You know, I don't think there is one, single, "real problem" in society.Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
There are many problems, and underlining one should not obscure the others.
You know, I don't think there is one, single, "real problem" in society.
There are many problems, and underlining one should not obscure the others.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
And one of these problems would be people organizing in droves to protest global cooling.
What the hell does that mean?
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
People should stop organizing altogether. It doesn't help anything. Like, go lowkey help actual people in your community or something.
I am well aware that ANTIFA are not Leftist Neo-Nazis and that they are very different. They both represent polar opposite sides of the political scale. I am also well aware there are Neo-Nazis that would be hostile towards me because I am mixed race. However, I don't think ANTIFA is necessary to defend me from Neo-Nazis, that's what the police is for. Plus, with the way ANTIFA attacked a gay asian male reporter simply because he was Conservative has convinced me that protecting the downtrodden is not the goal of ANTIFA. The goal of ANTIFA is to attack anyone who disagrees with them.
If I was in Andy Ngo's position, I would of got the same treatment simply for being a reporter in their territory or even worse because I appear white. You tend to get the bad aspects of both sides (white and non-white) from being mixed race. Anyways, I want to make it clear that I am not saying ANTIFA is as bad as Neo-Nazis in their actions. What I am saying is that ANTIFA should not be given a free pass on their behavior simply because they happen to occupy the left instead of the right on the political spectrum.
I was just saying that ANTIFA are the opposite extreme of Neo-Nazis by occupying the left side extreme instead of the right side extreme rather than saying were literally Leftist Neo-Nazis. I agree that calling them Communists would be a far more fitting description though.
I get your argument that the far right are more prone to causing injury and death than the far left. That is undeniable and I am not trying to draw a false equivalence that the far left is just as bad as the far right, but rather that they occupy the extreme of the left wing in the same way the far right occupies the extreme of the right wing. Anyways, the reason I brought up attention to the far left is because it is often ignored and passed off as insignificant. Everyone acknowledges there is a group of far right extremists, why not acknowledge that there is a group of far left extremists even if they cause less tangible damage instead of sweeping it under the rug?
I am not saying that the extreme right are saints and the extreme left are demons. Heck, I'm not even saying that the extreme right and extreme left are even comparable on the same level of violence and damage. All I am saying is that we should acknowledge that there are extremists on the left that may mean well in their actions, but cause indirect harm and that more attention should be brought to it, nothing more and nothing less. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if the second wrong causes less damage than the first.
What are your thoughts on the attack on Andy Ngo that caused a cerebral hemorrhage? Did he deserve it? Why or why not?
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I think it shouldn't have been done. I don't care that he was milkshaked, but it's obviously bad to physically attack people.
Whether he deserved it is, I think, besides the point. Maybe he rapes puppies. Maybe Calvinists are right and we all deserve eternal suffering, and by beating Ngo up the protesters were executing divine judgment. But the fact is that I'm not very familiar with what sort of person he is, and even if I were, I wouldn't feel qualified to make any sort of normative judgment of this sort.
I am not saying that right wing extremists are not a problem and that left wing extremists are the only problem. I acknowledge that right wing extremists have higher death tolls and physical violence than left wing extremists. However, the issue is let's not ignore left wing extremism just because right wing extremism exists. The problem is that both left wing and right wing extremism need to be remedied.
However, left wing extremism is often ignored by the media and the general public because it supports the social narrative. Let's acknowledge that both right wing extremism and left wing extremism are serious problems that need to be addressed. Just because right wing extremism is worse in terms of death tolls and physical violence doesn't mean that we can suddenly ignore and/or accept left wing extremism.
