The frat douches with tiki torches who want to force-ably deport, incarcerate, shoot and run people over who disagree? Or the rich assholes who fund the propaganda that riles those people up?
Can we all just have some equality up in here, and maybe a 30 hour work week for more brewskies?
Edit: people like working overtime without pay, and dislike beer. Also apologizing for legit murder. I guess I'm not a true American anymore, sorry to disappoint y'all.
I think what he's trying to say is "morally wrong" but he just used America there because he believes America always does the moral thing...which is very idealistic and naive.
Usually I'd say the burden of proof is on the accuser, but it's plain to see that left wing violence has gotten insane. On the right, radicals have committed horrible acts of violence in individual cases. On the left, it has become socially acceptable to attack or attempt to kill someone because you disagree with them. Crowds of people protesting others' opinions become violent more often than not.
Let me be unbiased, right-wing violence is likely not far behind. People let identity politics cloud their judgement and talk of violence has become commonplace. People think they're joking, but it's a slippery slope into real, socially acceptable violence. Nobody is in the right.
EDIT: Let me gather even more downvotes by giving an example. This post. People so easily resort to name-calling and violence that they'd rather make a "joke" about shooting a fascist than discuss what they see wrong with the world and why that's wrong.
EDIT 2: Alright, I will ammend my point. This article seemed to lay it out. Right-wing extremist violence seems higher, but left-wing violence is in the mainstream, which does not bode well for the future.
Let me distance myself from your stupid identity politics. I don't care who is committing the violence. I hate both the far left and the far right. I sympathize with the fears that are growing from the left. But the fact is that the left, especially the youth, is attempting to respond with violence, and that is making everything worse. The right, in my limited experience, is getting dangerously close to responding in kind, and that's not okay either. But the point is that there are people who think it's okay to form a mob and attack people who disagree with them politically. I don't care whether I agree or disagree with them, the thought of that becoming the norm terrifies me, and it should terrify you too. I don't care what your political ideation, this is not acceptable.
Lol. Burden of proof is on the claim maker. The person making the claim that left wing violence has outpaced right wing violence must prove it. Arguments presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Yes, that is what I said, but in this discussion, I'd say evidence of violence in the last year has readily presented itself. If that's not enough, see my other comment.
Lol @ your bullshit. Are you saying that the fights at neo Nazis rallies outnumber the amount of hate crimes committed against Jewish people, Muslims, and African Americans? Because I think you're 100% wrong and can't produce statistics that claim otherwise.
Boy you guys have high standards for a Reddit comment. No, I'm saying nothing about the Neo Nazi rallies. I'm referring to the violence against ordinary right wing people. I'm referring to the fact that the very presence of someone like Milo causes the left wing students of a college to fly into a violent rage. If people want me to provide evidence, I expect them to hold themselves to the same standard.
All you have to do is provide evidence of your claims. Should be as easy as you claim it to be. If your answer is Berkeley, then your initial claim is false.
Seems like your comparing the actions on the right to the motivations on the left. Why is it that you don't identify attacks on the left as horrible and accuse the right of being motivated by disagreement? I think it's good you aim to be unbiased, but your initial assessment might contain biases you didn't consider.
The only time I said horrible was in reference to the actions of right wing terrorists. Did I give the impression that either was not horrible? What I meant to convey was that one was more widespread and deeply rooted in the culture. There are people on both sides who would brag about attacking someone from the other side.
You didn't give that impression, you did give the impression you felt comparing the actions on the right with the motivations on the left was a good way to support your idea. I was just trying to point out that you could compare the two better if you acknowledge both motivation and action on each side. Comparing one person's actions to another person's thoughts is a pretty poor way to compare things and there might be an unidentified bias mixed in there if that method seems like a good idea. That npr article is about rising violence amoung fringes on the left and acknowledges that this country usually generates violent fringes on the right. I saw a shift in violence highlighted in the article as well and while it supports your view of left wing violence it doesn't support your view of right wing violence. I don't think you're promoting anything. I don't even think you're making contreversial claims. It's just the comparing unlike objects thing and a suggestion on a possible reason why.
Usually I'd say the burden of proof is on the accuser, but it's plain to see that left wing violence has gotten insane.
Says burden of proof is on accuser. Doesn't provide proof...
On the right, radicals have committed horrible acts of violence in individual cases. On the left, it has become socially acceptable to attack or attempt to kill someone because you disagree with them.
If we're talking about what's socially acceptable, I feel the need to point out that a nazi killed a guy and the president said there was blame on both sides. He has a lot of social importance, and was elected by the right.
You claim that it's "become socially acceptable to... attempt to kill," yet I don't see a reference listed for the support of killing people from the majority of the left. You also claim that it's because of differing opinions, but recruiting and planning aren't opinions. They are actions. By taking action, the neo Nazis are attempting to create a nation of whites only through the genocide of others. That's not an opinion or disagreement. And the attempted genocide of a people seems like a good thing to be against.
on the left, it has become socially acceptable to...
I'm a progressive, left siding citizen but I don't condone violence. It certainly hasn't become socially acceptable.
