Me? I don't know anything about this situation. I've never heard of this Ngo guy except that he's some kind of gay asian journalist. I haven't read anything or absorbed any information about this particular situation before giving my opinion which I'm pretty sure is the best way to approach this kind of thing right? My stance against fascism has very little to do with the beliefs of one man.

He's the guy who wrote about Islamic England. You probably remember that - same berk.

Well I only support violence against nazis not against berks in general. Otherwise I'd end up fighting myself.

I've no objection to self violence - go for it.

I like a good sucker punch myself.

Waaaaahhhh everyone who disagrees with me about hitting people in the street is a big fat wwaacccist! L.

I'd pay to see a dramatic reenactment of ChiddyBang typing that post and clicking submit.

What about Hitler?

My impression from the last however many posts is that no one really has much more to say on this topic besides the zero-content sniping. If that continues, I'll just lock the thread. In the meantime, to give people a chance, I'm just going to start being much more aggressive about deleting low/no content posts. TIA

Adam Carola and Mark Geragos have a podcast called Reasonable Doubt where they discuss legal matters, and they had Andy Ngo on with his lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, who is basically the conservative version of Gloria Allred who specializes in high profile political cases (Dhillon is representing Damore also to give you an idea of the kind of cases she takes).

Anyways, I didn't even realize that Ngo was British till I heard him speak. Also, he needs practice talking in that kind of environment, he definitely wasn't very good at it (FWIW I doubt very many people would be without a lot of practice). Anyways, the podcast doesn't really add too much if you have already seen the video of the attacks and have read up on Antifa a little.

I guess the only thing that came up which you wouldn't get from reading a Vox article on Antifa is something Juan touched on, that the left wing media generally downplays, is that Antifa events pretty much always have some level of criminal activity, including assaults and property damage, so this wasn't anything out of the ordinary on that level.

Also (I am paraphrasing), something Dhillon touched on was this event was planned publicly months in advance on the Antifa side, and Ngo had stated on social media he was coming well in advance, and the attacks on him were clearly planned; so the way she is spinning it is not only was this a clear violation of Ngo's first amendment rights of freedom of the press, but Portland law enforcement not being prepared or willing to protect Ngo's first amendment rights and his personal safety was willfully negligent on their part.

Civil disobedience, a nonviolent tactic of liberation, is sometimes called criminal. But when it’s civil disobedience it doesn’t make sense to say it’s criminal because understanding civil disobedience makes that a forgone conclusion.

?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo

His accent sounded British to me on the podcast. Here is him on Tucker. The audio quality is a lot better than the podcast. Still sounds kind of British to me, although less so. LOL me I guess.

As an aside, the fact that the Wookies and Fly's of the world can watch this video and come to the conclusion that the appropriate response is to just victim blame and that Antifa activists did nothing wrong is pretty mind-blowing example of psychological ideological possession, and how it completely inhibits your ability to discern right from wrong.

From your clear and uninhibited ability to discern, is supporting fascism and real political violence right or wrong?

This question is so murky and subjective it is pretty useless. I mean, you think the Trump administration is fascist, yet you still contribute to the US economy doing whatever it is you do and most importantly you pay your taxes; meaning you support fascism and whatever political violence our country does.

You might like this podcast/YT by Justin Murphy (a heterodox Antifa guy) and Geoffrey Miller about what drives Antifa members.

Can you give your Zapruder-style analysis of the clip and I'll give mine?

Because I'm fairly you all's "psychological ideological possession" is causing you to literally not process objective reality. Lapidator already described something that didn't happen.

You first. Use the tucker Carlson video. If nothing else, I trust Fox News not to conveniently edit out parts of the assault, because it doesn’t fit their narrative to minimize the event like Vox.

You are supporting masked persons who are caught on film assaulting and battering a non-violent person.

As WN stated above, nothing more can be said.

Does this sort of skirting of the issue actually work on the dumb people you guys normally interact with?


Well, that's amazing.


Why would you not mention the antifas who specifically intervened to prevent the sort of Brutal Attack you all are saying actually happened?

Does the sight of the two guys, one of them a scary black bandanna hoodie guy, forming a human shield to protect him and lead him away go in your crazy eyeballs and get processed as,

?

Violence is quite rare at protests. You understand that what makes the news and goes viral on YouTube and such are only the very most sensational things that happen? It's a big mostly boring world and billions of minutes are left on the cutting room floor. I've been to dozens of protests and the only violence I've seen (and I don't count property damage as violence and think it's gross to count it) has been from the police on protesters (and that I've only seen at one protest). And I've been to a number of protests with Antifa (or people in masks anyway - Antifa is not really a group) and Right-wingers who may or may not have been Proud Boys.

For all the both sidesers who think the Antifa violence needs to be condemned the same as the Right-wing violence, what do you say about both sides at the many protests where there is no violence, but one side is chanting "Jews will not replace us" and the other side is calling them Nazis?

Both sides are just real good Americans exercising their free speech? No moral distinction between the two?

Also, 'shaked from behind', this can't be real.



I want to know why they're split screened describing something we can literally see is not happening.

I'm not a fan on us reaching a judgement from the video. There's enough to warrant a police investigation and treat him as a victim of crime and that's as far as I go. Beyond that we can talk in slightly more general terms about the use of political violence.

I think it is the issue for us on a discussion board I'm not sure why you think it takes not being a coward to give your view. It's not remotely surprising either is it - maybe some who believed the 'it's just tone' lie believed it but that's can't be anyone? Anyway, it's refreshing to have it in the open now.

I've plenty of sympathy with you but I also disagree and am 'extremely bravely' willing to say so clearly. Far more importantly is to make clear that you are not speaking for the left who are broadly against the use of violence. It's extremely important that people do not think your views on violence are anything like the norm.

I also agree with microbet's post.

Well, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree whether people in masks with weapons should ever be "roughing up a little" journalists, to intimidate them into not doing their job.

I mean if Antifa and Proud Boys (or whoever) want to agree on a date and public place to show up and do a little cosplay amongst themselves that occasionally turns into serious violence, then that is one thing.

But when a guy who works for a online publication announces he is going to show up with a camera and record the incident, and nothing more, and that is the guy you decide needs to be "rouged up and scared," then guess what, you aren't an antifascist.

Also, I think you are British, so you may not be aware, but on this side of the pond we have this thing called the 1st Amendment which specifically says journalists have the freedom to congregate in public and do journalisty things without being "roughed up and scared," so the fact this is exactly what happened, and the city of Portland seems to be complicit to an extent in allowing this to happen, seems like it could be a big deal.

Again, you may not be aware, but a conservative Montana political candidate did a little roughing up of a journalist in 2017, and was prosecuted for it and issued a formal apology; and a certain prominent man with skin a strange orangish hue has since publicly endorsed this behavior much the same way you are endorsing Antifa's. So I guess if it is good enough for him, it is good enough for you.

That’s not what the 1st Amendment says or means.

I don't think anyone reasonable has a problem with that part of it. The part that seems like a bad idea from the outside lookin in is the part where we see a bunch of guys with masks and homemade weapons show up to do some intimidation, vandalism and mayhem and the occasional assault; and the rest of us are supposed to buy this is somehow fighting the good fight against fascism? I assume from the inside the optics are a lot better on this front?