|
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 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence.
I want the seconds I spent reading this comment returned to me.
|
On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. Before Trump had it removed after Charlie Kirks death a report from the FBI concluded that “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. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”
Its not vague or ill defined. Law enforcement absolutely agrees with Kwarks statement.
|
On September 29 2025 06:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. I want the seconds I spent reading this comment returned to me.
I read six words, the sixth being after my 'waitaminute, who wrote this' and realizing it was our lad JimmyJ. I then scrolled past it, and would encourage anyone to do the same.
|
On September 28 2025 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2025 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2025 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2025 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Donald Trump just invented a civil war in Portland and is now invading Oregon: Trump authorizes troops for Portland, escalating use of military inside U.S.
The president authorized the use of “Full force, if necessary,” in a campaign to use the military against Americans that has little modern precedent. ... Trump said in a social media post that he was directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide troops to what he dubbed “War ravaged Portland” as well as “any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/09/27/trump-military-portland-ice/ So what, who cares, what is anyone going to do about it? I ask sardonically and seriously. Probably nothing. But who knows. Guess we’ll see. There will be plenty of protestors to join if you decide to make the trip down from Seattle Should there be protests? What kind should there be? Should elected Democrats be promoting them, opposing them, neither? What goals/demands should they have? What would success look like? How could people be working toward that success? Anyone/everyone is free to opine
Schumer is leading Democrats letting them know the plan is to join him in hoping Republicans sign magically effective legislation to stop it.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On September 29 2025 04:08 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 02:46 Falling wrote:On September 28 2025 19:57 oBlade wrote:On September 28 2025 19:31 Magic Powers wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 28 2025 19:12 Jankisa wrote:Chilling stuff, especially the reality free quote from the end: Show nested quote +“The real problem is this: since Charlie [Kirk] was murdered — a friend of mine, assassinated — nothing’s changed on their side,” White House counter-terrorism czar Sebastian Gorka told Newsmax after NSPM-7 was signed. “Not one leader —not one left wing thought leader, member of Congress, Senator — nobody has said we distance ourselves from the violent rhetoric.” It doesn't matter to them who reacted how, even if every person left of center in the world put Charlie Kirk rest in peace as their profile picture, including every senator and congress person, they would have still done this and still said this. I'm sure that this, however, is because of Obama, or so would our resident fascist boot lickers tell us, if they didn't completely ignore things like this and pretend they aren't happening. To make sure everybody, even the people in the far back, can understand what's going on right now. Sebastian Gorka may not be a familiar name, but he's a very important person in counter-terrorism. Very high up. He has previously served under Trump's first administration and is now serving a second time. He just used a false pretext (lying about zero Democrat leader condemnation of Kirk's assassination) to accuse all Democrat leaders of supporting political violence against prominent right-wing figures. It's very clear he's lying. He KNOWS his accusation is false. Here's proof: "This is not acceptable and well have to condemn it. We have to stop it," Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a longtime Trump foe, said in a Sept. 10 post on X. "This is sickening." "Political violence is NEVER acceptable," House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in an Sept. 10 post on X. "My thoughts and prayers are with Charlie Kirk and his family." Rep. Maxwell Frost, the first member of Gen Z elected to Congress, said the shooting was "nothing short of horrific" and condemned the violence. The Florida Democrat said in a Sept. 10 Facebook post reacting to the shooting that "every single person deserves to be safe from gun violence no matter" their political beliefs. "Debates get passionate. People have strong feelings. That's part of the democratic process. But the notion that people think because they disagree with someone, violence is an acceptable response to it, is one we have to stamp out in this country," Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Washington said. "We should all feel a deep sense of grief and outrage at the terrible violence that took place in Utah today," Newsom wrote on X.
"Charlie Kirk's murder is sick and reprehensible, and our thoughts are with his family, children, and loved ones," he added. "I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate." As well as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and plenty more. There was a lot of condemnation of the assassination. Gorka is full of shit, very fitting for the entire Trump administration. You didn't pay close enough attention to what Gorka said. Either you didn't see/internalize the word rhetoric, or you did and think assassinations are a form of rhetoric. He said "nobody has said we distance ourselves from the violent rhetoric." (This by itself is probably hyperbole as I'm sure the number isn't 0.) He did not say "nobody has said we distance ourselves from the violence." You disproved a ghost. Your counterexamples are for something other than what he said. What you'd want is statements like Fetterman's.Gorka goes on to say "[Nobody has said]...We jettison the voices such as Maxine Waters or Joe Biden who talked about using violence against their political opponents. We totally excoriate them and we remove them from our political environment. They haven't done anything, and Charlie's dead, and Erika's a widow, and those children will grow up without a father. The left refuses to rid themselves of the justification for violence, and as such President Trump is taking measures to protect us from the violent rhetoric that becomes snipers and bullets." He's making a similar point I made which was if you give a token "oops killing is bad" after every act of violence, it gives you plausibility deniability even if you immediately go back to the same old routine of riling up millions (at most) for stochastic terrorism. Agreed. Biden really should be jettisoned from the party for that time he said, "Trump wants to abolish, essentially abolish the second amendment. By the way, if he gets to pick.... if he gets to pick his judges (shrugs). Nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people- maybe there is, I don't know." Sounds like encouraging the murder of his political rivals from Biden, or maybe a joke, I don't know. Or maybe it was said by the current President of the United States, but who keeps track of those things. I wonder how many more people will be attacked before even people who harp on 10 year old quotes - without referencing the part when they were clarified after wide backlash, without referencing when everybody moved on, and without referencing the fact that nobody was shot by the alleged call to shoot someone - before even those people realize they're way behind the times.
