst things) Sounds like the whole escalation aspect isn't really a thing in this case. enki42 fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Venomous posted:gently caress your authoritarian bullshit. At this point I have no reason to trust the state to protect anyone except the ruling classes and Nazis, which it has been doing for years and if the GOP is in power it will continue to do for years to come. If you legitimately, honestly feel that, your target shouldn't be Richard Spencer, a man who, while horrible, has at best a tangential connection to power. If the *current* state of America is so bad that the state is 100% untrustworthy, shouldn't all of your effort be put towards overthrowing it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
botany posted:surely we can do both at the same time Yeah sure, just toss in "stage coup of America" in between your 10:00 nazi punching and 12:00 dentist appointment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Radish posted:America turning MLK's message into "just suffer abuse because it's impolite to do otherwise; eventually your oppressor will be magnanimous and stop" was pure evil genius. Especially since he was shot. Can you please try to argue against the arguments being made in this thread, rather than ridiculous strawmen of people just sitting idly by? Outside of one post that was quoting GBS, not a single person has said anyone should "just suffer abuse" or had an issue with non-violent protest. I think what's more ridiculous is quoting someone who firmly stood for non-violent protest and using them to justify violence. If you think this is some simple, black and white issue, you haven't been paying attention in this thread. The line where violence is acceptable has been defined as anything from "Actually uses the word 'nazi' and literally advocates for genocide" to "voted Republican". Acceptable levels of violence have ranged from "a sucker punch with no lasting injury" to "i don't really care if we accidentally kill people". If you think this is straightforward, and celebrating and encouraging violence in an unorganized fashion isn't dangerous, you're not really thinking about what people are saying. It's OK to think it's a good thing that Richard Spencer was punched without needing to recklessly and gleefully encourage everyone to punch everyone else they think might be a Nazi.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Out of curiousity, does anyone have any good examples of violent protest that was successful in achieving it's aims? There's all kinds of examples of successful non-violent protest (MLK, Ghandi, 1989 Berlin protests). I'll accept actual evidence (rather than speculation) that a violent element or associated movement was actually responsible for the overall movement being successful. The only example of primarily violent protest that's springing to mind is the IRA, which wasn't exactly the world's most successful movement. A couple of things I'm not asking for (since it isn't what we're talking about): - Antifa actions that are in direct defence of violence against other groups (Antifa against Golden Dawn in Greece would fall into this) - Actual coups or overthrow of governments I'm being somewhat argumentative here, but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong - this isn't some attempt at a gotcha question, I honestly would like to know. enki42 fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Well there's no troops and a delegated parliament so everyone in the north is better off than they were. Sure, but well short of the actual goal, and history doesn't really regard it as a success or the IRA particularly positively. quote:Mandela doesn't spring to mind? Umkotho we Sizwe were trained to blow things up and pressured the SA government at home while SWAPO and the cubans fought the south african border war. Thanks. That's a good example. quote:MLK had 2 million black men turn up at a time when Malcolm X was doing his thing. You have to be seriously ignorant to call the civil rights movement non-violent, especially as MLK got shot. Sorry, is your point that a march that specifically called for non-violent protest against the government led by someone who was famously non-violent, and derided by Malcolm X because of this non-violent stance was actually a violent protest? quote:You haven't named a single example of anything other than your poor understanding of history. What poor understanding of history? Did MLK or Ghandi advocate for violence? I must have missed that part of my history lessons. Were the peaceful demonstrations in 1989 in Berlin actually violent?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
botany posted:in all of these cases, the non-violent protesters succeeded because there was a credible threat of widespread violence being the alternative. violence happened in all of these cases, and without it the movements very likely would not have succeeded. Do you have evidence of this? I always hear this argument, and I acknowledge those groups existed, but I've only seen speculation that the non-violent movement wouldn't have been successful without a violent element.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:But even if we discount that for the sake of assumption it's pretty clear that if your entire resistance movement somehow manages to stay perfectly non-violent no matter what, then you're basically banking on the oppressor to suddenly realize that what they are doing is wrong, and the list of examples where that has happened is even shorter than the list of successful cases of violent resistance. There are many, many ways to protest a government without violence. See: most successful protests in the 20th century. And the point of protest generally isn't for Donald Trump to look out his window and say "man, that sign really made my think about my attitude towards minorities and women", it's to raise awareness of issues among the general public and sway public opinion to your side. If your opinion is that the point of protests is to actually physically overthrow the oppressors, good luck with that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
