|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 26 2025 01:53 Uldridge wrote:
First class gaslighting lol. Tell those being gaslit they're the actual gaslighters! Let's tumble down the rabbit hole in perpetuum, oBlade!
I said politicians and media figures.
Do you think people are gaslighting, for example, Schumer and Clinton and Obama and CNN talking heads? Who are they victims of exactly?
I want to take the time to understand what you mean before just replying under the assumption you only read the shape of what I said and not the words.
|
The right has apparently figured out it doesn't matter how many people they murder, as long as their trusted news sources only cover alleged left-wing violence then they can say "the violent left" all they like with zero repercussions. Post-truth societies are awesome.
|
On September 26 2025 02:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 01:53 Uldridge wrote:
First class gaslighting lol. Tell those being gaslit they're the actual gaslighters! Let's tumble down the rabbit hole in perpetuum, oBlade! I said politicians and media figures. Do you think people are gaslighting, for example, Schumer and Clinton and Obama and CNN talking heads? Who are they victims of exactly? I want to take the time to understand what you mean before just replying under the assumption you only read the shape of what I said and not the words.
For who are these messages? Who acts upon these messages?
It's not just mediafigures conjuring up a mirage of tribalism, it's the people who take that message by heart and then repeat it verbatim because they've been stuck in the echochamber for far too long.
The message is the same all the way down the chain. Don't think I've heard any large mediafigure or politician on the left say: "but they're nazis though".
|
On September 26 2025 01:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 00:51 Magic Powers wrote:On September 25 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2025 19:37 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2025 18:37 MJG wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y4de02x3woIs it a realistic possibility that the US Government is going to go into shut down, or will the Democrats fold? This seems like the kind of tactic that the Republicans have been perfectly happy to use to get their way when a Democrat has been in the White House, but that Democrats are unwilling to use when a Republican is in the White House. Democrats caused the longest shutdown ever in Trump's first term. You probably don't remember because it's the government, so nobody noticed they stopped doing nothing. On September 25 2025 13:52 Phyanketto wrote:
So how we feeling on the ice shooter? The fact that "anti-ice" was written on the casings is pretty braindead. He attacked a facility and only killed detainees, but all the news and government talking heads are speaking like ice agents themselves were the ones injured and killed. Prima facie idiocy, even. Luigi really did a number on these people that every staged event now has bullets with writing on them, and they keep getting dumber and dumber.
Kash can't even stage a false flag right. I'm not the only one who thinks that's what this is right? Eventually they're going to find the shooter was trans or something, mark my words, because they can't stop themselves from double dipping every time. ICE was obviously the target. There is no contingent of people who are mad at ICE for detaining and deporting people instead of executing them, who would write "FUCK ICE" on bullets, snipe carefully at an ICE facility avoiding killing the hero ICE agents that the shooter is mad aren't doing what they're supposed to which is kill, and then commit suicide, rather than just shooting all the brown people he sees, like the guy in El Paso did. It doesn't make a lick of sense. The government can write on a shell casing with a marker, sure, anyone could do that. But they can't find someone to do a mission like that and shoot themselves, they can't find someone they would trust not to expose the conspiracy, and they can't find someone who they could promise wouldn't get caught or shot and believe it, after every single other person has been caught or shot. I like the thread dichotomy between "the fascists deserve it and whst did they expect?" with "these recent shootings are actually right-wing." I understand why they don't like the bullets though, it makes it harder to pin an event on their preferred target in the immediate aftermath. Meanwhile we are to assume that since he shot into a van he couldn't see into and hit people he didnt intend, it's a false flag. A very devoted one, since the shooter killed himself after, as you said. But maybe Luigi was a false flag, after all the person he killed was head of a company that didnt do anything to him. And no one pushed back on this as of yet. Really losing it in here recently. You're thinking of a conspiracy. False flag is false identification, e.g. as a disguise or redirection of blame. Let me clarify. The belief that the ICE shooting was a false flag operation is a conspiracy theory.
