The Young Turks Praise/Promote Antifa

Are there any TYT fans here? Even...one? Say, since 2016. Before that they were a little more reasonable if I remember. They don't get love from WR Democrats or any Democrats I know, that's for sure.
YouTube promotes them quite heavily. That's the main reason anyone knows about them.
 
You guys like to think "Antifa" is just a bunch of campus SJW's whining about Trump (which admittedly many who get labelled as such are), but it is an ideology that recognizes you MUST fight fascism (and the normalization of fascism creeping into the mainstream as it is today) with force before the rot sets in.

Antifa, as it is today, are mainly SJWs and anarchists who attack anyone they perceive to be "fascist." The definition of fascist being so broad, it basically means anyone they perceive to be right wing. Ben Shapiro, Sargon of Akkad, Janice Fiamengo, random pro-life rallies, any group that supports limiting immigration, groups critical of Islam, groups that praise western culture, groups critical of feminism/BLM, etc--all fascists.

They're the intimidation arm of the radical left


The alarmist language isn't doing anyone any good. Terms like "Nazi," "terrorist," and the like get thrown around way too much, and it gets used as mental justification for whatever dumbass idea weak minds try to implement.

Definition of terrorist:
"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Please tell me how this definition doesn't 100% describe what Antifa does.
 
100% agree. He's more of an empiricist like I am. Trump's driving me back more towards the left, but I'm really not happy with either side. If there were more leftists like Kyle I'd feel more at home on the left.

I think the problem here is that you see what you look for. If you get your understanding of "the left" from obnoxious Youtube videos, they look bad, if you get them from reading people like Noah Smith, Scott Alexander, Paul Krugman, Jon Chait, Matt Bruenig, etc., you'll have a very different view. And when it comes to voting, policy is what matters (or what should matter) anyway.
 
Kyle Kulinski is not that bad, neither is Jimmy Dore. They at least live in objective reality, and don't pander like corporate shills

the rest of the TYT are pretty bad tho
 
Seattle has a nice way of dealing with trash too. Non violent but very effective and cool to watch.


Seattle PD "cut their teeth" during those WTO riots.
 
If I was the Young Turks, I'd not support Antifa. They are a terrorist organization like was said above. At minimum they've cost American's millions with their vandalism, riots and attacks on innocent people and innocent law enforcement.


100% American
7ad.jpg


q898yOk.jpg


7ufMwPY.jpg
 
Lmao at the people in this thread denying the young turks have no clout and pull whatsoever in the news industry then those same people were in the Ocasio Cortez thread defending Cenk saying how he did such a good job debating Ben Shapiro.

I can't even <Lmaoo><Lmaoo>
 
I think the problem here is that you see what you look for. If you get your understanding of "the left" from obnoxious Youtube videos, they look bad, if you get them from reading people like Noah Smith, Scott Alexander, Paul Krugman, Jon Chait, Matt Bruenig, etc., you'll have a very different view. And when it comes to voting, policy is what matters (or what should matter) anyway.
I come from a left-wing family and grew up in one of the most left-leaning areas of the country. No, I'm not getting my understanding of the left from fucking YouTube videos. I'm basing it on real life experience, observations, the preponderance of the evidence. I've seen the rise of illiberal liberals and I don't like it one bit. If anything, I have a much more intimate understanding of the left because it's what I grew up with. I had some hope with the right and what it might turn into, but I've become completely disillusioned with that. I suppose I'm somewhat of a contrarian and will never be satisfied with either side.
 
Antifa, as it is today, are mainly SJWs and anarchists who attack anyone they perceive to be "fascist." The definition of fascist being so broad, it basically means anyone they perceive to be right wing. Ben Shapiro, Sargon of Akkad, Janice Fiamengo, random pro-life rallies, any group that supports limiting immigration, groups critical of Islam, groups that praise western culture, groups critical of feminism/BLM, etc--all fascists.

They're the intimidation arm of the radical left




Definition of terrorist:
"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Please tell me how this definition doesn't 100% describe what Antifa does.
By this definition, any protest that has ever gotten violent has turned into a terrorist event. The definition is too broad. Believe me, I can’t stand Antifa as much as anyone. They’re childish, compromised of stupid people who don’t understand the first thing about what they’re asking for, and are outright fascists in their pursuit of anti-fascism. But they’re not terrorists. The definition is inherently problematic.
 
The only thing TYT is good for is watching wondering if this day is the day Cenk has a heart attack on live TV.
 
I come from a left-wing family and grew up in one of the most left-leaning areas of the country. No, I'm not getting my understanding of the left from fucking YouTube videos. I'm basing it on real life experience, observations, the preponderance of the evidence.

And my point is that you're not looking at the totality of the evidence (the point is unchanged if you include people you happen to know, unless you know tens of millions of people or a representative sample, both of which seem highly unlikely). The preponderance of the evidence that you happen to chance upon isn't the preponderance of the evidence, IOW. And the other point was that the most important things that elections do is set us on a policy path. Unscrupulous politicians will frame it as being about sending a message to trannies or minorities, but what was the impact of the last election? Worse environmental policy, a huge upward redistribution of wealth, weakened global standing, etc.

