Crime Antifa Megathread

[Leagon]

You're just contradicting yourself.

If you feel Andy Ngo deserved to get beat up (which is just moronic), why do you think the attacks were "evil and wrong"?

If you don't think street violence is okay, why would you then advocate for people to get their "assess kicked"?

Seems like you're pussyfooting around the issue and too scared to outright say you support Antifa and what they did.

Why would I support antifa then also post in a thread about how much I hate Antifa? And post links to Antifa splitting an old man's head open with an asp?

It's not a contradiction for any who has survived to adulthood. It's a very simple idea to understand that sometimes people deserve an asswhooping but it would be wrong to actually do it.

 

[Leagon]

Gee I don't know, how about the pursuit of truth, which is what journalists should be doing? There's no shortage of people and outlets reporting on hate crimes. Journalists who report on fake hate crimes are few and far between because you're treading on dangerous ground.

Reporting on hoaxes does not discredit the prevalence and severity of actual hate crimes. The ones who perpetrate theses hoaxes are doing that, and they deserve to be exposed.

You don't understand truth, then. Or journalism. There are PLENTY of journalists reporting on racialized crime, and they report on both actual hate crimes and hate crime hoaxes. Because that's what truth is in journalism, not just the individual truth of any specific article, but the truth portrayed by a body of intersecting work. If one only reports on hate crime hoaxes, the "truth" presented one's work is that hate crime hoaxes are common, but actual hate crimes are very rare. Could you imagine if Ariel Helwani reported on MMA fights but didn't mention when fighters were suspended for steroids or arrested for domestic violence? That's a journalist's job. Andy started as a journalist and became an activist.

 

[lfd0311]

Want to know how I know you didn't read the thread?

I've already admitted my mistake in misquoting @ElKarlo (and they've accepted it. Many thanks), as I meant to point readers towards the thread where there are multiple posts of people defending the murderer in that thread.

neat

 

[Richmma80]

The attacks were evil and wrong and Antifa should be disbanded and those responsible should be prosecuted. Still, Andy Ngo deserved to get beat up.

Somehow, political discourse has devolved into this "all or nothing" childish mentality. Sometimes people deserve to have their asses kicked. One would think members of a fight forum could understand this. That doesn't mean street violence is okay.

Low IQ people like you justify physical violence over words.

What did Ngo say that justifies him getting beat up in your mind?

 

[Strychnine]

neat

 

[Leagon]

Low IQ people like you justify physical violence over words.

What did Ngo say that justifies him getting beat up in your mind?

Lol, well you shouod tell that to the Founding Fathers then, superbrain. They fought over words all the time, led a rebellion over words, killed over words, and formed a new nation using words.

If you aren't aware of Andy Ngo's career, why are you asking me about it? Do you even follow his work or are you just defending him because Antifa is bad?

 

[Richmma80]

Lol, well you shouod tell that to the Founding Fathers then, superbrain. They fought over words all the time, led a rebellion over words, killed over words, and formed a new nation using words.

If you aren't aware of Andy Ngo's career, why are you asking me about it? Do you even follow his work or are you just defending him because Antifa is bad?

I don't threaten people with violence over texts on Twitter. Your bringing up the founding fathers speaks volumes to the amount of mental gymnastics you are doing to justify your low IQ behavior.

 

[Leagon]

I don't threaten people with violence over texts on Twitter. Your bringing up the founding fathers speaks volumes to the amount of mental gymnastics you are doing to justify your low IQ behavior.

Duck of every question followed by ad hominem (that means attacking the person rather than the argument). 200 IQ at work.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Nah, Andy does discredit hate crimes, both by not covering actual hate crimes and by seeking out hate crime hoaxes. Why else would a journalist focus on hoaxes and avoid covering real hate crimes if not to discredit the prevalence and severity of actual hate crimes?

