No, Mr. Head. You don't get to divert our attention away from the bigger issue here, that you are supporting physical assault against a reporter you think is doing a bad job of it and is biased.
I'm actually not doing that, though. There's a difference between putting an instance of assault into context by providing all the facts and "supporting" assault as some kind of blanket policy proposal.
Fair enough. So answer plainly then once and for all and stay consistent with your answers. Do you or do you not support the assault of Mr. Ngo? Do you or do you not support physical violence against non-violent white nationalists? Do you or do you not support physical violence against Trump supporters? Do you or do you not support physical violence against conservatives generally? State your boundaries for us so we don't mischaracterize you.
The context surrounding any kind of violent altercation is where the nuance is to be found, and both you and Jason seem almost pathologically uninterested in learning a single new thing today or any other day about antifa, the history of fascist resistance, the power dynamic between right and left wing protesters, the specific reasons each one is engaging in their behavior, or even what that behavior is. You've gagged down the most blatant propaganda and haven't displayed the slightest inkling of curiosity or compassion for the actual victims, the ethnic minorities who are in the cross-hairs of the extreme right wing.
Bullshit. I myself am brown and liberal. I speak out against all violence against anyone based on their race or ethnicity. I simply don't endorse initiating violence against people I presume or accuse of being racist or right wing.
This is all about them; one group wants them to be marginalized, eradicated, barred from entry, relocated, deprived of rights, or locked in holding pens.
Are you in that group? Because given what you've written so far I'm having a hard time guessing if you are or not. This thread isn't about Antifa disrupting and stopping a lynching. Its about them attacking a journalist, or idiot if that's what you want to call him (doesn't matter).
The group who opposes those ideas strongly enough to actually do something about it, with all the variations you would expect based on human beings and their temperament, is what is loosely and colloquially labeled as "antifa". The story is no more complicated than that.
Not everyone who identifies as Antifa is violent, that's true. Some of them actually are against fascism. But that's not the ones I'm talking about nor the actions you've been appearing to defend. Tell us you don't defend violence from Antifa and I'll take your word for it. Do you or not?
Somehow, Jason has gotten it into his rapidly expanding head that antifa means "a political movement that wants to install a brutal dictatorship", and your use of the word "authoritarian" seems to imply you're not far off.
It wasn't me that brought in the word authoritarian. I merely pointed out that authoritarian violence isn't unique to the right, when our privileged authoritarian left admin wrote her usual screed. I wasn't even talking particularly about Antifa.
What authority does antifa possibly want to exercise over you?
Well, as you said, 'Antifa' isn't all of a unified view. Some in Antifa want to exercise no control over people. Others certainly want to control freedom of speech, of assembly, etc, of those of anyone who disagrees with their views.
If you had a worldview that was based on material reality and not idealism, then you would see why a far-right grifter who deliberately provokes the enemies of fascism into overstepping their boundaries is literally asking to be assaulted.
I don't recall him asking to be assaulted. Do you excuse him being assaulted if he did such a provocation (which you have yet to prove)? Do you realize that his being assaulted is only going to rile up the people you fear being riled up to violence against those you purport to care about? What boundaries did he cross? Was a law broken in him doing so? Did you encourage the police to arrest him for it before endorsing vigilante "justice" against him?
It's the best thing that has ever happened to his career. Is it ugly? Sure. Do I wish harm upon him personally? No.
Oh ok good. So can you stop telling us he was asking for it or he deserved it then? Will you condemn those who attacked him now?
But knowing what I know, and the world situation being what it is, does his bloviating engorged face deserve to be on camera explaining why resistance to fascism in public is terrorism, when fascism is quickly becoming official United States policy? Fuck no.
You are calling him being assaulted "resistance to fascism" again now? Do you endorse that violent "resistance" against him? And yes, unaccountable non-state agents shaping behaviour through violence and fear is what terrorism means.
Pick a side in this fight and stop acting like everybody is equally at fault.
You pick a side. Either you are for violence against peaceful people not engaged in violence, that you hate for their views, or you're not. And nobody said everybody is equally at fault. That doesn't speak to anyone being not at fault. Violence tends to be cyclical. The attack on Ngo probably spurned on some violent neo-nazi types, giving them what they see as justification for their own violence.