Heroic Americans against facism: Antifa viciously attacks journalist in Portland who had previously chronicled their illegal activities

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

In the ethno-state there will be no gay Asian bros.

Just say’n.

You RWer's just can't admit when you are wrong.

White nationalism deaths;
Charleston,SC 9
El Paso 22
Tree of Life 11, and many more, those are just off the top of my head

Antifa 0..........then add the fact that if there was no white supremacy, (no KKKish rallies), there would be no antifa??????????????????
Yeah antifa is the problem.

Stop watching Fox "news". They get you guy to hate the wrong people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyG_415

You RWer's just can't admit when you are wrong.

White nationalism deaths;
Charleston,SC 9
El Paso 22
Tree of Life 11, and many more, those are just off the top of my head

Antifa 0..........then add the fact that if there was no white supremacy, (no KKKish rallies), there would be no antifa??????????????????
Yeah antifa is the problem.

Stop watching Fox "news". They get you guy to hate the wrong people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

---

---

the antifa = kkk angle is peak American Right Wing Dumb.

antifa = when the authorities enforce the same rules and privileges for the underclass as they do the privileged, our job is done and we go home. people advocating on the perpetual prosecution and abuse of the downtrodden are going to be treated like the villainous amoral sociopathic dirtbags they are.

right wing = blue lives matter, n-words and immigrants dont, and we will protect ourselves against the black menace seducing our white women and jews making us poor and making us feel stupid by driving cars into crowds of protesters and getting badges with which we can lynch blacks with impunity. also, the pillars of our culture are ben garrison, tucker carlson, and andrew brietbart.

i love how 'deliberately provoking violence against ones self for profit' has been juxtaposed into 'outspokenness', fox should take notes there.

sonatine's post above is so intellectually dishonest, I won't even bother to start taking it apart.

It does bother me to see that guys like sonatine and JimmyG are defending Antifa, and basically portraying them as freedom fighters.

The "nobody has been killed by Antifa" argument is LOL. So them beating people and terrorizing them for their political beliefs is okay, as long as nobody dies? Is this the narrative the left has evolved to now?

It is very, very dangerous to support ideological-based violence supposedly under the banner of "fighting fascism" or "fighting racism". Either you support the right to free speech and free assembly, or you don't. You can't only support free speech when it's the "correct" speech, and then support people getting beaten, milkshaked, and harassed when you don't agree with what they're saying.

Antifa are a bunch of thugs who have decided that they're just going to physically hurt people on the right until they get their point across. If you don't feel we as a society have evolved way beyond that sort of behavior being acceptable, then you haven't learned a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Okay?

So it looks like Andy isn't a very good guy, and is aligned or at least sympathetic to violent alt-right groups.

But that wasn't known at the time he was attacked, and it's been acknowledged by most (even on the left) that this was an attack on him because of his views and outspokenness.

So my points all still stand.

---

Does this logic apply to Smollett as well? Everyone gets a pass because they didn't have the full picture.

Fairly sure the evil Antifa knew what he was about. Far right propagandist that was so cozy with one side that he was seen carrying a flag. Not a civilian nor a journalist. With that none of your points stand. This was by far the likeliest scenario. Reason being that there are so many far right scumbags that there's almost no reason to fish outside that pool.

The difference between Antifa and SJWs is that they don't care about minor regressions. This tends to happen when your tool is violence and not strongly worded letters.

Still, nice to know how you deal with your Jussies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

sonatine's post above is so intellectually dishonest, I won't even bother to start taking it apart.

It does bother me to see that guys like sonatine and JimmyG are defending Antifa, and basically portraying them as freedom fighters.

The "nobody has been killed by Antifa" argument is LOL. So them beating people and terrorizing them for their political beliefs is okay, as long as nobody dies? Is this the narrative the left has evolved to now?

It is very, very dangerous to support ideological-based violence supposedly under the banner of "fighting fascism" or "fighting racism". Either you support the right to free speech and free assembly, or you don't. You can't only support free speech when it's the "correct" speech, and then support people getting beaten, milkshaked, and harassed when you don't agree with what they're saying.

Antifa are a bunch of thugs who have decided that they're just going to physically hurt people on the right until they get their point across. If you don't feel we as a society have evolved way beyond that sort of behavior being acceptable, then you haven't learned a thing.

