zlacker

True, if it was billions to one, I'd probably agree with you. It's not though, not being peaceful is pretty much one of the core defining features of the black bloc. And let's not go down the road with claims of "all the other instances are Nazis or undercover cops trying to hurt the movement". I have serious doubts regarding the Nazis (I knew a few people in Antifa circles back in the day and you don't go unnoticed with your shit just because you wear a black sweat shirt, like every sub-culture they have lots of Shibboleths), and the undercover cops are mostly observers, not instigators (though I'm sure they will take part in riots if it helps their cover or their case).

> See how that works, or rather, how it doesn't?

My point is that disowning a member's actions when they aren't considered favorably post factum is what pretty much every group does. If Antifa/black bloc were actively promoting non-violence, that would be a different issue, but this rather sounds like the Daily Stormer saying "we don't condone violence wink wink" when another one of their goons snaps and shoots up a mosque.

>>luckyl+(OP)
> It's not though, not being peaceful is pretty much one of the core defining features of the black bloc.

If the black bloc was all of antifa, it would just be called antifa. Outside the black bloc, direct action covers a lot of things, from just organizing all sorts of things (not just protests), art and being loud, to vandalism and even violence.

Just take all the sorts of things that were done in human history while claiming it was for freedom, both bad and good. Does that make any person doing thing X in the name of freedom responsible for what a person doing Y in the name of freedom? You can call those people a "group" all day long, but that doesn't mean they're actually a group in the sense of voting on their values and actions.