Unless people in the US and elsewhere follow right-wing media, they may not have heard of this malignant clown and his supposed persecution by the horrible, horrible, British justice system. In the UK it has got somewhat more play, I think.
"What on earth happened to poor Tommy Robinson? 10 Things You Should Know." |
The Secret Barrister (https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/comment-page-1/)
QuoteIt can now be reported (https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/tommy-robinson-jailed-couldnt-report-14704946) that Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25862838), sometime-football hooligan and self-reinvented free speech advocate, was on Friday 25 May 2018 imprisoned for 13 months for contempt of court after livestreaming a broadcast, including footage of participants in a criminal trial, outside Leeds Crown Court.
Some people will have seen reference to this on social media; others may have had the plight of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – to use his real name – drawn to their attention by the hordes of protestors storming London over the May bank holiday weekend. But there has not, until today, been mainstream coverage of the case due to a reporting restriction – what is known as a "postponement order" – that forbade publication of these facts until after the conclusion of the trial upon which he was purporting to "report".
While, as we'll see below, the reasons for the postponement order appear sound, the consequence of preventing fair and accurate reporting by responsible journalists was that there was no factual counterpoint to the selective and inaccurate details of Yaxley-Lennon's situation that were inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond. Thus sprung a (largely unchallenged and unchallengeable) narrative of Tommy The Brave being arrested outside court for no reason and imprisoned in secret by the deep state, culminating in petitions for his release and a Nazi-themed march on Downing Street.
[Continues . . . (https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/comment-page-1/)]
Man I just had a conversation about freedom of speech with another nutcase today. Was pretty terrible. It came to the mind that I was on the side that you cannot have freedom without restriction. But he didn't want to admit he was wrong but still adjusted his view, but unconsciously now that I think about it because afterward we mentioned how the constitution restricts the government from encroaching on freedom. And then he goes onto say that rules will always be a function of society. But he didn't want to admit that he changed his mind. But that's okay.
I vagueley remember hearing it mentioned once.
I've been following Tommy Robinson case for quite some time. Your can find a very decent biography of Tommy Robinson here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)) on Wikipedia. I don't see him as a clown or nutcase, but a more as a very brave guy, who is standing up against the crazy fundamental Islamists (the ones who demand Sharia law and other barbaric rules) and Muslim grooming gangs. These highly organised gangs have been operating unchallenged for over 20 years, raping and pimping non-Muslim underage schoolgirls who are used as sex slaves and sometimes tortured or killed. No-one dare to say or do a thing about it, because of political correctness and fear of being called a racist or Islamophobe. Robinson of course did report these bastards and suffered the consequences from it.
Quote from: Tom62 on May 31, 2018, 06:45:05 AM
I've been following Tommy Robinson case for quite some time. Your can find a very decent biography of Tommy Robinson here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)) on Wikipedia. I don't see him as a clown or nutcase, but a more as a very brave guy, who is standing up against the crazy fundamental Islamists (the ones who demand Sharia law and other barbaric rules) and Muslim grooming gangs. These highly organised gangs have been operating unchallenged for over 20 years, raping and pimping non-Muslim underage schoolgirls who are used as sex slaves and sometimes tortured or killed. No-one dare to say or do a thing about it, because of political correctness and fear of being called a racist or Islamophobe. Robinson of course did report these bastards and suffered the consequences from it.
I can mainly agree with what he says, child groomers and abusers should be pursued and treated in exactly the same way regardless of their race, belief or status. Should one group be highlighted over others? Are Islamic perpetrators worse than any other pedophilic individuals or groups? How many "ranking" white people have been given covert protection over the years (and that is ignoring priests)?
Picking one group out and giving them special attention can easily be seen as some kind of "ism". When he says similsr things about priests, coaches, teachers etc of all types and draws no line between them; when he does not attempt to sway public opinion by grandstanding . . . Perhaps he will get more serious sttention.
At the moment I see him out on the right wing and that will probably gain him increasingly more extreme ideological followers - the gay community could be their next target. Even if his intentions are good, maybe stretching the law a bit, his more extreme followers will probably not be under his control. It has happened before.
And, as for Wiki bios: investigate the suthor as much as the subject - I have seen so many obviiusly written with an agenda, with bias pro- and anti-.
I understand the concern for the fear of racism or being called racist when dealing with these issues like this. But people should not cast that idea aside because it can and does happen. Example, my cousin went to a school and the year after he left there was a guy running around campus with a knife saying to kill all the Mexicans and wearing a Trump shirt. The guy had already graduated several years earlier.
Sonetimes I think that I am a "culturalist." If a group's culture requires, say, someone shouting from a tower or ringing bells I am agin it if it disturbs anyone else. The people being shouted or rang at may be OK individually as neighbours and workmates and their colour and place of origin has nothing to do with it. If their personal culture requires havingvthe stereo on flst out they are definitely not on my "like list". If tge music is rap or electronica, "thump, thump, jangle, jangle, thump, thump, ooo,woo, thump, thump" stuff they are doubly damned!
If there is a cultural element in any action that is at least anti-social or possibly illegal then that culture needs to modify for the greater good or go somewhere that it is acceptable. On another forum we had a bloke constantly complaining about the British education system (he had some valid points) and the lack of Islamic schools. I suggested that he emigrate to a country that could fully accodomdate his needs. He did not like my suggestion. Though, to be honest, I did add something like, "(if you can find one where the lives of your family will not be at risk and you are willing to give up the benefits of things like the NHS etc)". He stopped posting for a long time after that. "Iffy" someone.
I've heard of this Tommy guy before. So far I can't see to putting him in a good light. They guy used mobs and intimidation against minorities and people who didn't agree with him. Getting jailed for contempt of court looks like the right call in this situation, because if his mob gets enough information, they could mess up the case that is getting tried in court.
The guy screamed for justice to be done, then when justice is getting done, he goes in and almost sabotages it. Either he did something stupid out of ignorance, or he is not genuinely after justice. I mean, it could be that he did that not for justice, but to get sympathy and support, and if it did derail the trial, then he could use that as a bonus to fool the feeble minded into thinking that the justice system failed. If the trial failed due to his actions, he would do very well, and by getting arrested easily tricked people call him "brave" so he still does well.
