Jump to content
smac97

DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am going to throw my hands up a little now in frustration since you are trying to create your own private definition of fascism.

First off, the tactics you want to use to call Antifa fascist are not explicitly fascist.

A few definitions of "fascist" may be in order.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Is Antifa "far right-wing?"  No.

Is Antifa "authoritarian?"  Well, sorta yes, sorta no.  To the extent Antifa seeks to enforce the tenets of leftist anti-capitalism, then "yes."  On the other hand, they are also anarchistic, and it's hard to call anarchists "authoritarian."  On the other hand, they have arrogated to themselves the physically assault pretty much anyone they dislike.  They have claimed authority for themselves, so perhaps they can be seen as "authoritarian" after all.

Is Antifa "ultranationalistic?"  No.  

Is Antifa "characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition?"  "Sort of" as to "dictatorial power" (since they "dictate" the terms for using violence), and "Holy cow, yes" as to "forcible suppression of opposition."  Violent suppression of opposing viewpoints is their raison d'etre.

Is Antifa "characterized by ... strong regimentation of society and of the economy?"  No.

From Mirriam-Webster:

Quote

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Is Antifa a "political philosophy, movement, or regime"?  Yes.

Does Antifa "exalt nation and often race above the individual"?  No.

Does Antifa "stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation"?  I'd say no, no and no.

Does Antifa "stand for ... forcible suppression of opposition"?  Again, a strong yes.

From Dictionary.com:

Quote

1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Pretty much same as above.  Antifa does not meet the definition of "fascist" much, except for the "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism" element.

In sum, I think you are pretty much correct.  We can call Antifa violent, militant, censorious, anarchistic, and such, but I think "fascist" is not apt.

Quote

Antifa is also not a universal organization. There is no governing group. They are too anarchic. They are militant. Some groups that use the name Antifa use violence. Some use vandalism. Some use digital harassment. They mingle with peaceful counterprotesters and Their targets are usually fascists, racists, and far and alt right groups.

Huh.  Now you are using the "fascist" label.  Who, in your view, can be properly labeled a "fascist" in 2019's America?

Quote

I admit to sympathy with their goal of beating up Nazis and racists and white nationalists as I think they could use a little bit of pain since those people indiscriminately dish out a lot of pain and fear.

I don't sympathize with them at all.  I much prefer the rule of law to the rule of anarchistic mobs.  And that's all Antifa is.

Quote

Hiding behind the law while hurting others disgusts me. 

I think you would be singing a very different tune if Antifa decided to label you as a fascist, rascist, etc., and proceeded to beat you up in the street, or firebomb your store, etc.

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injure More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

Quote

Alice More: Arrest him! 
Sir Thomas More: For what? 
Alice More: He's dangerous! 
Will Roper: For lying, lord, he's a spy! 
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad! 
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that. 
Will Roper: There is - God's law. 
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him. 
Alice More: While you talk he's gone! 
Sir Thomas More: And go he should if he were the devil himself until he broke the law. 
Will Roper: So, now you'd give the devil benefit of law? 
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil? 
Will Roper: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that? 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, - man's laws not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes. I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake. 

I hope you someday come to recognize that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the rule of law.

Quote

That being said at the same time I am generally opposed to vigilante violence

Ah.  That's good to hear.  Still a little unsettling to hear you sympathize with violent, anarchistic thugs.

Quote

and believe Antifa is counterproductive to its stated aims.

If their extrra-legal violence was productive to their "stated aims," would that change anything for you?  Do the ends justify the means?

Quote

I am also not convinced their violence is all aimed at the right people for their goals.

So who, in your view are the "right people" against whom "violence" should be "aimed...for their goals?"

If they beat up someone you disagree with politically, does that make their violence acceptable? 

Just trying to figure out your stance here...

Quote

They should stop and I support law enforcement efforts to stop them but they are not fascists and I reserve the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists.

Until they label you a "fascist," and then beat your senseless.

Quote

They have killed no one and only caused a few injuries.

