Glancing at your comments, it does seem like you're conscious of US politics. Do you think it shouldn't be posted because it doesn't seem relevant to the current situation, or because you disagree with the connotations of a legal restriction on this particular use of force?
It has nothing to do with technology and it isn’t relevant because of the Insurrection Act. At best this link is just misinforming people. See the Reuter’s article below.
- you know "antifa" is not an organization and therefore isn't one that can be designated as terrorist, or
- you don't know that
If the latter, you just sound like a really big internet tough guy. If the former, you also know that "antifa" is short for "antifascist" and your clear designation of that as an enemy is also clear signaling that you're in for fascism.
Criticising antifa does not imply support of fascism. Many of those proclaiming to be antifa have committed acts of violence, and there are still some people left in the country who believe in peaceful protest and find violence distasteful. You can be completely against fascism but disagree with the violent tendencies of many who associate themselves with the antifa label.
I wasn't talking about calling it a terrorist organization. I was responding to the parent:
> If the former, you also know that "antifa" is short for "antifascist" and your clear designation of that as an enemy is also clear signaling that you're in for fascism.
In particular, I'm responding to "designation of that as an enemy" which is not the same as calling it a terrorist organization. People who oppose fascism and violence may call antifa an enemy for the violence committed and espoused in antifa's name. If someone commits violence against me, or any other innocent people I call allies, then they are certainly my enemy, whether I agree with their ideology or not. You can agree with something in principle (be anti-fascist) but not support particular methods (violence).
What you're quoting is in turn a response to someone basically saying the military should be deployed because "antifa" has been "designated as a terrorist organization". In this context, "designating as enemy" is a rather polite description of that, and you can't just take issue with what they said and ignore what it's a reply to.
> People who oppose fascism and violence may call antifa an enemy for the violence committed and espoused in antifa's name.
Great, but can they either a.) bring that up on their own, or at least b.) pay attention to the context they attach this complaint to?
Unless you want to make the case for labeling antifa a terrorist organization, what you may "call enemy" or "disagree with" some or all aspects of what you may or may not consider antifa is simply not relevant. The strong ["antifa is a terrorist organization"] has been made, it's on the table; and you're defending an infinitely weaker claim nobody even hinted at disagreeing with, apropos nothing.
One of the original points I wanted to push back against is when the parent said that "your clear designation of [antifa] as an enemy is also clear signaling that you're in for fascism." In particular, I don't think that it is fair to say someone is "in for fascism" just because they call antifa their enemy, or even if they think antifa is a terrorist organization. You can think antifa is a terrorist organization but also be against fascism.
> You can think antifa is a terrorist organization but also be against fascism.
Without a clear argument as to why antifa is a.) an organization and b.) as such terrorist, I don't think you can. It's like saying "Jews start all wars, I'm against antisemitism".
That analogy is not the same at all, and is quite a leap. The difference lies in the double negative in the antifa situation, if you will. The parent was claiming that if you are against antifa ("anti-antifa" such as by calling them a terrorist organization), then you are pro-fascist. But the antifa label comes with a lot more baggage than simply being against fascism. They are known for their militant/violent tendencies, which many people may not support, and some may go as far as to call terroristic.
I'm not interested in debating whether or not antifa is a terrorist organization, and doing so is not necessary to support the point I am making. All I am saying is that some people may have a different understanding of antifa, and believe antifa is a terrorist organization not for its stance against fascism, but for its violent methods. These same people may be completely against fascism but oppose those labeled antifa for the baggage associated with such a label.
The root issue is the implication that being antifa is nothing more than being against fascism. If that were true, then I agree with you. But it's not. The antifa label has become associated with political violence (just read the Wikipedia article). To most people, it no longer means simply being against fascism, but also has associations to antifa's violent methods. Many of the debates about antifa, and I think also this one, stem from the fact that people have different understandings of what antifa actually means. I think it is deceptive to pretend that antifa means nothing more than being against fascism, in the current political context. Perhaps it meant that in the past, but that is not the common understanding anymore.
It's pretty much the same (non organization) argument that could apply to most terrorist groups... They're generally confederated.
If course most of this that are in or support antifa are well intentioned and not probe to violence. There are also enough influencers and leadership, or what passes for it in the ranks that insight a lot of damage.
It's not dissimilar from the various socialist groups in early 20th century Russia, and has some of the same origins.
For dissenting opinions, I'm not a fan of fascism or communism. They are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
While there are violent white nationalist groups, antifa otherness them by a massive amount… over 70:1 iirc.
> It's pretty much the same (non organization) argument that could apply to most terrorist groups... They're generally confederated.
It's not even remotely the same. "Antifa" is not "confederated" in any way. It's a value position and nothing more. If you are against fascism, you are "antifa".
I can say "I'm anti-peanuts." but if I eat them daily, am I really practicing what I preach.
