> We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism. On top of that, one has to share our basic attitude towards money and the capitalistic world: a deep feeling of uneasyness and unrest.
I don't see anything wrong with that. They make 0 money from this. It's 100% run by volunteers. They don't support any orgs that could afford to do it themselves.
It's like if a group of you and your friends got together and gave tech support to any orgs that care about something you're passionate about (e.g. ending FPTP voting)
> "radical left" is not an accurate recitation of "anti-racist, anti-sexist"
Gaslighting again. The quote was "anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism". See how you "accidentally" forgot to mention "anti-fascism" in there? This organization is actively supporting Antifa. Antifa is a prototypical example of what people mean when they talk about "radical left".
I would suggest prompting your favorite LLM about Antifa, anti-fascism and anti-capitalism, rather than advertising your naivety here.
Opposition to fascism isn't centrism when fascism is broadly defined to include centrist ideas and the opposition is expressed as firebombing Tesla dealerships.
Just call your group "the anti-bad guy good guy club", and then by definition everything you do is good and centrist. Therefore the following is centrism:
An Oregon leftist and antifa ideologue seeking to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement was arrested on Feb. 4 over a manifesto and weapons procurement plan detailing his desire to stalk federal agents at the Portland ICE facility to their homes and kill them. - https://www.ngocomment.com/p/leftist-extremist-arrested-over...
On the night of July 4, 2025, 11 members of a North Texas Antifa cell carried out a coordinated attack on the Prairieland Detention Center. Earlier that day, they had conducted reconnaissance (including reporting on security of the facility), and had assembled a cache of dozens of firearms. The group planned the attack ahead of time, including a “gear check” where the leader discussed bringing rifles and ominously “not getting arrested.” They dressed in black uniforms and brought 11 firearms, body armor, and military-grade first aid kits (including tourniquets for gunshot wounds). They disabled CCTV cameras at the facility, and threw fireworks and explosives to flush the officers out for a planned massacre. When officers called 911, Lt. Thomas Gross responded. Bodycam footage shows one of the attackers yelling “get to the rifles!” as the group opened fire. Gross was shot once in the neck, with the bullet exiting through his back, but survived and continued to fight back. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
Beating leftists with clubs for the crime of carrying the US flag on US soil - https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-violence-portland-bernie-san... (The article comes with a nice photo! Can you spot any antifa in that photo, or will you continue to play dumb?)
I can keep going. If you're not convinced I can make a new post with 10x as many incidents. But it is true that there's no central antifa office with paperwork listing all their members. Nor is there one for white nationalists, but I don't see anyone arguing that doesn't exist.
Sure, I'll play along: It does not make you MAGA. Wearing a MAGA hat is evidence of being MAGA (or to be more accurate, of sharing MAGA beliefs), but it is not conclusive proof. In your hypothetical, the next steps would probably be interviewing your friends and family, and poring over your social media, to determine if you really identified with MAGA, or if it was a false flag deception.
Supposing it was not a false flag, then no, it would not mean MAGA as a whole are serial killers, but it's a gamble if the killings would be attributed to MAGA as a whole. E.g. wikipedia immediately attributes the Charlottesville car attack to white supremacists [1], but doesn't attribute the Prairieland ICE detention center attack to any group [2], nor the Tacoma attack [3], despite perpetrators being associated with BLM, or running explicitly anarchist and Antifa clubs and social media accounts.
This (including the double standard) is how all groups are treated. E.g. when the media says liberals or conservatives banned some books [4], it doesn't mean there must be a central organization of liberals/conservatives, or that liberals/conservatives on average are censorious or pro-free-speech, as any group, loose or tight-knit, official or informal, has internal differences. That's why the news will say "environmentalists glued their hands to the street" or "BLM activists toppled a statue", and not "some individuals did something, but those actions don't represent everyone that shares the beliefs that motivated them".
In fact, this is how you yourself treat groups. Your words: Trump ran as a republican because he thought it would be easier to sway republicans to vote for him because they're sheeple - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49466394
See? No "actually the far right doesn't exist, if I did a Nazi salute and said trans rights, would that make the far right pro-LGBT?", no "they voted for republicans but are they republicans?", no "is the far right in the room with us now?" - you're able to talk about groups just fine! And you can define those groups based on behavior and espoused beliefs!
So since I've been more than kind and seriously answered your question, and re-explained human group categorization that you demonstrably already understood, do me the courtesy of answering my question as well: Why is pretending not to understand basic concepts such a common tactic for the left? Or if you won't speculate for the left as a whole, I'll be happy hearing why you did it. Is it just that you have no better arguments, so you just try to waste time instead, and hope that your opponent, forced to re-define all of language on the spot, will bungle something, and you hope the audience will misinterpret that bumbling as your victory?
[1] The Charlottesville car attack was a white supremacist terrorist attack perpetrated on August 12, 2017, when James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack
[2] On the evening of July 4, 2025, a civil disturbance and shooting occurred at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, United States, during a protest - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
Being against facism and racism is centrism, being part of an "anti-fascist" or "anti-racist" group is radical left. If you're part of a "group" that has stated goals of pushing something that is already a norm then its pretty clear what what you're doing is not pushing for what is already the norm as if it was the norm you wouldn't need to push for it.
Hey, I'm sorry about my other message. I tried to tell another user in this thread to go f* themselves, and I seem to have accidentally clicked the wrong "reply" link in the tree and so my message went to you instead. What you write here is reasonable.
This is a completely unacceptable style of commenting on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. We've asked you before to observe the guidelines. Please take a moment to read them again and make an effort to observe them, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you can't make your point without being abusive, you probably don't have a good point. We have to ban accounts that continue commenting like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
No of course I don't. The State Department is alleging terrorism. In their own words they are alleging anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-war, anti-fascism, etc.
> Declaring that the State Department's language is "accurately reciting" is equating.
Now you are just imagining the word "terrorism" into a sentence that does not include the word "terrorism". As a reminder, here is the sentence we are discussing: "The A/I Collective exclusively offers its tools and services to radical left-wing actors and manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure."
