A recently released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) document titled “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide”* links common protest symbols to “terrorism” — another marker in a common theme of conflating militant protest for social justice with deadly terrorist violence within the United States. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Brennan Center have raised warnings about such documents, citing inadequate protections for people’s constitutional rights.
This is fucked up
Excuses to label you as a criminal so their overreach is justified.
Talk about double speak, being against fascists and racists means you’re terrorist now, LMAO.
FBI has long since been relabeled as the face of the cia, nsa and are the gen pop wranglers.
Call this shit the fuck out for what it is, an attack against Americans of ALL political backgrounds. This is a unified issue, they might only be banging on your neighbors door but you are next.
Unfortunately, the face-eating leopard party is not generally concerned with their own faces, so long as people-they-hate’s faces are being eaten too.
Yup, it’s setting up a legal framework that allows them to designate anyone that ruffles feathers or speaks out as a violent extremist, and haul them off without much recourse (it’s worth noting that if you’re arrested on terrorism charges, your rights are automatically suspended).
Isn’t that unconstitutional to take away human rights for any reason?
I too am curious on the legal basis for the rights forfeiture.
“Stop resisting!”
Often repeated by terrorists appealing to their body cameras.
“Eat the Rich” is now a symbol of extremism…
That is extremely funny and extremely stupid at the same time. Honestly, after both of those conflicting feelings wore off, I am left in a state of confusion.
I mean, I get it. Just because phrases or symbols are used in extremist movements doesn’t make the phrase or symbol exclusively extreme, with some exceptions. (Idiots will look at that “guidebook” and just leverage the FBI classification as a means to reinforce a bias, regardless of the context.)
For example, the Gadsden flag is a part of American history. However, it has also been hijacked for different causes. (I sarcastically see it in its original context as people still holding a grudge against the British, TBH.)
Now all of a sudden Aerosmith has gone woke!!
For example, the Gadsden flag is a part of American history. However, it has also been hijacked
And here are some of my favourite versions to mock those it’s now mostly associated with:
However, it has also been hijacked for different causes.
Another example is an American flag off the back of a pickup truck, usually a sign that the driver is a bigoted douchebag
Part of why I like redesigning the US flag, I feel like the left needs their own banner that can read patriotic while still sending a strong message.
Latest direction I’ve gone has been switching the stars and stripes to represent the 7 original articles of the constitution and the 27 amendments that have since passed.
The old flag represents America’s growth via manifest destiny, its growth as an empire via conquest, while this represents America’s growth as a democracy via reform and the expansion of rights.
For reference:
IMO any redesign will carry the same manifest destiny, imperialism/douchebag energy as the existing one.
Oh… so the secret police of a fundamentally white supremacist empire that funds and enables fascist terrorism all over the damn planet doesn’t like anti-fascists and anti-racists?
Gee… who coulda thunk it?
So starwars is now considered terrorism propaganda, ok
The OKC bomber said nobody cared about the innocent people on the Death Star when Luke Skywalker blew it up, ergo, bombing a federal building is okay.
deleted by creator
There has always been a big disconnect between the USA’s fantasies of its values and its actual values.
Fascism Better Investigate YOU.
Sounds about right. Some of them use violence and some of them are extremists.
Some of everything are extremists
Yeah, if you ask people using the symbols depicted if they think it’s justified to use political violence to further their cause, most of them would say yes. The rest would start talking about fed-posting.
Some of law enforcement are violent extremists? Absolutely. Some of them also burn crosses.
expected RATM?
I don’t know. These days kinda need default RATM.
My PC was running very slow until I upgraded its RATM.
Rage Against Transactional Memory? I’ve really gotta keep up with tech better 🤔
Cops are far more likely to be violent, hateful extremists than normal people, the numbers on what percent of cops beat their spouse are hard to get a clear handle on but all the same it is pretty horrific even if it is on the lower end of the spectrum.
If only they would finally arrest the president of Antifa, this would be unnecessary. Richard Antifa deserves to be held accountable!
