Fascist White Supremacist Rally in Portland Thwarted

[Kowani]

“The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups and individuals in the United States.”

Gee, that sounds the same advice the KKK-“The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group.”

See how one’s a movement and one’s a group?

Why is Antifa not a group?

‘Cause it’s not unified, has no central structure or structure at all?

[Purgatio]

Why is Antifa not a group?

‘Cause it’s not unified, has no central structure or structure at all?

Neither does the KKK

[Telconi]

Why is Antifa not a group?

‘Cause it’s not unified, has no central structure or structure at all?

So why is the KKK, who all of these descriptors also apply to a "group"?

[Necroghastia]

“The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups and individuals in the United States.”

Gee, that sounds the same advice the KKK-“The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group.”

See how one’s a movement and one’s a group?

Still doesn't change the fact that the KKK is not an organisation (which was your original point), but you still understand perfectly what people mean when they say "KKK member". You just refuse to apply the same generous interpretation when people say "ANTIFA member".

You can't be part of the KKK without joining a group of some sort. You absolutely can be part of Antifa without joining anything.

[Kowani]

‘Cause it’s not unified, has no central structure or structure at all?

So why is the KKK, who all of these descriptors also apply to a "group"?

‘Cause it’s not unified, has no central structure or structure at all?

Neither does the KKK

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... k-2016.pdf

Still doesn't change the fact that the KKK is not an organisation (which was your original point), but you still understand perfectly what people mean when they say "KKK member". You just refuse to apply the same generous interpretation when people say "ANTIFA member".

You can't be part of the KKK without joining a group of some sort. You absolutely can be part of Antifa without joining anything.

Also, this.

[Purgatio]

So why is the KKK, who all of these descriptors also apply to a "group"?

Neither does the KKK

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... k-2016.pdf

You can't be part of the KKK without joining a group of some sort. You absolutely can be part of Antifa without joining anything.

Also, this.

You're proving my point, people casually and commonly refer to the KKK as a group or organisation (like the ADL does in your link) because when you say "KKK member" no one understands it to mean "a member of a group with a singular, unified hierarchical command structure and clearly-defined membership" but they mean "a member of one of numerous different smaller local groups and organisations each of which identifies as a member of a wider KKK movement bounded together by common ideology, a unified cause, online communications, self-identification as such and attendance at political events under a common banner or activism as members of the KKK". In other words, when people say "member of X", they can mean it in the former narrower sense, or the latter broader sense, both of which are perfectly coherent and intelligible meanings of the word "member".

You are applying the broad sense to the KKK, but the narrow sense to ANTIFA. I'm saying be consistent in how you understand the meaning of words. When people say "member of ANTIFA", they mean it in the same sense as "member of the KKK" and not the narrow sense you and others are pretending that the word "member" must strictly and exhaustively mean.

[Telconi]

Still doesn't change the fact that the KKK is not an organisation (which was your original point), but you still understand perfectly what people mean when they say "KKK member". You just refuse to apply the same generous interpretation when people say "ANTIFA member".

You can't be part of the KKK without joining a group of some sort. You absolutely can be part of Antifa without joining anything.

Pretty sure no metaphysical force stops some shithead from cutting eye holes in a bed sheet and being a douche to black folks.

[Takso]

Exactly, these are the kinds of reasonable inferences we draw all the time in the wake of a tragedy or mass shooting. People are just pretending not to draw the inference here because they can't stand the idea that, hey, ANTIFA might be a domestic terrorist group that is radicalising lone-wolf attacks like Dayton and like other terrorist movements, it's wilful and deliberate blindness

How about we recognize the proud boys and Antifa as domestic terrorist groups? The both of them seem to have similar methods.

The criteria for terrorism is a group that seeks to achieve its aims through terror... Specifically violence against civilians... Those being unarmed and not engaging in violence themselves. After all there is such a thing as state terrorism... When a government commits terror acts against its own people.