---

sorry, your rebuttal to 'intellectual dishonesty' is that nobody dying is a moral equivalent to people being extrajudicially executed?

your 'dig myself a deeper hole' style of internet debate may be great entertainment but its getting you no closer to that coveted negraneu bracket poll status.

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

"We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

lol @ shilling for Antifa based on their mission statement


the federal reserve is also "independent" cuz that's what they said. also "the great new deal" or whatever we told the Indians every time we took their land

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

“We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

---

Holy Christ! Did Druff completely sleep through the Bush Administration cooking the intelligence about WMD’s in Iraq, as well as Osama Bin Laden working with Saddam Hussein to pull off 9/11???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

"We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

---

Not understanding your point here.

The attack on Andy Ngo was not a hoax. You can't compare this to Smollet. I stand by everything I said about this situation. Even the attackers weren't aware of these recently-exposed details about Ngo at the time. It was just standard-issue "we attacked him because he's a Nazi and a fascist" they say about every right wing figure they attack.

From everything I see, it appears that Andy Ngo was a right-wing journalist who was attacked for being a right-wing journalist, and then it turns out that, on top of that, he has some skeletons in his closet involving support for a bad alt-right group.

That can diminish any sympathy you might have for Ngo, but it doesn't make the attack a hoax, nor does it exonerate Antifa's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

sonatine's post above is so intellectually dishonest, I won't even bother to start taking it apart.

It does bother me to see that guys like sonatine and JimmyG are defending Antifa, and basically portraying them as freedom fighters.

The "nobody has been killed by Antifa" argument is LOL. So them beating people and terrorizing them for their political beliefs is okay, as long as nobody dies? Is this the narrative the left has evolved to now?

It is very, very dangerous to support ideological-based violence supposedly under the banner of "fighting fascism" or "fighting racism". Either you support the right to free speech and free assembly, or you don't. You can't only support free speech when it's the "correct" speech, and then support people getting beaten, milkshaked, and harassed when you don't agree with what they're saying.

Antifa are a bunch of thugs who have decided that they're just going to physically hurt people on the right until they get their point across. If you don't feel we as a society have evolved way beyond that sort of behavior being acceptable, then you haven't learned a thing.

---

sorry, your rebuttal to 'intellectual dishonesty' is that nobody dying is a moral equivalent to people being extrajudicially executed?

your 'dig myself a deeper hole' style of internet debate may be great entertainment but its getting you no closer to that coveted negraneu bracket poll status.

---

This would be like if a right-wing spree killer ends up killing 20 people in a hate crime, someone says, "Yeah he killed 20 people, but did he kill 3000? You know who killed 3000 Americans in 2001? Muslim extremists."

It's an incredibly lame argument to claim that a group isn't bad because they didn't do something even worse done by other groups.

Again, it's very simple. Either you support freedom of speech and freedom to express political opinion without being attacked, or you believe that it's justified to physically attack people for holding what you deem to be the wrong views. If you believe the former, then you can't support Antifa.

I will say right now that I would never support any right wing group which seeks to suppress speech of the political left. Why can't people like you do the same, instead of defending these awful amoral extremists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

It's an incredibly lame argument to claim that a group isn't bad because they didn't do something even worse done by other groups.

---

you are an absolute treasure.

number of incidents antifa has provoked out of thin air:

zero


number of times druffs stormfront rock stars have provoked out of thin air:

thousands? tens of thousands? with a body count that goes back to the slave days.


do better druff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

number of incidents antifa has provoked out of thin air:

zero


number of times druffs stormfront rock stars have provoked out of thin air:

thousands? tens of thousands? with a body count that goes back to the slave days.


do better druff.

---

lolwut?

So you're saying Antifa has never attacked someone who was peacefully stating their political views?

:lol2

Oh, and regarding the deaths caused by 1860s white supremacists, let me know which of those murderers are still alive today and need to face justice for their actions, and I'm fully behind you.

sonatine, do you or do you not support violence against people who are peacefully stating their political/social views, or assembling to do so?

Do you or do you not support violence against people who have written articles about their political views, once they're seen in public?

Do you or do you not support violence against people who write articles exposing groups like Antifa?

I do not support violence in any of these cases. Let's hear your direct answers to these questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Select quotes from Druff...

"But I'm not talking about the politicians who simply wished Jussie well, or commented the attack itself was terrible. I'm talking about the idiots on the left who then used it as evidence of "the rise of hate", "increased racism", "an example of Trump's America", etc.

