Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Holy Tedalonia]

I mean ANTIFA definitely does not claim this, but it is rudimentary in their behavior. No-one in their right mind would set this as their definition.

Please show us the official literature from A.N.T.I.F.A. Headquarters detailing the definition of fascism.

Why should I? I'm merely agreeing that this would not be something ANTIFA would define and added it's in their behavior rather then how they define it.

[Fahran]

Well that's the case now. Street violence is already illegal. This "antifa are terrorists" resolution serves only to justify police action, arrest, surveillance, whatever, against people who perfectly law abiding.

Hence why I don't support this particular measure, even while believing that a chunk of people associated with Antifa do meet the definition of terrorists. I do support greater surveillance and police involvement at protests where groups like Antifa and the Proud Boys will be present and the immediate arrest of anyone caught carrying weapons or engaging in violent conduct. The current hands-off approach in some cities has led to unnecessary violence.

If I punch a police officer to escape custody, am I a terrorist?

If you're a random drunk that got arrested for peeing on his car, then no. If you make a habit of punching police officers to protest the prison-industrial complex, then yes, you're a terrorist.

Land of the free, folks.

Honestly, we could do with a little more responsibility. And don't you want to confiscate guns?

Hundreds of people were arrested on Trump's inauguration day. All charges were dropped, no convictions were secured.

Because that's the only time people associated with Antifa wound up in police custody.

[The South Falls]

The crimes that these folks commit should be prosecuted. What I feel could happen is surveillance of people who aren't even connected to Antifa and the violation of the privacy of Antifa members.

[Fahran]

The crimes that these folks commit should be prosecuted. What I feel could happen is surveillance of people who aren't even connected to Antifa and the violation of the privacy of Antifa members.

That's a legitimate concern, I'll grant you that. With regard to surveillance, I meant more along the lines of what we do to militias and white nationalist groups that have a history of causing trouble (infiltration and monitoring of these groups) and more proactive surveillance during public protests - where 4th Amendment rights aren't applicable to the same extent. I think a blanket categorization of Antifa is silly because Antifa is several organizations and associations with differing membership and aims.

[The Alma Mater]

Please show us the official literature from A.N.T.I.F.A. Headquarters detailing the definition of fascism.

Why should I? I'm merely agreeing that this would not be something ANTIFA would define and added it's in their behavior rather then how they define it.

Can you offer 5 examples of people Antifa called nazis but who were merely somewhat right wing ?

[Vassenor]

Why should I? I'm merely agreeing that this would not be something ANTIFA would define and added it's in their behavior rather then how they define it.

Can you offer 5 examples of people Antifa called nazis but who were merely somewhat right wing ?

Without resorting to Andy Ngo again because we want to see actual original research.

[Ifreann]

What if they're going to protests with the intention of engaging in defensive violence and defensively bashing the fash?

You know full well that what you're describing wouldn't constitute self-defense by any conventional definition. So quit it.

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?

Yes.

And that's a problem.

For the police, sure.

I'm not asking you to give anyone a pass, I just don't understand how covering one's face means that one is, therefore, necessarily the aggressor in any violent incident. It's entirely possible to go to a protest with one's face covered, just to hide one's identity with no specific intention to do violence, and get attacked. I don't see how such a person could possibly be an aggressor, therefore wearing a mask does not make one the aggressor.

Covering your face, bringing weapons to a protest, and actively coordinating how you're going to engage in violence constitutes aggression. The context matters a lot here, especially in places like Portland where the same groups act in this way repeatedly. You're trying to muddy the waters to protect people you know full well are in the wrong because they agree quite loosely with your political orientation. Wearing a mask by itself isn't the problem. It's the history of criminality, the pattern of behavior, and the symbols associated with it are.

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.

So people should either defend themselves with guns or not at all? Using any other weapon, like a baton, makes one the aggressor?

We're not talking about defense and you know that well enough. Ngo and half the other people attacked weren't a credible threat to the people that beat him.

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.

And a lot of the others were deliberately provoked. By your logic, the Proud Boys are a defensive organization and should be characterized as heroic. Yeah, no. Stop defending thugs.

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 guess? I don't really think that they're thugs, but I suppose that hardly matters to you. Regardless, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. You're calling people the aggressors based on what they wear or what they carry or what they may have thought at some point about fascists, not whether they are actually instigating violence. I could be Hitler reborn and what you are saying would not make more sense.

I'm calling people aggressors because they're aggressors and go to these protests with the specific intention of hurting people who disagree with them. You're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that wearing a mask doesn't make you an aggressor and you know full well that wasn't my argument.

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.

I'm not aware of the police doing that specifically. But I above referenced an incident in which the police found members of Patriot Prayer on a rooftop with a cache of firearms, very obviously planning to attack an anti-fascist rally and let them go, no arrest, no charges, no one outside the force even knew this had happened for months. So you may say that the police won't go to people's homes to intimidate them, but clearly they aren't too pushed about enforcing the law against those who are going to do that.

So your distrust of the police isn't that they'll victimize criminals needlessly. It's that they aren't stern enough in enforcing anti-terrorism and anti-brawling laws? So you think we should arrest more people for engaging in these types of behaviors? I'd tend to agree if that's your argument.

