Antifa listed as a terrorist organisation in New Jersey

[Liriena]

Implying that there aren't actual far right, white supremacist and self-proclaimed fascists roaming about in the United States right now.

Friendly reminder that New Jersey, at the same time it proclaims antifa a "terrorist organization", also sees far right and white supremacist groups as a threat.

There are, but they're much less public and less chaotic than Antifa is. By definition, both these groups are terrorist groups.

Antifa is not a "group", though. It's a form of protest.

Also, whether they are "less chaotic" is up for debate, given that far right and white supremacist violence so far seem to have taken far more lives than antifa violence.

[United Empire of Humanity]

Chemistry is profitable. And, well, it kind of has established a cultural supremacy, along with physics, biology, and mathematics, over the others. To the point where there are no good remarks against someone in those fields when we get into discussions of "what is science" and they decide to be assholes about it.

Not unjustifiably so. Things like Economics, Sociology, those are all things which are subjective and rely a heavy bit on opinion. Its tough to be a fraud with Mathematics or Chemistry, less so with the others.

True, there's an immediacy to their results that keeps frauds from enduring for long when people are watching.

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

Antifa is not a "group", though. It's a form of protest.

Also, whether they are "less chaotic" is up for debate, given that far right and white supremacist violence so far seem to have taken far more lives than antifa violence.

It is a group, don't try to colour coat it as something different. It's a collection of individual (aka, a group) "protesting" (actually rioting) violently against "fascists" (aka, Trump supporters or Republicans). And no, it's not up to debate, violence is violence, regardless.

[Imperializt Russia]

Antifa is not a "group", though. It's a form of protest.

Also, whether they are "less chaotic" is up for debate, given that far right and white supremacist violence so far seem to have taken far more lives than antifa violence.

It is a group, don't try to colour coat it as something different. It's a collection of individual (aka, a group) "protesting" (actually rioting) violently against "fascists" (aka, Trump supporters or Republicans). And no, it's not up to debate, violence is violence, regardless.

It's not a centrally-organised group though.

Of course it's a group in the basic, meaningless definition of "more than one person". It's not an "organisation", it's a network of individuals and affiliated chapters.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This may have been asked already and if it has, sorry but, what are NJ's parameters for classifying the Antifa as terrorists?

[Liriena]

Antifa is not a "group", though. It's a form of protest.

Also, whether they are "less chaotic" is up for debate, given that far right and white supremacist violence so far seem to have taken far more lives than antifa violence.

It is a group, don't try to colour coat it as something different.

I'm not trying to colour coat it. Antifa is literally not a group, but a method. Calling them a "terrorist organization" is like calling pressure cooking a meal.

It's a collection of individual (aka, a group) "protesting" (actually rioting) violently against "fascists" (aka, Trump supporters or Republicans). And no, it's not up to debate, violence is violence, regardless.

Some Trump supporters are in fact fascists, though. Also, "violence is violence" wasn't your argument in the first place. You said far right and white supremacist violence was "less chaotic" than antifa violence. Which I dispute, based on the fact that far right and white supremacist violence are actually guilty of multiple deaths and a lot more destruction than some smashed windows and burnt trashcans.

[Oldenfranck]

I do slam far lefites and antifa, and I believe rightly so, but we got to remember, this is not all their fault. There are idiots on the far right who literally do the same crap, and I would not label them as terrorists either, since their actions are not severe enough for that, and they got little organization. Sjw's and triggered ones are hecka annoying, but like most other things, they did not just wake up one morning and decide to be that way. There were chains of events that led them to be who they are today, and while they are partially to blame for their overeaction, the ones who started the fire should not be ignored. Most Sjw's mean well, and are striving to do the right thing, and I do respect that to some extent, but I still find them annoying, but there are reasons that they are so.

[United Empire of Humanity]

I do slam far lefites and antifa, and I believe rightly so, but we got to remember, this is not all their fault. There are idiots on the far right who literally do the same crap, and I would not label them as terrorists either, since their actions are not severe enough for that, and they got little organization. Sjw's and triggered ones are hecka annoying, but like most other things, they did not just wake up one morning and decide to be that way. There were chains of events that led them to be who they are today, and while they are partially to blame for their overeaction, the ones who started the fire should not be ignored. Most Sjw's mean well, and are striving to do the right thing, and I do respect that to some extent, but I still find them annoying, but there are reasons that they are so.

