Germany, in a First, Shuts Down Left-Wing Extremist Website (nytimes.com) 408
An anonymous reader shares a report: An influential website linked to violence at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg last month has been ordered to shut down, in the first such move against left-wing extremists in the country (alternative source), the authorities in Germany said on Friday. Thomas de Maiziere, the interior minister, said that the unrest in Hamburg, during which more than 20,000 police officers were deployed and more than 400 people arrested or detained, had been stirred up on the website and showed the "serious consequences" of left-wing extremism. "The prelude to the G-20 summit in Hamburg was not the only time that violent actions and attacks on infrastructural facilities were mobilized on linksunten.indymedia," he said, referring to the website. The order on Friday was the latest move in a long battle against extremism in Germany. It comes in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Va., this month and amid worries about "antifa" factions that use violence to combat the far-right in the United States.
Now you see (Score:2, Insightful)
Why we must protect freedom of political speech in the US. Fortunately we have strong laws to do this. Google and Facebook should not be the arbiters of speech. Universities should not live in fear of letting people talk.
We do not want to hand the power they have in Germany to silence people to a man like Trump, or anyone who claims to be a fascist or anti-fascist (aka, communist)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
DUH!
If the University was staging the counter protest you might have a point.
it is not.
Re: Now you see (Score:5, Insightful)
So you want to require universities to let White Supremacists speak?
Why not? What are you afraid of? Do you think their words will somehow trigger your latent, inner-Klansman?
Let them speak, it gives us all some comic-relief and a chance to laugh them back into irrelevance. There are only a few thousand of them in the entire US of ~350M people. They have no power. They're silly little goose-stepping idiots. They are no serious threat to anyone or anything.
You actually empower them with media attention they'd never get anyways. Makes me wonder if maybe you're actually a recruiter.
Strat
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There are only a few thousand of them in the entire US of ~350M people. They have no power. They're silly little goose-stepping idiots. They are no serious threat to anyone or anything.
Tell that to the family of Heather Heyer. It took only one of them to allegedly kill her.
Re: (Score:3)
At the risk of seeming callous:
There are roughly 15,000 murders a year in the US, and this year so far there have been 9 mass shootings. Sounds to me there's serious threats to those living in the US alright, but mostly not from those far right groups. Singling out one killing from all of these, although very emotive, in order to make your point probably doesn't do what you think it does...
Moreover, the point of posters above you is that the best tactic to employ when one of these far right groups or indivi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Now you see (Score:4, Interesting)
Heaher Heyer's death is squarely on the shoulders of the US Left.
But only the white US Left, as the black US Left wisely mentioned that "#SAYHERNAME IS NOT FOR HEATHER HEYER OR OTHER WHITE WOMEN".
Heather Heyer’s death is not an excuse to further perpetuate white supremacy and the erasure of women of color.
https://wearyourvoicemag.com/i... [wearyourvoicemag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Heaher Heyer's death is squarely on the shoulders of the US Left.
I have rarely seen a more malicious falsehood, and it staggers belief that you of all people would be arguing against personal responsibility. For shame, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
I have rarely seen a more malicious falsehood...
Then you haven't listened to a word the US Progressive/Left has said for over 50 years. "Malicious falsehoods" are the Progressive's stock-in-trade. Ask Rev. Al.
it staggers belief that you of all people would be arguing against personal responsibility.
Of course if the driver is found guilty he will pay his personal responsibility with the sentence the court hands down. That's only the *legal* portion of responsibility, there is also a greater moral responsibility here for the entire situation occurring to begin with as well.
That moral responsibility lies with the Progressives and Leftists who hav
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points for you. Kudos!!