Right???!! It’s overdue. The should storm Antifa headquarters and pull Richard out of the main building to finally end this reckless attitude towards fascism!!
Isn’t F.B.I. supposed to be called called Meta now?
deleted by creator
i found some symbols that represent the real domestic terrorists
- https://www.complex.com/life/a/stephen-ruiz/dictionary-of-white-supermacist-slang-symbols
- https://www.indy100.com/news/symbols-white-supremacy-swastika-facism
- https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/extremism-disinformation/2023/06/13/directory-of-300-hate-symbols-a-new-tool-for-identifying-extremism/
You forgot to include the symbols of the largest domestic terrorist group around.
lmao good looking out
Of course the number 1 news source broke this story. I read that site everyday in my basement stronghold while wearing my special tin hat.
this is what happens when Democrats get power.
Ironically, every Director of the FBI has been, and continues to be, a registered, and dyed in the wool, Republican.
I thought elections had consequences.
Not at that level. The director of the FBI doesn’t change just because the president does. I’m not entirely certain that the president has the final say in the appointment of the director of the FBI, when the position does become vacant.
seems to me a motivated president could force the resignation. something like this should be motivating to anyone who actually opposed fascism.
Well then, according to your own argument, none of the Democratic presidents, nor the Republican presidents, other than Trump, have either been motivated to oust the sitting FBI director, or opposed faschism. Though Trump embraced/embraces faschism.
yes
“Anti-fa” literally means anti-fascist. The allies storming the beaches of Normandy were “anti-fa.” The only thing “anti-fa” wants these days is for cops to stop murdering them. Needless to say, I support that position.
Some idiot put that in the list for purely political reasons.
No, it’s important to separate ideology from actions. Most, and all reasonable, would agree that fascism is bad. Most people are anti-fascist as is morally right and just.
The novel group of activists that call themselves Antifa have performed inexcusable, terrorist actions in the name of the movement and perverted it’s noble goals. Fascism is bad, as are those that make misguided and foolish mistakes that harm innocents in the name of righteousness.
Oh look… a confused fascist!
Your first half was good, but impugning terrorist actions on them wasn’t the way to go.
I do agree though: setting fire to courthouses, or creating an environment of lawlessness that guarantees small mom and pop businesses get looted is also not a winning cause. Protesting and counter-protesting where normal operations can continue is essential. The moment you start fucking with people’s day-to-day is where you lost.
Isn’t protest supposed to make things inconvenient for people and to make them uncomfortable? I agree that local small businesses should not be wrecked because that just makes you the bad guy, but if people are able to go about their day without having to make any adjustments, then is the message being properly conveyed?
Exactly, that’s literally the point of protesting. To inconvenience people and make them aware of the issues. And to show those in power that you’re not just going to go away if they ignore you. “Peaceful” protests are the show of force in the same way that worker strikes are the compromise workers and bosses agreed to to voice issues instead of going straight to dragging the bosses out of the factory and beating them to death in the streets.
The same things they’re saying today about protesters are the exact same things they said about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. The hand-wringing about protesting “the right way” has always been about making it easy to sweep the issues under the rug. And that’s not even getting into the number of times stuff like undercover cops were found attempting to instigate violence during Anti-Fa protests so they could justify using violence against the protesters.
The Million Man March on Washington wasn’t a “peaceful protest,” it was a statement. It disrupted the entire city and made white people across the country afraid. Because if black people could assemble a million people to “peacefully” march across the city, disrupting the entire life of the city, what would they be willing and capable of doing if things got worse?
If there is something fascists really hate are peaceful protests, in fact peaceful protests have better impact into society than violent protests and they don’t give any reason to the fascists in turn to use violence and backup behind that pretext. Fascists love to push “legal” use of the force.
they don’t give any reason to the fascists in turn to use violence
Lol! You think fascists need an excuse to use violence?
They don’t but when it’s a matter of being better equiped in a protest usually the state have better chances.
