So you're saying that Antifa is NOT a terrorist organization? The military and police are legal organizations who's part and parcel at times includes violence. I could pull any number of articles that refuse to label them (Antifa) as terrorist or even left wing radicals.
Q Anon seems to be more of a 'think tank' or even an idealism.
How exactly do you make the jump to 'white nationalist terrorism'? Because they seem to be against the left? Against corruption? Can you link anything that would tie the two together? If you legitimately can, I'd love to read and research it.
I'm not pro-antifa or Q anon, but your comment seems to be mental hopscotch with no legitimate foundation on facts.
There's a degree of "whataboutism" to your statement. The article is about conspiracy theory extremists, who haven't typically been included in the "terrorist" grouping. It seems like you're trying to drag something unrelated (antifa) into the discussion.
I was replying to user alexk307 in my response, who's comment was:
"Call it what it is: White nationalistic terrorism, don't sugar coat it and call it "extremists"."
My understanding is that QAnon does not march around and say "HERE WE ARE WE ARE QANON!" so to say they are 'white nationalistic terrorist' is an assumption. That type of language is very reminiscent of what Antifa spouts off, especially in the regards of "if you don't agree with me you are racist". There are far too many that have the spotlight of the media attention right now that follow this mindset.
It is possible to disagree with someone and NOT be a racist, a bigot, a xyzphobe...or even WHITE.
The majority of the media have lost the unbias and reporting of facts, and for everyone, this is a damn shame.
Data, give us the data. Let us decide. Don't cram an agenda down our throats. Regardless of what side of the isle you're on, weather you sit or stand to pee, or how close to the equator your were born.
Whenever you try and legislate something into existence the consumer is the one who ends up paying the cost.
I think a better method would be to incentivize using a more environmentally responsible product ( glass? ) where applicable. Perhaps a tax break for companies that start taking new initiatives to promote this.
A good example would be soda: being able to fill up a glass container of even your own reusable plastic bottle. Just like many do with water at the grocery. I've often wondered why we don't do this as a society and it ( like many things...) boils down to cost.
Incentivize this cost and it will start happening.
Starbucks has done this with straws, and even their hot and cold cups. It would be great to start seeing others do the same in more areas.
The 'wealthy' and corporations have the finances to pay for accountants and attorneys to set these things up. Most of them are taking advantage of what is legally already there, but no where near common knowledge. Wading through tax code is a struggle at best.
Law enforcement leverages social media in a major way. They have customized software that interfaces with all the major environments and ties them all together.
It makes their jobs (LEO) much easier. They are not going to shit where they eat.
That's exactly the violations I figured they were getting immunity from. I mean, let's be real, they're not going to undo any of that, and they likely want to make sure that any new social nets set up the same facilities for them.
