You mean like Antifa beating people at free speech rallies or beating a 56 year old Jewish man claiming he is a Nazi?
"Do you disagree with my post?" No. I think that I was clear. Try reading my response again. The entire response.
If you are willing to shut down someone's free speech because you don't like what they're saying, that makes you a fascists.
And yet their vote still counts. It's one of the drawbacks of a Democracy that we must be willing, however reluctantly, to accept. Dumb people have rights too.
If I said what I thought, I would risk being banned. At the least, the post would be deleted. Yet, there are dozens of posts defending and celebrating Antifa-terrorism. And they're still here!!!
You hear what you want to hear, good on ya. If you look me in the face and insult my mom, expect to be kicked in the dick.
Then he should learn his job better. The whole idea of being a journalist is to get the STORY not a beating. It's like being an effective soldier, the idea is NOT to be brave, NOT to take chances, NOT to die bravely but to SURVIVE and make the OTHER guy die bravely. I have never heard yet of any sort of advocacy group, right or left, that would even THINK of beating up an INOFFENSIVE reporter. Advocacy groups LIKE reporters, they bend over backwards to be nice to them, good coverage can save lives and at worst they're seen as mascots. OTOH IF you're embedded with the Peshmerga it's probably not a good idea to go on about how ISIS are the real future of Islam either. IMO this story illustrates how HARMLESS AntiFa is. This guy went in among them with the idea of becoming the story himself. He's done it before and this time he got just a tad more than he wanted. I can't help but think if this guy was working for Slate and showed up at a Proud Boys fight he might have ended up with a milk shake stain that would be REALLY hard to get out
Don't be surprised at how far some progressives will go to twist reality. And, believe it or not, for the best motivations. Or at least some of the motivations of some of them are good ones. Remember the 1930s. All over the world, a significant section of the intelligentsia -- well educated, informed, intelligent -- were rightly deeply concerned about mass unemployment and the rise of fascism, plus the danger of another devastating war. They looked to the Soviet Union -- where unemployment was next to zero, where fascism (okay, and everything else except Communism) was outlawed. They saw the Communists fighting the fascists in the streets. They saw the Communists taking the lead in struggles for Black rights in the US, against colonialism in the European countries, for simple reforms like unemployement insurance, and taking the lead, and doing the dangerous and dirty work of organizing unions. That's probably why the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union initially glorified the Soviet Union, writing a pamphlet called 'Liberty under the Soviets' praising the Soviet system and justifying the lack of civil liberties there. However, as the 30s went on, he wised up, and eventually purged the ACLU of Communists since their committment to civil liberties was obviously hypocritical. But large numbers of liberals didn't wise up. Yes, there were ugly rumors of mass famine carried out as a political punishment on the recalcitrant nationally-minded Ukrainians. And the Communists didn't apologize about their one-party state, one-party press, subordination of the judiciary (and everything else) to the Party. Even when the Purges began in 1938, with the majority of the original Bolshevik Central Committee being accused of Nazi agents and executed, the Party's tens of thousands of members and hundreds and thousands of sympathyzers, remained loyal. Why? One reason was the feeling that 'there are no enemies to the Left' as a popular slogan of the time put it. The other was probably a vague feeling of 'lesser evilism' -- the Communists might not be quite the thing, so far as liberal values were concerned, but ... the Nazis were far worse. And you had to choose. (I ought to make a point here: there was absolutely nothing wrong with co operating with the Communists in organizing trade unions, fighting for Black rights, aiding Republican Spain, so long as you did it with open eyes and didn't turn off your critical facilities. After all, the entire American nation co operated with Stalin to defeat Hitler. It was the apologizing for the repression in Russia that went way over the line: and both the Nation and the New Republic, the two flagship liberal publications at that time, justified the Moscow Trials. ) So our current anti-Fa unpaid lawyers are just following a long and dishonorable tradition.
Then you have not heard of Antifa, whos MO is violence, that specifically attacked Ngo primarily because he was covering them and their violence, which you apparently excuse.
You don't have to care. Just like we don't have to care if someone throws bricks at you or beats your head with a crowbar for not agreeing with them. See how easy it is?
No excuse, but you also don't go to a Klan rally and start going on about how Black Lives Matter are the future of America.
Outside of the really fat dudes did you see once in awhile this is the biggest antifa member there is.