Even Gandhi has been misunderstood on this subject. I see people cite him very vaguely as a way of trying to get people to “quiet down and be peaceful (obedient and subservient)” but Gandhi, while non-violent, didn’t avoid confrontation. He just didn’t use violence to achieve it. He absolutely had an end goal of change, and did not accept the law as a barrier to achieve it.
We don’t have to accept war for change, but we often have to accept some form of confrontation.
This is just another reason why the left continues to lose the working class. Poor working people are not going to react well when you are fucking with their livelihoods. I’ve seen it first hand as a union organizer.
There are ways to be smart about how you do it. I live in Portland and the way Antifa did it here was singularly successful at turning a majority of the city’s population against them and their cause.
And keep in mind that Portland is very much a left-leaning city who’s voters would otherwise have been quite sympathetic to the cause of police reform.
Make who uncomfortable though? Those you are protesting against? Ok sure maybe.
Other citizens that don’t have an interest/stake in the matter? Getting them involved isn’t wise.
Everybody. Getting the general populace that has no interest/stake in the matter involved is literally the point of protesting. The oppressor doesn’t care if you make a racket about the boot on your neck, they’re not going to lift their foot because you asked nicely.
But if you make enough noise that everybody has an opinion on it/gets involved, now they can’t just sweep it under the rug and wait until the oppressed run out of resources to keep up the protests.
Civil Rights didn’t get passed because a bunch of people handed out pamphlets or something, they got passed because a million people ground the entire city of Washington D.C. to a halt. They got passed because a black WW2 vet trained a militia in the Bible Belt to protect black kids and their families using sandbag emplacements and machine guns to keep them from getting killed by the KKK for daring to go to white kids’ schools. They got passed because several billions worth of property was burnt to the ground across the entire nation after MLK was assassinated. Years of protests got politicians to wring their hands. A week of burning cop cars and city districts had the bills drafted, voted on, and passed.
If you can’t get the attention of the people who don’t have an interest and at least attempt to change their minds, then you’ve failed. You may end up turning people against you, but I guess that’s a risk you need to take. Part of the point of protest is to bring injustice into light so people who haven’t been paying attention may finally do so.
Other citizens that don’t have an interest/stake in the matter?
You mean the people who don’t mind fascism?
No, it’s important to separate ideology from actions.
Which is something the FBI has chosen not to do by calling the symbols of the ideology terrorist symbols instead of calling out any particular organizations that are doing anything actually criminal.
Antifa is not an organization, so if someone is labeling protest symbols as terrorism, we know where their loyalties lie. (hint: they don’t want freedom of speech, they want to suppress the ideology).
There are actual terrorist organizations operating in the United States that the FBI is actually choosing to turn a blind eye to because they’re afraid of the political ramifications of actually enforcing the law. Donald Trump is public enemy number one and protected only because the federal judiciary is too scared, the legislature too stupid and the executive too lazy to do anything about it.
The novel group of activists that call themselves Antifa
Can you name any members of this group or share a news story of any action they have been a part of?
LOL at this both sides copypasta.
Antifa have performed inexcusable, terrorist actions in the name of the movement
Name one. And before you say it, no, looting after a protest goes south isn’t an act of terror.
Names are meaningless. The allies were fighting the “National Socialists”, who weren’t Socialists. Likewise, “Defund the Police” movement members need not actually support defunding the police - supporting lowering their funding without lowering it to zero still qualifies.
“Defund the Police” movement members need not actually support defunding the police - supporting lowering their funding without lowering it to zero still qualifies.
I swear this was the worst slogan in the history of all of slogans, and it did irreparable harm to the reform movement.
and it did irreparable harm to the reform movement.
No. The reform movement did it all by themselves.
You are both correct.
Part of me loves that they kept the title, because it’s so easy to ask very brief questions to get the word’s user to start blubbering.
“Anti-what? They’re against ‘fa’? Oh, what is that short for? What idea are these people opposing? Tell me.”
deleted by creator
It’s easy to hate antifa if you’re fa.
LOL at all the downvotes for saying that fascism is bad. The Western world is totally screwed.
Yet when the Gadsen flag was put in the same leaflet there wasn’t any commenting on political reasons
