Berkeley Mayor exposed As Member of Militant Antifa Group That Orchestrated Riots

[OrcsRLame]

Antifa are the good guys...

Such good guys, much wow.

[Elba]

This sort of thinking, if reflected in policy, leads to totalitarianism. As you slowly erode away what is acceptable to say or think and stamp out the people who say or think those things, greater fracturing of the in-group will occur and more and more people will get pushed to the margins, so many of the people who survive the first "round," will find themselves suffering whatever fate the group deems fit in subsequent rounds. I saw someone say earlier that, "First they came for the Nazis," didn't have the same ring to it, but I'm rather certain that based on the thinking and politics of the time, socialists, trade unionists, and Jews weren't the most popular people either and that is the real message of that saying, not simply some shallow appeal to standing up for other socially acceptable people.

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," is a concise expression of what free speech needs to mean if it is to remain free. Defending the rights of Nazis, even if you hate everything they say, even if you refuse to give them an ear or a soapbox, even if you respond with a vicious tirade of your own, is defending your own rights, whether you realize it or not. As soon as it becomes acceptable to ban speech based on its content and being sufficiently unpopular, then you have destroyed your own right, for all it takes is the balance of power shifting slightly, and perhaps it will become illegal to talk of gender identity or race or sex or discrimination based on those or other things. And you may say, "Oh, but we'll take to the streets and fight them," and perhaps you will, but the state will then be entitled to use superior force to combat you. And after they've crushed you all underfoot, who will be left? You will have undone whatever progress was made by inviting broad censorship into your country and you will have made yourselves for all intents and purposes just as much an enemy of progress as the people you claim to fight against, the people you claim cannot be allowed even basic rights.

In Germany, we currently suppress the rights of Nazis. We curtail their speech. We put people in prison for their speech. Is Germany a totalitarian state?

In Germany we have the term "Wehrhafte Demokratie" - militant democracy. That means that we as a people actively defend our democracy and our freedom against those that seek to destroy it.

Nazis are enemies of freedom. If you allow them to spread you allow freedom to be weakened or even destroyed. My people saw this first hand.

Freedom is not absolute. There have to be limitations for a society to function, for a society to persist. There is speech that is dangerous. That must not be allowed. Or else you put the entire rest at risk. You cut out cancer before it metastases.

Classical liberalism, in its insistence to defend each and every freedom, without limits, is ironically putting itself in danger.

Defending Nazis is like putting a gun to your own head.

[urasim]

As a German

This tells me all I need to know about you. Being part German myself I know how much the people of Germany are indoctrinated to hate Nazis. And I get it. Much of my family fled Nazi Germany during WW2(some family members weren't so lucky). Mostly because they were also Jewish descendants. But because I wasn't raised in Germany I was able to escape that particular indoctrination. I still have a special hatred for them, though. But that doesn't mean I'll stop anyone from speaking. Especially a Nazi. Why? Because the restriction of speech is what lead them to ultimately becoming the monsters they were.

[Canpinter]

In Germany, we currently suppress the rights of Nazis. We curtail their speech. We put people in prison for their speech. Is Germany a totalitarian state?

In Germany we have the term "Wehrhafte Demokratie" - militant democracy. That means that we as a people actively defend our democracy and our freedom against those that seek to destroy it.

Nazis are enemies of freedom. If you allow them to spread you allow freedom to be weakened or even destroyed. My people saw this first hand.

Freedom is not absolute. There have to be limitations for a society to function, for a society to persist. There is speech that is dangerous. That must not be allowed. Or else you put the entire rest at risk. You cut out cancer before it metastases.

Classical liberalism, in its insistence to defend each and every freedom, without limits, is ironically putting itself in danger.

Defending Nazis is like putting a gun to your own head.

again if your not personally dragging anyone you think might be a nazi into the street and killing them to me that makes you a collaborator, am i justified in attacking you now for being a secret nazi?

[Elba]

vid

Such good guys, much wow.

Hey look. /pol/ Nazis hunting anti Nazis. Such good guys. And is that Sargon?

[Deleted]

In Germany, we currently suppress the rights of Nazis. We curtail their speech. We put people in prison for their speech. Is Germany a totalitarian state?

In Germany we have the term "Wehrhafte Demokratie" - militant democracy. That means that we as a people actively defend our democracy and our freedom against those that seek to destroy it.

Nazis are enemies of freedom. If you allow them to spread you allow freedom to be weakened or even destroyed. My people saw this first hand.

Freedom is not absolute. There have to be limitations for a society to function, for a society to persist. There is speech that is dangerous. That must not be allowed. Or else you put the entire rest at risk. You cut out cancer before it metastases.

Classical liberalism, in its insistence to defend each and every freedom, without limits, is ironically putting itself in danger.

Defending Nazis is like putting a gun to your own head.

All of this could be said of communists and fundamentalists - these are all ideologies that spread paranoia, hatred of a group of "oppressors", and stakes beyond the self

[Elba]

All of this could be said of communists and fundamentalists - these are all ideologies that spread paranoia, hatred of a group of "oppressors", and stakes beyond the self

The speech of communists and fundamentalists who want to destroy the democratic order is also curtailed. Volksverhetzung does not only apply to Nazis.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said it would be immediate? Certainly not I. You have, however, opened the door to it. What happens as soon as people decide they really don't like something else, say Muslims?

