Sure
Thatāsā¦ not any kind ofā¦ anythingā¦ Antifa made my coffee this morning, then stepped on my catās tail! Itās true because I posted it to youtube and said so in my caption! You donāt join Antifa, it isnāt an organization. I AM antifa, Iām not IN antifa. Just like I am a socialist, Iām not in Socialist. You wouldnāt blame Capitalism for stealing your job or smashing your windowā¦
4 Likes
soā¦ No One actually calling themselves Antifa?
The first video just calls them that
The second one says they call themselves SafePDX (PDX talking about portland Oregon)
And the third even says āanti-Fascist movementā
I am still pretty sure no organisation is called Antifa, it is an ideology/movement (depending on who you ask)
4 Likes
This is pretty hard to properly define, I thinkā¦
In Germany, we talk about ātheā Antifa as well, and usually the term is not used for people who are against fascism (should be quite a lot here^^), but rather for those guys and gals hooded in full black, throwing stones and fireworks and burning down things. They even have their own (black and red) flags, sorts of logos and stickers and whatnot, so, if things like that happen around demonstrations and such, it is usually said that ātheā Antifa did those things. Itās a bit like the violence-prone part of left-wing politics, here, similar to neonazis who provide the violent part to the right-wing politics. (And yes, since both partys are happy with quite a lot of violence, I see some similarities here - I just can relate to antifascist goals a lot better 
But still, trying to use violence to achieve something in politics should be a very, very, very last resort).
Ah, and all those people who simply āareā Antifa, without acting violent and all that, are simply considered left-wing here. I think few people would call them Antifa, just because that label is used almost exclusively for the violent part of that.
1 Like
Terrorism. Call it what it is.
1 Like
Hmmmmyesā¦ but still, I think there are cases in which violence might be (the last possible) solution. Like, for example, in Nazi-Germany - I think it was okay to try to fight violently against that system. And some countries today are on the brink of that situation, kinda - in Belarus, the police is pointing guns at demonstrations. In China, people dissappear into camps. In Italy, a new kind of fascism rises up.
I think if there is a chance to overthrow a regime that violates human rights, it might be okay. If there is no other possible way to do that, like, simply voting for a different party or suchā¦
4 Likes
Oh, I am not arguing to if it is called for or not.
Here, the news refuses to use that term.
Just wanted to clarify
That might be because of the semantic change the word āterrorismā has gone throughā¦
I thought about that not too long ago - when I grew up, terrorism was things like the IRA in Ireland, the RAF in Germany, things like that. Not necessarily politically left or right or whatever, but with relatively clear goals one could at least intellectually understand (not agreeing with them, just like āah, I get itā).
After 9/11, this changed - suddenly, terrorism was almost exclusively used for islamistic terrorism, for people who acted in a way I simply was not able to understand. It felt much more irrational - what makes sense, since it is based on religion. Even the conflict in Ireland, though having to do a lot with religion, was a political one.
So today, very few people refer to things the violent part of antifascist movements or neonazis do as āterrorismā, though they obviously areā¦
2 Likes
I like to call a spade a spade.
Side note,
I received my purewrist implant today. That needle looks worse on this forum than it does in person.
5 Likes
I wouldnāt quite call people fighting an occupation a terrorist groupā¦
When you attack innocent people it is
1 Like
Terrorists may be called resistance fighters depending on whose side wins.
5 Likes
I think she meant more in the sense of what the media, or general population, meant with the word āterrorismā. Devoid of any personal judgement there.
I, personally, could say that the IRA did employ terrorism as one of itās core tactics. But while saying that, Iām merely addressing the fact that they used tactics designed to instil terror in the masses to maneuver them into helping them reach their political agenda.
There is no judgement there, just plain description.
When you question āhow can a group who is fighting for the right thing be called Terroristāā¦ then youāre actually proving @Comaās point: That the meaning of the word grows and changes depending how the media hammers it down our heads.
(that is, assuming I got what she meant) 
2 Likes
āYou can only be a terrible dictator if you lose the warā, they saidā¦
1 Like
I mean, using fear to achieve a political goal is not just the tactics of terrorists.
Governments routinely do the same thing.
Technically:
a terrorist is, by definition, an individual or organisation that utilises fear to achieve a political goal.
Also, many governments do employ terror tactics.
you donāt see these governments being called āterroristsā not because they are ānot terroristsā, but because they happen to control the media.
1 Like
Indeed.
1 Like
So I had a random nightmare, that I was showing someone my glass implants, nothing new
But instead of a light poke or prod, they man handled the shit out of them and caused them to migrate
Thatās all
3 Likes
The English government did/does
1 Like
Iāve got Irish friends, theyāve told me plenty about this