That's where it bridges from the necessary political pleasantries to willfully ignorant idiocy."

"We are talking about something completely different here, where non-politicians have learned that they can play victim and easily manipulate the left into both making them famous and donating big money to them."

"Instead, she says she's "confused" about Jussie getting off, and then immediately launches into the typical left wing "but OMG hate crimes are increasing so much" rhetoric."

"Yes, there were some smart people on the left who smelled a rat with all of this and held back comment, but there were plenty of dummies who jumped on this, and then equated it to the Trump era of this country"

"Can you point to a similar situation occurring recently or semi-recently on the right, where a fairly obvious hoax was accepted as fact, yet many prominent right wing figures ran with it anyway?"

"I'm talking about a case where a very suspicious hoax occurs, and the right falls for it, and sanctimoniously uses it as an example as to why they've been correct all along. I don't recall that happening anytime recently"

"The left should have taken a realistic look at this one, realized it smelled funny, and avoid commentary until the facts came out. However, too many of them are trained like monkeys to jump at the first opportunity to vilify Trump and the right, so they threw caution to the wind. "

"The criticism here is of both Jussie himself (for obvious reasons) and the media/liberal politicians who jump on these "Trump supporter making racist attack" stories, without knowing the facts."

...just from the Smollet thread and i didn't really bother going through all of them.

---

Not understanding your point here.

The attack on Andy Ngo was not a hoax. You can't compare this to Smollet. I stand by everything I said about this situation. Even the attackers weren't aware of these recently-exposed details about Ngo at the time. It was just standard-issue "we attacked him because he's a Nazi and a fascist" they say about every right wing figure they attack.

From everything I see, it appears that Andy Ngo was a right-wing journalist who was attacked for being a right-wing journalist, and then it turns out that, on top of that, he has some skeletons in his closet involving support for a bad alt-right group.

That can diminish any sympathy you might have for Ngo, but it doesn't make the attack a hoax, nor does it exonerate Antifa's actions.

---

The hoax part was that an innocent journalist was attacked unprovoked just because of his exquisite exposes of Antifa violence.

You have no way of knowing that the attackers didn't know more about him. He was from Portland, this happened in Portland and likely the attackers were from Portland. It's kinda likely they knew what he was about. It was them he was vilifying with creative editing and blatant lies.

Patriot Prayer attacking a bar Antifa frequented was one these exposes. Journalism at it's finest.

in fairness andy ngo orchestrates violence while calling it journalism at a slight loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Not understanding your point here.

The attack on Andy Ngo was not a hoax. You can't compare this to Smollet. I stand by everything I said about this situation. Even the attackers weren't aware of these recently-exposed details about Ngo at the time. It was just standard-issue "we attacked him because he's a Nazi and a fascist" they say about every right wing figure they attack.

From everything I see, it appears that Andy Ngo was a right-wing journalist who was attacked for being a right-wing journalist, and then it turns out that, on top of that, he has some skeletons in his closet involving support for a bad alt-right group.

That can diminish any sympathy you might have for Ngo, but it doesn't make the attack a hoax, nor does it exonerate Antifa's actions.

---

The hoax part was that an innocent journalist was attacked unprovoked just because of his exquisite exposes of Antifa violence.

You have no way of knowing that the attackers didn't know more about him. He was from Portland, this happened in Portland and likely the attackers were from Portland. It's kinda likely they knew what he was about. It was them he was vilifying with creative editing and blatant lies.

---

You apparently don't know the definition of hoax.

And that's exactly why he was attacked -- because he was an unabashed right wing journalist, frequently exposing Antifa.

Had Antifa known about his less-than-stellar associations, this would have come out two months ago when the attacks occurred and Antifa was being vilified for it, rather than now.

And you know what? Even if Ngo associated with scumbag alt-right groups, that's still no reason to attack him in a public setting. Similarly, if right-wingers beat up Antifa sympathisers at a public event, who weren't doing anything other than showing up there, you'd be correct to cry foul (and I'm sure you would be).

It's very simple....

YOU

DON'T

BEAT

PEOPLE

UP

BECAUSE

OF

THEIR

POLITICS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

The hoax part was that an innocent journalist was attacked unprovoked just because of his exquisite exposes of Antifa violence.