Then that video. Classic manipulation tactics there. Straw men abound and the tried and true "taking a piece or two of something true and mixing it with bullshit" that works so well on people who limit their investigations when they hear what they already agree with.
The linked piece in the OP explains the basis of his sentence. He'd engaged in the same tactic at a previous trial and had received a suspended sentence with an explicit warning that if he pulled the same stunt again the sentence would be imposed on top of whatever sentence he got for the subsequent violation. He knew perfectly well what he was doing--it was nothing but a publicity stunt to rouse his supporters and gain sympathy from the gullible.
Quote from: Recusant on May 31, 2018, 04:08:55 PM
The linked piece in the OP explains the basis of his sentence. He'd engaged in the same tactic at a previous trial and had received a suspended sentence with an explicit warning that if he pulled the same stunt again the sentence would be imposed on top of whatever sentence he got for the subsequent violation. He knew perfectly well what he was doing--it was nothing but a publicity stunt to rouse his supporters and gain sympathy from the gullible.
That is the main danger, the rabble rousing. There has been a history of incompetence and conivance in dealing with cases of abuse and one has to hope that arses have been kicked. Any person in authority who fails to act on reports or buries evidence should suffer the same punshment. But stirring it into street action is only going to make matters far worse.
It will inevitably spread beyond child abuse and there will be retaliation in both directions. Ex-ISIS members are bound to get back in by some means to add more violence. Terrorism has no colour, race or creed.
Quote from: Dave on May 31, 2018, 02:17:07 PM
Sonetimes I think that I am a "culturalist." If a group's culture requires, say, someone shouting from a tower or ringing bells I am agin it if it disturbs anyone else. The people being shouted or rang at may be OK individually as neighbours and workmates and their colour and place of origin has nothing to do with it. If their personal culture requires havingvthe stereo on flst out they are definitely not on my "like list". If tge music is rap or electronica, "thump, thump, jangle, jangle, thump, thump, ooo,woo, thump, thump" stuff they are doubly damned!
If there is a cultural element in any action that is at least anti-social or possibly illegal then that culture needs to modify for the greater good or go somewhere that it is acceptable. On another forum we had a bloke constantly complaining about the British education system (he had some valid points) and the lack of Islamic schools. I suggested that he emigrate to a country that could fully accodomdate his needs. He did not like my suggestion. Though, to be honest, I did add something like, "(if you can find one where the lives of your family will not be at risk and you are willing to give up the benefits of things like the NHS etc)". He stopped posting for a long time after that. "Iffy" someone.
I guess that's a different situation where you are. Here America always boasts it's "freedom" and then when someone says something critical of the US, they say those who don't like it should leave. But that again goes back to what I said about restrictions being put in place to preserve freedom and how the constitution admits that. But other people have values just like us, they may not be the values we hold, and they do love our country, and that is why they are here. But it's admittedly not perfect. Anyone who thinks that is sick. And then there is the whole stolen land thing...
Quote from: Davin on May 31, 2018, 03:47:50 PM
I've heard of this Tommy guy before. So far I can't see to putting him in a good light. They guy used mobs and intimidation against minorities and people who didn't agree with him. Getting jailed for contempt of court looks like the right call in this situation, because if his mob gets enough information, they could mess up the case that is getting tried in court.
The guy screamed for justice to be done, then when justice is getting done, he goes in and almost sabotages it. Either he did something stupid out of ignorance, or he is not genuinely after justice. I mean, it could be that he did that not for justice, but to get sympathy and support, and if it did derail the trial, then he could use that as a bonus to fool the feeble minded into thinking that the justice system failed. If the trial failed due to his actions, he would do very well, and by getting arrested easily tricked people call him "brave" so he still does well.
Then that video. Classic manipulation tactics there. Straw men abound and the tried and true "taking a piece or two of something true and mixing it with bullshit" that works so well on people who limit their investigations when they hear what they already agree with.
I'll admit that it worked with me when a person was speaking about evolution and that evolution was nonsense. They spoke about evolution as if it were not evolution and that confused me because I don't study that enough to know my facts right off hand. But they used it to try and upset anyone who believes that science is true and that their stance (which was the not called evolution but really evolution stance) was the correct one. Apologetics really like to use that against people. I might say that they are the ones who made it the most visible.
Quote from: Arturo on May 31, 2018, 07:22:04 PM
Quote from: Dave on May 31, 2018, 02:17:07 PM
Sonetimes I think that I am a "culturalist." If a group's culture requires, say, someone shouting from a tower or ringing bells I am agin it if it disturbs anyone else. The people being shouted or rang at may be OK individually as neighbours and workmates and their colour and place of origin has nothing to do with it. If their personal culture requires havingvthe stereo on flst out they are definitely not on my "like list". If tge music is rap or electronica, "thump, thump, jangle, jangle, thump, thump, ooo,woo, thump, thump" stuff they are doubly damned!
If there is a cultural element in any action that is at least anti-social or possibly illegal then that culture needs to modify for the greater good or go somewhere that it is acceptable. On another forum we had a bloke constantly complaining about the British education system (he had some valid points) and the lack of Islamic schools. I suggested that he emigrate to a country that could fully accodomdate his needs. He did not like my suggestion. Though, to be honest, I did add something like, "(if you can find one where the lives of your family will not be at risk and you are willing to give up the benefits of things like the NHS etc)". He stopped posting for a long time after that. "Iffy" someone.
I guess that's a different situation where you are. Here America always boasts it's "freedom" and then when someone says something critical of the US, they say those who don't like it should leave. But that again goes back to what I said about restrictions being put in place to preserve freedom and how the constitution admits that. But other people have values just like us, they may not be the values we hold, and they do love our country, and that is why they are here. But it's admittedly not perfect. Anyone who thinks that is sick. And then there is the whole stolen land thing...
Nothing wrong with critical speech here either, providing it is not libellous, breaks no laws (like reporting restriction to prevent guilty people getting off or innocent people publically exposed) and does not stir up violence or hatred in public places. If your laws allow those then maybe that is why America is becoming an increasingly violent nation.
