The debate "Another mass murder by a right winger yet constant threads here about barely existing lefty violence" was started by
October 27, 2018, 4:28 pm.
47 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 38 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 17 arguments to the agreers part.
MrShine posted 6 arguments, Brynn posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, Jakellutis posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, Aryaman999, crispsandchips, Debater23, Matt, politicsislife, SMNR, milk_tea and 39 visitors agree.
Brynn, PansectionalPurity, tejaswini, MrShine, MatthewTurner03 and 33 visitors disagree.
texas sharpshooter logical fallacy. don't cherry pick data for your cause.
It would be their right to gather peacefully, but do they? I am sure you dispute this, but at the very least their gathering is less effective than protesters outside a planned Parenthood. They might be harassing someone over a health check-up, though I wouldn't recommend going there for one, but it is possible. In the same vein, anyone passing by might not be a fascist, but that transforms quickly as soon as a nearby person becomes inconvenient to the narrative.
You will have good people at protests, sure, but these protests are just action for awareness, which everyone is already aware of? So I think it is incredibly vain, fully vain and selfish, to think this is how a difference is made. There is a time and place for protest, but when every night host or SNL skit and most activist groups that can be found are bringing attention, that is oversaturated. That is when efforts should move towards governement funding or lack of, legal negotiation, victim assistance, and generally good things for the public. This is a culture.
Anti-most things is a counter culture, to a perceived fascism. Without Fascism, there is nothing to unite them, and no real direction to make all of them happy. I could suggest they are all socialist, but that might not be true either. Therefore without enemies, there is no progress. Where will Antifa be when Trump is no longer president and Fox News is no longer on TV, and Brett Kavanaugh is wherever the supreme Court isn't? Will they go back to their peaceful lives? Or will they stand for something other than fighting individuals? I suppose there will always be fascists if there is no good answer for an afterwards.
Your claim is that these incidents are a few among many. However, I believe I have shown that violence should be expected from these events. Violence is not above their actions, though they may claim you are safe if you are not fascist, it is very easy to simply say that a political opponent is a fascist. Also when over a hundred people get arrested in a single night, election night or otherwise it is hard to say that it is a infrequent incident.
Somewhat what I predicted, you claim that it isn't the responsibility of any leftist organizers. The groups are supposedly better because planned/cooperated vandalism does not happen. But wasn't that directed at the tax by hitting a product rather than a person or business? Whenever there is a gathering there is vandalism, and I doubt the McDonalds or Starbucks or any other marker had an influence on the politics or taxes, and I have no doubt more people get hurt. Endorsement or not, vandalsim is certainly more frequent among antifa, like when a limo was set on fire.
I don't think they need to cooperate to be complicit, but they can. When 'Smash Racism DC' harasses Tucker Carlson -someone who has not been proven a racist- and actually go up to his house saying we know where you live, is that not a concentrated effort against political opponents, not the actual racists? That sort of 'we know where you live at night' and 'make them famous' mentality isn't it calling on group action? It can easily happen in an uncontrolled crowd too, and because they are not responsible violence will happen
Because the methods suck, they do not line up with the claims of fighting anything, so I cannot say that they are trying to fight what they claim to. That can be dishonest, but at the very least I can't believe what they think is the truth.
unlike the tea party, where all the members planned and cooperated in the vandalism, the protestors gathered in peace.
aside from Berkley, which I'd like to see proof of broad left wing support or positive coverage, the protestors gathered in peace. you may disagree with the methods, but your attempt to paint them all violent is dishonest
that aside, I do agree their method sucks, however what do you suggest? and is it not their right to gather in public places, peacefully?
I support people's rights to protest, and if the protest is violent it must be dispersed. however, if the protest of hundreds is peaceful except for a handful of idiots. the idiots should be arrested while the protest at large did nothing wrong.
once again, when did I say they were necessary? please stop making up fiction
If the necessary protests that you are referencing are the same as the riots that have been started by left wing extremist groups, then you are condoning violence by the left.
"Now it seems that the argument you are making Nemiroff, is that political violence is necessary, so you condone violence by the left."
I said it is expected in large groups that a few idiots would get rowdy. I never said it is necessary or that I condone it. why are you making up what I am supposedly saying?
