I imagine that for many people this year’s Oscars ceremony was the first opportunity to witness a land acknowledgment. The actor, screenwriter, and director Taika Waititi addressed the audience and announced the names of several indigenous peoples who once populated the land that is now called Los Angeles, and acknowledged that once upon a time the land was theirs. The land acknowledgement is a way to honor indigenous ways of life that are now largely gone, ground under the wheels of Manifest Destiny. This may seem like an odd undertaking to the uninitiated, but they are common at academic conferences and activist gatherings, and I have seen hundreds in my life. Some go so far as to post them in their email signatures or Twitter bios, which perhaps stretches the concept of land a bit far but otherwise demonstrates the commitment people have to the practice. Like so many other things progressives do these days, the practice is ritualistic. That is, it is performed to be performed rather than for any other purpose.
"Is it OK for antifa to beat people up at a protest? I don’t know, which people, which protest, and most importantly, for what specific and immediate material purpose?"
^This is nothing less than condoning violence by the bottom-dwellers in our society.
"The problem with antifa tactics is not that they are dangerous. The problem is exactly that, in today’s worlds with today’s enemies, they are not dangerous."
^Burning public buildings down, shooting fireworks and throwing frozen water bottles/bottles full of piss at cops, and chasing down "Nazis" (as in people who hold views asymmetrical to their own, which of course equates to "violence" in progressive lala land) don't constitute dangerous? Do you think Andy Ngo was in danger?
"Is it OK for antifa to beat people up at a protest? I don’t know, which people, which protest, and most importantly, for what specific and immediate material purpose?"
^This is nothing less than condoning violence by the bottom-dwellers in our society.
"The problem with antifa tactics is not that they are dangerous. The problem is exactly that, in today’s worlds with today’s enemies, they are not dangerous."
^Burning public buildings down, shooting fireworks and throwing frozen water bottles/bottles full of piss at cops, and chasing down "Nazis" (as in people who hold views asymmetrical to their own, which of course equates to "violence" in progressive lala land) don't constitute dangerous? Do you think Andy Ngo was in danger?