Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[The Rich Port]

I meaaaaaaaaan what if someone makes death threats or bomb threats over Minecraft? That's still pretty bad, it being terrorism notwithstanding.

I don't think that is what's meant here. ^^

Lots of "shitposting" often crosses into dubious territory, that's the whole point. Joking about committing crimes or holding horrific viewpoints stops being funny after a certain point, and my guess is that's when DHS feels the need to investigate you...

Ahem, granted, I say that as someone who finds DHS's need to investigate people as often flimsy, but this is unfortunately the bed that the far-right has made.

I think most far-right people wouldn't get defensive about this if it was a Muslim making bomb threats over Minecraft.

[Kowani]

so reading the DHS report, it literally counts minecraft shitposting as terrorism

...the OP is citing a CSIS report, not the DHS
what are you talking about

[Fansania]

Isn't AOC and a few other of the more radical dems an example for that?

Centrists are not "extreme".

Well, the I'd rather be an extreme right than a centrist.

[Fansania]

AOC is isn’t a centrist, but she isn’t batshit crazy unlike the far-right in America.

She is a social democrat. A left-leaning ideology, but capitalistic at the core and certainly not socialist.

But yeah, calling her a centrist is misleading.

She does go along with all the cultural SJW shit.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

It's getting old. Group A gets angry because Group B is gaining more influence or power & tries to hold on to power.

If the United States gets a left-wing equivalent of Trump as their President I'll consider the balance of power overly-shifted towards the left and we can complain about that. Until then, some of us could do with being less dramatic.

Isn't AOC and a few other of the more radical dems an example for that?

AOC is as comparable to Trump as Ronald Reagan is to emperor Marcus Aurelius.

[Fansania]

Isn't AOC and a few other of the more radical dems an example for that?

Let me use a metaphor.

If you're not used to spicy stuff a Jalapeño will probably make you cry.

Then I consider myself proud of that. Why do people need want Jalapeños forced on them?

[Lady Victory]

Centrists are not "extreme".

Well, the I'd rather be an extreme right than a centrist.

The only conclusion I can draw from this statement is that you have no moral compass and are totally fine with that for... some reason.

[Fansania]

Well, the I'd rather be an extreme right than a centrist.

The only conclusion I can draw from this statement is that you have no moral compass and are totally fine with that for... some reason.

You are also what you are accusing me of being.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

She is a social democrat. A left-leaning ideology, but capitalistic at the core and certainly not socialist.

But yeah, calling her a centrist is misleading.

She does go along with all the cultural SJW shit.

Ohhhh....

You don’t know whatleft-wing is... That makes this conversation rather painful, don’t you agree?

[Lady Victory]

The only conclusion I can draw from this statement is that you have no moral compass and are totally fine with that for... some reason.

You are also what you are accusing me of being.

My man in your own words you said you'd rather side with Nazis than Centrists. That is a serious moral failing on your part, and your projective post here - which constitutes little more than "no u" - does not change that fact nor does it bring me down to your level.

[North Washington Republic]

You are also what you are accusing me of being.

My man in your own words you said you'd rather side with Nazis than Centrists. That is a serious moral failing on your part, and your projective post here - which constitutes little more than "no u" - does not change that fact nor does it bring me down to your level.

Sometimes I feel that many lefties on NSG would rather be a Nazi than a Centrist.

[Lady Victory]

My man in your own words you said you'd rather side with Nazis than Centrists. That is a serious moral failing on your part, and your projective post here - which constitutes little more than "no u" - does not change that fact nor does it bring me down to your level.

Sometimes I feel that many lefties on NSG would rather be a Nazi than a Centrist.

I'm pretty sure Fansania isn't a leftist.

[The Rich Port]

My man in your own words you said you'd rather side with Nazis than Centrists. That is a serious moral failing on your part, and your projective post here - which constitutes little more than "no u" - does not change that fact nor does it bring me down to your level.

Sometimes I feel that many lefties on NSG would rather be a Nazi than a Centrist.

Yeah, Antifa, short for Antifascists, would rather be a Nazi.

Bruh I voted for Biden, wtf more you want from me.

[Nakena]

My man in your own words you said you'd rather side with Nazis than Centrists. That is a serious moral failing on your part, and your projective post here - which constitutes little more than "no u" - does not change that fact nor does it bring me down to your level.

Sometimes I feel that many lefties on NSG would rather be a Nazi than a Centrist.

No. Just no.

You're terribly wrong there in this assessment.

[Australian rePublic]

Change my mind: A lot of this had to do with silencing free speech

[Uiiop]

Change my mind: A lot of this had to do with silencing free speech

A lot of what these people were fighting for were promoted by a major news network and websites that aren't to my knowledge banned.
Though if you define free speech to include what private actors do then there should be enough silencing on the other side to make leftist terrorism numbers closer than this. If not here than say in the UK. But that hasn't happened.

