> They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).
Literally it was a police officer who saw and reported "what looked like" quick drying concrete.
> lie that was completely false
There were people associated with antifa publicizing this.
> I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet.
There is no "both side" there is violent extremists, whether they agree or not between themselves is irrelevant.
> hasn't even killed a single person yet.
Is this seriously the threshold for political violence and abandoning political rationality? (And anyway after Tacoma it is not for a lack of trying).
Right now what I see is one side being allowed with mainstream opinion of defending political violence. Antifa is performing political violence. Throwing a milkshake is not self-defense, it is political violence. Alt-right extremism is also political violence. I only see despicable people in both groups. I see no reasons why one side faults should excuse the other.
This form of "enlightened centrism" is insidious because while it claims to be "neutral" and "unbiased", in reality, it artificially gives a moral advantage to one side (in this case the alt-right). It also ignores that sometimes sacrifices are necessary for the greater good.
Do you disagree with either of the following two points?
1. Even if milkshake throwing is bad, it is objectively less bad than shooting innocent civilians.
2. The "political violence" committed by the left is much smaller compared to the political violence committed by the right.
To answer: 1. true 2. agree.
So What?
The only thing you are doing is painting a romantic ideal of antifa as freedom fighters, robin hoods of the people. Stop. They answer violence with violence.
I was pointing out that this isn't the case since Antifa uses several orders of magnitude less violence than its right-wing counterparts. Thus, antifa cannot be used to justify the statement that "the left and right are morally equivalent".
I never painted antifa in a romantic light, my point about sacrifices being made for the greater good was in reference to policies that help minorities at the cost of harming the majority.
For me that's simply irrelevant, because how "bad" your enemy is doesn't give you any additional leeway. You can use violence to directly prevent greater violence, for example in self-defense. Throwing milk-shakes at someone achieves nothing. Even when a murderer is arrested, the cops don't get to spit at them while they wait for trial. It doesn't matter in the least how bad a person is. It's a red herring from the word go, due process and same rights for all is a very clear standard, and normalizing violating it because "others are worse", leaves us with nothing.
Gabby Giffords would like a word with you about assassination attempts from right wingers. Or is she only a representative?
It’s not like left wing groups haven’t done horrible things in decades past.
That said at the moment in the US it’s pretty clear that the body count (literal) is piling up on the right wing side.
Honestly if people could just stop shooting people for stupid reasons it would be awesome.
As an external observer it seems like the US is slowly sliding towards a worse state of affairs, the government seems unable to get it in hand, dangerous times.
Not much better over in the UK either, we have the ever present threat of the islamists, the border question in Northern Ireland hanging over everyone’s heads (I’m just old enough to to remember the IRA blowing up town centres on the mainland) and a group of people who are seriously pissed off brexit hasn’t happened yet, We already had a lovely MP shot to death by a right wing nut bag and there is a really ugly mood, people are really pissed off with the present state of affairs and another recession caused by economic fallout of brexit could light the touch paper.
I think there is a significant (though small) chance we’ll see troops on the streets peacekeeping over the next two years.
From a group that promotes the idea that speech can be violence, the act of throwing any sort of projectile at anyone should be classified as a violent act without qualification.
You could argue that those milkshakes are also a form of stochastic terrorism as it demonstrates that those politicians are vulnerable. So those with the desire can reach them with something other than a milkshake.
I don't want to hear about how milkshakes aren't violence.
I want to hear why that violence is acceptable. Because, deep down, according to your actions, you think that sometimes violence is necessary.
How about Antifa putting the journalist Andy Ngo in the hospital? Or the professor who hit a guy in the head with a bike lock?
a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet.
Congressman Steve Scalise couldn't be reached for comment.
Steve Scalise is alive... I just googled his wikipedia page.[0]
With all due respect, "Antifa" in their use of the word is almost completely a straw man created by the extreme right to justify their insane and violent behavior. A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland doesn't equivocate to me with a group of people that are using stochastic terrorism tactics to murder hundreds of people. I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).