For example... Say you have two groups... One is part of a Proud Boys-whatever club and the other is part of a militant anti-fascist group... Now as long both groups are engaged in violent conflict with each other... Both of which are either triggered or perpetuated by violent assaults (let's ignore any cases where someone is defending themselves from a physical assault) they could best be described as... Extremists or fanaticists... Like gang warfare fighting over territory. Two gangsters trying to kill each other because they are rivals is not terrorism.

I mean if a liberal and conservative starts beating each other up (a mutual fight where either wants to hurt the other), that isn't terrorism. Just the same as... It's okay as a government to use violence to defend themselves from violence. If you have an armed group of civilians start waging a rebellion against you... Yes, you can shoot back in self-defence... Now if they surrender... Then it becomes different. You can't just gun them down. Yes... You can arrest them and use force if they resist... But appropriate force... The minimum amount necessary to make an arrest while also protecting the bodily integrity of the police or military agent in question. If you say... Push an officer who is trying to arrest you... Then well... You have signaled that they must use force to subdue you. Non-lethally of course.

The problem is when a group or individual takes that violence and directs it to those who are not being violent towards them. If you say smash a bank's windows in protest of capitalism... Yes... That is terrorism. In the same respect someone throwing a rock through your house window because you support gay rights is terrorism. It is violently responding to political opponents who are not engaging in violence themselves. If you think a bank is acting unethically... Protest it peacefully and if you want force to be used against them... Take it up with your government to see if it is legally appropriate for arrests to be made... But there is a difference there... Between a lawful arrest and just some angry person punching another in the face because they said something they don't like.

And yes... I would argue violence against property is a form of assault on the individual or organization. If you burn someone's house down (provided they are not inside and not assumed to be inside)... That is in my opinion objectively worse to them than kicking someone's behind or even groping someone. It all depends on the situation and the level of damage an act causes... Obviously a bank can afford to replace a window... So that's not nearly as bad as say burning someone's house down or ruining a farmer's crops. I have been a victim of moderate physical assault before, including unwanted touch... And as much as that was bad, someone destroying my entire livelihood would be far worse.

[Kowani]

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... k-2016.pdf



Also, this.

You're proving my point, people casually and commonly refer to the KKK as a group or organisation (like the ADL does in your link) because when you say "KKK member" no one understands it to mean "a member of a group with a singular, unified hierarchical command structure and clearly-defined membership" but they mean "a member of one of numerous different smaller local groups and organisations each of which identifies as a member of a wider KKK movement bounded together by common ideology, a unified cause, online communications, self-identification as such and attendance at political events under a common banner or activism as members of the KKK". In other words, when people say "member of X", they can mean it in the former narrower sense, or the latter broader sense, both of which are perfectly coherent and intelligible meanings of the word "member".

You are applying the broad sense to the KKK, but the narrow sense to ANTIFA. I'm saying be consistent in how you understand the meaning of words. When people say "member of ANTIFA", they mean it in the same sense as "member of the KKK" and not the narrow sense you and others are pretending that the word "member" must strictly and exhaustively mean.

Except, no. Even the disparate groups of the KKK have a larger unified political aim and as you mentioned, communications. Antifa doesn’t work that way, because many of the local groups either don’t communicate with each other or have mutually exclusive aims. Antifa is a movement, and while one can certainly be a “member” of the larger Antifa movement, Antifa itself is not a group. And, well, you can’t ban a movement, at least not in the US.

[United Capitalist Federations]

White supremacists are terrorists.

So are Antifa. You accuse Trump and the right of ignoring the Nazis and focusing on Antifa. You're literally doing the same exact thing.

[Telconi]

You're proving my point, people casually and commonly refer to the KKK as a group or organisation (like the ADL does in your link) because when you say "KKK member" no one understands it to mean "a member of a group with a singular, unified hierarchical command structure and clearly-defined membership" but they mean "a member of one of numerous different smaller local groups and organisations each of which identifies as a member of a wider KKK movement bounded together by common ideology, a unified cause, online communications, self-identification as such and attendance at political events under a common banner or activism as members of the KKK". In other words, when people say "member of X", they can mean it in the former narrower sense, or the latter broader sense, both of which are perfectly coherent and intelligible meanings of the word "member".

