Should Antifa be classified as a terrorist organization?

[Rends]

Then are you able to refute the evidence that was presented to you, instead of complaining about the source, and ignoring it?

Also, I'm still waiting on your evidence... I've been asking for a day, now.

As I said, you are making a hell of a lot of posts and they are full of non-sequiturs. I am just baffled at the constant lack of logic in your questions. When I can connect the dots, I answer. But mostly you are asking something completely bizarre and irrelevant, it is unclear where the hell you are even coming from, so I am not answering those.

Let me try to answer the bizarre question of yours above.

We were talking about Antifa. There was a point that some others are more violent than them. I said that those who are more violent than Antifa should be banned as well.

You keep asking about KKK and Proud Boys and whether they should be banned. My answer remains the exact same as always. If they are as violent or more violent than Antifa then I'd like them banned, too. The problem is in showing that they are as violent or more violent than Antifa. You keep bringing them up but you never showed anything about violence.

Another poster, Slybak, actually had something on violence. He said that fascists, for example, killed 240 people in the US since 2015. I asked him about the source of that data. He pointed to the ADL report. I was familiar with ADL reports already, said as much, and pointed out several things about them. See my post #573. For example, I said that when an ADL reports classifies something as "right wing violence" this tends to mean not some org in particular, but rather that the perpetrator expressed some views which ADL report compilers chose to classify as "associated with right-wing violence". Moreover, I said that all actual orgs that made ADL reports, however few of them there are, should be banned (they already are). And that we can view Antifa as being next, if that helps.

Your "then you are able to refute the evidence that was presented to you" is just bizarre. The evidence does not contradict at all what I am saying or arguing for. The evidence is not that there are tons of right wing orgs who get a pass on violence. What the hell am I supposed to refute? Right, nothing.

I hope this clears it up. If not, well, I won't bother anymore either way. I'll just talk to Slybak and people like him than keep deciphering the bizarre posts that are coming from you, no offense.

[Machismo]

As I said, you are making a hell of a lot of posts and they are full of non-sequiturs. I am just baffled at the constant lack of logic in your questions. When I can connect the dots, I answer. But mostly you are asking something completely bizarre and irrelevant, it is unclear where the hell you are even coming from, so I am not answering those.

Let me try to answer the bizarre question of yours above.

We were talking about Antifa. There was a point that others are more violent than them. I said that those who are more violent then them should be banned as well.

You keep asking about KKK and Proud Boys and whether they should be banned. My answer remains the exact same as always. If they are as violent or more violent than Antifa then I'd like them banned, too. The problem is in showing that they are as violent or more violent than Antifa. You keep bringing them up but you never showed anything about violence.

Another poster, Slybak, actually had something on violence. He said that fascists, for example, killed 240 people in the US since 2015. I asked him about the source of that data. He pointed to the ADL report. I was familiar with ADL reports already, said as much, and pointed out several things about them. See my post #573. For example, I said that when an ADL reports classifies something as "right wing violence" this tends to mean not some org in particular, but rather that the perpetrator expressed some views which ADL report compilers chose to classify as "associated with right-wing violence". Moreover, I said that all actual orgs that made ADL reports, however few of them there are, should be banned. And that we can view Antifa as being next.

Your "then you are able to refute the evidence that was presented to you" is just bizarre. The evidence does not contradict at all what I am saying or arguing for. The evidence is not that there are tons of right wing orgs who get a pass on violence either. What the hell am I supposed to refute? Right, nothing.

I hope this clears it up. If not, well, I won't bother anymore either way. I'll just talk to Slybak and people like him than keep deciphering the bizarre posts that are coming from you, no offense.

You said you addressed it, but in reality, you complained about the source, and ignored it. You literally asked for evidence, and you refused to actually look at the evidence in an honest manner.

You wish to create this comparative metric, yet are unwilling and unable to provide evidence to back it up. So, your entire argument is that they need to be banned... somehow, because you feel they are violent as a group, even the ones who are not violent. Meanwhile, when you were pressed to be consistent in your vague bullshit, you had to move goalposts, and say only the violent ones from other groups.

Double Standards... how sad.

So, let me know when you have evidence, and when you are willing to address the evidence presented to you. I find it odd that you asked for more evidence (when you are the one making the arbitrary metric that you cannot even set), when you refuse to provide your own, or look at the evidence that was already presented.

Oh, it's very, very clear. You are caught being disingenuous.

[Mekh]

As I said, you are making a hell of a lot of posts and they are full of non-sequiturs. I am just baffled at the constant lack of logic in your questions. When I can connect the dots, I answer. But mostly you are asking something completely bizarre and irrelevant, it is unclear where the hell you are even coming from, so I am not answering those.

Let me try to answer the bizarre question of yours above.