Quote from: Dave on May 31, 2018, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: Arturo on May 31, 2018, 07:22:04 PM
Quote from: Dave on May 31, 2018, 02:17:07 PM
Sonetimes I think that I am a "culturalist." If a group's culture requires, say, someone shouting from a tower or ringing bells I am agin it if it disturbs anyone else. The people being shouted or rang at may be OK individually as neighbours and workmates and their colour and place of origin has nothing to do with it. If their personal culture requires havingvthe stereo on flst out they are definitely not on my "like list". If tge music is rap or electronica, "thump, thump, jangle, jangle, thump, thump, ooo,woo, thump, thump" stuff they are doubly damned!
If there is a cultural element in any action that is at least anti-social or possibly illegal then that culture needs to modify for the greater good or go somewhere that it is acceptable. On another forum we had a bloke constantly complaining about the British education system (he had some valid points) and the lack of Islamic schools. I suggested that he emigrate to a country that could fully accodomdate his needs. He did not like my suggestion. Though, to be honest, I did add something like, "(if you can find one where the lives of your family will not be at risk and you are willing to give up the benefits of things like the NHS etc)". He stopped posting for a long time after that. "Iffy" someone.
I guess that's a different situation where you are. Here America always boasts it's "freedom" and then when someone says something critical of the US, they say those who don't like it should leave. But that again goes back to what I said about restrictions being put in place to preserve freedom and how the constitution admits that. But other people have values just like us, they may not be the values we hold, and they do love our country, and that is why they are here. But it's admittedly not perfect. Anyone who thinks that is sick. And then there is the whole stolen land thing...
Nothing wrong with critical speech here either, providing it is not libellous, breaks no laws (like reporting restriction to prevent guilty people getting off or innocent people publically exposed) and does not stir up violence or hatred in public places. If your laws allow those then maybe that is why America is becoming an increasingly violent nation.
Stirring up violence is illegal, hatred is not. Could be said that what Trump said since whenever he started campaigning that it was words intended to incite violence. However, I think if you are running for president then that's a different story. But that is besides the point. When I said that "critical" opinions of the US were met with "get out", I meant more like "critical opinions of the US that are not the ones this party shares" and my Dad has said that often times. There will be people who have that stance and then go out and say that "you are the problem with this country". And if the problem is really social criticism, I guess it's okay as long as one side gets to have the social criticism. Because that's all it really boils down to when someone has a critique of the US. But the other side doesn't even know that they are having those same thoughts because they are so wrapped up in the illusion and never thought to think critically or analyze them self in such a way.
Example was a guy who said that "the problem people have with the USA are actually all in there head. They want to complain when they have it good until it's finally actually shit." But he doesn't realize that literally thousands of other people say that exact same thing. And he doesn't want to believe he is a communist. Either that or he doesn't know what communism is. And it goes back to how effective those tactics are the Davin gave because even I was subject to them before. And I didn't realize that they were being used until after the situation was over with.
So when it comes to politics, I know I am outgunned and outmatched. So I don't even try just so I can keep my mental health. I might give my two cents here or there but that's all I really ask for. I may ask for more in the future but for now I know that's all I require.
Quote from: Arturo on May 31, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 31, 2018, 03:47:50 PM
I've heard of this Tommy guy before. So far I can't see to putting him in a good light. They guy used mobs and intimidation against minorities and people who didn't agree with him. Getting jailed for contempt of court looks like the right call in this situation, because if his mob gets enough information, they could mess up the case that is getting tried in court.
The guy screamed for justice to be done, then when justice is getting done, he goes in and almost sabotages it. Either he did something stupid out of ignorance, or he is not genuinely after justice. I mean, it could be that he did that not for justice, but to get sympathy and support, and if it did derail the trial, then he could use that as a bonus to fool the feeble minded into thinking that the justice system failed. If the trial failed due to his actions, he would do very well, and by getting arrested easily tricked people call him "brave" so he still does well.
Then that video. Classic manipulation tactics there. Straw men abound and the tried and true "taking a piece or two of something true and mixing it with bullshit" that works so well on people who limit their investigations when they hear what they already agree with.
I'll admit that it worked with me when a person was speaking about evolution and that evolution was nonsense. They spoke about evolution as if it were not evolution and that confused me because I don't study that enough to know my facts right off hand. But they used it to try and upset anyone who believes that science is true and that their stance (which was the not called evolution but really evolution stance) was the correct one. Apologetics really like to use that against people. I might say that they are the ones who made it the most visible.
The tactics are quite effective, and unfortunately they don't only work on dumb people. They work on everyone. They work on me. Which is why we need to be able to identify the tactics and fallacies, understand how they work, and point out when other people use them.
Quote from: Davin on May 31, 2018, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Arturo on May 31, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 31, 2018, 03:47:50 PM
I've heard of this Tommy guy before. So far I can't see to putting him in a good light. They guy used mobs and intimidation against minorities and people who didn't agree with him. Getting jailed for contempt of court looks like the right call in this situation, because if his mob gets enough information, they could mess up the case that is getting tried in court.
The guy screamed for justice to be done, then when justice is getting done, he goes in and almost sabotages it. Either he did something stupid out of ignorance, or he is not genuinely after justice. I mean, it could be that he did that not for justice, but to get sympathy and support, and if it did derail the trial, then he could use that as a bonus to fool the feeble minded into thinking that the justice system failed. If the trial failed due to his actions, he would do very well, and by getting arrested easily tricked people call him "brave" so he still does well.
Then that video. Classic manipulation tactics there. Straw men abound and the tried and true "taking a piece or two of something true and mixing it with bullshit" that works so well on people who limit their investigations when they hear what they already agree with.
I'll admit that it worked with me when a person was speaking about evolution and that evolution was nonsense. They spoke about evolution as if it were not evolution and that confused me because I don't study that enough to know my facts right off hand. But they used it to try and upset anyone who believes that science is true and that their stance (which was the not called evolution but really evolution stance) was the correct one. Apologetics really like to use that against people. I might say that they are the ones who made it the most visible.
The tactics are quite effective, and unfortunately they don't only work on dumb people. They work on everyone. They work on me. Which is why we need to be able to identify the tactics and fallacies, understand how they work, and point out when other people use them.
The fact that someone went out of their way to make that shit up, AND research their bullshit and all the correct factual points, then come up with all the comebacks in their head says a lot about their character....and they're kind of a piece of shit. Nah I take that back, they are actually a piece of shit. Probably some sort of sociopath.