AQ'd.

[Liriena]

This may have been asked already and if it has, sorry but, what are NJ's parameters for classifying the Antifa as terrorists?

No idea, to be honest. The NJ Homeland Security website isn't very helpful.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Civil disobedience is not terrorism. Meanwhile white supremacists shoot up churches and commit actual terrorism on a regular basis and the media makes excuses for them.

That's nonsense. For you to label this as "civil disobedience" is absolutely hilarious. Antifa are much more terrorist than what they claim to fight. They're the equivalent of Mexico's Normalistas protesters, who just seek to create social chaos for the name of "good". Plus, I find it completely idiotic that people in the US really think that anything inherently right wing is "fascist". I highly advise people like you and supporters of Antifa to read up on political theory and actually understand their "enemy" instead of creating chaos inside cities and terrorising the civilians who wish to not partake in this tomfoolery.

By your logic the entire civil rights movement of the 60s were terrorists. Maybe if you knew what antifa stands for you wouldn't be so mistaken to call them terrorists.

[Liriena]

I do slam far lefites and antifa, and I believe rightly so, but we got to remember, this is not all their fault. There are idiots on the far right who literally do the same crap, and I would not label them as terrorists either, since their actions are not severe enough for that, and they got little organization. Sjw's and triggered ones are hecka annoying, but like most other things, they did not just wake up one morning and decide to be that way. There were chains of events that led them to be who they are today, and while they are partially to blame for their overeaction, the ones who started the fire should not be ignored. Most Sjw's mean well, and are striving to do the right thing, and I do respect that to some extent, but I still find them annoying, but there are reasons that they are so.

Hey, I like this post!

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

I'm not trying to colour coat it. Antifa is literally not a group, but a method. Calling them a "terrorist organization" is like calling pressure cooking a meal.

Some Trump supporters are in fact fascists, though. Also, "violence is violence" wasn't your argument in the first place. You said far right and white supremacist violence was "less chaotic" than antifa violence. Which I dispute, based on the fact that far right and white supremacist violence are actually guilty of multiple deaths and a lot more destruction than some smashed windows and burnt trashcans.

Hog wash, you're claiming they're not a "group" and that it's a form of protest. It is not, they have nothing unique in their form of "protest". I'm not sure of the criteria used in the US for classifying terror groups, but, really, the US loves to call anything a terror group, so I could careless about that. It's undoubted, however, that both Antifa and some white supremacy sects cause terror to the public.

So? This doesn't make the whole of Trump supporters fascists. So, if some liberal is a communist, this makes all liberals communist? What a petty train of thought. A murder is less chaotic than hooliganism given that murders are less disruptive for the general public (unless it's a shootout). This is what I mean by chaotic.

By your logic the entire civil rights movement of the 60s were terrorists. Maybe if you knew what antifa stands for you wouldn't be so mistaken to call them terrorists.

Irrelevant. And they were classified as terrorists by the US government. Not that I agree with it, but they were classified as such. And no, I really already know what Antifa stands for. Clearly for promoting social chaos and disharmony over a hissy fit about the loss of an election.

[Impaled Nazarene]

I'm not trying to colour coat it. Antifa is literally not a group, but a method. Calling them a "terrorist organization" is like calling pressure cooking a meal.

Some Trump supporters are in fact fascists, though. Also, "violence is violence" wasn't your argument in the first place. You said far right and white supremacist violence was "less chaotic" than antifa violence. Which I dispute, based on the fact that far right and white supremacist violence are actually guilty of multiple deaths and a lot more destruction than some smashed windows and burnt trashcans.

Hog wash, you're claiming they're not a "group" and that it's a form of protest. It is not, they have nothing unique in their form of "protest". I'm not sure of the criteria used in the US for classifying terror groups, but, really, the US loves to call anything a terror group, so I could careless about that. It's undoubted, however, that both Antifa and some white supremacy sects cause terror to the public.

So? This doesn't make the whole of Trump supporters fascists. So, if some liberal is a communist, this makes all liberals communist? What a petty train of thought. A murder is less chaotic than hooliganism given that murders are less disruptive for the general public (unless it's a shootout). This is what I mean by chaotic.

