In the United States, right-wing violence is on the rise

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

In other news, water is still wet.

Water’s not wet!!1!,!!!!!

[Andsed]

Okay I do not get why everyone is just slinging shit about right vs left wing violence. Actually I think I do get it. It is one of the many reasons I am so fucking frustrated with both the left and right now a days. Every time this kind of shit happens people on both sides will instead of actually discussing why this happened and how to address it will instead use it as ammunition and to push a message about how the other side is violent and how they are under attack. This whole debate about right wing vs left wing violence is pointless as both our the same thing political violence and instead of using it to scream about how bad the other side is we should be discussing why it happens and how to prevent it.

I think one of the reason it happens is because people make there beliefs so important to them that when people attack their beliefs they feel attacked so they decide to lash out. The only way I think we can actually address it is by just trying to be as calm and respectful as possible during debates. But knowing politics today I doubt this will ever happen.

[Torrocca]

If you want to cite left-wing violence, cite it in a thread about left-wing violence, not one about right-wing violence as a way to play a cheap whataboutism.

You do not get to make a claim on a forum and then complain when that claim is refuted. You do not get to present a narrative and then complain when that narrative is challenged. That is not how forums work. That is how blogs work.

It's not a very remarkable rebuttal to say, "but what about the leftists!?!1?!" when someone charges that right-wing violence (or any other right-wing issue, at that) is on the rise; it reads as nothing more than a cheap, slimy way to avoid the accusation at hand.

[Farnhamia]

You do not get to make a claim on a forum and then complain when that claim is refuted. You do not get to present a narrative and then complain when that narrative is challenged. That is not how forums work. That is how blogs work.

It's not a very remarkable rebuttal to say, "but what about the leftists!?!1?!" when someone charges that right-wing violence (or any other right-wing issue, at that) is on the rise; it reads as nothing more than a cheap, slimy way to avoid the accusation at hand.

Are you new around here?

[Torrocca]

It's not a very remarkable rebuttal to say, "but what about the leftists!?!1?!" when someone charges that right-wing violence (or any other right-wing issue, at that) is on the rise; it reads as nothing more than a cheap, slimy way to avoid the accusation at hand.

Are you new around here?

Nah. I'm just a bitch. :3

[Cedoria]

We should be talking about right-wing violence, since that's the topic, but apparently people want to cry about, "muh ebul left-wingers!!1!" instead.

Yeah because citing leftist violence would be too inconvenient for you would it?

Nope, because there's this thing called 'thread jacking' which is what we call turning a thread's conversation topic isn't something which is not the topic under discussion.

Ergo, what you and others are basically doing right now. That's why it's not to be mentioned, you want to whine about Antifa or whoever, write your own damn thread.

[Farnhamia]

Yeah because citing leftist violence would be too inconvenient for you would it?

Nope, because there's this thing called 'thread jacking' which is what we call turning a thread's conversation topic isn't something which is not the topic under discussion.

Ergo, what you and others are basically doing right now. That's why it's not to be mentioned, you want to whine about Antifa or whoever, write your own damn thread.

Okay, so bringing in left-wing violence as a rebuttal point to violence on the right is allowed. To be honest, given the direction the thread has taken, a change in title to "Violence at the Political Extremes in the US" or something like that would be in order. At any rate, carry on.

Well, in a few minutes when I unlock the thread.

[Aclion]

You do not get to make a claim on a forum and then complain when that claim is refuted. You do not get to present a narrative and then complain when that narrative is challenged. That is not how forums work. That is how blogs work.

Why can't Torocca complain? Everybody complains about everything here. Debating is preferable, of course, but complaining about people rebutting your points is not against the rules.

It's not against the "site" rules, but if a person make an assertion and then attempts to shut down any challenge to that assertion(first of all they don't have the authority to do that) they're not actually looking to have a conversation and we have no reason to respect their objection.

You do not get to make a claim on a forum and then complain when that claim is refuted. You do not get to present a narrative and then complain when that narrative is challenged. That is not how forums work. That is how blogs work.

In case you don't know threadjacking is against the rules here. In a right-wing violence thread we're supposed to be talking about right-wing violence.

Since one dude got punched it seems some have the false idea left wing violence is on the rise and the right is under attack. This is a false narrative.

Responding to the OP is not thread jacking.
So to drag this back to the OP. OPs claim is bunk. He's claiming right wing violence is on the rise, but his source, a source with a well known political bias, doesn't support his claim and has misrepresented their data to reach their conclusion.

