Latest from Portland Antifa

[Derec]

it's a fucking joke, dude. a joke about tourists being in the way of the locals.

Poe's Law. How am I supposed to be able to tell you were joking when there are people really smashing Starbucks (and other businesses) because reasons.

 

[Derec]

not exactly but didn't have time to elaborate initially. i don't think there should be looting or violence of any sort if possible.

What circumstances do you think make not looting and not engaging in violence impossible?
And do those circumstances only apply to leftists?

however, when a certain group of people is protesting being killed by police at a higher rate than the rest of the population

They are also committing crimes at a higher rate (5x more likely to engage in homicide for example) and therefore it is to be expected that they also have more hostile police interactions (some of them leading to perps being killed) per capita as well. What do you want? Affirmative action for police shootings? That's absurd. Police respond with lethal force to threats. If a certain group engages in more threatening behavior (like attacking police with or without weapons) they should expect to be shot by police at higher rates.

i can see how tensions may boil over into something other than a peaceful protest.

I.e. you are trying to justify violence because you agree with the ideology of the rioters.

the far-left groups that you think rule the large cities in the PNW shouldn't be randomly targeting buildings and they were arrested for it.

Being arrested is one thing. But being prosecuted is quite another as the Multnomah County DA is a leftist friendly to #BLM and Antifa rioters.

people "protesting" by storming a government building in an attempt to overturn an election should be met with overwhelming force.

Nobody is disagreeing with that. But so should left wing rioters who are attempting to abolish police etc.

if the trumpists were simply standing outside with flags and banners then it's all good. these 3 types of events are VERY different.

But the left wing mobs are not standing outside with flags and banners either. They are burning/vandalizing/looting stores, they are vandalizing or taking over government buildings, they are even occupying territory in many cases (Capitol Hill in Seattle, North Mississippi Ave. in Portland, Pryor St. and University Ave. in Atlanta).

 

[J842P]

I see what looks like a bunch of Black Bloc anarchists. Are you sure they're idealistic demonstrators who oppose Fascism?

What do you think *antifa* is?

An identity/ideology defined exactly by the willingness to take direct action against fascist imposition.

What do you think it is? Because if you say anything other than "An identity/ideology defined exactly by the willingness to take direct action against fascist imposition", then you are wrong.

It is, entirely, along the same lines of furry: "an ideology/identity defined exactly as having an interest in anthropomorphics in art, media, and culture".

"Antifa" says nothing more, and nothing less than that the claimant of the identity is supportive of direct action against fascism.

Some Antifa believe all sorts of crazy things. I could as easily say "all conservatives are tRump Terrorists".

They are distinct identities. Even if 100% of dogfuckers were furries, it doesn't make the statement "furries are dogfuckers" true nor does it even make the statement "dogfuckers are furries" apt or appropriate, because furry is not defined in terms of dog fucking nor is dog fucking defined in terms of furries: a non-furry could be a dog fucker, it is merely accidental here in the hypothetical that they are not!

You just have absolutely zero legs to stand on in this argument.

No, you are wrong and as usual bringing up completely irrelevant analogies. Antifa is an alliance between communists and anarchists that advocate direct action in opposition to fascism. It is not merely anyone who opposes fascism. Which should be obvious, given their symbols and history (and stated ideology).

 

[cycomiko]

What circumstances do you think make not looting and not engaging in violence impossible?
And do those circumstances only apply to leftists?


They are also committing crimes at a higher rate (5x more likely to engage in homicide for example) and therefore it is to be expected that they also have more hostile police interactions (some of them leading to perps being killed) per capita as well. What do you want? Affirmative action for police shootings? That's absurd. Police respond with lethal force to threats. If a certain group engages in more threatening behavior (like attacking police with or without weapons) they should expect to be shot by police at higher rates.

i can see how tensions may boil over into something other than a peaceful protest.

I.e. you are trying to justify violence because you agree with the ideology of the rioters.

the far-left groups that you think rule the large cities in the PNW shouldn't be randomly targeting buildings and they were arrested for it.