Quote from: Arturo on May 31, 2018, 11:50:43 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 31, 2018, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Arturo on May 31, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 31, 2018, 03:47:50 PM
I've heard of this Tommy guy before. So far I can't see to putting him in a good light. They guy used mobs and intimidation against minorities and people who didn't agree with him. Getting jailed for contempt of court looks like the right call in this situation, because if his mob gets enough information, they could mess up the case that is getting tried in court.
The guy screamed for justice to be done, then when justice is getting done, he goes in and almost sabotages it. Either he did something stupid out of ignorance, or he is not genuinely after justice. I mean, it could be that he did that not for justice, but to get sympathy and support, and if it did derail the trial, then he could use that as a bonus to fool the feeble minded into thinking that the justice system failed. If the trial failed due to his actions, he would do very well, and by getting arrested easily tricked people call him "brave" so he still does well.
Then that video. Classic manipulation tactics there. Straw men abound and the tried and true "taking a piece or two of something true and mixing it with bullshit" that works so well on people who limit their investigations when they hear what they already agree with.
I'll admit that it worked with me when a person was speaking about evolution and that evolution was nonsense. They spoke about evolution as if it were not evolution and that confused me because I don't study that enough to know my facts right off hand. But they used it to try and upset anyone who believes that science is true and that their stance (which was the not called evolution but really evolution stance) was the correct one. Apologetics really like to use that against people. I might say that they are the ones who made it the most visible.
The tactics are quite effective, and unfortunately they don't only work on dumb people. They work on everyone. They work on me. Which is why we need to be able to identify the tactics and fallacies, understand how they work, and point out when other people use them.
The fact that someone went out of their way to make that shit up, AND research their bullshit and all the correct factual points, then come up with all the comebacks in their head says a lot about their character....and they're kind of a piece of shit. Nah I take that back, they are actually a piece of shit. Probably some sort of sociopath.
It might not be that person, that person could just be repeating what they heard from someone else or they could be stuck thinking the world is a certain way and tries to warp reality to match what they think the world is. The tactics also work in a way that they are mostly transferable to other people so long as they also refuse to honestly research it. I mean, he could also be a piece of shit because he is intentionally misleading, but like with religion, I don't think every one that falls into the trap is a horrible person even if they perpetuate horrible things. If the world really were as they claim it is, they wouldn't be that bad, at least not everyone.
Yeah that's true. I forgot to mention that in my post. Sometimes people just repeat what they hear.
I just meant the original person who came up with that tactic, they had to be a shitty person. And if someone were really so set in their belief like that, that they had to warp reality to fit their beliefs in, then they would actually be delusional. And some delusional people are shitty people. Especially manipulators like Tommy Robinson here. You can be delusional and manipulative at the same time, but it's pretty rare. Sociopathy is pretty rare (or so I have been told).
Basically, the police was waiting for Robinson to make a public appearance, so that they could get rid of him. He has been a pain in the arse for the "powers that be" and any silly excuse would do the trick to lock him away for a long time. Any other reporter on the scene, would have just receive a message from the police, like "Sorry Sir, but you are not allowed to film here".
Now you may think about Robinson what ever you like. I don't agree with his methods, nor with everything he said and done (even Robinson himself is ashamed of some of the things he done in the past); but the way he was treated brings great shame on Britain's leaders, Britain's law and British media. Locking someone away for his political views, without a proper trail; combined with a full media ban; closely resembles 1984, the Third Reich and the old Soviet regime.
Robinson is the ideal scapegoat (hooligan and working class background) for anyone who doesn't want to deal with the real problems of radical Islam. It is like the "good" old days of killing the messenger, because he brings bad news. Lets just hope that, unlike old times, Robinson survives his time in prison.
This will probably be the point when people start analyzing me and disagreeing with me but be careful with that line of thought Tom. Phrases like "the powers that be" are phrases that were used by communists during the communist revolution and reflect the ideology that is used to undermine and grab power and possessions that communists are so well known for doing. It's a dangerous line of thought that, that takes you.
Quote from: Tom62 on June 01, 2018, 06:23:38 PM
Basically, the police was waiting for Robinson to make a public appearance, so that they could get rid of him. He has been a pain in the arse for the "powers that be" and any silly excuse would do the trick to lock him away for a long time. Any other reporter on the scene, would have just receive a message from the police, like "Sorry Sir, but you are not allowed to film here".
Were other reporters there against court orders? This is a misrepresentation that appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead.
Quote from: Tom62
Robinson is the ideal scapegoat (hooligan and working class background) for anyone who doesn't want to deal with the real problems of radical Islam. It is like the "good" old days of killing the messenger, because he brings bad news. Lets just hope that, unlike old times, Robinson survives his time in prison.
Or maybe, and I think this is the ticket, his message is flawed and is rightly discarded as such. We look at his message, find the fallacies and dishonest tactics, and discard it. If he corrected those flaws, the message would be better received. Let's hope that more people discard such irrational messages in the future.
Quote from: Tom62 on June 01, 2018, 06:23:38 PM
Basically, the police was waiting for Robinson to make a public appearance, so that they could get rid of him. He has been a pain in the arse for the "powers that be" and any silly excuse would do the trick to lock him away for a long time. Any other reporter on the scene, would have just receive a message from the police, like "Sorry Sir, but you are not allowed to film here".
Now you may think about Robinson what ever you like. I don't agree with his methods, nor with everything he said and done (even Robinson himself is ashamed of some of the things he done in the past); but the way he was treated brings great shame on Britain's leaders, Britain's law and British media. Locking someone away for his political views, without a proper trail; combined with a full media ban; closely resembles 1984, the Third Reich and the old Soviet regime.
Robinson is the ideal scapegoat (hooligan and working class background) for anyone who doesn't want to deal with the real problems of radical Islam. It is like the "good" old days of killing the messenger, because he brings bad news. Lets just hope that, unlike old times, Robinson survives his time in prison.
Did you read the linked piece in the OP? If so, do you dispute what is written there?
Quote from: Recusant on June 01, 2018, 10:11:29 PM
Did you read the linked piece in the OP? If so, do you dispute what is written there?
Yes, I did read the linked piece in the OP. I agree with most parts of it, but find it at the same time insulting ("knuckle-dragging cheerleaders", "racists-in-arms" ?) and biased.