You are applying the broad sense to the KKK, but the narrow sense to ANTIFA. I'm saying be consistent in how you understand the meaning of words. When people say "member of ANTIFA", they mean it in the same sense as "member of the KKK" and not the narrow sense you and others are pretending that the word "member" must strictly and exhaustively mean.

Except, no. Even the disparate groups of the KKK have a larger unified political aim and as you mentioned, communications. Antifa doesn’t work that way, because many of the local groups either don’t communicate with each other or have mutually exclusive aims. Antifa is a movement, and while one can certainly be a “member” of the larger Antifa movement, Antifa itself is not a group. And, well, you can’t ban a movement, at least not in the US.

So some of them are fascists? Ironic...

[Greater vakolicci haven]

You're proving my point, people casually and commonly refer to the KKK as a group or organisation (like the ADL does in your link) because when you say "KKK member" no one understands it to mean "a member of a group with a singular, unified hierarchical command structure and clearly-defined membership" but they mean "a member of one of numerous different smaller local groups and organisations each of which identifies as a member of a wider KKK movement bounded together by common ideology, a unified cause, online communications, self-identification as such and attendance at political events under a common banner or activism as members of the KKK". In other words, when people say "member of X", they can mean it in the former narrower sense, or the latter broader sense, both of which are perfectly coherent and intelligible meanings of the word "member".

You are applying the broad sense to the KKK, but the narrow sense to ANTIFA. I'm saying be consistent in how you understand the meaning of words. When people say "member of ANTIFA", they mean it in the same sense as "member of the KKK" and not the narrow sense you and others are pretending that the word "member" must strictly and exhaustively mean.

Except, no. Even the disparate groups of the KKK have a larger unified political aim and as you mentioned, communications. Antifa doesn’t work that way, because many of the local groups either don’t communicate with each other or have mutually exclusive aims. Antifa is a movement, and while one can certainly be a “member” of the larger Antifa movement, Antifa itself is not a group. And, well, you can’t ban a movement, at least not in the US.

So what you're telling us is that the groups of people who show up to right-wing demonstrations (the group that makes a peaceful demonstration turn violent) are people who never communicate with each other, some of who want completely different things? Every one of them just decides to show up at the same time? Sounds unlikely to me.

[Purgatio]

You're proving my point, people casually and commonly refer to the KKK as a group or organisation (like the ADL does in your link) because when you say "KKK member" no one understands it to mean "a member of a group with a singular, unified hierarchical command structure and clearly-defined membership" but they mean "a member of one of numerous different smaller local groups and organisations each of which identifies as a member of a wider KKK movement bounded together by common ideology, a unified cause, online communications, self-identification as such and attendance at political events under a common banner or activism as members of the KKK". In other words, when people say "member of X", they can mean it in the former narrower sense, or the latter broader sense, both of which are perfectly coherent and intelligible meanings of the word "member".

You are applying the broad sense to the KKK, but the narrow sense to ANTIFA. I'm saying be consistent in how you understand the meaning of words. When people say "member of ANTIFA", they mean it in the same sense as "member of the KKK" and not the narrow sense you and others are pretending that the word "member" must strictly and exhaustively mean.

Except, no. Even the disparate groups of the KKK have a larger unified political aim and as you mentioned, communications. Antifa doesn’t work that way, because many of the local groups either don’t communicate with each other or have mutually exclusive aims. Antifa is a movement, and while one can certainly be a “member” of the larger Antifa movement, Antifa itself is not a group. And, well, you can’t ban a movement, at least not in the US.

The KKK has a 'larger unified political aim' in a manner no different from ANTIFA, in that both have broad common political and ideologcial goals and aims but no specific unified command directing strategy. And yes, different ANTIFA local chapters or smaller disparate groups do often coordinate with each other online, they show up at rallies together, dressed the same way, armed in the same way, online ANTIFA pages defend each other's points and actions, they have similar catchphrases they promote online like 'bash the fash', and attend similar political events with similar political goals. Again, like the KKK.

