Support NeoGAF

[luigimario]

https://www.dw.com/en/neo-nazi-nsu-...murder-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/a-44626859

"Almost as soon as the verdict was released, a number of community organizations, opposition political parties, and lawyers released statements saying the verdict should not be seen as a conclusion of the NSU case and calling for more investigations into Germany's neo-Nazi terrorist network."

Can we now stop pretending Anti-Fa is comparative to the Neo-Nazi/Alt-Right? Can we start taking Right wing extremism seriously now?

 

[PuppetMaster]

10 murders happened between 2000 and 2007 in Germany and you want to use this as a basis to filter your view of US politics in 2018?

This is just as problematic as people who want to filter their view of all Muslims based on terrorist actions on 9/11

 

[luigimario]

10 murders happened between 2000 and 2007 in Germany and you want to use this as a basis to filter your view of US politics in 2018?

This is just as problematic as people who want to filter the actions of all Muslims based on terrorist actions on 9/11

Is that all the examples of right wing extremism in recent times? Really?

 

[King of Foxes]

https://www.dw.com/en/neo-nazi-nsu-member-beate-zschäpe-found-guilty-of-murder-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/a-44626859

"Almost as soon as the verdict was released, a number of community organizations, opposition political parties, and lawyers released statements saying the verdict should not be seen as a conclusion of the NSU case and calling for more investigations into Germany's neo-Nazi terrorist network."

Can we now stop pretending Anti-Fa is comparative to the Neo-Nazi/Alt-Right? Can we start taking Right wing extremism seriously now?

It is serious, probably not as a serious as islamists though, score card is in their favor

 

[MamaRice]

10 murders happened between 2000 and 2007 in Germany and you want to use this as a basis to filter your view of US politics in 2018?

This is just as problematic as people who want to filter their view of all Muslims based on terrorist actions on 9/11

"Almost as soon as the verdict was released, a number of community organizations, opposition political parties, and lawyers released statements saying the verdict should not be seen as a conclusion of the NSU case and calling for more investigations into Germany's neo-Nazi terrorist network."

It's also just Germany. Calm down.

And it's just murders. Doesn't count other forms of violence and targeted hate.

 

[MamaRice]

Also of note:

Nine of the NSU's victims were of immigrant background, while the tenth was a police officer.

Oh. Imagine that.

 

[luigimario]

It is serious, probably not as a serious as islamists though, score card is in their favor

A database of nine years of domestic terrorism incidents compiled by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting beg to differ, in the US atleast,:

"

• From January 2008 to the end of 2016, we identified 63 cases of Islamist domestic terrorism, meaning incidents motivated by a theocratic political ideology espoused by such groups as the Islamic State. The vast majority of these (76 percent) were foiled plots, meaning no attack took place.
• During the same period, we found that right-wing extremists were behind nearly twice as many incidents: 115. Just over a third of these incidents (35 percent) were foiled plots. The majority were acts of terrorist violence that involved deaths, injuries or damaged property.
• Right-wing extremist terrorism was more often deadly: Nearly a third of incidents involved fatalities, for a total of 79 deaths, while 13 percent of Islamist cases caused fatalities. (The total number of deaths associated with Islamist incidents was higher, however, reaching 90.)
• Incidents related to left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents causing seven fatalities—making the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress earlier this month somewhat of an anomaly.
• Nearly half (48 percent) of Islamist incidents in our database were sting operations, more than four times the rate for far-right (12 percent) or far-left (10.5 percent) incidents.

"

And the threat of right wing extremism isn't being taken seriously by the trump administration, as they have cut funding for all groups tasked with combating it. Which isn't really surprising....

 

[Forthefuture]

Were they civil to right people though. That is tge most important question right now.

 

[PuppetMaster]

Is that all the examples of right wing extremism in recent times? Really?

9/11 is also not the only example of extremism in recent times.


I am just saying using broad strokes to stereotype whole groups of people that you have issue with is dangerous. It will eventually backfire on you or your group.

