Antifa listed as a terrorist organisation in New Jersey

[Hirota]

Rather pedantic.

If you are going to get irritated by a word getting excessively broad then perhaps consider how excessively broad the forementioned snarl words have become. Alt-right is increasingly used to describe anyone who doesn't agree with the far left wing groupthink, which devalues it's use. If everyone is considered alt-right outside the echo chamber, then far-right as a term is meaningless.

Apologies for bringing it up. I know how irritating it can be for some people. Don't want a threadjack on it.
Look at how many in the media have attempted to link Gamergate with the alt-right, in spite of the fact that the few attempts to look into the demographics of Gamergate finds it broadly left-leaning.

In reflection however, I'd add "regressive left" as an overused snarl word, and one for a couple of weeks I had a habit of overusing. You could add SJW to that too. So yeah, the left is hardly the only one to overuse snarl words, and I apologise if that was somehow implied.

Getting back to Terrorism as a word, yeah it is a vague definition, but the shoe still fits. How would you improve it?

[War Gears]

Maybe 5 or 6 more. I dunno, could do 7.

Its never enough for a country that can actually win wars.

The only problem is we hide it behind a thin veneer of humanitarianism instead of openly pursuing our own ends & interests.

[Nocturnalis]

Saying mean things is worse than beating people up, didn't you know that?!

I love how you felt the need to conceal the sort of speech I was denouncing beneath such petulant language. Why, did you think that your argument would be weakened if you said "Supporting genocide" instead of "Saying mean things"?

No, it's because acknowledging the statement you made as anything other than petulant, tribalistic whining is leagues above my paygrade. But I will indulge, for the sake of argument.

If Richard Spencer held any relevant degree of political power, I would be inclined to agree with you. Someone, with the power to command others on a significant scale, endorsing violence is capable of enacting such violence on the populace, and such a case warrants violence in return. Similarly, had Spencer actually tried to go through with his statements and begin murdering others, then there is justification for use of force. But Spencer does not nor has not, and "ethnic cleansing" is not something a lot of people would agree with, even among the right (shocking, I know!). Political violence is the far greater threat than some guy espousing abhorrent policies - the key is that the vast majority of people (today at least) can ignore someone calling for ethnic cleansing, whereas it is considerably more difficult to ignore a punch in the face or a knife to the gut. Beating someone up for saying something, no matter abhorrent it is, sets the dangerous precedent that political violence is okay. And considering Antifa's rather broad definition of "fascism" (they are anarchists, after all; rational thought is not their forte), the implications are pretty horrifying.

Besides, do you really want to create a martyr for the alt-right?

and would very much prefer it if people worried about far right violence and intimidation

We can worry about both, ya know.

[Mattopilos II]

Getting back to Terrorism as a word, yeah it is a vague definition, but the shoe still fits. How would you improve it?

I haven't seen them bomb buildings, kill civilians, etc. If you claim them as terrorists, it is likely due to some form of pick and choose. As you said, terrorism is a vague term, since it has so much links to politics, which itself can get blurry, and very muddy.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, legitimising fascist and nationalist rhetoric, and literally empowering it, makes you complicit in fascist and nationalist governance and actions.

All those people that empowered the NSDAP in 1932 due to their "legitimate economic concerns" were complicit in the fascist takeover of Germany a year later.

Can't tell if this is a real argument or satire.

Oh, it's real.

Yes, legitimising fascist and nationalist rhetoric, and literally empowering it, makes you complicit in fascist and nationalist governance and actions.

If we're talking about Trump, sure he's a nationalist but talking about fascism is irrelevant as he is not that.

Oh please, America's already concerning for how many of the "fascist state indicators" it ticks off. Trump's open hostility to (and hypocrisy by later courting) the economic elites is also a hallmark of fascism, as are his constant attacks on the press.
In the sense that he and his supporters are (as Wikipedia describes fascism): "opposed to liberalism, socialism and anarchism" and on the "far-right", then surely by other arguments in this thread "the shoe fits".

All those people that empowered the NSDAP in 1932 due to their "legitimate economic concerns" were complicit in the fascist takeover of Germany a year later.

Completely irrelevant and borderline fallacious. Also, fascists never took over Germany, National Socialism and Fascism are two completely different ideologies.

The fascists did take over Germany, as Nazism is a fascist ideology. Violent oppression of opposition parties, dictatorial rule, control of the press and direction of both public and private industry, extreme nationalism. The only difference it has from "fascism" more generally is its focus on ethnonationalism and racial purity as opposed to "nationalism" generically in fascism, and fascists' desire to really not be associated with that.