We already do the same to radical Muslims.

[Forogil]

It's amazing how little some people learn from history, even at universities.

The physical fights between communists and nazists in Germany in the 1930s didn't stop the Nazist rise to power; one could even argue that it paved the way for their rise to power.

[Elba]

I didn't limit it to radical Muslims.

Well, you are going down a slippery slope then. If we disallow screaming fire in a crowded cinema we will eventually stop all people from screaming fire and people will burn to death.

[Deleted]

Look how that worked out for Germany. You have to stop them in the beginning before it is too late.

I don't care about what happened in germany in the past. Nazis aren't going to come to power in Sweden. The nazi party got 4000 votes or something last election and then they disbanded because of such low support. I'm not scared of them gaining any traction here.

They won't gain much traction in the US either.

[Destump]

Slippery slope is a fallacy. Punching Nazis defends free speech. Nazis want to destroy free speech. They are Nazis. A democracy does not have to roll on their back and expose their belly. You can actively defend it.

Defending their right to express their opinions does not mean defending nazis. And let's make this clear: I only defend their right of free speech, the second anyone advocates for violence or extreme racism is the second that defending stops. But as long as they don't advocate violence etc, yes I will protect their rights. It doesn't matter if they are nazis, communists, etc. I will defend the principle of free speech. And if free speech would be under attack from nazis, then I will defend it against them. That doesn't mean I ,,roll on my back and expose my belly''. It means I protect free speech for all, not just the people I agree with.

[Rampant Rabbit]

Which makes the blind labeling of "alt-right" twice as funny.

Thanks for pointing out the irony.

[artemishunter1]

No? That's not how this country works. Unless he is personally harming or attempting to harm someone, it is unacceptable that anyone should respond with physical violence. Vigilantism should not be tolerated. If he's shirking his duties as mayor, then remove him or don't reelect him. If he's doing something illegal, then arrest him. But advocating roving bands of malcontents be judge, jury, and executioner is a dark road to nowhere good that we shouldn't even think of heading down.

why? He is already in power, and already done damage by ordering police to stand down. Simply removing is not enough, he needs to punished for that.

[Elba]

Defending their right to express their opinions does not mean defending nazis. And let's make this clear: I only defend their right of free speech, the second anyone advocates for violence or extreme racism is the second that defending stops. But as long as they don't advocate violence etc, yes I will protect their rights. It doesn't matter if they are nazis, communists, etc. I will defend the principle of free speech. And if free speech would be under attack from nazis, then I will defend it against them. That doesn't mean I ,,roll on my back and expose my belly''. It means I protect free speech for all, not just the people I agree with.

But they are advocating for violence and extreme racism. Read up on the punchee, Richard Spencer.

[Destump]

Hey look. /pol/ freedom of expression advocaters hunting communists. Such good guys. And is that Sargon?

edit: fixed that for you.

And yes, the people like that Richard Spencer will not receive any support from me.(that girl with the dreadlocks had that punch coming, tho) I was talking about the hundreds of other people there who were expressing their opinions, and got beaten by antifa for daring to speak out. And just to be clear: those antifa people were also advocating for violence. They are just as bad as the nazis they claim to combat.

And let's not kid ourselves here, the antifa people were the ones coming to fight, and they started the fight. They deserved every punch, kick and beating they got.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Such good guys, much wow.

4chan's forensic abilities are scarily good, which is why I shake my head when I realize they're using it to chase down Shia Labeouf's hidden anti-Trump flags and hunt SJWs instead of actually trying to catch real criminals and murderers. Sure, if this professor committed assault, charge him, throw the book at him, then please get to doing something useful for the world 4chan.

But that won't happen. While the guy in the video who got hit isn't a nazi, 4chan itself has tons of real nazis. It takes 5 seconds of reading 4chan and seeing all of the calls to violence against minorities (especially Jews, blacks and Mexicans) and SJWs to know that. In before someone goes "LOL 4CHAN IS JUST JOKING WHEN THEY CALL FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST SOMEONE!"

[Forogil]

Who said it would be immediate? Certainly not I. You have, however, opened the door to it. What happens as soon as people decide they really don't like something else, say Muslims?

And the entire side has already slipped down this slippery slope with joyful cheers.

The discussion is about violence "Nazis", when the recent antifa violence (and other black-clad persons) in Berkeley and Cologne have not primarily targeted actual "Nazis".

[Soeroah]

People have a right to their opinion, not to start racially-driven movements affecting others based on those opinions, as far as I'm concerned.

If people want to bitch about people of race they are free to do so or congregate to circle-jerk about it among their fellows. The second it becomes active discrimination it's gone past freedom of speech and into a problem area.

[Deleted]

Read up on the punchee, Richard Spencer.

He had done nothing that warranted that at the time.

[Elba]

That's a really stupid analogy. There's a very practical reason for limiting one's ability to shout "Fire" in crowded areas, but that doesn't stop them from being able to say "fire" or talk about fire as it's mostly about limiting mode and a very limited restriction on context, as opposed to a ban on content. We're talking about content bans though.

You limit speech that puts people at risk. Yelling fire puts a few dozen to a few hundred people at risk. Extremist speech puts millions at risk.

I believe people have the right to self defense. Curtailing extremists is self defense on a national level.

Why allow that to exist what tries to destroy you? Why roll over and present your belly?