You have no way of knowing that the attackers didn't know more about him. He was from Portland, this happened in Portland and likely the attackers were from Portland. It's kinda likely they knew what he was about. It was them he was vilifying with creative editing and blatant lies.

---

You apparently don't know the definition of hoax.

And that's exactly why he was attacked -- because he was an unabashed right wing journalist, frequently exposing Antifa.

Had Antifa known about his less-than-stellar associations, this would have come out two months ago when the attacks occurred and Antifa was being vilified for it, rather than now.

And you know what? Even if Ngo associated with scumbag alt-right groups, that's still no reason to attack him in a public setting. Similarly, if right-wingers beat up Antifa sympathisers at a public event, who weren't doing anything other than showing up there, you'd be correct to cry foul (and I'm sure you would be).

It's very simple....

YOU

DON'T

BEAT

PEOPLE

UP

BECAUSE

OF

THEIR

POLITICS

---

He wasn't beat up because of his politics. He was beat because he was accomplice to violence, fabricated news stories and covered up crimes for the far right.

Just look at the lawsuit that brought this up. Just from that incidents reportage you know what victim Andy is about. When you're at the other end of a lie, you know it's a lie.

You don't get privileges of a journalist when don't uphold to standards of journalism. It's not really rocket science.

More than likely he was kicked from Quillette because what he did has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech doesn't cover making shit up about other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

You apparently don't know the definition of hoax.

And that's exactly why he was attacked -- because he was an unabashed right wing journalist, frequently exposing Antifa.

Had Antifa known about his less-than-stellar associations, this would have come out two months ago when the attacks occurred and Antifa was being vilified for it, rather than now.

And you know what? Even if Ngo associated with scumbag alt-right groups, that's still no reason to attack him in a public setting. Similarly, if right-wingers beat up Antifa sympathisers at a public event, who weren't doing anything other than showing up there, you'd be correct to cry foul (and I'm sure you would be).

It's very simple....

YOU

DON'T

BEAT

PEOPLE

UP

BECAUSE

OF

THEIR

POLITICS

---

He wasn't beat up because of his politics. He was beat because he was accomplice to violence, fabricated news stories and covered up crimes for the far right.

Just look at the lawsuit that brought this up. Just from that incidents reportage you know what victim Andy is about. When you're at the other end of a lie, you know it's a lie.

You don't get privileges of a journalist when don't uphold to standards of journalism. It's not really rocket science.

More than likely he was kicked from Quillette because what he did has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech doesn't cover making shit up about other people.

---

The guy is not even close to being a journalist. No schooling in that department. He worked for a school newspaper and had an opinion piece published as comment. Nothing to do with journalism

Here's the article about the guy that infiltrated Patriot Prayer...

https://www.portlandmercury.com/blog...rom-the-inside

...he was in contact with Antifa and helped identify relevant parties. Guessing protecting his identity was worth more for Antifa than try to change how they are perceived by people that gobble the usual right wing bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Here's the article about the guy that infiltrated Patriot Prayer...

https://www.portlandmercury.com/blog...rom-the-inside

...he was in contact with Antifa and helped identify relevant parties. Guessing protecting his identity was worth more for Antifa than try to change how they are perceived by people that gobble the usual right wing bs.

---

They could have easily stated Ngo's affiliations at the time without compromising his identity. You're giving Antifa way too much credit. They aren't a well-oiled resistance machine meant to fight fascism. They are a loose collection of mostly young, bitter, violent idiots who have deluded themselves into believing they're fighting a war against a second Nazi regime, and that anyone on the right is their enemy. They feel that this is a revolution, and that violence is justified for that reason.

It's amazing to watch the delusion in this thread.

"Antifa has never attacked anyone without being provoked."

"Antifa only attacked Ngo because they knew he was a fake journalist aligned with violent alt-right groups, and not because they were bitter that he was on the right and writing mean articles about them."

"Antifa never killed anyone, but the KKK killed thousands, so obviously Antifa is nonviolent."

"Antifa is not interested in silencing free speech."


Antifa is a shit organization of violent lunatics with a misguided belief that they're freedom fighters.

Responsible people on the left can condemn Antifa and its actions without conceding a single political or social belief. It's okay to admit that certain forces on your side are dangerous and counter-productive.