Let's assume I don't know the answer, because I want you to elaborate. In fact, we are probably thinking about the answer in different ways.
My unrealistic expectation is that a group of people shouldn't beat the shit out of strangers. It sounds oversimplified by itself, but let's do that comparison against the tea party.
The tea party hurt a specific business, to hurt a specific tax, to hurt government action. Now, these protesters aren't hurting the government when they take temporary control of the street, they hurt strangers. If it was an occasional fight with no acceptance of violence or assumption of guilt against the common person, hell that sounds fine. But what do we have here?
Recurring violence, not just occasional but expected. This isn't a sit in to protest unfair treatments, this isn't refusing bus fairs but running public transportation. This is violence. Attention doesn't mean shit because this protest will hit the common person, but I suppose it isn't serious.
But I can try to understand the common protester. I will listen to their chants and claims of bashing fascism. If I see them bash someone who is not a fascist, should I assume they did the right thing? If I see them with cops would fry, or to 'take that shit to the suburbs', do I take their words at face value?
All rhetorical questions, but I think I will answer this one for you. No. No I don't think they are acting peacefully, for a better interest, or even affecting the issues they claim to be fighting. That discredits no one but themselves. So why are they fighting? Why would they be allowed to redirect traffic even? This is hardly fighting a power in control as it is harassment, and par for the course at just showing up. At that point, I do not know the answer
It should make no difference what type of violence. Political violence is the same whether it's assault or homicide. In this case the "protests" (riots) by left wingers are caused by a rowdy group of individuals that intend to cause political violence usually by attacking peaceful protests, and it's not just a few as you claim, but a whole group. The right wing is not nearly as violent as the left wing because it does not dedicate entire groups to causing mass murder. Now it seems that the argument you are making Nemiroff, is that political violence is necessary, so you condone violence by the left. The Boston Tea Party is was violence whether or not it was necessary.
"Indiscriminately blocking roads in a protest surely doesn't just target the racists, if you care to look. You assert a negative, but if I disprove I suppose it is a fringe case? "
and dumping a bunch of tea does nothing to lower taxes or increase representation, but it does bring attention.
I know you know the answer but you expect the most unrealistic qualifications of the "other side" in order to falsely discredit it. like pretending to not understand why protestors cause disruptions or how thousands of protests involving hundreds each could possinly have a few rowdy individuals.
But you know that isn't zero or that no one has said that. Indiscriminately blocking roads in a protest surely doesn't just target the racists, if you care to look. You assert a negative, but if I disprove I suppose it is a fringe case?
Yet there are proud communists. More than Nazis. Lets not derail
You were clear that you wanted to compare murderers to violence, so rather than going tit for tat, I used the relationship you established to say you are wrong. See how I don't go on and on about leftist mass killers but about ordinary incitement and hurt? Getting tied up on these cases will hurt your credibility, because we know they exist on both sides but both sides have different approaches to what is acceptable. Would I judge political opposition with the mentality of a cop killer? Certainly not. But support bit by bit makes a compelling case of indifference to order, peace, or bystander wellbeing. Not making the world a better place.
You disavowed attempted murderers on the left already, so it's hard to understand why you can't disavow damage that isn't 'extreme' enough for you. I suppose going to the hospital isn't serious, I know one was worse and I can say that independent of claiming only one was serious. Will You?
And not to split ends, but the grade school bullying occurred against an 18 year old https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chicago_torture_incident
I am sure it should still be disturbing if they were kids, but it isn't just twisted kids. Its nearly high school graduates streaming this online. You can say that with enough people violence will eventually happen, but it certainly affords you a lot more political room than the direction these interest groups have. In fact, it doesn't just mean Antifa, You did say in the topic 'leftists'. What's to stop these young adults? Why would they think this is okay?
I don't want you to be mistaken when I cite individual cases, there is no rarity in it -one hundred something odd arrests on election night might not clue you in but it's true-
What I want you to do is face the political violence and say it isn't okay. I find it odd that you mischaracterize situations by their intensity (I would say intentionally because you initially compared murderers to just general violence) then complain that it isn't that serious when the general violence doesn't meet the standard of murder. If I focused on that, it would be hyperbolic. But I do still cite, it just shouldn't be my strongest point.