Re: (Score:2)
Strat - I surmise that a good deal of the anti-speech movement on the left comes from, as one philosopher phrases it, "A Desire to Be Heroic." It is, as of yet, unclear to me what the highest quality approaches are to discussing this. Some of us believe the best defense against hate speech is MORE SPEECH. Suggesting this quickly got you labelled a member of the aryan nation by one responder. No doubt I'll get flamed too for responding to a couple of them. I included images of what MORE SPEECH means to me (Anna Kasparian's legs, Mel Brooks impersonating Hitler, Woody Allen as Castro). However the 'YOU ARE A WHITE RACIST' response quickly follows. And it's worthless, in my case for example, to explain that I'm not white. Nor will I pass the 'paper bag test' any time soon.
Pretty much agree 100%. It's going to take grownups like you & I to show them that we have far, far more in common as Americans than anything that would separate us.
The name-calling simply proves they have no argument or they'd make it, and it's also a weaksauce attempt to shame people like us in order to silence us (cluebat incoming, Progs!: Ain't happening!).
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
However access to the university is not necessarily open to the public. You cannot just walk into any classroom and start talking. A university is not a public square. If you want to give a speech in a classroom then you need to get permission. If you want to stand on an outside corner on campus commons area and give an extemporaneous speech then you can do so. Most universities are well known for the bizarre people who put up a milk crate and start talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Now you see (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, cool, so if we label someone as a Nazi they no longer have civil liberties.
You're a Nazi, now give me all of your stuff and stop offering your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, cool, so if we label someone as a Nazi they no longer have civil liberties.
You're a Nazi, now give me all of your stuff and stop offering your opinion.
If they don't want to be labeled as Nazis, they shouldn't march with Nazi flags. And if they were just there to march on behalf of slavery, then they should have told the people with the Nazi flags to fuck off and get their own rally, but they didn't.
Your concern would be justified if the people this were happening to weren't Nazis, but they are in fact Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's stupid to ban people from saying stupid shit like the holocaust didn't happen, those ideas need to be laughed at. But I don't think it's stupid to take calls for violence seriously.
On the third hand, violence may actually be necessary to achieve certain positive goals, so I see the down side. But government can't afford to ignore threats of violence, either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you do realize that trying to forcibly quell a viewpoint or movement is akin to putting a fire out with gasoline.
The only way to get them to actually go away is to ignore them completely. A speaker labeled as a white supremacist comes to speak at campus? Let them, so long as they aren't actually inciting violence directly.
If the only people who show up are the their supporters -- which despite all the hand-wringing consist of a vanishingly small number of people (especially relative to the fervent left-lea
Re: (Score:2)
They don't really go away though. The KKK has not quite died down, despite being so old and archaic. There's a backchannel that keep these groups alive. They talk with each other and recruit without needing to have big rallies to do so.
The neo nazis won't dry up and die by being ignored anymore than ISIS will vanish by being ignored. Of course, giving them free press coverage will just encourage their growth.
Re: Now you see (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but that's not how we got rid of the original Nazis. The Jews ignored them until they were being sent to concentration camps. Europe ignored them until they had taken Poland, France, et al. England ignored them until bombs started falling. The US ignored them until they couldn't any more.
Ignoring nazis does not make them go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You could say the same of any war. Side (x) ignored the increasingly vocal behaviour of side (y) until it was too late, then War! I call post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem at all: I don't like SJWs or Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
"public university" = "government".
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
No, public universities take money from the government to extend services to the public. Hence there are various safeguards in place, eg. you can't require people to register their names to use your libraries, even Internet services have to be able to be used anonymously, political organizations have to have reasonable and equal access to your services etc.
Private universities don't have to abide by a lot of the rules unless they take government money for grants where the rules have to be followed again.
Re: (Score:2)
Conceded. Thanks for the correction. I should have done more research before posting.
But please, modding me troll is harsh. I posted incorrect information in good faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Making errors does not make one a troll. Comments should never be marked as "troll" merely because someone disagrees with its views.
A university does have the right to control when certain facilities are used by others. The buildings are not open for anyone to walk in at any time of the day. If you want to reserve the use of a building for a special purpose then you need to arrange this with the university. The university can refuse this on several grounds, but cannot refuse it on the basis of the nature
Re: (Score:2)
Making errors does not make one a troll.
