Author Topic: Utterly legitimate and non farcical "antifa manual" found on Reddit  (Read 1545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kanzenkankaku

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Gender: Female
Re: Utterly legitimate and non farcical "antifa manual" found on Reddit
« Reply #105 on: September 13, 2017, 09:37:52 pm »
This manual is fake af. I still don't like or trust ANTIFA/Black Bloc tactics. All fake evidence like this manges to do is turn them into a boogeyman who noone takes seriously instead of a political movement that can and should be critiqued.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
Re: Utterly legitimate and non farcical "antifa manual" found on Reddit
« Reply #106 on: September 15, 2017, 10:40:56 pm »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-RKo1xhX1A

Matt Dillahunty on free speech, Milo, and punching Nazis.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote
Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Offline SCarpelan

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: Utterly legitimate and non farcical "antifa manual" found on Reddit
« Reply #107 on: September 16, 2017, 10:04:22 am »
Dillahunty is strawmanning the hate speech laws (at least the one we have in Finland) pretty badly. I do have my suspicions about if that kind of law would work in the American context with only two parties and an extremely politicized judicial system. These things make abusing the law or adjusting it to make it more vulnerable to abuse much easier. If any party or coalition would have enough political capital and power to change the legal definitions of protected groups (this definition applies to many laws) and/or what is "agitation against"* in a way that makes the law oppressive we would be in deep doo-doo since they would have broken our system so badly that not having so called hate speech law would not matter much. They could just make that law or any other oppressive law by themselves.

Also, he is just repeating the same arguments about punching Nazis and violence in general that have been presented and brings nothing new to this discussion.

* The current definition is dehumanization by either use of language (comparing to vermins etc.) or lying about facts to make generalizations. This is my, a non-lawyer's, approximate memory about the definition. The actual terms are defined in the law books and parliament's documentation when they made the law in a manner that makes it clear for a legal expert what the intention is.