>[The US State Dept's] examples include alleged railway and pipeline sabotage in Europe, attacks on energy infrastructure, Rose City Antifa, resistance to Atlanta’s proposed police-training center, Jane’s Revenge and publications carrying statements attributed to armed organizations.
At least one of these things is not like the others. Why are peaceful protests against "Cop City" (Atlanta's proposed police-training center) lumped in with violent attacks on infrastructure? This isn't the first time either - Samuel Tunick, the man who was charged with destruction of evidence for giving his duress pin to the CBP agents, was being investigated for his connection to the Cop City protests.[1]
And as others have said, what does it say about the current US admin that they are designating "anti-fascist" groups as terrorists? I will say, at least unlike Cop City protests afaik, Rose City Antifa seems willing to use violence to accomplish their goals.[2]
Which account - the one who keeps trying to push the idea that anti-fascism is terrorism, and has posted a lot of that sort of thing across different threads, or the one that called that one a bootlicker and hasn't posted anything remotely similar recently?
The whole discussion is a hellscape, and you (should, by now) know that it's not our role to adjudicate on the correctness of anyone's arguments. But “bootlicker” is, by design, one of the most demeaning terms of abuse that ever gets used here. It's not asking much, at all, to expect people to avoid using it. That account has contributed little of substance, so it's not as if there was a track record of earnest participation to suggest that this was a momentary lapse.
Please don't post like this here. If a comment is egregious, as this one is, please flag it and consider emailing hn@ycombinator.com to let us know about it.
IMO violence is a spectrum. Peaceful protesting with signs is 0 violence. Attacking self-driving cars or department stores without hurting any people is a bit higher up the scale. Attacking food supplies or critical infrastructure is higher still, as it will have downstream effects on everyone that might lead to death and suffering. Attacking actual human bodies is even higher up the scale of course.
I get your point though. There's a strong push to characterize destruction of property as violence, as part of a push to delegitimize protest. To some people, the police can use physical violence against people to stop a protest and that's okay, whereas if the protestors so much as throw a brick through a window, they're violent extremists.
At least one of these things is not like the others. Why are peaceful protests against "Cop City" (Atlanta's proposed police-training center) lumped in with violent attacks on infrastructure? This isn't the first time either - Samuel Tunick, the man who was charged with destruction of evidence for giving his duress pin to the CBP agents, was being investigated for his connection to the Cop City protests.[1]
And as others have said, what does it say about the current US admin that they are designating "anti-fascist" groups as terrorists? I will say, at least unlike Cop City protests afaik, Rose City Antifa seems willing to use violence to accomplish their goals.[2]
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-pro...
[2]: https://rosecityantifa.org/articles/statment-on-strategy-and...