"And I suppose it is not self righteous to claim that your political opponents are literally Nazis or racists though that is a very, very high bar"
no one said that.
maybe about as many as right wingers that claim their opponents are all communists
"No, I think that you are a master linguist."
ty, I do try to be clear straight to the point."
"Yet if you read the link there was an injury that needed stiches and a hospital visit for two days, and I suppose torture isn't serious to you"
The guy who drove a truck in Charleston killed a person (after suffering from 14 injuries), left 5 in critical condition, and 5 others in extended hospital stay. your stitches example would have been 1 of the last 5.
so how does that comparison look? exponential right?
and torture? if this is the bullying thing, it is horrible... but are you really going to use grade school bullying as an example of your political opponents? they are children...
"Zero deaths from Antifa, sure, but then I also listed them separately, one group as supporters alone. The supporters do inexcusable stuff, but it's really excusable if it isn't serious injuries?"
its inexcusable to them in their personal (and legal) lives. but its expected variation in a macro psychology kinda way... get a big enough crowd, if you have a protest of hundreds 3 isolated fists fights dont discredit them.
"Name two mass murderers, so we can determine if that statement is reasonable."
the guy who killed 11 in a Pittsburg synagogue, and the guy who shot up the historic black church
"Then, you do concede violence but you call it barely existing violence because sure someone will show you an example of violence, but you will show it as an idiographic example, whatever it is."
that's impossible to guarantee from either side. perfect behavior. its telling that pretty much all the examples of violent protests are in the same place. we can go 1 for 1 and I will bet the right will have more incidents and larger injury/body count (exponentially)
Let's see, the title claims that there was "another mass murder by a right winger yet consistent threads here about barely existing leftist violence." Of which, I suppose we don't need to split hairs between an attempt and failure. But suggesting 'Another' suggests that's what it was, and that it is directly tied to a 'right-winger'. Name two mass murderers, so we can determine if that statement is reasonable.
Then, you do concede violence but you call it barely existing violence because sure someone will show you an example of violence, but you will show it as an idiographic example, whatever it is.
And I suppose it is not self righteous to claim that your political opponents are literally Nazis or racists though that is a very, very high bar.
No, I think that you are a master linguist. Yet if you read the link there was an injury that needed stiches and a hospital visit for two days, and I suppose torture isn't serious to you. The article lists just the one, but I figure it is best to show the forest for the trees because then I may speak too broadly.
Zero deaths from Antifa, sure, but then I also listed them separately, one group as supporters alone. The supporters do inexcusable stuff, but it's really excusable if it isn't serious injuries?
"The support for political violence that can lead to murder is possible without being equivalent to murder."
your good at linguistic gymnastics but it doesnt change the reality that one has protests with occasional sporadic violence resulting in zero deaths and zero major injuries, while the other has repeated episode of straight up mass murder.
"At the very least, I can prove it is much more than nonexistent, and claims to the contrary would be lies."
if you would read the title and opening post, this isnt about making the right out to be the sole source of violence. this thread is meant to negate the right's attempt to make the left look the sole source of violence, actively ignoring the repeated episodes of mads murder on their own side for the sake of self righteous propaganda.
I suppose since I pass between murder and support so often I should clarify -The support for political violence that can lead to murder is possible without being equivalent to murder. It doesn't make you any less of a scumbag, but it doesn't make you a murderer. But murderers do exist, and among the various mental and physical indiscriminate hate and violence it's hard to say that Antifa or organizations By-Any-Means-Necessary are making the world any better. At the very least, I can prove it is much more than nonexistent, and claims to the contrary would be lies.
Unless maybe some political hedging is done -and their actions aren't so bad- Since this is a conversation for 'discovery' in terms of group actions and incitement it wouldn't be moving the goalpost, but in the context of the original Post... It's a bit hard to say.
But I did cite murder, not from the inexcusable salient group you claim to exist. I cite the cop killer, an attempt at the congressional baseball game... are you going to obscure the conversation, or are you not looking through the whole thread? "Most of which" suggests one way, but... When you say it is inexcusable, it isn't like they aren't receiving political support, controversial actions runs off them like water off a rock.
