Liberals, please stop allowing Authoritarians to hijack the Left.

#51
5+ doesn't necessarily constitute as the main factor in a protest that turned into a riot. I could argue that Green Peace were the major reason behind the violence, because I know there were far many more there than here. I feel like getting bogged down in isolated instances like this problematic, because it's all anecdotal, unless we have numbers to back them up. The G20 summit isn't enough to push all the Antifia as a violent group.



I don't disagree that instances of this can happen, but her personal experience doesn't define the Left. The issue I have is that people take anecdotes and use them to smear the whole left. I will continue to listen to the video and see if they list more evidence.



I'm sure these groups exist and I'm sure they do have issues, but I just don't see them as a threat to Freedom and Free speech as much as the Right. Authoritarians exist on both sides. The problem I have is numbers. I need to see them if you want to convince me that this is more of an issue, than the attacks on freedoms of people by the Alt-Right?

Also you comparison of the Extreme left to things like Moa, dictatorships or the church in the medevil age is non-nonsensical. How are these remotely similar?
Sorry it was 5k I think it was even 10k.

It was an example. How many examples do you want? Weinstein? Talyor for wearing a shirt? The pornstar who committed suicide? Petterson? Antifa? BLM members who disrupted a parade because of a police float in Canada? People who shouted Bernie Sanders down? How many do you need to realize it? I am pretty sure If I want to i could find thousands of these cases in America alone.
 
#52
I'm sure these groups exist and I'm sure they do have issues, but I just don't see them as a threat to Freedom and Free speech as much as the Right. Authoritarians exist on both sides. The problem I have is numbers. I need to see them if you want to convince me that this is more of an issue, than the attacks on freedoms of people by the Alt-Right?

Also you comparison of the Extreme left to things like Moa, dictatorships or the church in the medevil age is non-nonsensical. How are these remotely similar?
It is not more an issue it is an issue. I don't compare I just add an issue. The Authoritarian left is a problem, because they want to regulate speech, personal freedom and the market place of ideas. The Authoritarian right has the same goal, but they have different reasons to do so. Jordan Peterson said one thing, which I can absolutely support. Both sides play the identity politics game, just for different reasons. I don't care who is worse, because both sides are a problem for our democracy because both sides don't respect the idea of free speech, free exchange of ideas and personal freedom.
 
#54
They continue to argue the same thing over and over, they don't tolerate intolerance so punching actual nazis is ok. I don't agree 100% but that's fine, I don't object too strongly to that, but they are missing the entire point being made, and that is: Not everyone that disagrees with them is an actual Nazi! That's the part they are refusing to engage with.
 
#55
Sorry it was 5k I think it was even 10k.

It was an example. How many examples do you want? Weinstein? Talyor for wearing a shirt? The pornstar who committed suicide? Petterson? Antifa? BLM members who disrupted a parade because of a police float in Canada? People who shouted Bernie Sanders down? How many do you need to realize it? I am pretty sure If I want to i could find thousands of these cases in America alone.
Were all these Antifia members? Or because it was violent all protesters are the extreme left? Because that same reasoning I could argue all Charlotte protesters on the right were violent.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I wanted examples of issues. Things along the lines of issues with immigration, trans rights, sexism, feminism, voter ids.
 
#56
It is not more an issue it is an issue. I don't compare I just add an issue. The Authoritarian left is a problem, because they want to regulate speech, personal freedom and the market place of ideas. The Authoritarian right has the same goal, but they have different reasons to do so. Jordan Peterson said one thing, which I can absolutely support. Both sides play the identity politics game, just for different reasons. I don't care who is worse, because both sides are a problem for our democracy because both sides don't respect the idea of free speech, free exchange of ideas and personal freedom.
Hang on. The authoritarian left and right both want the same thing for different reasons. You seems to recognise this, but for some reason this is more ok on the Right than it is on the left?

Ignoring that, the issue I have is that I can point to policy being enacted right now to take away rights and freedoms from people, I can't point to that on the Left. To me the Authoritarian Right is a much bigger threat than the opposing left.
 
#57
Were all these Antifia members? Or because it was violent all protesters are the extreme left? Because that same reasoning I could argue all Charlotte protesters on the right were violent.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I wanted examples of issues. Things along the lines of issues with immigration, trans rights, sexism, feminism, voter ids.
Yes they came all over Europe and yes all Antifa. All protestors were like 100k.

And issues in what regard? issues I see the extreme left is causing or the ones which left groups fight about? If later its basically everything. Be it trans rights, sexism, feminism, blm and so on. IT can be everything. The main reason is that you disagree with a more radical belief.
 
Last edited:
#58
This is why I use the term "leftist" or "statist."

By the definition in the OP, there are no "liberals" at all on the American left, in the Democratic Party, or in the elites of the technocratic bureaucracy of experts that they believe should rule over us.
 
#59
Hang on. The authoritarian left and right both want the same thing for different reasons. You seems to recognise this, but for some reason this is more ok on the Right than it is on the left?
He never said that.

Ignoring that, the issue I have is that I can point to policy being enacted right now to take away rights and freedoms from people, I can't point to that on the Left. To me the Authoritarian Right is a much bigger threat than the opposing left.
Okay that's great but this thread is about liberalism and the authoritarian left. Why's no one talking about the right? Because it's not the topic of the conversation.
 
Last edited:
#60
What does cause right wing radicalism would be the same question. People feel lost, people feel unheard and they fear to get challenged by different views. People reacted to events like Berkley and charlottesville And As I said before. I am not talking that much about it because right wing already condemned so if you know something is bad you do not need to warn or discuss this anymore
Taking a generalised look at things, in pretty much all the right wing cases of "People feel lost, people feel unheard and they fear to get challenged by different views." it tends to be white males that is the major demographic. Which is weird because, by all standards of measuring they have the largest cultural and political voice and always have had the largest cultural and political voice compared to other demographics. It's a weird phenomenon. Do you have any idea why this occurs?