botany posted:i mean, what kind of evidence are you looking for? it's pretty hard to prove a counterfactual. I know it's a hard question to answer, but otherwise we're sort of at an impasse. I can say that protests were successful in spite of a violent element, not because of it, and you can say the opposite. One thing I'll raise is that there have been successful protest movements that didn't involve a significant violent element that were regarded as successful, which at least points towards violence not being a necessary component of a protest movement. Examples: - GDR that I mentioned before - Various feminist movements (suffragates, 60's feminist movement, Take back the Night) - Occupy (at least in terms of public consciousness) - Maybe the labor movement (obviously an awful lot of violence against labor, but I can't think of much of the opposite)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The point is that if the non-violent resistance keeps failing to achieve its goals and oppression intensifies, people will obviously start turning to violent means. It's the latent threat of militant resistance that generally forces the oppressor to come to the table with the non-violent resistance. Yeah, I don't think anyone would disagree with the point that there's ultimately a point where non-violent resistance has failed. I don't think that point is one week after the election. The non-violent protest movement against Trump seems to be successful and has caught the public consciousness. The media is pretty much universally against Trump. The U.S. is not in a completely hopeless situation right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Uh, yeah, you're not going to get Trump to change his mind by waving a banner outside the White House. That is not a successful protest, no. My point is the actual threat behind these protests is the swaying of the public opinion over to the side of the protest. The civil rights movement was successful because of the general public not supporting violence in the face of non-violent protest, not because of fear of the black population revolting. quote:JFC, you ignoramus. The whole reason why the capitalist class started giving concessions to Labour was the threat posed by socialist revolution. In fact, that was explicitly why Bismarck introduced the first modern welfare systems back in the 19th century. Yeah, OK - probably a stupid example. I admit I have a passing familiarity with that, particularly in Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:i'll acknowledge ur exhortations to active non-violent resistance when u go out and practice it urself Who says I haven't? Or to not make it about myself or the posters in here, over 1% of the U.S. participated in active non-violent resistance last Saturday.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:I say you havent Then you'd be wrong, but what's the point of this derail?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Wait, a hate crime against who? Nazis? I'm like the most spineless liberal in here and even I think that's crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
It lacks the Nazi aspect, but how about the Troubles? It's certainly a case where violent protest escalated to the point where there were significant casualties. And I think it's fair to call the British government at the time oppressive, at least from the standpoint of Northern Irish republicans. Whether the situation got worse is a matter of debate, but it's not generally regarded as a fun time for anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Venomous posted:so I don't recall seeing this in the thread, but last week someone who protested against Milo speaking at the University of Washington was shot. The following tweets are from a UW professor] In a super ironic turn of events for this thread, the shooter claims that he shot the victim because he thought he was a white supremacist. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/police-release-man-arrested-in-uw-shooting/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:How is it pretaliation when the people you're punching are in power, and advocating genocide openly? Which person "in power" is openly advocating genocide? This thread started by discussing Richard Spencer, an internet "celebrity" who posts pictures of racist frogs and gets the occasional interview for some reason. Someone like Bannon certainly has questionable associations, but hasn't called for genocide. Trump himself - frankly, I don't even think it's clear that he's a white supremacist. Islamaphobic, certainly. But that describes a lot of people I wouldn't consider Nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Venomous posted:uh-huh, and this turned out to be bullshit. Well, it's not bullshit that he claimed it, as far as I can tell, only that it appears that he might be lying. In any case, there's definitely a relationship to the thread contents regardless of that. The victim was black bloc, the black bloc were unquestionably violent at the protest, and the victim reportedly had a knife and brass knuckles on him (the first two points are uncontroversial, but I could be wrong on the 3rd). This is an example of a non-white supremacist getting shot as a result of a protest escalating to the point of violence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
stone cold posted:so we should have more sympathy for poor widdle nazis than the victims of their hate crimes, got it No one is saying we should sympathize with Nazis. I don't sympathize with conservatives, evangelical christians, homophobes, racists, sexists, or a ton of other people but somehow I'm able to separate that lack of sympathy from needing to punch them in the face.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
You're right, convincing people is hard. Maybe you should just punch them until they agree.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Try convincing a Nazi then and see how far you get. You don't need to convince a Nazi though. You can convince either of the following two sets of people: 1. A not-nazi who has allied themselves with Nazis. There are people who identify as "alt-right" who aren't Nazis. They have some lovely opinions, but they don't want genocide, or at least aren't sure they want it. Nazis don't spring fully formed with adorable little Hitler youth haircuts from the womb. In any situation where you encounter more than one "alt-right" or "Trump" supporter, chances are at least some of them are convincable. 2. More importantly, you can convince (or keep) the general public on your side. You have the moral high ground right now. The american public has less respect for Trump than any president in the history of the U.S., and his popularity isn't improving. Bannon is less liked. Richard Spencer even less so. The way you make their viewpoints unpalatable to modern society is to denounce them and show them for the hate crimes that they are while maintaining the moral high ground. Once you're viewed as just a thug, people stop listening to you, and in the worst cases, sympathize with the Nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Nazism relies on projecting an image of strength. Antifa forcing the nazis to cower in fear on camera shatters that illusion of strength, and hence hurts the nazi cause. This is good Cool, why don't you show me an example of Nazis cowering in fear as a result of this punch, because last time I checked Richard Spencer was still posting / giving interviews / etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why don't you explin why there suddenly is a requirement that all of nazism must be defeated with a single punch in order for said punch to have any effect whatsoever? OK, how about examples of this working in the past? In my experience, anyone who can not be reasoned with and uses violence instead doesn't exactly run screaming for the hills as soon as violence erupts. They welcome that violence. They're looking for a fight. Either because they like fighting, or because it paints the people being violent to them as thugs and themselves as a victim. enki42 fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Apparently the only possible responses to white supremacists according to posters in this thread: - Punch them - Throw them a party