And who is the right wing mass murderer? Mass means more than a one off. I suppose I wouldn't play semantics with the bomber, but I can only judge on what is done. Did any bomb go off, were they even intended to blow? When the dead are dead, that's certainly it, at least. And it isn't a unique treat to any administration, may I remind you, there are murderers in the left-wing party.
And I suppose bullies could just be bullies. And I suppose the bomber could just be crazy, you certainly allow a lot of political distance for politically motivated attacks, though politics appears to be the reason. I would admit the attempted bomber is an antisemite, crazy or not. Bullies or not, inexcusable or not, do you think they kidnapped and tortured a mentally disabled kid and shouted political shit for kicks?
you started this thread with a barrage of examples, most of which were small time like a special kid bullied as if bullies dont look for any reason to bully someone.
so let's compare, a few examples of inexcusable assault vs a few examples of inexcusable mass murder?
are assault and murder equivalent crimes in your eyes?
Oh yeah, I suppose the SPLC, Southern Poverty Law Center wouldn't have a political angle? Not exactly a reliable source.
I doubt right wing protests (very few manifest as blocking roads and redirecting traffic, do they?) would protest 'rights' as they would interpretations of the law. You don't exactly define rights, and we don't really see a similar endorsement of violence anyhow.
Didnt I start this thread with examples? Wouldnt you want to look at that for endorsements? I am glad you can acknowledge it happens, but you do state it as though there is no incitement? Like perhaps how on inauguration day 217 antifa were arrested for violence, a limo set on fire. Berkely was more than once, it happened in February , March and April with at least ten arrested in each month- Battery is a hand in each event. In May there was violence against police, (I doubt the police had a political motive to be a target)... the list goes on. So I am glad you admit it.
And sure, the support for violence that would normally be disavowed on both sides does not equivalate that violence, yet it does happen.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/21/antifa-portland-evan-welch-violence just one minor example of an injury, I won't try to claim murders, but it does incite violence. You are claiming incited murder, not me, but would it suprise me if indiscriminate violence against normal people hurts everyone? not really
how many protests even end up like Berkley? are we talking about maybe 3 protests nationwide that resulted in no fatalities? were there any serious injuries?
what exactly is the right wing gonna protest? people arguing for healthcare or workers rights? how about rules restricting the amount of money pouring into washington? is it gender (probly). which of these do you want to protest?
and why are you blaming the other side for you not exercising your all american form of speech ala the Boston tea party?
please, show me some of the violence. and yes I know about Berkley, but I hope you have more then 1 example of a few fist fights in the middle of a giant protest considering:
I feel that even if the vague racism behind Right wing-terror inception tactics was better defined, there was enough progress on this thread to show the 'barely existing lefty violence' is a bit more frequent and actively ignored. Because it's easy with the right side of history;Underdog stories and revolutions nearly justify anything.
But I will say, a successful revolution starts in the minority, and ends in the majority only if a shared identity exists. I'm not seeing open arms on the left; you can't fight fascists with no litmus test, only other Americans and push away a shared identity.
Because left wing incited violence is insanely more common than by right wingers. Everywhere there is a public speech event, a violent mob of leftists always show up to shut it down. You rarely see mobs of right wingers doing that. "Barely existing" is laughable in reference to violent left wing intolerance of political freedoms because left wing incited violence against alternate political beliefs exist all over every college campus and in every metro area of the western world. As for alienating a whole group based on a minority, well by basing your criticism of the Right Wing on a single mass murderer is an overgeneralization.
So you disavow partisan claims that position Republicans as enemies of the common woman, gay, etc. but admit to it as 'partially' true because of a specifically blind attitude. And I would agree it is a bad thing if it does happen.
However I have a problem with this claim. It is painted over with a broad, nebulous brush that doesn't address what, where, and even who; as though select republicans stand by on policies that basically incept intolerance into right wing minds and ideals.
For example you might say "hate march", hate march is not a specified term and is less likely the term used by coordinators. "Protesting" is similarly ambiguous, so in contrast if there is violence, property damage, harassment, coercion, you best believe it's called a riot. Was the hate march Charlottesville, a whole less than a thousand racists on the East coast, and a pittance on the reunion really so influential?
Which yeah, f*** the chant and tiki torches, and funny to note, based on other 'protests' I see no wild fires were set. Racists, but can't punish wrong think without a crime.