It's a reasonable suspicion based on previous behavior by dictatorships and specifically ICE. Calling 9/11 an inside job is a conspiracy theory.
|
On September 26 2025 02:20 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 02:01 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2025 01:53 Uldridge wrote:
First class gaslighting lol. Tell those being gaslit they're the actual gaslighters! Let's tumble down the rabbit hole in perpetuum, oBlade! I said politicians and media figures. Do you think people are gaslighting, for example, Schumer and Clinton and Obama and CNN talking heads? Who are they victims of exactly? I want to take the time to understand what you mean before just replying under the assumption you only read the shape of what I said and not the words. For who are these messages? Who acts upon these messages? It's not just mediafigures conjuring up a mirage of tribalism, it's the people who take that message by heart and then repeat it verbatim because they've been stuck in the echochamber for far too long. The message is the same all the way down the chain. Don't think I've heard any large mediafigure or politician on the left say: "but they're nazis though".
I see the idea now but I tend on the side normal people are largely not deliberately bad actors, but have been tricked, whereas people of status at the forefront of something tend to have usually at least some idea what they're doing. Every Congressional hearing I watch my "sniveling weasel" meter redlines. Every street interview video I watch it's about half people with no ability to articulate anything or any background knowledge of anything, which is fine, but then among the left interviewed, a noticeable amount additionally have a dangerous combination of pride, insecurity, and hatred. That they again can't express clearly but you can see is coming from a deep unhappiness that someone is profiting from kindling in them.
|
Yes oBlade, only left-wingers and normal people exist. There are no right-wingers. Also, only left-wingers are insecure and unhappy (but also prideful!) and express hatred. Anyone who isn't left would neeeeever.
I wanna know where you get your talking points from. This is funny.
|
On September 26 2025 03:05 Magic Powers wrote:
Yes oBlade, only left-wingers and normal people exist. There are no right-wingers. Also, only left-wingers are insecure and unhappy (but also prideful!) and express hatred. Anyone who isn't left would neeeeever.
I wanna know where you get your talking points from. This is funny.
Start with where you get my talking points from because they definitely aren't from my posts.
|
On September 26 2025 03:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 03:05 Magic Powers wrote:
Yes oBlade, only left-wingers and normal people exist. There are no right-wingers. Also, only left-wingers are insecure and unhappy (but also prideful!) and express hatred. Anyone who isn't left would neeeeever.
I wanna know where you get your talking points from. This is funny. Start with where you get my talking points from because they definitely aren't from my posts.
I see the idea now but I tend on the side normal people are largely not deliberately bad actors, but have been tricked, whereas people of status at the forefront of something tend to have usually at least some idea what they're doing. Every Congressional hearing I watch my "sniveling weasel" meter redlines. Every street interview video I watch it's about half people with no ability to articulate anything or any background knowledge of anything, which is fine, but then among the left interviewed, a noticeable amount additionally have a dangerous combination of pride, insecurity, and hatred. That they again can't express clearly but you can see is coming from a deep unhappiness that someone is profiting from kindling in them.
Anyone who's left-wing is painted as dangerously prideful, insecure, hateful and deeply unhappy. Not a single mention of non-left-wingers other than "normal people" and those who have no background knowledge. No right-wingers appear to exist. Left-wingers are the only problem.
Yeah, I'm 99% certain I interpreted your comment correctly.
|
On September 26 2025 01:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 00:42 Jankisa wrote:
Did you read the article?
I am all for US government trying to address the male loneliness epidemic, mental health crisis, online radicalization, social media and other issues that cause these folks to go off the rails, unfortunately, you and them aren't interested in that.
And yes, it's a pattern, it's been a pattern since at least the Christchurch shooter, these people don't have a cohesive political identity or ideas, they are agents of chaos and that's what they try to do.
To you, they are useful because you want to be violent to "others". Be it immigrants, leftists, trans people, black people because you are a fascist boot licker.
The other thing that you clearly don't understand that the left's, especially liberal ideology is almost exclusively non violent. This is not something you can understand because it's beyond your limited comprehension of the world.