It appears to me, from reading that piece and other articles about this topic, that "Robinson" was not so much targetted as he went to the precincts of that court with the intention of provoking a reaction from the authorities. No legitimate reporter would have been allowed to do what he was doing and he presumably knew that very well, having been given a suspended sentence for the same type of action less than a year ago. He manipulated the system and got what he wanted: publicity and sympathy.
We can speculate on whether a legitimate reporter would have been taken into custody, but I question any assumption that a legitimate reporter publicly breaking the law in this context would merely be given a polite warning by police. The judge in this case issued a postponement order, the police would be aware of that. It's their duty to enforce the law, and they know it wouldn't look good if they were seen to be giving preferential treatment to somebody such as a BBC reporter, after "Robinson" was in the news not so long ago for violating a previous postponement order.
As for the insulting language the author used, given the evidence that at least a sizeable percentage of the EDL and those who support "Robinson" are in fact white supremacist thugs, I'm not particularly bothered. People of good will with legitimate concerns about Islam and radical Muslims who wish to join them in their crusade should think carefully about who they'd be helping out.
Hmm, we could almost be writing about the violent attention seeking antics of the suffragettes. At the time they acted and were treated very badly for a cause that was not universally supported, certainly not by the "establishment, but eventually evolved into becoming the "right thing." I like to think that I would have been a suffragist, the less noisy and violent wing of the movement. Men did take part alongside the women.
I do not like Robinson and his tactics, despite any good points he may push.But if Robinson had a valid point, worthy of pursuing, doing so would not necessarily indicate tacit acceptance of the man's ideology. Even the most evil use good stuff as a vehicle to push the crap out to the gullible, helps them seem more legit and rational.
Would not want to share a platform with him but might take some of his ideas, cherry picked of course, to follow up. But within the stretchiest limits of the law.
EDL march, hard to see it as anything but a bunch of thugs trying to intimidate minorities.
EDL again.
Take note of the freeze peach advocates when EDL folk are saying that people should be jailed if they insult a soldier. Bunch of hypocrites.
Also note that the EDL are posting in several places to kill all Muslims in the UK.
EDL attacking a forum because some they don't agree with was speaking there.
There are a ton more. EDL is filled with cowards who rely on large groups rampaging about peaceful people. There are some who have attacked DEL though, but if there were a score being kept, EDL is far worse. There was even ridiculous video posted by "Robinson" where he was attacking people at a McDonald's that looks laughably staged. But I'm sure his supporters turned off their skepticism because it was a video that supported their already held conclusions.
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available. On this "battlefield" you have cowards, morons and despicable persons on both sides.
I am all for civils roghts ans freedom of spe3ch but I cannot help but think dpecial services anti-terrorist techniques might apply here. Zip lock every person and let them justify their presence later.
Not allowed to do thst here, they have to be witnessed committing an offence to be spprehended - though the definition of what constitutes an offence broadens by the decade. Offensive language in a public place can be starters,
But, not enough spent on the police to hold and process loads of people so . . .
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available.
Can we just agree all these overtly violent people are anti-social/criminal shits and treat them all the same?
If they have a valid point let them gather the evidence and learn to fight for it without recourse to violence. Let them appeal to the nation. Give them the support they need to do so, providing they accept the will of the majority.
Bugger, I am becoming an idealist!
I have very little time or sympathy for either side.
^I fully agree.
Quote from: Dave on June 04, 2018, 06:19:20 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available.
Can we just agree all these overtly violent people are anti-social/criminal shits and treat them all the same?
If they have a valid point let them gather the evidence and learn to fight for it without recourse to violence. Let them appeal to the nation. Give them the support they need to do so, providing they accept the will of the majority.
Bugger, I am becoming an idealist!
I have very little time or sympathy for either side.
The problem is.. violence works. It really, really does work.
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available. On this "battlefield" you have cowards, morons and despicable persons on both sides.
I'm not part of or advocating for antifa or Muslim immigrants. So I have no cowards, morons, or despicable persons. This, to me, is not some childish two sided teams of us vs them.
Quote from: jumbojak on June 04, 2018, 06:33:24 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 04, 2018, 06:19:20 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available.
Can we just agree all these overtly violent people are anti-social/criminal shits and treat them all the same?
If they have a valid point let them gather the evidence and learn to fight for it without recourse to violence. Let them appeal to the nation. Give them the support they need to do so, providing they accept the will of the majority.
Bugger, I am becoming an idealist!
I have very little time or sympathy for either side.
The problem is.. violence works. It really, really does work.
To invoke more hatred and violence on side A's part which provokes them to violence which invokes B to retsliate and so on ad nauseum!
There are a whole lot of stupid fuckers in the human race. It bothers me not if they kill each other off in open or covert battle, just when they put others - not in their arguement - in danger. "Collateral damage" is one of the worst phrases in any language however it translates.
It is for people like that that walls were made for.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2) jumbojack:
The problem is.. violence works. It really, really does work.
Sadly, violence is the language of the species.
Quote from: No one on June 04, 2018, 10:02:46 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2) jumbojack:
The problem is.. violence works. It really, really does work.
Sadly, violence is the language of the species.
From "Starship Troopers":
QuoteDizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that.
(Though my memory says Carthage rather than Hisoshima.)
Ah, Starship Troopers... I love that movie. At any rate, my views regarding violence as a vehicle for social change are a bit outside mainstream thinking on the subject.
Can one even use mainstream and thinking in the same sentence?
Quote from: No one on June 05, 2018, 04:14:01 AM
Can one even use mainstream and thinking in the same sentence?
Unfortunately not :(
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available. On this "battlefield" you have cowards, morons and despicable persons on both sides.
The thing is Antifa stands for something that is a very good cause. Unfortunately their methods are just as bad as those they stand against.
Quote from: Arturo on June 05, 2018, 12:19:52 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available. On this "battlefield" you have cowards, morons and despicable persons on both sides.
The thing is Antifa stands for something that is a very good cause. Unfortunately their methods are just as bad as those they stand against.
All they ever do is to stirring up hate and destroying private property. Apart from being extremely violent, they are also very naive and stupid. Here in Germany they attacked victims of migrant violence; destroyed parts of the Hamburg inner city, burned down cars and plundered shops (in the name of anti globalism) and now they remove car flags, because showing support for the German soccer-team is a disgusting and dangerous nationalist activity.
