More Jackbooted Thuggery As Protests Turn Violent At NYU

[A Theist]

Another night of protests turn violent as protesters oppose conservative speaker and comedian, Gavin McInnes, at NYU. So much for acceptance and tolerance from this fringe left version of Nazis.

"Conservative comedian Gavin McInnes is PEPPER-SPRAYED outside NYU as violent student protesters throw punches and clash with police ahead of his performance"

Conservative comedian Gavin McInnes was pepper-sprayed in New York City on Thursday, ahead of his appearance at New York University.
Protesters came out to demonstrate against the scheduled event featuring the co-founder of Vice Media. A crowd started fighting while McInnes arrived, video shows

An event page on Facebook from the NYU Anti-Fascists was called 'Disrupt Gavin McInnes at NYU'. 

The page - which appears to have been taken down - reportedly said: 'Come to Kimmel, Rosenthal Pavilion to let NYU know that we will not stand for bigotry, racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny on our campus.' 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...s-NYU.html

[Mister Agenda]

I'm seeing increasing support for property destruction and violence against alt.right types, along with an increase in at least excusing it; basically justified as 'it's okay when the victims are Nazis or rich'.

I don't agree with riots. They're halfway between non-violent protest and resistance and revolution. I think they're less effective in accomplishing desired change than either. If it's not time for bloody revolution then it's still time for nonviolent protest and resistance...which requires discipline and not giving into violent impulses because it's so satisfying to assault racists.

When they're violent, it helps us. You know how we use violent incidents by radical conservatives to rally people against them. When we're violent it helps their narrative. Personally, I believe in nonviolent change and only resorting to violence in self-defense when in immediate physical danger. However, even if I liked assaulting people as much as the next guy, nonviolent protest and resistance is more effective.

But only military or paramilitary types (or at least government agents) can be 'jackbooted thugs', pretty much by definition.

[Catholic_Lady]

Protesting principles you don't agree with by using violence and destruction is just about as hypocritical as you can get. I don't care what "side" you're on. When you act like that, you lose me.

[A Theist]

I'm seeing increasing support for property destruction and violence against alt.right types, along with an increase in at least excusing it; basically justified as 'it's okay when the victims are Nazis or rich'.

I don't agree with riots. They're halfway between non-violent protest and resistance and revolution. I think they're less effective in accomplishing desired change than either. If it's not time for bloody revolution then it's still time for nonviolent protest and resistance...which requires discipline and not giving into violent impulses because it's so satisfying to assault racists.

When they're violent, it helps us. You know how we use violent incidents by radical conservatives to rally people against them. When we're violent it helps their narrative. Personally, I believe in nonviolent change and only resorting to violence in self-defense when in immediate physical danger. However, even if I liked assaulting people as much as the next guy, nonviolent protest and resistance is more effective.

But only military or paramilitary types can be 'jackbooted thugs', pretty much by definition.

'Jackbooted Thugs' is a fair description of their actions. But, these are pretty much the fringers, though. I think most on the left would condemn this. Unfortunately, I think the violence from the few fringers will reflect badly on the rest of the left.

[The Industrial Atheist]

These are Authoritarian Leftists. I don't approve of their actions and would not wish to be associated with them if anybody cared who I'm associated with.

[downbeatplumb]

I'm seeing increasing support for property destruction and violence against alt.right types, along with an increase in at least excusing it; basically justified as 'it's okay when the victims are Nazis or rich'.

I don't agree with riots. They're halfway between non-violent protest and resistance and revolution. I think they're less effective in accomplishing desired change than either. If it's not time for bloody revolution then it's still time for nonviolent protest and resistance...which requires discipline and not giving into violent impulses because it's so satisfying to assault racists.

When they're violent, it helps us. You know how we use violent incidents by radical conservatives to rally people against them. When we're violent it helps their narrative. Personally, I believe in nonviolent change and only resorting to violence in self-defense when in immediate physical danger. However, even if I liked assaulting people as much as the next guy, nonviolent protest and resistance is more effective.

But only military or paramilitary types can be 'jackbooted thugs', pretty much by definition.

'Jackbooted Thugs' is a fair description of their actions. But, these are pretty much the fringers, though. I think most on the left would condemn this. Unfortunately, I think the violence from the few fringers will reflect badly on the rest of the left.

"Jackboot thugs" is a term, that in the UK at least, I have only ever seen associated with the right. It seems odd to have it pointed at left leaning people.

[Joods]

I'm not for any type of violence. It gives real protesting a bad name. I don't care which side is to blame. No one has the right to be destructive of someone else's person or property.

[Kosh]

'Jackbooted Thugs' is a fair description of their actions. But, these are pretty much the fringers, though. I think most on the left would condemn this. Unfortunately, I think the violence from the few fringers will reflect badly on the rest of the left.

"Jackboot thugs" is a term, that in the UK at least, I have only ever seen associated with the right. It seems odd to have it pointed at left leaning people.

The people on the right aren't the most creative knives in the drawer. Social justice warrior is their best work since hippie and tree hugger.

[downbeatplumb]

"Jackboot thugs" is a term, that in the UK at least, I have only ever seen associated with the right. It seems odd to have it pointed at left leaning people.

The people on the right aren't the most creative knives in the drawer.  Social justice warrior is their best work since hippie and tree hugger.

I don't get the mockery of SJWs.
Its like shouting "Your a nice person" at someone and meaning it as an insult.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The people on the right aren't the most creative knives in the drawer.  Social justice warrior is their best work since hippie and tree hugger.

I don't get the mockery of SJWs.
Its like shouting "Your a nice person" at someone and meaning it as an insult.

The instant you add the qualifier, social, it isn't really justice anymore. True justice doesn't respect status, allegiance, or group membership. Justice should favor neither the rich nor the poor. It should favor neither the leader nor the outcast. Justice must be impartial and never qualified.