Hope this explains it for you sufficiently. You desperately need a reintroduction to politics if you believe the US government needs to address the male loneliness epidemic in Christchurch, New Zealand. If you want to define the left as non-violent, so any violence that exists is automatically not leftist, you can. Do you think that's going to fool adults? The truth is it needs to be quite a bit more "almost." The last month: Kirk assassinated, attempted bombing of Fox news van, Democrat lobbyist shot up an ABC in California. Massacre of Catholic children. Another attack on ICE. "Another?" Yeah, remember the Darwin award winner a few months ago who was working with an antifa cell that threw smoke bombs fireworks to lure federal agents out and ambush them, and then got wasted? Remember the 2nd Trump assassin that just tried to stick a pen in his jugular after being found guilty? Remember the 1st assassin? Remember the mob outside Kavanaugh's house? Intimidating a judge is a federal crime. Who was charged for that? Remember the Summer of Love and attack on the White House? The mass shooting of Congresspeople? You know someone instrumental in the Capitol bombing was made a professor? This is not like the weather, oh it's lightning striking nobody could have predicted it. This is a pattern of stochastic terrorism driven by politicians and media figures who constantly urge it with dogwhistles, say "oops violence is bad" after it happens for plausible deniability, and then restart the whole gaslighting process. I don't care 300 or 400 public figures stamped there "violence is bad" card before saying "yeah but they're all still Nazis and it's their fault if this happens again if they don't stop being Nazis." I care about their millions of unhinged followers, some of whom are actually American residents or even citizens, who hear loud and clear and know exactly what the game is. They may need some kind of reeducation or a red flag of their gun rights before this keeps happening. Alternative is the Yvette Clarkes and Barack Obamas of the world can switch gears and revise their statements. Instead of "Yeah I guess it's not great that Kirk was murdered during a public conversation, but we should still be able to disagree with him," come out and say "Every single one of you, calm down, grow up, stop attacking people, and we will give you a free electric car and social worker for every credible threat of violence you report." That'd be leadership.
Nice list of events.
But 75% of domestic terrorism in the US is from far right groups.
So that list would be longer.
|
As many people have pointed out, you don't get to stick the Trump wanna be assassins on "the left" because there is, a shocker, just as much evidence that they were right wingers then that they were left.
I like how far back you have to go to make it seem like your list is longer then it actually is, not pathetic at all.
I also love how not racist you are, and not obsessed with Obama who hasn't been the president for almost 10 years.
As others have pointed out, the other side of the dick measuring contest is much longer, but that doesn't bother you.
By the way, for who asked where does he get his talking points, I asked him a few months ago and he confessed that he's a huge Tucker Carlson fan and listed a bunch of other, equally high quality journalists that he likes.
Chistchurch shooter was, to quote himself:
Tarrant told investigators that he frequented right-wing discussion boards on 4chan and 8chan and also found YouTube to be "a significant source of information and inspiration.
Those are all, very much American companies, so, yeah, if something is going to be done by online radicalization of these men, it should be done starting with those.
|
On September 26 2025 01:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 00:51 Magic Powers wrote:On September 25 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2025 19:37 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2025 18:37 MJG wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y4de02x3woIs it a realistic possibility that the US Government is going to go into shut down, or will the Democrats fold? This seems like the kind of tactic that the Republicans have been perfectly happy to use to get their way when a Democrat has been in the White House, but that Democrats are unwilling to use when a Republican is in the White House. Democrats caused the longest shutdown ever in Trump's first term. You probably don't remember because it's the government, so nobody noticed they stopped doing nothing. On September 25 2025 13:52 Phyanketto wrote:
So how we feeling on the ice shooter? The fact that "anti-ice" was written on the casings is pretty braindead. He attacked a facility and only killed detainees, but all the news and government talking heads are speaking like ice agents themselves were the ones injured and killed. Prima facie idiocy, even. Luigi really did a number on these people that every staged event now has bullets with writing on them, and they keep getting dumber and dumber.
Kash can't even stage a false flag right. I'm not the only one who thinks that's what this is right? Eventually they're going to find the shooter was trans or something, mark my words, because they can't stop themselves from double dipping every time. ICE was obviously the target. There is no contingent of people who are mad at ICE for detaining and deporting people instead of executing them, who would write "FUCK ICE" on bullets, snipe carefully at an ICE facility avoiding killing the hero ICE agents that the shooter is mad aren't doing what they're supposed to which is kill, and then commit suicide, rather than just shooting all the brown people he sees, like the guy in El Paso did. It doesn't make a lick of sense. The government can write on a shell casing with a marker, sure, anyone could do that. But they can't find someone to do a mission like that and shoot themselves, they can't find someone they would trust not to expose the conspiracy, and they can't find someone who they could promise wouldn't get caught or shot and believe it, after every single other person has been caught or shot. I like the thread dichotomy between "the fascists deserve it and whst did they expect?" with "these recent shootings are actually right-wing." I understand why they don't like the bullets though, it makes it harder to pin an event on their preferred target in the immediate aftermath. Meanwhile we are to assume that since he shot into a van he couldn't see into and hit people he didnt intend, it's a false flag. A very devoted one, since the shooter killed himself after, as you said. But maybe Luigi was a false flag, after all the person he killed was head of a company that didnt do anything to him. And no one pushed back on this as of yet. Really losing it in here recently. You're thinking of a conspiracy. False flag is false identification, e.g. as a disguise or redirection of blame. Let me clarify. The belief that the ICE shooting was a false flag operation is a conspiracy theory.