I followed Andy on Twitter for years and watched his slow descent from a truth-seeking journalist into a political tool. He posts anti-Islamic and minority stuff for completely zero reason, often out of the blue.

Again, I'm firmly in the camp that this ass whooping was well deserved. If you watch his previous videos, he deliberately walks among Antifa (rather than getting video at a safe distance like all actual journalists), not to interview anyone or anything, but just for the sake of provoking violence with his presence. This shit has been escalating for months. He's been pushed and pepper sprayed a few times, but those didn't go viral, so he kept pushing the envelope. If he was beaten to death or something, I'd be more sympathetic, but getting punched a few times and cowering like a bitch while women throw milkshakes on you isn't really a big deal.

This is all the type of rationalizing someone does when they get a result that they want but there is no real justification for it. So they use convoluted "logic" that they would never use in any other scenario. It seems that you got saltier and saltier following him on Twitter as he tweeted out examples of scumbags faking hate crimes, and rather than blaming the hoaxers for "discrediting", you found yourself wanting Ngo to get physically attacked. I mean can you imagine if some right-wing retard said that a reporter who focuses on police misconduct was "discrediting" violence against police? You would laugh at them (as you should), and given what we know about you now you would also probably hope that they get physically attacked by unhinged freaks on the street.

"She deliberately walked through that neighborhood in that outfit rather than staying at a safe distance" can you imagine applying logic like this? This is what I mean. You got the result you wanted - a journalist whose content you didn't like was attacked and hospitalized - so now you have to come up with some justification afterwards. While denying that it's justification lmao.

 

[Leagon]

This is all the type of rationalizing someone does when they get a result that they want but there is no real justification for it. So they use convoluted "logic" that they would never use in any other scenario. It seems that you got saltier and saltier following him on Twitter as he tweeted out examples of scumbags faking hate crimes, and rather than blaming the hoaxers for "discrediting", you found yourself wanting Ngo to get physically attacked. I mean can you imagine if some right-wing retard said that a reporter who focuses on police misconduct was "discrediting" violence against police? You would laugh at them (as you should), and given what we know about you now you would also probably hope that they get physically attacked by unhinged freaks on the street.

"She deliberately walked through that neighborhood in that outfit rather than staying at a safe distance" can you imagine applying logic like this? This is what I mean. You got the result you wanted - a journalist whose content you didn't like was attacked and hospitalized - so now you have to come up with some justification afterwards. While denying that it's justification lmao.

Lmao, what a genius post lmao.

My main beef with Andy wasn't about hate crime hoaxes. You're the one that brought that up. It's weird because most of you clearly didn't follow Andy before this incident yet you're all defending him because you dislike Antifa. You dislike Antifa, so you assume everyone they attack must be a saint. I dislike Antifa, and they attack a lot of innocent people--such as the two old men who were literally drenched in blood that you haven't once mentioned because you have such a hard on for this "journalist" you'd never heard of until yesterday--but Andy isn't innocent.

Still, those responsible should go to jail for it. Again, this isn't a difficult thing to understand. How am I justifying an attack if I think the people responsible should be punished?

 

[sangreporsangre]

Lmao, what a genius post lmao.

My main beef with Andy wasn't about hate crime hoaxes. You're the one that brought that up. It's weird because most of you clearly didn't follow Andy before this incident yet you're all defending him because you dislike Antifa. You dislike Antifa, so you assume everyone they attack must be a saint. I dislike Antifa, and they attack a lot of innocent people--such as the two old men who were literally drenched in blood that you haven't once mentioned because you have such a hard on for this "journalist" you'd never heard of until yesterday--but Andy isn't innocent.

Still, those responsible should go to jail for it. Again, this isn't a difficult thing to understand. How am I justifying an attack if I think the people responsible should be punished?