This is bullshit because he didn't just make an error. People know when they are guessing. People that pretend to not be guessing when they know that they are, are dishonest fucks. It is not simply an error. Its an intent to mislead not on the "fact" given (which could have accidentally been right, and many people just as dishonest as this fuck are more often right about their facts than wrong), but on this dishonest fucks claim of knowledge.
What can this guy now do when he really does know something, th
Re: (Score:2)
Google takes money from the government, making it quasi-governmental.
No, it makes it a private company that gets money from the government; there's nothing quasi-governmental about it. Additionally, they are not the ones determining what speech is acceptable on the "public internet," but they are the ones determining what speech they allow on THEIR OWN SERVERS and running through THEIR OWN SERVICES.
...because maybe it's easier for you to understan
I would agree, however, that you're using words/phrases that you don't understanding the meaning of.
https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
or anyone who claims to be a fascist or anti-fascist (aka, communist)
All the Marxist "class struggle" is baked right into the Antifa rhetoric, but is now under the guise of identity politics. Still treating people as groups. Still ignoring the individual.
When your only importance is defined by what group you can be classified as belonging to, you arent important at all. In fact, you don't matter one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's never a good idea to make sweeping generalizations.
Never? That seems to be quite the sweeping generalization!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't stop people from talking (Score:3)
You stop them from breaking the law.
This is just bass ackwards.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same as other "speech only" crimes like fraud. "But I just wrote some numbers on a piece of paper! My freeze peach!" isn't much of a defence.
Re: (Score:2)
The article doesn't say that not saying it isn't true but if it is then the German Government is real slow about it.
Speaking as a lefty (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go ahead and tell all these peopled killed by the left that you're not nearly as violent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
Re: (Score:2)
as Noam Chomsky noted
Noam Chomsky is a buffoon. He once complained during an interview with Larry King that he was silenced and ignored by the mainstream media. He's basically a white Al Sharpton with no cause.
Does not compute (Score:2)
Good. Every large group has it's version of Soccer Hooligans. The left is no different. The difference is (as Noam Chomsky noted) the Right is _much_ better at violence than the Left.
So why is it that the Left in the U.S. are the only ones so far that have shot or killed anyone?
Granted the ones who killed people were rather crazy and it's hard to label them exactly, but they all mostly read eliminationsist rhetoric from the left.
"The right is better organized" is a "fact" I would heavily dispute, since the
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Every large group has it's version of Soccer Hooligans. The left is no different. The difference is (as Noam Chomsky noted) the Right is _much_ better at violence than the Left. Their love of strong authority figures means they can organize better and they've got more ex-military guys. The Left can win on issues because our policies work. But we can't win on violence because, well, we're not nearly as violent (and yes, that's probably a slightly controversial idea, but that doesn't make it less true).
Well. Germany does have a history with left-wing terrorists like Rote Arme Fraction, and is still dealing with occational 80s style BZers in Berlin that won't leave the buildings they are not paying rent for (though with large parts of Berlin formerly communists and some building occupied since the fall of DDR, the ownership is a lot more vague in places).
They're surprisingly well organized (Score:2, Troll)
Also, you do know that Islamic Terrorists are right wing, right? They're conservative and authoritarian. As for economics, sure, they'll take control of all the money, but everybody but the anarchists does that. And the anarchists are really just giving that control up to the right wing (nature abhors a power vacuum).
And
Re: (Score:3)
Antifa aren't anarchist, they are mostly anti-establishment. And over here they are highly organized, there really isn't any comparison with the far right on that score. I'm not sure what the situation is in the USA but it would seem to be very different. As for the islamic terrorists, that's where the notion of left and right kind of break down. For one, the left are far more sympathetic to fundamentalist
Re: (Score:2)
The left, here in the states, are more sympathetic to Muslims in general (over conservatives) because we believe that everyone has the same rights, regardless of what their religion is, and we see conserva
Actually we don't mean conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
There's an old line about the greatest trick the devil ever pulled and the Right did just that by branding "Conservative". Most folks are a tad on the Conservative side as soon as they have something to lose. By calling themselves that the Right hide their
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>"Conservatives want to keep things as is, unchanged. "
As far as USA Conservatives, no they don't. That is a big and unfair over-simplification. Conservatives want to keep the PRINCIPLES things were built on unchanged. Most importantly the concept of smaller government, especially Federal. Most Conservatives emphatically support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights inside it; they do not believe it is a flexible document that should be changed on a whim or twisted to meet the latest craze. They w
Again, you're missing my point (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignore what they say, pay attention to what they _do_.