Never go full mumbles, druff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Here's the article about the guy that infiltrated Patriot Prayer...

https://www.portlandmercury.com/blog...rom-the-inside

...he was in contact with Antifa and helped identify relevant parties. Guessing protecting his identity was worth more for Antifa than try to change how they are perceived by people that gobble the usual right wing bs.

---

They could have easily stated Ngo's affiliations at the time without compromising his identity. You're giving Antifa way too much credit. They aren't a well-oiled resistance machine meant to fight fascism. They are a loose collection of mostly young, bitter, violent idiots who have deluded themselves into believing they're fighting a war against a second Nazi regime, and that anyone on the right is their enemy. They feel that this is a revolution, and that violence is justified for that reason.

It's amazing to watch the delusion in this thread.

"Antifa has never attacked anyone without being provoked."

"Antifa only attacked Ngo because they knew he was a fake journalist aligned with violent alt-right groups, and not because they were bitter that he was on the right and writing mean articles about them."

"Antifa never killed anyone, but the KKK killed thousands, so obviously Antifa is nonviolent."

"Antifa is not interested in silencing free speech."


Antifa is a shit organization of violent lunatics with a misguided belief that they're freedom fighters.

Responsible people on the left can condemn Antifa and its actions without conceding a single political or social belief. It's okay to admit that certain forces on your side are dangerous and counter-productive.

---

I don't care about Anitfa or any sicko crowd. One social belief is free press. That ideal has long been tainted but made worse by a truly sick individual you must call leader. Leaders do not condemn the entirety of journalistic avenues.

This tit posing as a journalist was attacked by other tits. Neither matter except for the headline of the day. It's all distraction. You get all excited becasuse the attention is away from the true crime.

READ YOUR THREAD TITLE... NO VICIOUS ATTACK. NO JOURNALIST

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Here's the article about the guy that infiltrated Patriot Prayer...

https://www.portlandmercury.com/blog...rom-the-inside

...he was in contact with Antifa and helped identify relevant parties. Guessing protecting his identity was worth more for Antifa than try to change how they are perceived by people that gobble the usual right wing bs.

---

They could have easily stated Ngo's affiliations at the time without compromising his identity. You're giving Antifa way too much credit. They aren't a well-oiled resistance machine meant to fight fascism. They are a loose collection of mostly young, bitter, violent idiots who have deluded themselves into believing they're fighting a war against a second Nazi regime, and that anyone on the right is their enemy. They feel that this is a revolution, and that violence is justified for that reason.

It's amazing to watch the delusion in this thread.

"Antifa has never attacked anyone without being provoked."

"Antifa only attacked Ngo because they knew he was a fake journalist aligned with violent alt-right groups, and not because they were bitter that he was on the right and writing mean articles about them."

"Antifa never killed anyone, but the KKK killed thousands, so obviously Antifa is nonviolent."

"Antifa is not interested in silencing free speech."


Antifa is a shit organization of violent lunatics with a misguided belief that they're freedom fighters.

Responsible people on the left can condemn Antifa and its actions without conceding a single political or social belief. It's okay to admit that certain forces on your side are dangerous and counter-productive.

---

Hate to be the one to tell you, but turning the other cheek doesn't work.

Why do you assume that Antifa giving a official statement that Andy Ngo is a piece a shit would have mattered at all.

You've been given all the relevant information now, but you still think he's a journalist and that any of this has anything to do with free speech. His political beliefs don't play any part in this.

Antifa can see who he moves with. They can read what he writes. They know when he's lying, because they saw with their own eyes the complete opposite of his "reporting".

Antifa exists because peaceful protests can't exist when only one side is using force. But go ahead throw the 2nd amendment in the bin. That's the logical conclusion with condemning Antifa. I kinda prefer that my side is armed as well. But apparently only the bad guys being armed logic doesn't apply here.

Hey Druff, what brand and model of radar and laser detector do you have? is there a different one you would like to buy? i'm tired of using binocs on roads like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

They could have easily stated Ngo's affiliations at the time without compromising his identity. You're giving Antifa way too much credit. They aren't a well-oiled resistance machine meant to fight fascism. They are a loose collection of mostly young, bitter, violent idiots who have deluded themselves into believing they're fighting a war against a second Nazi regime, and that anyone on the right is their enemy. They feel that this is a revolution, and that violence is justified for that reason.

It's amazing to watch the delusion in this thread.