Well, at least we agree that he should not have been attacked. From what I know of him, he's a conservative reporter that tried to cover a story on ANTIFA and that was the extent of it. I have not heard of him doing anything malicious to deserve being physically attacked:
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
you may notice the _existence_ of "far right" ideology masked in global liberalism and pseudodemocracies alike in USA and Europe. when interests of minority are set above interests of majority
while so called "far left extremism" appears from the understanding that there is no legal ways to change the situation to interests of humanity. it's not more spreaded than formally open "right ideology" alike nazism
liberalism is "right" ideology and it's almost anywhere now. it has open nazism in USA ideology and practice. more absorbs open ******ism and social eugenism. gets more traits of open antihumanism.
what you may see in today pseudodemocratic West is reducing of left reforms done before alike rising of social inequality, reducing of social fonds alike rising of pension ages
left ideology is illegally supressed on West. medias to support propaganda and strengheting of "right" ideology will fight against left ideas, including by lie about "left threat". while "right threat" will be ignored. it's even called differently but does the same what ****** did, partly by other means. what wars USA did in 20th century? what good they did in middle East in 21th century? they just destroy normal life anywhere to rob other nations.
what was done with ex-USSR territories by USA forced liberal ideology - there is poverty and degradation now, people die out. resources go away to foreign nations. who resists - there comes USA army and kills people under medias propaganda they bring something good. what is good in Afganistan? USSR built there factories, opened schools. USA support and protect grow of drugs only, while people live as in past centuries
think about liberal extremism. when is said good, but practically is done the harm against the laws. medias, politicians lie openly. lesser dirrect and lesser evident lie is much more. why was destroyed Iraq? what good was done with Lybia? with Syria by USA supported and rised islamistic bands. etc
Last edited by Sol; 07-10-2019 at 08:23 PM.
Did you even read my other posts? I basically spent the rest of my posts stating that I think right wing extremism is worse than left wing extremism, but that doesn't mean we can ignore left wing extremism either. My argument is not a false equivalence because I'm not saying that they are equal, but rather that they both need to be dealt with.
That link has nothing to do with ANTIFA, it is about some random fringe environmentalist groups that have almost nothing to do with what we're talking about other than the fact that they're both far leftists. My original point still stands, how does the fact that right wing extremists cause more deaths and physical violence, make it acceptable to ignore what left wing extremists are doing? So in other words, I'm not saying that right wing extremists = left wing extremists in severity or in general. I am saying that left wing extremists are a problem that need to remedied, do you see the difference yet?
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I don't really consider myself super knowledgeable about politics or an expert on it, but I can still make conclusions based on my observations and what I do know. I am well aware that the far right are not innocent and a part of the problem like the far left. The reason why I bring up the far left is because they are often ignored and downplayed by the media and many leftists. I know the far right extremists are worse in damage and involved in identity politics too, but why should that excuse the far left extremism? Just seems like a weird double standard. I brought up the far left extremism specifically because I wanted to bring it up as an issue.
I am not expecting you or anyone else on the left to say that the far left are equivalent to neo-nazis (a point I retracted several times in this thread), but rather that the far left are a part of the problem. My views tend to vary politically for each issue, which is why I may appear dishonest when it is the exact opposite. If we can't admit that far left extremists, far right extremists, neoliberal corporatists and neoconservative corporatists are all a part of the problem then we will never make any progress in solving the real issue because we are too busy fighting each other.
IMO, the real problem in the US is the corporate oligarchy, the MIC and the mass media as their weapon of propaganda that dominates the country while neoliberal and neoconservative corporate politicians seek to protect it. Far left extremists and far right extremists fighting each other over identity politics is a waste of time and energy and those on the top are counting on it. Once you zoom out and look at the big picture rather than obsessing over the fine details, it just looks like a sideshow or a game comprised of smoke and mirrors. George Carlin put it best here:
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I agree that the 2016 election certainly had a role in exacerbating it due to Trump getting elected. However, according to social psychologist/professor Jonathan Haidt, far leftism/SJW culture started in 2014 and began slowly manifesting since the eighties and nineties as he explains here:
I mentioned Australia because its new PM and government wants to cut down on immigration and it isn't as diverse as Canada and it takes in much less immigrants compared to Canada. However, its PM and government could change in the following elections and allow more immigrants. I will also concede that Australia is already multi-ethnic/multicultural. Asian and African countries are mostly mono-ethnic/monocultural except for a few of them.
US/Canada/Aus/NZ do that, but Europe takes in tons of unskilled economic migrants.