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.

Also there's no such thing as members of antifa.

Semantics and dishonesty. We can dispense with the notion that Antifa is completely without organization even if it isn't a single centralized organization. It's a falsehood. Individual chapters are reasonably well-organized and have regular members in every sense except the formal one.

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

[The South Falls]

The crimes that these folks commit should be prosecuted. What I feel could happen is surveillance of people who aren't even connected to Antifa and the violation of the privacy of Antifa members.

That's a legitimate concern, I'll grant you that. With regard to surveillance, I meant more along the lines of what we do to militias and white nationalist groups that have a history of causing trouble (infiltration and monitoring of these groups) and more proactive surveillance during public protests - where 4th Amendment rights aren't applicable to the same extent. I think a blanket categorization of Antifa is silly because Antifa is several organizations and associations with differing membership and aims.

Infiltration is definitely more respectful of privacy than outright surveillance of individuals. Violence needs to be curbed, admittedly, but if there's one or two folks in there who can relay info back to the government, violence counteraction will be expedient and efficient.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

Can you offer 5 examples of people Antifa called nazis but who were merely somewhat right wing ?

Without resorting to Andy Ngo again because we want to see actual original research.

Attacking the source not the content? That's weak.
-Vassenor

[Ifreann]

Well that's the case now. Street violence is already illegal. This "antifa are terrorists" resolution serves only to justify police action, arrest, surveillance, whatever, against people who perfectly law abiding.

Hence why I don't support this particular measure, even while believing that a chunk of people associated with Antifa do meet the definition of terrorists. I do support greater surveillance and police involvement at protests where groups like Antifa and the Proud Boys will be present and the immediate arrest of anyone caught carrying weapons or engaging in violent conduct. The current hands-off approach in some cities has led to unnecessary violence.

If I punch a police officer to escape custody, am I a terrorist?

If you're a random drunk that got arrested for peeing on his car, then no. If you make a habit of punching police officers to protest the prison-industrial complex, then yes, you're a terrorist.

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.

Land of the free, folks.

Honestly, we could do with a little more responsibility.

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

And don't you want to confiscate guns?

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

Hundreds of people were arrested on Trump's inauguration day. All charges were dropped, no convictions were secured.

Because that's the only time people associated with Antifa wound up in police custody.

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.

[Ifreann]

Without resorting to Andy Ngo again because we want to see actual original research.

Attacking the source not the content? That's weak.
-Vassenor

She wasn't attacking any source in that post.

You're going to need to work a lot harder to get in with the Vass bashing gang.

[Nova Cyberia]

One guy who doxxed a protestor with spinal injury to neo-Nazis.

One claims they were left with a brain haemorrhage that healed remarkably quickly when it came time to sob story it to FOX.

The other was left with actual life changing injuries after being beaten by the Proud Boys.

But clearly the former is the more heinous assault here.

You a doctor?

[Vassenor]

Without resorting to Andy Ngo again because we want to see actual original research.

Attacking the source not the content? That's weak.
-Vassenor

Oh wow, expecting original arguments is bad apparently.

[Nova Cyberia]

Attacking the source not the content? That's weak.
-Vassenor

Oh wow, expecting original arguments is bad apparently.

Well, it would be helpful if you actually had one.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-antif ... es-260813/

You mind summarising that link rather than just blind-dumping a conservative scaremonger?

How does Donald Trump's actions constitute impeachment? Also how does Al Quada's actions constitute that. If they are an organized criminal organization that is anti American (https://youtu.be/iwHIULAN4I0), that has injured many people (https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/01/kerns-antifa-terror/), that has FIRED ON POLICE OFFICERS (https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/antifa ... z5uK9q5OBK).

>Daily Caller

Yeah ok m8

[Vassenor]

You mind summarising that link rather than just blind-dumping a conservative scaremonger?

>Daily Caller

Yeah ok m8

And that has what to do with me saying people need to stop rehashing the same tired argument over and over?

[Nova Cyberia]

Yeah ok m8

And that has what to do with me saying people need to stop rehashing the same tired argument over and over?

Why don't you actually address the argument instead of whining?

[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".

[Nova Cyberia]

> 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".

B-but muh direct action

B-but communism isn't worse even though it's killed more people than fascism

B-but you can't call us Stalinists even though we call you fascists

[Vassenor]

> 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.

[Nova Cyberia]

> 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.

Why? Terrorists have no right to exist.

[Grenartia]

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.

Fascists are inherently terrorists. Therefore, we should make fascists stop existing.

That's your logic, friendo, not mine.

[Telconi]

Why? Terrorists have no right to exist.

Fascists are inherently terrorists. Therefore, we should make fascists stop existing.

That's your logic, friendo, not mine.

How can something so illogical be anyone's logic?

[Nova Cyberia]

Why? Terrorists have no right to exist.

Fascists are inherently terrorists. Therefore, we should make fascists stop existing.

That's your logic, friendo, not mine.

If you're engaging in violence to further your political agenda then you're inherently a terrorist and should be treated as such.

Just stop being violent, okay? Is it really that hard to not touch people?

[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.

Why? Terrorists have no right to exist.

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