I'm just asking you to be consistent with language. If saying "KKK member" is intelligible and cognisable, then "ANTIFA member" is intelligible and comprehensible in the same fashion with the same meaning.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

White supremacists are terrorists.

So are Antifa. You accuse Trump and the right of ignoring the Nazis and focusing on Antifa. You're literally doing the same exact thing.

Except:

White supremacists don't have to be terrorists. White supremacism is an ideology, it doesn't mean that you have to act on it: much as the vast majority of communists don't go attacking banks, most white supremacists don't go killing people of other ethnicities. What does Antifa do though that isn't focussed on hurting the people they dislike this week, however?

[Kubra]

Except, no. Even the disparate groups of the KKK have a larger unified political aim and as you mentioned, communications. Antifa doesn’t work that way, because many of the local groups either don’t communicate with each other or have mutually exclusive aims. Antifa is a movement, and while one can certainly be a “member” of the larger Antifa movement, Antifa itself is not a group. And, well, you can’t ban a movement, at least not in the US.

The KKK has a 'larger unified political aim' in a manner no different from ANTIFA, in that both have broad common political and ideologcial goals and aims but no specific unified command directing strategy. And yes, different ANTIFA local chapters or smaller disparate groups do often coordinate with each other online, they show up at rallies together, dressed the same way, armed in the same way, online ANTIFA pages defend each other's points and actions, they have similar catchphrases they promote online like 'bash the fash', and attend similar political events with similar political goals. Again, like the KKK.

I'm just asking you to be consistent with language. If saying "KKK member" is intelligible and cognisable, then "ANTIFA member" is intelligible and comprehensible in the same fashion with the same meaning.

what differentiates "Antifa" from some random particularly left wing person

[Takso]

White supremacists are terrorists.

So are Antifa. You accuse Trump and the right of ignoring the Nazis and focusing on Antifa. You're literally doing the same exact thing.

I disagree that white supremacists = terrorists.

Simply holding the view that whites are superior than everyone else doesn't make one a terrorist.

Shooting up a black church = terrorism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying white supremacy is correct or expressing it should even be legal (ignoring constitutionalism)... I'm just saying having or expressing a view alone is not terrorism.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The KKK has a 'larger unified political aim' in a manner no different from ANTIFA, in that both have broad common political and ideologcial goals and aims but no specific unified command directing strategy. And yes, different ANTIFA local chapters or smaller disparate groups do often coordinate with each other online, they show up at rallies together, dressed the same way, armed in the same way, online ANTIFA pages defend each other's points and actions, they have similar catchphrases they promote online like 'bash the fash', and attend similar political events with similar political goals. Again, like the KKK.

I'm just asking you to be consistent with language. If saying "KKK member" is intelligible and cognisable, then "ANTIFA member" is intelligible and comprehensible in the same fashion with the same meaning.

what differentiates "Antifa" from some random particularly left wing person

A random left wing person doesn't firebomb ICE centres.

[United Capitalist Federations]

White supremacists are terrorists.

So are Antifa. You accuse Trump and the right of ignoring the Nazis and focusing on Antifa. You're literally doing the same exact thing.

Except:

White supremacists don't have to be terrorists. White supremacism is an ideology, it doesn't mean that you have to act on it: much as the vast majority of communists don't go attacking banks, most white supremacists don't go killing people of other ethnicities. What does Antifa do though that isn't focussed on hurting the people they dislike this week, however?

Alright, I'll give you that.

Let me amend. SOME white supremacists are terrorists/violent. My point is the most extreme of both groups (Antifa for the left, the violent neo-nazis for the right) are both reprehensible and last I checked this isn't Weimar Germany or Ancient Rome so having roving gangs of thugs beating people into voting a certain way should be viewed as horrible no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Except:

White supremacists don't have to be terrorists. White supremacism is an ideology, it doesn't mean that you have to act on it: much as the vast majority of communists don't go attacking banks, most white supremacists don't go killing people of other ethnicities. What does Antifa do though that isn't focussed on hurting the people they dislike this week, however?

Alright, I'll give you that.

