Ranking
Violence is the answer, i think thats where we disagree.

As a young child, in middleschool i would fight people.
I went to the office many times and was in trouble but i never got expelled.
It was because someone had abused their privilege, and my actions were in responce to that. Its called Instigation, and its important that you act agenst it.

When your college/peer is being hurrassed its nice to call someone an asshole but i wont, you abuse anything, even a minuscule amount - everyone you've ever seen judges it. So i passed the sentence. I know that sounds really edgelordy but people in my school loved me for it, it was one of the things that contributed to me being as popular as i was. People would speak ill, and i would walk by, i wouldent even need to know what they were speaking about and they would make eye contact with me and stop.
then you aknowledge you know what thier doing, lil nod, and you keep up your business

im tired of everyone nodding at these nazis, when we know what their saying, how their acting.

violence is sometimes the answer, not always, hell im promoting violence. it just needs to be constructive.
Ï think you missunderstand. I'm not saying you should respond to ill doings by doing nothing, but rather debate with them and prove to them that they are wrong. I don't think I am the first person telling you this judging by the previous posts.

When you use violence, you do nothing but prove that you are mentally weak and unable to find a solution where everyone wins. It is also important to consider the fact that you might be wrong yourself. This is why it is important to share your thoughts with people instead of hurting them for the sole reason that you disagree. I wouldn't doubt that several people you've harmed through violence don't even have the thoughts that you believe they have, and you will probably never know because of this toxic behaiviour.
|Opener by Xioi|#KillTheScootCork|
|Replays|
"Cool delfin med solglajjor" -Larfen
And beyond that, the bigger point here Cassh, is that Antifa aren't just going out punching violent Nazis. They're punching people who they claim are Nazis, usually before any violence at all takes place (I could claim you or Oracle to be Nazis, but that doesn't mean it's true).

If there were actually Nazis in the streets, being violent with people, a lot more people would be be supporting a violent resistance. That hasn't happened though (short of Charlottesville), which is why so many people here and society in general agree that Antifa are unjustified children.

Holding peaceful, right-wing protests isn't a form of violence. Therefore, you absolutely do not respond to these protests with violence (as Antifa do). As many people have pointed out here before, this sort of violent crushing of political resistance is a textbook fascist technique. Luckily, most Antifa members are immune to irony.
Last edited by Ele; Sep 14, 2017 at 02:39 AM.
Yes. I don't think any one here is trying to argue whether or not violence is ever necessary. That would be a discussion on its own.

The problem is antifas targeting, the irony in their actions and other such things.

I think something important that no one has brought up yet is that antifas methods aren't exactly even effective. I think it can be argued that by attacking people as opposed to reasoning with them you simply create more embittered relations and are likely to strengthen that persons views when you attack them. They will hate you more. If you think that they will change their beliefs due to a smack round the head I think you are an idiot.

I'd like to apologise for name calling and raging a bit on this topic earlier but its something that makes me very mad and I lose a bit of faith in humanity every time I see a white middle class university student hit a right wing activist with a bike lock in the name of equality and love for others. It just doesn't make sense.