Also, if that's all there is to it, why are there branded merchandise, flags and organizations around antifa? Where does the funding for the antifa actions come from?
> I can say "I'm anti-peanuts." but if I eat them daily, am I really practicing what I preach.
Surely anyone can be inconsistent, ignorant or a hypocrite in their profession of any belief.
> Also, if that's all there is to it, why are there branded merchandise, flags and organizations around antifa?
Because in capitalism, someone will commodify everything?
> Where does the funding for the antifa actions come from?
It's unclear what you mean by "antifa actions".
If you mean protests, they're not funded at all. People who are anti-fascist attend these demonstrations because they feel personally compelled to speak out about racist injustice.
If you mean things like bail funds, organizations working on racial justice and other causes attractive to anti-fascists... we donate to them, at least those of us who have the means.
Looting and Rioting are not the same as Protests despite the media conflating them.
Antifa equates capitalism to fascism as something that must be stopped, the governments and police of included. And that violent means are acceptable to those goals.
Who paid for the stacks of bricks conveniently placed throughout the protest areas? Who is ambusing and killing cops in various cities? This behavior should not be encouraged or excused.
> Looting and Rioting are not the same as Protests despite the media conflating them.
Looting or rioting may be protests, depending on whether they're performed in protest or for some other purpose.
> Antifa equates capitalism to fascism as something that must be stopped, the governments and police of included. And that violent means are acceptable to those goals.
No, it doesn't. You will certainly find some folks who have the believes you're describing, but antifa does not inherently take any of those positions. It only takes the position of opposition to fascism. It leaves the definition of fascism ambiguous, and there are quite a wide range of definitions people use. Antifa takes no position on violence whatsoever.
> Who paid for the stacks of bricks conveniently placed throughout the protest areas?
In some cases, cops. In many other cases, the stories are completely made up.
> Who is ambusing and killing cops in various cities?
No clue.
> This behavior should not be encouraged or excused.
Not sure where you got the impression I was encouraging or excusing this or any behavior other than understanding that antifa is not an organization and its only criteria is opposition to fascism.
Then assume, when I speak to Antifa, I am referring to those who endorse violent action and seek to overthrow the government. Since I don't see a lot of people identifying as antifa that are expressing otherwise.
In my mind, the violent Antifa types, which are prominent, are very similar to Jihadist minded islamic extremists. And classifying them as a terrorist group is not much different than ISIS as a terrorist group.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, you are clearly outside of this movement with clearly stated biases that you use to determine membership in a group which you oppose but refuse to let define itself, and you are using that to justify violence against the group.
Heh... I was once very deep into Communist/Antifa culture... so don't assume.
Antifa considers capitalist governments as fascist. They consider fascism to be violent in and of itself and violent means to overthrow fascism is ergo justified. They consider any organization that serves to protect, serve or enforce a fascist government (police, fd, etc) as fascist and that they should also be violently opposed.
All I can conclude now is that your "very deep" experience didn't even involve reading the literature or understanding the arguments. Your description of "antifa" is not reflective of anything actual antifa people say about their own beliefs. There are certainly people who also are antifa who express beliefs like you're expressing, but it doesn't define antifa. The only thing that does is being anti-fascist.
It it possible that you found yourself attracted to a particularly violence-prone group then, fell out with that group, detached yourself from the underlying philosophy and attached yourself to another violence-prone ideology that just happens to target your former in-group for violence?
The legality of antifa as a terrorist organisation aside, there are numerous examples since the civil war of presidents using the military outside the scope of posse comitatus act.
It's ironic that you can burn down a business and the political infrastructure says it's fine, yet try to open your salon or attend a church mass and your arrested.
If you lose access to google play do you also lose access to Google Cloud Messaging for notifications ? Because if that's the case that's huge. Hosted notification is so important these days.
It looks like there is something very rotten recently about the culture of Boeing. I wonder if any of it is due to the HQ been moved away from the engineering base in Seattle to Chicago?
If people working in your quality managment quit because they have issues squaring current behaviour with their conscience, you have a real cultural problem.
I believe that the majority of the users are trained to ignore g-mail spam since it's been working good enough for most people. Unless we condition the customer to always view the spam folder it's asking them to do something on top of already checking their e-mail.
My mother would just simply ignore the spam and often times spam catches majority of the phishing e-mails too. So it's a double edge sword educating and conditioning the users to review the spam folder. Why is it the end user's job to determine what is spam and what is legitimate ?
> Why is it the end user's job to determine what is spam and what is legitimate?
Who else could determine that? I could hire you to send me emails about Viagra sales. They would not be unsolicited, because I specifically asked you to. They wouldn't be commercials, either, so they wouldn't be Spam. An automatic filter can't determine if it's spam or not, it can only take an educated guess.
I've stayed away from them after that and a terrible experience dealing with their customer support in regards to a warranty for a phone that stopped charging where they tried billing me for the phone and wouldn't return the old one.