[Gauthier]

Antifa today, liberals tomorrow, Democrats the day after that.

[Kennlind]

Any organized group using violence to further political goals should be declared a terrorist group. Never mind, that would (formally) make the CIA, FBI, NSA and US Military terrorists...

Antifa today, liberals tomorrow, Democrats the day after that.

this is *VERY* smart

[Vassenor]

Any organized group using violence to further political goals should be declared a terrorist group. Never mind, that would (formally) make the CIA, FBI, NSA and US Military terrorists...

Antifa today, liberals tomorrow, Democrats the day after that.

this is *VERY* smart

Why?

[Kennlind]

Any organized group using violence to further political goals should be declared a terrorist group. Never mind, that would (formally) make the CIA, FBI, NSA and US Military terrorists...

this is *VERY* smart

Why?

they are agents of US imperialism and have killed many millions of people to cement their influence

[Vassenor]

Why?

they are agents of US imperialism and have killed many millions of people to cement their influence

I meant the second part. Why is declaring one of the two main political parties in America to be a terrorist organisation a smart idea?

[Kennlind]

they are agents of US imperialism and have killed many millions of people to cement their influence

I meant the second part. Why is declaring one of the two main political parties in America to be a terrorist organisation a smart idea?

I was being ironic. Thinking that they're ever going to ban any of the main political parties, and any of the larger third parties, is incredibly stupid.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Antifa today, liberals tomorrow, Democrats the day after that.

What.

[Liriena]

Rather pedantic.

If you are going to get irritated by a word getting excessively broad then perhaps consider how excessively broad the forementioned snarl words have become. Alt-right is increasingly used to describe anyone who doesn't agree with the far left wing groupthink, which devalues it's use. If everyone is considered alt-right outside the echo chamber, then far-right as a term is meaningless.

I do hope your phrasing is hyperbolic, because otherwise it borders on delusional, given that people who don't agree with far-left ideas would include: liberals, social democrats, libertarians, conservatives, centrists, democratic socialists, progressives...

Are you seriously arguing that all those groups are increasingly being described as "alt-right", or are you just being hyperbolic?

Apologies for bringing it up. I know how irritating it can be for some people. Don't want a threadjack on it.
Look at how many in the media have attempted to link Gamergate with the alt-right, in spite of the fact that the few attempts to look into the demographics of Gamergate finds it broadly left-leaning.

That was actually very insightful. Thanks.

In reflection however, I'd add "regressive left" as an overused snarl word, and one for a couple of weeks I had a habit of overusing. You could add SJW to that too. So yeah, the left is hardly the only one to overuse snarl words, and I apologise if that was somehow implied.

I appreciate that.

Getting back to Terrorism as a word, yeah it is a vague definition, but the shoe still fits. How would you improve it?

I couldn't say for sure, but maybe a good place to start would be determining whether the group in question actually has the will and the capacity to pose an existential threat to the general population, or to a specific gender, religious group, ethnic group, race, sexual orientation, etc. That is, whether that group has the will and capacity to actually, systematically kill or grievously injure others.

[Liriena]

I love how you felt the need to conceal the sort of speech I was denouncing beneath such petulant language. Why, did you think that your argument would be weakened if you said "Supporting genocide" instead of "Saying mean things"?

No, it's because acknowledging the statement you made as anything other than petulant, tribalistic whining is leagues above my paygrade. But I will indulge, for the sake of argument.

If Richard Spencer held any relevant degree of political power, I would be inclined to agree with you. Someone, with the power to command others on a significant scale, endorsing violence is capable of enacting such violence on the populace, and such a case warrants violence in return. Similarly, had Spencer actually tried to go through with his statements and begin murdering others, then there is justification for use of force. But Spencer does not nor has not, and "ethnic cleansing" is not something a lot of people would agree with, even among the right (shocking, I know!). Political violence is the far greater threat than some guy espousing abhorrent policies - the key is that the vast majority of people (today at least) can ignore someone calling for ethnic cleansing, whereas it is considerably more difficult to ignore a punch in the face or a knife to the gut. Beating someone up for saying something, no matter abhorrent it is, sets the dangerous precedent that political violence is okay. And considering Antifa's rather broad definition of "fascism" (they are anarchists, after all; rational thought is not their forte), the implications are pretty horrifying.

Besides, do you really want to create a martyr for the alt-right?

and would very much prefer it if people worried about far right violence and intimidation

We can worry about both, ya know.