You should condemn the actions. Not try to find ways to associate the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology.

 

[luigimario]

9/11 is also not the only example of extremism in recent times.


I am just saying using broad strokes to stereotype whole groups of people that you have issue with is dangerous. It will eventually backfire on you or your group.

You should condemn the actions. Not try to find ways to associate the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology.

I think its ok to use broad strokes against extremism, whether muslim or right wing. (Though arguments can be made that muslim extremism IS right wing extremism but that's a different debate).

 

[MamaRice]

9/11 is also not the only example of extremism in recent times.


I am just saying using broad strokes to stereotype whole groups of people that you have issue with is dangerous. It will eventually backfire on you or your group.

You should condemn the actions. Not try to find ways to associate the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology.

So do you support the Travel ban?

 

[PuppetMaster]

So do you support the Travel ban?

Totally off topic. But if countries were banned just for being Muslim majority I would not support it. And the Supreme Court should not have either.

But I do agree with the Supreme Court ruling that it is legal to make restrictions based on whatever arbitrary security reasons an administration might have.

 

[MamaRice]

Totally off topic. But if countries were banned just for being Muslim majority I would not support it. And the Supreme Court should not have either.

But I do agree with the Supreme Court ruling that it is legal to make restrictions based on whatever arbitrary security reasons an administration might have.

Didn't answer my question.

You just said you shouldn't "try to find ways to associate the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology." Well, the travel ban is banning people from that country because they are Muslim and they believe that is linked to Islamic extremism. So they are doing exactly what you said not to do. But I believe you are a trump supporter? So I wanted to know if you support him doing the thing you said we shouldn't do.

And even if you could make the argument that those coutnries aren't getting banned because they are Muslim, okay. Well, there's still a lot of innocent people in all of those countries. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the people in those countries will never commit an act of terrorism. Yet, the president you so proudly support, wants to ban all those innocent people from coming to the country, based on the "arbitrary security reasons" that you so conveniently left vague.

So, my question really is, what "arbitrary security reasons" could there be for banning people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries that ISN'T "trying to find ways to assocaite the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology."

 

[PuppetMaster]

Didn't answer my question.

You just said you shouldn't "try to find ways to associate the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology." Well, the travel ban is banning people from that country because they are Muslim and they believe that is linked to Islamic extremism. So they are doing exactly what you said not to do. But I believe you are a trump supporter? So I wanted to know if you support him doing the thing you said we shouldn't do.

And even if you could make the argument that those coutnries aren't getting banned because they are Muslim, okay. Well, there's still a lot of innocent people in all of those countries. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the people in those countries will never commit an act of terrorism. Yet, the president you so proudly support, wants to ban all those innocent people from coming to the country, based on the "arbitrary security reasons" that you so conveniently left vague.

So, my question really is, what "arbitrary security reasons" could there be for banning people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries that ISN'T "trying to find ways to assocaite the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology."

I did not say you shouldn't. I said it's dangerous because it can backfire.

Will this particular ban policy backfire on the US one day? Maybe. But it is done legally this time according to the Supreme Court.

If the basis for the ban was purely religious the Supreme Court would have likely ruled it illegal.

 

[MamaRice]

I did not say you shouldn't. I said it's dangerous because it can backfire.

Will this particular ban policy backfire on the US one day? Maybe. But it is done legally this time according to the Supreme Court.

If the basis for the ban was purely religious the Supreme Court would have likely ruled it illegal.

I didn't ask what the supreme court would rule it. I asked you if you supported it. You don't want to answer. Fine. Just say that next time.

 

[MamaRice]

Also if you read your actual post.

9/11 is also not the only example of extremism in recent times.


I am just saying using broad strokes to stereotype whole groups of people that you have issue with is dangerous. It will eventually backfire on you or your group.

You should condemn the actions. Not try to find ways to associate the actions of a few with whole groups of innocent people not connected except in some aspects of race or culture or ideology.

You literally said, you SHOULD NOT do this.