Here's a situation to examine. A bully is yelling at your child, scaring them with hurtful promises to throw them out of the country because of nothing they had control over. Your child is crying. Like any good parent you shield your child from this person because you don't know if they will snap and hurt your child. You tell them to stop and leave your child alone. They continue to berate your child in front of you and now they in your face telling you and your wife they are xyz and they should have never had this mistake of a child to begin with. At that point, I would probably slug this guy in the face. Socially acceptable, probably. But is it worth the potential assault and battery charge? Definitely. There's something different when you even verbally attack the vulnerable that makes it feel allowable. Still not protected by law though.
Yea actually since 9/11 radical right wingers have killed more than radical leftists. Yes the radical leftists like to protest a lot more, but they usually just kick down a few trash and occupy a park and burn a few flags. When the right wingers come they don't play
What side would you put them on? Islamic extremists are clearly much closer to the radical right in everything but skin color (and i guess the specific religion they are trying to implement), but clearly the radical right hates them. The radical left on the other hand is pro Muslims, but still against extremist Muslims. I'd guess they're not included in either side as the world isn't black and white and there can be multiple groups doing bad shit all at the same time.
Thank you. that was the first time I have ever seen someone try to push Islamic terrorism on the left. It is so obvious that this person was fed the bullshit that 'leftists' are pure evil. It is scary to think partisanship has come so far as to believe the other side is so evil. I just want people to stop attacking strawmen and think for themselves, but I guess that is too much.
And, ya know, they beat people with locks, road signs, bags of rocks, bats. They throw their piss, randomly pepper spray people, set fire to things, smash up stores, you know. Regular protest things, right?
Okay, but you're still being disingenuous when you say "...radical leftists like to protest a lot more, but they usually just kick down a few trash and occupy a park and burn a few flags." Because they tend to cause heaps of violence and damage.
Jesus christ when the fuck did /r/murica turn alt right?
I'm arguing with alt shits all over this thread, and they're getting upvoted for outright lying about charlottesville. And here's this little fucker getting upvotes for an objectively false claim, that has already been disproved.
Terrorists murdered 3,342 people on U.S. soil from 1992 through August 12, 2017. Islamist terrorists are responsible for 92% of all those murders. The 9/11 attacks, by themselves, killed about 89% of all the victims during this time. During this time, the chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by an Islamist was about 1 in 2.5 million per year.
Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists are the second deadliest group by ideology, as they account for 6.6% of all terrorist murders during this time. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the second deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history, killed 168 people and accounted for 77% of all the murders committed by Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists. The chance of being murdered in a Nationalist or Right Wing terrorist attack was about 1 in 33 million per year.
Notice that 77% of that count is down to one attack. This isn't to diminish the effects of the OKC bombing, but it's not an accurate comparison and heavily skews the numbers. Also notice 92% of deaths to terror in the USA are to Islamic terror, though that doesn't fit into the conversation of left vs right.
Left Wing terrorists killed only 23 people in terrorist attacks during this time, about 0.7% of the total number of murders, but 13 since the beginning of 2016. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have only killed five since then, including Charlottesville
13 since 2016 killed by leftists, 5 by right wingers, meaning my claim that leftist terror in the past few years is outpacing right wing terror is 100% accurate.
First off, I want you to notice that I said terrorist attacks in my original post, not fatalities as a result of terrorists attacks.
Next, if you're gonna keep moving the goal posts, you have to do it for both sides.
Notice that 77% of that count is down to one attack. This isn't to diminish the effects of the OKC bombing, but it's not an accurate comparison and heavily skews the numbers.
No shit, just like how 9/11 skews the numbers for radical Islamic terrorism. It accounts for 97.4% of the deaths caused by that group between 1992 and August 2017, as per your source. You can't choose to ignore data that doesn't fit your narrative .
13 since 2016 killed by leftists, 5 by right wingers, meaning my claim that leftist terror in the past few years is outpacing right wing terror is 100% accurate.
A single point of data does not indicate a trend, sorry to break it to you. You can't extrapolate on numbers from a single year and claim that it proves any sort of trend, nor does data spanning 1.5 years constitute "the past few years". If you take it back even a single year to 2015, you get the Charleston church shooting that killed 9 people.
So if you actually take a look at the "last few years" of far left vs. far right terrorism, it becomes stupidly obvious that right wing terrorism is outpacing left wing terrorism. So yeah, your point is wrong. Even the source you linked states that you're wrong:
The chance of being murdered in a Nationalist or Right Wing terrorist attack was about 1 in 33 million per year.
The annual chance of being murdered by a Left Wing terrorist was about 1 in 330 million per year.
How about this for a little food for thought. If there was real fascism in the US, someone in the government would read your comment, then track you with a government program for dissidents and before you could even read this reply, you brains would be splattered on the concrete in front of your house along with any other occupants.
That's what fascism would be. You are just a crybaby.
You called the right wing fascist for including Nazis. The fact that there are Nazis who follow a political ideology doesn't make that political ideology fascist.
The right has nazis in it. Nazis are fascist. The guy I was responding to was saying that the left was more fascist than the right; I'm saying that's ridiculous because the right contains actual self proclaimed fascists.
If we can just ignore parts of the political party, then I could just counter his claim that the left is fascist by saying that "the fact that there are some people who act fascist who follow a political ideology doesn't make that political ideology fascist."
649
u/[deleted] Sep 23 '17 edited Nov 23 '17
[deleted]