I brought up the hate crime thing as an example of what idiots are using to justify this attack on a journalist - and you agreed with it! You said that the attack was well-deserved but then said you're not justifying it? One can get motion sickness trying to keep up with your logic. I know who Andy is, I'm not necessarily a fan of his either but I don't think that he should be beaten and hospitalized. Just like I wouldn't want to see a goof like Acosta get a beatdown from some MAGAtards at a Trump rally or whatever. Employing the type of "logic" you're using here than Acosta taking a beating would be well-deserved. But I doubt that you would see it that way because it seems your logic and ethics are situational, based on the tribal affiliation of the people involved. I swear, social media is making people retarded.

 

[Wet Blanket]

All this over a couple punches, silly string, and milkshakes.

CJWs all out for this.

 

[Leagon]

Just like I wouldn't want to see a goof like Acosta get a beatdown from some MAGAtards at a Trump rally or whatever. Employing the type of "logic" you're using here than Acosta taking a beating would be well-deserved. But I doubt that you would see it that way because it seems your logic and ethics are situational, based on the tribal affiliation of the people involved. I swear, social media is making people retarded.

I see the confusion.

My ethics aren't tribal. If they were, Andy would be in my tribe. I started following him specifically because I support anyone exposing the insane left for what it is.

The issue is that when I say "Andy deserved a beating," I don't mean at the hands of Antifa. I mean it generally. Some people are assholes would benefit from a slap. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but I don't think it's a controversial position to hold.

Getting punched by a skinny nerd just isn't that big of a deal to me. This is an MMA forum. Most of us pay money to be regularly punched by bigger and more capable people. Andy is a young man and most young men have been punched without working for years to provoke people into punching them. Yall are acting like an old woman got pushed down the stairs. Andy has been trying for this exact scenario for a long time and my ethics state that when people seek things out and get what they seek, it's fine (as long as it does not result in death or some other horrific, irreversible consequence). Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I'm not the first person on the forum to say it and there may never have been a less severe scenario to apply it to.

If it makes you feel better, I think the people who attacked him should have the shit kicked out of them. If we wake up tomorrow and find that someone fucked them up, I'll say "good" and also say that the people who fucked them up should go to jail.

 

[Metusalemi]

 

[Mr Holmes]

All this over a couple punches, silly string, and milkshakes.

CJWs all out for this.

Yeah, he just had a little brain hemorrhage!!! Such a snowflake!!1
<mma2><mma2><mma2>

 

[lfd0311]

Lmao, what a genius post lmao.

My main beef with Andy wasn't about hate crime hoaxes. You're the one that brought that up. It's weird because most of you clearly didn't follow Andy before this incident yet you're all defending him because you dislike Antifa. You dislike Antifa, so you assume everyone they attack must be a saint. I dislike Antifa, and they attack a lot of innocent people--such as the two old men who were literally drenched in blood that you haven't once mentioned because you have such a hard on for this "journalist" you'd never heard of until yesterday--but Andy isn't innocent.

Still, those responsible should go to jail for it. Again, this isn't a difficult thing to understand. How am I justifying an attack if I think the people responsible should be punished?

Do you have any sort of response to criticism other than "LMAO, yur dumb"?

 

[PubliusVentidius]

All this over a couple punches, silly string, and milkshakes.

CJWs all out for this.

50 people murdered by white supremacists last year: I sleep

Antifa whopping some asshole who went there to start shit: REAL SHIT

 

[Leagon]

Do you have any sort of response to criticism other than "LMAO, yur dumb"?

He did the "lmao yur dumb" thing, so I mimicked it in one line then spent two paragraphs defending my position. Did you not read the post you quoted?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I'm not even left you retarded american.

What othet reason would one have to defend mob violence against apparently innocent individuals?

You're either 'my team'-ing or trolling. Either way your comment is akin to defending a rapist with the "she probably wanted it".

 

[lfd0311]

He did the "lmao yur dumb" thing, so I mimicked it in one line then spent two paragraphs defending my position. Did you not read the post you quoted?

The post where you said that this dude deserves to get beat up and everyone pointed out how flawed that line of thinking is?