By your logic the entire civil rights movement of the 60s were terrorists. Maybe if you knew what antifa stands for you wouldn't be so mistaken to call them terrorists.

Irrelevant. And they were classified as terrorists by the US government. Not that I agree with it, but they were classified as such. And no, I really already know what Antifa stands for. Clearly for promoting social chaos and disharmony over a hissy fit about the loss of an election.

No, not irrelevant. In both cases the government is wrong. 'Social Chaos' because the first amendment is a fucking lie obviously, come on you can say it: Freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

[Oldenfranck]

I do slam far lefites and antifa, and I believe rightly so, but we got to remember, this is not all their fault. There are idiots on the far right who literally do the same crap, and I would not label them as terrorists either, since their actions are not severe enough for that, and they got little organization. Sjw's and triggered ones are hecka annoying, but like most other things, they did not just wake up one morning and decide to be that way. There were chains of events that led them to be who they are today, and while they are partially to blame for their overeaction, the ones who started the fire should not be ignored. Most Sjw's mean well, and are striving to do the right thing, and I do respect that to some extent, but I still find them annoying, but there are reasons that they are so.

Hey, I like this post!

Thank you, I just felt like it had to be said because lately people have been calling out far left hypocrisies, which are a thing, but in the process have been forgetting similar hypocrisies of the far right.

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

No, not irrelevant. In both cases the government is wrong. 'Social Chaos' because the first amendment is a fucking lie obviously, come on you can say it: Freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

The first amendment says that you can say anything you damn well please. I believe you can do that. As far as I know, you may assemble with anyone and anywhere as long as you're not disrupting the rights of others to do so. So, while a protest against a rally of Trump supporters is all well and good, forming a group to attack said rally is not. Rights are a two way street, something Antifa and supporters clearly do not understand.

[Liriena]

I'm not trying to colour coat it. Antifa is literally not a group, but a method. Calling them a "terrorist organization" is like calling pressure cooking a meal.

Some Trump supporters are in fact fascists, though. Also, "violence is violence" wasn't your argument in the first place. You said far right and white supremacist violence was "less chaotic" than antifa violence. Which I dispute, based on the fact that far right and white supremacist violence are actually guilty of multiple deaths and a lot more destruction than some smashed windows and burnt trashcans.

Hog wash, you're claiming they're not a "group" and that it's a form of protest. It is not, they have nothing unique in their form of "protest".

You disagree. That's fine, but don't act like our disagreement is rooted in my somehow being dishonest.

So? This doesn't make the whole of Trump supporters fascists.

Never said they were.

So, if some liberal is a communist, this makes all liberals communist?

A liberal being a communist is rather oxymoronic from the get go, so...

What a petty train of thought.

Good thing that was not my actual train of thought, eh?

A murder is less chaotic than hooliganism given that murders are less disruptive for the general public (unless it's a shootout). This is what I mean by chaotic.

So terrorism is not chaotic when it's murder, but it is when it's vandalism...? Because vandalism is somehow more disruptive for the general public than murder...?

What?

And no, I really already know what Antifa stands for. Clearly for promoting social chaos and disharmony over a hissy fit about the loss of an election.

The latter sentence proves the former wrong. A lot of people involved in antifa protests are anarchists, meaning that they probably don't vote at all, and almost definitely hate the Democrats as much as they hate the Republicans. Also, what antifa primarily stands for is literally in its name: anti-fascism. They are not a bunch of Heath Ledger's Joker clones.

[Kubra]

I'm not trying to colour coat it. Antifa is literally not a group, but a method. Calling them a "terrorist organization" is like calling pressure cooking a meal.

Some Trump supporters are in fact fascists, though. Also, "violence is violence" wasn't your argument in the first place. You said far right and white supremacist violence was "less chaotic" than antifa violence. Which I dispute, based on the fact that far right and white supremacist violence are actually guilty of multiple deaths and a lot more destruction than some smashed windows and burnt trashcans.

Hog wash, you're claiming they're not a "group" and that it's a form of protest. It is not, they have nothing unique in their form of "protest". I'm not sure of the criteria used in the US for classifying terror groups, but, really, the US loves to call anything a terror group, so I could careless about that. It's undoubted, however, that both Antifa and some white supremacy sects cause terror to the public.

So? This doesn't make the whole of Trump supporters fascists. So, if some liberal is a communist, this makes all liberals communist? What a petty train of thought. A murder is less chaotic than hooliganism given that murders are less disruptive for the general public (unless it's a shootout). This is what I mean by chaotic.

By your logic the entire civil rights movement of the 60s were terrorists. Maybe if you knew what antifa stands for you wouldn't be so mistaken to call them terrorists.

Irrelevant. And they were classified as terrorists by the US government. Not that I agree with it, but they were classified as such. And no, I really already know what Antifa stands for. Clearly for promoting social chaos and disharmony over a hissy fit about the loss of an election.

and why is them not being a group hogwash

[Impaled Nazarene]

No, not irrelevant. In both cases the government is wrong. 'Social Chaos' because the first amendment is a fucking lie obviously, come on you can say it: Freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

The first amendment says that you can say anything you damn well please. I believe you can do that. As far as I know, you may assemble with anyone and anywhere as long as you're not disrupting the rights of others to do so. So, while a protest against a rally of Trump supporters is all well and good, forming a group to attack said rally is not. Rights are a two way street, something Antifa and supporters clearly do not understand.

Counter-protests are not illegal. Especially in the United States. Saying antifa doesn't understand two way streets is a bit hypocritical when the right doesn't either.

[Kramania]

Yes. They use political violence and intimidation, they want to suppress free speech, etc.

It does give flashbacks to the Brownshirts.

Brownshirts did not invent political violence and intimidation. Your reductio ad Hitlerum is pathetic and grossly ignorant of the history of political violence, which in its modern form predates the Nazis by at least several decades.

I have not claimed, in any way, shape, or form that the Nazis invented modern political violence. If you can quote me saying that in a single post then I will literally shit myself. I'm merely pointing out the irony that the so-called "Antifascists" use tactics employed by actual fascists.

Really? Because I've seen you make excuses for them in the past. And don't give me that "trying to understand their point of view" crap.

If that's the meaning you derived from my posts, that's your problem, not mine. If you think I'm being dishonest about my position, you are free to say it to my (virtual) face.

Very well.

*ahem*

I think you are being dishonest about your positions.

You're right. It's also a tactic used by socialists.

The more you talk, the more your bias and historical ignorance (or dishonesty) show.

You mean to tell me socialists (and other forms of Marxists) didn't seize power via violence and didn't use political violence to achieve their aims?

Wow.

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

You disagree. That's fine, but don't act like our disagreement is rooted in my somehow being dishonest.

Never said they were.

A liberal being a communist is rather oxymoronic from the get go, so...

Good thing that was not my actual train of thought, eh?

So terrorism is not chaotic when it's murder, but it is when it's vandalism...? Because vandalism is somehow more disruptive for the general public than murder...?

What?

The latter sentence proves the former wrong. A lot of people involved in antifa protests are anarchists, meaning that they probably don't vote at all, and almost definitely hate the Democrats as much as they hate the Republicans. Also, what antifa primarily stands for is literally in its name: anti-fascism. They are not a bunch of Heath Ledger's Joker clones.

Valid, I agree to disagree, although, by definition, they are.

Surely seemed like it.

True, but in these days, I'm not surprised to hear this.

Neato, if you say so.

Terrorism is chaotic. And of course, it depends on the method of murder used. Sometimes, they can be equally disruptive. Nonetheless, I see your point. An argument fallacy on my part.

Certainly doesn't seem that way.

Counter-protests are not illegal. Especially in the United States. Saying antifa doesn't understand two way streets is a bit hypocritical when the right doesn't either.

Never said they were. In fact, reread my statement. I said they were perfectly acceptable. However, they are illegal when violence begins. It applies on both sides, since they no longer are protest, but riots instead. And, let's be honest, both sides are hypocritical.

[Imperializt Russia]

The more you talk, the more your bias and historical ignorance (or dishonesty) show.

You mean to tell me socialists (and other forms of Marxists) didn't seize power via violence and didn't use political violence to achieve their aims?

Wow.

