Antifada Girl Punched Out At Berkley Protest is a Hairy Porn Star

[r9etb]

Something has changed, though.  The left's militancy/rhetoric escalated, particularly during Obama's second term.  BLM probably helped in that.  But the truth is that this kind of disruption has been building for a long time -- decades, even.  They didn't throw punches before, but they'd march into a specific room/location that had been reserved, and yell and scream to the point where speakers were cancelled.  And it was tolerated for far too long.

That's true.  The anarchist groups have been doing this stuff for decades; and to the extent that they seem to be against the same people and things that the traditional left are against, the latter seem more or less willing to let the former get away with it, so long as their own personal oxen are not being gored (or not too deeply gored, at any rate).  And as the anarchist foot-soldiers grow up and move into positions of influence and authority within the leftist universe, the use of violence becomes more and more tolerable.

That the same dynamic seems to have taken a lot longer to develop on the right, says a lot about the importance conservatives place on the maintenance of civil society, and that's a good thing.

But it would be a mistake to think that the same dynamic couldn't develop on the right.  All it takes is the right combination of angers and frustrations, and a group of agitators who are well-enough organized to exploit it. 

I don't like street fights, but you start feeling like a chump when the other side can shut down public debate just by ignoring common decency.

We have the duly-constituted means for dealing with that within our public institutions.  The solution is not to ignore common decency in return -- that's precisely what they're after.  The solution is to make it intolerable for those in authority to do anything except uphold civil discourse and lawful behavior. 

[TomSea]

I’m not even sure that it was immediately evident that this was a woman and not a skinny white dude with dreadlocks. Either way, she was bouncing around in a manner that suggested she was looking for someone to square off with.

Continued: http://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2017/04/17/hundreds-brawl-berkeley-media-focuses-single-punch/

It's a possibility, one might not know it was a woman in the chaos.

[r9etb]

"resident mouth-breathers"?  Wow.

Just calling it like I see it.

[TomSea]

She found out it's not like the movie where some pint sized girl beats the crap out of the 225 lbs muscular Navy Seal or Spetznatz guy

Black gloves, a bandana around her neck which surely she used to cover her face with some. More variables.

[driftdiver]

We have the duly-constituted means for dealing with that within our public institutions. 

Yes that that has worked SOOOO well.    No, there are times when you must step outside the bounds of common decency.  It must be done to preserve our nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

[driftdiver]

Black gloves, a bandana around her neck which surely she used to cover her face with some. More variables.

Hey if it makes any difference that guy punches like a girl.

[Joe Wooten]

That's true.  The anarchist groups have been doing this stuff for decades; and to the extent that they seem to be against the same people and things that the traditional left are against, the latter seem more or less willing to let the former get away with it, so long as their own personal oxen are not being gored (or not too deeply gored, at any rate).  And as the anarchist foot-soldiers grow up and move into positions of influence and authority within the leftist universe, the use of violence becomes more and more tolerable.

That the same dynamic seems to have taken a lot longer to develop on the right, says a lot about the importance conservatives place on the maintenance of civil society, and that's a good thing.

But it would be a mistake to think that the same dynamic couldn't develop on the right.  All it takes is the right combination of angers and frustrations, and a group of agitators who are well-enough organized to exploit it. 

We have the duly-constituted means for dealing with that within our public institutions.  The solution is not to ignore common decency in return -- that's precisely what they're after.  The solution is to make it intolerable for those in authority to do anything except uphold civil discourse and lawful behavior.

Back when I was a student au UT Austin near the end of the Stone Age (late 1970's), these types tried disrupting a speech by Henry Kissinger. The campus cops promptly chucked them out on their asses, and when several tried storming back in, they were arrested and put in jail for disturbing the peace. Campus officials approved the cops actions. I noticed that during the 1990's the new campus officials there let them get away with bad behavior more and more.

[Sanguine]

Well, this is ugly.  Both in Berkley and on this board.

[anubias]

 

Go ride a bike Lady!@   LOL

No slugging!  LOL

Not on bike cuz it's raining cats and dogs. 

[geronl]

Welcome to the last days of Weimar I guess.

Some cheer on the end of civilization

[TomSea]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4418540/Supremacist-caught-video-punching-woman-face.html

More pictures.

One glove I see looks like it could be weighted.

[mirraflake]

Woman was wearing "Weighted Knuckle" gloves. 

This woman is being doxed as I type and more unsavory info is coming out as I type. This gal was no  innocent little girl

Wiki definition:


They are primarily used by security guards and by bouncers and other security professionals where physical combat is expected.


However, the primary aim of the gloves is to protect the user from injury. Normally, punches with an unprotected hand to an opponent’s head/face will painfully injure the hand in the process, and strikes to the mouth can often result in severe lacerations and possible infection from the opponent’s teeth. The layer of powdered metal serves to protect the hand against these injuries without compromising the effectiveness of the strike. Properly executed, a person wearing weighted knuckle gloves can even break glass or concrete without pain or injury.[1]

[TomSea]

Speaking of bikes, one of the pictures has a guy with a u-lock swinging it around. I've always figured, if in a bad situation without anything else, you could be confronting a wild animal, those are something.

