5 ms·

It's interesting that anti-fascists (the demonized "antifa" whose beliefs boil down to "Fascism has caused millions of innocent deaths and violent force is some

It's interesting that anti-fascists (the demonized "antifa" whose beliefs boil down to "Fascism has caused millions of innocent deaths and violent force is sometimes necessary to prevent its rise again") are labelled terrorists in America, whereas the police, who often employ what can only be described as actual domestic terrorism (unless you think playing a song associated with blackface in black neighborhoods at 4:00AM is entertaining), are labelled heroes.

xwdv 6y ago
Police are more accurately labeled as antiheros.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  Not to single you out and I assume you had innocent intentions, but we shouldn't keep standing silent when people describe degradation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they would House of Cards or Breaking Bad. Our loss of freedom and rights is not a TV show and it's absurd and alarming to keep talking about it that way.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    We have long passed the threshold for what is absurd or alarming.
saagarjha 6y ago
Without commenting on the groups themselves, I think it's important to note that the name a group gives themselves frequently has nothing to do with their activities. See Democratic People's Republic of Korea, etc.
- fiblye 6y ago
  This is particularly true for anything of a political nature, such as your example and things like the PATRIOT act. It’s named intentionally so that people can call you anti-democratic/anti-patriotic/whatever without even thinking and just pointing at the name. Things may even start with good intentions, lose sight of their goals given enough time, but cling to a name to divert criticism.
- devenblake 6y ago
  You are entirely correct! It just strikes me as a bit, well, fascist to dub people who are (at least claiming to be) in opposition to fascism fascists. Especially considering most "Antifa" in practice are exactly what they profess to be. These aren't some big mean ol' terrorists, these are often young people who play video games on the weekends and talk to their friends on Instagram.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    You are correct, in Europe where there are literal fascists, antifa fights them. In the USA antifa is mainly a protest group against the republican party. These are not the same class of target although they share the same name by those in the group. The definition of fascism is key to the identity of antifa.
okiedokiepokie 6y ago
Violence and shutting down speech is ok as long as it goes along with your beliefs... that's what you're saying?
- addicted 6y ago
  You are right. The cops’ behavior over the past few weeks was truly despicable. Because that’s what you meant right, since the only violence was emanating from the police. The moment the curfews ended and the police stepped back the violence magically ended. (With the small exception of white supremacist groups which were armed and shot a bunch of people including cops).
  - okiedokiepokie 6y ago
    I never said that the police were in the right. Did I? I was talking about Antifa themselves since that's what I was replying to. It's good to know that Antifa are the sole arbiters of what's facist and not. For example shutting down Ben Shapiro events.
  - mtgp1000 6y ago
    I can't offer legitimate evidence to the contrary because I've been personally warned by moderation not to post in "flamewar" topics. So this thread will only show data from one perspective, while innocent people die.
    - ipnon 6y ago
      Violence by the police is as off topic to the NYPD playing the ice cream jingle in black neighborhoods as drone strikes are off topic to the national anthem being played at political rallies. It's like the debate between Emacs vs. Vim. It's a debate that needs to occur. It is such a contentious issue that it quickly dominates any conversation in which the debate arises. The debate between Emacs vs. Vim, therefore, needs to be avoided in conversations of other, less contentious issues to allow the other issue to be the focus of the discussion.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jsf01 6y ago
They are using unlawful violence and intimidation towards the pursuit of political aims. Whether or not you feel those aims are justified, their means by definition have earned the “terrorism” label. A previous commentor made a great point about the naming of things. Often the labels for highly political movements are euphemisms at best. Some of the least democratic countries in the world include the DPRK, DRC, and the PRC. And just about every violent revolutionary movement has similar naming, like the PLO and so many others. Look to their actions, not their name or stated mission, to make your own assessment. Antifa is in the same position as many other early stage revolutionary political movements rooted in socialist ideals. I’d characterize them as highly volatile, anti-establishment, anti-police, with many autonomous factions, and so forth. Because of this disorganized and volatile nature, their initial steps can only be disruption to the incumbent political and police forces they stand against, not to create their own. They’re too chaotic at this stage to stand any chance of supplanting the status quo with anything better on their own. Their best hope is for the current political forces to enact better policies as a reaction, but it won’t be anything created by antifa itself. Because to create order requires a unified vision, and besides sharing a common enemy, unity is something their many factions lack at this time. That being said, the brief attempt at creating something in the CHAZ was illustrative of the challenges any early stage political force faces. In it, for example, the ratio of police (or armed militia) to civilians has to be extraordinarily high. And when their police force is as young, hot-blooded and untrained as it is today, it will be more violent than that of the stable government they oppose. Such an early stage government faces external threats, obviously, but because of the elevated level of chaos within it there are substantially more internal threats than a later stage government has to deal with. And so, were antifa to successfully implement its own government it would necessarily be fascist (in the police-force dominated, no room for dissent aspect of fascism) or it would fall apart. Despite their name and mission, and despite their far left position, if they are like any of the similar movements in history their authority early on will stem from a threat of violence, which your post doesn’t attempt to deny—only that for this cause, that fascist response, to you, would be justified.

xwdv 6y ago

Police are more accurately labeled as antiheros.

