Change.org Petition Wants ANTIFA Declared a ‘Terrorist Organization’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796126]And? In practice [I][B]it is[/B][/I] the case, therefore that part of your argument doesn't really hold any water.[/QUOTE] It is the case... in certain areas that I fundamentally disagree with and would also fight against that law (without using violence, like a terrorist would, mind you) were I living in one of those states. In the majority of the United States, and at the federal level, we do not allow that kind of murder. Furthermore, this is a step removed from that. We're talking about violently assaulting people who have, in general, [b]not actually committed a violent crime.[/b]

[QUOTE=eirexe;51796119]I never said attacking fascists is justified, but you can't call antifa fascist because they are not, fascists just believe that violence is necessary and desirable, violent antifa believe that violence is justified in some extreme cases, it's a completely different thing.[/QUOTE] You're right, and you would know that I had rescinded my label of them being fascists if you would have read one of my latest posts. But I guess you didn't. Anyone who uses violence to intimidate another group of people and sway their political opinion is a terrorist. These violent members of antifa are terrorists.

[QUOTE=geel9;51796133]It is the case... in certain areas that I fundamentally disagree with and would also fight against that law (without using violence, like a terrorist would, mind you) were I living in one of those states. In the majority of the United States, and at the federal level, we do not allow that kind of murder. Furthermore, this is a step removed from that. We're talking about violently assaulting people who have, in general, [b]not actually committed a violent crime.[/b][/QUOTE] Fair enough. Can I ask, where do you stand on the issue of labeling the entirety of antifa as a terrorist organization? (apologies if you answered this already)

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796137]Fair enough. Can I ask, where do you stand on the issue of labeling the entirety of antifa as a terrorist organization? (apologies if you answered this already)[/QUOTE] The "entirety of antifa" isn't inherently a terrorist organization, obviously, because a single member of antifa not being a terrorist would make that not true. Furthermore, branding Antifa as a terrorist organization doesn't mean that everyone who says they're part of Antifa is proclaimed a terrorist. We're not trying to just put everyone who supports Antifa in prison. That'd be absurd. You put people who actually perform terrorist acts in prison. That said, I'm really not invested in whether or not Antifa should be branded a terrorist organization. I'm interested in this argument that somehow, assaulting people you [b]suspect[/b] of being a fascist, in a way that is in no way preventing an imminent violent crime, is somehow okay. That's what I care about.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51795995]i want stats because only complete morons and those without any world view try and completely vilify an entire movement without statistics[/QUOTE] And you're not doing a very good job at proving otherwise, actually you haven't even started at all. You've been crying about stats for hours now and so far hasn't done actual shit to argue with me so far because you don't actually have stats, You're trying to find stats on something that isn't well defined to be able to be studied for a statistical publishing, especially on a group like antifa where what you just linked labels themselves as a [B]movement[/B], as good or shitty they can be, from all the experience, news, opinions I've seen from ANTIFA it just leads me to conclude a large part of these people are violent. [QUOTE=KillRay;51796057]Here's some stats. The official[URL="https://antifainternational.tumblr.com/"] Anti-Facism International organization [/URL] has 4k+ followers on tumblr. [URL]https://intlantifadefence.wordpress.com/[/URL] This is their site as well They are not a militant organization. Yet they recieve plenty of donations and [URL="https://antifainternational.tumblr.com/post/154262091444/hey-do-you-guys-have-recent-stats-on-antifas"]tons of support[/URL] while talking about nonviolence [IMG]http://puu.sh/tUiEq/6c15f79231.png[/IMG] not saying this is a MAJORITY of all anti-fa, but its much larger than Creepers picked articles of 1-2 people[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TBuRQJq.png[/IMG] And what you just linked is just contradicting with what you say that you've found "stats". That's not a stat, that's someone from ANTIFA who's trying to roughly gauge something from their own movement based on their small and limited data quality, if you showed this as stats to someone else they would probably laugh straight into your face. this so "stat" is what makes you think that your argument is superior to mine (which you called me a complete moron for). And I find that to be a complete embarrassment.

