lol

Lotta resources on political violence. It happens in perpetuity everywhere on earth.

bahbah is an effin imbecile for believing the left-wing in America more active. I'd like to see the left more active, something covert and smart. But the left are a collection of impotents right now.

Like Roger Stone should be disappeared, quite frankly.

My post is about politicians encouraging political violence and I don’t see anything in your quote of that post that pertains to a politician encouraging political violence.

A few dem politicians encouraging the intimidation of the SC justices.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6305911928112

There was a man who was arrested because the FBI thought they had credible info he was looking to hurt/kill a SC justice - he had a gun, knife and rope on him when he was on the way to one of their homes.

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/polit...als/index.html

New Jersey’s Booker was also recorded in 2018 urging activists at the National Conference on Ending Homelessness to “get up in the face of some congresspeople.”

“Before I end, that’s my call to action here. Please don’t just come here today and then go home,” he said. “Go to the Hill today. Get up, and please get up in the face of some congresspeople.”

Also in 2019, Tester said on MSNBC that the way to beat Trump in the election was to “punch him in the face.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ve-on-twitter/

Another example of left leaning people being more politically violent is how many anti-Israel protests turn violent and how so few (if any) anti-Palestine protests turn violent. As we all know dems tend to support Palestine and repubs tend to support Israel.

I’m not all political violence is by dems but I think it is fair to say it is far too common by dems and an extreme rarity for repubs.

Democrats also started the "elections are stolen" trope against all evidence, albeit at the state level (georgia governor race of 2018).

But ofc the very serious people accept claims that Kemp "stole the election" because he "disinfranchised voters", or at the very least they don't consider them analogous to Trump claims that the election has ... been stolen, because reasons (main reason: claims coming from a democrat).

Luciom,

Do you see any qualitative difference between these two statements:

Statement A: Party A stole the election by implementing measures that made it more difficult for legal voters to vote.

and

Statement B: The election was stolen because millions of fraudulent votes were cast and voting machines were rigged.

I will say in advance that I personally would not use the word "stolen" in the way it is used in Statement A. But that isn't my question.

Lets not forget recent Democrat members of congress that refused to denounce " Death to America"

All silly here... No violence has been done against SC justices, and confronting or getting in the face of someone would not be violent, although that didn't happen either.

Anti-Israel protests have not been done by democrats. And here you're saying democrats mostly support Palestine, while Biden was just criticized for supporting genocide against Palestine.

STEALING implies illegality, criminal activity, which didn't happen in either scenario. You understand that so you wouldn't have used it.

Claim A was later amended to move it to "republicans legally applied procedures in a way that could have cost democrats the election (by making it harder to vote for demographics that lean democrat, among other things)". Which might be true or not, but it's not the same as claims of election being stolen. At all.

The plausibility of the criminal activity supposed by the claim is different (republican claims in some cases were much more implausible, not in all though, not in Georgia specifically given the small margin of loss for Trump), but you are still saying the other party criminally violated the integrity of the elections, so no qualitative difference sorry

I think Trump’s doxxing of Ruby Freeman was particularly egregious. I’m even willing to grant some of the arguments on the right wing side. Ruby Freeman and her daughter are black as a statement of fact , Trump was correct about that. And the notion of blacks not only voting but being in charge of counting votes is highly controversial in culturally conservative circles. But doxxing them and forcing them into hiding was not right even granting that they are black and involved in elections.

So you are ok with political violence and calls for political violence from politicians as long as people don't actually follow through and become violent? Examples of this would be people protesting outside of the SC justices homes (dem politicians supported this), dem politicians encouraging people to physically confront repub politicians and trump telling people to go to the capital on jan 6th.

So the only political violence I mentioned (that started this convo) that you disagree with was the BLM riots and the dem politicians who supported them?

Intimidation of justices for any reason should be condemned. Do you find it all interesting that one group of people are intimidating justices for people's rights, the planet's health, stopping war, basically moral positions where desperate people are doing desperate acts (again not acceptable).

And that's being compared and equated to judge intimidation for one man, who is about as amoral as they come. One man intimidating jurors as well.. Not justices alone.

Is there any significant difference between these things, or are they the same?


I used to have this saying when conservatives would try to falsely equate liberal violence in the world with conservative violence. All violence is bad, but the violence on the right would be a white man shooting up a theater w/ an AR-15. And violence on the left would be hippies tying themselves to trees to try and save a forest.

We had a recent example of right wing media trying to compare Black Lives Matter protest w/ Jan 6th insurrection. Yes... any violence is bad, and shouldn't be acceptable. But beyond that, the cause and reason for the violence matter and make the two events massively different. Yet the right wing media intentionally obfuscates this, and creates false equivalencies to make their base feel OK about their violence because hey, people on the left do it too... right? ? ! ?

Right.