Being arrested is one thing. But being prosecuted is quite another as the Multnomah County DA is a leftist friendly to #BLM and Antifa rioters.

people "protesting" by storming a government building in an attempt to overturn an election should be met with overwhelming force.

Nobody is disagreeing with that. But so should left wing rioters who are attempting to abolish police etc.

if the trumpists were simply standing outside with flags and banners then it's all good. these 3 types of events are VERY different.

But the left wing mobs are not standing outside with flags and banners either. They are burning/vandalizing/looting stores, they are vandalizing or taking over government buildings, they are even occupying territory in many cases (Capitol Hill in Seattle, North Mississippi Ave. in Portland, Pryor St. and University Ave. in Atlanta).

first off, you have no idea what my ideology is so check yourself on that one.

i know the nuance is lost in this discussion but i was simply pointing out that the black lives matter people have an actual grievance and i can see how those tensions could escalate beyond peaceful. the anarchists and trumpists do not.

 

[cycomiko]

it's a fucking joke, dude. a joke about tourists being in the way of the locals.

Poe's Law. How am I supposed to be able to tell you were joking when there are people really smashing Starbucks (and other businesses) because reasons.

the anarchists were doing it because anarchists.

you think a lot of seattleites actually walk by that starbucks and think "SMASH"....."BAD COFFEE"? i know you think very little of that antifa stronghold full of anti-government, craft beer, stoners. you should visit some day.

it's all good

 

[Elixir]

I find it funny and sad that he is trying so hard to get us to support violent assholes

It's a really perverse form of mendacity, where actual intended meanings must be cloaked in a defensive shield of false equivalences and whataboutisms.
A common practice among pseudo-intellectual right wingers who consider themselves "centrist".

In this case I find it an alarming sign of the degradation of this society. The denial of systemic racism that has been reflexive for centuries, now serves as the template for denying the seriousness of treasonous coup attempts.
Sad indeed.

 

[Elixir]

cykomiko seems to be saying it's not that bad to attack courthouses and stuff.

(bold added)

How bad? As bad as attempting a violent coup to overturn the results of a free and fair election?
No, Derec, it's NOT "that" bad.

 

[Jarhyn]

An identity/ideology defined exactly by the willingness to take direct action against fascist imposition.

What do you think it is? Because if you say anything other than "An identity/ideology defined exactly by the willingness to take direct action against fascist imposition", then you are wrong.

It is, entirely, along the same lines of furry: "an ideology/identity defined exactly as having an interest in anthropomorphics in art, media, and culture".

"Antifa" says nothing more, and nothing less than that the claimant of the identity is supportive of direct action against fascism.

Some Antifa believe all sorts of crazy things. I could as easily say "all conservatives are tRump Terrorists".

They are distinct identities. Even if 100% of dogfuckers were furries, it doesn't make the statement "furries are dogfuckers" true nor does it even make the statement "dogfuckers are furries" apt or appropriate, because furry is not defined in terms of dog fucking nor is dog fucking defined in terms of furries: a non-furry could be a dog fucker, it is merely accidental here in the hypothetical that they are not!

You just have absolutely zero legs to stand on in this argument.

No, you are wrong and as usual bringing up completely irrelevant analogies. Antifa is an alliance between communists and anarchists that advocate direct action in opposition to fascism. It is not merely anyone who opposes fascism. Which should be obvious, given their symbols and history (and stated ideology).

Good of you to tell me that I'm a communist and an anarchist, I had no fucking idea. Neither did any of my friends know they were communists and anarchists.

Or maybe you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[Jarhyn]

cykomiko seems to be saying it's not that bad to attack courthouses and stuff.

(bold added)

How bad? As bad as attempting a violent coup to overturn the results of a free and fair election?
No, Derec, it's NOT "that" bad.

In fact, most of us say nothing of the sort. Attacking a courthouse is fucking bad, full stop. But as we have seen, Derec has an apparent inability to understand how something unjustified can still bring about a positive result in a situation where the context itself is already unjustified.

Maybe an example he might understand, from his perspective: a black man has a gun and aims it at the cop. Does the cop shoot him? Derec would likely argue he ought, on the justification that someone has already violated the ethics of the context.