Snip

[QUOTE=geel9;51796155]The "entirety of antifa" isn't inherently a terrorist organization, obviously, because a single member of antifa not being a terrorist would make that not true. Furthermore, branding Antifa as a terrorist organization doesn't mean that everyone who says they're part of Antifa is proclaimed a terrorist. We're not trying to just put everyone who supports Antifa in prison. That'd be absurd. You put people who actually perform terrorist acts in prison. That said, I'm really not invested in whether or not Antifa should be branded a terrorist organization. I'm interested in this argument that somehow, assaulting people you [B]suspect[/B] of being a fascist, in a way that is in no way preventing an imminent violent crime, is somehow okay. That's what I care about.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the reply. :smile: My issue with wanting to label the entirety of the organization as a terrorist organization is that it is inherently demonizing to those NON-VIOLENT members of the group who are genuinely interested in stemming the spread of fascism (an ideology that promoted violence as a core tenet). People who support this petition dislike antifa's use of violence so much that they would give the state extra authority not only to go after the violent actors but anyone who sympathizes with them as well. You also ignored my argument about the police and military regularly using tactics that by definition are terroristic in nature. Here's where the discussion gets...difficult. How can you remain ideologically consistent to your principles on non-violence and anti-terror while being okay with the police and military using equally terroristic tactics both at home and abroad. As it currently stands, you do appear to condone some violence towards groups (whether they be drug dealers, internet pirates, or whathaveyou at home, and "terrorists" abroad), if your previous white-washing comment about the police and military is to be used as a precedent. The FBI definition of terrorism is very vague and can be applied to many, many things that involve violence (the FBI itself, even). I thought leftists and liberals were supposed to be anti-police state/surveillance state/Patriot Act?

[QUOTE=SenhorCreeper;51796171]And you're not doing a very good job at proving otherwise, actually you haven't even started at all. You've been crying about stats for hours now and so far hasn't done actual shit to argue with me so far because you don't actually have stats, You're trying to find stats on something that isn't well defined to be able to be studied for a statistical publishing, especially on a group like antifa where what you just linked labels themselves as a [B]movement[/B], as good or shitty they can be, from all the experience, news, opinions I've seen from ANTIFA it just leads me to conclude a large part of these people are violent.[/QUOTE] burden of proof is not on me hoss. i gave numbers of the movement that are larger than the numbers you gave, just to humor you [quote] And what you just linked is just contradicting with what you say that you've found "stats". That's not a stat, that's someone from ANTIFA who's trying to roughly gauge something from their own movement based on their small and limited data quality, if you showed this as stats to someone else they would probably laugh straight into your face. this so "stat" is what makes you think that your argument is superior to mine (which you called me a complete moron for). And I find that to be a complete embarrassment.[/quote] its more than what youve shown me. you've shown me a collective 1 tweet that wasn't about anarchists or completely offtopic. you're right i shouldnt have called it stats but at least its from a source relating to the topic. i can provide just as many personal anecdotes as youve thrown out though. if i could ask for the actual number of donations from the site well then, that would be a stat. so here's that! this nonviolent org has: 69 patreon supporters [URL]https://www.patreon.com/intlantifadefence/posts[/URL] 16k rased on fundrazer [URL]https://fundrazr.com/e17KK4?ref=ab_f5bjw2[/URL] and lots of facebook support [IMG]http://puu.sh/tUl2C/cd0890fa15.png[/IMG] thats a lot of people supporting nonviolence so please look at my sources thoroughly next time :)

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51795613]Except you did say she wasn't being sarcastic, which is exactly what she was doing. You did assume she wanted an actual anti-communist organization, and that she somehow forgot McCarthyism when there was no indication of that. The communist aspect wasn't actually important to her point other than establishing a competing ideology and basis for opposing it.[/QUOTE] i'd believe you is she wasn't making post like these after lol [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51795733]Stalinism/Marxism/Maoism Some other dangerous ideals too. Not just fascists[/QUOTE] also yes she was bein sarcastic in that she didnt really wanted an actual anti-communist organization, but she wasn't sacarcastic in saying that fascism is the same as communism, hell look at the post above. as if communists fetishize war like facists and yes it's still funny that in being sarcastic she didn't take in consideration that an actual ''anticom'' already existed in the history of the US. so by her point if anticom exists antifa should exist too. oh and i repeat that she clearly said without being sarcastic that communism is worst than fascism, you can't deny now that she posted again expliciting her views. so yeah didn't thought that i had to explain it all word by word