So short of murder, extra-legal violence as a means of enforcing or compelling political preferences is acceptable?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  Now you are using the "fascist" label.  Who, in your view, can be properly labeled a "fascist" in 2019's America?

I don't sympathize with them at all.  I much prefer the rule of law to the rule of anarchistic mobs.  And that's all Antifa is.

I think you would be singing a very different tune if Antifa decided to label you as a fascist, rascist, etc., and proceeded to beat you up in the street, or firebomb your store, etc.

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injury More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

I hope you someday come to recognize that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the rule of law.

Ah.  That's good to hear.  Still a little unsettling to hear you sympathize with violent, anarchistic thugs.

If their extrra-legal violence was productive to their "stated aims," would that change anything for you?  Do the ends justify the means?

So who, in your view are the "right people" against whom "violence" should be "aimed...for their goals?"

If they beat up someone you disagree with politically, does that make their violence acceptable? 

Just trying to figure out your stance here...

Until they label you a "fascist," and then beat your senseless.

So short of murder, extra-legal violence as a means of enforcing or compelling political preferences is acceptable?

Thanks,

-Smac

As I said their targets include fascists, racists, and white nationalists and I do acknowledge I think some of their targets were mislabeled. I am betting you and I would disagree strongly on who qualifies. As to who can be labeled a fascist today you just went over the definition.

I would probably think worse of Antifa if they attacked me but I also think I could take them and they would end up getting hurt. I am not convinced they label people indiscriminately. Most of those they have clashed with fit the description or are at least very close to it. I am neither.

I do not share your veneration for secular law. I do not believe ANY rule of law is preferable to being without law. There are tyrannies that sometimes must be fought. Our nation was formed out of rejection of the rule of law because the law was found to be oppressive. Ironically British rule was relatively light compared to other nations and colonial rule fair compared to most other British colonies. I am concerned about others taking away my rights. I am just not convinced that slavish adherence or veneration of law will hurry that day.

If Antifa was preventing a legitimate threat of a fascist takeover then yes, I would support them in defiance of law unless the cure started to become worse then the disease of course.

I am okay with violence against Nazis. I would be okay with laws that allowed people to punch Nazis if I trusted anyone to judge who is or is not a Nazi. Until then watching fascists suffer pleases me. It is probably not a noble impulse.

I did not argue that Antifa’s violence was acceptable. I was arguing that it is relatively mild compared to the extremist shootings and murders we have seen. If you listen to Fox they are an existential threat which is patently absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

As I said their targets include fascists, racists, and white nationalists and I do acknowledge I think some of their targets were mislabeled. I am betting you and I would disagree strongly on who qualifies.

Maybe, maybe not.

But we definitely disagree on sympathizing with, or excusing or justifying, violent anarchists.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I would probably think worse of Antifa if they attacked me but I also think I could take them and they would end up getting hurt. I am not convinced they label people indiscriminately. Most of those they have clashed with fit the description or are at least very close to it. I am neither.

Okay.  I guess it's just disconcerting to see you alternately sympathize with / giggle at / mildly disapprove of extra-legal anarchistic violence.  This sort of thing is antithetical to ordered society.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I do not share your veneration for secular law.

I think you do, at least subconsciously.  You certainly enjoy its benefits.

If you were living in Ciudad Juarez, or Damascus, or Caracas, or Baltimore, I think you would have a greater appreciation for the rule of law.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I do not believe ANY rule of law is preferable to being without law.

The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

See also D&C 134:1: "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

And verse 5: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Anarchy is condemned in verse 6: "We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker."

General Authorities have condemned and taught against anarchy.  See here

Quote

Elder Erastus Snow explained: “Anarchy—shall I say, is the worst of all governments? No: Anarchy is the absence of all government; it is the antipodes [opposite] of order; it is the acme of confusion; it is the result of unbridled license, the antipodes of true liberty. The Apostle Paul says truly: ‘For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.’ At first this is a startling statement. Even the monopoly of the one-man-power as in Russia [the Czar], or the monopoly of the aristocracy as in other parts of Europe, or the imbecility and sometimes stupidity of a republic like our own, is far better than no government at all. And for this reason, says the Apostle Paul, ‘The powers are ordained of God,’ not that they are always the best forms of government for the people, or that they afford liberty and freedom to mankind but that any and all forms of government are better than none at all, having a tendency as they do to restrain the passions of human nature and to curb them, and to establish and maintain order to a greater or less degree. One monopoly is better than many; and the oppression of a king is tolerable, but the oppression of a mob, where every man is a law to himself and his own right arm, is his power to enforce his own will, is the worst form of government.” (In Journal of Discourses, 22:151.)

