Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Fahran]

"Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists oh an white supremacists too I guess"

You're being irrational

He all but condoned terrorism earlier when I gave the definition as "any act or threat of violence by a non-state actor intended to further a political, social, or religious goal." His response was that "terrorism is not necessarily immoral." When I explained why I believe this terrorism wasn't justified and asked what made this particular type of terrorism moral in his eyes, he either missed it or chose not to respond - instead defaulting to laughable arguments about self-defense. He then seemed to defend the assault on Andy Ngo was an act of self-defense. He's an apologist for Antifa, more or less.

He (Ngo) probably wasn't an immediate threat, but people he doxxes are in danger, so stopping him from doing so protects people. Maybe that defence wouldn't hold up in court, but some of us do not hold the law to be the final arbiter of good and evil.

So it's only big political goals that count. Were the people resisting the Nazis terrorists? They used criminal violence to achieve big political ends. If they were terrorists then clearly sometimes terrorism is good, and you're surely about to say that modern neo-Nazis aren't the same as the actual Nazis in the 40s, and that's true, but the point is that your definition of terrorism includes actions that are good, so you can't just use "they're terrorists" as a criticism, you have to explain why they are bad terrorists.

My argument against anti-fascist terrorism at present is that it's largely unnecessary given that white nationalists aren't likely to gain positions of permanent power, it causes property damage and injuries to innocent bystanders, it results in further radicalization towards the right and left at a time when polarization is incredibly high, it allows white nationalists and Neo-Nazis to lionize or martyr themselves since their ideologies inherently profit from violence and machismo, it impedes and degrades civil society by interrupting dialogue and debate, it robs intellectuals of the opportunity to discredit alt-right ideologies, and we have far more effective institutional methods of counteracting white nationalists and Neo-Nazis such as infiltration, surveillance, and, when necessary, arrest.

[ImperialRussia]

the more my visions go the flag will turn Chinese the US flag

[Nova Cyberia]

You're being irrational

He all but condoned terrorism earlier when I gave the definition as "any act or threat of violence by a non-state actor intended to further a political, social, or religious goal." His response was that "terrorism is not necessarily immoral." When I explained why I believe this terrorism wasn't justified and asked what made this particular type of terrorism moral in his eyes, he either missed it or chose not to respond - instead defaulting to laughable arguments about self-defense. He then seemed to defend the assault on Andy Ngo was an act of self-defense. He's an apologist for Antifa, more or less.

He (Ngo) probably wasn't an immediate threat, but people he doxxes are in danger, so stopping him from doing so protects people. Maybe that defence wouldn't hold up in court, but some of us do not hold the law to be the final arbiter of good and evil.

So it's only big political goals that count. Were the people resisting the Nazis terrorists? They used criminal violence to achieve big political ends. If they were terrorists then clearly sometimes terrorism is good, and you're surely about to say that modern neo-Nazis aren't the same as the actual Nazis in the 40s, and that's true, but the point is that your definition of terrorism includes actions that are good, so you can't just use "they're terrorists" as a criticism, you have to explain why they are bad terrorists.

My argument against anti-fascist terrorism at present is that it's largely unnecessary given that white nationalists aren't likely to gain positions of permanent power, it causes property damage and injuries to innocent bystanders, it results in further radicalization towards the right and left at a time when polarization is incredibly high, it allows white nationalists and Neo-Nazis to lionize or martyr themselves since their ideologies inherently profit from violence and machismo, it impedes and degrades civil society by interrupting dialogue and debate, it robs intellectuals of the opportunity to discredit alt-right ideologies, and we have far more effective institutional methods of counteracting white nationalists and Neo-Nazis such as infiltration, surveillance, and, when necessary, arrest.

He also fails to realize the obvious difference in resisting a military occupation vs actively targeting civilians.

[Wallenburg]

"Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists Antifa terrorists oh an white supremacists too I guess"

You're being irrational

Not really. Here, these are the pages of the resolution, where I have highlighted the parts going after antifascists in green and the parts going after white supremacists in yellow:

Did you notice something about the balance between green and yellow?