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796201]Thanks for the reply. :smile: My issue with wanting to label the entirety of the organization as a terrorist organization is that it is inherently demonizing to those NON-VIOLENT members of the group who are genuinely interested in stemming the spread of fascism (an ideology that promoted violence as a core tenet). People who support this petition dislike antifa's use of violence so much that they would give the state extra authority not only to go after the violent actors but anyone who sympathizes with them as well. You also ignored my argument about the police and military regularly using tactics that by definition are terroristic in nature. Here's where the discussion gets...difficult. How can you remain ideologically consistent to your principles on non-violence and anti-terror while being okay with the police and military using equally terroristic tactics both at home and abroad. As it currently stands, you do appear to condone some violence towards groups (whether they be drug dealers, internet pirates, or whathaveyou at home, and "terrorists" abroad), if your previous white-washing comment about the police and military is to be used as a precedent. The FBI definition of terrorism is very vague and can be applied to many, many things that involve violence (the FBI itself, even).[/QUOTE] In what way can you assume I support violence against internet pirates? They're not committing a violent crime. I believe that police should only exercise violent force in order to prevent an imminent violent crime. I don't think that's inconsistent at all. I also don't support a fair amount of the US Military's actions.

[QUOTE=geel9;51796223]In what way can you assume I support violence against internet pirates? They're not committing a violent crime. I believe that police should only exercise violent force in order to prevent an imminent violent crime. I don't think that's inconsistent at all. I also don't support a fair amount of the US Military's actions.[/QUOTE] Physically arresting someone (let's say for a non-violent crime) and locking them in a literal cage isn't using violent force?

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796232]Physically arresting someone and locking them in a literal cage isn't violent force?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't consider that violent, no. I do believe that the government has the right to enforce its own laws. I disagree with a fair amount of those laws, but I agree with the majority of them. It kind of sounds like you're an anarchist. Is that accurate?

The thing is, fascists are inherently violent against people of color, women, homosexuals etc. Their ideology itself is based on them thinking their lives are superior to others. People will argue that using violence against them legitimizes their viewpoint, but allowing them to organize and protecting their freedom of hate speech is a much greater benefit to their cause as it normalizes their backwards garbage can ideology.

[QUOTE=billibobc;51796240]The thing is, fascists are inherently violent against people of color, women, homosexuals etc. Their ideology itself is based on them thinking their lives are superior to others. People will argue that using violence against them legitimizes their viewpoint, but allowing them to organize and protecting their freedom of hate speech is a much greater benefit to their cause as it normalizes their backwards garbage can ideology.[/QUOTE] Use violence to prevent people from being violent against innocents. Don't use violence because you think they will be violent, perhaps, maybe, in the future. That's fucked up.

[QUOTE=geel9;51796155]The "entirety of antifa" isn't inherently a terrorist organization, obviously, because a single member of antifa not being a terrorist would make that not true. Furthermore, branding Antifa as a terrorist organization doesn't mean that everyone who says they're part of Antifa is proclaimed a terrorist. We're not trying to just put everyone who supports Antifa in prison. That'd be absurd. You put people who actually perform terrorist acts in prison. That said, I'm really not invested in whether or not Antifa should be branded a terrorist organization. I'm interested in this argument that somehow, assaulting people you [b]suspect[/b] of being a fascist, in a way that is in no way preventing an imminent violent crime, is somehow okay. That's what I care about.[/QUOTE] If guessing a bit here, but if I'm not mistaken 'membership of a terrorist organisation' is a crime in most places, so imprecisely branding 'antifa' as such would lead to persecution of a lot of innocent people using that name. We'd essentially just have another giant mess on our hands. [I]Prosecuting[/I] (not blanket-declaring) specifically violent sub-groups in that manner should be way less of an issue, though. We handle neo-nazis in Germany this way, and so far it's working pretty well as long as the state doesn't screw it up monumentally.