Only thing is we aren't quote mining one off, decade old posts from random twitter psychos but quotes that are representative of the President of the United States' entire M.O. We're just living in the world he built as the most rhetorically inflammatory president I can recall. Did they ever disavow? No, to this day, the election was stolen is used as a purity test in Trump's administration. He was awarded by coming back to power and anyone that pulled the brakes last time was out.
|
On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence.
Political violence is not poorly defined, and the right absolutely commits more political violence (and more severe political violence too):
"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
|
the left really needs to just start saying shit. that's all the right ever does. just say shit, who gives a fuck if it's true? they live in their own world where fact and reality doesn't matter, you can't fight that. they are not our equals. they are inferiors and deserve the peasant treatment in return.
|
On September 29 2025 11:26 Phyanketto wrote:
the left really needs to just start saying shit. that's all the right ever does. just say shit, who gives a fuck if it's true? they live in their own world where fact and reality doesn't matter, you can't fight that. they are not our equals. they are inferiors and deserve the peasant treatment in return.
Even if I thought this strategy wouldn't lead to some other kind of dystopian future, it wouldn't work for the simple reason that the right owns almost all the news and social media and can get away with basically anything because of it.
|
|
|
On September 29 2025 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. Political violence is not poorly defined, and the right absolutely commits more political violence (and more severe political violence too): "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
That is not true this year.
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research
|
Forgive my cynicism, as I can not cope with these numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2025
Or from the Guardian article:
The Grand Blanc shooting happened during a particularly violent weekend in the US and marked the 324th mass shooting in the US in 2025 according to the Gun Violence Archive.
Shooting up churches is really considerate. I mean you only have to send thoughts, because prayers were already there.
It's also fucked up that according to Wiki there so far have been 31,000 suicides by veterans from post 9/11 war deployments.
|
https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us#h2-definitions
"Rise of left wing terrorism" It's an incredible biased take away.
See that missing red bar on the last year? That's their claim to fame.
Incredibly dishonest, and it's going to be quoted over and over and over again, until it's the "alternative truth" you can choose to believe.
They list less than a dozen incidents they classify as "Terrorism" - I maybe scrolled past.. but where is the data?
If at all, the "Study finds" that former acts of right-wing-terrorism are now legalized and you get even paid to do it if you join ICE.
|
The right is just extremely peaceful this year (due to their leader). So much so, in fact, that it infuriates the left and they can't help themselves but murder these pious, devout, Christloving, quiet, generous and caring people who just want to live their lives unbothered and harmoniously with other humans just like them.
|
Well, we did post recently about what, according to the new standards constitutes as Terrorism, it includes:
- anti-Americanism,
- anti-capitalism,
- anti-Christianity,
- support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
- extremism on migration,
- extremism on race,
- extremism on gender
- hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
- hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
- hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality.
I can absolutely tell you, with 100 % certainty that this is going to be "worse year in history" for Left wing terrorism, because anyone who does anything fucked up and has at any point wrote or said anything, ranging from "I think Trump is a poopoo head" (anti-American), I think trans people deserve human rights (gender), I think gay people should be able to get married (traditional American views on family) will be categorized as a left wing terrorist.
On the other hand, the clear Trump supporter who just shoot up and burned down a church will also neatly be placed in one of these (anti-Christianity) despite him being an obvious right winger who lost his mind and more then likely went there just to cause as much death as he could, or had a grudge against someone etc.
There was too much death this weekend in the US and I was too busy to pay attention to it all, so maybe the NY shooter was antifa or some shit, in any case, I'm sure they had one or two posts which could classify them as left, so there they'll go.
|
On September 29 2025 16:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. Political violence is not poorly defined, and the right absolutely commits more political violence (and more severe political violence too): "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 That is not true this year. https://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research
Sure, that's the only counterexample, and that's also half of one year vs. each/all of the previous 30 full years. That article/graph shows a humongous disparity between just how much more political violence occurs on the right than on the left.
Some of that article is hidden behind a paywall for me, but based on the graph, it appears that approximately 90% of political violence is caused by the right. It's not even remotely close.
|
On September 29 2025 18:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 16:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:On September 29 2025 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. Political violence is not poorly defined, and the right absolutely commits more political violence (and more severe political violence too): "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 That is not true this year. https://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research Sure, that's the only counterexample, and that's also half of one year vs. each/all of the previous 30 full years. That article/graph shows a humongous disparity between just how much more political violence occurs on the right than on the left. Some of that article is hidden behind a paywall for me, but based on the graph, it appears that approximately 90% of political violence is caused by the right. It's not even remotely close.