Quote from: Tom62 on June 05, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 05, 2018, 12:19:52 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available. On this "battlefield" you have cowards, morons and despicable persons on both sides.
The thing is Antifa stands for something that is a very good cause. Unfortunately their methods are just as bad as those they stand against.
All they ever do is to stirring up hate and destroying private property. Apart from being extremely violent, they are also very naive and stupid. Here in Germany they attacked victims of migrant violence; destroyed parts of the Hamburg inner city, burned down cars and plundered shops (in the name of anti globalism) and now they remove car flags, because showing support for the German soccer-team is a disgusting and dangerous nationalist activity.
Must be tough trying to make a point when you have given up your legs to stand on by supporting a man and group that are essentially the same.
Quote from: Davin on June 05, 2018, 07:21:55 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 05, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 05, 2018, 12:19:52 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 04, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
There are also tons of very violent Antifa-, Muslim- immigrants and -refugees videos available. On this "battlefield" you have cowards, morons and despicable persons on both sides.
The thing is Antifa stands for something that is a very good cause. Unfortunately their methods are just as bad as those they stand against.
All they ever do is to stirring up hate and destroying private property. Apart from being extremely violent, they are also very naive and stupid. Here in Germany they attacked victims of migrant violence; destroyed parts of the Hamburg inner city, burned down cars and plundered shops (in the name of anti globalism) and now they remove car flags, because showing support for the German soccer-team is a disgusting and dangerous nationalist activity.
Must be tough trying to make a point when you have given up your legs to stand on by supporting a man and group that are essentially the same.
Yup, the argument, "The other bunch are just as bad," in no way excuses the similar actions of the bunch you support. "Shitheads to the left of me, arseholes to the right . . ."
"All they ever do.." sounds like the language of someone who is not seeing the whole picture, but tries to assert they do. "All those N$#&% do is sell drugs and kill people. All they do is commit crime!" "Mexico isn't sending their best. They are sending their worst. They are commiting crimes, selling drugs, and rape." Only a sith deals in absolutes. The world is not so black and white. In other words, there is no way you could possibly see every single person in that group and their entire history accurately. There are certainly some good eggs in the group you just aren't seeing in the current lense that you are using. And yes, everyone does bad things from time to time. Nobody is perfect. But like I said, the world is not so black and white. Even bad people have some redeeming qualities. I'm not advocating for Hitler, but he was a smart man for today's standards even. He knew how to rise up the paranoia of the entire nation against the Jews. First he called them out for being unfairly exceptional to the rest of the population, then he asserted there was an actual exceptional race that deserved the higher standards & the Jews were trying to suppress them and their purity and potential by just being Jews. They are Jewish and they are just dangerous for everyone with every breathe they take.
Just let go of your short-comings. They aren't that bad.
My thoughts about Nazi's, Alt-Right and Antifa are similar like the views described in this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/).
QuoteThe initiation of extralegal street violence by self-appointed judges in masks is ethically wrong, legally wrong, and in the case of Antifa, tactically idiotic. (I can think of nothing more likely to contribute to Donald Trump's reelection than roving bands of masked, violent leftists attacking not only Nazis carrying swastikas in the streets, but journalists covering protests, or crowds at Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolous speeches.) It is an easy call for me to denounce Antifa members who participate in or endorse extralegal violence. That does not contradict my simultaneous judgment that Antifa's stated end of resisting fascism is laudable. If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense, I would have nothing but praise for them.
Certainly agree with the "tacticaly idiotic" comment - but it goes both ways. In the end it boils fown to a form of mob rule, anarchy and chaos.
The Nazis mostly had more discipline and a more coherent strategy, and that gave them power.
Find a large and remote island and dump them all on it?
Quote from: Tom62 on June 06, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
My thoughts about Nazi's, Alt-Right and Antifa are similar like the views described in this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/).
QuoteThe initiation of extralegal street violence by self-appointed judges in masks is ethically wrong, legally wrong, and in the case of Antifa, tactically idiotic. (I can think of nothing more likely to contribute to Donald Trump's reelection than roving bands of masked, violent leftists attacking not only Nazis carrying swastikas in the streets, but journalists covering protests, or crowds at Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolous speeches.) It is an easy call for me to denounce Antifa members who participate in or endorse extralegal violence. That does not contradict my simultaneous judgment that Antifa's stated end of resisting fascism is laudable. If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense, I would have nothing but praise for them.
Like how similar? If the Nazi's and the alt right weren't violent you, "would have nothing but praise for them"?
As far as I know, all Nazis endorse violence against anyone who isn't white. And the Alt-Right are just as racist as anyone else but they don't explicitly endorse current racist groups.
Quote from: Davin on June 06, 2018, 09:24:15 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 06, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
My thoughts about Nazi's, Alt-Right and Antifa are similar like the views described in this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/).
QuoteThe initiation of extralegal street violence by self-appointed judges in masks is ethically wrong, legally wrong, and in the case of Antifa, tactically idiotic. (I can think of nothing more likely to contribute to Donald Trump's reelection than roving bands of masked, violent leftists attacking not only Nazis carrying swastikas in the streets, but journalists covering protests, or crowds at Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolous speeches.) It is an easy call for me to denounce Antifa members who participate in or endorse extralegal violence. That does not contradict my simultaneous judgment that Antifa's stated end of resisting fascism is laudable. If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense, I would have nothing but praise for them.
Like how similar? If the Nazi's and the alt right weren't violent you, "would have nothing but praise for them"?
It seems clear to me that
Tom62 is stating that his views are similar to those expressed in the quote, which is unequivocal in rejecting Nazi sympathies. I think that to imply otherwise is gratuitously uncharitable, to put it mildly.
Quote from: Recusant on June 07, 2018, 01:40:22 AM
Quote from: Davin on June 06, 2018, 09:24:15 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 06, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
My thoughts about Nazi's, Alt-Right and Antifa are similar like the views described in this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/).
QuoteThe initiation of extralegal street violence by self-appointed judges in masks is ethically wrong, legally wrong, and in the case of Antifa, tactically idiotic. (I can think of nothing more likely to contribute to Donald Trump's reelection than roving bands of masked, violent leftists attacking not only Nazis carrying swastikas in the streets, but journalists covering protests, or crowds at Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolous speeches.) It is an easy call for me to denounce Antifa members who participate in or endorse extralegal violence. That does not contradict my simultaneous judgment that Antifa's stated end of resisting fascism is laudable. If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense, I would have nothing but praise for them.