Re: (Score:3)
>" US "Conservatives" aren't. They're Radical Regressives. Trying to regress society [...] to mask ill intent. "
If you think that following both the words and intent of the Constitution is "radical" then nothing else I say to you will make any difference.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, conservativism and right-wing politics, while not cointensive (don't mean the same thing) were coextensive (referred to the same people) at the start, far predating the modern conflation of the two terms. The original right wing were the party of the established elite, who already had all the power and didn't wan't anything to change from that, aking authoritarianism originally coextensive as well. The original left wing, representing the interests of the general populace, wanted change, making
That's just it they're not coexistent (Score:2)
They Right realized that a substantial number of people are Conservative out of fear of losing what they had. So they synced their rhetoric with those peoples wishes to hide their true intentions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying, but I think you misread a word I wrote.
I didn't say "co-existent", I said "co-extensive". That means that the extension of two terms is the same, where "extension of a term" means the objects that that term refers to. I was saying that, when the terms "conservative" and "right-wing" were coined, even though those mean different things and so might not always refer to the same people, at that time they did: right-wing favors the elites, at the time thing
I suggest you look at who owns your media (Score:2)
The media typically goes left on social issues (the ones that don't matter much) and right on economics (where real decisions are made).
There is one exception I can think of oddly enough, the BBC. Them and Al Jazeera are proabably the last bulwark of journalism left in the world. Though to be ho
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC are not a bulwark of journalism. They're a horribly anti-male, anti-British propaganda outfit if you go by their website.
The radio news tends to be more balanced, but the non-news radio then reverts back to the pro-female agenda.
Shit, we're talking an organisation that still broadcasts a daily Women's Hour. No Men's Hour; they tried that as a once a week thing, devoted it to nonsense topics, didn't address any of the societal challenges facing men.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ridiculous at all to label Islamic terrorists as far right extremist
Re: (Score:2)
But who knows. Suppose that Islam in the west wasn't associated with a vulnerable and economically disadvantaged group of immigrants, b
Re: (Score:2)
You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative. They're doing this so they can take more money from the working class for themselves. And that's sorta why I'm on the Left...
You must be watching different media coverage of the US to me, I think...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative.
The right owns the media and controls the narrative? I guess that's why members of the press self-identify as Democrats versus Republicans at a 4:1 ratio [washingtonpost.com]. Must be all those right-wingers at the New York Times, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I guess the 20 to 1 endorsement rate [wikipedia.org] of Hillary! over Trump is just the right wing manifesting itself in the media.
Seriously, put down the bong, drop your copy of Hillary!'s excuse/blame-fest "What Happened?", and, well - go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're surprisingly well organized (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a funny definition, considering the left does it's best to accommodate violent, expansionist Islam whenever it gets the chance.
How does this bullshit get modded up?
The left wants people treated fairly, not lumped together and treated as one group. Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are not one homogeneous group.
It's entirely possible to oppose Islamic values, morality and terrorism while still objecting to mistreatment or unwarranted discrimination against Muslims.
The rest of your claims are just slander.
Re: (Score:2)
Largely speaking, both left and right want people treated fairly. The further away from the centre ground you go, the more polarised the group becomes on what they deem an unfairly treated group to be, and the extent to which that group is disadvantaged. Also, they're usually wrong about the 'why' of the disadvantage.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree to some extent, but I think even moderates on the right tend to want to force people to accept their morality and religion. For example, on same sex marriage or abortion rights.