Also, maybe for you it's different, but across the right political sphere, I don't think there's more condemnation of the far right than the far left. With charlottesville, Trump had his "very fine people on both sides" moment. After all that a yougov poll showed that in America people who identified as Republicans tended to blame both sides equally for what the violence, as opposed to Democrats who tended to just blame the white nationalists.
 
#61
Hang on. The authoritarian left and right both want the same thing for different reasons. You seems to recognise this, but for some reason this is more ok on the Right than it is on the left?
I am left, I have posted my political compass, so no. At the moment the right is less of a problem, because the most active part in several countries is actually reducing the influence of the state and the institutions, so they are not really working toward a real Authoritarian state like in Turkey or Russia. Again people like Trump are not really a threat to democracy, because they do not use the state in an absolutistic way like Putin, Erdogan or Orban.

Ignoring that, the issue I have is that I can point to policy being enacted right now to take away rights and freedoms from people, I can't point to that on the Left. To me the Authoritarian Right is a much bigger threat than the opposing left.
Both sides were responsible for terrorism and dictatorships in the 20th century. Both have killed millions, so I fear both Authoritarian movements.
 
#62
Examples that come to mind, but are not limited to, are:

Right:
Creation of White Ethno States.

Left:
The Banning of all Genders.

To my knowledge no one in the political spectrum is pushing for the left one. Richard Spencer support the Right one.
Unfortunately this is being presented as if there are no dangerous or violent views on the left.

Let's start we the first premise.
Even if we categorize this as extreme right and not "alt-right" due to the prevalence of the view, we then need to assess it's left equivalent.

This would be antifa. You proposed a BS left stance in an attempt to frame all left wing extremes as harmless and non-violent.
Antifa believes that specific types of speech can and should be rewarded with violence. Both personal and destruction of property.
This is an extreme view and the failure to recognize that is what this conversation is about.

Now, this is not a debate of equivalency. This is a debate of extremism.
http://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

Antifa goes against the rule of law and legal bounds and thus is extremist.
You can debate the morality but not the legality if you want.

As for political supporters of antifa?
 
#63
Again, I don’t disagree that certain portions of the left are radical. But I think it is disingenuous to claim that this is only happening on the left. You literally have an entire political movement (alt right) that has, again, spurred radical people on the right to go out and murder several innocent people.

You keep trying to frame this as “bu bu the authoritarian left” when we have an authoritarian president and several politicians on the right emulating him.

It is hypocritical and absurd. I could literally make this same thread about the right and it would actually be more pressing.

Also, your take on the Era thread is reductionist. There are lots of people giving him very good reasons as to why his thread is shit (the number one reason being that op doesn’t actually seem to know what liberalism is and seems to conflate left wing politics and social liberalism (which is just one type of liberalism) which I’ll excuse since they share a few things).
Who's claiming that?

The alt-right, the KKK, white supremacists, neonazis, various rightwing parties in Europe, etc.. These all exist and nobody denies their existence.

Meanwhile we're saying that the authoritarian left exists and is a pronlem and you're implying that we're blind towards politically right happenings. We're not.
 
#64
Taking a generalised look at things, in pretty much all the right wing cases of "People feel lost, people feel unheard and they fear to get challenged by different views." it tends to be white males that is the major demographic. Which is weird because, by all standards of measuring they have the largest cultural and political voice and always have had the largest cultural and political voice compared to other demographics. It's a weird phenomenon. Do you have any idea why this occurs?

Also, maybe for you it's different, but across the right political sphere, I don't think there's more condemnation of the far right than the far left. With charlottesville, Trump had his "very fine people on both sides" moment. After all that a yougov poll showed that in America people who identified as Republicans tended to blame both sides equally for what the violence, as opposed to Democrats who tended to just blame the white nationalists.
Why it occurs is pretty easy at least for me. In these days males and especially white males get accused for everything wrong in the world. Be it by feminist for the male part, be it BLM for the white part or be it by them together for everything they are. . And not even enough the moment you are saying you are white and male you have almost no credibility anymore regarding any topic. So of course especially white males feel neglected and stigmatized by the left. So the rather went to the right where there is a huge amount of understanding. In which they actually have voices that count etc. Honestly I rather want to discuss with people which opinions I do not share but treat me like an equal then with a group who think my opinion is nothing worth because of my gender or my race.

Phrases like shut up and listen and believe are counterproductive. Because I will never belief anyone based on their gender or race.


As for Charlotesville I see it as a reaction to Berkley. And no not the murder because that has been done by a nutjob but the protest. Just fater Berkley there were several of these protests. Remember the Tikki torch one? Also after Berkley If I remember right.

Try to argue with white Privilege when you talk with people who are piss poor and barely survive is not helping as well. I would rather make it a class issue not a gender or race one.
 
Last edited:
#65
Just another "both sides" argument. Racism, sexism and hate speech are not just different political views and anyone using their free speech to say these things are the just dick heads and have made the fight for freedom of speech a sick joke to get away with shouting Hitler did nothing wrong down a camera.
 
#66
Just another "both sides" argument. Racism, sexism and hate speech are not just different political views and anyone using their free speech to say these things are the just dick heads and have made the fight for freedom of speech a sick joke to get away with shouting Hitler did nothing wrong down a camera.
MEanwhile the regressive left shouts fuck white people, fuck men but this is ok right?

Its both sides because both sides are racist and sexist extremists. When I hear a journalist tweet how women who have white male babies should rather consider an abortion I must ask myself whats the difference between the right and left?

Also Stalin and Marx and MAO did nothing wrong.
 
Last edited:
#68
MEanwhile the regressive left shouts fuck white people, fuck men but this is ok right?

Its both sides because both sides are racist and sexist extremists. When I hear a journalist tweet how women who have white male babies should rather consider an abortion I must ask myself whats the difference between the right and left?

