Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[Neu California]

More recent (last year): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112764/

Very narrow study. It's not about which stories they cover, it's about the slant they put on them.

Considering the start of this tangent was this post by you, where you said:

Yes I can, and he was given a chance and he failed. He was a shitty president.

He was never given a chance by the media, they dismissed him and set about to demonise him from day one. It was constant negative coverage and amplification of the 'not my president' crowd over his common-sense proposals.

I'd say the question of what they choose to cover is very relevant. Plus I could find jack-squat concerning bias, regardless.

[CoraSpia]

Very narrow study. It's not about which stories they cover, it's about the slant they put on them.

Considering the start of this tangent was this post by you, where you said:

He was never given a chance by the media, they dismissed him and set about to demonise him from day one. It was constant negative coverage and amplification of the 'not my president' crowd over his common-sense proposals.

I'd say the question of what they choose to cover is very relevant. Plus I could find jack-squat concerning bias, regardless.

You can choose to cover a particular story but put it in a very negative light, and you can tell the facts without adding your own spin. I prefer the second option, I see the first more often.

[The Alma Mater]

Considering the start of this tangent was this post by you, where you said:



I'd say the question of what they choose to cover is very relevant. Plus I could find jack-squat concerning bias, regardless.

You can choose to cover a particular story but put it in a very negative light, and you can tell the facts without adding your own spin. I prefer the second option, I see the first more often.

And the objective fact is that rightwingers mispresent more often and in a far more extreme manner than "leftist".
Where I put leftist between quotes because we all know democrats are rightwing.

[Neu California]

Considering the start of this tangent was this post by you, where you said:



I'd say the question of what they choose to cover is very relevant. Plus I could find jack-squat concerning bias, regardless.

You can choose to cover a particular story but put it in a very negative light, and you can tell the facts without adding your own spin. I prefer the second option, I see the first more often.

Of course this has jack-all to do with a study by the non-media organization CSIS finding that right-wing terrorism is far more common than any other kind. Let's get back on topic, please.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Can you really blame them for thinking there was voter fraud when the media made it very clear that they had an agenda against Trump, when his supporters were asking he be given a fair chance?

Yes. After the mountain of evidence showing that the claims where bullshit and every court dismissing there claim as unsubstantiated insanity, I can easily blame them.

"Media bad" is code for "I don't believe in facts, only what timcast and Crowder tell me".

[CoraSpia]

You can choose to cover a particular story but put it in a very negative light, and you can tell the facts without adding your own spin. I prefer the second option, I see the first more often.

Of course this has jack-all to do with a study by the non-media organization CSIS finding that right-wing terrorism is far more common than any other kind. Let's get back on topic, please.

I thought that this thread concerns possible reasons for it? I believe that the way the media has painted right-wing politicians is one of those reasons.

[Comerciante]

Of course this has jack-all to do with a study by the non-media organization CSIS finding that right-wing terrorism is far more common than any other kind. Let's get back on topic, please.

I thought that this thread concerns possible reasons for it? I believe that the way the media has painted right-wing politicians is one of those reasons.

In all fairness, right-wing politicians do a well enough job acting the part all by themselves.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Of course this has jack-all to do with a study by the non-media organization CSIS finding that right-wing terrorism is far more common than any other kind. Let's get back on topic, please.

I thought that this thread concerns possible reasons for it? I believe that the way the media has painted right-wing politicians is one of those reasons.

If Trump didn't want to be painted as a jack ass by the media, he shouldn't have been a jack ass. None of his promises where ever "common sense". Leaveing Paris agreement wasn't common sense. Nither was the wall or his bat shit plan on somehow geting rid of the US debt.

[Giovenith]

The subject of this thread is right-wing domestic terrorism, not taxes.

Let's try to move back on course.

While I did feed into this threadjack, tax policy is not the topic of the thread, so can we end that derail here?

Again, tax policy is not the subject of the thread.

Of course this has jack-all to do with a study by the non-media organization CSIS finding that right-wing terrorism is far more common than any other kind. Let's get back on topic, please.

Stop trying to do our job. Your report was sufficient.