Here you are, in regards to immigrants draining the welfare system in Europe as I only mentioned welfare in Europe and not crime:
Source: https://acdemocracy.org/muslim-immig...cial-benefits/An estimated 40% of Muslim youth in France and 50% in Germany are unemployed but far from destitute. Rather, they receive a wide range of social benefits. For example, an estimated 40% of welfare outlays in Denmark go to the 5% of the population that is Muslim. According to Otto Schily, former German interior minister, speaking of immigrants in general: “Seventy percent of the newcomers [since 2002] land on welfare the day of their arrival.” In Sweden, perhaps the most acute case, immigrants are estimated at 1.5 million out of 10 million people; immigration is estimated to cost almost $14 billion per year.
These high levels of welfare are accompanied by high levels of unemployment. Nor has this situation improved; rather, it is deteriorating. According to analyst Christopher Caldwell: “In the early 1970s, 2 million of the 3 million foreigners in Germany were in the labor force; by the turn of this century, 2 million of 7.5 million were.” Similar stories abound in other West European countries.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I am not blaming the victim, I am just saying that making an entire country multicultural to cater to a minority of people is silly. Obviously laws should be put in place to prevent people from abusing minorities so they're respected as equal citizens, but forcing mass immigration to quell that doesn't make any sense.
You can't undo thousands of years of humanity living in tribes in decades of forced multiculturalism and diversity.
Fair enough. I think you would find few people that would disagree with you that improving third world nations standard of living should happen. Where they might disagree on is how much they should be helped or the means. Some would argue that they should be helped by themselves, others believe in foreign aid. I would be fine with increasing investment and technology transfers from the first world to the third world, but within reasonable means to not overburden the tax payer of 1st world nations. Anyways, in my own country and other ex-British countries, I am pretty tolerant to outsiders, but I think a line needs to be drawn. A multi-ethnic/mono-cultural 1st world nation in order to exist needs to eventually freeze immigration to basically zero eventually. I'm not saying it has to happen today, but it needs to happen eventually. The main primary fear I have is not a mult-ethnic society, but 1st world nations devolving to 3rd world nations or somewhere in between 1st and 3rd world.
The other secondary fear I have is countries losing their culture and embracing the culture of where they immigrated from instead or developing a new watered down consumer mindless culture. The tertiary and last fear I have is countries losing their ethnicity so contrary to popular belief, ethnicity is not the main driving fear at least in my case. Where do I personally believe the line needs to be drawn in every single 1st world nation no matter what? I would say at around ~50% of the majority population so when the country is on the cusp of becoming a majority minority nation, near zero immigration needs to happen if the country wants to retain its 1st world status and the culture it has had for hundreds to thousands of years. So despite my rhetoric in keeping Europe ethnically pure, I know it's a fruitless endeavor in most European nations because of mass immigration/open borders so far and for that reason I don't expect it to happen.
Several nations are projected to be minority-majority nations at less than 50% within several decades time at roughly the mid point of this century. So that means I think France needs remain at least 50% ethnically French, Germany needs to remain at least 50% ethnically German, US needs to remain at least 50% ethnically European and Canada needs to remain at least 50% ethnically European. I am a lot more lenient with ex-British colonies because trying to keep America and Canada to ~50% ethnically British/German is silly considering they were originally Native American countries. I am also sure that my views are malleable compared to others that are more conservative on immigration. The truth is whether people want to admit it or not, the vast majority of 1st generation immigrants will never fully integrate or assimilate fully into the country they immigrate to. Sure, those who immigrated under 10 years old would likely nearly fully or fully integrate and assimilate into the country and culture, but it's safe to say that someone that immigrated at the age of 20 or older will always be culturally attuned to their first nation and never fully integrate or assimilate.