...

Many leaders of the Church have spoken on the importance of Church members choosing righteous leaders. In January 1928 the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley) issued a statement that read in part:

...

Without beneficent laws, righteously administered, the foundations of civilization crumble, anarchy reigns, decay and dissolution follow.

“We call upon all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world to honor the laws of God, and obey and uphold the law of the land; and we appeal to good men and women everywhere, regardless of creed, party affiliation, race or condition to join with us in an effort to put into operation the words of Lincoln, the great emancipator, that our country may continue to be a light to the world, a loyal, law-abiding, God-fearing nation.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1928, p. 16.)

And here:

Quote

President Smith, who had witnessed the mob violence of Nauvoo, often spoke of the importance of the rule of law in a civilized society. He and his Counselors in the First Presidency urged the Saints to be law-abiding and loyal citizens wherever they lived and to be faithful in their allegiance to their governments.1 On one occasion when a government official expressed contempt for the United States Constitution, President Smith countered: “Latter-day Saints cannot tolerate such a spirit as this. It is anarchy. It means destruction. It is the spirit of mobocracy, and the Lord knows we have suffered enough from mobocracy, and we do not want any more of it. … We cannot afford to yield to that spirit or contribute to it in the least degree. We should stand with a front like flint against every spirit or species of contempt or disrespect for the constitution of our country and the constitutional laws of our land.

As with many folks who dabble too long in the philosophies of men to the neglectful exclusion of the inspired principles of the Restored Gospel, I think you are, doctrinally-speaking, off the grid.  You seem to be advocating for the abandonment and destruction of government, which has been "instituted by God for the benefit of man."  That just does not work.  Anarchy and Mormonism are not compatible.  Never have been.  Never will be.  (Actually, I don't know if you are a member of the Church, so perhaps I have presumed too much?)

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

There are tyrannies that sometimes must be fought.

Yes.  Including the tyranny of anarchists.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Our nation was formed out of rejection of the rule of law because the law was found to be oppressive.

But the solution to removing that tyranny was to replace one system of laws with a better one.

You seem to be advocating anarchy over the rule of law.  I am suggesting that this is incorrect.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Ironically British rule was relatively light compared to other nations and colonial rule fair compared to most other British colonies. I am concerned about others taking away my rights. I am just not convinced that slavish adherence or veneration of law will hurry that day.

Revolution is a dangerous thing.  Revolution to overthrow the rule of law, deeply flawed though it may be, in favor of anarchy, as you seem to be advocating, is a very bad idea.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

If Antifa was preventing a legitimate threat of a fascist takeover then yes, I would support them in defiance of law unless the cure started to become worse then the disease of course.

"If" and "legitimate" and "takeover" all being the operative terms there.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am okay with violence against Nazis.

Until you are called one.  

Again, to quote A Man for All Seasons: "This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, - man's laws not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes. I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

 I don't think you are giving sufficient consideration to "the winds that would blow" if Antifa were to get its way.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I would be okay with laws that allowed people to punch Nazis if I trusted anyone to judge who is or is not a Nazi. Until then watching fascists suffer pleases me. It is probably not a noble impulse.

Probably not, indeed.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I did not argue that Antifa’s violence was acceptable. I was arguing that it is relatively mild compared to the extremist shootings and murders we have seen. If you listen to Fox they are an existential threat which is patently absurd.

I don't get my news from Fox.  I use news aggregator websites, blogs, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Maybe, maybe not.

But we definitely disagree on sympathizing with, or excusing or justifying, violent anarchists.