[Tyramon]

More detailed answers to OP's questions:

1. Why is the right so much more violent than the left?
There are several reasons for this. The main one, as I explained in a previous post, is higher support. This translates in higher membership in right-wing terrorist groups, more funding, and in general more capacity to carry out attacks. It translates in other ways too, with white supremacist speech having more visibility than the far-left (obvious example: Trump) and their attacks being condoned more.

Another, significantly less important reason is ideology. Right-wing groups tend to be more supportive of Second Amendment rights (and most terrorist attacks in America are carried out with firearms) and to attack people over corporations and public property.

2. What can be done to reduce the instances of right-wing terrorism?
Generally speaking, the same measures can be applied to far-right and far-left terrorism. The two main reasons fueling them are, in my opinion, the extreme political polarization in the US and the ease of access to firearms.

To address political polarization, the US needs to improve the quality of its local elections and destroy gerrymandering. The drawing of electoral districts should be left to independent commissions, never to state legislatures. Another fundamental flaw is the first-past-the-post electoral system in America, entrenching two-party, "black or white" rule.

The ease of access to firearms can be reduced by introducing increased gun control. Honestly the Second Amendment entirely needs to go, but that would be hugely unpopular in America.

Neither of these reforms are easy to implement in any way, because of their unpopularity, lack of political will, or both. Thus, I expect America's terrorism problem to grow worse in the future.

The 2nd Amendment isn't just a part of our constitution, it's the second item on our Bill of Rights. John Locke once wrote Second Treatise on Government which puts forth ideas that these sorts of rights were god-given, they couldn't and shouldn't be taken away by man. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't just be unpopular, it would be downright treasonous. The federal government would likely lose control over the military if they tried to enforce it, given the military swears it's oath to defend the constitution and not the government.

No the answer isn't to become more radical. The answer to move towards centrist positions and not enflame the right more than it has already has.

A couple of notes:

The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. Not sure what you're getting at by pointing that out.

Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is in no way "treasonous," as the Constitution allows for edits, such as the edit that added the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

If the military defends the constitution and the government changes the constitution and then enforces the new constitution, then the military would defend the new constitution. Otherwise they aren't defending the constitution but their own political views.

[Esternial]

Let me use a metaphor.

If you're not used to spicy stuff a Jalapeño will probably make you cry.

Then I consider myself proud of that. Why do people need want Jalapeños forced on them?

"Wanting to have something forced onto you" is a nonsensical expression. Wanting it implies it's not forced.

It sometimes difficult to understand why people want what they want, and it's sad that there are people that won't/can't understand fall into the mentality of "they don't know what's good for them" or "they're brainwashed". It's a very dehumanizing line of thinking. People can always have misgivings or be plain wrong, but if so many people stand behind something it must be worth at least a little effort to try and grasp why they do it rather than dismiss is as "leftist indoctrination" or "right-wing circlejerking", which are thinly-veiled attempts at mentally dismissing people as human beings with agency.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

"Wanting to have something forced onto you" is a nonsensical expression. Wanting it implies it's not forced.

Oh come on. "Wanting a system where they're forced to eat Jalapeños" is enough modification. And if you're still going to quibble, do you think we live in such a benign world that nobody is ever forced to do something the don't like?

It sometimes difficult to understand why people want what they want, and it's sad that there are people that won't/can't understand fall into the mentality of "they don't know what's good for them" or "they're brainwashed". It's a very dehumanizing line of thinking. People can always have misgivings or be plain wrong, but if so many people stand behind something it must be worth at least a little effort to try and grasp why they do it rather than dismiss is as "leftist indoctrination" or "right-wing circlejerking", which are thinly-veiled attempts at mentally dismissing people as human beings with agency.

Not that many people stand behind AOC on everything. You can't deny she makes controversial statements, which sometimes have to be defended with the caveat "I wouldn't say that myself" ...

I think a better take than "just be tolerant" is that both parties have members who test the limits of what is tolerable, and nothing from the public or the opposite party will tell them where the limit really is, besides members of their own party speaking against them. "Well I don't agree, the way she puts it, but she does have a point on ..." should be all it takes.

Time will tell between AOC and MTG. You may say MTG is already beyond rebuke, but she is new. Anyone determined to offend the public is most particularly vulnerable to disapproval of their colleagues. I expect they will both mellow a lot.

How on earth is anything AOC says:
1. Controversial;
2. Even remotely close to anything Taylor-Greene says?

Equivocating between outright conspiracism and fascism on one side, and wanting to reduce the number of flights on the other, can only be done in bad faith, or if you actually think that there is somehow a rule of equal and opposite in politics.