I've seen the rise of illiberal liberals and I don't like it one bit. If anything, I have a much more intimate understanding of the left because it's what I grew up with. I had some hope with the right and what it might turn into, but I've become completely disillusioned with that. I suppose I'm somewhat of a contrarian and will never be satisfied with either side.

I think you're thinking about it all wrong. There's no need to pick a "side" and agree with everyone about everything. The responsibility that citizens have is to weigh in in favor of their preferred policy path.
 
lol just watched the video. I would love to punch that goof Hasan. What a overly emotional, misinformation spreading liberal fucktard.

So which Sherdogger is this no name in the video?
 
And my point is that you're not looking at the totality of the evidence (the point is unchanged if you include people you happen to know, unless you know tens of millions of people or a representative sample, both of which seem highly unlikely). The preponderance of the evidence that you happen to chance upon isn't the preponderance of the evidence, IOW. And the other point was that the most important things that elections do is set us on a policy path. Unscrupulous politicians will frame it as being about sending a message to trannies or minorities, but what was the impact of the last election? Worse environmental policy, a huge upward redistribution of wealth, weakened global standing, etc.



I think you're thinking about it all wrong. There's no need to pick a "side" and agree with everyone about everything. The responsibility that citizens have is to weigh in in favor of their preferred policy path.
Sigh... I'm always looking at the totality of the evidence. I'm far from someone who picks a side and agrees with them on everything and plays team politics. The problem is that key policies actually seem to change fairly little from the top down. The main difference is the rhetoric. But the war machine keeps rolling... Wall Street always gets there's. Trump is ultimately an establishment tool, just like Obama was. Obama was a much more thoughtful and reasonable person of course, but it is what it is. Obama carried on a lot of Bush policies on war and Wall Street, just as Trump is doing the same...
 
By this definition, any protest that has ever gotten violent has turned into a terrorist event. The definition is too broad. Believe me, I can’t stand Antifa as much as anyone. They’re childish, compromised of stupid people who don’t understand the first thing about what they’re asking for, and are outright fascists in their pursuit of anti-fascism. But they’re not terrorists. The definition is inherently problematic.

The difference is intent.

There's a difference between
#1 A peaceful protest that happens to turn violent because of chance interactions between people with opposing views who are emotional and passionate, and
#2 A "protest" where everyone shows up with their faces covered, armed with weapons, and who have trained and plotted to be violent. Half of the time Antifa aren't even protesting, they are just storming buildings, assaulting security, pulling fire alarms, and trying to violently suppress any views they don't like.

Antifa is #2, which is why they are by definition terrorists.
 
Sigh... I'm always looking at the totality of the evidence. I'm far from someone who picks a side and agrees with them on everything and plays team politics. The problem is that key policies actually seem to change fairly little from the top down.

This is extremely far from the truth. Look at the big increase in tax progressivity and healthcare access under Obama, and contrast it with the reversal under Trump for just the most obvious example. Huge differences generally in environmental, economic, regulatory, and healthcare policy. Maybe slower change in foreign policy, though even there, there are very significant differences.

The main difference is the rhetoric. But the war machine keeps rolling... Wall Street always gets there's. Trump is ultimately an establishment tool, just like Obama was. Obama was a much more thoughtful and reasonable person of course, but it is what it is. Obama carried on a lot of Bush policies on war and Wall Street, just as Trump is doing the same...

Obama pushed for huge new Wall Street regulations, and was deeply hated by WS, who felt like they were under attack during his presidency. And they have already benefited tremendously under Trump. Again, I think you should do a lot more research here. You're in for some really big surprises if you look into this issue more.
 
The difference is intent.

There's a difference between
#1 A peaceful protest that happens to turn violent because of chance interactions between people with opposing views who are emotional and passionate, and
#2 A "protest" where everyone shows up with their faces covered, armed with weapons, and who have trained and plotted to be violent. Half of the time Antifa aren't even protesting, they are just storming buildings, assaulting security, pulling fire alarms, and trying to violently suppress any views they don't like.

Antifa is #2, which is why they are by definition terrorists.
They are thugs, criminals in certain instances, and all around terrible people. But terrorist is a stretch. Antifa are certainly nothing compared to ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, al-Shabab, and the like. Let’s keep this in perspective.
 
Seriously? That's who you think speaks for "the left"?

Anyway, if you amend to "some fringe leftists see fit to talk to them," I'll grant it.

Yes, Bernie Sanders a "fringe leftist". You are a nothing more than an obnoxious little troll. Why more people can't see this, I don't know.
 
Rioters are not terrorists. Maybe we should keep that label for ISIS like groups.

WRONG. I'm sure not all ANTIFA members are terrorists but a large number are, by definition, terrorists.

ter·ror·ist
ˈterərəst/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
    synonyms: extremist, fanatic; More
adjective
  1. 1.
    unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "a terrorist organization"


NATO definition:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives".

I'm pretty sure that smashing people in the head for attending a rally with an opposing viewpoint in order to shut down the rally and silence that viewpoint is TERRORISM.
 
if americans wanna be right wing they should go back to europe first.
 
Back
Top