• Semi-Hemi-Demigod
    link
    fedilink
    474 months ago

    An internal FBI threat advisory obtained by The Intercept defines Anarchist Violent Extremists as individuals “who consider capitalism and centralized government to be unnecessary and oppressive,” and “oppose economic globalization; political, economic, and social hierarchies based on class, religion, race, gender, or private ownership of capital; and external forms of authority represented by centralized government, the military, and law enforcement.”

    Guess I’m on another list because I agree with all of that.

    • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Are they honestly okay with putting “Social hierarchies based on […] race or gender” in writing?

    • @BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The result of none of that is the same as anarchy, violence, nor extremism

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        64 months ago

        Anarchy has stood for those things since its inception.

        Who taught you that it means violence and lawlessness? Maybe they have an agenda?

        • @BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          I don’t know what you’re trying to say.

          I said the FBI definition of “violent anarchist extremists” doesn’t properly define violent, anarchist, or extremists.

    • a lil bee 🐝
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      I would read this as "Of the types of violent extremists, the ‘Anarchist’ type are those who… ". As a really dumb metaphor, if I have a pokedex, I don’t need to restate that they’re all Pokémon in there each time.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)
        link
        24 months ago

        I’m not sure that your interpretation gels with the FBI’s historical behavior. The organization literally tried to get MLK Jr. to kill himself.

        • a lil bee 🐝
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Not arguing that the FBI hasn’t suppressed completely valid movements in the past, because that’s well-documented for anyone to see. I just think that if I was a professional writing a handbook in this situation, I wouldn’t go to the trouble of redefining the context each time either. Because of that, I’m not sure that this is demonstrative of their stance.