"Antifa has never attacked anyone without being provoked."

"Antifa only attacked Ngo because they knew he was a fake journalist aligned with violent alt-right groups, and not because they were bitter that he was on the right and writing mean articles about them."

"Antifa never killed anyone, but the KKK killed thousands, so obviously Antifa is nonviolent."

"Antifa is not interested in silencing free speech."


Antifa is a shit organization of violent lunatics with a misguided belief that they're freedom fighters.

Responsible people on the left can condemn Antifa and its actions without conceding a single political or social belief. It's okay to admit that certain forces on your side are dangerous and counter-productive.

---

Hate to be the one to tell you, but turning the other cheek doesn't work.

Why do you assume that Antifa giving a official statement that Andy Ngo is a piece a shit would have mattered at all.

You've been given all the relevant information now, but you still think he's a journalist and that any of this has anything to do with free speech. His political beliefs don't play any part in this.

Antifa can see who he moves with. They can read what he writes. They know when he's lying, because they saw with their own eyes the complete opposite of his "reporting".

Antifa exists because peaceful protests can't exist when only one side is using force. But go ahead throw the 2nd amendment in the bin. That's the logical conclusion with condemning Antifa. I kinda prefer that my side is armed as well. But apparently only the bad guys being armed logic doesn't apply here.

---

Only one side is using force?

I guess you're right, except that one side is the left.

When was the last time right wingers showed up in order to silence leftist protests and prevent them from speaking? When was the last time left-wingers were milkshaked by right wingers? When was the last time that left wingers were chased away from speaking at a college campus? When was the last time a prominent left winger was targeted and beaten for his political views?

More importantly, do you ever see mainstream right wingers -- both prominent ones or regular Joes on social media -- defending alt-right violence, the same way you guys are defending Antifa?

Alt-right violence, which isn't aimed at silencing leftist speech, is almost universally condemned by those on the right, including by me.

At the same time, we have several people in this thread, including you, praising Antifa and denying that they are attacking in order to silence speech from the right.

Go onto any leftist Facebook group, bring up the subject of Antifa, and the support won't be based upon Antifa existing to defend the left's ability to speak. They will be discussing "revolution" and how Antifa's violence is necessary to suppress the dangerous hate speech which is supposedly plunging this country into fascism. They're not even trying to deny that Antifa is violent, or that Antifa starts the violence. They're justifying it as simply being necessary to make change happen, and that since nobody is getting killed, what's a few maimed and badly injured right wingers gonna matter, right?

Will you at least denounce Antifa violence in cases where there is no violent alt-right group present at the same protest? Because honestly, most Antifa violence simply occurs because they hate the right wing, and they want to hurt them for expressing their "dangerous" opinions.

I'm also still not understanding what justification there was to physically attack Andy Ngo, regardless of any affiliation he might have had. Was he hitting anyone? Was he directing people to hit anyone? Did he appear to be inciting any kind of violence there? No. He was simply attacked by Antifa thugs, who are now back-end justifying it when unflattering details about Ngo's affiliatons came out.

cleatus, both my radar detector and dashcam are older models by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

sonatine, do you or do you not support violence against people who are peacefully stating their political/social views, or assembling to do so?

---

i'd support violence against the charlottesville group chanting jews will not replace us, so yeah

look, antifa is a clown show and counterproductive to the causes they believe in.

but druff, equating antifa -- a group vehemently opposed to racism -- with the white supremacist groups themselves is the height of false equivalency.

This is another area where many of the Dem nominees are fucking up by simply not condemning Antifa. Tulsi Gabbard was one of the few to do so but she can’t gain any traction. Remember, the Dem party being all fucked up is what opened the door for Trump to get elected in 2016 and they will be the reason he gets re-elected in 2020. All the Dems in this thread should be praying their favorite candidate condemns Antifi, it’s an easy win. Yet many of you are finding ways to dismiss what they’re doing. You will be the same people that won’t to able to understand how Trump gets re-elected. It’s hilarious to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

cleatus, both my radar detector and dashcam are older models by now.

---

Time to upgrade your dashcam.



Also, can get a higher capacity MicroSD card, such as 128GB. That should give you plenty of recording time. And you don’t have to buy Blackvue’s MicroSD card for it to work properly; it just needs to be sufficiently fast to handle the recording speed of the unit. Lexan has a model that works just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

look, antifa is a clown show and counterproductive to the causes they believe in.

but druff, equating antifa -- a group vehemently opposed to racism -- with the white supremacist groups themselves is the height of false equivalency.

