Personally watched about 7 million times .
fight theory says never lead with a right hook. Chad leads with right hook, ANTIFA scum down and out.
LARP'ing leftists attacking folks that were disarmed by police, leftist used a baton and takes a dirt nap.
Mebbe there is a God after all.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Dude, seriously. Can you take this somewhere else? Nobody here cares about 'leftism' or liberals. You're starting to sound like an atheist Rush Limbaugh, and that's not a good thing. The Atheist Hub isn't a political forum, and it should stay that way, because I honestly don't remember the last time an actual religious issue was explored there.
If you want an audience for your political ravings then visit the comments section of a YouTube video of InfoWars.
It's about secular humanism and truth, that's atheist stuff. How do we get along in a non religious based society etc.
And oh yeah some folks here care a whole lot about leftist views and protecting them from critique.
I'm pretty sure that nobody associated with ANTIFA or their opposition is much of a secular humanist. They're an anti fascist group with terroristic tendencies, fighting against a political party they view as fascist, and doing so in the dumbest way possible. Killing innocent people in the name of stopping fascism is hardly humanitarian, but neither is their opposition (trying to claim republicans are humanitarian would be a laugh). Nobody involved is pushing a religious agenda, denying freedom of beliefs, or making religious statements. It's a plain and simple political fiasco that has cost innocent people their lives.
Now, granted, republicans are definitely pushing a religious agenda, but that's not part of the issue. I'm also fairly certain that republicans care about as much about truth as they care about mosquitoes, but that's because they're politicians. Pesky truth always getting in the way. Gives democrats the same trouble. But ultimately, religion and truth are hardly related to ANTIFA.
Look, everyone here knows that you're just doing this to spout your anti-left ideals because you'll use any excuse to defame liberals. I mostly agree with your ideas, but at least be honest about it and stop trying to pretend it belongs here. I'd be more than happy to debate political issues like this if it was actually a debate, but posting a video of some guy getting punched at a riot isn't really debate, it's deliberate confrontationalism. If you want stimulating conversation about political ideology, try posting it in the actual debate room, perhaps. Get a religious person's view.
Antifa is no different that the people they are trying to thwart. They are out to deny the very freedoms this country is known for. They are the Alt-left radicals who pit themselves against the Alt-right conservatives. We should take both groups to a small island in the South Pacific and simply drop them off.
Then drop a bomb on them!
@Cognostic: We should take both groups to a small island in the South Pacific and simply drop them off.
Hey. The South Pacific ain't a garbage dump. Drop them on Kodiak Island to play with the bears.
Oddly, I am not opposed to this.
Truth, only problem is ANTIFA are trying to thwart EVERYONE that is not alt left.
I am neither left nor right. I am atheist. I could care less about political view because they are all less than the brown logs I drop into the porcelain throne. And I am fairly you know what to do with those brown logs after dropping...
rmfr
build a wall around them?
TD, it's obvious you have a hard-on for the far right. But can you please take that crap to a political forum?
Self-radicalisation comes in all shapes and sizes. I miss the time when YouTube was just about cute cat videos. Looking at videos of violence being done to your in-group by your out-group, or vice versa, is a shortcut to social disintegration of our societies. Fear breeds hate and hate breeds authoritarianism, on the left and on the right. I get the feeling that maybe China is unto something with cencoring the Internet. Maybe we just arn't ready for it as a species.
I'm deeply worried about the disintegration of our previously shared narratives in the West. When people stop believing in the story of belonging, they will abandon the metanarratives that lead a country, and create little blocks of their own. Now with the Internet, everyone has a society. From people who like to smell underware to people who want to exterminate the infidels. Existing in these bubbles, and watching videos of your political in-group "demolishing" your out-group distorts our view of reality, and portrays the opposition as moronic and evil.
Ultimately when the stories we believed in fall, all that is left is emptyness and meaninglessness. Isis knows these things. That is why they have been so succesful in recruiting young rootless and disillusioned Muslim men from the west, with a promise of a pure and meaningful life in the khalifate. But this happens on all sides to a degree. That's why we need more principle of charity and not construing evil conspiratorial motivations of white supremacy, patriarchy, evil feminism or a marxist revolution behind the utterings of our political opponents. Now all these things could be true, but have a listen first. And distinguish between different people, not everyone on the "left" or the "right" is the same, although they can be complicit. Most people are good people, they just have different views of what good is and how to achieve it. That's why we need liberalism, so that everyone can have a say, and we can have a dispassionate talk about it.
I'm also worried about the way, especially the "regressive left" uses language. It's so violence driven. Words like cultural appropriation, white supremacy and microaggression (which originate from the academia) all have a kernel of truth to them, but spoken in this way they create an air of urgency and of violence that is not necessary, but are potentially politically damaging and dividing. The young people who hear these words are not theoricians or social scientists, and so inprint on them meanings that come from the form of the word in relation to words and their meanings they already know, thus distorting to a degree what is meant by the word. This is the nature of language in use, we are not computers that can send ready packages to our fellow humans, but flawed creatures that try to parse together a reality of our sensory data and previous experience.