And what of 'white ones' when you claim power in government as an issue? Isn't America mostly Caucasian, Japan mostly Asian, Mexico mostly Hispanic, and Africa mostly... I suppose Black is the closest term for a parallel series? If demographics were different it would be different, but it isn't worth mentioning unless you are aligning party claims to racial groups and claims. Back to the broad claims, actually.
sorry, most or your post went over my head.
"Not entirely false it seems, if Republicans supposedly 'turn a blind eye' to a loud vocal minority. .... the existence of racists must be "republicans fault" due to the tolerance of racists... but is it tolerance of racists, and who are these people anyhow?"
yes. partially at least. definitely not a good thing right?
they are the people in the hate March, and generally in many places. usually less obvious. the ones in question politically, are the white ones, because they actually have power. they tend to vote republican and are sometimes concentrated in certain areas, like the ones Davis Duke tried to run in.
Not entirely false it seems, if Republicans supposedly 'turn a blind eye' to a loud vocal minority. Your explanation of incited violence hinges on an individual expressly without a political Target still politically motivated, for whatever reason. Therefore instances move away from self proclaimed actors who voice their intents (better than I could say myself, really) to individual instances because the existence of racists must be "republicans fault" due to the tolerance of racists... but is it tolerance of racists, and who are these people anyhow?
So I guess I should ask for a group or speaker that does espouse these particular views. Generally they would either be denied, I think, or only be against such rights due to broad definitions of rights. Which is fair I think, even well-developed countries don't universally agree what constitutes a broad for of right. For example, 'gun rights' as opposed to 'gun ownership' could make the NRA enemy of teens (by teens, I mean liberally minded projections of future voting demographics, not the actual adolescents). A vocal group on a tolerated issue isn't certainly a guarantee when the definitions are easy to play with for a be all, end all on "tolerated racists". Maybe we need the rights that republicans are intentionally blind to.
I would also deny tied conspiracies, I have no doubt you could find plenty, but don't similar conspiracies bring up the Koch brothers or Trump and Putin? I think I could find a group that claims Bush did 9/11 but I wouldn't say that is a liberal conspiracy worth following, or even a conspiracy built on liberal values.
"A straw right wing individual, because a right-winger must (according to the left)
and so forth"
that is false. the only places that say that are right wing propaganda.
we have had many threads here similarly titled to "conservatives are racist" often made sarcastically by conservatives are always corrected by numerous liberals saying saying something along the lines of "not all conservatives are racist but all racists are conservatives." I nuance that more, but that is the general liberal concensus.
this whole belief is pure balloney. but the fact is that the whole right wing turns a blind eye to their relatively large bigoted minority while jumping on anything on the left as a (false) equivalency.
the globalism-antisemitism are tied together because that is the conspiracy. often involving the rothschilds as the center. it's not liberals that tie these topics together but the conspirators themselves building their typical conspiracy web nonsense. that's the conspiracy M.O.... they arent buzzwords that the left believes about the right, but something that actual people believe themselves. unfortunately.
I do see activists that do not have personal issues attacking anyone, actually. I did list the bike lock attacker or the group that tortured a mentally disabled person. In a crowd it can be hard to attach a particular hate to a single person and it certainly would be easy to teach a disabled person a phrase they don't actually believe, so there is reasonable doubt as to whether it should be done. This isn't to mention the GOB firebombing, blocking roads or harassing people in traffic, who cannot be screened for identification, and it often gets violent. These 'little things' that fall short of murder tell activists it's okay, because the other side deserves it Not a specific person, mind you, just people. Police deserve it, whites deserve it, traitors deserve it, the lukewarm liberal deserves it... The inner tabboo is easier to overcome if they deserve it.
I see you addressed the murders, but it's usually in the mind of an individual who hold the values of a straw right wing individual rather than a murder for political change, which I hardly doubt Mitt Romney wouldn't have been an acceptable Target on the field.
A straw right wing individual, because a right-winger must (according to the left)
and so forth
And to do this, left-wing individuals must be assigned the victim, whether ideology exists or not. I list explicit examples towards politics, but I guess we aren't allowed to talk about those. But once it is against a "protected group" under assumed liberal catch all's, it must be political.