[INVAR]

@INVAR

You are quite the piece of work.   I can image you get beat up a lot with your charming personality and quick wit.

Imagine away.  In fact I invite you to always make that assumption about me.  That works to my advantage when needed.

Newflash, "restraining" a woman is just as much assault as hitting her unless she attacks you first.

She did not attack this thug first based on the video released.  I do not care if she was supposedly throwing M-80s at them.  You cannot go and shoot after armed robbers once they depart your house and are moving away from you.   If this were a gunfight instead of a fistfight - that thug would be in jail now for murder.  He was not in mortal danger.  He was not warding off a flurry of fists in self defense.  He charged the woman and her group of people that they had to run to in order to engage in fisticuffs.  All that was is mob action. 

You can attempt to defend that all you like, but it just illustrates the zeitgeist of payback and punishment so readily advocated by rabid Trump acolytes is still part and parcel the motivation of their movement.

[driftdiver]

Imagine away.  In fact I invite you to always make that assumption about me.  That works to my advantage when needed.

She did not attack this thug first based on the video released.  I do not care if she was supposedly throwing M-80s at them.  You cannot go and shoot after armed robbers once they depart your house and are moving away from you.   If this were a gunfight instead of a fistfight - that thug would be in jail now for murder.  He was not in mortal danger.  He was not warding off a flurry of fists in self defense.  He charged the woman and her group of people that they had to run to in order to engage in fisticuffs.  All that was is mob action. 

You can attempt to defend that all you like, but it just illustrates the zeitgeist of payback and punishment so readily advocated by rabid Trump acolytes is still part and parcel the motivation of their movement.

Your comparison of this event to domestic violence has lost you any and all credibility on the matter.    so all I heard was blah blah blah blah

[r9etb]

There should be zero difference between those two.   "Incitement" means stating an unpopular opinion in an unpopular place.  That should still be protected.  Maybe even more so.  If you don't want to be "incited", then don't show up to someone else's rally.  Should Coulter not go there because it would "incite" them?

Sure, this should have gone off peacefully, and the police should have made damned sure that it did.  But you're not a naive man.  This was a case where this group, organized a rally of this sort, in a place where precisely this sort of response could be expected -- of course it was incitement. 

As I've said, this kind of stuff has been happening on a smaller scale for a long time, and generally was something swept under the rug and tolerated by mainstream conservatives.  It's just the "way it was".   And I think a lot of Americans were unaware of that.  More recently, we just saw a riot when Professor Charles Murphy tried to speak, and another professor ended up in a neck brace as a result....

That's a "frog in the pot" sort of analogy.  It doesn't seem serious, until it's really serious.  And it may be that we're getting to that point -- though I really don't believe that's the case.

The left is making more and more topics, and more and more places, as being "off limits" for views they don't like.  What should be done about that?  How do we reclaim free speech rights without deliberately challenging their mob rule?

There's challenging and there's challenging.  What differentiates us from them, is that we claim to be for law and order, with all that implies; and they're deliberately putting themselves in direct opposition to law and order.  I'd speculate that the vast majority of the population is still in favor of law and order, in very much the same way that you and I understand the term -- even if at times they need to be reminded of it. 

Again, I don't see it as behaving "the same way".  The difference is disrupting someone else's rally versus protecting your own.  But again, what is your proposal for dealing with this censorship by mob rule?  To me, deliberate provocations that raise awareness of this, and the profile of this more, to the point where cities and law enforcement must act, is the only way to get any change.  Not sure what other alternatives exist.

If one is willing to "solve" the problem by pitting "our" thugs against theirs, then matters will only get worse -- far worse.  And I honestly believe that was one of the underlying reasons for why the Proud Boys set that thing up as they did.

It probably sounds too simple, but I think plain old-fashioned publicity is probably enough to tilt the scales.  Shine a light on the leaders and enablers of the anarchists, and put pressure on those whose job it is to ensure that civil discourse is allowed to proceed unhindered.  Publicize the Charles Murray sorts of incidents, and do so responsibly, and bring shame on the schmucks who run Wellesley or San Francisco or Berkley.

Seriously: a lot of people across the political spectrum are fed up.  It's the main reason Trump got elected, and even those who couldn't vote for Trump are sick of the shenanigans of the left.

[Doug Loss]

She did not attack this thug first based on the video released.  I do not care if she was supposedly throwing M-80s at them.  You cannot go and shoot after armed robbers once they depart your house and are moving away from you.   If this were a gunfight instead of a fistfight - that thug would be in jail now for murder.

Did you not look at the actual video at all?  She was clearly not withdrawing.  I don't agree with any white supremacist beliefs, but claiming that she was attacked without provocation is clearly false.  You're obviously very emotional about all this; you're not being rational.

