|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 24, 2021 2:34:08 GMT 10
Antifa isn't the same as Trumps inciting organised fascist domestic terrorist militia groups into violence on Capitol Hill....note it was Trump who labeled them a terrorist group. Antifa members stand against what they view as authoritarian, homophobic and racist systems, according to The New York Times. What does Antifa protest, and what are its tactics? Antifa members take part in protests and rallies aimed at disrupting authoritative speakers and actions. Many antifa organizers participate in peaceful forms of community organizing, but what sets the group is apart is its willingness to use violence. Antifa members say they use violence as a means of self-defense and that property destruction does not equate to violence, according to CNN. "There is a place for violence," Scott Crow, a former Antifa organizer, told CNN. "Is that the world that we want to live in? No. Is it the world we want to inhabit? No. Is it the world we want to create? No. But will we push back...?...Yes.....https://patch.com/us/across-america/what-antifa-5-things-know-movement In todays world there is a need to push back on authoritarian fascist....and while you claim Sproko not to be a Trump supporter you are certainly pushing his barrow, rendering support to fascism. Yeah, Antifa are nice guys because they take the dishes out of the sink before they piss down it. Dude, terrorism is terrorism. Fanaticism is fanaticism. Just because you prefer vomit over shit, doesn't make vomit a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 24, 2021 3:19:10 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 24, 2021 4:43:18 GMT 10
That theory might work, had I not been blocked on both my PC and my mobile device... If your mobile device was using Wi-Fi ... that points to a router reboot required. Gort I wouldn't bother troubleshooting Sporks alleged problems, I've got a feeling that he was lying about being blocked or banned or whatever from here to try and bolster his argument. One could point out to him that when you need to resort to silly fiction to back up your argument it usually means that there is something wrong with your argument but I don't think Spork is receptive to any message that doesn't gel with his conspiracy theories...... |
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 24, 2021 5:57:47 GMT 10
This is what the RW does...even the so called moderates....not wanting to recognise the domestic terrorism and violence of the alt RW will resort to 'oh look at Antifa'...turning a blind eye to the real threat to security.
There is no comparison to the far right and Antifa, on security watch globally the domestic terrorism threat is from the far right groups, not Antifa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 24, 2021 6:14:10 GMT 10
This is what the RW does...even the so called moderates....not wanting to recognise the domestic terrorism and violence of the alt RW will resort to 'oh look at Antifa'...turning a blind eye to the real threat to security. There is no comparison to the far right and Antifa, on security watch globally the domestic terrorism threat is from the far right groups, not Antifa. I guess that all depends on who controls the information, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 24, 2021 6:15:40 GMT 10
If your mobile device was using Wi-Fi ... that points to a router reboot required. Gort I wouldn't bother troubleshooting Sporks alleged problems, I've got a feeling that he was lying about being blocked or banned or whatever from here to try and bolster his argument. One could point out to him that when you need to resort to silly fiction to back up your argument it usually means that there is something wrong with your argument but I don't think Spork is receptive to any message that doesn't gel with his conspiracy theories...... Typical leftist behaviour. Instead of actually looking into the claims just tack a label and dismiss it. It must be so convenient for you, being so intellectually lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 24, 2021 7:02:29 GMT 10
There are thousands of National Guardsmen protecting Capitol Hill right now...they are not there because of Antifa.
And how can anyone look into your claims that you were censored/banned...your more interested in playing games like you think the alt right are a harmless mob just playing games who should have the right to their "free speech" of authoritarian ideology of bigotry and hate with scant regard for democracy.
Be careful of what you promote....it ain't nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 24, 2021 18:52:33 GMT 10
Gort I wouldn't bother troubleshooting Sporks alleged problems, I've got a feeling that he was lying about being blocked or banned or whatever from here to try and bolster his argument. One could point out to him that when you need to resort to silly fiction to back up your argument it usually means that there is something wrong with your argument but I don't think Spork is receptive to any message that doesn't gel with his conspiracy theories...... Typical leftist behaviour. Instead of actually looking into the claims just tack a label and dismiss it. It must be so convenient for you, being so intellectually lazy. You really don't see the irony in what you said, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 27, 2021 22:04:20 GMT 10
Typical leftist behaviour. Instead of actually looking into the claims just tack a label and dismiss it. It must be so convenient for you, being so intellectually lazy. You really don't see the irony in what you said, do you? I see that your grasp of irony is similar to that of Alanis Morrisette's. Not being heard is not the same as the inability to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 27, 2021 22:06:16 GMT 10
There are thousands of National Guardsmen protecting Capitol Hill right now...they are not there because of Antifa. And how can anyone look into your claims that you were censored/banned...your more interested in playing games like you think the alt right are a harmless mob just playing games who should have the right to their "free speech" of authoritarian ideology of bigotry and hate with scant regard for democracy. Be careful of what you promote....it ain't nice. ...And it's all because Conservatives were allowed to use social media? |
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 28, 2021 4:12:19 GMT 10
Social media was not designed as platform to promote hate and violence or anti social behaviour under the banner of free speech.
