What do you think of Andy Ngo?

Andy Ngo attacked again. He confirmed it on Twitter.

This is another thing about the use of political violence: when you use it, it could just encourage more violence in response.

This. And every terrorist thinks they are a freedom fighter, and that the end justifies the means.

That’s very broad, and very different between the UK and US. It’s not surprising that the UK more socially liberal than the US, as there are many Christians there.

This does not answer what you think those beliefs are. You're welcome to separate them if you'd like.

Give me some key areas and I’ll answer to the best of my knowledge though. I grew up in America and most of my family are still there so have a reasonable grasp of conservative opinion, which is why I defend it even though I’m not totally onboard

typical conservative beliefs.

Could you elaborate on what you think typical conservative beliefs are please?

Also where you think "the centre" is.

The gang of armed thugs heading to confront antifa supporters in a bar were just going for a stroll, antifa are the ones who turn up looking for trouble.

You do understand that two things could both be correct here?

(1) A particular right-wing group turned up to attack antifa.

(2) Antifa often turn up to attack right-wing groups.

Both of those things are compatible yes?

Not only are they compatible, but it wouldn't even be a surprise.

If antifa attacks the right-wing, isn't it very likely that some right-wing groups will want to attack them back?

This is another thing about the use of political violence: when you use it, it could just encourage more violence in response.

(To be clear, I don't know if they were real antifa at that site or what the real details are.)

The storming of the Capitol didn't happen, antifa are the ones who want to destroy democracy.

Again, two things can both be true here.

(1) A right-wing protest turned violent, or was always planned by some to be violent.
(2) Antifa are anti-democratic.

There isn't any tension between those two things being correct.

I’m just tired of the demonisation of middle-of-the-road viewpoints.

This coming from someone who thinks right-of-center views are fascist

You do know that people can read the thread and my posts within it don't you? I have never said anything of the sort, in fact I've said quite the opposite several times.

And what’s your obsession with the Heritage Foundation? They haven’t been relevant since the Bush years ...

Hardly.

"Today it is clear that for all the chaos and churn of the current administration, Heritage has achieved a huge strategic victory. Those who worked on the project estimate that hundreds of the people the think tank put forward landed jobs, in just about every government agency. Heritage’s recommendations included some of the most prominent members of Trump’s cabinet: Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos (whose in-laws endowed Heritage’s Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society), Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, Jeff Sessions and many more. Dozens of Heritage employees and alumni also joined the Trump administration — at last count 66 of them, according to Heritage, with two more still awaiting Senate confirmation. It is a kind of critical mass that Heritage had been working toward for nearly a half-century."

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government-heritage-foundation-think-tank.html

And conveniently antifa can be anyone you don't like. People campaigning for sex workers, trans inclusive feminist groups, black lives matter protesters, local kids rioting, all antifa when it suits

This coming from someone who thinks right-of-center views are fascist 🙄

And what’s your obsession with the Heritage Foundation? They haven’t been relevant since the Bush years ...

It's just, fair is fair really.
Everyone knows that moderate left and right ideas are worth listening to and examining. Both valid.

So when people throw around stuff like alt right Nazi to people with boring old middle of the road opinions I know its them trying to justify their own zealotry. It means you're the good guy, and your cause is just.

The mainstream GC position has always been "Do what you like transpeople, 99% of the time; but that 1% where what our rights clash- we must talk"
When that gets framed as hateful and dangerous and must be shut down, you know you are not dealing with rational people who just want to rub along in peace.

jj1968

You keep referencing the US, which bears no comparison to the UK. Everything in the US is hyped up - gun crime, gangs, murder rate, military spending (which will not decrease under Biden's sitting), foreign wars. When I look at what is happening in the US, it is like some out of control video game.

UsedUpUsername

"Dr King’s legacy is being trampled by antifa and critical race theorists, sadly. And it seems you don’t give a fuck about that even though you link to his letter."

Exactly this. Dr King was all about people living together in harmony, whilst Antifa and CRT are all about division and anarchy.

People have repeatedly said that they condemn all violent behaviour, not just that of the right wing or the left wing.

And conveniently antifa can be anyone you don't like.

A bit like "Nazis" when used in the overexcitable way certain posters on this thread seem to use it. Gender critical feminists, for instance.

They generally go by names such as "Momentum" or "antifa" or the like, and they love the notion of an ever present fascist threat, as it justifies many of their antisocial activities.