[r9etb]

Yes that that has worked SOOOO well.    No, there are times when you must step outside the bounds of common decency.  It must be done to preserve our nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

 

Or, you could just work to make sure that the laws are applied impartially and fairly.  But that's maybe too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But it would be a mistake to think that the same dynamic couldn't develop on the right.  All it takes is the right combination of angers and frustrations, and a group of agitators who are well-enough organized to exploit it.

No disagreement there, and if that starts happening, I hope they get the crap beaten out of them too. 

We have the duly-constituted means for dealing with that within our public institutions.  The solution is not to ignore common decency in return -- that's precisely what they're after. 

We do have that means -- it's just that it is generally not exercised because the government --- especially local -- always takes the path of least resistance.  And if letting the radicals have their way ends it all quickly, with the least arrests and violence...that's the route they'll take.

But I don't believe that "ignoring common decency" is what the left really wants.  I think that's overthinking it.  They quite simply want to suppress ideas with which they don't agree.

The solution is to make it intolerable for those in authority to do anything except uphold civil discourse and lawful behavior.

That is exactly my point.  I do not view street fights as the end in themselves, but rather as a mechanism to force the government foinally do its job.

What I'm saying is that not fighting back is makes it easiest for the government to do nothing.  There's a conservative rally, the leftists disrupt it, the conservatives go home.  End of story.  No arrests, no violence -- the government can tolerate that indefinitely, and that what has essentially been happening for decades.

But what happens if conservatives fight back in the streets?  Well, then you've got people injured, likely property being destroyed...maybe worse.  And it lasts for much longer than just waiting for the conservatives to slink away.  Maybe hours of embarrassing tape/youtube videos.  So now, you've got a situation that the government cannot tolerate or ignore.  They have to start trying to keep the two groups separate, which means that conservative speakers might actually be protected and have a chance to get heard.  My guess is that when Coulter shows up to speak, there will be a much heavier police presence than when Milo spoke, or at this last rally.  That's the goal.

I'm just sick to death of seeing the free exchange of ideas suppressed by leftist goons.  It got really bad during the campaign, and if something isn't done to reverse it, we're really going to have a hard time speaking in decade or so.  I'd rather just bring things to a head now so that the problem can be addressed before the militant left -- who largely has been raised to believe that they are entitled to a world in which only their views may be heard -- accepts as fact that only they can be permitted to speak.   Because I'm really afraid that if our right to speak isn't protected, that we really might start seeing right-wing groups start disrupting leftist rallies, and nobody who is sane wants us to go down that road as a country.

[driftdiver]

Or, you could just work to make sure that the laws are applied impartially and fairly.  But that's maybe too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Yes and for the last 8 years conservatives have been powerless to do exactly that.  In fact anyone seeking to do so was punished by the Dept of Justice.

But maybe you've been asleep in your utopia for the last 8 years.  When the govt doesn't listen to the people at the ballot box the only alternative is the streets.

[skeeter]

Well, this is ugly.  Both in Berkley and on this board.

My feelings can be summed thus -

I'm NOT sorry this 'girl' received a punch in the face.

I AM sorry the punch was not delivered by a Betty White look alike who just had an M80 thrown by said 'girl' go off in her bonnet.

[Restored]

She did not attack this thug first based on the video released.

How do you know ze identifies as a woman, cisman?

[INVAR]

Your comparison of this event to domestic violence has lost you any and all credibility on the matter.    so all I heard was blah blah blah blah

The justification for man on woman brutality is one and the same.  You can put your fingers in your ears and exclaim 'I can't hear you!' all the day long and it doesn't diminish that fact.

All it does is diminish your masculinity and whatever Christianity you want others to think you espouse.

You do not ever punch a woman in the face if you are a man.  Never.   As I said, there are other ways to restrain an unruly woman.  You do not punch one in the face like that.

Not in my book, or any book carried by someone who claims to be a Christian gentleman.

[driftdiver]

The justification for man on woman brutality is one and the same.  You can put your fingers in your ears and exclaim 'I can't hear you!' all the day long and it doesn't diminish that fact.

All it does is diminish your masculinity and whatever Christianity you want others to think you espouse.

You do not ever punch a woman in the face if you are a man.  Never.   As I said, there are other ways to restrain an unruly woman.  You do not punch one in the face like that.

Not in my book, or any book carried by someone who claims to be a Christian gentleman.

@INVAR
blah blah blah blah

If she wants to be treated like a lady then she should act like one.  People like her have been doing everything they can to destroy this country.  I could care less if she got punched.  Maybe she learned something from it.    You can try twisting the words of God if you want.   Be careful of going full heretical though.

Besides the guy punches like a girl.

[EC]

You do not ever punch a woman in the face if you are a man.  Never.   As I said, there are other ways to restrain an unruly woman.  You do not punch one in the face like that.

I have. The alternative was a large hole in my chest, something I'm not hugely fond of. There's unruly and theres actively dangerous. Just sayin.