You can only really expect 2nd generation immigrants to fully integrate and assimilate into the country they have immigrated to. This is why lines must be drawn at some point in time if you want 1st world nations to retain their 1st world nation status, economy, quality of life, culture and values. As a 2nd generation immigrant, I feel much more culturally attuned to the nation I was born in compared to my parents that feel much more culturally attuned to the nation they were born in. This is true regardless of the nation the person immigrated from unless they immigrated from a neighboring nation that is very culturally similar. The main fear for most people ignoring racists in regards to immigration I would say is retaining 1st world status > retaining original culture > retaining ethnicity. Near zero immigration needs to eventually happen sooner or later or what the inevitable result is 1st world nations devolving into 3rd world nations at the worst possible case scenario or 1st world nations losing their original culture for a watered down meaningless empty consumer culture at the best possible case scenario. Majority ethnicities being wiped out completely is absurd of course, but them becoming eventual minorities is very real.
So my question to you is this, where do you draw the line of multiculturalism and mass immigration and instead focus on monoculturalism and near zero immigration? Is it the same as my view when the country is at the cusp of becoming a majority minority nation at around ~50%? Is it more lenient than that so when the majority ethnicity is roughly on par with several minority groups at ~33%? Is it when the majority ethnicity becomes less than at least one other minority group at ~25%? Or is it when the majority ethnicity becomes less than several minority groups at ~10%? Where would that line be drawn for in a nation you have ethnic ancestry ties to like Georgia/Armenia? Would it be the same or different than compared to European nations or the US/Canada? Applying standards by drawing a definitive line with immigration requires no inhumane treatment or mass deportations aside from illegal immigrants. It's simply a matter of enforcing borders to near zero immigration to all 1st world nations once that line is recognized and drawn in order to protect 1st world nation status and retaining the culture of these nations.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
A real revolutionary leftist or revolutionary in general wouldn't waste time running around burning trash cans, smashing car windows, or throwing poopoo at cuckservative blumpf supporters. They would be attacking higher-ups in corporations and government. If anything, the current "radical left" does nothing more than help enforce the current neoliberal System by regurgitating ideals taught to them in schools and programmed by media and screeching at anyone who deviates from them.
human flesh tastes like pork
Agreed. As a staunch opposer of free market capitalism I see Antifa and many of those in democrat party as an embarrassment and a hindrance towards socialism as whole. They waste time unstrategically attacking fringe neo-nazis and thereby doing the establishment's job instead of directly going after Dennis Prager type conservatives who are the people they need to go after if they really want socialism. Espousing all this anti-racism/LGBT stuff doesn't help either as the current liberal establishment already enforces those social values rather extensively, and going any further is over-correction and turns people off.
You bring up a very good point. A lot of extreme leftism is merely supporting the political social goals of corporations, government and most mass media. They heavily push identity politics because it benefits them by having the general public fighting over each other at the bottom rather than the actual corporate/government enemy above them. This is why I should note that there are left-libertarians that are against corporate interests and the military industrial complex and these group of leftists are the true liberal fighters of the system because they recognize that the true enemy are the wealthy plutocratic class above them. They refuse to give in to identity politics that seeks to control free speech and undermine many personal freedoms.
The regressive extreme left serve as pawns to corporate interests unknowingly. The social narrative orchestrated by mass media and policies enacted by the government serving corporate interests has spawned a reactionary extreme right either inadvertently or intentionally as a boogeyman to be afraid of. Unfortunately, the regressive extreme left fails to recognize this distinction and instead pushes identity politics despite it actually serving the interests above them as it is utilized as the means for increasing authoritarianism indirectly. If they joined left-libertarians in fighting greedy corporate interests and government policies that support them then they would actually be productive in their effort to overthrow the system rather than counterproductive.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
reminds me of the time when the "leftist" US government managed to kill the "philo-commie" Italian prime minister Aldo Moro and made it look like it had been the far-left...
just sayin', not all leftists are real leftists
Isn't this a conspiracy theory though?
most conspiracy theories are a bit true if you dig enough, it's just that some of the crazy ones weave the threads together in very twisted ways, usually in support of some deep seated collective fears
and yes, it was an america conspiracy against the rise of communism in europe post ww2, all europe was under us control (still now somehow), italy particularly so because of our commie inclinations. we were a threat. cold war, ye?
after 50 years the reponsibles have not been found, they are protected by the highest powers. all the dynamics of the kidnap + killing are not proven and inconsistent and so even the alleged testimonies of the people who declared to have commited the crimes... only lately the politicians started to reveal the role of some unspeakable puppeteers... it's very crazy stuff, you won't find it on wikipoodia.