[QUOTE=geel9;51796238]I wouldn't consider that violent, no. I do believe that the government has the right to enforce its own laws. I disagree with a fair amount of those laws, but I agree with the majority of them. It kind of sounds like you're an anarchist. Is that accurate?[/QUOTE] No, I'm not an anarchist at all. I've been playing the devil's advocate in an attempt to show the holes in your argument and hopefully convince you that both the FBI's definition of terrorism is way too vague and implies way to much when thrown around, and the willy-nilly labeling of groups that have violent elements as terroristic in nature is a dangerous precedent. But you already said you don't support labeling them as terrorists so we're pretty much on the same page there :) I agree with you, the state does have a right to enforce its laws, but we as citizens have the responsibility to check the state and prevent its abuses. To answer your question, I am a Social Democrat/Reformist.

[QUOTE=billibobc;51796240]The thing is, fascists are inherently violent against people of color, women, homosexuals etc. Their ideology itself is based on them thinking their lives are superior to others. People will argue that using violence against them legitimizes their viewpoint, but allowing them to organize and protecting their freedom of hate speech is a much greater benefit to their cause as it normalizes their backwards garbage can ideology.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously think that beating them to a pulp is going to have a lesser effect on their beliefs than simply allowing them to talk ? Why do you think people are signing this petition ? Is it because they saw something related to antifa beating up people or are they just klansmen, i wonder ?

Calling ANTIFA terrorists just devalues the word terrorist.

[QUOTE=geel9;51796252]Use violence to prevent people from being violent against innocents. Don't use violence because you think they will be violent, perhaps, maybe, in the future. That's fucked up.[/QUOTE] Except that fascism is inherently violent by nature of its ideology. If someone says "I'm going to rob bank X on date X" and they have recently purchased body armor and large cap magazines is it safe to assume they are about to engage in violence and arrest them for conspiracy to commit a violent crime? Serious question.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51796284]Calling ANTIFA terrorists just devalues the word terrorist.[/QUOTE] It doesn't devalue the word at all. Why would it?

[QUOTE=geel9;51796252]Use violence to prevent people from being violent against innocents. Don't use violence because you think they will be violent, perhaps, maybe, in the future. That's fucked up.[/QUOTE] "This group is saying they want to exterminate all non-whites, but theyre not punching people in the face so they should be allowed to organize and grow their movement"

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796287]Except that fascism is inherently violent by nature of its ideology. If someone says "I'm going to rob bank X on date X" and they have recently purchased body armor and large cap magazines is it safe to assume they are about to engage in violence and arrest them for conspiracy to commit a violent crime? Serious question.[/QUOTE] You report them to the police, who still don't have the right to just go in shooting them. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any specifically violent plans these people have laid out in such a format. What is their planned date for genocide? I'd love to know.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796287]Except that fascism is inherently violent by nature of its ideology. If someone says "I'm going to rob bank X on date X" and they have recently purchased body armor and large cap magazines is it safe to assume they are about to engage in violence and arrest them for conspiracy to commit a violent crime? Serious question.[/QUOTE] Have the people in question purchased body armor and large cap magazines to exterminate the lesser races ? There's this thing called reasonable suspicion and it's why the KKK and Sovereign citizens are considered dangerous, some of them actually did that, some went as as far as killing people. An internet troll hosting an event is just not that.