Okay.  I guess it's just disconcerting to see you alternately sympathize with / giggle at / mildly disapprove of extra-legal anarchistic violence.  This sort of thing is antithetical to ordered society.

I think you do, at least subconsciously.  You certainly enjoy its benefits.

If you were living in Ciudad Juarez, or Damascus, or Caracas, or Baltimore, I think you would have a greater appreciation for the rule of law.

The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

See also D&C 134:1: "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

And verse 5: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Anarchy is condemned in verse 6: "We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker."

General Authorities have condemned and taught against anarchy.  See here

And here:

As with many folks who dabble too long in the philosophies of men to the neglectful exclusion of the inspired principles of the Restored Gospel, I think you are, doctrinally-speaking, off the grid.  You seem to be advocating for the abandonment and destruction of government, which has been "instituted by God for the benefit of man."  That just does not work.  Anarchy and Mormonism are not compatible.  Never have been.  Never will be.  (Actually, I don't know if you are a member of the Church, so perhaps I have presumed too much?)

Yes.  Including the tyranny of anarchists.

But the solution to removing that tyranny was to replace one system of laws with a better one.

You seem to be advocating anarchy over the rule of law.  I am suggesting that this is incorrect.

Revolution is a dangerous thing.  Revolution to overthrow the rule of law, deeply flawed though it may be, in favor of anarchy, as you seem to be advocating, is a very bad idea.

"If" and "legitimate" and "takeover" all being the operative terms there.

Until you are called one.  

Again, to quote A Man for All Seasons: "This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, - man's laws not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes. I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

 I don't think you are giving sufficient consideration to "the winds that would blow" if Antifa were to get its way.

Probably not, indeed.

I don't get my news from Fox.  I use news aggregator websites, blogs, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not as big a fan of ordered Society as you are. Order is good if it does not go overboard. I would miss the Law here in more lawless nations but if the choice is between Stalinist Russia with strong law and lawless Somalia I think I would take Somalia.

Joseph Smith did generally approve of law in the articles of faith but he was also willing to break them. I do not think Section 134 belongs in the canon. It and Oliver Cowdery’s article on marriage were not revelations and were written and published by the apostles without Joseph’s approval. He tolerated them and then later pulled the Article on Marriage because it conflicted with the plural marriage revelation. Part of me wishes he had pulled this section too. Both seem to have been calculated to satisfy enemies and not as revelations. I am not opposed to 134. I just do not believe all of it though generally I agree. Joseph Smith did not agree with it entirely when he deliberately flouted anti-bigamy laws. Brigham Young engaged in armed rebellion against government agents (the army).

I am not advocating for the destruction of the government, violently or otherwise. I like my nation.

I have read Elder Snow’s talk on anarchy and I am not an anarchist. I do believe there are times to disobey governments or even to overthrow them. I agree with him that anarchy is not workable. If I am overthrowing a government I want to replace it with a new one not stick with anarchy. To clarify, I am not in favor or even close to being in favor of the overthrow of the current government.

As to my dabbling in the philosophies of men and going off course I would argue that you are guilty of political idolatry. I want to serve God. Secular governments are incidental and doomed. 

I am still confused as to why you believe I want anarchy as the law of the land. I never said or implied anything like it. Is this some kind of straw man so you can justify being condescending?

”If” and “legitimate” and “takeover” are the operative terms. That is why I put them there. Almost as if I anticipated the possible objection if I was less explicit.

Anifa is not going to get its way and the winds will not blow their way. It is an explicitly negative movement. They want to prevent something, not achieve anything. Their goal is to punch and humiliate fascists, white nationalists, and racists. They have no organizational hierarchy to implement any goals or any goals beyond that to unify them behind. The different groups are so disparate that they could not agree on such goals if they tried. You still try to paint them as an ominous organized force seeking and able to acquire power despite all evidence to the contrary. It is like the twitter tag thing this thread was once about. Anyone can say they are deznat and anyone can say they are Antifa.

While my glee in watching fascists get hurt is probably not noble I do believe it is noble to expose, humiliate, and drive them from power.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not as big a fan of ordered Society as you are.