Also Stalin and Marx and MAO did nothing wrong.
Any normal left person doesn't shout that shit and well done for cherry picking random tweets which by the way the left calls out as going too far, meanwhile the alt Right stand by every single radical, defend people who are openly nazis and then get surprised when they get associated with Nazis. A man ran his car into a crowd and all the alt right had to say was "but both sides!".

Also you're fucked in the head for that Stalin comment, not sure why you even added that part.
 
#69
Any normal left person doesn't shout that shit and well done for cherry picking random tweets which by the way the left calls out as going too far, meanwhile the alt Right stand by every single radical, defend people who are openly nazis and then get surprised when they get associated with Nazis. A man ran his car into a crowd and all the alt right had to say was "but both sides!".

Also you're fucked in the head for that Stalin comment, not sure why you even added that part.
Because these people idolize Marx, Stalin and Mao. And no again this abortion comment came from a verrified journalists and feminist spokesperson. same with Linda Sarasour who often uses anti semistim in her tweets. And she was the leader and role model for the women's march. Another one would be celebrating the hawaii massacre without even mentioning or brutal these people were murdered for being white

As I said they are no bit better than the lat right. These are extremists which we should totally ignore.
 
Last edited:
#70
Just another "both sides" argument. Racism, sexism and hate speech are not just different political views and anyone using their free speech to say these things are the just dick heads and have made the fight for freedom of speech a sick joke to get away with shouting Hitler did nothing wrong down a camera.
Of course it is a both sides argument. We are talking about highly Authoritarian movements and both are equally terrifying and equally terrible if they are in power. A gulag is not a nicer place than a concentration camp and Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mao or Mussolini all found reasons to kill millions.
 
#71
This discussion is reminding me of a talk from Steven Pinker during a panel.
He basically argues that the 'PC' or authoritarian left is driving people away. These same people would say then say that they were never left in the first place anyway so good riddance and then cry they lose an election. Like they don't get that the point is not to convert the alt-right/neo nazis. I believe most people are pretty much neutral to a lot of things and mostly good in general.
The gist of it is pretty much that people will eventually be confronted by truths and facts; he uses as example things that some could consider controversial: "Capitalist societies are better than communist ones", "Men and women are not identical in their life priorities, in their sexualities, in their taste and interests" or "Different ethnic groups commit violent crimes at different rates".
He argues that because these facts are considered racist/sexist and that they should not be mentioned by the authoritarian left, especially on campuses when an individual eventually come accross them there is a chance to come to wrong conclusions: capitalism should be left unchecked, women are inferior or black people are more violent. That by having a side refusing to discuss things that seems reasonable to most, people feel betrayed: "the truth has been withheld from me by universities, mainstream media" and that when the people speaking these truth get shouted down it keeps reenforcing negative reaction.

In a perfect world people would then push past these negative reactions to put the statements in context in order not to fall themselves to extremism but that's not guaranteed. And even if they do there is no guarantee they would side with the people that seemingly cannot face facts. This is what I struggle with when I see posts like 'you want us to have empathy for the oppressors', 'it's a one way street', that's not even what we ask.

Anyway my english is not the best but I hope I was clear enough.
 
Last edited:
#72
Because these people idolize Marx, Stalin and Mao. And no again this abortion comment came from a verrified journalists and feminist spokesperson. same with Linda Sarasour who often uses anti semistim in her tweets. And she was the leader and role model for the women's march. Another one would be celebrating the hawaii massacre without even mentioning or brutal these people were murdered for being white

As I said they are no bit better than the lat right. These are extremists which we should totally ignore.
Who idolises them? Who's going "Man Stalin sure did a good job murdering millions!" or are you just twisting the words of those who support socialism? Also are you actually saying that feminsts now are anti Semitic? That a journalist is the leader of the left? All I see is go to moves of the alt right to delegitimise any movement that is outspoken to them.

Of course it is a both sides argument. We are talking about highly Authoritarian movements and both are equally terrifying and equally terrible if they are in power. A gulag is not a nicer place than a concentration camp and Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mao or Mussolini all found reasons to kill millions.
No they are fucking not, one side is very openly in support of racism and genocide while the other regularly calls them out for those views and that's when the right starts whine about freedom of speech. Sorry to disappoint but when someone calls you an ass hole because you are advocating for racism and genocide that's not Authoritarian, that's freedom speech.
 
#73
Who idolises them? Who's going "Man Stalin sure did a good job murdering millions!" or are you just twisting the words of those who support socialism? Also are you actually saying that feminsts now are anti Semitic? That a journalist is the leader of the left? All I see is go to moves of the alt right to delegitimise any movement that is outspoken to them.

No they are fucking not, one side is very openly in support of racism and genocide while the other regularly calls them out for those views and that's when the right starts whine about freedom of speech. Sorry to disappoint but when someone calls you an ass hole because you are advocating for racism and genocide that's not Authoritarian, that's freedom speech.
The problem isn't the calling out in my opinion, its the violence and destruction of property. Free Speech is a two way street but using violence to silence speech is never ok.
 
#74
The problem isn't the calling out in my opinion, its the violence and destruction of property. Free Speech is a two way street but using violence to silence speech is never ok.
Literally nobody endorses violence but silencing hate speech is not the same as suppressing freedom of speech. people have forgotten that for too long.
 
Last edited:
#75
Literally nobody endorses violence but silencing hate speech is not the same as suppressing freedom of speech. people have forgotten that for too long.
I disagree with feminism or BLM is not hate speech. Someone like Chrstina Hoff Sommers speaking is not hate speech. Someone like Le Penn Speaking is not hate speech. Saying I do not agree with 76 different gender is not hate speeh. Saying I do not agree with gay marriage is not hate speech. It is a different and conservative opinion nothing else.

Also yes. EVERYONE who celebrated Antifa or is putting them up as some allies is endorsing violence. There is no but here.