I think one of the reason it happens is because people make there beliefs so important to them that when people attack their beliefs they feel attacked so they decide to lash out. The only way I think we can actually address it is by just trying to be as calm and respectful as possible during debates. But knowing politics today I doubt this will ever happen.

In my view, as a person who's engaged in several 2nd amendment protests with what would be called "the right" they are pretty good about saying "these people don't represent us" and bringing them to the attention of nearby police when they become violent. This is evidenced in that these protests are extremely peaceful. The left however is is too willing to ignore violence in their ranks, and most importantly is willing to give tacit approval, or even openly defend acts of violence to shut down the right. The right has violent extremist, and they are very dangerous(in fact i'd say they tend to be much more dangerous then you typical left wing extremist) But the left has many more, enough to form groups for the purpose of using violence to shut down debate, and enough to succeed. We really can't have an honest debate about these things until both side recognise that there are violent extremist in every group, that violent is unacceptable, and begin calling out and rejecting those extremists in our own. These radicals engage in this behavior because they feel that doing lets them influence society(and they are right) and we can only stop them by not letting them associate with us, not defending their actions, and cooperating with law enforcement to spoil there plans and to bring them to justice.

[US-SSR]

Congratulations, Trump voters. Stein and Johnson voters, Bernie Bros and those who stayed home rather than vote for a woman, this is on you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Congratulations, Trump voters. Stein and Johnson voters, Bernie Bros and those who stayed home rather than vote for a woman, this is on you.

It's not everyone elses fault you lost lol

[Bombadil]

Nope, because there's this thing called 'thread jacking' which is what we call turning a thread's conversation topic isn't something which is not the topic under discussion.

Ergo, what you and others are basically doing right now. That's why it's not to be mentioned, you want to whine about Antifa or whoever, write your own damn thread.

Okay, so bringing in left-wing violence as a rebuttal point to violence on the right is allowed. To be honest, given the direction the thread has taken, a change in title to "Violence at the Political Extremes in the US" or something like that would be in order. At any rate, carry on.

Well, in a few minutes when I unlock the thread.

If so then you may as well combine it with this thread, then again you could combine both into a combination of the RWDT and the LWDT thread and create one mega-discussion of both spectrums.. then potentially you could simply create a maga-discussion on the topic of 'Politics as defined by an Anglo-Saxon view of the World'..

[US-SSR]

Congratulations, Trump voters. Stein and Johnson voters, Bernie Bros and those who stayed home rather than vote for a woman, this is on you.

It's not everyone elses fault you lost lol

We won the election by 3 million. Trump won the Presidency. Name me one other Western industrialized nation where the candidate with fewer votes wins office.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not everyone elses fault you lost lol

We won the election by 3 million. Trump won the Presidency. Name me one other Western industrialized nation where the candidate with fewer votes wins office.

It doesn't matter what other nations do or don't do. Your side knew the rules as well as everyone else. Pick a less shitty candidate next time.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Congratulations, Trump voters. Stein and Johnson voters, Bernie Bros and those who stayed home rather than vote for a woman, this is on you.

So much hilariously wrong with this it’s great

[Luminesa]

It's not everyone elses fault you lost lol

We won the election by 3 million. Trump won the Presidency. Name me one other Western industrialized nation where the candidate with fewer votes wins office.

Wrong thread for this discussion, my dude.

[Ifreann]

You're reading that completely wrong. Look:


Both of these sentences refer to the same year, 2017.

Ah This article is from last year. that explains a lot.

How could the proportion of right wing terrorist incidents fall from two-thirds in 2017 to a half...still in 2017? That's nonsense.
"But Iffy, 37 isn't two thirds of 65!"
They probably got to "almost two thirds" by counting those 37 terror attacks tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government or xenophobic motivations AND the 7 Islamic terror attacks. 44 is almost two thirds of 65.

In other words not only is OP misrepresenting the content of his source, his source is misrepresenting the content of their data.

I can see how you would think that if you believe that Muslim terrorists are liberal or left wing.

[Reploid Productions]

Well, Farn tried to get the thread to stay back on track. Given the past page or so of continued off-topic chatter and coupled with even the thread's OP asking to stick a fork in it, think it's time to... well, stick a fork in it. Feel free to envision this thread forking as either a left wing forking or a right wing forking per your personal preference.

Also, "fork" stops looking like it should be a real word after you type it out a few times in close succession.