(side note, and that was not the only case...)
I’m a small guy, but based on pics I’ve seen of Antifa members I could probably kick Alonzo’s ass.
lol The day you tried would be the day you died, bitch--fortunately, no one would miss you. I'm a 195cm Viking-Mandingo hybrid; I'd gleefully smother you with the palm of my weaker hand.
I'd even off myself before I'd let some cum guzzling, non-binary redneck whore in a bedazzled kaftan kick my ass. FOH.
Sounds like a lot of compensation to me, creampuff. Remember when you accused K4m of trying to act tough online?
And again, stop projecting on to me.
Clearly you've taken one too many stumpy pale dicks to the skull--you are the one that first tried to puff up that padded bird chest to me, as if you haven't endured a lifetime of wedgies, stolen lunch money and a pervasive sense of inadequacy. lol The only thing I wish I could project is piss down your throat, you guttersnipe tramp.
lol, these posts tho. best content in awhile
Communism is bad though. Individualism is necessary for love. In order to love, you have to have someone or something to love. Communism just asks you to love the ideology. Capitalism gives you music, art, homes, cars, clothes that make you look good, tea and coffee to sit down and drink with others, and the whole workings of society. I find it easier to get into listening to music by individual artist like David Bowie, Pink Floyd, etc. than to listen to "music" in some vague sense. Without the individual, there is nothing. Lovers love each other and this messes up the workings of society like in Romeo and Juliet, and parents pick their children over other children etc. That's what love is and what love is about. Love is about the single individual triumphing over the whole world.
Here's some capitalist music so we can see how evil capitalism is, with its desire for the world to sing in harmony instead of screaming and destroying everything:
And socialism/communism can't also provide these?
It never does. Socialist music and art suck, self-expression isn't allowed, and there are always resource shortages.
You realize that socialism has never yet managed to initially take hold within a wealthy industrialized nation right? Good art and music is a byproduct of wealth abundance. China, Russia, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc where all dirt poor backwater countries just prior to becoming socialist and nothing could of possibly risen their wealth to USA levels within the Cold-War timeframe.
Socialism causes poverty and capitalism causes wealth. When socialist countries get wealth, they become capitalist.
I'm also pretty sure the causation works the other way. If a country sells its resources, it has a finite amount of wealth. If a country creates new resources (arts in the broad sense) it has an infinite amount of wealth over time. If it combines its intellectual capital with its industry (arts in the narrow sense) it has an exponentially more infinite amount of wealth over time. You know why the Berlin Wall fell? There was a rock concert that was audible from the other side of the wall.
mayakosky, lilya brik, chagall, the futurist and constructivist movements, this song
OK, let me correct: socialist music and art suck in the same way that most people can't sing. Most people can physically sing, and there is some socialist music and art that doesn't suck, but it's not significant in either case.
it's ironic how the word "liberalism" denotes a leftist bent in the US, it's sort of telling of how any real leftist views are considered extreme.. "I'm a democrat but bleh socialism!" (the soul of the left)
My family (me, my wife and son) were a perfect communism. “From each, according to your abilities, to each, according to your needs.”
We only became Capitalists when dealing with those people outside the family. Those people who didn’t exchange resources with perfect magnanimity. Those who couldn’t be absolutely relied on to repay their personal “debts”. Those people who used money.
We would do some work for people and instead of them returning the favor right away, they’d give us these IOU’s in the form of green pieces of paper. They said that we could use them as proof that they owed us some work in return, sometime in the future.
We have a lot of these IOU’s sitting around, because we’ve done a lot more for them than they’ve done for us. I hope this will turn around some day.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 07-11-2019 at 02:18 AM.
@Raver He's never going to see the difference, because the media has just burnt the false idea into his head that every time someone says "left-wing extremists" they're about to make a rabid right-wing point.