Unless the individual is a prominent right wing individual, then they aren't really speaking on behalf of blacks, women, or immigrants, right? But if your assumption of these conspiracies is not exclusive to a party, then I guess that argument falls apart. Are you assuming certain racial groups are represented by a political party? I think it's a bit harder to say than that, at the very least, because your claim of political violence assumes an overt ownership or hatred. It's the equivalent of blaming the weather for an aching knee.
Most antisemetic conspiracies I hear about the right conflate globalism with antisemetism or anti-immigration. And the race war/anti immigration is a bit of a buzzword like 'trickle down economics', only ever heard on the left or by fringe racists, but never policymakers well intentioned. I don't see where that has been tolerated.
sorry, forgot to add in my right first paragraph is that although the hateful aspects of the right are tiny and not at all representative, the right as a whole refuses to call them out on it, while holding a double standard for their opposition at the slightest offense.
the right wing harbors many hateful conspiracy theorists, including antisemitic ones. in particular the idea that America is facing a race war or an ideology war (not left right, but foreign ideologies) is prevalent.
I have already addressed the politician shooter. he shot at a member of congress, which is bad, but represents personal hate rather then generalized hate against innocent people such as the powerless simply attending a celebration or a house of worship with no direct power.
cop killers are nothing new. I'm not impressed when a multi-felon targets cops. any attachment to a movement seems secondary and an attachment of convenience. do you see any activists with no personal issues attacking police?
I think furthering the divide between the left and right is extremely harmful.
I do agree, so I listed the chants at the paragraph below the various actions, where I was thinking a connection could be made to the instances listed. It isn't just about chants, but can you agree that it incited and divides the political left and right? Some try to make the argument that Trump's administration or the existence of the right incited this incident, but how can we attribute these actions to a group? By victims? It is a bit more nuanced than that.
Nobody right can really support this guy's actions, terrorism is an act of desperation and it came from an antisemetic delusion. By being antisemetic it cannot be removed from political motive, it is terrorism, and no good faith is given to his actions. I think the right wing party in America isn't so desperate if their administration has control, and there are no ties to organizations or groups that desire this method to the outcome for more control.
I also think that the political left find it harder to disavow individuals acting towards party lines rather than one's own values. I doubt it is a personal value to hate America, or to call on hating cops, especially when a chant is so easy to say without thinking. Therefore, the connection to a group can be made.
Did the pipebomber get political support before or after the act? Nothing shows that. Do we see political action in the streets for or against policy? Not on the right. Yet good faith acts are attributed to crowds that vocalize a desire to act, and are upfront about how violent it might be. Which isn't to say a crowd itself supports acts of terror, but if they outright say what would be done to take control and it happens...? Fry a cop sounds a bit more like the elusive 'hate speech' that leads to violence.
So I do believe actions speak louder than words, but I don't think I detract from an actions meaning by showing what political support looks like.
chants are chants. I'm talking about actions.
I hope we can all agree that actions speak louder then words.
I mean, if we want to discuss 'Truth be damned', we can discuss a cop killer, a group that kidnapped a mentally challenged person, an attack with a bike lock, blocking roads, setting fires/property damage, the orange country republican office firebombing, the congressional baseball shooting, and maybe some minor yet illegal roadblocks not concerned with safety.... But I suppose it isn't real leftist violence, it needs to be a psycho that acts on their own delusions about jews.
The attack you cite is antisemetic, which doesn't really tie in to Trump even if this person could be cited as a supporter at one time, because Trump did not 'blame the jews' or provide support. Meanwhile we can see chants actively calling for death to 'America' or 'Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em'. And a major dispute with the Jerusalem embassy, not from the right mind you. Which does make me wonder what was the previous attack you suggest?
This isn't to claim that one side owns hate, but I think it would be best to examine that 'nonexistent violence' and figure out how this failed bombing (which is not the first time for any administration, and certainly more idiographic) actually lines up with incited violence.
Which isn't to announce my return, I wanted to see how this app is holding up... I don't really see debates. I scrolled until I found a nice bit of groupthink, about groupthink, and figured, "why not?"
If you keep repeating the lies, you might even convince yourselves. truth be damned
your propagandist puppet masters must be proud