Like how similar? If the Nazi's and the alt right weren't violent you, "would have nothing but praise for them"?
It seems clear to me that Tom62 is stating that his views are similar to those expressed in the quote, which is unequivocal in rejecting Nazi sympathies. I think that to imply otherwise is gratuitously uncharitable, to put it mildly.
How is that clear to you? He said that his views on Nazis, the alt right,
and antifa are similar to an article that says about antifa, "If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense,
I would have nothing but praise for them."
So I'm just wondering if his views are so similar that if the Nazis and the alt right weren't violent, would he also have nothing but respect for them. He already showed support for the EDL which is popular for the alt right so I don't think it's an uncharitable interpretation or question, but more of one paying attention to the conversation.
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 02:50:19 PMHow is that clear to you?
It's clear to me because even though it may be phrased inexpertly, I understand the sense of what he's saying. Nor am I completely unfamiliar with
Tom62, and I'm not inclined to think the worst of people, even if we don't entirely agree on political matters.
Tom62 has been a member of this site even longer than I have, and has never once even hinted that he sympathizes with Nazis.
Quote from: Recusant on June 07, 2018, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 02:50:19 PMHow is that clear to you?
It's clear to me because even though it may be phrased inexpertly, I understand the sense of what he's saying. Nor am I completely unfamiliar with Tom62, and I'm not inclined to think the worst of people, even if we don't entirely agree on political matters. Tom62 has been a member of this site even longer than I have, and has never once even hinted that he sympathizes with Nazis.
That's great for you to have so many other sources not available to us.
For those of us who have to rely on what was said and how it was said, and the clear and the unequivocal support of one group in particular, added to that post making it look the way it do. How can you say that my question was "gratuitously uncharitable"? Also adding in "to put it mildly" implying that categorizing my question as "gratuitously uncharitable" was itself charitable, doesn't make sense for those of us limited to facts available to us.
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 07, 2018, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 02:50:19 PMHow is that clear to you?
It's clear to me because even though it may be phrased inexpertly, I understand the sense of what he's saying. Nor am I completely unfamiliar with Tom62, and I'm not inclined to think the worst of people, even if we don't entirely agree on political matters. Tom62 has been a member of this site even longer than I have, and has never once even hinted that he sympathizes with Nazis.
That's great for you to have so many other sources not available to us.
For those of us who have to rely on what was said and how it was said, and the clear and the unequivocal support of one group in particular, added to that post making it look the way it do. How can you say that my question was "gratuitously uncharitable"? Also adding in "to put it mildly" implying that categorizing my question as "gratuitously uncharitable" was itself charitable, doesn't make sense for those of us limited to facts available to us.
I'm not going on any "other sources."
Tom62 has posted over 4,000 times on this site--that's my source. Unless you've been ignoring everything he's posted in his years here, you have practically the same information available to you as I have available to me. I was being charitable to you in what I wrote, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Quote from: Recusant on June 07, 2018, 05:55:54 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 07, 2018, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 02:50:19 PMHow is that clear to you?
It's clear to me because even though it may be phrased inexpertly, I understand the sense of what he's saying. Nor am I completely unfamiliar with Tom62, and I'm not inclined to think the worst of people, even if we don't entirely agree on political matters. Tom62 has been a member of this site even longer than I have, and has never once even hinted that he sympathizes with Nazis.
That's great for you to have so many other sources not available to us.
For those of us who have to rely on what was said and how it was said, and the clear and the unequivocal support of one group in particular, added to that post making it look the way it do. How can you say that my question was "gratuitously uncharitable"? Also adding in "to put it mildly" implying that categorizing my question as "gratuitously uncharitable" was itself charitable, doesn't make sense for those of us limited to facts available to us.
I'm not going on any "other sources." Tom62 has posted over 4,000 times on this site--that's my source. Unless you've been ignoring everything he's posted in his years here, you have practically the same information available to you as I have available to me. I was being charitable to you in what I wrote, whether you choose to believe it or not.
If you had read the posts leading up the question in question, then you have noticed that I was being charitable of him by asking for clarification before jumping to conclusions. I don't want to assume incorrectly and I'd prefer to get clarification. If you were as charitable with me as I was with him, this whole tangent would have been unnecessary and likely not existed at all.
From my past experiences with you combined with your characterizing my question as a "gratuitously uncharitable" interpretation in your "putting it mildly," I cannot accept that you were being charitable towards me. Yours appears to be a very uncharitable comment even if slyly worded.
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 08:58:57 PMFrom my past experiences with you combined with your characterizing my question as a "gratuitously uncharitable" interpretation in your "putting it mildly," I cannot accept that you were being charitable towards me. Yours appears to be a very uncharitable comment even if slyly worded.
You're completely entitled to your opinion,
Davin.
Quote from: Davin on June 06, 2018, 09:24:15 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 06, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
My thoughts about Nazi's, Alt-Right and Antifa are similar like the views described in this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/).
QuoteThe initiation of extralegal street violence by self-appointed judges in masks is ethically wrong, legally wrong, and in the case of Antifa, tactically idiotic. (I can think of nothing more likely to contribute to Donald Trump's reelection than roving bands of masked, violent leftists attacking not only Nazis carrying swastikas in the streets, but journalists covering protests, or crowds at Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolous speeches.) It is an easy call for me to denounce Antifa members who participate in or endorse extralegal violence. That does not contradict my simultaneous judgment that Antifa's stated end of resisting fascism is laudable. If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense, I would have nothing but praise for them.
Like how similar? If the Nazi's and the alt right weren't violent you, "would have nothing but praise for them"?
My understanding of Tom's post was that he's opposed to any group using violence in protests unless it's in self-defense. And as incredibly satisfying as it must be to punch out a Nazi, I agree with that. Fortunately for Antifa, fascists as a group seem inclined to give others a reason to react in self-defense.
Tom, please respond. I will admit that, over some time, I haveboften felt that you fall right of centre. Nothing wrong with thar but . . . My accumulated feeling is that you do tend right far enough to nake this centrist feel a little uncomfortable at times. But, then I have to remind myself that this is an atheist and not a humanist forun!