I really think some people need some classes about what is defined as hate speech and what does count as hate speech. It is not everything I do not agree with.
 
Last edited:
#76
No they are fucking not, one side is very openly in support of racism and genocide while the other regularly calls them out for those views and that's when the right starts whine about freedom of speech. Sorry to disappoint but when someone calls you an ass hole because you are advocating for racism and genocide that's not Authoritarian, that's freedom speech.
You are trying to deflect again, to somehow remove the Authoritarian movement from the left and only move it to the right. Both sides call for racism, genocide or violence. But somehow you have to ignore one side, because it is righteous anger and they will stop, when they are in power and will not do, what they were talking the whole time or similar movements have done in the past. You cannot walk around with the symbols of tyranny which have killed millions and then declare you are not part of them or you will not repeat it, because what you are doing is righteous.
 
#77
Literally nobody endorses violence but silencing hate speech is not the same as suppressing freedom of speech. people have forgotten that for too long.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/antifa-violence-ethical-author-explains-why-n796106
honestly we don't even have to go that far.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/armb...gets-koed-removes-armband-and-leaves.1434488/

Further this isn't a discussion about the ethics or morality. Do Antifa members break the law and commit violence?
Further your claim that they do not endorse violence is not supported. I'm not arguing on the morality of their stances but on the morality and legality of their actions.
 
#78
I disagree with feminism or BLM is not hate speech. Someone like Chrstina Hoff Sommers speaking is not hate speech. Someone like Le Penn Speaking is not hate speech. Saying I do not agree with 76 different gender is not hate speeh. Saying I do not agree with gay marriage is not hate speech. It is a different and conservative opinion nothing else.

Also yes. EVERYONE who celebrated Antifa or is putting them up as some allies is endorsing violence. There is no but here.

I really think some people need some classes about what is defined as hate speech and what does count as hate speech. It is not everything I do not agree with.
Good idea on the classes because you clearly need them.

You are trying to deflect again, to somehow remove the Authoritarian movement from the left and only move it to the right. Both sides call for racism, genocide or violence. But somehow you have to ignore one side, because it is righteous anger and they will stop, when they are in power and will not do, what they were talking the whole time or similar movements have done in the past. You cannot walk around with the symbols of tyranny which have killed millions and then declare you are not part of them or you will not repeat it, because what you are doing is righteous.
What bold faced lie. What is even the point of discussions when shit like this is said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/antifa-violence-ethical-author-explains-why-n796106
honestly we don't even have to go that far.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/armb...gets-koed-removes-armband-and-leaves.1434488/

Further this isn't a discussion about the ethics or morality. Do Antifa members break the law and commit violence?
Further your claim that they do not endorse violence is not supported. I'm not arguing on the morality of their stances but on the morality and legality of their actions.
It's even quoted in your article that the violence was called out on both sides hence it's not being endorsed and how convenient it's suddenly not an argument on morality because we are literally discussing supporters of genocide. It's not the extremists of the right that believe that, it's their view. Their extremists ram cars into people.

Nazism is fucked up and supporting it is fucked up, tolerating it is fucked up.

Honestly it's disappointing as fuck this needs spelling out here on Neogaf. We really don't yet another site dedicated to white guys bitching about being 'victimised' on the internet.
 
Last edited:
#79
What bold faced lie. What is even the point of discussions when shit like this is said.
The point is, you cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are bullying people into suicide or suicide attempts. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are destroying the livelihood or health of innocent bystanders. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are calling for genocide of a whole race. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are ok with destroying the live of innocents for the success of a movement. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are using symbols of terror. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are using violence to suppress different opinions.
 
#80
It's even quoted in your article that the violence was called out on both sides hence it's not being endorsed and how convenient it's suddenly not an argument on morality because we are literally discussing supporters of genocide. It's not the extremists of the right that believe that, it's their view. Their extremists ram cars into people.
Nazism is fucked up and supporting it is fucked up, tolerating it is fucked up.
Honestly it's disappointing as fuck this needs spelling out here on Neogaf. We really don't yet another site dedicated to white guys bitching about being 'victimised' on the internet.
But I'm quoting Y-O-U

"Literally nobody endorses violence"

This is excusing and not acknowledging this does exist. This is why the conversation goes no where because when facts are presented they are ignored.

I'm not and never argued on morality. This is about extremism and extremist views. Violence when not defending again imminent violence is extremist.
Further I'm not sure why you claim "white guys bitching"
 
#81
The point is, you cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are bullying people into suicide or suicide attempts. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are destroying the livelihood or health of innocent bystanders. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are calling for genocide of a whole race. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are ok with destroying the live of innocents for the success of a movement. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are using symbols of terror. You cannot claim moral superiority if members of your movement are using violence to suppress different opinions.
Which is not what the Left is doing.....
That's why I called you a liar
But I'm quoting Y-O-U

"Literally nobody endorses violence"

This is excusing and not acknowledging this does exist. This is why the conversation goes no where because when facts are presented they are ignored.

I'm not and never argued on morality. This is about extremism and extremist views. Violence when not defending again imminent violence is extremist.
Further I'm not sure why you claim "white guys bitching"
I said it doesn't get endorsed not that it doesn't happen, my point is the left actually have extremists which aren't the views of the majority and get called out on meanwhile the alt right's extremists have the same fucking view as their extremists because they are nazis, simple as that. How many of them have disassociated with extremists burning crosses and ramming their car into a crowd of peaceful protests? They can't because hate crimes are their core, not just an outlier. And yea it is just a bunch of guys bitching. Feel free to speak up if you aren't a white guy who feels the extreme left is threatening genocide or violence on you.
 
Last edited:
#82
the hippy movement and the anti-fa movement are night and day. They are incredibly far from equivalents
Of course.