We were talking about Antifa. There was a point that some others are more violent than them. I said that those who are more violent than Antifa should be banned as well.

You keep asking about KKK and Proud Boys and whether they should be banned. My answer remains the exact same as always. If they are as violent or more violent than Antifa then I'd like them banned, too. The problem is in showing that they are as violent or more violent than Antifa. You keep bringing them up but you never showed anything about violence.

So your point is that the Scotsmen aren't true enough. The murderers of Heather Heyer, the shooters of Christchurch or Charleston all radicalized themselves in the alt-right, but because none of them said "I am a Proud Boy!" you have no issue. Meanwhile you want to ban Antifa a complete non-organization similar to the old Anonymous, where anyone can take the mantle and just claim to be Anon/Antifa and want to create a blanket ban from it. Am I getting that right so far?

[Felya]

You keep asking about KKK and Proud Boys and whether they should be banned. My answer remains the exact same as always. If they are as violent or more violent than Antifa then I'd like them banned, too. The problem is in showing that they are as violent or more violent than Antifa. You keep bringing them up but you never showed anything about violence.

The rally where the woman was killed, called them selfs “unite the right”. The same rally where they chanted “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood for soil”. The MAGA bomber had his minivan dressed in altright rhetoric. Same altright rhetoric found with the Church shooter, the synagogue shooter, the mosque arsonist and the church arsonist.

[Rends]

So your point is that the Scotsmen aren't true enough. The murderers of Heather Heyer, the shooters of Christchurch or Charleston all radicalized themselves in the alt-right, but because none of them said "I am a Proud Boy!" you have no issue. Meanwhile you want to ban Antifa a complete non-organization similar to the old Anonymous, where anyone can take the mantle and just claim to be Anon/Antifa and want to create a blanket ban from it. Am I getting that right so far?

If there is an org or movement that keeps popping up with respect to violence, it should be banned.

Antifa is such. They have multiple local orgs with a common flag, symbology, and so on, and they are violent.

If you want to say that Proud Boys are such, go ahead. I didn't hear about incidents with Proud Boys, but what do I know.

But what you seem to want to do is different: you are taking some shootings, then vaguely associate them with "right wing" based on someone getting a haircut or posting a racist pic on twitter, and then you note that Proud Boys are also "right wing" and so you conclude that they should be banned. No, this does not work that way, the jump from violence to "right wing" is too wide and the jump from "violent right wing" to Proud Boys is also too wide, unless you bring up specific incidents of Proud Boys being violent.

[Felya]

So your point is that the Scotsmen aren't true enough. The murderers of Heather Heyer, the shooters of Christchurch or Charleston all radicalized themselves in the alt-right, but because none of them said "I am a Proud Boy!" you have no issue. Meanwhile you want to ban Antifa a complete non-organization similar to the old Anonymous, where anyone can take the mantle and just claim to be Anon/Antifa and want to create a blanket ban from it. Am I getting that right so far?

The name of the rally that murdered Heyer was “unite the right”. If we go by self applied labels, the fascist marching during unite the right rally, were just right wing. I don’t see anyone disputing that, while attacking the people they murder as antifa.

[Rends]

The rally where the woman was killed, called them selfs “unite the right”. The same rally where they chanted “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood for soil”. The MAGA bomber had his minivan dressed in altright rhetoric. Same altright rhetoric found with the Church shooter, the synagogue shooter, the mosque arsonist and the church arsonist.

See above, you are doing the same jumps from violence to "right wing" and then back to whoever has the word "right" anywhere in their description. In the process of making these wild jumps you are losing the argument. You cannot jump that wide.

[Felya]

But what you seem to want to do is different: you are taking some shootings, then vaguely associate them with "right wing" based on someone getting a haircut or posting a racist pic on twitter, and then you note that Proud Boys are also "right wing" and so you conclude that they should be banned. No, this does not work that way, the jump from violence to "right wing" is too wide and the jump from "violent right wing" to Proud Boys is also too wide, unless you bring up specific incidents of Proud Boys being violent.

The name of the rally where Heather was killed and people were marching while chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood for soil”, was called “unite the right”.

- - - Updated - - -

See above, you are doing the same jumps from violence to "right wing" and then back to whoever has the word "right" anywhere in their description. In the process of making these wild jumps you are losing the argument. You cannot jump that wide.

They named the rally “unite the right” and you have no problem ignoring that they murdered someone and their chanting, to point at random people as antifa.

[Rends]

The name of the rally where Heather was killed and people were marching while chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood for soil”, was called “unite the right”.

So? Who do you want banned based on that?

[Machismo]

If there is an org or movement that keeps popping up with respect to violence, it should be banned.

Antifa is such. They have multiple local orgs with a common flag, symbology, and so on, and they are violent.

