hypochondriac

Good post Millbrook I think you have articulated the concerns of the majority well. I think a new party could potentially be very popular as long as it's not just the New Labour lot with a new name. Moderates currently have no one to vote for and many are left voting for a Tory party they don't truly believe in my default because the thought of a hard left Labour in power is scary.

I'm not old enough to remember the country under Harold Wilson but my father certainly is which is another reason I am utterly opposed to a country run by those type of people.

The problem is that by the time the next election rolls around, the Tories should be even more unpopular. It's not that I particularly want the Conservatives in power but corbyn would be about 100 times worse.

I thought this was an interesting chart and worth dropping in this thread in particular.

A classic post!

It's just bizarre that you think that condemning violence like the vast majority of regular people would do makes me ghandhi - it doesn't it makes me a normal person. I don't know an awful lot about Richard Spencer but from what I've seen it suggests that he could certainly be classed as a white supremacist and I would absolutely condemn his views in that regard. Attacking Richard Spencer by punching him in the face in the street isn't going to defeat any white nationalist ideas, all it will do is drive it underground where it is potentially far more insidious and destructive. I want white supremacists and nazis out in the open where they can be seen and their ideas challenged. Do you really think violently beating someone is going to change ideas for the better? I vehemently disagree with many of your comrades who would love nothing better than the overthrow of the capitalist system to be replaced by some communist regime but I would absolutely allow them the freedom to voice their opinions. It's truly odd that you consider that some sort of godly trait on a par with ghandhi when really it's just the normal actions of people who believe in freedom of expression and the right not to be violently acted on due to your words. As soon as you become physically violent then you've lost the argument.

So you are aligning yourself with those members in antifa who violently attack people? I certainly don't believe that white nationalists and nazis are on "my side of the debate" even though presumably they would disagree with the violent hard left too. Just because you have some views in common with them does not mean you cannot condemn their violent actions. Unless you agree with their violent behaviour of course.

You haven't been paying attention then. I roundly condemn hard right wing extremism and nazis. Every single sensible person does because the vast majority of people are not racist pieces of sh*t. I do however respect the rights of others to have an opinion and I won't be applauding violence against people just because I disagree with their opinion. Now I have definitely never seen you condemn the hard left ever. Why is that I wonder?

And those people with those wrong headed views deserve to be challenged. The difference is that you believe the likes of Sour Mash should get a kicking because he perpetuates hate speech.

Indeed. But violence in response to ideas we don't like is fine as long as the violence doesn't come from the group we disagree with...

There's enough refutations of the far right. It's been all over the media for months and has been roundly denounced and derided by the vast majority of people. I have denounced them on a number of occasions including on here and I would be saying similar things that I am saying to you of anyone came on here attempting to excuse far right violence. No one has thus far so there is no need to do that but it's very troubling that you seemingly have a lot of difficulty denouncing this far left extremist violence. It's hardly some saintly virtue to denounce violence in response to speech, it's basic common sense and the moderate position and reaction that virtually all sensible people would have. Resorting to comparing me to Trump when you are the one refusing to condemn violence is laughable.

And who defines what hate speech is? In my view having a rule that some ill defined and broadly encompassing hate speech justifies a violent response is utterly contemptible and on a par with the sort of right wing extremist stuff that Sour Mash comes out with. I don't believe that words are violence and I don't believe that violence is ever a acceptable response to so called hate speech.

That very much depends. Far left extremism is a much greater problem within educational institutions for example and much of the media and its pretty much taken over the labour party in the UK and betrayed the traditional labour voter in the process. I suppose it depends on what the definition of far right is, but then as I have already discussed, members of antifa considers the majority of people who disagree with them to be fascists to the point that the likes of Gad Saad is called a nazi (if you know him you realise how mental that is.) No wonder they see a nazi around every corner. As I said though it's really a different conversation and no matter what you think with regards to the scale of the respective problems, I think there is a problem from both abd that both needs to be tackled.

Just to be clear Jonnyboy, someone delivering a speech that you believe to be full of prejudice merits violent action in response?

So the answer is that you agree that violence is the correct method for dealing with Richard Spencer? When he is just standing in the street? Is there any time when it would be unacceptable to react violently towards him in your opinion? The man who was assaulted with a bike lock, do you believe his actions in the video were deserving of that?