In this situation, society has already violated these people, pointed it's gun at them. Wouldn't the people so violated by Derec's logic have a justification for the use of force?

But personally, I don't think that either act is "justified". They are both mournful and tragic actions. The problem here is that Derec fails to see that this train already left any expectation or hope of ethical outcomes the moment the initial act (the violation of social expectations to not point a gun, to not racially profile, to not leverage others) already tossed any calculus that could allow a good end here.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, your guess is very wrong.

Really? Because cykomiko seems to be saying it's not that bad to attack courthouses and stuff.

lI responded to your post about your guess this riot being considered a "peaceful protest". The arrests indicate otherwise. And no one is arguing that rioting is a form of peaceful protest. So your guess was very wrong. cykomiko's views (which you misread) had nothing whatsoever to do with my observation. So your guess was very wrong

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, these marchers have become totally ridiculous. I don't support them in the least anymore. Luckily the locals have quit their wacko movement and they are down to just about a 100 supporters recently. But they have become mean and abusive. And they are being arrested now and serving time. Good riddance. The locals are getting tired of their shit:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...r-alike-in-portland/ar-BB1cYW3b?ocid=msedgntp

 

[thebeave]

Yea, these marchers have become totally ridiculous. I don't support them in the least anymore. Luckily the locals have quit their wacko movement and they are down to just about a 100 supporters recently. But they have become mean and abusive. And they are being arrested now and serving time. Good riddance. The locals are getting tired of their shit:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...r-alike-in-portland/ar-BB1cYW3b?ocid=msedgntp

Do you think that these protests in the Portland area since last summer have, overall, done some good? We're all told that protest is a really great way to generate awareness, change hearts and minds and get some actual positive change social change accomplished. I remain a bit skeptical about protests in general, but would like to hear your view for your area. Does it seem like the residents' hearts and minds have been changed for the better after all is said and done? Have there been some actual, objective positive social changes as a result? Or do we just have a bunch of broken windows, grafitti and annoyed citizens after all that?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, these marchers have become totally ridiculous. I don't support them in the least anymore. Luckily the locals have quit their wacko movement and they are down to just about a 100 supporters recently. But they have become mean and abusive. And they are being arrested now and serving time. Good riddance. The locals are getting tired of their shit:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...r-alike-in-portland/ar-BB1cYW3b?ocid=msedgntp

Do you think that these protests in the Portland area since last summer have, overall, done some good? We're all told that protest is a really great way to generate awareness, change hearts and minds and get some actual positive change social change accomplished. I remain a bit skeptical about protests in general, but would like to hear your view for your area. Does it seem like the residents' hearts and minds have been changed for the better after all is said and done? Have there been some actual, objective positive social changes as a result? Or do we just have a bunch of broken windows, grafitti and annoyed citizens after all that?

No. They've done no good. In fact, they made progress far less likely. Portland is a very successful and liberal city. One of the great cities in the country. Huge tax base of professionals with great arts, support, and etc. I love Portland. I supported the marches in the beginning. I took my daughters to several of them. And the city supported it as well. So did the down town businesses. I remember marching in the protest one time and a bar owner giving me a pitcher of beer as I was walking by. I drank it all! But then the protestors started wanting to only march at night. And they just became bitter. Destroying things. Starting fires. Harrassing people. Harassing the mayor. Harassing the Mayor's neighbors. Ted Wheeler is not the problem. The protestors have really turned, and they've pissed off a lot of people who could have been supporters.

 

[thebeave]

Yea, these marchers have become totally ridiculous. I don't support them in the least anymore. Luckily the locals have quit their wacko movement and they are down to just about a 100 supporters recently. But they have become mean and abusive. And they are being arrested now and serving time. Good riddance. The locals are getting tired of their shit:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...r-alike-in-portland/ar-BB1cYW3b?ocid=msedgntp

Do you think that these protests in the Portland area since last summer have, overall, done some good? We're all told that protest is a really great way to generate awareness, change hearts and minds and get some actual positive change social change accomplished. I remain a bit skeptical about protests in general, but would like to hear your view for your area. Does it seem like the residents' hearts and minds have been changed for the better after all is said and done? Have there been some actual, objective positive social changes as a result? Or do we just have a bunch of broken windows, grafitti and annoyed citizens after all that?