If you want to say that Proud Boys are such, go ahead. I didn't hear about incidents with Proud Boys, but what do I know.

But what you seem to want to do is different: you are taking some shootings, then vaguely associate them with "right wing" based on someone getting a haircut or posting a racist pic on twitter, and then you note that Proud Boys are also "right wing" and so you conclude that they should be banned. No, this does not work that way, the jump from violence to "right wing" is too wide and the jump from "violent right wing" to Proud Boys is also too wide, unless you bring up specific incidents of Proud Boys being violent.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys

There you go.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...oup/proud-boys

Now, where's your evidence?

You also said you want to "ban them" when referring to violent groups. You also called to ban masks. Well, fascists are clearly violent. Let's ban khakis and white polo shirts. Lots of Trumpsters are violent, let's ban MAGA hats. The Proud Boys are violent, ban tattoos and helmets. Part of this is sarcasm.

[Rends]

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys

There you go.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...oup/proud-boys

Now, where's your evidence?

You also said you want to "ban them" when referring to violent groups. You also called to ban masks. Well, fascists are clearly violent. Let's ban khakis and white polo shirts. Lots of Trumpsters are violent, let's ban MAGA hats. The Proud Boys are violent, ban tattoos and helmets. Part of this is sarcasm.

What actions of Proud Boys do you classify as violent?

Backgrounds are cool. But how many heads did they crack?

[Machismo]

What actions of Proud Boys do you classify as violent?

Backgrounds are cool. But how many heads did they crack?

Did you read the sources? They literally have to be violent to be members.

More for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

[Rends]

Did you read the sources? They literally have to be violent to be members.

More for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

Yes, I read the sources. The ADL one I've seen before too. How many heads?

You don't seem to know, you are only trying to figure it out now. Well, keep at it and you will see that 99% of what is written about Proud Boys is about their views, not on their violence. They don't compare to Antifa, there is a new violent Antifa incident every other month, far from it with Proud Boys.

[Machismo]

Yes, I read the sources. The ADL one I've seen before too. How many heads?

You don't seem to know, you are only trying to figure it out now. Well, keep at it and you will see that 99% of what is written about Proud Boys is about their views, not on their violence. They don't compare to Antifa, there is a new violent Antifa incident every other month, far from it with Proud Boys.

It's been provided for you.

And there it is, you are going out of your way to defend violence, when you sympathize with them. Some of the instances of violence were listed... and yet, you still cannot be consistent.

So, how many "heads" before you consider them a terrorist group?

And yes, I am basking in the glow, knowing you just got caught. A brand new account, shilling for violent terrorists. God damn, I love being right.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Should a terrorist organization be classified as terrorist organization?

Also put PETA on the list.

[JohnBrown1917]

Should a terrorist organization be classified as terrorist organization?

Also put PETA on the list.

OK OK WE GET IT. Conservatism is now a terrorist organization, jeez.. Happy now?

[Machismo]

Should a terrorist organization be classified as terrorist organization?

Also put PETA on the list.

Yes, just like the fascists, ethno-nationalists, white nationalists, Trumpsters, Proud Boys, and the KKK.

[Independent voter]

Nobody ever heard of Proud Boys. Joe Rogan said someone started Proud Boys as a joke and I wouldn't doubt it.

Along comes antifa and the attack the Proud Boys. Suddenly Proud Boys are on national news, it's millions of dollars of free advertising for them. Proud Boys gets converts, who take Proud Boys seriously, and they get money.

Thanks antifa.

[Noxx79]

Nobody ever heard of Proud Boys. Joe Rogan said someone started Proud Boys as a joke and I wouldn't doubt it.

Along comes antifa and the attack the Proud Boys. Suddenly Proud Boys are on national news, it's millions of dollars of free advertising for them. Proud Boys gets converts, who take Proud Boys seriously, and they get money.

Thanks antifa.

Nobody ever heard of Antifa, some douchewaffle said it was started as a “joke”. (BoTh this and proud boys starting as a “joke” are wrong)

Along comes the proud boys, and they start attacking Antifa. Suddenly Antifa is on national news. It’s millions of dollars of free advertising for them. Antifa gets recruits who take Antifa seriously, they get money and support.

Thanks proud boys.

[Machismo]

Nobody ever heard of Proud Boys. Joe Rogan said someone started Proud Boys as a joke and I wouldn't doubt it.

Along comes antifa and the attack the Proud Boys. Suddenly Proud Boys are on national news, it's millions of dollars of free advertising for them. Proud Boys gets converts, who take Proud Boys seriously, and they get money.

Thanks antifa.

Why do you keep blaming others for people you sympathize with being violent?

Maybe you should stop shilling for violent extremists and pandering to racists. That's the real problem.