---

what choice does he have?

he made an entire thread about how andy ngo was a persecuted champion of sanity flavored justice. when was the last time druff was wrong about literally anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Hate to be the one to tell you, but turning the other cheek doesn't work.

Why do you assume that Antifa giving a official statement that Andy Ngo is a piece a shit would have mattered at all.

You've been given all the relevant information now, but you still think he's a journalist and that any of this has anything to do with free speech. His political beliefs don't play any part in this.

Antifa can see who he moves with. They can read what he writes. They know when he's lying, because they saw with their own eyes the complete opposite of his "reporting".

Antifa exists because peaceful protests can't exist when only one side is using force. But go ahead throw the 2nd amendment in the bin. That's the logical conclusion with condemning Antifa. I kinda prefer that my side is armed as well. But apparently only the bad guys being armed logic doesn't apply here.

---

Only one side is using force?

I guess you're right, except that one side is the left.

When was the last time right wingers showed up in order to silence leftist protests and prevent them from speaking? When was the last time left-wingers were milkshaked by right wingers? When was the last time that left wingers were chased away from speaking at a college campus? When was the last time a prominent left winger was targeted and beaten for his political views?

More importantly, do you ever see mainstream right wingers -- both prominent ones or regular Joes on social media -- defending alt-right violence, the same way you guys are defending Antifa?

Alt-right violence, which isn't aimed at silencing leftist speech, is almost universally condemned by those on the right, including by me.

At the same time, we have several people in this thread, including you, praising Antifa and denying that they are attacking in order to silence speech from the right.

Go onto any leftist Facebook group, bring up the subject of Antifa, and the support won't be based upon Antifa existing to defend the left's ability to speak. They will be discussing "revolution" and how Antifa's violence is necessary to suppress the dangerous hate speech which is supposedly plunging this country into fascism. They're not even trying to deny that Antifa is violent, or that Antifa starts the violence. They're justifying it as simply being necessary to make change happen, and that since nobody is getting killed, what's a few maimed and badly injured right wingers gonna matter, right?

Will you at least denounce Antifa violence in cases where there is no violent alt-right group present at the same protest? Because honestly, most Antifa violence simply occurs because they hate the right wing, and they want to hurt them for expressing their "dangerous" opinions.

I'm also still not understanding what justification there was to physically attack Andy Ngo, regardless of any affiliation he might have had. Was he hitting anyone? Was he directing people to hit anyone? Did he appear to be inciting any kind of violence there? No. He was simply attacked by Antifa thugs, who are now back-end justifying it when unflattering details about Ngo's affiliatons came out.

---

Sure i don't mind denouncing Antifa violence when there's no reason for it, when it's miss-targeted or excessive. I don't really know when that's the case though. This is the rough equivalent of asking me to denounce the police and go figure the same things apply.

For some random reason you seem to be under the impression that far-right has any interest in sensible intelligent discourse. That no one from the left ever thought to just talk things out. And speaking of words, apparently all words are amazing and none of them have any kind of impact. It's just a coincidence that a same forum spawns several mass murderers. Or that Isis can radicalize people thousands of miles away by using Isis magic. Yay words.

For you to think Antifa would ever cross paths with 99% of conservatives makes me think you've been touched by some bad words. Oh and yes victim Andy was inciting violence or at least he played his part as a grifter in painting remarkably flawed picture that apparently found it's audience.

Like i said look into that Patriot Prayer case in May Day. That's kinda how it's always been and that's why Antifa thinks use of force is justified.

conservatives need to bring something better to the table than "i stuck my dick in a beehive and got stung, so much for the tolerant bees".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Only one side is using force?

I guess you're right, except that one side is the left.

When was the last time right wingers showed up in order to silence leftist protests and prevent them from speaking? When was the last time left-wingers were milkshaked by right wingers? When was the last time that left wingers were chased away from speaking at a college campus? When was the last time a prominent left winger was targeted and beaten for his political views?

More importantly, do you ever see mainstream right wingers -- both prominent ones or regular Joes on social media -- defending alt-right violence, the same way you guys are defending Antifa?

Alt-right violence, which isn't aimed at silencing leftist speech, is almost universally condemned by those on the right, including by me.