 

[Helios]

The moment I read the title I was like "Good." And than I entered the thread and people think this somehow justifies ANTIFA fighting fire with fire.



what

 

[PuppetMaster]

Also if you read your actual post.



You literally said, you SHOULD NOT do this.

My point in this thread was about false equivocation. And you gave a perfect example of it by trying to associate two of my words from totally separate sentences. Bravo.

 

[MamaRice]

My point in this thread was about false equivocation. And you gave a perfect example of it by trying to associate two of my words from totally separate sentences. Bravo.

...Two separate sentences, that are next to each other and grammatically add up into a complete thought shouldn't be associated...

Got it.

Trump supporters, everybody.

 

[MamaRice]

The moment I read the title I was like "Good." And than I entered the thread and people think this somehow justifies ANTIFA fighting fire with fire.



what

More like people think Antifa isn't more of a problem than Neo-Nazism.

 

[Helios]

...Two separate sentences, that are next to each other and grammatically add up into a complete thought shouldn't be associated...

Got it.

Trump supporters, everybody.

And I thought you were a Trump supporter. I mean, just look:

And even if you could make the argument that those coutnries aren't getting banned because they are Muslim, okay.

It's not even two sentences apart !

Spoiler

:^)

 

[MamaRice]

And I thought you were a Trump supporter. I mean, just look:

It's not even two sentences apart !

Spoiler

:^)

Am I actually arguing English and grammar with you right now?

-sigh- Okay, I'll bite, because I'm a masochist apparently.

Sentence 1:

You SHOULD do x.

Sentence 2:

Not do y.

It stands to reason, by literally all known rules of grammar, that the second sentence is saying you SHOULD NOT do Y because X is the thing you SHOULD do.

He also used a fucking line break between these two sentences people. Come on, let's get real. You guys are getting pretty slick (*gasp* she said the secret word!!!!), trying to slide right past him avoiding my question about the travel ban. CLever girl <3

 

[Helios]

Am I actually arguing English and grammar with you right now?

-sigh- Okay, I'll bite, because I'm a masochist apparently.

Sentence 1:

You SHOULD do x.

Sentence 2:

Not do y.

It stands to reason, by literally all known rules of grammar, that the second sentence is saying you SHOULD NOT do Y because X is the thing you SHOULD do.

He also used a fucking line break between these two sentences people. Come on, let's get real. You guys are getting pretty slick (*gasp* she said the secret word!!!!), trying to slide right past him avoiding my question about the travel ban. CLever girl <3

You need to relax a bit, I was obviously not serious. It's also ridiculous that you think I'm helping him avoid a question that I don't care about .

More like people think Antifa isn't more of a problem than Neo-Nazism.

How about they're both equally bad.

 

[Harksteed]

Aren't Antifa basically glorified hooligans?

 

[luigimario]

You need to relax a bit, I was obviously not serious. It's also ridiculous that you think I'm helping him avoid a question that I don't care about .

How about they're both equally bad.

I literally showed you the extent of right wing extremism vs left wing. They dont even come close. Antifa doesnt come close to neonazism.... i mean it was literally response against neo nazism....

 

[MamaRice]

I literally showed you the extent of right wing extremism vs left wing. They dont even come close. Antifa doesnt come close to neonazism.... i mean it was literally response against neo nazism....

They’re always going to ignore the numbers

 

[AaronB]

I'm happy to see the actual Neo-Nazis jailed if they have committed crimes, and isolated and excluded (removing them from acceptable society) if they can't be convicted.

The opposite approach is to lump them in with anyone you don't like, so that you can call all your political opponents Nazis. Then initiate violence against everyone you call a Nazi - making the term less meaningful, and uniting more and more people against the self-appointed anti-nazis.

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Does not fit the media narrative!!!! Do not show on TV!!

 

[luigimario]

Does not fit the media narrative!!!! Do not show on TV!!

That was commendable. Some of the right wing guys here at neogaf can learn a thing or two from them.

 

[DKehoe]

Aren't Antifa basically glorified hooligans?