[Vassenor]

Oh come on. "Wanting a system where they're forced to eat Jalapeños" is enough modification. And if you're still going to quibble, do you think we live in such a benign world that nobody is ever forced to do something the don't like?




Not that many people stand behind AOC on everything. You can't deny she makes controversial statements, which sometimes have to be defended with the caveat "I wouldn't say that myself" ...

I think a better take than "just be tolerant" is that both parties have members who test the limits of what is tolerable, and nothing from the public or the opposite party will tell them where the limit really is, besides members of their own party speaking against them. "Well I don't agree, the way she puts it, but she does have a point on ..." should be all it takes.

Time will tell between AOC and MTG. You may say MTG is already beyond rebuke, but she is new. Anyone determined to offend the public is most particularly vulnerable to disapproval of their colleagues. I expect they will both mellow a lot.

How on earth is anything AOC says:
1. Controversial;
2. Even remotely close to anything Taylor-Greene says?

Equivocating between outright conspiracism and fascism on one side, and wanting to reduce the number of flights on the other, can only be done in bad faith, or if you actually think that there is somehow a rule of equal and opposite in politics.

BUT BOTH SIDES seems to be a pretty common right-wing deflection these days.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

My man in your own words you said you'd rather side with Nazis than Centrists. That is a serious moral failing on your part, and your projective post here - which constitutes little more than "no u" - does not change that fact nor does it bring me down to your level.

Sometimes I feel that many lefties on NSG would rather be a Nazi than a Centrist.

Hahahahahahahahaha

No

You just happen to be one of the few here who’s openly anti-populist, AKA upholding the status quo

[Lady Victory]

Then I consider myself proud of that. Why do people need want Jalapeños forced on them?

"Wanting to have something forced onto you" is a nonsensical expression. Wanting it implies it's not forced.

It sometimes difficult to understand why people want what they want, and it's sad that there are people that won't/can't understand fall into the mentality of "they don't know what's good for them" or "they're brainwashed". It's a very dehumanizing line of thinking. People can always have misgivings or be plain wrong, but if so many people stand behind something it must be worth at least a little effort to try and grasp why they do it rather than dismiss is as "leftist indoctrination" or "right-wing circlejerking", which are thinly-veiled attempts at mentally dismissing people as human beings with agency.

Normally I'd agree but in the case of the American Far-Right a lot of them genuinely are being brainwashed. Far-Right media outlets are some of the least reliable news outlets in the country specifically because they spew propaganda rather than facts. They use psychological warfare to convince well-intentioned people into believing outright lies and falsehoods by spoon-feeding them exactly what they want to hear mixed with doses of fearmongering, promotion of conspiracy theories, frequent use of dogwhistles, and gaslighting. Like, this isn't even up for debate. The American Far-Right is genuinely being indoctrinated to reject reason and truth in favor of whatever nonsense Fox, OANN, Breitbart, and all the rest want them to believe. It's quite possibly the most successful campaign of mass misinformation we've ever seen and it's leading to increased sectarian violence and is a direct threat to the continued survival of our democracy.

[Ifreann]

...the OP is citing a CSIS report, not the DHS
what are you talking about

The feds have finally noticed that people on the online talk about doing things "in Minecraft" to cover up that they're talking about doing crimes. It started, I believe, as a way for people to dodge Twitch's TOS and talk about, for example, doing illegal drugs in Minecraft, so they don't get banned.

---

You are also what you are accusing me of being.

My man in your own words you said you'd rather side with Nazis than Centrists. That is a serious moral failing on your part, and your projective post here - which constitutes little more than "no u" - does not change that fact nor does it bring me down to your level.

The funny bit is that centrists sided with the actual Nazis.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

How on earth is anything AOC says:
1. Controversial;
2. Even remotely close to anything Taylor-Greene says?

Equivocating between outright conspiracism and fascism on one side, and wanting to reduce the number of flights on the other, can only be done in bad faith, or if you actually think that there is somehow a rule of equal and opposite in politics.

“Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world.”

May not? Nope. WILL not.

“Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.”

Some basic maths seems to be lacking here.

However, what the Right mock her for most is for being too good. Like "Lol, that sentence is so long I can misunderstand it, real Puerto Rican girls from the Bronx don't talk like that." It has a lot to do with AOC being young and pretty, but she will outgrow that.

So, how are things you call 'mistakes' and the claim that capitalism isn't eternal objectionable? And more importantly, how are they comparable to someone who helped instigate the 6th of January attacks?

And what do the sexist, racist things the GOP have to say about AOC have to do with her being objectionable?

[Austreylia]

maybe did some bad things but didn't get caught,.

Everyone, irrespective of political standing, has done bad things without getting caught.