[Hamstan]

You're being irrational

Not really. Here, these are the pages of the resolution, where I have highlighted the parts going after antifascists in green and the parts going after white supremacists in yellow:

Did you notice something about the balance between green and yellow?

You honestly think that a party that doesn't even fully approve of its own president would make a law outlawing protests against him?

[Wallenburg]

Not really. Here, these are the pages of the resolution, where I have highlighted the parts going after antifascists in green and the parts going after white supremacists in yellow:

Did you notice something about the balance between green and yellow?

You honestly think that a party that doesn't even fully approve of its own president would make a law outlawing protests against him?

The Republican party hasn't once taken a stand against Trump so far, so I don't see why they would deny him a ban on all opposition if he asked for it.

[Hamstan]

You honestly think that a party that doesn't even fully approve of its own president would make a law outlawing protests against him?

The Republican party hasn't once taken a stand against Trump so far, so I don't see why they would deny him a ban on all opposition if he asked for it.

So Paul Ryan doesn't exist, then?

[Wallenburg]

The Republican party hasn't once taken a stand against Trump so far, so I don't see why they would deny him a ban on all opposition if he asked for it.

So Paul Ryan doesn't exist, then?

I think you mean "So Paul Ryan isn't the Republican Party, then?" To that question I answer wholeheartedly yes.

[Kubra]

Isn’t Antifa too broadly named and disorganized to even be listed as a real organization?

It targets anyone who self identifies under the Antifa banner and nothing more, it also calls for crackdowns on domestic terrorism from sorts like white supremacists in general despite what Vass's fear mongering nonsense would lead one to believe.

oh so then just change the name lol

[Rojava Free State]

You're being irrational

Not really. Here, these are the pages of the resolution, where I have highlighted the parts going after antifascists in green and the parts going after white supremacists in yellow:

Did you notice something about the balance between green and yellow?

It bans both far right and far left terrorism. I don't see an issue

[Necroghastia]

Not really. Here, these are the pages of the resolution, where I have highlighted the parts going after antifascists in green and the parts going after white supremacists in yellow:

Did you notice something about the balance between green and yellow?

It bans both far right and far left terrorism. I don't see an issue

Seems to me like it's calling for a lot of peaceful people who ID as antifa to be labeled terrorists.

[Ifreann]

It's a resolution, it doesn't ban anything. The preamble conflates Antifa and left-wing activism, and the resolution designates Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation. There is no one sentence saying that left-wing activists and Antifa are the same thing. But to paraphrase the whole text, it says "Whereas left-wing activists reportedly did this stuff, Antifa are terrorists". And that is conflating Antifa and left-wing activists.

That's not a conflation. It is nowhere explicitly stated that left-wing activism and Antifa activism are synonymous. I quoted the resolution, giving particular attention to the sections where left-wing activists were mentioned. These involved unnamed persons, some almost certainly identifying as Antifa, doxxing ICE officers. These were mentioned because that particular strategy and behavior, as well as hurling threats at people, was instigated by Antifa activists and is illegal.

That is the preamble. None of that is what the Senate is being asked to resolve to do. What the Senate is being asked to do is resolve to designate Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation. That clause doesn't say "only violent criminals". It doesn't say "only the baddies". It just says "Antifa = terrorists". So no, they are not condemning specific left-wing activists who engaged in specific illegal behaviours and who may or may not have labelled themselves as Antifa while using the doxxed information that Antifa and others provided of law enforcement and immigration officers to harass and threaten law enforcement and immigration officers. They are saying whereas those things happened, Antifa = terrorists.

So they're not designating all left-wing activists as terrorists? Because you've shifted the goal post here.

They are conflating Antifa and left wing activists in the preamble.

Ergo, they are designating left wing activists as domestic terrorists.

There is no clause designating left-wing activists as terrorists. You demonstrated that they were designating organizations operating under the banner of Antifa as terrorists.