My point is the right is oddly shocked at a galvanized left. From their propaganda perspective there is no difference between antifa and hippies. Although, lets cut through the bullshit, antifa is basically those same hippies its just America clutches its pearls at any social disobedience that doesnt fit the good old boy narrative (ram trucks, gun ownership, Brad Paisley), so you have people acting like smashing the windows of a starbucks is the end of the world (which is particularly hypocritical when you look the reaction to the riots after the superbowl win).

US Antifa doesn’t even hold a candle to Uk soccar houliganism and is in a totally different universe compared to a true violent left uprising; ie Weather Underground in the 70’s. But it serves as an effective right wing marketing tool
 
#83
Which is not what the Left is doing.....
Please I can show tons of articles about this. The Authoritarian left has just as many crazy people as the Authoritarian right and they are equally dangerous. Ignoring it makes nothing better, because history has shown of you leave either side unopposed it will end in a tragedy. It is a moral imperative to oppose both Authoritarian movements, else the millions who have died in the name of a nation or ideology have died for nothing.
 
#84
Which is not what the Left is doing.....
So those things are not occurring from people who identify as left?

People identifying as left are not destroying property, or harrassing, doxxing, or doing any number of other behaviors?

You are making this bizarre claim that somehow being left leaning excludes them from this.
 
#85
Good idea on the classes because you clearly need them.



.
Now it is getting ridiculous

This is the definiton of hatespeech
speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person orgroup based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= thefact of being gay, etc.):
None of these things I stated was hatespeech with this definition. When I say that I think gay people should not marry eachother because it is against my religion it is not hate speech. It is hate speech if I would advocate to kill gay people.

If I state that there are only 2 gender because of biology then it is not hate speech. It is hate speech when I advocate violence against anyone not fitting the definition.

And let me quote one more. "Feminism" is Cancer is not hate speech.
Even if you believe that BLM are terrorists is not ANY form of hate speech
 
Last edited:
#86
Of course.

My point is the right is oddly shocked at a galvanized left. From their propaganda perspective there is no difference between antifa and hippies. Although, lets cut through the bullshit, antifa is basically those same hippies its just America clutches its pearls at any social disobedience that doesnt fit the good old boy narrative (ram trucks, gun ownership, Brad Paisley), so you have people acting like smashing the windows of a starbucks is the end of the world (which is particularly hypocritical when you look the reaction to the riots after the superbowl win).

US Antifa doesn’t even hold a candle to Uk soccar houliganism and is in a totally different universe compared to a true violent left uprising; ie Weather Underground in the 70’s. But it serves as an effective right wing marketing tool
I don't think they view antifa as hippies. The hippies where incredibly vocal in their non-violence message and had more respect for public property and laws. That isn't to say there were not acts of vandalism and other legal breaks, however the effort to be civil disobedient in Ghanaian style was a conscious choice.
 
#87
Yes they came all over Europe and yes all Antifa. All protestors were like 100k.

And issues in what regard? issues I see the extreme left is causing or the ones which left groups fight about? If later its basically everything. Be it trans rights, sexism, feminism, blm and so on. IT can be everything. The main reason is that you disagree with a more radical belief.
Thanks. I've tried to find numbers on the groups involved with the protest but I've not found any. If you have them please send them my way.

But you've ignored my comparison with Charlotte. If violence takes place then does that mean everyone there is a part of the extreme ideology?


True I kind of read into that. My bad.

Okay that's great but this thread is about liberalism and the authoritarian left. Why's no one talking about the right? Because it's not the topic of the conversation.
Well it's inevitable we'll have to talk about them. There are no numbers on the Authoritative Left hijacking causes. I've not seen politicians fighting for the Anti-Freespeech policies that these Authoritative Left members want. If you criticise something as insubstantial as the Authoritative Left, you either have to talk about comparisons to the right, or all you do is make a circle jerk about how bad some members of the left are. I know people highjack causes all the time, but you've got to prove to me that this is anymore of a concern than what is going on the Right.

I am left, I have posted my political compass, so no. At the moment the right is less of a problem, because the most active part in several countries is actually reducing the influence of the state and the institutions, so they are not really working toward a real Authoritarian state like in Turkey or Russia. Again people like Trump are not really a threat to democracy, because they do not use the state in an absolutistic way like Putin, Erdogan or Orban.


Both sides were responsible for terrorism and dictatorships in the 20th century. Both have killed millions, so I fear both Authoritarian movements.
I just don't understand how you can view people like Trump as not threats to personal freedoms and liberties. The Trans ban and DACA are all examples of him and the republican party actively attacking the freedoms of groups in the country. His lack of any kickback against the Russian meddling of the election, whether or not you believe he colluded, has been damn well negligent. This being a threat to the democracy of the USA. Just because he's not as bad or in as much power as dictators, doesn't means you should be ok with any of the actions he's committed.

Unfortunately this is being presented as if there are no dangerous or violent views on the left.

Let's start we the first premise.
Even if we categorize this as extreme right and not "alt-right" due to the prevalence of the view, we then need to assess it's left equivalent.

This would be antifa. You proposed a BS left stance in an attempt to frame all left wing extremes as harmless and non-violent.
Antifa believes that specific types of speech can and should be rewarded with violence. Both personal and destruction of property.
This is an extreme view and the failure to recognize that is what this conversation is about.

Now, this is not a debate of equivalency. This is a debate of extremism.
http://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

Antifa goes against the rule of law and legal bounds and thus is extremist.
You can debate the morality but not the legality if you want.

As for political supporters of antifa?
I did make clear these were some, but not limited to examples. I just chose the first examples that came to me.

I'm not here to advocate for Antifa, but I just don't see them as big a threat to freedom of speech than stuff already being done by the Right. What are Antifa pushing for right now in the US government that will harm free speech or democracy?

To your example of a politician that supports them. Does he advocate specifically for views from Antifa? I mean plenty of Christian politicians push for views that align with Christianity, but they aren't exclusive views to Christianity.

To everyone. Can we please talk about specific issues that people feel like they are being attacked just for having a different view? I need to see some examples of opinions on these issues that you have been attacked for.
 