Seems like a predictable consequence of making the criminal justice system an explicitly partisan institution, no?
For like a decade now the standard profile of these shooters has been, basically, terminally online losers committing violence as an extreme form of shitposting. What little I’ve seen of this case seems consistent with that archetype. But didn’t these guys (in charge of the FBI now, fresh off careers as right-wing podcasters) try to tell us the last one had “transgender ideology” inscribed on the bullets? Meanwhile the administration they’re plainly partisan agents for tried to use it as a Reichstag fire-esque excuse to crack down on dissent? Why exactly should we take them at their word?
|
On September 26 2025 03:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 03:07 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2025 03:05 Magic Powers wrote:
Yes oBlade, only left-wingers and normal people exist. There are no right-wingers. Also, only left-wingers are insecure and unhappy (but also prideful!) and express hatred. Anyone who isn't left would neeeeever.
I wanna know where you get your talking points from. This is funny. Start with where you get my talking points from because they definitely aren't from my posts. Show nested quote +I see the idea now but I tend on the side normal people are largely not deliberately bad actors, but have been tricked, whereas people of status at the forefront of something tend to have usually at least some idea what they're doing. Every Congressional hearing I watch my "sniveling weasel" meter redlines. Every street interview video I watch it's about half people with no ability to articulate anything or any background knowledge of anything, which is fine, but then among the left interviewed, a noticeable amount additionally have a dangerous combination of pride, insecurity, and hatred. That they again can't express clearly but you can see is coming from a deep unhappiness that someone is profiting from kindling in them. Anyone who's not left-wing is painted as dangerously prideful, insecure, hateful and deeply unhappy. Not a single mention of non-left-wingers other than "normal people" and those who have no background knowledge. No right-wingers appear to exist. Left-wingers are the only problem. Yeah, I'm 99% certain I interpreted your comment correctly.
Good news for you, I'm the 1%.
Normal people means average private citizens outside of the public sphere and eye. "Normal people" and "left" were not exclusive, nor complements, and at no point did I imply they were. Managing to achieve such an interpretation is impressive, and would usually be revealing. You got banana peeled by the word "half."
Also, do you not have object permanence yet? If I say Yao Ming is tall it doesn't imply nobody else exists.
On September 26 2025 04:00 MJG wrote:
But
Firstly, if you steal $1000, you don't become innocent whether your neighbor stole $3000 or not. And if you stole grandma's last $1000 after you beat her up and now she can't afford insulin, you're also way worse than swiping $3000 from the count room of the Bellagio.
On September 26 2025 04:00 MJG wrote:
Nice list of events.
But 75% of domestic terrorism in the US is from far right groups.
So that list would be longer.
Produce your list and methods if you want to compare. We can see your methods and what's really going on and whether you counted an Aryan Brotherhood member murdering his aunt as domestic terrorism, or if there's even a single instance of far-left antisemitism, etc.
Also see other crimes, like assault and murder and vandalism. Take for example a guy who beats up a stranger for appearing Hispanic. This is obviously a racist hate crime, so we can record it as such - far right violence. Now take a graduate student who assaults an Indian wearing the wrong politics hat. Oops, don't record that one, it doesn't count. In fact, let's record it as far-right also since the victim was a racial minority, so it must be racist, and racism is right-wing.
|
United States43263 Posts
Didn't the DOJ already look into this and publish their report that political violence was predominantly a right wing thing? I feel like they did.
|
On September 26 2025 04:30 KwarK wrote:
Didn't the DOJ already look into this and publish their report that political violence was predominantly a right wing thing? I feel like they did.
There are a whole bunch of independent groups confirming that, yes:
"But policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From our research on extremism, it’s clear that the president’s and Miller’s assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts. Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-data-shows
|
On September 26 2025 04:30 KwarK wrote:
Didn't the DOJ already look into this and publish their report that political violence was predominantly a right wing thing? I feel like they did.
Yep. They took it off the Internet right when they decided they were going to paint Kirk's assassin as a lefty, though.