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, first you answer the question posed to you. I'm not going to waste my time if all you're going to do is shift goalposts and demand that I prove negatives. OK, sure: Cerebral Bore posted:Why don't you explin why there suddenly is a requirement that all of nazism must be defeated with a single punch in order for said punch to have any effect whatsoever? I'm not asking for Nazism to be defeated. I'm asking for any evidence whatsoever that that punch, or any punch has been effective in combating Nazism. If I was "shifting goalposts", I was shifting them in your favour (from "show me how this was effective against Richard Spencer" to "show me how punches were effective against any Nazi") Also, how am I asking you to prove a negative? I'm asking you to prove a positive - if you want me to support an extreme act (violent protest), then show me that it can be effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Range of definitions of Nazis per this thread: - Person who directly, personally advocates genocide and uses the literal word "Nazi" to describe themselves - Republican voter Range of acceptable level of violence: - Punch with no lasting injury - Actual murder What do you mean, a slippery slope, you spineless liberal?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
esto es malo posted:Looks like punching Richard Spencer is working so there is your evidence. How? He's still posting on Twitter (his most recent post is using violence against him to further spread his message and paint his attackers as thugs and himself as the victim). So from where I'm standing, it's either had no effect or maybe a negative effect.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:World War 2. Now you can explain to me your preferred way of dealing with nazis and why it's effective. Two militaries at war isn't even vaguely comparable to people sucker punching non-state actor Nazis. It's not just scale, it's different in kind. Liquid Communism posted:https://twitter.com/jonnywaistcoat/status/825521837828403200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw I think this is a misinterpretation of what this video is about and the effect the punch had. Quote from the video: quote:I didn't take them seriously. Well, I take them seriously now. Needless to say, I'm not giving up (...) I need to take this a lot more seriously and the alt-right needs to take this more seriously. This is not fun and games anymore. Truly the words of a man cowering in fear. SSNeoman posted:Sure This I can kind of see though, obviously punching Richard Spencer did diminish the alt-right in the eyes of the public. I still think it's a bit isolated, and this punch was more effective due to his leadership position, and because it's pretty obviously black and white, but yeah, good point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You asked for an example and you got one. Now you're desperately moving the goalposts. I've been over this in the thread countless times, but again for good measure - there's countless ways to conduct non-violent, direct action in protest. I'm going to an event to shut down access to a U.S. consulate today. On Saturday I'm attending a rally against Isamophobia and calling on the Canadian government to modify laws to allow all the people you're turning back to come here instead. Both are non-violent, but direct action is accepted (in the first case it's the entire point). For more examples, open the web page of literally any news organization and see how their total and complete focus is highlighting the (almost entirely?) non-violent protests that are erupting across your country over the weekend and today. To be fair, all of these are examples of protesting the Trump administration and not Richard Spencer or the alt-right specifically. Personally, I think focusing on people with actual power who are currently enacting racist policies is more important than punching the guy who makes racist frog pictures, but that's just me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Now you're shifting your own goalposts. We're not talking about Trump right now, we're talking about nazis. Explain exactly how your actions would be effective when it comes to resisting nazis. Wait I thought the reason this was so serious and it's so important to punch Nazis is because they're gaining / have power. I do think Bannon is a white supremacist (if you want to use the word nazi, whatever, fine, the point is he is one), and protesting what he's doing is more important than protesting Nazis that currently do not have power. Why do you think that resisting policies that ban / deport a group of people based on their ethnicity is not about resisting Nazis?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You don't get to ask me questions while you're refusing to answer mine in an honest manner. So once again, please explain exactly how your actions are effective. Look at the front page of any major news organization today. Read your social media feeds. A wave of non-violent protest captured the attention of the media and the public at large, and cracks are starting to show in the administration's armor. I'm not saying mission accomplished or anything, but sustained direct action over the coming months has a real chance to turn the public's opinion so far against Trump that even getting him out of the white house is possible. Regular people are posting about the women's march, the protests this weekend, and upcoming protests way more than they posted about Richard Spencer getting punched. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating is tanking (which I get is not wholly due to protest, but I think it does have a significant effect)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:ps I agree, it would never have occurred to white power genocide advocates to consider arming themselves ... UNTIL NOW darn it It's not much better if it serves as a convenient excuse for them to arm themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 21:00
|
|