They preamble conflates Antifa and left-wing activism, as I explained above.
The resolution designates Antifa as domestic terrorists.
Transitive property of equality.
A = B, B=C, what's the relation between A and C?

You're not using the transitive property correctly. Antifa = Leftists does not appear anywhere in the resolution. Mentioning leftists who furthered Antifa's tactics while neither equating them with Antifa explicitly or designating them as terrorist refutes A = B. So we're left with A =/= B and A = C.

Lemme tell you about how sometimes a message conveys more than just the literal meaning of the text.

[Wallenburg]

Not really. Here, these are the pages of the resolution, where I have highlighted the parts going after antifascists in green and the parts going after white supremacists in yellow:

Did you notice something about the balance between green and yellow?

It bans both far right and far left terrorism. I don't see an issue

It does neither. It goes after the left wing counterfascist community and labels them terrorists.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It bans both far right and far left terrorism. I don't see an issue

It does neither. It goes after the left wing counterfascist community and labels them terrorists.

And explicitly calls for a strengthening of things to combat domestic terrorism in general, and names white supremacist terrorism specifically.

[Wallenburg]

It does neither. It goes after the left wing counterfascist community and labels them terrorists.

And explicitly calls for a strengthening of things to combat domestic terrorism in general, and names white supremacist terrorism specifically.

And names antifascists a hundred times specifically.

[Diopolis]

And explicitly calls for a strengthening of things to combat domestic terrorism in general, and names white supremacist terrorism specifically.

And names antifascists a hundred times specifically.

Because, unlike white supremacists, they are not currently designated as terrorists.

[Fahran]

Lemme tell you about how sometimes a message conveys more than just the literal meaning of the text.

You seem to apply context and non-literal meaning inconsistently. In this case, there's no reason to suppose that the actual intention is to criminalize all left-wing activism, especially given that the resolution calls out white supremacist terrorism in the final clause. It seems more like the good senators don't want street violence becoming the order of the day and see an issue where they can score easy points with their base - who rightfully dislike and distrust violent left-wingers who have a history of criminal behavior.

[Fahran]

It does neither. It goes after the left wing counterfascist community and labels them terrorists.

Terrorism has always been banned de jure. This resolution simply designates a group that wasn't previously categorized as a terrorist group at the federal level (though at least one state has designated them as a terrorist group according to conversations here) as a terrorist group and renews calls to combat domestic terrorism. I oppose it principally because of the lack of nuance. Some here seem to oppose it because they like terrorism when the victims are racist or right-wingers.

[Wallenburg]

And names antifascists a hundred times specifically.

Because, unlike white supremacists, they are not currently designated as terrorists.

White supremacism isn't designated as terrorism.

[Arlenton]

Good. Those who participate in violent, destructive, or harmful activities should be labeled political terrorists.

Simply wearing antifa clothing or protesting, as in not blocking roadways or sitting in places, are simply exercising free speech though.

[Nova Cyberia]

Because, unlike white supremacists, they are not currently designated as terrorists.

White supremacism isn't designated as terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/confronting-white-supremacy

Domestic terrorists are individuals who commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as racial bias and anti-government sentiment.

You were saying?

[Bear Stearns]

Because, unlike white supremacists, they are not currently designated as terrorists.

White supremacism isn't designated as terrorism.

Yeah it is.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

White supremacism isn't designated as terrorism.

Yeah it is.

Then shouldn't BLM be too?

[Kowani]

Yeah it is.

Then shouldn't BLM be too?

Fastest whataboutism in the West.

[Fahran]

Then shouldn't BLM be too?

Fastest whataboutism in the West.

Whataboutism have reigned supreme in this thread to be honest.

By the way, I've been cranky and I want to apologize if I came off as impolite or inordinately aggressive. I'm apologizing mostly to Iffy since I sort of went in on you and that wasn't exactly fair or deserved. I'm sorry. I still think you're wrong, but there's a better way to say that than accusing you of being dishonest or hypocritical. Please forgive me.