No. They've done no good. In fact, they made progress far less likely. Portland is a very successful and liberal city. One of the great cities in the country. Huge tax base of professionals with great arts, support, and etc. I love Portland. I supported the marches in the beginning. I took my daughters to several of them. And the city supported it as well. So did the down town businesses. I remember marching in the protest one time and a bar owner giving me a pitcher of beer as I was walking by. I drank it all! But then the protestors started wanting to only march at night. And they just became bitter. Destroying things. Starting fires. Harrassing people. Harassing the mayor. Harassing the Mayor's neighbors. Ted Wheeler is not the problem. The protestors have really turned, and they've pissed off a lot of people who could have been supporters.

Thanks for sharing. Good to get it straight and honest from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I wonder how many other big cities in similar circumstances this has happened to. Its really a crying shame, and yet some politicians are still encouraging it, saying its an important thing to do, despite its destructiveness and our pandemic.

 

[Elixir]

No. They've done no good. In fact, they made progress far less likely. Portland is a very successful and liberal city. One of the great cities in the country. Huge tax base of professionals with great arts, support, and etc. I love Portland. I supported the marches in the beginning. I took my daughters to several of them. And the city supported it as well. So did the down town businesses. I remember marching in the protest one time and a bar owner giving me a pitcher of beer as I was walking by. I drank it all! But then the protestors started wanting to only march at night. And they just became bitter. Destroying things. Starting fires. Harrassing people. Harassing the mayor. Harassing the Mayor's neighbors. Ted Wheeler is not the problem. The protestors have really turned, and they've pissed off a lot of people who could have been supporters.

Thanks for sharing. Good to get it straight and honest from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I wonder how many other big cities in similar circumstances this has happened to. Its really a crying shame, and yet some politicians are still encouraging it, saying its an important thing to do, despite its destructiveness and our pandemic.

As right wing extremists get better and better at inciting violence at otherwise peaceful protests, protests become a less and less viable way to effect desirable change.
It's a shame, since protest remains one of the few avenues available to the oppressed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No. They've done no good. In fact, they made progress far less likely. Portland is a very successful and liberal city. One of the great cities in the country. Huge tax base of professionals with great arts, support, and etc. I love Portland. I supported the marches in the beginning. I took my daughters to several of them. And the city supported it as well. So did the down town businesses. I remember marching in the protest one time and a bar owner giving me a pitcher of beer as I was walking by. I drank it all! But then the protestors started wanting to only march at night. And they just became bitter. Destroying things. Starting fires. Harrassing people. Harassing the mayor. Harassing the Mayor's neighbors. Ted Wheeler is not the problem. The protestors have really turned, and they've pissed off a lot of people who could have been supporters.

Thanks for sharing. Good to get it straight and honest from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I wonder how many other big cities in similar circumstances this has happened to. Its really a crying shame, and yet some politicians are still encouraging it, saying its an important thing to do, despite its destructiveness and our pandemic.

As right wing extremists get better and better at inciting violence at otherwise peaceful protests, protests become a less and less viable way to effect desirable change.
It's a shame, since protest remains one of the few avenues available to the oppressed.

Elixir: I think that it's a mistake to assume that the people inciting the violence are always right wing. I know some of these protestors in Portland. I recognize some of them from the Occupy protests. The protestors made a group decision to move the protests to the night. IMO, they did this purposely to limit the law biding protestors (with their kids) and destroy shit to get away with it. These people are frustrated and depressed because Portland has discovered the method to wipe out inequality (stupid Portlanders! It should be so easy!).

Protests can still work. But they need to have leaders who can communicate the goals of the movement. The goals should be reachable and attainable. And the protestors shouldn't piss off the people in the middle who could have been their ally.