Last edited:
#88
Now it is getting ridiculous

This is the definiton of hatespeech

None of these things I stated was hatespeech with this definition. When I say that I think gay people should not marry eachother because it is against my religion it is not hate speech. It is hate speech if I would advocate to kill gay people.

If I state that there are only 2 gender because of biology then it is not hate speech. It is hate speech when I advocate violence against anyone not fitting the definition.

And let me quote one more. "Feminism" is Cancer is not hate speech.
Even if you believe that BLM are terrorists is not ANY form of hate speech
Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2]In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term[6] and in some it is constitutionally protected

Turns out you did need educating.

o those things are not occurring from people who identify as left?

People identifying as left are not destroying property, or harrassing, doxxing, or doing any number of other behaviors?

You are making this bizarre claim that somehow being left leaning excludes them from this.
Dropped the genocide bit now huh? Harassment and violence happens but that's not the real left's views we all know that, we also know they are the outside meanwhile the left are still strongly against nazis and hate speech, still want equality and to stop racism. That's their core. Alt right is about fucking racial purism and nazism. It's not extremists views but their very own views and it's why the both sides argument is and always will be shit.
 
#89
This discussion is reminding me of a talk from Steven Pinker during a panel.
He basically argues that the 'PC' or authoritarian left is driving people away. These same people would say then say that they were never left in the first place anyway so good riddance and then cry they lose an election. Like they don't get that the point is not to convert the alt-right/neo nazis. I believe most people are pretty much neutral to a lot of things and mostly good in general.
The gist of it is pretty much that people will eventually be confronted by truths and facts; he uses as example things that some could consider controversial: "Capitalist societies are better than communist ones", "Men and women are not identical in their life priorities, in their sexualities, in their taste and interests" or "Different ethnic groups commit violent crimes at different rates".
He argues that because these facts are considered racist/sexist and that they should not be mentioned by the authoritarian left, especially on campuses when an individual eventually come accross them there is a chance to come to wrong conclusions: capitalism should be left unchecked, women are inferior or black people are more violent. That by having a side refusing to discuss things that seems reasonable to most, people feel betrayed: "the truth has been withheld from me by universities, mainstream media" and that when the people speaking these truth get shouted down it keeps reenforcing negative reaction.

In a perfect world people would then push past these negative reactions to put the statements in context in order not to fall themselves to extremism but that's not guaranteed. And even if they do there is no guarantee they would side with the people that seemingly cannot face facts. This is what I struggle with when I see posts like 'you want us to have empathy for the oppressors', 'it's a one way street', that's not even what we ask.

Anyway my english is not the best but I hope I was clear enough.
I don't know if that's a problem of those facts being seen as racist or sexist. For me, I've heard so many people interpret facts in ways that fit their opinion, and then when you call them out on your interpretation being wrong, they act like your disagreement is of the facts they've presented, not of their interpretation. There are just so many people who use specific facts to argue in that way, that certain facts just become a racist person calling card, so if you are talking to someone who has a lot of these discussions then they might just write you off as that if you don't give them a reason to keep listening to you.

Furthermore, I don't actually know if this a real problem. If you're a person who goes from black people commit more crime, to black people must be inherently violent, then that's a basic logical thinking problem, not a problem with not having discussed that fact in university. Also, even if we agree that idea that this is regularly happening in classrooms, the only place you'd be discussing some of these society related facts would be in psychology or sociology class, which only a small number of the general population studies. Like how many people here would have even had the chance to have these conversations in class. I should also consider on campus discussions, student to student. However I don't know how many of those conversations are had between your average undergraduates. And if they do happen, I'm assuming a lot of these conversations would be happening between friends who are way more likely to empathise and not write someone off if they dropped a fact like that and weren't being disingenuous. Therefore I don't know how often the phenomenon you described would occur.

"the truth has been withheld from me by universities, mainstream media" feels like a huge overstatement.
 
#90
Any research should be allowed. It is protected by the First Amendment. But why should taxpayers have to pay for it? Can't all these anti-gun organizations do the research themselves...?




Need, Need, Need. Rights have nothing to do with what you think is a need. Rosa Parks did not NEED to sit in the front of the bus....she had a RIGHT to sit in the front of the bus. I have a right to my guns, nobody else gets to decide which ones I need.




Or the insurgents of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. It has nothing to do with winning, it has to do with inflicting such costs that the operation becomes impractical. The Blue states might want to disarm the red...but they can't because the costs in blood would be too high.
Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2]In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term[6] and in some it is constitutionally protected

Turns out you did need educating.



Dropped the genocide bit now huh? Harassment and violence happens but that's not the real left's views we all know that, we also know they are the outside meanwhile the left are still strongly against nazis and hate speech, still want equality and to stop racism. That's their core. Alt right is about fucking racial purism and nazism. It's not extremists views but their very own views and it's why the both sides argument is and always will be shit.

NONE of my statement attacked any of these groups. Balm is not a minority. Feminism is not a gender. These are ideologies nothing else.

I do not attack gay people when I say. That I believe they should not allowed to marry. I do not enforce anything. If I sauber that there are only two gender I do not attack them. I have different opinions.


AND for the record. I do not think like that but if someone is they are welcome to do so
 
#91
I just don't understand how you can view people like Trump as not threats to personal freedoms and liberties. The Trans ban and DACA are all examples of him and the republican party actively attacking the freedoms of groups in the country. His lack of any kickback against the Russian meddling of the election, whether or not you believe he colluded, has been damn well negligent. This being a threat to the democracy of the USA. Just because he's not as bad or in as much power as dictators, doesn't means you should be ok with any of the actions he's committed.
Because he cannot remove them. He still has to use congress, the Trans ban was blocked by judges and unlike Erdogan he is not removing them, because he cannot. DACA he has to go through congress and again unlike Putin he has opposition and cannot remove the process. Nothing he has done was outside of the laws until now. Maybe the Russian thing will lead to something, probably not.