Free speech is not hate speech as the the conservatives are fixated with that is giving rise to far right groups (neo Nazis) with increase racism and bigotry that is now a big problem in the US that is being mimicked in other nations.
Living in an age with those that lie and spread misinformation to carry a nasty ideologue of fascism is not something to be dealt with by leniency, and why Trump labeled Antifa terrorist because they oppose the far right agenda that will have bad consequences as history has shown,..... and why are the majority Republicans prepared to be lenient with Trump and his anti social crimes...?...because the are in agreeance with the far right.
Now to show leniency to the far right the RW such as yourself 'oh what about Antifa' excusing the crimes of the bigoted hate groups wanting a pathway to insurrection.
Frankly I am sick of the conservatives and their support for neo fascist under the guise of free speech, their support of blatant misinformation on climate change and other science, their support for racism and social inequality that creates societal division....they are the septic tank that needs draining of the big turds clogging the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2021 8:59:21 GMT 10
Let's suppose the entire purpose of the banning was because of the violence that occurred at the Whitehouse...
Strategically how does it make sense to remove one of your only means of tracking said 'perpetrators'?
Do you think fanaticism has ended simply because they've removed their ability to organize on a public platform?
Oh, and you'll be relieved to know that Covid-19 isn't the greatest cause for the loss of human life 2020. That statistic still belongs to abortion. -Joe wants to make legal again. First week and already off to a flying start.
Truth be told, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm anti-Biden.
Aka: "President Buyed-in"
|
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 28, 2021 13:52:33 GMT 10
Said perpetrators were caught on video surveillance and the banning was of Trumps inciting to violence tweets, not all and sundry RW peoploids, your still free to express your warped minded opinion.
The argument you are running Sproko is more or less the same as enabling child pornography, or snuff movies on social media deemed unlawful as free speech....there are social boundaries as there should be for the good of all and the protection of people.
Now your conflogulating abortion as a reason that Covid is not that dangerous...while I don't have the figures on abortions I am sure in the US more people are dying from Covid terminating unwanted pregnancies, who in their right mind would make the comparison of abortions and Trumps inciting insurrection crime.
Since abortion rights for women were made legal in the US circa 1973 abortions and pregnancies have decreased through education programs.
Abortion rates have increased in poor countries where population rates have also increased...and how low does it have to be that women's rights should have less rights than white supremacist hate speech....what are your values Sproko coz it sure is reading sus.
|
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 28, 2021 14:12:02 GMT 10
You really don't see the irony in what you said, do you? I see that your grasp of irony is similar to that of Alanis Morrisette's. Not being heard is not the same as the inability to speak. No Spork, that's just a silly thing to say. Let's unpack what you said. Typical leftist behaviour. Instead of actually looking into the claims just tack a label and dismiss it. Isn't that exactly what you are accusing me of? You just tacked a label on, to wit "Typical leftist behaviour" then you just dismissed it. I suppose I could have called it hypocrisy, but I felt irony was the kinder description. Now that I've explained it to you, perhaps you'll understand it |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 28, 2021 14:42:08 GMT 10
Huh?? That's like a late 1940's post WW2 West German saying "I'm not pro-Hitler, I'm anti-Adenauer"  Or a 1990s French voter saying "I'm not anti-Le Pen, I'm anti-Chirac" |
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 28, 2021 18:19:42 GMT 10
Let's suppose the entire purpose of the banning was because of the violence that occurred at the Whitehouse... Strategically how does it make sense to remove one of your only means of tracking said 'perpetrators'? Do you think fanaticism has ended simply because they've removed their ability to organize on a public platform? Oh, and you'll be relieved to know that Covid-19 isn't the greatest cause for the loss of human life 2020. That statistic still belongs to abortion. -Joe wants to make legal again. First week and already off to a flying start. Truth be told, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm anti-Biden. Aka: "President Buyed-in" I went and looked that one up. I didn't think for a second that COVID would be the greatest cause of mortality last year, I assumed that it would be Heart Disease (just as it is every year). So first I went to the World Health Organisation, they don't have 2020's data up yet but 2019 was there. They said that yes indeed it was Heart Disease, followed by Stroke followed by lung and digestive system complaints. Now it's known that COVID has caused around 1 million deaths, but that still doesn't come close to Heart Disease or the others in the top ten causes of death. So no, COVID didn't cause the greatest number of deaths. So then I went to see if Abortion did (despite the WHO not listing it). Bingo, got a link straight to Breitbart followed by a lot of news stories about how Breitbart was making this claim that 34 million abortions are carried out. Some news reports state that the methodology is dodgy, others take the position that an abortion is not a death. For mine, I take the latter rational that until a foetus is of a viable age it does not fulfil the definition of life, and if that is so then an abortion is not the same as a person dying. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 30, 2021 0:28:50 GMT 10
