Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Conservative New America]

> if we know fascists are going to hold a rally

Stop right fucking there.

The whole poiint of free speech is the ability to say things that are considered offensive. That's why all of the landmark First Amendment SCOTUS cases are about (you guessed it) things that are offensive in some way or another, including actual neo-nazi rallies (not just Trump rallies, which contrary to certain dumbasses are not neo-nazi rallies).

The moment you start beating people on the presumption of wrongthink is the moment you stop being "protective" and start being thugs.

The most ironic thing is that antifa like activity has happened before. The Red Guards of the PRC Cultural Revolution and SA of the actual Nazis.

gg "antifa".

Oh here we go again with the "Antifa are the real fascists" spiel.

If you believe in free speech then Antifa has to be allowed to exist too.

Your right to free speech and assembly ends when you unlawfully injure others or to intentionally goad a fight, or cause imminent lawless action such as beating someone with a bike lock. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Brandenberg v Ohio.

Ironically enough the former case involved another egghead calling people fascists too.

[Nova Cyberia]

Why? Terrorists have no right to exist.

So you agree the Proud Boys and the like have no right to exist?

Yeah, sure.

I don't care.

Now, do you have anything besides this pathetic whataboutism?

[Fahran]

Why wouldn't it be self-defence? If we know that fascists are going to hold a rally and we know that there is often violence at such rallies, can we not go to that rally with the intention of protecting people from the fascists?

So the Proud Boys are a self-defense organization then? I really don't think you'll like the logical conclusion of applying this argument consistently.

Beyond that, it's a bad argument. We know that some people associated with Antifa, and probably the majority of the people bringing weapons to demonstrations, intend to engage in violence. They're going with the explicit intention of committing violent felonies. Stop making apologies for it. It's dishonest and evil.

For the police, sure.

For the public.

Yes, you are classing people as the aggressors not because they are actually instigating violence, but because they are dressed a certain way or are carry weapons. This is absurd.

I'm categorizing people as aggressors because the same group of people, often exhibiting that same sorts of behaviors, have instigated violence in the past and are likely looking to instigate violence again. And I hold that standard universally, whereas you seem to apply it selectively based on whether or not the aggressive group upholds your vague ideology. So quit it.

Debatable, but you're missing my point. I'm not saying that anti-fascists are never the aggressors. I'm saying that you are wrong to characterise them as being the aggressors because of how they dress or the fact that they are sometimes armed.

No, not debatable. At all. If it is, I would like you to demonstrate how Ngo was a credible and immediate threat to the people that accosted and assaulted him. Doxxing someone after the fact doesn't count.

I'm characterizing people who come looking to start trouble as aggressors. The people at Patriots Prayer were aggressors for the same reason. They should all have been arrested if they had weapons and were acting in a coordinated way to use them or get ready to use them. Otherwise, we could argue the fine people from Patriots Prayer stashing guns on the roof were simply protecting themselves and expressing their 2nd Amendment rights, but that'd be silly.

I wouldn't say that Proud Boys are automatically the aggressors based on how they dress or what they carry either. I would say that they are the aggressors if they are the ones starting fights, which tends to be how they roll. Stop using shit reasoning and I'll stop criticising your shit reasoning. Or, you know, I'll get bored eventually and do something else.

I would categorize the Proud Boys as aggressors too. People who go to protests looking to brawl aren't innocent victims, and you need to quit treating them like innocent victims. You can do something else any time you want.

It's entirely possible to go to a rally intending to get in a fight because you know that someone else there will start a fight and you plan to get involved to protect people. You know, by hurting the aggressor until they stop hurting other people. Kinda how violence works.

Yeah... I don't trust the motives of people who bring bats to a protest and who conceal their identities. I don't condone street violence in any shape or form. I don't make excuses for it or apologies for those who engage in it. They're thugs at best and terrorists at worst. And the self-defense argument doesn't hold water when the mere presence of weapons on both sides, using the same reasoning, makes everyone there less safe.

My distrust of the police is based on how they have shown themselves not to be neutral in enforcing the law, but show favour to right wingers. Many law enforcement officers are far-right extremists themselves.