The strangest thing. The say Trump is the enemy of the press, but Obama has probably done more to actually threaten the press and to close leaks. Trump has only weakened the federal state and is fighting his own intelligence services. It is somehow very hard how he will end the American democracy or even threaten personal liberties. He has done nothing to outsmart the system and honestly after a year are you still afraid he will?

People don't like him and that is ok, but really he is nowhere close to people like Pution or Erdogan.
 
Last edited:
#92
Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2]In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term[6] and in some it is constitutionally protected

Turns out you did need educating.



Dropped the genocide bit now huh? Harassment and violence happens but that's not the real left's views we all know that, we also know they are the outside meanwhile the left are still strongly against nazis and hate speech, still want equality and to stop racism. That's their core. Alt right is about fucking racial purism and nazism. It's not extremists views but their very own views and it's why the both sides argument is and always will be shit.
of course not. It is always a small minority. If you however endorse celebrate or encourage these acts then yes you are part of these people
 
#93
I don't see the point of it to be honest, era is what it is, gaf is what it is.
I find the constant "omg look at what the other forum thinks" posts a bit ridiculous. I mean you wouldn't question why a dog barks. It's a dog, of course it's going to bark. Era is a forum that caters to the extreme left so of course you're going to see plenty of opinions that reflects its notion.
 
Last edited:
#94
Because he cannot remove them. He still has to use congress, the Trans ban was blocked by judges and unlike Erdogan he is not removing them, because he cannot. DACA he has to go through congress and again unlike Putin he has opposition and cannot remove the process. Nothing he has done was outside of the laws until now. Maybe the Russian thing will lead to something, probably not.

The strangest thing. The say Trump is the enemy of the press, but Obama has probably done more to actually threaten the press and to close leaks. Trump has only weakened the federal state and is fighting his own intelligence services. It is somehow very hard how he will end the American democracy or even threaten personal liberties. He has done nothing to outsmart the system and honestly after a year are you still afraid he will?

People don't like him and that is ok, but really he is nowhere close to people like Pution or Erdogan.
You were the one to start comparing him to dictators. Do you at least admit that when he does stuff like this, he is affirming the beliefs of people who would be anti-trans?

He might not have the power of Putin, but don't pretend he doesn't have power to hurt people or groups. Also DACA was an executive order, not legislation. He overturned the moment he could and now the lives of thousands of people are at risk of being deported.

Obama policy not being ok, does not make Trump policy of removing press from the White House, criticizing media and having an award system for the fakest news outlet any better. If Trump can get elected by promising to build a wall, just imagine what he'll do if he can get elected promising to stop "fake news."
 
#95
NONE of my statement attacked any of these groups. Balm is not a minority. Feminism is not a gender. These are ideologies nothing else.

I do not attack gay people when I say. That I believe they should not allowed to marry. I do not enforce anything. If I sauber that there are only two gender I do not attack them. I have different opinions.


AND for the record. I do not think like that but if someone is they are welcome to do so
Lol you don't think gay people should marry because they are gay but at same time think that's not attacking them in any prejudice way? Hate speech is not only inciting violence, it's prejudice against a group of people and yea marriage is a right and to say your against that is hate speech and I'm also assuming you are saying BLM aren't a minority which is fucking crazy to say. The things you want and believe in if they became law would negatively impact someone's life.

When things affect other' actual lives it's fucking hate speech alright and wanting someone to not marry because they are gay is just fucking shit. You are an asshole for that no doubt
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
#96
Granted it is a much more active forum so it has a lot more responses, but I'm guessing it doesnt make it 10 pages before the lock.
Yep. You called it. This thread got so many responses at reset that it reached page 9 there in a little over an hour. But at Page 9 the thread was locked over at that other site for no reason other than that it made the authoritarians there uncomfortable.

Their reaction was a thing of beauty to see actually. My whole point was that you can be left and liberal without abandoning core values such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy. I included a exposition of how authoritarian left operates to undermine the actual left, how they name call, bully, dog pile then ban anyone that challenges their world view in even the tiniest of ways. And they like clock work as if to prove they are not liberals but are instead authoritarians did exactly everything I just said authoritarians would do, to a T, all the way down to banning me from starting new discussions. It’s like they have zero sense of awareness and zero sense of irony over there.

What happened to any semblance of liberals over there? Why do they go along with the authoritarians on that site?

And get this, the mods couldn’t come up with any justifiable reason to close the thread or ban me from starting new discussions so they made up a completely bullshit reason that it was locked and I am not allowed to start discussions there anymore because I had not replied to enough people in the thread. Even though within the span of the one hour it stayed open, I had replied to a dozen people that disagreed with me and another handful that agreed with me.

Took a 20 minute break to get ready for work and members used that 20 minutes to complain to the mods that I stopped posting for a little bit and to close the thread since they apparently have zero tolerance for any dissenting opinions.

It also seems that personal attacks are tolerated over there now (so many people baselessly personally attacked me and called me a racist for that op, and didn’t get so much as a warning).

The mods even admit that I said absolutely nothing there that was a violation of ToA in any way. Just too many of the posters can’t handle any dissenting thoughts and were whining asking them to close the thread. Meanwhile the numerous posters that personally attacked me and baselessly called me racist had zero action taken against them. Ironically I am a person of color that probably is far more familiar with racism than 90% of the posters in that bubble. That’s well and good that no one got banned but the level of hypocrisy, one sided enforcement and total lack of self awareness by the mods there blows my mind.

I can’t believe that site already degraded that much that fast, to the point that it is terrified even to engage with liberals that share all of the same values they do? Simply for asking people to treat each other with respect, to view those that disagree with them as human beings. What does it say about any site that is afraid of even having that debate?

I don’t think gaf had ever got that bad and it hope it never will.
 
Last edited:
#97
Sorry for the slow reply rate, at work but I will work through the thread and post once I can.
Yep. You called it. Page 9 and thread was locked over at that other site.