The left tends towards the principle of doing what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. I suppose conservatives would argue that too, except that two guys getting married "injures" them somehow, but leftists are just making trouble when they complain about naming that building after the guy who owned their ancestors.
Re: Speaking as a lefty (Score:2)
The difference is that with the Left you get mostly property damage and a few rocks thrown, whereas the Right is more prone to shoot and bomb people.
Note that in the past this was different. In the 70s and 80s Germany was dealing with Left-wing terrorism by the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion).
In related news (Score:3)
Congressman Scalise is improving, and is undergoing physical therapy so he can walk again.
After, you know, a Bernie Bro shot him and some other people.
And the former professor - again, a leftist - who slammed a bike lock into four people's heads, is still awaiting trial.
Not to mention the 200 or so leftists who are facing charges after their violent riots in Washington, DC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that depends whether he did it or not.
Although the online community's research into the masked bike lock attacker's identity was a wonder to behold, I'll wait for a court of law to pass judgement before demanding attrition from a specific individual.
I'm not at all pro-capital (Score:2)
Join or Die friend. You're gonna have a government whether you like it or not. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Major cities North East cities are pretty liberal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they tried just that in Boston and a few dozen showed up.
Looked to me like the "few dozen" that showed up at Bostons free speech rally were a bunch of hippies and anti-gmo people. While they were talking about hippy things and gmo's, the counter protesters were screaming "Nazis!", "Fascists!", and "Racists!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Suck it up, snowflake. If you want to claim victim status, get in line behind the guy with the tiny violin.
The USSR is far right (Score:2)
It's important to have labels and shorthand to get a message across fast. Working Class people have limited time and attention spans. If you're trying to organize and help them you've got to work in those constraints. The Right can and will to your detriment and mine.
Tomorrow's fascists will be the antifascists (Score:2, Insightful)
It can be hard to tell the fascists and antifascists apart sometimes, in methods, ideology and in appearance. Just how hard it can be was nicely illustrated today in an article on a Dutch left wing (and fairly sympathetic to Antifa) bl
Not sure, this was a good decision (Score:4)
If this web site was the worst site that needs to be shut down, Germany would be a happy country ;-). It was in the large part only a forum with anonymous usage. The name associated it with the left and the moderators surely had their sympathies rather on the left end on the spectrum.
The site was used by extremists to announce their deeds and to blurp their justifications. On the other hands, they were constantly taking a beating by the far bigger majorities of lefties. It was always clearly visible, how isolated the extremists were.
Tactically the police robbed themselves of one of the best intelligence sources they had on the extreme left.
Re: (Score:2)
Tactically the police robbed themselves of one of the best intelligence sources they had on the extreme left.
The police doesn't need this kind of intelligence. All they need is the green light from the politicians, then they can go pick up a troublemaker or two and they'll topple the whole pyramid because those people have no loyalty, they're just in for the lols.
Re: (Score:2)
Previous experience shows that does not work like that.
Violence doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Politically motivated violence (short of genocide) has been shown to be ineffective and many times counterproductive. However, if you think genocide is the answer then you have lost sight of what you were fighting for. Combating extremism with more extremism is a losing move.
Ineffective for what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was writing about violence within a democracy. Dictatorship is a totally different topic.
Re:We have the opposite problem in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Right wing extremist groups are not "propping up everywhere". They only reason they have a platform, and any coverage, of ANY sort... is because the misguided media keeps showing up with their cameras. Left wing extremism is real and it's causing just as many problems, if not more. I don't see Nazi groups destroying property and setting cars on fire over a speech at a college.
Both sides have extremist factions that they ignore, because they like that those extremist factions will do the dirty sh!t that the more "normal" (read: need to get re-elected) people won't do. That is why the president denounced violence on both sides. Problem was, the left isn't used to being called out for such dirty tricks, so they kept at it with "the president needs to apologize the CORRECT way, he needs to only blame the violence on the RIGHT".