Still available thanks to archive.org though: https://web.archive.org/web/20250911012550/https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism
"In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.[2] A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions.[3]"
|
United States43263 Posts
On September 26 2025 04:28 oBlade wrote:
Also see other crimes, like assault and murder and vandalism. Take for example a guy who beats up a stranger for appearing Hispanic. This is obviously a racist hate crime, so we can record it as such - far right violence. Now take a graduate student who assaults an Indian wearing the wrong politics hat. Oops, don't record that one, it doesn't count. In fact, let's record it as far-right also since the victim was a racial minority, so it must be racist, and racism is right-wing. If I'm understanding correctly you just invented this methodology which you're now upset about. It's not clear why you invented it but you've managed to be victimized by it so I guess job done.
On September 26 2025 04:28 oBlade wrote:
if there's even a single instance of far-left antisemitism, etc. This is an interesting approach to research. If I'm understanding correctly you're proposing comparing the statistics to your conclusion and if the statistics do not align with your conclusion then you're going to present that as proof that the statistics are invalid. It's certainly one way to go about it.
|
On September 26 2025 04:16 Jankisa wrote:
As many people have pointed out, you don't get to stick the Trump wanna be assassins on "the left" because there is, a shocker, just as much evidence that they were right wingers then that they were left.
My spidey senses tell me they picked up something from the zeitgeist of a decade of constant bitching about Trump, thinking he's the antichrist and wanting him dead even if they were a boy scout once who went to church.
On September 26 2025 04:16 Jankisa wrote:
I like how far back you have to go to make it seem like your list is longer then it actually is, not pathetic at all.
Today you learned history is longer than a week.
On September 26 2025 04:16 Jankisa wrote:
I also love how not racist you are, and not obsessed with Obama who hasn't been the president for almost 10 years.
Obama does public interviews and gave public statements after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Also, now you can never say the names Bush or Reagan again.
On September 26 2025 04:16 Jankisa wrote:
By the way, for who asked where does he get his talking points, I asked him a few months ago and he confessed that he's a huge Tucker Carlson fan and listed a bunch of other, equally high quality journalists that he likes.
Don't forget my TYT talking points buddy.
On September 26 2025 04:16 Jankisa wrote:
Those are all, very much American companies, so, yeah, if something is going to be done by online radicalization of these men, it should be done starting with those.
New Zealand can cut their ocean cables if they find it warranted. US is never overthrowing the 1st amendment because one guy in New Zealand went apeshit.
On September 26 2025 04:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 04:28 oBlade wrote:
Also see other crimes, like assault and murder and vandalism. Take for example a guy who beats up a stranger for appearing Hispanic. This is obviously a racist hate crime, so we can record it as such - far right violence. Now take a graduate student who assaults an Indian wearing the wrong politics hat. Oops, don't record that one, it doesn't count. In fact, let's record it as far-right also since the victim was a racial minority, so it must be racist, and racism is right-wing. If I'm understanding correctly you just invented this methodology which you're now upset about. It's not clear why you invented it but you've managed to be victimized by it so I guess job done.
Are you familiar with comparative studies of political violence and criticisms of their methodologies? Do you know who the ADL are?
These are things in the news that people who follow events have awareness of. If the answers are no, just present your own specific source with its methods so this isn't hypothetical.
On September 26 2025 04:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 04:28 oBlade wrote:
if there's even a single instance of far-left antisemitism, etc. This is an interesting approach to research. If I'm understanding correctly you're proposing comparing the statistics to your conclusion and if the statistics do not align with your conclusion then you're going to present that as proof that the statistics are invalid. It's certainly one way to go about it.
Yeah if you already know far left anti-semitism can't exist it would be easy to miss the point of that example.
|
On September 26 2025 01:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 00:42 Jankisa wrote:
Did you read the article?
I am all for US government trying to address the male loneliness epidemic, mental health crisis, online radicalization, social media and other issues that cause these folks to go off the rails, unfortunately, you and them aren't interested in that.
And yes, it's a pattern, it's been a pattern since at least the Christchurch shooter, these people don't have a cohesive political identity or ideas, they are agents of chaos and that's what they try to do.
To you, they are useful because you want to be violent to "others". Be it immigrants, leftists, trans people, black people because you are a fascist boot licker.
The other thing that you clearly don't understand that the left's, especially liberal ideology is almost exclusively non violent. This is not something you can understand because it's beyond your limited comprehension of the world.