And get this, the mods couldn’t come up with any reason so they made up a completely bullshit reason that it was locked because I had not replied to enough people in the thread. Even though within the span of the one hour it stayed open, I had replied to a dozen people that disagreed with me and another handful that agreed with me.

It also seems that personal attacks are tolerated over there now (so many people baselessly personally attacked me and called me a racist for that op, and didn’t get so much as a warning).

The mods even admit that I said absolutely nothing there that was a violation of ToA in any way. Just too many of the posters can’t handle any dissenting thoughts and were whining asking them to close the thread. Meanwhile the numerous posters that personally attacked me and baselessly called me racist had zero action taken against them.

I can’t believe that site already degraded that much that fast, to the point that it is terrified even to engage with liberals that share all of the same values they do? Simply for asking people to treat each other with respect, to view those that disagree with them as human beings. What does it say about any site that is afraid of even having that debate?

I don’t think gaf had ever got that bad and it hope it never will.
OP I'm 5 pages into the Era Thread. No one has accused you of being racist. I'm literally going through the threat with "racist" in the search bar. Every mention has been how it's difficult, impossible to engage with racists and that Ghandi also held racist views.

They do actually explain a reason.

After going through the reports and reading the thread it seems clear that not only is the opening post a bad starting point for discussion but also that OP is uninterested in actually engaging with the points raised by other members and seems rather focused on confirming their bias towards an entire community as much as possible. As such, the thread will remain closed and OP will lose their privilige to create more threads.
I mean they can sometimes go overboard, but are you sure if I go through your posts in that thread, I'm not going to find something similar to this?
 
#98
Dropped the genocide bit now huh? Harassment and violence happens but that's not the real left's views we all know that, we also know they are the outside meanwhile the left are still strongly against nazis and hate speech, still want equality and to stop racism. That's their core. Alt right is about fucking racial purism and nazism. It's not extremists views but their very own views and it's why the both sides argument is and always will be shit.
Dropped what genocide bit exactly?????
We are talking about extremists in both action and ideology.

1) it is not illegal to have racist views. Period.
2) It IS illegal to punch someone in the mouth because you don't like their opinion.
3) It IS illegal to destroy property.

You keep taking the debate back to the the specific ideology as if it EXCUSES the actions. THAT belief is EXTREMIST.
It's the same belief that because Western society is an oppressor that retaliations is acceptable.
That is EXTREMISM. That's the discussion. Is Antifa extremist or not, yes advocacy and use of violence and property destruction is extremism. Period.

No one is claiming any moral equality in anything. The only comment being made is that extremist actions are not justified because the "other side is worse".
That't not how that works. We have a rule of law for a reason.

Violence against speech is NEVER NEVER NEVER ok. Period.
 
#99
Lol you don't think gay people should marry because they are gay but at same time think that's not attacking them in any prejudice way? Hate speech is not only inciting violence, it's prejudice against a group of people and yea marriage is a right and to say your against that is hate speech and I'm also assuming you are saying BLM aren't a minority which is fucking crazy to say. The things you want and believe in if they became law would negatively impact someone's life.

When things affect other' actual lives it's fucking hate speech alright and wanting someone to not marry because they are gay is just fucking shit. You are an asshole for that no doubt
Now it is not only getting stupid but you also seem to get more and more agressive for not agreeing with me.

Let me say it again. I believe gay people should marry, I believe there are men, women and transexual people. I do not believe in your 72 Gender bullshit. I believe that quite a few so called leader of BLM are fucking racists especially the one in Toronto. I believe that modern feminism is cancer. These are my personal thoughts.

BUT and here is the big but. I also believe that if you only belive in 2 gender because of biology its ok if you believe that only a man and a women should marry because of relgion you know another protected group. it is ok. I think you are wrong but the difference between you and me is that I still think they are human beings and not trash.

And BLM is a fucking movement not a fucking minority. BLM does not speak for every black person. They are pushing an agenda which fits their believe nothing else. They are not a protected group. Black people are so what? Just because I am against Feminism does not mean I hate women and see them as something lesser.

And I will be honest here a ton of opinions and laws have a negative effect on my live but it is still not hate speech. You have no idea what this word even means. In Germany we have also hate speech laws and everything I have said is totally fine. I think you need to understand that ideologies do not represent gender, they do not represent races or religions (even you could argue that religion is just nothing else than an ideology which I think is the case)
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the slow reply rate, at work but I will work through the thread and post once I can.
Yep. You called it. Page 9 and thread was locked over at that other site.

And get this, the mods couldn’t come up with any reason so they made up a completely bullshit reason that it was locked because I had not replied to enough people in the thread. Even though within the span of the one hour it stayed open, I had replied to a dozen people that disagreed with me and another handful that agreed with me.

It also seems that personal attacks are tolerated over there now (so many people baselessly personally attacked me and called me a racist for that op, and didn’t get so much as a warning).

The mods even admit that I said absolutely nothing there that was a violation of ToA in any way. Just too many of the posters can’t handle any dissenting thoughts and were whining asking them to close the thread. Meanwhile the numerous posters that personally attacked me and baselessly called me racist had zero action taken against them. Ironically I am a person of color that probably is far more familiar with racism than 90% of the posters in that bubble. That’s well and good that no one got banned but the level of hypocrisy, one sided enforcement and total lack of self awareness blows my mind.

I can’t believe that site already degraded that much that fast, to the point that it is terrified even to engage with liberals that share all of the same values they do? Simply for asking people to treat each other with respect, to view those that disagree with them as human beings. What does it say about any site that is afraid of even having that debate?

I don’t think gaf had ever got that bad and it hope it never will.
They literally pleaded with you to quote and challenge posters who disagreed with you, rather than the ones who only agreed with you.

Regardless there are plenty of good posts in that topic that I think you should go back and address.
 
Last edited: