Talk:Proud Boys

To help improve the article
I saw an interesting Twitter thread about the proud boys. The founder admits to hierarchies in the group and that to get up you must get arrested or beat up someone/a group of people. See here: https://twitter.com/AntifascistF12/status/1312680077369511937 2A02:120B:C3C2:8C10:A85B:C4C7:C9A9:86DB (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Terrorist: an "accurate designation"?
Hello there,

I don't necessarily object to the idea of the Proud Boys being terrorists: I have no doubt that they can become so if they put their minds to it. However, at the present moment, it makes no sense to argue that it is simply because Canada is the only country to do so.

Just for comparison, RationalWiki's KKK page as "a series of American racist hate groups, known for their terrorist activities", not as a "terrorist group" as such. This is accurate. Though on the RW page on Terrorism, the KKK is listed as a religious terrorist organization. There's truth in that too. I'm okay with this compromise. Similar compromises are also found in RW pages on the Tamil Tigers, Hamas, the PKK, and the IRA, for example. I am okay with that. Why shouldn't we allow this compromise for the Proud Boys too?

Earl wilmore (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Beyond Canada's designation, there's good evidence that the PBs were engaged in a conspiracy to overturn a democratic election by violent means. Bongolian (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the American code that defines what a terrorist is. All the Capitol riot participants, frankly (or at least the ones who engaged in "acts dangerous to human life"), including the Proud Boys who participated, are domestic terrorists by that definition. And I'm frankly okay if a more assertive definition is used for the KKK ( calls them a "white supremacist terrorist hate group", which is 100% correct from my viewpoint) or any of the other terrorist organizations you listed. The main argument to consider, I guess, is whether the terrorism in the Proud Boys is systematic or isolated. Based on stories I'm reading I'd lean towards the terrorism in the Proud Boys being systematic at this point. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly think it's worth discussing. I still don't buy the notion that PB is a terrorist organization simply because Canada says so — so far the only to do so. Like, RW didn't describe PB as a terrorist group before Canada did, now all of a sudden it is? Plus, my original point stands: Why introduce the Tigers as "a Sri Lankan separatist guerrilla movement" or Hamas as a "Palestinian Sunni Islamic fundamentalist, religious-political militant organization"? (And in Hamas' case, it is later says "Most Western countries ... currently classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. [Please note: It doesn't say "It is a terrorist group", it says "some countries classify it as a terrorist group", important nuance].) Why PB gets labelled as terrorists from the get-to? I think it's important to distinguish between "being a terrorist" and "resorting to terrorist tactics".
 * If in the end, 'terrorist' is an accurate designation, then fine: so be it. But this shouldn't discard sensible concerns expressed by some (better than I could tbh). Again, I don't doubt PB could mutate into an al-Qaeda, LRA, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. But this just isn't the case at present. Earl wilmore (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this was not the first time that the PBs were engaged in violent acts. The founder and then-leader, Gavin McInnes, incited a riot where several PBs were arrested in New York City. Bongolian (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why are they terrorists?
And yes I did see the discussion above, but that doesn't make sense.

Everything that can be said about the Proud Boys can be applied to Antifa too, how do they make a difference here?

THE one and unique difference between Antifa and th PBs are their political ideology and perhaps the severity of the riots they perpetrated. In conjunction to the capitol insurrection, Antifa made a complete takeover of Portland and terrorized its inhabitants for weeks. The PBs did way worse than Antifa, but the point still stands - why are they terrorists, but not Antifa? 2001:4BA0:FFA0:AF:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The unique thing about Antifa is that it's half a boogeyman of the right wing. Such is demonstrated by your words "complete takeover of Portland", "Antifa made", and "terrorized its inhabitants", which is a fair bit of bullshit. The only thing antifa I can Google is a Portland self-declared antifa person who shot a Patriot Prayer member during one of the BLM / Trump supporter clashes last year. The biggest protests involving any amount of people in Portland occurred during the George Floyd event last year, and while largely peaceful, there was a riot and some building burnings etc. because some people are violent dumb weenies. There was also a fair bit of skirmishes at the police who were acting in their stereotypical yee-haw-military wannabe mode because some coppers are violent dumb weenies. I have seen no indication that this is the result of any clearly defined organization with an ideological umbrella, which is the difference here, there's no organization really to blame no matter how much Fox News wants to make something up. As far as "complete takeover", the general sentiment I have heard among Portland citizens online at any rate is a collective shrug (or maybe a bit of annoyance at the stupidity) at most of any of the recent protest events (many have a shitty view of their police force, but never mind). Portland is a decent size liberal city used to protests, and the Portland leftists vs rural Oregon militia crapola of late tends to be smallish microevents that most of the 2 million people in Portland don't even notice. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason that PBs are a terrorist organization is because they attempted as individuals and as a group to violently overthrow a democratically-elected government. Antifa has not done this, and as far as is known has no unified ideology other than being anti-fascist. Committing an individual act of violence against another individual may make one a felon, but it doesn't make one a terrorist. The street skirmishes in Portland have not been directed at government overthrow. Bongolian (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what you are trying to say, but if taken literally, someone would assume you are wrong. The biggest critics of the movement always point to the fact that Antifa is mostly composed of economical Leftists E.G Socialists, Communists and Anarchists. I have no idea why it is how it is (Maybe because they're violent?), however, you are not required to be a Socialist to be part of Antifa. You could be Conservative and call yourself Antifa, but most Neocons are scared of them. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D6D:7FF0:4A94:3C00 (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what you are trying to say, but if taken literally, someone would assume you are wrong. The biggest critics of the movement always point to the fact that Antifa is mostly composed of economical Leftists E.G Socialists, Communists and Anarchists. I have no idea why it is how it is (Maybe because they're violent?), however, you are not required to be a Socialist to be part of Antifa. You could be Conservative and call yourself Antifa, but most Neocons are scared of them. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D6D:7FF0:4A94:3C00 (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, man, if they had a lick of strategic sense, they'd hire a flatbed truck and a 2k rig, and drown out the Proud Boy noise with non-stop ABBA. Make the silly cunts do their faux-tough street marching to a constant soundtrack of Dancing Queen and Waterloo. But they're bored, narcissistic, middle-class kids who'd prefer to think they're Saving The World by rucking with equally bored and narcissistic reactionary knuckleheads. The whole damn thing is basically Fight Club (in its original satirical sense) for inadequates at either end of the political spectrum.

As for any designation of "terrorist", motive and intent are obviously relevant metrics here, and it is at least possible to muster some sympathy for the misdirected zeal of the Antifa inadequates, as opposed to the PB dickheads, who have zero redeeming features, and pretty explicit links to various elements of the neo-Nazi and white nationalist / supremacist militia movement. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Intent and purpose are also factors in what makes a terrorist organization. Antifa crushes Fascism, whereas the proud Boys promote it. I'm getting tired of hearing Antifa getting called Terrorists when Antifa is nothing more than a conglomerate of Anti-Fascists who prevent violence with violence. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very decent of you to provide a practical example of my crack re. inadequacy. Thanks. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys describe themselves as "Western chauvinists" (i.e., occidentalists) and "right-libertarians", their manifesto also confirms this position. The neo-fascist members were 5 members and they were expelled, one of them was a candidate of the Libertarian Party (Augustus Sol Invictus). Antifa is a "New Left" movement while the Proud Boys are part of the "New Right", it is normal for them to clash: an ultra-capitalist pro-Pinochet group against a black bloc movement primarily made up of anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc. The researchers were quite dishonest in describing the Proud Boys, but that's not surprising considering the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the Mises Institute as "neo-confederate." --37.19.196.40 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)