DetroitThrow 6y ago
Not to single you out and I assume you had innocent intentions, but we shouldn't keep standing silent when people describe degradation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they would House of Cards or Breaking Bad. Our loss of freedom and rights is not a TV show and it's absurd and alarming to keep talking about it that way.
- xwdv 6y ago
  We have long passed the threshold for what is absurd or alarming.

saagarjha 6y ago

Without commenting on the groups themselves, I think it's important to note that the name a group gives themselves frequently has nothing to do with their activities. See Democratic People's Republic of Korea, etc.

fiblye 6y ago
This is particularly true for anything of a political nature, such as your example and things like the PATRIOT act. It’s named intentionally so that people can call you anti-democratic/anti-patriotic/whatever without even thinking and just pointing at the name. Things may even start with good intentions, lose sight of their goals given enough time, but cling to a name to divert criticism.
devenblake 6y ago
You are entirely correct! It just strikes me as a bit, well, fascist to dub people who are (at least claiming to be) in opposition to fascism fascists. Especially considering most "Antifa" in practice are exactly what they profess to be. These aren't some big mean ol' terrorists, these are often young people who play video games on the weekends and talk to their friends on Instagram.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  You are correct, in Europe where there are literal fascists, antifa fights them. In the USA antifa is mainly a protest group against the republican party. These are not the same class of target although they share the same name by those in the group. The definition of fascism is key to the identity of antifa.

okiedokiepokie 6y ago

Violence and shutting down speech is ok as long as it goes along with your beliefs... that's what you're saying?

addicted 6y ago
You are right. The cops’ behavior over the past few weeks was truly despicable. Because that’s what you meant right, since the only violence was emanating from the police. The moment the curfews ended and the police stepped back the violence magically ended. (With the small exception of white supremacist groups which were armed and shot a bunch of people including cops).
- okiedokiepokie 6y ago
  I never said that the police were in the right. Did I? I was talking about Antifa themselves since that's what I was replying to. It's good to know that Antifa are the sole arbiters of what's facist and not. For example shutting down Ben Shapiro events.
- mtgp1000 6y ago
  I can't offer legitimate evidence to the contrary because I've been personally warned by moderation not to post in "flamewar" topics. So this thread will only show data from one perspective, while innocent people die.
  - ipnon 6y ago
    Violence by the police is as off topic to the NYPD playing the ice cream jingle in black neighborhoods as drone strikes are off topic to the national anthem being played at political rallies. It's like the debate between Emacs vs. Vim. It's a debate that needs to occur. It is such a contentious issue that it quickly dominates any conversation in which the debate arises. The debate between Emacs vs. Vim, therefore, needs to be avoided in conversations of other, less contentious issues to allow the other issue to be the focus of the discussion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jsf01 6y ago

They are using unlawful violence and intimidation towards the pursuit of political aims. Whether or not you feel those aims are justified, their means by definition have earned the “terrorism” label. A previous commentor made a great point about the naming of things. Often the labels for highly political movements are euphemisms at best. Some of the least democratic countries in the world include the DPRK, DRC, and the PRC. And just about every violent revolutionary movement has similar naming, like the PLO and so many others. Look to their actions, not their name or stated mission, to make your own assessment. Antifa is in the same position as many other early stage revolutionary political movements rooted in socialist ideals. I’d characterize them as highly volatile, anti-establishment, anti-police, with many autonomous factions, and so forth. Because of this disorganized and volatile nature, their initial steps can only be disruption to the incumbent political and police forces they stand against, not to create their own. They’re too chaotic at this stage to stand any chance of supplanting the status quo with anything better on their own. Their best hope is for the current political forces to enact better policies as a reaction, but it won’t be anything created by antifa itself. Because to create order requires a unified vision, and besides sharing a common enemy, unity is something their many factions lack at this time. That being said, the brief attempt at creating something in the CHAZ was illustrative of the challenges any early stage political force faces. In it, for example, the ratio of police (or armed militia) to civilians has to be extraordinarily high. And when their police force is as young, hot-blooded and untrained as it is today, it will be more violent than that of the stable government they oppose. Such an early stage government faces external threats, obviously, but because of the elevated level of chaos within it there are substantially more internal threats than a later stage government has to deal with. And so, were antifa to successfully implement its own government it would necessarily be fascist (in the police-force dominated, no room for dissent aspect of fascism) or it would fall apart. Despite their name and mission, and despite their far left position, if they are like any of the similar movements in history their authority early on will stem from a threat of violence, which your post doesn’t attempt to deny—only that for this cause, that fascist response, to you, would be justified.