I think it's the problem you often get when a group doesn't have a defined structure, membership or leadership. It becomes much easier to attribute things to them because who they are and what they stand for becomes increasingly vague. At this point, trying to pin down exactly who/what Antifa are is nearly impossible.

 

[michaelius]

Aren't Antifa basically glorified hooligans?

Maybe in America - in Europe they are responsible for street riots during G20 summits which turn out into major clashes with police forces.

 

[Helios]

I literally showed you the extent of right wing extremism vs left wing. They dont even come close. Antifa doesnt come close to neonazism.... i mean it was literally response against neo nazism....

You showed the extent of right wing extremism without showing the extent of left wing extremism and argued that because Nazis are bad, left wing extremism is justified. It's not.
Are you actually defending a ragtag group of teenagers high on batman movies hellbent on hurting and deplatforming people THEY think are Neo Nazis?

 

[luigimario]

You showed the extent of right wing extremism without showing the extent of left wing extremism and argued that because Nazis are bad, left wing extremism is justified. It's not.
Are you actually defending a ragtag group of teenagers high on batman movies hellbent on hurting and deplatforming people THEY think are Neo Nazis?

I'll post it again for you.

A database of nine years of domestic terrorism incidents compiled by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting beg to differ, in the US atleast,:

"

• From January 2008 to the end of 2016, we identified 63 cases of Islamist domestic terrorism, meaning incidents motivated by a theocratic political ideology espoused by such groups as the Islamic State. The vast majority of these (76 percent) were foiled plots, meaning no attack took place.
• During the same period, we found that right-wing extremists were behind nearly twice as many incidents: 115. Just over a third of these incidents (35 percent) were foiled plots. The majority were acts of terrorist violence that involved deaths, injuries or damaged property.
• Right-wing extremist terrorism was more often deadly: Nearly a third of incidents involved fatalities, for a total of 79 deaths, while 13 percent of Islamist cases caused fatalities. (The total number of deaths associated with Islamist incidents was higher, however, reaching 90.)
• Incidents related to left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents causing seven fatalities—making the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress earlier this month somewhat of an anomaly.
• Nearly half (48 percent) of Islamist incidents in our database were sting operations, more than four times the rate for far-right (12 percent) or far-left (10.5 percent) incidents.

"

 

[michaelius]

That's America where you have a fraction of Islamism fueled terror attack that we have in Europe.

 

[Helios]

I'll post it again for you.

And I'll post it again for you: Right-wing extremism does not justify Left-wing extremism.
But I'll humor you, I definitely think right-wing extremism should be fought just like Islamic terrorism, I never argued against that ( even thought this was not even the point of the discussion, but I know you have a boner for bringing Islamism into everything). I have looked into the source and it's a little debatable on some points. For example, I think it's really interesting that even though 76% of the Islamic incidents were foiled they still have a higher number of deaths (even though the article still claims right-wing attacks are deadlier....what?). They also put left-wing terrorism as only "ecoterrorism and animal rights" when I think it encompasses more than that. I also don't think sting operations is proof that the system has some bias towards Islamism In my view it's much easier to organize such an operation with someone that is foreign and has less connection than someone who has grown in that country which is most often the case with right-wing terrorism.

 

[Dunki]

I literally showed you the extent of right wing extremism vs left wing. They dont even come close. Antifa doesnt come close to neonazism.... i mean it was literally response against neo nazism....

This is absolute bullshit. The only reason why no one died during the G20 was because the Police was very very careful. Antifa had occupied spots on houses to throw molotovcocktails down onto the streets. They planed the whole thing.They used "bullets" who go through security helmets. and so on. And this isjust one example. So yeah to call Antifa not as bad is honestly disgusting. Why can we not both equally say they are bad. Furthermore Antifa has more terroristic structures than any NAzi Group in Germany as example.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

This thread seems like a thread designed to stir up trouble... Is it that boreing in here guys?

 

[Harksteed]

Maybe in America - in Europe they are responsible for street riots during G20 summits which turn out into major clashes with police forces.

So... hooligans?