Marxism is a socialist ideology. Not the other way around. Marx obviously never did, but the Marxist-Leninists of the Russian revolution obviously did. Marxist-Leninism is a strain of authoritarian socialism that holds there must be a violent overthrow of the existing state organs and to replace them with a series of socialist party and worker organs to begin the long road to communism.

Marxist-Leninism was the socialist ideology widely exported. It's far from the only socialist ideology, that's just ignorant in its narrow view.

[Mongeley]

"Our" people are listed as a terrorist organisation. Street cred.

"Street cred".

ISIS and the KKK are listed as terrorist organizations too, what's your point?

It's ridiculous that "our" LARPers are terrorists, when their opposition dresses like medieval knights.

[Liriena]

Brownshirts did not invent political violence and intimidation. Your reductio ad Hitlerum is pathetic and grossly ignorant of the history of political violence, which in its modern form predates the Nazis by at least several decades.

I have not claimed, in any way, shape, or form that the Nazis invented modern political violence. If you can quote me saying that in a single post then I will literally shit myself. I'm merely pointing out the irony that the so-called "Antifascists" use tactics employed by actual fascists.

And fascists employed tactics previously employed by non-fascists. Yet you didn't choose to compare antifa to those past forms of political violence. You chose to try and equate people who use violence against fascists with actual fascists, acting like political violence is essentially fascist, which it isn't. It's a profoundly disingenuous point on your part.

If that's the meaning you derived from my posts, that's your problem, not mine. If you think I'm being dishonest about my position, you are free to say it to my (virtual) face.

Very well.

*ahem*

I think you are being dishonest about your positions.

Good. And here's my retort: I'm not being dishonest. I don't think minor acts of vandalism and assault are some sort of great national or international outrage worthy of this sort of pearl-clutching moral panic I'm seeing, but that doesn't mean I think they are good, necessary or effective actions. They definitely aren't. Wanting to disrupt far right violence and intimidation through counter-protests is a good goal, and one I strongly support, but smashing a random window and hitting random people is not, in my opinion, how you accomplish this. One reason why I'm very sympathetic towards anarchism is that I believe that anarchists are often quite effective in terms of praxis, much more so than other groups, but some of the actions taken by people involved in antifa protests and counter-protests have not been anywhere near close to effective praxis.

The more you talk, the more your bias and historical ignorance (or dishonesty) show.

You mean to tell me socialists (and other forms of Marxists) didn't seize power via violence and didn't use political violence to achieve their aims?

Wow.

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

The meaning of my comment was that it's clear to me you are either purposefully erasing inconvenient historical examples of political violence, or you are genuinely unaware of them. And I say that, because you keep acting like political violence strictly belongs to specific ideologies you personally oppose, which is false. Every single ideology and political movement has at some point used political violence. Monarchists and republicans, liberals and conservatives, catholics and protestants, communists and anti-communists. Communists and anarchists often resorted to violence in the early 20th century, but so did nationalist and conservative paramilitaries. Latin American history is filled to the brim with political violence from all sides of the spectrum, from fascists to capitalists to communists, and movements from all sides of the spectrum seizing power via violence (military coups leading to far right dictatorships, armed rebellions leading to communist regimes, etc.).

You are desperately trying to turn left-wing political violence into somehow synonymous with fascism, which only works if you either don't know or pretend to not know that political violence predates fascism, has never been exclusive to fascism, and is not in essence fascist. This is made all the more blatant when it comes to antifa violence, for two main reasons: first, antifa violence exists precisely as an anti-fascist reaction, so claiming that antifa violence is essentially fascist is akin to saying that the beheading of King Louis XVI is essentially monarchist because the monarchy decapitated people too; and second, given that many people who associate themselves with antifa are anarchists, and anarchist violence predates fascism, that's another hole in your very, very selective memory.

[Vassenor]

Clearly for promoting social chaos and disharmony over a hissy fit about the loss of an election.

[citation needed]

Because it totally can't be about what the government has done since the election. Has to just be a bunch of childish sore losers because that's easier to attack.

[Mongeley]

Irrelevant. And they were classified as terrorists by the US government. Not that I agree with it, but they were classified as such. And no, I really already know what Antifa stands for. Clearly for promoting social chaos and disharmony over a hissy fit about the loss of an election.

Anti-fascists are not in favor of the Democratic party.