Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I feel like any discussion of antifa violence has to be handled on an individual basis.
Why?
Because all violence should be.
And next, we have the point of, "How much condemnation should there be for punching a Nazi if you aren't an Actual Pacifist?" Because maybe the violence is something like breaking a car window of some guy they don't like. Or maybe it's punching a guy who brags about beating up queer kids.
I *AM* an Actual Pacifist but if I condemn all violence unilaterally then I'm going to be a hypocrite because the Nazis in my area are violent and use violence to intimidate others. When they don't, it's because people usually have driven them out and threatened to fight back.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 12th 2019 at 8:20:18 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@Soban:
As for me, I think violence has no place in our political discourse and so this drunk guy hitting this cameraman is just as out of place and wrong as antifa violence.
...Yes, there is. I don't know if you've been living under a rock for the past few years, but every time someone brings up violence by the right, "WHAT ABOU ANTIFA?!" springs up.
There is every reason to discuss Antifa. Just because you enjoy peddling the "both sides!" argument, doesn't mean you can ignore what the right is doing and saying (which you have blatantly refused to actually condemn).
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."The possibility of violence needs to exist for any antifascist action to be useful. It doesn't need to be violent, but when you lead with an Actual Pacifist position, the movement and ideology lose any bite and you end up rolled over.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
![]()
> "every time someone brings up violence by the right, "WHAT ABOU ANTIFA?!" springs up."
Probably because it's the image of violence on the left that comes to mind. If you are going to condemn someone for pushing around a cameraman. Then you may want to also condemn people who beat others with sticks.
>There is every reason to discuss Antifa
Not if we are being consistent with our positions. However, if we are being inconsistent and the antifa are an example of that inconsistency, then their fair game.
>doesn't mean you can ignore what the right is doing and saying
I don't believe that I argued that we should ignore this incident or argued that this was justified.
>which you have blatantly refused to actually condemn
In a post where you quote me as saying that violence doesn't have a place in our political discourse.
![]()
The possibility of violence needs to exist for any antifascist action to be useful.
Certainly, however, I feel that we currently have s system where fascist violence can be taken care of by the system.
The issue with bringing up antifa violence is that by doing so you are unintentionally carrying water for the far right. There’s no real reason to even mention it, considering that as touched on above antifa’s violent acts are basically non-existent while right wing terror is a very real issue.
It’s a fundamentally ridiculous argument.
They should have sent a poet.![]()
Setting aside that bringing up Antifa in response to the cameraman being assaulted is classic Whataboutism, I take issue with this statement:
There is extensive evidence of white supremacists working as cops.
Then there’s the cops who worked with neo-Nazis to arrest counter protestors.
Who the neo-Nazis stabbed.
Edited by wisewillow on Feb 12th 2019 at 12:27:54 PM
Trying to discuss antifa violence as if it were as much of an issue as far right violence is pretty much a false equivalence.
Except someone responded by asking rhetorically whether antifa violence isn't a problem or something. That's how we got to this point.
Edited by M84 on Feb 13th 2019 at 1:34:13 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
![]()
Don't forget the violence by the Proud Boys in New York a few months ago, and the NYPD targeting the counter protesters instead until widespread attention was brought to bare.
'But ANTIFA' is a classic deflection and whataboutism, and I'm very skeptical towards anyone that shows tendencies to use that argument.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 12th 2019 at 12:36:01 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerI mean, no, it exists. It's just not this all-powerful bogeyman the right makes it out to be.
It's not a false flag, but it is ironically a fascist's absolute dream. It's not organized, it's not actually a threat, and it sounds scary. Precisely the kind of bogeyman fascism needs.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.... depending on the severity of the racism, fire them and don’t rehire them (racist cops have been fired by one police department and then hired by a different one) or put them through extensive anti-racist training.
Screen applicants for warning signs of racial bias. Review the social media of applicants- if they’re posting white supremacist stuff, don’t hire them. Actively train new cops to not be racially biased.
Racist cops are a danger to the public.
Edited by wisewillow on Feb 12th 2019 at 1:41:24 PM
Which is moot, because you're playing the "both sides" game. Come out against this shit when the right attacks, which is incredibly often and just happened, instead of when trying to say that the left are somehow just as bad.
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."![]()
How is that sentence trolling? Legitimately the only time I've heard of or seen anything about antifa is when right-wingers bring it up to show how they feel "unsafe" or how "lefties are just as bad" at their racist rallies. As far as I've seen, they only exist when they need a scapegoat.
Edited by Friendperson on Feb 12th 2019 at 11:01:57 AM

Just to put a lid on claims of Democratic spineless fuck-uppery:
Analysis | Trump’s failed shutdown strategy produced an even worse deal than he started with – Trump would get some funding for border fencing. It wouldn't even be what he was originally offered.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/12/trumps-failed-shutdown-strategy-produced-an-even-worse-deal-than-he-started-with/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e494acc02694
An excerpt:
That may be because this deal is a pretty bitter pill to swallow. In fact, it’s probably a worse deal than Trump would have gotten if he had never shut down the government in the first place.
The deal as laid out does include some border fencing — $1.375 billion worth, or 55 miles. That’s well shy of the $5.7 billion and 200 miles in wall funding he demanded that led to the shutdown, but it’s not nothing. Trump could argue that he got something out of the 35-day government closure.
But only if you ignore two very important things.
One is that this compromise includes a concession to Democrats, too: a reduction in the number of detention beds. As The Post’s Erica Werner, Damian Paletta and Sean Sullivan report:
The deal omits a strict new cap Democrats had sought on immigrants detained within the United States — as opposed to at the border. At the same time, it limits overall levels of detention beds maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, although GOP aides said ICE would have enough money and flexibility to maintain its current detention levels and add more when needed.
But the bigger issue is this: The amount of funding is actually shy of the original deal Republicans and Democrats reached last year that Trump rejected. At that time, the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security included $1.6 billion for 65 miles of fencing, both slightly more than the current tentative deal.
This was the deal on the table (it passed 26 to 5 in the Senate Appropriations Committee in June) when Trump initially began demanding $5 billion for his wall. He’s now getting slightly less than that $1.6 billion while also making a concession to Democrats on detention beds.
Also:
GOP livid with Trump over ignored Khashoggi report It's the latest rift between Republicans and the president over foreign policy.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/gop-trump-ignored-khashoggi-report-1164487
Edited by sgamer82 on Feb 12th 2019 at 9:19:28 AM