Let me amend. SOME white supremacists are terrorists/violent. My point is the most extreme of both groups (Antifa for the left, the violent neo-nazis for the right) are both reprehensible and last I checked this isn't Weimar Germany or Ancient Rome so having roving gangs of thugs beating people into voting a certain way should be viewed as horrible no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.

Can agree with you on that one.

[Kubra]

what differentiates "Antifa" from some random particularly left wing person

A random left wing person doesn't firebomb ICE centres.

so membership in this Antifa org is dependent on having thrown bombs at ICE centers, yes?

[Kowani]

Except, no. Even the disparate groups of the KKK have a larger unified political aim and as you mentioned, communications. Antifa doesn’t work that way, because many of the local groups either don’t communicate with each other or have mutually exclusive aims. Antifa is a movement, and while one can certainly be a “member” of the larger Antifa movement, Antifa itself is not a group. And, well, you can’t ban a movement, at least not in the US.

So some of them are fascists? Ironic...

No, but some are demsocs, some are ancoms, some are stalinists…

Except, no. Even the disparate groups of the KKK have a larger unified political aim and as you mentioned, communications. Antifa doesn’t work that way, because many of the local groups either don’t communicate with each other or have mutually exclusive aims. Antifa is a movement, and while one can certainly be a “member” of the larger Antifa movement, Antifa itself is not a group. And, well, you can’t ban a movement, at least not in the US.

The KKK has a 'larger unified political aim' in a manner no different from ANTIFA, in that both have broad common political and ideologcial goals and aims but no specific unified command directing strategy. And yes, different ANTIFA local chapters or smaller disparate groups do often coordinate with each other online, they show up at rallies together, dressed the same way, armed in the same way, online ANTIFA pages defend each other's points and actions, they have similar catchphrases they promote online like 'bash the fash', and attend similar political events with similar political goals. Again, like the KKK.

I'm just asking you to be consistent with language. If saying "KKK member" is intelligible and cognisable, then "ANTIFA member" is intelligible and comprehensible in the same fashion with the same meaning.

But it’s not. Antifa is, by any actual metric, a movement. A movement consisting of very different people who only have one goal in common-resisting fascism. The KKK and it’s disparate chapters doesn’t have that. While I’m sure there is some political difference between a few individuals, it is, by and large, a unified group with the same aims on multiple fronts.

[Takso]

Except:

White supremacists don't have to be terrorists. White supremacism is an ideology, it doesn't mean that you have to act on it: much as the vast majority of communists don't go attacking banks, most white supremacists don't go killing people of other ethnicities. What does Antifa do though that isn't focussed on hurting the people they dislike this week, however?

Alright, I'll give you that.

Let me amend. SOME white supremacists are terrorists/violent. My point is the most extreme of both groups (Antifa for the left, the violent neo-nazis for the right) are both reprehensible and last I checked this isn't Weimar Germany or Ancient Rome so having roving gangs of thugs beating people into voting a certain way should be viewed as horrible no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.

Completely agree. I remember watching a VICE documentary about a certain band of ANTIFA in Europe ransacking the homes of their right-wing opponents. People who do that have problems.

[Neutraligon]

The reason that the KKK is considered a singular group is that historically there was a singular group with a singular leader that lead the group. In other words while the current groups that use the KKK name are not connected besides using their rhetoric, at one time the KKK was a single group. The same cannot be said for Antifa.

[Purgatio]

The reason that the KKK is considered a singular group is that historically there was a singular group with a singular leader that lead the group. In other words while the current groups that use the KKK name are not connected besides using their rhetoric, at one time the KKK was a single group. The same cannot be said for Antifa.

This doesn't change the fact that people talk about "KKK member" in the present tense (ie referring to a present individual now) and everyone understands what they mean by that. It's the same when someone says "ANTIFA member".

[Kubra]

The reason that the KKK is considered a singular group is that historically there was a singular group with a singular leader that lead the group. In other words while the current groups that use the KKK name are not connected besides using their rhetoric, at one time the KKK was a single group. The same cannot be said for Antifa.

I mean it was *kind of* unified in its original German iteration but that was a different beast altogether, with a very different political character.