That's the strategy right there, as played out by Trump, Ngo and countless alt-right and conservative media outlets. The people in in Klan outfits or draped in neo-nazi flags at far right protests don't exist, antifa are the real fascists. The Breivik and El Paso massacres didn't happen. Antifa are the real terrorists. The Heritage Foundation aren't anti-women, they are pro-business. Antifa are the real misogynists. The gang of armed thugs heading to confront antifa supporters in a bar were just going for a stroll, antifa are the ones who turn up looking for trouble. The storming of the Capitol didn't happen, antifa are the ones who want to destroy democracy. The murderers of Heather Heyer and Jo Cox were just bad apples, antifa are the ones intent on violence. Repeat over and over again until in some people at least it sticks. I see where you're coming from now.

And conveniently antifa can be anyone you don't like. People campaigning for sex workers, trans inclusive feminist groups, black lives matter protesters, local kids rioting, all antifa when it suits.

If I had been alive back then and had the astonishing good luck to be exposed to ideas about women's suffrage then my best guess is that I'd have been as militant as necessary up to the destruction of property but would have drawn the line at anything that harmed people.

Who knows though. It's a nonsensical question. None of us were alive.

Whatever things were like back then, I bet there were lots of men trying to shame women into denouncing each other. That has been the basic tactic since Matthew Hopkins.

Yes, I imagine there were. Great post LangClegsInSpace

They did. They learned that no matter how non-violent, how respectable you are in your attempts to escape your shackles, fascists will still murder you

Dr King’s legacy is being trampled by antifa and critical race theorists, sadly. And it seems you don’t give a fuck about that even though you link to his letter.

We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?"

Seems antifa still has a lot to learn from Dr King.

Also, I've no idea who Arun Gupta is but he sounds disappointing.

www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

White moderates continue to white moderate.

Do BLM have the same aims of fascists and organised racists? Do BLM have a history of lynching white people? There is a very different dynamic at play, and BLM's anger has largely been targetted at the police and the state institutions which support them.

Well going off the riots they have a history of destroying people's businesses and whatever else.

Do they have the same agenda as the far-right? No they don't.

However, if citizens are allowed to make their own decisions as to when to use political violence, then surely any group can be a target including BLM?

Some people could argue that far-left groups are actually very dangerous to society if they ever gained enough traction.

The far-left may claim to want to build a better kind of society, free from racism and "injustice".

But some would look at the history of far-left movements, and think that they would actually bring misery to millions and tend towards an authoritarian state.

And again, if people can just make up their own minds on the use of violence, then why not target socialists or any other group that can be perceived as a dangerous threat?

On the women's suffrage movement -

My impression is that there were an absolute fuckton of different groups and individuals, all working towards a common aim and using a huge variety of methods and there was lots of disagreement between groups.

None of the women's methods can properly be described as democratic because they didn't have the vote - they had no access to democracy.

The first national organisation for women's suffrage began in 1867 and women fought for over 50 years to get some women the vote and over 60 years to get all women the vote on the same terms as men. After the first forty years, some women got more than a bit shirty.

Methods ranged from politely asking male allies to make their case for them in parliament, right through to the terrorist tactics of the WSPU in its later years. I do believe it was only a few fringe activists who deliberately endangered lives but it was absolutely terrorism.

Women in the early 20th century were the same as women today - adult humans with fully functioning brains. Just like now, the vast majority of women with an interest in securing women's rights would have made the effort to hear what a lot of the different groups and prominent individuals had to say and would have made up their own minds and decided what they personally were comfortable with. And there would have been lots of fallings out and schisms and realignments etc because women are human.

It's difficult to say what I would have done personally because I wasn't born or brought up in that era. My ancestors at that time were coal miners, bargees, travelling fairground people and tenant farmers. They all left school at a very young age (if they went at all) and had limited literacy and even more limited time to pay attention to anything beyond their immediate hand-to-mouth existence. Maybe some of them were 'literal nazis' but we'll never know because they didn't have the privilege of leaving written records.

If I had been alive back then and had the astonishing good luck to be exposed to ideas about women's suffrage then my best guess is that I'd have been as militant as necessary up to the destruction of property but would have drawn the line at anything that harmed people.

Who knows though. It's a nonsensical question. None of us were alive.

Whatever things were like back then, I bet there were lots of men trying to shame women into denouncing each other. That has been the basic tactic since Matthew Hopkins.

We're not stupid.

And it is typically thus with violent protest. Some people who identify as being on the left love this, as it allows them to cast themselves and their movements as being freedom fighters, heroically sticking it to the man, and forcibly taking their freedoms from their oppressors. In reality, it's generally it's mostly just idiots taking an opportunity to punch others, and feel good about themselves afterwards.

This is exactly what I have seen.