I assume you say this while living in, and enjoying the benefits of, "ordered society."

I think the average refugees from a non-ordered society (Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, etc.) would be thrilled to switch places with you, so they could experience "ordered society" and you could experience . . . what they endure.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Order is good if it does not go overboard. I would miss the Law here in more lawless nations but if the choice is between Stalinist Russia with strong law and lawless Somalia I think I would take Somalia.

But the choice here is between America under the rule of law and America under the unfettered (and, in some quarters, encouraged) threat of anarchy fomented by groups like Antifa.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Joseph Smith did generally approve of law in the articles of faith but he was also willing to break them. I do not think Section 134 belongs in the canon. It and Oliver Cowdery’s article on marriage were not revelations and were written and published by the apostles without Joseph’s approval. He tolerated them and then later pulled the Article on Marriage because it conflicted with the plural marriage revelation.

Per this article, Joseph later ratified what became Section 134:

Quote

Joseph was in Michigan when the general assembly made these decisions. He did not write Doctrine and Covenants 134, but he endorsed it in April 1836 (see Messenger and Advocate (April 1836): 239–41). The principles in section 134 continue to guide the Church's actions regarding political questions and controversies. The principles in verses 4–6 are more concisely expressed in Articles of Faith 1:11–12. (Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, p.493-494, (2008), © Deseret Book Company. Used by Permission.)

That said, verse 12 sure is a difficult one.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Part of me wishes he had pulled this section too. Both seem to have been calculated to satisfy enemies and not as revelations. I am not opposed to 134. I just do not believe all of it though generally I agree. Joseph Smith did not agree with it entirely when he deliberately flouted anti-bigamy laws. Brigham Young engaged in armed rebellion against government agents (the army).

I'm not seeing much of a correlation.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not advocating for the destruction of the government, violently or otherwise. I like my nation.

Okay.  Good to hear.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have read Elder Snow’s talk on anarchy and I am not an anarchist. I do believe there are times to disobey governments or even to overthrow them.

In extreme circumstances, yes.

I don't think Antifa's violence can be justified by such things.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree with him that anarchy is not workable. If I am overthrowing a government I want to replace it with a new one not stick with anarchy. To clarify, I am not in favor or even close to being in favor of the overthrow of the current government.

As to my dabbling in the philosophies of men and going off course I would argue that you are guilty of political idolatry. I want to serve God. Secular governments are incidental and doomed. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think I'm guilty of "political idolatry."

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am still confused as to why you believe I want anarchy as the law of the land. I never said or implied anything like it.

Well, okay.  Stuff like you "giggling" at violence by anarchists gave that impression, I guess.

I stand corrected.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Is this some kind of straw man so you can justify being condescending?

I was attempting civility.  I guess you took it as condescension.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Anifa is not going to get its way and the winds will not blow their way. It is an explicitly negative movement. They want to prevent something, not achieve anything. Their goal is to punch and humiliate fascists, white nationalists, and racists.

I disagree.  I think their goal is to "punch and humiliate" anyone they arbitrarily choose to assault.  They justify that by labeling the targets of their violence as "fascists, white nationalists, and racists."

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They have no organizational hierarchy to implement any goals or any goals beyond that to unify them behind. The different groups are so disparate that they could not agree on such goals if they tried.

Anarchists are generally pursuing . . . anarchy.

And you are "giggling" at and publicly expressing "sympathy" for their violent actions.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You still try to paint them as an ominous organized force seeking and able to acquire power despite all evidence to the contrary.

No, I'm not.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While my glee in watching fascists get hurt is probably not noble I do believe it is noble to expose, humiliate, and drive them from power.

Again, I do not know who these "fascists" are.

Antifa is arbitrarily designating anyone they dislike as "fascists."  It's fairly akin to Stalin's "enemy of the people" tactic.

But hey, it's worth a few giggles.  And sympathy.  So...

🤨

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am still confused as to why you believe I want anarchy as the law of the land. I never said or implied anything like it. Is this some kind of straw man so you can justify being condescending?