Hope this explains it for you sufficiently. This is a pattern of stochastic terrorism driven by politicians and media figures who constantly urge it with dogwhistles, say "oops violence is bad" after it happens for plausible deniability, and then restart the whole gaslighting process. I don't care 300 or 400 public figures stamped there "violence is bad" card before saying "yeah but they're all still Nazis and it's their fault if this happens again if they don't stop being Nazis." I care about their millions of unhinged followers, some of whom are actually American residents or even citizens, who hear loud and clear and know exactly what the game is. They may need some kind of reeducation or a red flag of their gun rights before this keeps happening. Alternative is the Yvette Clarkes and Barack Obamas of the world can switch gears and revise their statements. Instead of "Yeah I guess it's not great that Kirk was murdered during a public conversation, but we should still be able to disagree with him," come out and say "Every single one of you, calm down, grow up, stop attacking people, and we will give you a free electric car and social worker for every credible threat of violence you report." That'd be leadership.
Blaming the left for stochastic terrorism, when even the president of the US has refused to condemn any right wing violence is laughable. Literally all of the democratic establishment has constantly been asking for people to not do assassinations and political violence. Meanwhile republicans are cheering for civil war. The gaslighting is insane.
|
My position on right-wing violence: Let's fix this. Let's implement universal healthcare that includes therapy and psychiatry, reasonable gun control, and allocate more resources to prevent online radicalization.
If left-wing violence was more common, my position would be: Let's fix this. Let's implement universal healthcare that includes therapy and psychiatry, reasonable gun control, and allocate more resources to prevent online radicalization.
The vast majority of people of any political allegiance are not violent, so collective blame is entirely pointless.
Unless the point of collective blame was shameless political gain.
|
On September 26 2025 04:45 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2025 01:50 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2025 00:42 Jankisa wrote:
Did you read the article?
I am all for US government trying to address the male loneliness epidemic, mental health crisis, online radicalization, social media and other issues that cause these folks to go off the rails, unfortunately, you and them aren't interested in that.
And yes, it's a pattern, it's been a pattern since at least the Christchurch shooter, these people don't have a cohesive political identity or ideas, they are agents of chaos and that's what they try to do.
To you, they are useful because you want to be violent to "others". Be it immigrants, leftists, trans people, black people because you are a fascist boot licker.
The other thing that you clearly don't understand that the left's, especially liberal ideology is almost exclusively non violent. This is not something you can understand because it's beyond your limited comprehension of the world.
Hope this explains it for you sufficiently. This is a pattern of stochastic terrorism driven by politicians and media figures who constantly urge it with dogwhistles, say "oops violence is bad" after it happens for plausible deniability, and then restart the whole gaslighting process. I don't care 300 or 400 public figures stamped there "violence is bad" card before saying "yeah but they're all still Nazis and it's their fault if this happens again if they don't stop being Nazis." I care about their millions of unhinged followers, some of whom are actually American residents or even citizens, who hear loud and clear and know exactly what the game is. They may need some kind of reeducation or a red flag of their gun rights before this keeps happening. Alternative is the Yvette Clarkes and Barack Obamas of the world can switch gears and revise their statements. Instead of "Yeah I guess it's not great that Kirk was murdered during a public conversation, but we should still be able to disagree with him," come out and say "Every single one of you, calm down, grow up, stop attacking people, and we will give you a free electric car and social worker for every credible threat of violence you report." That'd be leadership. Blaming the left for stochastic terrorism, when even the president of the US has refused to condemn any right wing violence is laughable. Literally all of the democratic establishment has constantly been asking for people to not do assassinations and political violence. Meanwhile republicans are cheering for civil war. The gaslighting is insane.
Notice the brazen equivocation.
"Republicans" are cheering for civil war, who? What happened to "establishment?"
The words of the "Democratic establishment" are a charade if that's all they do after radicalizing, intentionally or not, millions of people into celebrating death. Denounce isn't enough, they have to reverse what they messed up.
Why'd you say "Democratic establishment" but not "Republican establishment?" Did you erase it because you know it wouldn't be true? Then who are the Republicans? Random people, right? Republicans I see are cheering "Stop shooting people, you idiots, because Republicans always win civil wars when you push them to it." I did see Andrew Tate call for civil war. I don't know his party registration, he might be a Republican until his due deportation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