Yeah , ending a speech with “fight like hell if u want to still have a country”
isn’t enflaming a crowd to do violence .
That is why many politicians , including trump VP had to hide for hours,
Because no violence was occurring …

How much they pay you out really to blog nonsense like this , I’m curious ?
20-50$ a week ?

Yup that too !

"They threatened judges violently for reasons I agree with so they are excused" is the reason why being on the left is morally worse than being on the right.

We do not excuse violent threat even when we agree on the reasons. We don't excuse violent protests even if we agree on the reasons.

We don't say desperate people are doing it so they are exculpated. The qanon shaman is clearly a desperate human being yet he should have been killed in the capitol building by police or if captured, rot in jail for life.

The "comrades who did a mistake" like we in Italy heard calling actual red terrorists by the communist party.

If you ever think using violence to accomplish political goals in a democracy is ever justified you are a problem and a threat to society the same as the people actually doing it.

Liberal violence btw is usually exceptionally more frequent and disruptive in democracies like it's not even close exactly because a lot of people like you consider at the end it not so bad because you agree on the motivations.

And the latest mass shooting in the USA are by radical leftists , and mass riots animated by rightwinn sentiment basically never happened post WW2 in any western country lol.

It was all leftist unions, leftist students, leftists workers lamenting pension reforms and whatnot, leftist environmentalists, or leftist race based riots. For decades. You stir the pot, push people toward violence, pillage our cities, and then claim we are the violent guys.

Because it's a stupid false equivalency, and everyone knows it.

Whether you're on the left or the right, everybody is capable of violence.

When you decide to use violence is important. If someone breaks into your home... do you say, "hey, I'm not a violent person, go ahead and kill me and my family." No.

Just compare the entire documented history of right-wing violence, and compare it to left wing violence. Convince me they are the same.

Convince me throwing people in ovens because you don't like their race, is the same as leftist unions fighting and dying on the docs for living wages so their families don't die.

Go ahead... I'm listening.

Now that's what I call a protest: https://nypost.com/2024/04/19/us-new...-trial-in-nyc/

Btw, all the violence I've read and understood about on the left, has always started by peaceful means. Democratic processes were exhausted, typically courts were exhausted, basically all realms of peaceful negations were exhausted before desperate people took desperate actions. It's not as if they LEAD w/ violence.

And this is again why this false equivalency matters, because it's used as another suppressive technique, and it's intentional. But in reality, one side leads w/ violence, and the other side tends to use it as a last resort. And imho, that difference matters A LOT.

There's a philosophical paradox, and it's escaping me who said this.. but basically, if you're facing a man who will step on your neck and kill you, do you lay down under their boot in protest?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. If there's a left wing movement you're aware of, that their first modus operands was violence, I'd like to know. I know there's the weather underground movement. I'm sure there's been a few outliers here and there over the history of man.

I don't think the Weather Underground killed or even injured anyone outside of themselves.

Ya, it's been awhile since I've read their history, but I think you're correct. I know even in the bombings they did, they did evacuation notices ahead of time.

Is there one left wing movement that lead w/ violence? I can name hundreds of right wing ones that lead w/ violence off the top of my head. Did the Nazi movement start w/ peaceful negations w/ people they disagreed with at any point?

And what was the purpose and intention of these movements on both the left and the right?

Certainly Marxist and Maoist groups have led with violence in some times and places.

Leftist groups around the world tend to start either in Universities or among peasants and Right-wing groups tend to start inside militaries or largely among war veterans (like the Nazis). And yeah, mostly that ends up with right-wing groups going straight to violence and left wing groups starting with unarmed protests.

Agreed, that's the consensus on how they start. I found this old DOJ analysis of left and right wing extremist groups in America. The abstract summarizes things pretty succinctly.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-li...tremist-groups

Compared the documented history of violence after WW2 in first world democracies which is what I did.

There is no comparison, basically all group violence was and is leftist.

And what you call rightwing pre WW2 like fascism and Nazism was leftist as well. Rightwing: supremacy of the individual, a deep hatred of the state and the collective at most, a deep distrust normally, individual freedom is the most important value you die for.

Leftist: the collective is more important than the individual, individual freedom is a trap, you die for group consciousness, to further the aims of the group.

If you fight for the "common good" of a group you are fighting for a leftist ideal.

If you fight for your own gain, or your family and friend, and don't give a **** about a group of strangers you happened to live with, you are rightwing.

You don't do mass violence for personal gain, simple as that.

You need to be leftist to riot.

Remember the right: THERE IS NO US, there are just families

No true Scotsman much?

If I don't pay you more, you want higher wages, legal democratic process doesn't work for you to increase wages, and you start using violence against me, I don't have any boot on your neck ****ing commie.

If I disagree with your take on the environment, and the democratic process doesn't reduce emissions as much as you want, and you start blocking highways, that's simply violence.

All the left is like that. They have a political preference, the rest of society tells them "**** you", they start with the violence.