 

[Elixir]

As right wing extremists get better and better at inciting violence at otherwise peaceful protests, protests become a less and less viable way to effect desirable change.
It's a shame, since protest remains one of the few avenues available to the oppressed.

Elixir: I think that it's a mistake to assume that the people inciting the violence are always right wing. I know some of these protestors in Portland. I recognize some of them from the Occupy protests. The protestors made a group decision to move the protests to the night. IMO, they did this purposely to limit the law biding protestors (with their kids) and destroy shit to get away with it. These people are frustrated and depressed because Portland has discovered the method to wipe out inequality (stupid Portlanders! It should be so easy!).

Protests can still work. But they need to have leaders who can communicate the goals of the movement. The goals should be reachable and attainable. And the protestors shouldn't piss off the people in the middle who could have been their ally.

Of course there are violent protesters - that's what makes the situation so easy to exacerbate.
It has always been so. In the 60s there were protesters against the Vietnam war who were violent - some of them were were vets returning from Vietnam, replete with as-yet-undiagnosed PTSD. As a young teen with peace signs in my eyes, I was horrified. But they certainly did not constitute the majority of protesters - by a long shot.
They DO need to have communicators who can express goals that people can get behind - like, in the case of BLM, MLK. Absent such leaders, the protesters can be turned into a mob even against the will of the majority of them.

The false equivocation that is popular with the right wingers of TFT is with the ACTUAL mob that stormed the Capitol, destroyed property and killed people at the express direction of their leader who actually desired such action. That was not undertaken by a small contingent of fringe looneys - it was the main mission of the entire mob.

 

[Harry Bosch]

As right wing extremists get better and better at inciting violence at otherwise peaceful protests, protests become a less and less viable way to effect desirable change.
It's a shame, since protest remains one of the few avenues available to the oppressed.

Elixir: I think that it's a mistake to assume that the people inciting the violence are always right wing. I know some of these protestors in Portland. I recognize some of them from the Occupy protests. The protestors made a group decision to move the protests to the night. IMO, they did this purposely to limit the law biding protestors (with their kids) and destroy shit to get away with it. These people are frustrated and depressed because Portland has discovered the method to wipe out inequality (stupid Portlanders! It should be so easy!).

Protests can still work. But they need to have leaders who can communicate the goals of the movement. The goals should be reachable and attainable. And the protestors shouldn't piss off the people in the middle who could have been their ally.

Of course there are violent protesters - that's what makes the situation so easy to exacerbate.
It has always been so. In the 60s there were protesters against the Vietnam war who were violent - some of them were were vets returning from Vietnam, replete with as-yet-undiagnosed PTSD. As a young teen with peace signs in my eyes, I was horrified. But they certainly did not constitute the majority of protesters - by a long shot.
They DO need to have communicators who can express goals that people can get behind - like, in the case of BLM, MLK. Absent such leaders, the protesters can be turned into a mob even against the will of the majority of them.

The false equivocation that is popular with the right wingers of TFT is with the ACTUAL mob that stormed the Capitol, destroyed property and killed people at the express direction of their leader who actually desired such action. That was not undertaken by a small contingent of fringe looneys - it was the main mission of the entire mob.

Totally agree. Secondly, it should be noted that the Portland Protestors (that drove Fox News nuts) the other day was only about 85 people. Quite a few less people that the DC mob!

 

[RVonse]

The next four years are going to be interesting watching the left eat its own. If it gets really out of control, what will Biden/Harris do? Send in the National Guard? Or play the fiddle while Rome burns? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yeah, sit back, relax, and feast on Q-blubber while you wait to see who eats who.

Q blubber? I'm less interested in who is eating who (both sides do it obviously), and more interested in seeing how the rioting can (or will) be curbed under the new administration. There is currently a lot of anti-police, anti-arresting, pro-"protesting" attitude amongst the left. So, it seems any use of force by local law enforcement or the Feds will not go over well. What options are left? Yell "Stop" in a megaphone, and if they ignore it, yell "Stop" even louder?

They will buy them out with free "stimulus" money. Give them an electronic debit card that goes dead if they are caught on the streets making trouble.