At the same time, we have several people in this thread, including you, praising Antifa and denying that they are attacking in order to silence speech from the right.

Go onto any leftist Facebook group, bring up the subject of Antifa, and the support won't be based upon Antifa existing to defend the left's ability to speak. They will be discussing "revolution" and how Antifa's violence is necessary to suppress the dangerous hate speech which is supposedly plunging this country into fascism. They're not even trying to deny that Antifa is violent, or that Antifa starts the violence. They're justifying it as simply being necessary to make change happen, and that since nobody is getting killed, what's a few maimed and badly injured right wingers gonna matter, right?

Will you at least denounce Antifa violence in cases where there is no violent alt-right group present at the same protest? Because honestly, most Antifa violence simply occurs because they hate the right wing, and they want to hurt them for expressing their "dangerous" opinions.

I'm also still not understanding what justification there was to physically attack Andy Ngo, regardless of any affiliation he might have had. Was he hitting anyone? Was he directing people to hit anyone? Did he appear to be inciting any kind of violence there? No. He was simply attacked by Antifa thugs, who are now back-end justifying it when unflattering details about Ngo's affiliatons came out.

---

Sure i don't mind denouncing Antifa violence when there's no reason for it, when it's miss-targeted or excessive. I don't really know when that's the case though. This is the rough equivalent of asking me to denounce the police and go figure the same things apply.

For some random reason you seem to be under the impression that far-right has any interest in sensible intelligent discourse. That no one from the left ever thought to just talk things out. And speaking of words, apparently all words are amazing and none of them have any kind of impact. It's just a coincidence that a same forum spawns several mass murderers. Or that Isis can radicalize people thousands of miles away by using Isis magic. Yay words.

For you to think Antifa would ever cross paths with 99% of conservatives makes me think you've been touched by some bad words. Oh and yes victim Andy was inciting violence or at least he played his part as a grifter in painting remarkably flawed picture that apparently found it's audience.

Like i said look into that Patriot Prayer case in May Day. That's kinda how it's always been and that's why Antifa thinks use of force is justified.

---

I don't care why Antifa thinks their use of force is justified.

Use of force by a civilian group is not justified unless they are placed in danger themselves, or if they are rescuing someone else from immediate danger. A very high percentage of Antifa attacks are simply instigated by them out of nowhere. Antifa doesn't even deny this. They don't claim to be a "violence only in defense" group. They fully acknowledge that they're violent and engage in it offensively, but assert that the violence is necessary in order to prevent the rise of fascism.

The term "far right" is also misused a lot, and it's meant to invoke images of dangerous, violent white supremacists. While such groups exist, they are a tiny minority of conservatives, and almost all conservatives denounce them (unlike Antifa, which has increasingly become accepted and lauded by the left). Do you think I'm the "far right"? Because that accusation has been lobbed at me many a time by those on the left who disagree with me, even while I'm engaging in reasonable debate and never advocating for any kind of violence or racial discrimination.

"Far right" and "hate speech" are intentionally broad terms meant to justify modern censorship and censorship-based violence. That's Antifa's basic gameplan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

look, antifa is a clown show and counterproductive to the causes they believe in.

but druff, equating antifa -- a group vehemently opposed to racism -- with the white supremacist groups themselves is the height of false equivalency.

---

When did I equate Antifa to white supremacist groups?

It's the left who likes to compare the two. in order to "prove" that Antifa really isn't all that bad.

It's such a dumb comparison because very few on the right defend white supremacist groups, nor does Antifa simply target verified violent white supremacists. Antifa targets prominent people on the right. Period.

Obviously I'm no fan of white supremacist groups, being a Jew. They hate me and I hate them. When white supremacists show up in conservative Facebook groups I post in, I'm one of the first to bash them and tell them that they're trash. But these groups have also become the new excuse for Antifa's violence, and the "Antifa isn't as bad as XXXX group, so therefore they're fine" is so tilting to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

look, antifa is a clown show and counterproductive to the causes they believe in.

but druff, equating antifa -- a group vehemently opposed to racism -- with the white supremacist groups themselves is the height of false equivalency.

---

When did I equate Antifa to white supremacist groups?

---

I think this something you said...

"tiny minority of conservatives, and almost all conservatives denounce them (unlike Antifa"

...in the distant past of two posts ago.