It seems to me their response was neutral. Antifa got to bring their weapons and so did Patriot Prayer. My opinion is that neither of them should get to nakedly flaunt weapons in public because they tend to get frisky with one another when they do.

People organising to do anti-fascism doesn't make antifa an organisation.

Again with the dishonest semantics. Antifa isn't an organization. It's a label. Hence why this bill is silly. That doesn't mean we can't infiltrate Facebook groups, associations, and local organizations that employ that name if they are shown to repeatedly break the law - in much the same way as we do with street gangs, militias, or white nationalist groups. And, yes, Antifa can refer to organizations if we use the term broadly.

"An organization or organisation is an entity comprising multiple people, such as an institution or an association, that has a particular purpose."

[Aclion]

> if we know fascists are going to hold a rally

Stop right fucking there.

The whole poiint of free speech is the ability to say things that are considered offensive. That's why all of the landmark First Amendment SCOTUS cases are about (you guessed it) things that are offensive in some way or another, including actual neo-nazi rallies (not just Trump rallies, which contrary to certain dumbasses are not neo-nazi rallies).

The moment you start beating people on the presumption of wrongthink is the moment you stop being "protective" and start being thugs.

The most ironic thing is that antifa like activity has happened before. The Red Guards of the PRC Cultural Revolution and SA of the actual Nazis.

gg "antifa".

Oh here we go again with the "Antifa are the real fascists" spiel.

If you believe in free speech then Antifa has to be allowed to exist too.

Violence is not free speech.

[Vassenor]

Oh here we go again with the "Antifa are the real fascists" spiel.

If you believe in free speech then Antifa has to be allowed to exist too.

Violence is not free speech.

So you agree that groups like the Proud Boys are terrorists too then.

[Nova Cyberia]

Violence is not free speech.

So you agree that groups like the Proud Boys are terrorists too then.

Whataboutism Part 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Torrocca]

Oh here we go again with the "Antifa are the real fascists" spiel.

If you believe in free speech then Antifa has to be allowed to exist too.

Violence is not free speech.

Violence isn't free speech, but you sure as shit need violence to protect free speech from those that'd do away with it if the opportunity arose, like, say, the fascists that AntiFA opposes.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Violence is not free speech.

So you agree that groups like the Proud Boys are terrorists too then.

Everyone has said yes. Stop with the whataboutism.

[ElCKuT]

It's impossible to label a social movement as a terrorist organization. Social movements are not organizations, they are an action. With that aside, this move will only lump all antifa groups into 1 label, which is wrong.

[Conservative New America]

Violence is not free speech.

So you agree that groups like the Proud Boys are terrorists too then.

If they systematically assault people like antifa does, then yes.

I don't care who's getting dunked on, politically motivated violence is not good.

I may think you're a total fucking dumbass for claiming Trump is a fascist but I will defend your right to say so without being trampled on, *unless* you are the one doing it.

Then your ass is grass.

[Nova Cyberia]

So you agree that groups like the Proud Boys are terrorists too then.

Everyone has said yes. Stop with the whataboutism.

bUt ThE prOuD bOys

[Vassenor]

So you agree that groups like the Proud Boys are terrorists too then.

If they systematically assault people like antifa does, then yes.

I don't care who's getting dunked on, politically motivated violence is not good.

I may think you're a total fucking dumbass for claiming Trump is a fascist but I will defend your right to say so without being trampled on, *unless* you are the one doing it.

Then your ass is grass.

>systematically assault

Well I guess there's easier ways to admit you're bullshitting.

[Nova Cyberia]

It's impossible to label a social movement as a terrorist organization. Social movements are not organizations, they are an action. With that aside, this move will only lump all antifa groups into 1 label, which is wrong.

You aren't DOS yet?

Wow

[ElCKuT]

It's impossible to label a social movement as a terrorist organization. Social movements are not organizations, they are an action. With that aside, this move will only lump all antifa groups into 1 label, which is wrong.

You aren't DOS yet?

Wow

Nope

[ElCKuT]

Vass, sense when were the Proud Boys terrorists? Besides, this thread's about antifa, not the Proud Boys.

[Nova Cyberia]

Vass, sense when were the Proud Boys terrorists? Besides, this thread's about antifa, not the Proud Boys.

Because it's a deflection.