You made a fair point, but as someone with anarchist sympathies I take offense at the underlined.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you are going to get irritated by a word getting excessively broad then perhaps consider how excessively broad the forementioned snarl words have become. Alt-right is increasingly used to describe anyone who doesn't agree with the far left wing groupthink, which devalues it's use. If everyone is considered alt-right outside the echo chamber, then far-right as a term is meaningless.

I do hope your phrasing is hyperbolic, because otherwise it borders on delusional, given that people who don't agree with far-left ideas would include: liberals, social democrats, libertarians, conservatives, centrists, democratic socialists, progressives...

Are you seriously arguing that all those groups are increasingly being described as "alt-right", or are you just being hyperbolic?

I dunno, judging by the ideology war going in the UK Labour Party, democratic socialism/social democracy are indeed "too far left".

[Minoa]

On the same day the released this: https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/anal ... cy-in-2017

It seems they are concerned about using political beliefs in general to commit violence and “dox” relatively unknown persons of opposing ideology.

However, the real threat to America is the Sovereign Citizen movement, an informal group of people who believe that the law of the land doesn’t apply to them.

[Liriena]

I do hope your phrasing is hyperbolic, because otherwise it borders on delusional, given that people who don't agree with far-left ideas would include: liberals, social democrats, libertarians, conservatives, centrists, democratic socialists, progressives...

Are you seriously arguing that all those groups are increasingly being described as "alt-right", or are you just being hyperbolic?

I dunno, judging by the ideology war going in the UK Labour Party, democratic socialism/social democracy are indeed "too far left".

Corbyn will nationalize outer space while riding his Mao-style bicycle! You'll see!

[Imperializt Russia]

I dunno, judging by the ideology war going in the UK Labour Party, democratic socialism/social democracy are indeed "too far left".

Corbyn will nationalize outer space while riding his Mao-style bicycle! You'll see!

#StalinAdjacentWeatherBalloon

[Minoa]

In reflection however, I'd add "regressive left" as an overused snarl word, and one for a couple of weeks I had a habit of overusing. You could add SJW to that too. So yeah, the left is hardly the only one to overuse snarl words, and I apologise if that was somehow implied.

I am trying to find an alternative and more faithful term to use instead of SJWs, since the alternative media use them as a term of abuse against anyone who is anti-discrimination, pro-LGBT, etc, but there are still left-leaning activists who use direct action that I would never even think of (because of poor health). You know, like the direct actions from the activist side of Greenpeace?

Getting back to Terrorism as a word, yeah it is a vague definition, but the shoe still fits. How would you improve it?

Radicalism?

[Katganistan]

I don't care what your justification or ideology is: if it involves physical violence against people exercising their freedom of speech, no matter how repugnant, ignorant and infuriating what they say is, YOU are a thug and a criminal.

I despise Richard Spencer and what he has to say but punching him in the face during an interview is nothing but thuggery.

[Kennlind]

On the same day the released this: https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/anal ... cy-in-2017

It seems they are concerned about using political beliefs in general to commit violence and “dox” relatively unknown persons of opposing ideology.

However, the real threat to America is the Sovereign Citizen movement, an informal group of people who believe that the law of the land doesn’t apply to them.

The real threats to America are your own government, AntiFa terrorists, white supremacist terrorists and radical Islamic terrorists. It's incredibly delusional to believe there is one single real threat.

[Frank Zipper]

Now only Chris Christie, and his family, can fight fascism.

[Minoa]

On the same day the released this: https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/anal ... cy-in-2017

It seems they are concerned about using political beliefs in general to commit violence and “dox” relatively unknown persons of opposing ideology.

However, the real threat to America is the Sovereign Citizen movement, an informal group of people who believe that the law of the land doesn’t apply to them.

The real threats to America are your own government, AntiFa terrorists, white supremacist terrorists and radical Islamic terrorists. It's incredibly delusional to believe there is one single real threat.

My source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... government

A 2014 national survey of 175 law enforcement agencies ranked sovereign citizens, not Islamic terrorists, as the most pressing terrorist threat. The survey ranked Islamic terrorists a close second, with the following top three threats all domestic in origin and sometimes overlapping: the militia movement, racist skinheads, and the neo-Nazi movement.

[Katganistan]

Tomorrow, drunk teenagers are terrorists.

I'm not sure if you're serious or joking. The only thing drunk teenagers terrorize is Twitter at two in the morning.

I thought he tweeted at 6am?

[Katganistan]

You mean the idiot who died in that mini shootout?

Forgot his name.

St. LaVoy Finicum died that you might have snacks eternal.

Week, seriously, wtf was that. "We're having a siege, but since we survivalists didn't bring in enough food we're making a run to the grocery store."

Not exactly a brilliant plan.