Interesting you take umbrage at someone accusing you of something; perhaps it is a good practice to not make accusations when another "never said or implied" something

Quote

Antifa does fit the definition of being terrorists though but I would not throw that label around because I am guessing you are unwilling to label the terrorists on your own side as terrorists. Wouldn’t want you to be biased.

 

Edited by provoman

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume you say this while living in, and enjoying the benefits of, "ordered society."

No, I live in a cannibal commune out on the plains of Qatar. Can't complain too much. The wifi is good.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the average refugees from a non-ordered society (Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, etc.) would be thrilled to switch places with you, so they could experience "ordered society" and you could experience . . . what they endure.

And I bet there are prison labor camp detainees from well-ordered North Korea that would be thrilled to switch places with them. We should set up a foreign exchange program!

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

But the choice here is between America under the rule of law and America under the unfettered (and, in some quarters, encouraged) threat of anarchy fomented by groups like Antifa.

So if I do not accept America as it currently is my only other option is to be ruled by the anarchic bored people looking for a thrill people that make up Antifa? I think I might have to call false dichotomy on that one. Mostly because the latter is not even a choice.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Per this article, Joseph later ratified what became Section 134:

That said, verse 12 sure is a difficult one.

Verse 12 was pandering. This is why I prefer the revelation sections. Joseph did agree to canonize 134 but he seemed to be pretty reluctant.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not seeing much of a correlation.

A section in the Doctrine and Covenants advocating total obedience to secular authority and prophets rejecting secular laws are not related.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

In extreme circumstances, yes.

I don't think Antifa's violence can be justified by such things.

Nor do I.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think I'm guilty of "political idolatry."

And I do not think I am a violent anarchist. Perhaps we are both wrong. :vader:

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  Stuff like you "giggling" at violence by anarchists gave that impression, I guess.

Punching racists and fascists is funny. I will prove it:

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was attempting civility.  I guess you took it as condescension.

Well, keep working at it. Maybe one day you will get the hang of it.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  I think their goal is to "punch and humiliate" anyone they arbitrarily choose to assault.  They justify that by labeling the targets of their violence as "fascists, white nationalists, and racists."

Then why do they always assault people of the same general political and racist persuasion?

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anarchists are generally pursuing . . . anarchy.

And you are "giggling" at and publicly expressing "sympathy" for their violent actions.

No, most of Antifa are far left nutcases seeking everything from communism to forms of syndicalism. If they wanted anarchy you would think they would target the government.

I do sympathize with punching racist fascists. One of the few reasons to long for the collapse of society is the freedom to stop pretending their speech is worth protecting as if all speech is valuable. Sadly we have to protect all of it for safety's sake. If that were the worst of my sins I expect I should be exalted one day.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.

So you are not saying Antifa is a great threat but you also offer me a stark choice of either life as it is or anarchy when Antifa and those like them win?

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I do not know who these "fascists" are.

Antifa is arbitrarily designating anyone they dislike as "fascists."  It's fairly akin to Stalin's "enemy of the people" tactic.

But hey, it's worth a few giggles.  And sympathy.  So...

🤨

 

If you think Antifa's attacks and vandalism and digital harassment are arbitrary I am not sure how you can possibly function as a lawyer. Are you saying that they are equally likely to target a Trump rally as they are an elementary school play? Just as likely to attack a group of grandmothers out shopping as they are a bunch of weirdos cosplaying as Nazis? How did you reach this conclusion?

Stalin had the force of government behind him. Antifa is a bunch of bored young males who like to punch some generally horrible people. I am not going to pretend they are equivalent.

And if you can't laugh at fascists getting punched what did our boys in occupied Europe and the Pacific die for?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, provoman said:

Interesting you take umbrage at someone accusing you of something; perhaps it is a good practice to not make accusations when another "never said or implied" something

C'mon, you've seen me take real umbrage before. That was rhetorical word play. Umbrage results in threads getting shut down and me getting banned from a thread or the board or whatever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/13/2019 at 11:02 PM, The Nehor said:

No, I live in a cannibal commune out on the plains of Qatar. Can't complain too much. The wifi is good.