Considering they've already changed the framework of what constitutes leftwing violence, those bars are going to change colour once they retroactively reclassify all of it as radical left terrorist violence.
|
On September 29 2025 21:00 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 18:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2025 16:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:On September 29 2025 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. Political violence is not poorly defined, and the right absolutely commits more political violence (and more severe political violence too): "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 That is not true this year. https://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research Sure, that's the only counterexample, and that's also half of one year vs. each/all of the previous 30 full years. That article/graph shows a humongous disparity between just how much more political violence occurs on the right than on the left. Some of that article is hidden behind a paywall for me, but based on the graph, it appears that approximately 90% of political violence is caused by the right. It's not even remotely close. Considering they've already changed the framework of what constitutes leftwing violence, those bars are going to change colour once they retroactively reclassify all of it as radical left terrorist violence.
Yeah probably. Maybe they'll gatekeep/redefine just how much to the right the true right really is, so that all prior right-wing violence was really caused by people who only pretended to be on the right, or by people who weren't conservative/MAGA enough by Trump's standards/revisionism. No True Scotsman, and all that fallacious nonsense.
For those of us wanting to still work with real facts though, it seems we can even strengthen our language about how disproportionate right-wing political violence is, compared to left-wing political violence. Previously, I had merely said things like the right commits more violence, unsure of exactly how much more (60-40? 70-30?) and not wanting to exaggerate. But now that there are reputable sources showing that it's really as much as a 90-10 split over the past 30 years, which is even more extreme than I had originally thought, we can safely say that almost all political violence is caused by the right. Not just "more". Not just "disproportionately right-wing". But indeed "almost all political violence is caused by the right".
|
On September 29 2025 16:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. Political violence is not poorly defined, and the right absolutely commits more political violence (and more severe political violence too): "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 That is not true this year. https://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research
What kind of brain damage would result in a literate adult reading this article and concluding the left is even remotely as violent as the right?
|
On September 29 2025 21:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 16:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:On September 29 2025 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2025 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 29 2025 04:52 KwarK wrote:
I feel like maybe using the army on political enemies is some kind of political violence. The army are the ones with the bang sticks and the metal box cars, right? Isn’t violence their specialty? And isn’t the Portland thing political?
This is the kind of thing I meant when I was saying that conservatives excuse their political violence because they sheath it in the state. But the state doesn’t make the violence legitimate, the violence makes the state illegitimate. There is an absolute shitload of conservative right wing violence in the US and there always has been. Firstly, this is ill defined and vague. Secondly, you can easily shuffle around definitions and label almost anything political violence. Here is a simple example about an ongoing legal back and forth between the state and the gay communities in Canada and the USA. Specifically , the battle over whether or not poppers should be legal. The state's actions can easily be framed as "political violence". When A Sex Shop that sells poppers is closed down and the owner arrested in Toronto's gay village that can be framed as "political violence" by the state against innocent gay men. Poppers are illegal in Canada and the USA. According to gay men the law about poppers and its enforcement are political violence. In their view poppers should be legal. Any time the state shuts down a poppers manufacturing centre ... that is political violence according to gay rights activists. I don't think a sex shop getting shut down and the owner arrested is an example of political violence. I can see why some people frame it that way though. So you're making a vague statement about an ill defined activity, namely, political violence. Political violence is not poorly defined, and the right absolutely commits more political violence (and more severe political violence too): "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 That is not true this year. https://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research What kind of brain damage would result in a literate adult reading this article and concluding the left is even remotely as violent as the right?
To be fair, NovaTheFeared didn't technically say that. He provided a source that showed that over the past 30 years, almost all political violence has come from the right.
|
a nice effort certainly. but simply doomed to fall short to the complexity of reality. I love the support for environmental causes/animal rights stuff. as if they never met anyone else but big agrobusiness farmers and Kristi Noem types shooting their pets.
according to the definition of the CSIS study from the axios link:
This brief defines left-wing terrorism as that which is motivated by an opposition to capitalism, imperialism, or colonialism; black nationalism; support for LGBTQ+ rights; support for environmental causes or animal rights; adherence to pro-communist, pro-socialist beliefs or “anti-fascist” rhetoric; opposition to government authority under the belief it is a tool of oppression responsible for social injustices; support for decentralized political and social systems, such as anarchism; or partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing right-wing agendas.
Right-wing terrorism as used in this analysis includes incidents motivated by ideas of racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority, believing it is tyrannical and illegitimate; misogyny, including incels; hatred based on sexuality or gender identity; belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory; opposition to abortion; or partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing left-wing agendas.
both broadly would fit the "Jan06/MAGA mantle" easily. maybe ANTIFA really stormed for Trump...
and didn't they qualify ALL attacks on ICE agents as "Terrorism", after they broke up families to send people to god knows where without distinguishing their legal status properly and people rightfully were pissed off and agitated about it? this not only inflates the qualifier "Terrorism" greatly. it tries to put one injustice on top of another to put a lid on things.
and makes for the perfect material to show nice graphs about massive increases in "Left Wing Terror".
voilà, here we are I am afraid
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/Gvc5jHt5/OhNo.jpg)