There is also the omnipresent concept creep where things like racism, which used to mean the belief in races and race hierarcies and acting upon them, to scholars like Eduardo Bonilla-Silva categorising everything that creates, even accidentally, a race stratification, as racism. The same is true on the right. Marxism is used as an empty catchall, that wanting universal healthcare and wanting to exterminate the bourgeoisie seems to mean the same thing to some. When people hear words used in a way that is novel, they don't know what is meant and are confused. Of course there is a degree of moralistic bashing in redefining words in novel ways. This happens all the time, it's the nature of language too, but the associations conjured by the new usage are not the associations of the previous usage. It's just like Wittgenstein said:
"Our language can be seen as an ancient city; a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with additions from various periods, and this surrounded by a multitude of new boroughs with straight regular streets and uniform houses."
There is also the problem of politicised scholarly work seeping into media. Science is our way of figuring out the truth, but a paper or two is not science. They are a part of the process of doing science, but they are not the end product of science. Today it seems you can base anything on science, since people think science is a book or a journal. It's not. Science is a process, and talking about the process to laypeople hardly helps. Take for example the food media. Every other week we hear that some product or the other causes cancer, only to hear another week that it prevents cancer. No wonder people don't trust science and don't want to vaccinate their children etc. But a study is not science, the process is science. And when people conflate the body of work on vaccines with papers about food causing cancer, they think it's all just endless flux. And to a degree it is, of course.
Reading about the history of science I came about a quote from an alchemist from the 16th century, by the name of Georgius Agricola:
"About this [alchemy] many books are written, but all are obscure. This is because the writers of these books don't use the real names and words of objects, but strange and made up expressions. One talks about the same thing in one way, and the other with another expression."
As a society I feel that we are kind of in this position again in regards to the objects of human life and of reality.
I saw this same process when I was at university in Japan in the 1970s. Radical student factions inspired by Lenin, Mao, or Kim Il Sung battled the police and each other over obscure ideological differences. All the universities were terrorized by one faction or another. They didn't tolerate debate, and at my university one group executed a member of a rival group for thought crimes. They did that in a classroom. They beat a 20yo boy to death with lead pipes, while faculty members dithered outside about whether or not to call the cops.
I got in a fight with one mob when they burst into our classroom to take the furniture for a barricade. They didn't like it when I told them they were acting like fascists. They had zero tolerance for anyone who challenged their views. In fact other people's fear had become a drug, and they were well and truly addicted.
I think there's an evolution from apathy to awareness to activism to radicalization to violent gangsterism. Once people take that last step, they're hooked on violence, and the ideology becomes nothing more than excuse.
The irony of ANTIFA is they are in fact the most facist, intolerant, violent, bigoted group in western democracies.
The illogic, inconsistency and dissonance of their name, platform and actions is mind blowing.
Rich, elite white kids LARPING and physically attacking the working class - Marx weeps at the stupidity of it.
The out of touch nature is evidenced by the women holding a cigarette and posturing up to attack a guy who just brain damaged her comrade with a single punch. The bullshit she has been fed about girl power resulted in zero situational or self awareness of her position.
Just lucky dude who instinctively loaded up to knock her into next week had the awareness to override his reflexes and open his hand pull away. Dumb women could have had her life ended right there if dude was as stupid as her.
If I were you, I wouldn't poke fingers at people for being dumb.
Wow, Nyarlathotep.
You were much kinder than what I had thought of saying last night when I read that post. However, I walked away knowing I would get spanked by the Admins/Mods.
rmfr
I'm not picking fights with a cigarette in my hand completely oblivious to the fact I have zero chance of winning and relying for my survival on the good will of a decent man not to slap me upside the head for my stupidity.
So yah, she thick as two planks.
It is interesting that you would refer to an admitted chauvinist as a "decent man".
If he was a chauvinist he would have knocked that deluded nut job women out but he didn't, he walked away , try again.
Guy deserves a medal for being a great American and human being.
Isn't not hitting women, because they are women, kind of sexist though? So because he didn't hit her, but hit a man, he is by definition a chauvinist in thinking that women somehow are weaker and can't take a punch like a man can.
He is a Proud Boy; they are chauvinists.
Guy doesn't attack a women therefore he is a chauvinist keeping women down.... lib logic.
First off, I didn't say he was a male chauvinist.
How do I know that? Because he is a Proud Boy. How do I know Proud Boys are chauvinist? Simple: I believe them when they tell us they are:
What's your point they believe in western culture, that's rational because the West is a great system worth preserving. That's why millions of migrants want to live in the West and not one boatload of people from the West have ever been seen trying to get into a single shit hole country.
Really what does your little factoid supposed to mean in the context of this thread?
Do you just like dropping random factoids?
Well for openers it shows while you didn't know what a chauvinist is; you were willing to claim they are not chauvinists. Or in other words: you are willing to make broad statements about subjects you don't understand. That should give you great pause. I'd hope you would reflect on that; or you could just call me a commie or something. Up to you.
True, or the guy just didn't want to hit an unnamed person unlike how he was attacked with a baton by the ANTIFA coward. Prolly why he never got charged by police because it was self defence.
It reminds me of the SA fighting the Red Front in Berlin. Disgusting.
I am a great fan of docs and short films. This is one of the greatest ot all ! 1975! "A Day in the Life of Bonnie Consolo : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dXwfwKILo:
Compared to the OP. That one was TRULY worth watching. Thanks.
rmfr
An update to this thread. The Proud Boys have now been listed by the FBI as an extremist group with "ties to white nationalism".