antifa= terrorist PPR thread

Post Reply New Topic

It's a WP rule that one cannot generalize an attribute for a group of people (antifa=terrorist).

Generalizing people traits is almost certainly false and potentially likely to offend people in the group.

However, Trump declared it to be true.

Gonna be interesting to see how the mods resolve it.

Do US government declarations override WP rules?

More specifically, one user said "all conservatives are nazi" which is an echo of "all antifa are terrorists".

It would seem like either both are OK, or both are not OK.

Unless .... we give weight to Trump's declaration.

Last week Canada laid it's first “murder — terrorist activity” charge against an incel. Instead of throw away the keys they stated is was a mental health and social issue needing specific intervention. A poll of one site stated over 70% of members identified as autistic.
National Post is a very reputable newspaper in Canada - mainly conservative but also fair and gives the Liberals ample coverage. I think of them as "news for the businessman".

https://nationalpost.com/news/inside-the-minds-of-incels-experts-seek-to-short-circuit-the-spiral-from-loneliness-to-loathing-to-violence

The declarations of world leaders do not change WrongPlanet rules but they might recontextualise them a bit.

For example, many WrongPlanet users will remember apartheid and the rest of us have heard of it. If tomorrow South Africa brought back apartheid and made legal declarations that some races are superior or inferior then it would be acceptable to state what the law was. It wouldn’t be acceptable to express support for it. I’m not an expert but I think a few current world leaders have made outright racist statements, and those don’t make racism acceptable here.

Leaving aside that Trump’s declaration is unconstitutional and meaningless, WrongPlanet users can say “antifa has been called a terrorist group”. And obviously we have users who sincerely believe that this is true.

I am not too concerned about this and only really mentioned that it is technically a rule break to try and get people thinking and make it easier to identify when the rules are being broken. So I’m glad it led to a thread thinking about it

If one or more users started actively identifying as Antifa then it would become a view in need of the same protection as other mainstream views. Antifa have never killed anyone despite being around (in the US) for 40 years, and no antifa members have been charged with attempted murder, sabotage, or any terror-related offences. So it’s not like expressing support for ISIS which would probably get you banned in short order. If someone said “I’m an active antifascist” and someone said “what’s it like being a terrorist? ” then that would be fine, a little banter is OK as long as it is respectful. But if it devolved into personal attacks, or thinly-veiled personal attacks such as repeatedly calling antifa terrorists or fascists or whatever, we would have to intervene.

If one disavows moderate views, like Antifa is wont to do, I would call such a person a “fascist,” no matter their “leftist” or “rightist” proclivities.

The definition of “fascist” has broadened to such an extent that the power of the term has been diluted considerably.

Walrus, you are one of the worst offenders when it comes to veiled personal attacks. I'm currently compiling a list of such posts and sending them to Alex, which is pointless since he apparently does not care what goes on here. But still I need to try.

Trump is right, antifa are terrorists; they always were

"The term “anti-fascist” began as a lie. It remains a lie today.

Clueless commentators, ignorant of its history, have been known to refer to the "antifa" movement as “strictly principled anti-fascists,” or a group that “protests fascism.” In fact, this is a movement of violent extremists whose philosophy traces back to the early 20th century.

The riots now raging in U.S. cities are not about police misconduct. They haven’t been for many days. The senseless and callous police killing of George Floyd inspired peaceful protests at first, but now it has become an excuse for a troupe of professional revolutionaries and marauders. They use these incidents in order to flex their muscle and test how far their impressionable recruits are willing to go in breaking the law, as Jared Monroe discovered upon infiltrating one such group in Utah.

The Soviets coined “anti-fascism” as a propaganda term some nine decades ago. The Soviet regime needed to develop a message that would mollify credulous Western democrats and get them to stop viewing Bolshevism as a threat.

"Anti-fascism" suited this vision perfectly. It conveyed the impression that Stalinism was not diametrically opposed to the ideals of normal, decent people in free societies. It was a brilliant rhetorical device — a living practical application of the false-choice fallacy: “You’re against Nazis? Well, then, you must be with us — or at least, we deserve the benefit of the doubt.”

Implicit here is the idea that if you don't sympathize, you must be a fascist, so you deserve whatever violence they inflict upon you.

On these terms, “antifa” demands that when its black-hooded thugs take to the streets to wound and maim passersby in the name of some nice-sounding stated cause — anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-greed, anti-corruption — they deserve the sympathy of their countrymen. They would get less sympathy if more people understood their overarching goals: the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, abolition of private enterprise, and the violent suppression of the speech of anyone who disagrees with their ends or violent means.

But every now and then, so-called anti-fascism is exposed for the lie that it is. We are currently experiencing one of those moments. Amid the riots, the totalitarian mask is slipping.

There is a word for people who use violence to silence and intimidate others to advance a political cause, who try to make people afraid in their own cities and towns. That word is “terrorist.” We cannot speak in detail of every wannabe group that embraces the “antifa” label. But those specific groups and networks involved in organizing and conducting violent street actions are domestic terrorists. Those throwing rocks and beating innocent passers-by as badly as the worst cop or klansman in America — they are terrorists. And these are the things the antifa movement is rightly known for.

Government exists precisely to protect human life and to prevent violence. Part of this is to suppress movements that use street violence and intimidation tactics as a means of infringing the rights of others. It is time for the various states to fulfill their responsibility as guarantors of law and order to arrest and prosecute rioters to the maximum extent the law allows.

As for President Trump's suggestion that he will designate such actors and groups as terrorists for the purposes of federal law, he should do just that.

This is not about condemning viewpoints, Left or Right, not even the most extreme ones. This is not about preventing controversial speech. Rather, it is about stopping violence, threats, and intimidation, which antifa and other terrorists use as a first resort. It is about stopping those who would infringe others’ freedom to speak. Antifa has managed to do this, administering violent beatings and violating laws in cities such as Berkeley and Portland, sometimes with a wink and a nod from local authorities. Such toleration of violence cannot coexist with freedom.

Historian Norman Davies wrote of the term “anti-fascism” that it “gave the false impression that principled democrats believing in the rule of law and freedom of speech could rub along fine with the dictators of the proletariat.” That is the same lie that sustains the antifa movement today, and it is betrayed by the violence of its adherents."