It seems clear to me what the tactics of many members of antifa are: 1) Pretend to be supportive of freedom of speech but against so called "hate speech" 2) Broaden the definition of hate speech to include those who disagree with you so that you feel morally justified in preventing them from speaking. 3) Consider anything you deem to be hate speech to be violence. 4) Use physical violence in response to what you define as violent hate speech. 5) Feel morally justified because you are "defending" yourself. As the definition of who is a so called Nazi becomes anyone who disagrees with the hard left anti capitalist agenda pushed by antifa, it suddenly becomes acceptable to use violence against an ever expanding number of people.

Of course if that's your opinion. That's not what I asked though and the reticence from Jonnyboy to answer a simple question makes me suspicious that he does think that violence is an appropriate response in these cases (he has pretty much confirmed that already with his view that a nazi sympathiser getting his head kicked in should be applauded.) Jonnyboy do you condemn the many acts of violence committed by those supposed antifa members in that video? Do you believe it was right that Richard Spencer was punched in the face?

What does that have to do with anything? Why should right wingers have to condemn violence before you are able to? If so called right wingers are unable to condemn unprovoked and violent actions when asked then really that says more about them and their clear bias than anything else. So again, do you condemn the many violent actions of those individuals in that video that claim to be a part of antifa?

Who decides who is a genuine nazi sympathiser? Do you applaud white supremacist Richard Spencer being punched in the face? You also never answered my question, do you condemn the violence from my video clip committed by those who claim to be from antifa? Pretty disgusting that you would see any sort of violence as a solution. I want to see the ideas of nazi sympathisers publicly challenged and nazi sympathisers made to look foolish when their ideas are seen as vacuous and worthy of derision. I certainly won't be applauding people who think a violent response to ideas is something that should be encouraged.

I can see it now

Oh I see. Kindly point out for me which of these are real members of Antifa and which ones are just pretending? Let me guess, all the peaceful ones are the real antifa? So who are the others then? Because they claim to be antifa, some have even been viewed in the media as spokespeople for the group. Are they fake antifa too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8QLT6tFWU No doubt you will join me in condemning these violent thugs who have seemingly taken over antifa and committed domestic terrorist activities in its name and in the process blackening the name of the scores of peaceful antifa who would never dream of committing unprovoked violence. If not, why not?

One example? There are literally dozens of examples (a few are listed above.) With regards the bike lock here is the video and news article about the unprovoked and violent attack carried out by a member of antifa: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/05/29/a-man-clobbered-trump-supporters-with-a-bike-lock-the-internet-went-looking-for-him/?utm_term=.8b13f205b3ec It was subsequently discovered that this nasty assault was committed by a professor and he is currently awaiting trial I believe. Thankfully the victim was left with no permanent damage but no doubt it could have led to a much more serious injury. Of course there are many other attacks which have left people with various injuries including eyesight loss. It's odd that you would try to compare disgusting violence from the far right with this sort of behaviour since it's not something which should be compared. The far left have more than their fair share or violent extremists who are happy to use physical attacks to get their own way and that should be roundly condemmed by all. Lets not forget this also: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-virginia-shooter-profile-20170614-story.html

That's like saying the KKK are not fascists, some of their activities have been described as fascist. When a significant percentage of members within an organisation commit domestic terrorism then at what point is it accurately described as a domestic terrorist group? Antifa allows domestic terrorism to be committed in their name and a number of members have been involved in violence and unprovoked attacks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.decde9a1ee16 http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/25/former-college-prof-arrested-for-antifa-bike-lock-attacks-in-berkeley/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4828672/Masked-antifa-swarm-Berkeley-rally-assaulting-several.html

Claims that it is a self defence organisation is frankly idiotic considering the amount of violent incidents that have been perpetrated by them under little or no provocation. Smashing up and setting fire to shops in Berkley and smashing people over the head with bike locks is not self defence when the only reason they were violently protesting is because someone said something they disapproved of. Words are not violence yet antifa will claim that they are so that they can use violent actions in response. It's disgusting and most right thinking people will abhor their actions just as they abhor any violence that stems from the far right. It's little wonder that they were officially recognised by US homeland security whilst Obama was still in power as domestic terrorists because that is exactly what they are. Also massive lol that the link you sent me to has progressive in the title. Nothing biased about that source! [emoji23]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html I accept your apology.