Some news reports state that the methodology is dodgy, others take the position that an abortion is not a death. For mine, I take the latter rational that until a foetus is of a viable age it does not fulfil the definition of life, and if that is so then an abortion is not the same as a person dying. Personally I think that is a definition of moral convenience. In my opinion anything with its own heart beat can be definitively considered 'alive.' Also, viability is an ambiguous concept when determining life, because even young fetuses don't die instantly when exposed to air. Deny young life of anything, and it can become unviable. How can any infant be considered 'alive ' under this criterion? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 30, 2021 0:51:57 GMT 10
I suppose I could have called it hypocrisy, but I felt irony was the kinder description. Now that I've explained it to you, perhaps you'll understand it Yes I see your meaning now. I guess I just found your earlier descriptors not representative of my views. I cringe every time I get labeled as a Trump supporter, I don't support the attack on the Whitehouse. But the suppression of free speech, even from people I may not agree with, is something I really have strong feelings about. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 30, 2021 0:57:35 GMT 10
Huh?? That's like a late 1940's post WW2 West German saying "I'm not pro-Hitler, I'm anti-Adenauer" Or a 1990s French voter saying "I'm not anti-Le Pen, I'm anti-Chirac" That's only relevant in a two-party system. My contention is why does there only need to be just two options? I like Biden as a person, more so than Trump, but I don't/ can't support most of his policies. And so from a practical standpoint, not a personal one, I am anti-Biden. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2021 7:38:37 GMT 10
That works when you have a European style multi party system in which politicians are elected by proportional voting rather than first past the post winner takes all. NZ recently adopted the proportional voting model and the result has been a stunningly progressive government that has made us Australians madly envious. Your model presupposes coalition government by consensus. I can only agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 30, 2021 9:42:12 GMT 10
That works when you have a European style multi party system in which politicians are elected by proportional voting rather than first past the post winner takes all. NZ recently adopted the proportional voting model and the result has been a stunningly progressive government that has made us Australians madly envious. Your model presupposes coalition government by consensus. I can only agree. Canada too, has a multiparty system, on its surface. Although most vote left or right respectively, but we often have a third or forth party representation in Parliament to balance things out. |
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 30, 2021 9:46:19 GMT 10
Occam supports RW extremism as mere conservative thinking....in that regard I would say he is most correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2021 14:11:02 GMT 10
Ponto I’m referring to parliaments containing multi member electorates in which the MPs are elected by proportional representation. Australia is no stranger to this model. At the local government level most city councils and shire councils are elected by proportional representation with each ward represented by a number of councillors. At the state/territory level proportional representation with multi member electorates is commonplace. Tasmania with its Hare/Clarke system is well known in Australia but the ACT and the NT also follow the Hare/Clarke model. At the federal level the Australian Senate is elected by proportional representation with each State and Territory voting as one electorate giving twelve Senators per State in the national parliament and each territory sending two Senators to Canberra. We still think of ourselves as a democracy and indeed we are.
Many nations elect their parliaments by proportional voting whereby the elector votes for a ticket rather than an individual and they tend to be among the world’s oldest and proudest democracies. If we had proportional representation then the minor parties get a better look in and major parties are more accountable. True, that would mean more One Nation MPs and that’s scary, but you’d also get a lot more Greens. It just might force the Labor Party further to the left if it’s forced into coalition more often with green parties and progressive independents. Look at the raw statistics at election time. If voting was by proportional representation you’d have left wing governments more often.
Proportional representation leads to government by consensus as deals are brokered. A government is hammered out by politicians jawboning with each other. In the Netherlands they’re about to go into an election campaign because their government resigned (yes, resigned! Wow! Taking responsibility for stuff ups! What a novel idea!) over their own robodebt scandal. I loved the footage of the Dutch PM pedalling his bicycle to the Royal Palace to tender his resignation to the King. Echt Nederlands! I guarantee that it’ll take them three months after the elections to lock down a deal which delivers a government. Failed state? Dysfunctional politics? I don’t think so!
|
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 30, 2021 17:38:26 GMT 10
Interesting what is happening in the Netherlands, young people rioting over lockdowns, anti Muslim Gert Wilders and his American far right backers and a government resigning over a robo-debt scandal, and what is with governments to pass on debt recovery to private agencies to make money of the people, typical RW thinking, the Netherlands government resigning does show that the Dutch people are not lenient on political crime as in other democracies including Australia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 31, 2021 1:30:40 GMT 10
Occam supports RW extremism as mere conservative thinking....in that regard I would say he is most correct. Sure, if you want to paint all conservatives with the same brush. But I happen to think right wing views could be as diverse as the left. |
|