[Page]

Vass, sense when were the Proud Boys terrorists? Besides, this thread's about antifa, not the Proud Boys.

Any rationale that is used to call antifa terrorists applies to Proud Boys. There is no logically consistent way to deem antifa terrorists but Proud Boys not.

[Nova Cyberia]

Vass, sense when were the Proud Boys terrorists? Besides, this thread's about antifa, not the Proud Boys.

Any rationale that is used to call antifa terrorists applies to Proud Boys. There is no logically consistent way to deem antifa terrorists but Proud Boys not.

So we can all agree that Antifa are terrorists, then?

[EastKekistan]

Vass, sense when were the Proud Boys terrorists? Besides, this thread's about antifa, not the Proud Boys.

Neither qualifies as terrorists. To be terrorists they need to have a higher body count than at least the Khorasan province of ISIS.

[Torrocca]

Any rationale that is used to call antifa terrorists applies to Proud Boys. There is no logically consistent way to deem antifa terrorists but Proud Boys not.

So we can all agree that Antifa are terrorists, then?

Nope.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

> if we know fascists are going to hold a rally

Stop right fucking there.

The whole poiint of free speech is the ability to say things that are considered offensive. That's why all of the landmark First Amendment SCOTUS cases are about (you guessed it) things that are offensive in some way or another, including actual neo-nazi rallies (not just Trump rallies, which contrary to certain dumbasses are not neo-nazi rallies).

The moment you start beating people on the presumption of wrongthink is the moment you stop being "protective" and start being thugs.

The most ironic thing is that antifa like activity has happened before. The Red Guards of the PRC Cultural Revolution and SA of the actual Nazis.

gg "antifa".

Oh here we go again with the "Antifa are the real fascists" spiel.

If you believe in free speech then Antifa has to be allowed to exist too.

To exist? Sure to an extent. Not if they promote killings of officers and raid right wing speakers.

[Nova Cyberia]

So we can all agree that Antifa are terrorists, then?

Nope.

I miss our talks, Torra. You were the Joker to my Batman.

[The Alma Mater]

Oh here we go again with the "Antifa are the real fascists" spiel.

If you believe in free speech then Antifa has to be allowed to exist too.

Why? Terrorists have no right to exist.

I just have great trouble understanding the phrase "it is bad to punch a nazi".
It seems so unamerican.

[Fahran]

But using violence illegally to achieve the political goal of staying out of prison meets your definition of terrorism whether I do it once or every weekend. Are you saying that a person is only a terrorist if they carry our multiple terror attacks? Because by that logic the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists. They did not habitually fly planes into buildings, they did it once.

Staying out of prison isn't a political goal in the same sense, and you know it. And nobody said multiple violent acts were necessary. The 9/11 hijackers performed their suicide attack in the name of harming America and the West and martyring themselves for Islam. The Antifa groups we're discussing engages in violence with the stated intention of resisting and suppressing Fascism and White Nationalism. If you hit a police officer to protest the prison-industrial complex, as an overt political act and bit of propaganda of the deed, that'd be terrorism. Hitting a cop to benefit yourself? Yeah, not terrorism. You're really not arguing in good faith here.

I don't see what's responsible about making it a crime to dress in certain colours.

It's not a crime to dress in those colors. Affiliation with a criminal organization does, however, suggest that you're a criminal. It's the same logic here.

Not in general. I certainly don't want to confiscate black clothes.

Not what was suggested. It's like you're actively avoiding all context.

Hardly. My point is that the police are already arresting people just for being at an anti-Trump protest, without sufficient evidence of an actual crime.

And they can arrest anyone without evidence if they have reasonable suspicion of a crime. If evidence doesn't materialize, you're released. The reason those people were arrested, if you recall, is because some of them were almost certainly instigating violence, spitting at people, and throwing things at people. They were handled in a judicious manner and released because concrete evidence was absent. Sitting in jail or a detention facility for a day or two, while not pleasant, isn't a violation of your fundamental rights in every case.

[Page]

Any rationale that is used to call antifa terrorists applies to Proud Boys. There is no logically consistent way to deem antifa terrorists but Proud Boys not.

So we can all agree that Antifa are terrorists, then?

No, terrorists harm innocent people.