For what it's worth I think left-wing extremism is worse because it's used to police official viewpoints. If an antifa attacks you, everyone will think you're a Nazi. If a Nazi attacks you, you'll be somewhere from mildly injured to dead, but they're a Nazi and no one listens to Nazis except to hear how crazy they are so that's all that'll happen. The firing squad is better than the Chestnut Tree, though I feel very certain I would win against both in the actual story of my lifetime.
This is what you said, stop denying:
You are equating them with neo-Nazis, which is obviously a false equivalence. They are not the left-wing version of neo-Nazis because they don't actually go as far as killing anyone.
They are ignored because they don't actually cause any significant damage.
We're talking about "left-wing extremists", idiot. The whole point of that article is that the media and the police go after them even though they're not really a real terrorist threat, because corporate interest in involved.
You're an idiot.
What the fuck does "I think left-wing extremism is worse because it's used to police official viewpoints" even mean? Stop spewing your dumbass airy-fairy opinions as if they even make sense you fucking dolt.
You're just mad at me because you're a brainwashed far leftist and I called you out in with this thread. Then you hypocritically call the forum brainwashed for believing in Socionics when it's clear the real brainwashed person is you for believing in far leftist extreme doctrine and spewing it constantly in the forum for years as long with your constant anti-Socionics rhetoric like a clown. It really is astounding the level of ignorance, lack of self awareness and stupidity you really have shown in this forum in the past few recent years. At least the other far leftists in this forum don't have that insane level of hypocrisy.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Uh no, it's more like you're backpedaling because you've been pointed out your bias and dumbassery.
"I'm nOt sAyiNg tHaT tHeY'rE tHe SaMe aS nEo-NaZiS... BuT tHeY'rE tHe sAmE aS nEo-NaZiS".
Or you can't understand basic English when I already mentioned several times that ANTIFA are not the same as Neo-Nazis, but can be dangerous at the same time, both are possible. This isn't rocket science dude, your brain shouldn't be short circuiting like this.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You've done nothing but pussy pop and back peddle all over this thread, and especially after it got too hot for you.
That’s literally what the fuck you said and now you act as if you were misquoted once it became glaringly obvious to anyone reasonable enough to see beyond your clusterfuck of right wing trigger words that you were wading neck deep in logical fallacies (as you are wont to do).
The problem is that you do this often–you’ll make the most rudimentary, blatantly obvious, uncritical, hyper reductionist observations and string them together with a fuck ton of low brow conjecture, buttressed by incomplete and/or inaccurate information. Your comments often read like Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson had a chromosome depleted love child.
Honestly, it seems to me that you enjoy presenting false equivalencies for the sake of appearing "fair and balanced" or neutral, a tactic which flies in the face of critical thinking and historical nuance, which you often lack.
Here’s the thing > ANTIFA is not completely blameless--and no one here has argued that. Some of its members clearly have gone overboard with some of their tactics. But hyping and over-inflating the threat they pose paints a decentralized, relatively impotent (in the grand, hegemonic scheme of things) group with a broad and overly simple brush, and contributes to a disproportionate right-wing panic and hypocritical pearl clutching in the process. The fact of the matter is that the worst of ANTIFA's sins don't compare to that of the far right. There is no ANTIFA equivalent to the murder of Heather Hyer, the Charleston church shooting, or the attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue. ANTIFA has no relationship with the Democratic Party nor do its members really support the party; on the other hand, many far right activists are ardent Trump supporters, and at times seem to get tacit support from the White House (e.g., Charlottsville and the 'both sides' comment) and propagandist machines like Fox News. Placing a focus on ANTIFA unnecessarily distracts from the much greater problem of far-right extremism. By creating threads like this, you are part of the problem, not the solution. You want to stop ANTIFA? Then stop the right wing extremists that give them cause to exist.
The idea that someone can change their mind during a thread is revolutionary, I know. But that is all you have so you keep beating the same point home like a broken record.
Like I told Singu, you two keep hammering the same point because that is all you have. Besides being less harmful and not being Neo-Nazis, ANTIFA are basically indefensible. Like Singu, you two are just mad that I specifically singled out far leftists like you guys and separated you two from the rest of the sane leftists to the entire forum. I don't regret it at all, now everyone can know who the problem is and who isn't.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote