Piles of bricks are being staged in cities around the country:Riots are Planned

[AProudLefty]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...e-antifa-train

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...or-violence-on

[Saudade]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...or-violence-on

The difference is that Buzzfeed (and Vice, Vox, etc.) usually gives a positive spin on anything Antifa related. This isn't the case with coverage on various militias, particularly if they happen to be conservative.

Granted, Vox even did a positive segment on MS-13, so I guess you can't expect much from them.

[AProudLefty]

The difference is that Buzzfeed (and Vice, Vox, etc.) usually gives a positive spin on anything Antifa related. This isn't the case with coverage on various militias, particularly if they happen to be conservative.

Granted, Vox even did a positive segment on MS-13, so I guess you can't expect much from them.

What positive spin? Does Buzzfeed give a positive spin on violence?

[Saudade]

What positive spin? Does Buzzfeed give a positive spin on violence?

You don't see the article he posted as being sympathetic to Antifa?

[AProudLefty]

You don't see the article he posted as being sympathetic to Antifa?

The article isn't being sympathetic to the violence.

[FreeSpeech]

The article isn't being sympathetic to the violence.

The hell it isn't you laughable faggot it is a puff piece on antifa terrorist training centers for street brawls and armed insurrection catch bullets.

[FreeSpeech]

What positive spin? Does Buzzfeed give a positive spin on violence?

It is a puff piece on antifa terrorist training centers for street brawls and armed insurrection catch bullets you stupid faggot.

[FreeSpeech]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...or-violence-on

Ya that wasn't a positive article you stupid faggot.

[Saudade]

The article isn't being sympathetic to the violence.

But with Antifa being known for violence, what's the difference?

The point is that Antifa is generally favored by much of the media, since the most of the media itself is on the left. The violence doesn't matter to them, because they share the same politics.

It's like how the MeToo movement fell apart when it turned out that Biden was a creepy bastard. They didn't want to call him out for his history, because he's on their political side. It took decades for Weinstein to get taken down, and it probably only happened because of Ronan Farrow. Weinstein had the right political connections before that.

The media clearly isn't anti-violence (or even anti-sexual assault), unless it can characterize the violence as a result of "white supremacy" or some other right wing ideology. If the violence comes from the left, they just either ignore it or make excuses for it.

[FreeSpeech]

But with Antifa being known for violence, what's the difference?

The point is that Antifa is generally favored by much of the media, since the most of the media itself is on the left. The violence doesn't matter to them, because they share the same politics.

It's like how the MeToo movement fell apart when it turned out that Biden was a creepy bastard. They didn't want to call him out for his history, because he's on their political side. It took decades for Weinstein to get taken down, and it probably only happened because of Ronan Farrow. Weinstein had the right political connections before that.

The media clearly isn't anti-violence, unless it can characterize the violence as a result of "white supremacy" or some other right wing ideology. If the violence comes from the left, they just either ignore it or make excuses for it.

It's literally a puff piece on antifa terrorist training centers for street brawling and armed insurrection.

[AProudLefty]

But with Antifa being known for violence, what's the difference?

The point is that Antifa is generally favored by much of the media, since the most of the media itself is on the left. The violence doesn't matter to them, because they share the same politics.

It's like how the MeToo movement fell apart when it turned out that Biden was a creepy bastard. They didn't want to call him out for his history, because he's on their political side. It took decades for Weinstein to get taken down, and it probably only happened because of Ronan Farrow. Weinstein had the right political connections before that.

The media clearly isn't anti-violence (or even anti-sexual assault), unless it can characterize the violence as a result of "white supremacy" or some other right wing ideology. If the violence comes from the left, they just either ignore it or make excuses for it.

The white supremacists are known for violence too. Are all of them terrorists? I don't see the right-wing media pressuring to label them a terrorist group.

[AProudLefty]

Ya that wasn't a positive article you stupid faggot.

Go away troll. Us adults are talking.

[Saudade]

The white supremacists are known for violence too. Are all of them terrorists? I don't see the right-wing media pressuring to label them a terrorist group.

Most white supremist groups are already on the terrorist list. There are a few groups that are falsely labeled as white supremist that aren't on the list, however.

[AProudLefty]

There are a few groups that are falsely labeled as white supremist that aren't on the list, however.

See right there that's the crux of it.

[Saudade]

See right there that's the crux of it.

Well, a good example is the 3 Percenters. They're not white supremist, but they're often called that by the left, because that's their go-to strategy for discrediting someone.

Of course, they can always use terms like racist, sexist, transphobe, Islamophobe, or just bigot as well.

Instead of actually articulating a counterargument to a given idea or cause, it's much easier to just label someone. That's the MO of much of the left at this point.