[Elwher]

If we are counting the number of incidents, then right-wing terrorism is more prevalent, I agree. That is at least partly, and I would claim mainly, due to the fact that most of the right-wing terrorism is committed by individuals or small groups, so each individual's actions count as a separate incident; left-wing terrorism, AKA riots, tend to be committed by larger groups. Therefore, even if the same number or more left-wing terrorists commit acts than right-wing ones, the number of separate incidents on the right will be greater. It would be interesting, albeit difficult, to compare the number of individuals committing terrorism on the left and the right.

[The Alma Mater]

If we are counting the number of incidents, then right-wing terrorism is more prevalent, I agree. That is at least partly, and I would claim mainly, due to the fact that most of the right-wing terrorism is committed by individuals or small groups, so each individual's actions count as a separate incident; left-wing terrorism, AKA riots, tend to be committed by larger groups. Therefore, even if the same number or more left-wing terrorists commit acts than right-wing ones, the number of separate incidents on the right will be greater. It would be interesting, albeit difficult, to compare the number of individuals committing terrorism on the left and the right.

Why does it matter ? After all:

Since 2015, right-wing extremists have been involved in 267 plots or attacks and 91 fatalities, the data shows. At the same time, attacks and plots ascribed to far-left views accounted for 66 incidents leading to 19 deaths.

267 killing 91 or 0,34 deaths per attack vs 66 killing 19 or 0,29 deaths per attack.
Even if the left has massive incidents involving hundreds of thousands (they do not) and every rightwinger works alone - the right is still more deadly in every way.

[Elwher]

If we are counting the number of incidents, then right-wing terrorism is more prevalent, I agree. That is at least partly, and I would claim mainly, due to the fact that most of the right-wing terrorism is committed by individuals or small groups, so each individual's actions count as a separate incident; left-wing terrorism, AKA riots, tend to be committed by larger groups. Therefore, even if the same number or more left-wing terrorists commit acts than right-wing ones, the number of separate incidents on the right will be greater. It would be interesting, albeit difficult, to compare the number of individuals committing terrorism on the left and the right.

Why does it matter ? After all:

Since 2015, right-wing extremists have been involved in 267 plots or attacks and 91 fatalities, the data shows. At the same time, attacks and plots ascribed to far-left views accounted for 66 incidents leading to 19 deaths.

267 killing 91 or 0,34 deaths per attack vs 66 killing 19 or 0,29 deaths per attack.
Even if the left has massive incidents involving hundreds of thousands (they do not) and every rightwinger works alone - the right is still more deadly in every way.

It matters as a question of deterrent policy. If you deter one lone-wolf terrorist, you prevent one incident. If you deter one member of a band of looters or arsonists, you make no significant change in the incident.

[The Alma Mater]

Why does it matter ? After all:



267 killing 91 or 0,34 deaths per attack vs 66 killing 19 or 0,29 deaths per attack.
Even if the left has massive incidents involving hundreds of thousands (they do not) and every rightwinger works alone - the right is still more deadly in every way.

It matters as a question of deterrent policy. If you deter one lone-wolf terrorist, you prevent one incident. If you deter one member of a band of looters or arsonists, you make no significant change in the incident.

Personally I would consider an individual who kills 2 to be a bigger threat to society than a crowd of 10 million that kills 1.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

If we are counting the number of incidents, then right-wing terrorism is more prevalent, I agree. That is at least partly, and I would claim mainly, due to the fact that most of the right-wing terrorism is committed by individuals or small groups, so each individual's actions count as a separate incident; left-wing terrorism, AKA riots, tend to be committed by larger groups. Therefore, even if the same number or more left-wing terrorists commit acts than right-wing ones, the number of separate incidents on the right will be greater. It would be interesting, albeit difficult, to compare the number of individuals committing terrorism on the left and the right.

False equivalence.

And moving on.

[Senkaku]

Why does it matter ? After all:



267 killing 91 or 0,34 deaths per attack vs 66 killing 19 or 0,29 deaths per attack.
Even if the left has massive incidents involving hundreds of thousands (they do not) and every rightwinger works alone - the right is still more deadly in every way.