As a sort of non-liberal centrist, happy to use the big hammer on the far left or far right, I can agree with "fighting" violence by either side. Trouble is it's not easy to do so without large people and equipment (both expensive) resources/reserves. Hence, I think, the extreme state violence in some countries where the "in-power people" would like to eradicate the troublesome "out-of-power" in the cheapest way possible.
To bring up an old British expression, if an obvious "Johnny Foreighner" is laying about ordinary people with a bladed weapon a violent bring-down is valid. Even, in my opinion, if you are not yourself in immediate danger and, say, lob an accurate rock at his head from 15ft away. Can "self-defence" include the defence of "one's people" in such a situation?
But, what, for eg, if a white person (assuming you are also a white person) is doing the same thing, in similar circumstsnces, to those of obvious foreign extraction? Do you lob a rock at his head just as readily?
If you do not then you are validly accused of bias.
But self-defence should have a valid legal basis, ideally, be appropriate to the monent and proportional to the offence*. . . Well, just maybe just disproprtionate enough to ensure a win. "Getting one's self-defence in first" , in a aggressive physical form, is not valid and invites similar retaluation. But then, that may just be the strategy.
"I do violent things to foreigners/political opponents because they do violent things to my people," can only be in any way valid if your violence is offered to the actual perpetrators at the time of the act,
*I have to say I consider that, as a little guy with a serious heart problem, "proportional" relates as much to my disadvantages and vulnerabilities as to the type and level of physical violence offered to me - I am not a pacifist, my car might be a valid weapon of "aggressive defence", in my mind, in certain circumstances.
I wonder whether anybody aside from Tom62 and me has bothered to read the article that he linked.
"How to Distinguish Between Antifa, White Supremacists, and Black Lives Matter" | The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/)
Quote from: Recusant on June 08, 2018, 09:07:20 AM
I wonder whether anybody aside from Tom62 and me has bothered to read the article that he linked.
"How to Distinguish Between Antifa, White Supremacists, and Black Lives Matter" | The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/)
I scanned through it before, scanned a bit slower again.
Can't disagree with the authot, as I have said it is a person's actions that really count - the gratuitoualy violent law officer is no better than the gratuitously violent member of any racial or political group.
Self-defence, or the defence of innocents, may well be justfied. Violence for any other purpose is not. But, in societies where the carrying of firearms is approved and common, I can understand the police making the assumption that a suspect is armed is also valid.
What bothers me is the evidence on which those police decide an individual is suspicious and the apparent hair-trigger nervousness. The katter may be partly due to inadequate situation training? Some may be due to a racial bias though.
Something like one of the original complaints by Robinson, that the race of perpetrators was being hidden, it is not that easy to find stats over here regarding the racial breakdown of crime. Are more of the current knife crimes carried out by blacks or whites? Though this matters not in absolute terms it counts in terms of public perception. And public perception is the media in which racism grows, fed by the shit Robinson et al spew out.
If you're not with us you're against us and a Nazi too.
Quote from: Recusant on June 07, 2018, 09:45:04 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 07, 2018, 08:58:57 PMFrom my past experiences with you combined with your characterizing my question as a "gratuitously uncharitable" interpretation in your "putting it mildly," I cannot accept that you were being charitable towards me. Yours appears to be a very uncharitable comment even if slyly worded.
You're completely entitled to your opinion, Davin.
Thanks, but it's not just an opinion, there's a whole history there.
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 07, 2018, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 06, 2018, 09:24:15 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 06, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
My thoughts about Nazi's, Alt-Right and Antifa are similar like the views described in this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/drawing-distinctions-antifa-the-alt-right-and-black-lives-matter/538320/).
QuoteThe initiation of extralegal street violence by self-appointed judges in masks is ethically wrong, legally wrong, and in the case of Antifa, tactically idiotic. (I can think of nothing more likely to contribute to Donald Trump's reelection than roving bands of masked, violent leftists attacking not only Nazis carrying swastikas in the streets, but journalists covering protests, or crowds at Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolous speeches.) It is an easy call for me to denounce Antifa members who participate in or endorse extralegal violence. That does not contradict my simultaneous judgment that Antifa's stated end of resisting fascism is laudable. If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense, I would have nothing but praise for them.
Like how similar? If the Nazi's and the alt right weren't violent you, "would have nothing but praise for them"?
My understanding of Tom's post was that he's opposed to any group using violence in protests unless it's in self-defense. And as incredibly satisfying as it must be to punch out a Nazi, I agree with that. Fortunately for Antifa, fascists as a group seem inclined to give others a reason to react in self-defense.
I don't support violence except as a last resort either, but I also do not support a person or group that often uses violence and intimidation as one of their main tools. I think it's unfair to Tom62 who does support such a person and a group to interpret his statement and quote that way because that creates the appearance of a contradiction. Between supporting a group that often uses violence and then saying that he would like Antifa if only it didn't use violence. Which is why I ask questions, to be fair to them before coming to conclusions.
Don't worry, I'm don't have any sympathies at all for the Alt-Right, Nazis or the Alt-Left (Antifa included). Basically I'm against any form of extremism. Politically speaking I'm a libertarian with some views that lean to the green and left (like animal rights, anti-pollution, pro-life, etc.) and some views that lean a bit more to the right (like small government, anti mass immigration, border safety, freedom of speech).
Quote from: Tom62 on June 09, 2018, 09:00:03 AM
Don't worry, I'm don't have any sympathies at all for the Alt-Right, Nazis or the Alt-Left (Antifa included). Basically I'm against any form of extremism. Politically speaking I'm a libertarian with some views that lean to the green and left (like animal rights, anti-pollution, pro-life, etc.) and some views that lean a bit more to the right (like small government, anti mass immigration, border safety, freedom of speech).
Would have thought "freedom of speech" lived in the liberal middle ground - go more than couple of steps right or left and it evaporates.
Quote from: Dave on June 09, 2018, 09:18:08 AM
Would have thought "freedom of speech" lived in the liberal middle ground - go more than couple of steps right or left and it evaporates.
That is probably true. However, in recent times even the moderate conservative- and centrist people have be very careful with expressing their opinion in some western countries (like here in Germany), due to the new censorship- and blasphemy laws ("sold" to the public as anti-hate crime laws). The left doesn't seem to have many problems with it.