And I bet there are prison labor camp detainees from well-ordered North Korea that would be thrilled to switch places with them. We should set up a foreign exchange program!

So if I do not accept America as it currently is my only other option is to be ruled by the anarchic bored people looking for a thrill people that make up Antifa? I think I might have to call false dichotomy on that one. Mostly because the latter is not even a choice.

Verse 12 was pandering. This is why I prefer the revelation sections. Joseph did agree to canonize 134 but he seemed to be pretty reluctant.

A section in the Doctrine and Covenants advocating total obedience to secular authority and prophets rejecting secular laws are not related.

Nor do I.

And I do not think I am a violent anarchist. Perhaps we are both wrong. :vader:

Punching racists and fascists is funny. I will prove it:

 

Well, keep working at it. Maybe one day you will get the hang of it.

Then why do they always assault people of the same general political and racist persuasion?

No, most of Antifa are far left nutcases seeking everything from communism to forms of syndicalism. If they wanted anarchy you would think they would target the government.

I do sympathize with punching racist fascists. One of the few reasons to long for the collapse of society is the freedom to stop pretending their speech is worth protecting as if all speech is valuable. Sadly we have to protect all of it for safety's sake. If that were the worst of my sins I expect I should be exalted one day.

So you are not saying Antifa is a great threat but you also offer me a stark choice of either life as it is or anarchy when Antifa and those like them win?

If you think Antifa's attacks and vandalism and digital harassment are arbitrary I am not sure how you can possibly function as a lawyer. Are you saying that they are equally likely to target a Trump rally as they are an elementary school play? Just as likely to attack a group of grandmothers out shopping as they are a bunch of weirdos cosplaying as Nazis? How did you reach this conclusion?

Stalin had the force of government behind him. Antifa is a bunch of bored young males who like to punch some generally horrible people. I am not going to pretend they are equivalent.

And if you can't laugh at fascists getting punched what did our boys in occupied Europe and the Pacific die for?

Your remark troubles me a bit, because I’m still not altogether clear on whom you regard as fascists and hence warrant being “punched” by the masked thugs who style themselves as “antifa.”

In the above post, you compare targeting a Trump rally to targeting an elementary school play as though you believe they are opposite extremes on a spectrum. Do you really regard attendees at a Trump rally generally as fascists? Do you condone the incidents I documented earlier of people being assaulted because of wearing a hat with a campaign slogan? How about the behavior of the guy who now faces felony charges because he savagely and repeatedly struck a person in the face for lawfully recruiting for Turning Point USA on a college campus?

Earlier, you gave me faint praise by allowing that you do not regard me as a fascist. That took me aback, because it never occurred to me that you might so regard me. But now I’m wondering whether you think I’m so close to the line in your view that you see it as appropriate to offer that reassurance. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your remark troubles me a bit, because I’m still not altogether clear on whom you regard as fascists and hence warrant being “punched” by the masked thugs who style themselves as “antifa.”

In the above post, you compare targeting a Trump rally to targeting an elementary school play as though you believe they are opposite extremes on a spectrum. Do you really regard attendees at a Trump rally generally as fascists? Do you condone the incidents I documented earlier of people being assaulted because of wearing a hat with a campaign slogan? How about the behavior of the guy who now faces felony charges because he savagely and repeatedly struck a person in the face for lawfully recruiting for a Turning Point USA on a college campus?

Earlier, you gave me faint praise by allowing that you do not regard me as a fascist. That took me aback, because it never occurred to me that you might so regard me. But now I’m wondering whether you think I’m so close to the line in your view that you see it as appropriate to offer that reassurance. 

I understand how this feels, recently on vacation with friends, the guy puts down democrats continually. I'm not full on democrat but lean that way.  Not saying this is you but on the opposite end. But know how it feels. I say we get rid of labels.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I understand how this feels, recently on vacation with friends, the guy puts down democrats continually. I'm not full on democrat but lean that way.  Not saying this is you but on the opposite end. But know how it feels. I say we get rid of labels.

I believe some labels are essential. I just don’t like it when they are misapplied. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...