The Proud Boys have been declared a terrorist organization by the Canadian government.
This was specifically based on their role in organizing and planning for violence at at the Washington DC insurrection.
No matter what your feelings are about the Canadian government, that isn't something they'd do lightly.
While the prod boys official line "we just show up fight anti-fascists" is belied by their actions like "planning and participation in an attempt to violently overthrow the us government"
edit: Here's a reference for the claim WRT being declared an actual terrorist org https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/02/03/canada-...
This protest was far less violent and less destructive than those that Americans have been made to accept as peaceful throughout the preceding year. This wasn't an insurrection, and none of your gaslighting will make it so.
They literally discussed their plans for violent revolution openly on various social media platforms for months beforehand. Who is gaslighting whom, here?
> MAGA > Civil War > Jan 6th
"It's just a prank bro" doesn't really hold a lot of water when the actions taken at the event look indistinguishable from what the "real" version would look like.
The shirts: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-go...
Violent chat in their private channels: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/capitol-ri...
An analysis and reporting of the Maga mob's garbage chats: https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/77-capital-coup (audio)
There's just so much actual, verifiable evidence of what happened that it is stunning to me that anyone would come along and say "no they were just upset at what they think was unfair"
But also why I don't really get involved in discussions with them anymore. If we can't come to terms around the existence of objective reality then anything further is a total waste of time.
:)
There was a battle over basic epistemology, and objective reality lost. Everything else has followed on from that.
My impression both from the videos and from right-wing twitter in the lead-up to this event, is that some q believers thought that various government and military leaders were going to step in, expose, and arrest members of the "deep state". Some of the more out there ones thought that the "deep state" leaders would be executed for treason. They're insane, as is par for the course in American politics, but weren't attempting a violent revolution. The rhetoric of "stop the steal" was wholly consistent with that of "the resistance".
The gulf between what you perceive and what I saw is far too great a chasm to cross.
If we carried on, it'd probably get heated or it'd end up being a massive wasted effort.
I've been through this rodeo too many times before. I spend the effort to go find objective sources that prove the claims I make only to be met with shifting goal posts and denialism.
For example the link literally describing the PB getting declared a terrorist organization. We're just hand waving that one away are we?
Anyways ... That was a rhetorical question. I've seen the way this all goes.
In order to preserve my own sanity and respect the sanctity of hackernews' no flamewars policy I'm just going to tell you that I disagree and wish you a peaceful day.
I feel the same. That song and dance gets old. My goal wasn't to come to an agreement, but to introduce a different perspective in a largely one-sided discussion.
> For example the link literally describing the PB getting declared a terrorist organization. We're just hand waving that one away are we?
It's kind of downstream from this discussion, no? That designation is contingent on the facts that we were directly debating.
> In order to preserve my own sanity and respect the sanctity of hackernews' no flamewars policy I'm just going to tell you that I disagree and wish you a peaceful day.
Thank you, you too. I know we aren't able to reconcile, but I do appreciate engaging with the other side on a more civil forum.
For the "protestors" who shouted "hang Mike Pence", did they need to shout "hang all of congress" for it to be an insurrection? "Hang all democrats"? "White power"? Which is it?
And as for deaths, we've seen far more of those over the previous year. The only one provably murdered in this case was a protester.
They emerged from the alt right movement in the states, eventually calling themselves "alt lite". They were participants in the disastrous Unite the Right rally.
Their beliefs include the idea that men and western culture are under siege. They believe there is a white genocide occurring. They are often seen sporting clothing with "six million wasn't enough", a reference to the holocaust. They are an exclusively male organization that values chauvinism.
They are designated a terrorist group but the Canadian government. Several members have been charged with terrorism related to the Capitol attacks on January sixth.
There's a bunch more. Please take the parent posters comments with a giant grain of salt.
"Alt-right" was a catchall label used during the 2016 election for those who were rightish, but didn't see themselves represented by the Republican party. Eventually, media found that Richard Spencer had originally used the term some time before, and attempted to tie all "alt-right" groups to neofascism. They were fairly successful, and the real, Spencerian "alt-right" began disparagingly referring to the fake "alt-right" as "alt-light". By and large, the proudboys and other "alt-light" groups caved to the pressure and abandoned the alt-right label.
> They were participants in the disastrous Unite the Right rally.
So what? They went to a political rally and did nothing wrong.
> Their beliefs include the idea that men and western culture are under siege.
True.
> They believe there is a white genocide occurring.
Some, sure. Race has never been the focus of the proud-boys. Me, personally, I tend to agree with this. "Replacement migration" certainly meets the UN's definition of genocide.
> They are often seen sporting clothing with "six million wasn't enough", a reference to the holocaust.
No they aren't. This is based on a photo of one dude standing around the Proud Boys wearing a "6MWE" shirt, which others likely wouldn't even have known the meaning of (I didn't, and I spend a lot of time keeping up with right-leaning groups).
> They are an exclusively male organization that values chauvinism.
True.
Just another American tribe that sees itself as some sort of savior to the oppressed and who thinks their end justify their means.
2021 America craves the proud boys and antifa.
From that link: In early February 2021, the Canadian government designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity, citing the role the group played in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
They are not only "far-right", but also "neo-fascist, chauvinist, and exclusively male white nationalist", as the Wikipedia entry begins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys.
The head of the Proud Boys is not white, so it's hard to imagine them being too serious about "white supremacy."
Do you have a better source for calling the Proud Boys "right-wing extremists"? I realise it is hard to find an objective source on this subject but such a source is needed and a definition of what exactly is meant with "right-wing extremism" is needed as well. These terms are bandied about just like they don't mean anything, in the same way as "white ___" (fill in the blanks) and the terms "__-phobe" and "___ist" are used.
So, what makes the Proud Boys "right-wing extremists"? The fact that they mostly show up to fight "anarchist/left-wing extremists" like Antifa? That is not a good reason, Antifa uses the same tactics as the Italian black shirts and the SA (Sturmabteilung) - in other words, as the real fascists and fascism-inspired national socialists. Their political ideology may differ (they claim to be anarchists but they behave more like syndicalists) but that does not mean they should be allowed to roam free.
Or do I misread your post?
Even if I misread that point, you didn't answer the question. The question was, do you have evidence beyond SPLC and Wikipedia. And you responded with... something that certainly wasn't evidence.
Note well: I don't have a dog in this fight. Proud Boys may well be fascist, far right, alt-right, or whatever. All I'm saying is, the request was for evidence, and you assumed the conclusion, but didn't supply evidence.
My question for you is: why aren't you, renowned dog non-haver in this fight, asking for evidence for the only person in this conversation who provided none?
As to the first part of your comment, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you misinterpreted my observation like that.
The original article made a claim. I don't think, in discussing such an article, that it's fair to immediately assume that it's bad faith to ask for evidence for the claim. Nor do I think that, when someone points out that your evidence is shoddy, and asks if you have any better evidence, that the correct answer is "you didn't supply any". (The actual answer to the question would appear to be "No, I don't".)
So I don't like your style of argument here. You're awfully quick to accuse the other side; that's not a good attitude to bring to HN. (They may in fact have been "just asking questions", but that shouldn't have been your assumption right out of the gate. "Assume good faith", as the HN guidelines say.)
> As to the first part of your comment, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you misinterpreted my observation like that.
Well, then we're even, because I couldn't figure out what
>> Your rambling comment devoid of sources, on the other hand, is academic material on the matter.
was trying to say. I made a guess - apparently a wrong one. But even knowing that the guess was wrong, I don't know what you were actually trying to say.