[QUOTE=geel9;51796303]You report them to the police, who still don't have the right to just go in shooting them. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any specifically violent plans these people have laid out in such a format. What is their planned date for genocide? I'd love to know.[/QUOTE] But they DO have the right to go in a use violent force to stop them from carrying out a violent act that they have not yet committed.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51796216]burden of proof is not on me hoss. i gave numbers of the movement that are larger than the numbers you gave, just to humor you its more than what youve shown me. you've shown me a collective 1 tweet that wasn't about anarchists or completely offtopic[/QUOTE] 7 photos 4 videos 5 articles 3 self-acclaimed terrorism comments/tweets Yes, your small screencap coming from the antifa tumblr page is far [U]superior[/U] "statistical" evidence. I can't help but say how laughable can you be. [QUOTE]if i could ask for the actual number of donations from the site well then, that would be a stat. so here's that! this nonviolent org has: 69 patreon supporters [URL]https://www.patreon.com/intlantifadefence/posts[/URL] 16k rased on fundrazer [URL]https://fundrazr.com/e17KK4?ref=ab_f5bjw2[/URL] and lots of facebook support [IMG]http://puu.sh/tUl2C/cd0890fa15.png[/IMG] thats a lot of people supporting nonviolence so please look at my sources thoroughly next time :)[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? are you seriously trying to basis your logic off people liking an antifa page on facebook? people donating to a fund which reads "immediate support to anti-fascists and anti-racists. whenever they are in a tight spot as a result of their stand against hate." Do you even acknowledge how can this somewhere fit into my argument? Antifa supporters donated money for other antifa supporters, how does that disprove anything I said? not to mention this is for supporting antifa members who are "in a tight spot". or if you actually went their blog ([url]https://intlantifadefence.wordpress.com/[/url]) there are multiple cases of people fundraising other's legal fees for attacking other groups and being fined for illegal activity. Go research more of your sources, your very own fundraiser you just linked contains multiple reports about people doing a fundraiser to pay other antifa members who is in jail's legal fees after attacking others, and paying someone's legal fees, which is around $550.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796335]But they DO have the right to go in a use violent force to stop them from carrying out a violent act that they have not yet committed.[/QUOTE] Perhaps. There's a limit to the violence the police can open with. In addition, you have a clear, credible, [b]actual threat[/b] being made. You have someone saying that they will, at a specific time, at a specific place, commit a violent crime. That's different from "They sound a whole lot like fascists so they're [b]definitely[/b] planning on murdering a whole lot of people"

[QUOTE=billibobc;51796297]"This group is saying they want to exterminate all non-whites, but theyre not punching people in the face so they should be allowed to organize and grow their movement"[/QUOTE] Because using violence to change someone's mind works so well right? I mean we don't got a example in history where this completely back fired. Oh wait what were the years of lead. [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)"]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)[/URL] Seriously you must be a special kind of dense to think that using violence to attack your political opponents is going to weaken them and not think that it will emboldened there cause which will gain more popular support.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51796335]But they DO have the right to go in a use violent force to stop them from carrying out a violent act that they have not yet committed.[/QUOTE] geel9 said earlier that he doesn't consider state mandated violence to be violence in the general sense, iinm. I disagree (even while I'm ok with it being used as legal), but if you take that into account his posts don't really disagree with yours.

[QUOTE=SenhorCreeper;51796350]7 photos 4 videos 5 articles 3 self-acclaimed terrorism comments/tweets .[/QUOTE] you didnt prove any of those were antifa though. most of those come from the anarchist sub and anarchist news too. not anti fa. its not the same thing. i can link a picture of a dude smashing a random window too and say its you, your tiny ass sources were shit dude you just cant keep focus long enough to prove me wrong smh fam [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] people donating to support a nonviolent antifa organization is a statistic of people who support nonviolence in the movement

[QUOTE=geel9;51796359]Perhaps. There's a limit to the violence the police can open with. In addition, you have a clear, credible, [B]actual threat[/B] being made. You have someone saying that they will, at a specific time, at a specific place, commit a violent crime. [B]That's different from "They sound a whole lot like fascists so they're [B]definitely[/B] planning on murdering a whole lot of people"[/B][/QUOTE] True, no argument there. But by that logic, if fascists say at a rally "we are going to get elected and then carry out our violent agenda" are they then fair game? [QUOTE=Tamschi;51796370]geel9 said earlier that he doesn't consider state mandated violence to be violence in the general sense, iinm. I disagree (even while I'm ok with it being used as legal), but if you take that into account his posts don't really disagree with yours.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I realized that towards the end of our discussion lol. Lots of good discussion going on in this thread.