THIS. There are no more than there ever were. But the media seeks them out and actually helps them by making it look like a growing movement, sparking idiots on the other side to come and confront. Too bad we can't take the ultra left and ultra right and put them in a room together and lock the door, let the media cover the aftermath.
Re: (Score:2)
I confirm this indirectly. I tried to gather statistics on popularity of neonazism in Europe and all I got is Golden Heart (or whatever it called) winning 7% in Greece in parliamentary election.
Rise of right-wing xenophobia is a real thing though. Denmark is flooding propaganda waves with shows like Gidseltagningen, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, not this (Score:2, Informative)
This shouldn't be surprising. Antifa groups are anarchists. By definition they're unorganized and loose knit. They reject authority on the face of it. The Right OTOH make authority a central plank of their ideology. Better organization leads to more effective violence. That's why militaries use a chain of command instead of voting.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's the exact opposite. A simple google search...
No such thing, sadly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So try duckduckgo or other anonymizers.
Re:No, not this (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the exact opposite. A simple google search [google.com] will show thatright wing violence is 74% more common than left [npr.org]. This shouldn't be surprising. Antifa groups are anarchists. By definition they're unorganized and loose knit. They reject authority on the face of it. The Right OTOH make authority a central plank of their ideology. Better organization leads to more effective violence. That's why militaries use a chain of command instead of voting.
The google search does not given results that say right wing groups are growing. The NPR opinion piece you referred to limits its description of left wing violence to those done by "groups", but compares against all RW violence, individual or group. NPR is not exactly an objective source when it comes to L v R, I guess you know.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't know. Perhaps you could provide systematic evidence, rather than an anecdote or two, to back that assertion.
The NPR opinion piece you referred to limits its description of left wing violence to those done by "groups", but compares against all RW violence, individual or group.
Talk about not being an objective "source," you need to check yourself. "In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic e
Re: Correct summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Christ Almighty...
Why does this have to be left vs. right?
Can't it be civilized people vs. violent monsters?
I don't care which stupid insane ideology you follow if you're hurting innocent people! Fuck off everyone! If you want my attention, this is how you won't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Can't it be civilized people vs. violent monsters?"
Looking at the laws we have right now in the USA, I daresay not a damned one of you are civilized.
Re: Correct summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit.
If you think hatred and violence is monopolized by any one political ideology, you're sorely mistaken. History shows us hatred and violence are an easy vice for any group to fall into, and it's one that we should attack regardless of whether "our team" is doing it or not.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Both sides are violent, but in different ways. In the last century, the left killed more than the right, but most of those deaths were due to economic incompetence rather than intentional actions. Killing out of hate is far more common on the right. Stalin allowed millions of Ukrainian kulaks to starve, not because he hated them, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. But the Jews were not a threat to Hitler, they had supported the Kaiser in WW1, and they got along with Fascists like Franco,
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling for those Troll mods, I see.
Hope you get 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Correct summary (Score:5, Informative)
Where exactly do you get your information on "antifa"? You are aware that there is an active movement right now by pro-Trump trolls running fake "Antifa" twitter accounts [bbc.com], don't you? Even the pro-trump troll who created the "declare antifa a terrorist group" White House petition claims to have twitterbot armies of his own [politico.com] stoking the fires.
Antifa is not a "movement". It has no "ideology". It simply means "anti-fascist". Anyone who considers themselves anti-fascist can (or not) adopt the label.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a label that have quite a bit of blood splattered over it (mostly by the european branches), and not a good solution for the nazi at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it were just real nazis, it's never ok to kill people.
Yes, when they have guns, tanks and shit and don't want to surrender, you need to kill em, but it's still not OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you feel better after this long rant, but basically you're the one who looks like a tool, not the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That idiot that drove his car into a crowd in Charlottesville was not exercising free speech.
There was so much violence on both sides before this happened that the police had already declared an unlawful assembly several hours before the vehicular homicide. The UCLU has condemned Charlottesville for "dispersing" the declared unlawful assembly in a manner that forced the two groups already committing violence together.