Vaerick Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 I dunno much about it. what I do know it was by and large peaceful until some masked folks showed up and tore things up. I keep hearing the number 150 as well. Not just Berkeley but the inauguration too. Some are theorizing that these are right wing plants to create a false flag narrative and justify what spencer called for "a defense group" which would basically amount to a paramilitary force. If you only consider who benefits most from that speaker not speaking it's seems more likely to be false but who knows. - left gets a win and stops a speaker yes but right gets a legitimate call to arms and that speaker will come speak again except infront of his now armed supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 48 minutes ago, Vaerick said: I dunno much about it. what I do know it was by and large peaceful until some masked folks showed up and tore things up. It's said it was antifa. https://antifascism.org/ (currently highjacked/hacked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaerick Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 Right. But groups like Antifa don't normally have access to the necessary funds to hit one spot and then travel across the country to hit another. Similar numbers of masked assailants leads one to think it wasn't two separate groups/charters within the same organization. I dunno. Maybe it is just them but at this point it's hard to verify anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Vaerick said: Some are theorizing that these are right wing plants to create a false flag narrative and justify what spencer called for "a defense group" which would basically amount to a paramilitary force. If you only consider who benefits most from that speaker not speaking it's seems more likely to be false but who knows. - left gets a win and stops a speaker yes but right gets a legitimate call to arms and that speaker will come speak again except infront of his now armed supporters. I don't count this as a win for the left, but as a loss. As I mentioned before, this didn't stop Milo from having a platform, it made his platform orders of magnitude larger - just look at @f0xx's comment. All this did was reinforce the narrative on the far right that the left is a danger to them. And while there's definitely reason to think that the protest was essentially hijacked by an outside group, that doesn't excuse the Democrats or others on the left who have voiced support for the violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaerick Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 I don't mean a win in the way that we think it is a win- I'm saying if you evaluate it all, it boils down exactly as your saying- it benefits the right far more than the left which makes me wonder if the left was really behind it at all. The question I was asking is what did each side get out of it, and regardless of it being a real "win" for the left there highest benefit of the antifa action would be stopping the speaker whereas the win on the right is the legitimacy to start acting more harshly against the opposition. Therefore, in that scenario the real win would be to the right rather than the left because the right benefits more under the two optimal scenarios (one left one right, with the right's being the "bigger" win). Half the time we're saying the same thing in different ways. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Yeah, that does often seem to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Gowdy Prez, Milo VP. Dream ticket. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manual Labour Posted February 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 On 04/02/2017 at 10:12 AM, f0xx said: I'll just add one thing - I had no idea who Milo is. Now I am following him and have notifications for his posts. Peace. You would also probably like Paul Joseph Watson too then, if you don't already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotspring monkey Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Twat. Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Manual Labour said: You would also probably like Paul Joseph Watson too then, if you don't already. Yeah I am familiar with that one, but his association with Info Wars (Alex Jones) is pretty disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Gah, my boss reads Infowars - for a while we had it in the store, though I was heartened by how few took copies. The worst part regarding Infowars? That I'd very often open it, start reading an article, and I'd appreciate that it was discussing something that I agreed wasn't receiving the attention it should - and then it would jump on the crazy train by saying this was how Obama intended to implement martial law so that the New World Order could put us all into camps. Something that actually deserves attention it isn't getting, such as the state of US water infrastructure (an article that, until about halfway in, was starting to revise my opinion of the magazine), is instead used in service of insane fearmongering, and in the end is just as forgotten as it was before the article started. edit: for the record, US water infrastructure is in pretty shitty shape, and needs reworking on the hundreds of billions of dollars scale. Flint may have gotten a lot of attention, but it's actually better off regarding lead concentration in its water than about 20% of the US if I recall correctly, and I don't remember if that's geographically or population-based - either way it should disturb you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manual Labour Posted February 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 Yes Alex Jones should be taken with a few grains of salt heh but PJW is very rational and reasonable, and funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted February 13, 2017 Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 In fairness, Silverman acknowledged the screw-up within a few hours of making it. Trump still can't admit that he lost the popular vote or that his inauguration crowd wasn't the BIGGEST EVAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 I thought this was an interesting interview between Milo and Bill Maher last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotspring monkey Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.