It matters as a question of deterrent policy. If you deter one lone-wolf terrorist, you prevent one incident. If you deter one member of a band of looters or arsonists, you make no significant change in the incident.

you can maybe make some tortured case for "all arson is terrorism," and maybe that dog would hunt, but "looting is terrorism" is just fucking absurd lmao

[Greater Miami Shores]

I thought that this thread concerns possible reasons for it? I believe that the way the media has painted right-wing politicians is one of those reasons.

If Trump didn't want to be painted as a jack ass by the media, he shouldn't have been a jack ass. None of his promises where ever "common sense". Leaveing Paris agreement wasn't common sense. Nither was the wall or his bat shit plan on somehow geting rid of the US debt.

There were leftist violent protestors by certain leftists not most leftists in Democrat cities with Democrat Mayors blamed on Republican President Trump and the Republicans by Biden, Democrats and the biased, partisan, Pro Democrats leftist Media, even today those violent protests by those certain leftists continue, and the biased, partisan, Pro Democrats leftist Media doesn't blame Biden and the Democrats.

The Leftist Media destroys Politicians it hates, like Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, and Republican President Donald J Trump of the USA.

[The Black Forrest]

If Trump didn't want to be painted as a jack ass by the media, he shouldn't have been a jack ass. None of his promises where ever "common sense". Leaveing Paris agreement wasn't common sense. Nither was the wall or his bat shit plan on somehow geting rid of the US debt.

There were leftist violent protestors by certain leftists not most leftists in Democrat cities with Democrat Mayors blamed on Republican President Trump

Your evidence? OANN is not a believable.

and the Republicans by Biden, Democrats and the biased, partisan, Pro Democrats leftist Media, even today those violent protests by those certain leftists continue, and the biased, partisan, Pro Democrats leftist Media doesn't blame Biden and the Democrats.

Ok? What’s your proof? It’s easy to see how the ex-president got blamed as he shot his mouth off all the time and said rather rude unfounded things.

Do you have Biden saying anything remotely to the low level of the ex-president?

The Leftist Media destroys Politicians it hates, like Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, and Republican President Donald J Trump of the USA.

No they don’t. Those two supplied endless material to their own undoing.

[Vassenor]

It matters as a question of deterrent policy. If you deter one lone-wolf terrorist, you prevent one incident. If you deter one member of a band of looters or arsonists, you make no significant change in the incident.

you can maybe make some tortured case for "all arson is terrorism," and maybe that dog would hunt, but "looting is terrorism" is just fucking absurd lmao

Looting upsets the status quo of who is permitted to own what though, and thus the plebians are able to appear above their station as defined in capitalism.

[CoraSpia]

you can maybe make some tortured case for "all arson is terrorism," and maybe that dog would hunt, but "looting is terrorism" is just fucking absurd lmao

Looting upsets the status quo of who is permitted to own what though, and thus the plebians are able to appear above their station as defined in capitalism.

Nope, looting is 'me see shiny thing, me want shiny thing.' It's why it was historically carried out by groups like the mongols, because they wanted shiny thing. There's no noble aim to looting, it's just a mixture of envy and selfishness.

[Senkaku]

Looting upsets the status quo of who is permitted to own what though, and thus the plebians are able to appear above their station as defined in capitalism.

Nope, looting is 'me see shiny thing, me want shiny thing.' It's why it was historically carried out by groups like the mongols, because they wanted shiny thing. There's no noble aim to looting, it's just a mixture of envy and selfishness.

Mongols : random American looters :: Wehrmacht : anyone wearing any item of Hugo Boss clothing

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Looting upsets the status quo of who is permitted to own what though, and thus the plebians are able to appear above their station as defined in capitalism.

Nope, looting is 'me see shiny thing, me want shiny thing.' It's why it was historically carried out by groups like the mongols, because they wanted shiny thing. There's no noble aim to looting, it's just a mixture of envy and selfishness.

The looting of corporate chains does not bring a tear to my eyes.

[CoraSpia]

Nope, looting is 'me see shiny thing, me want shiny thing.' It's why it was historically carried out by groups like the mongols, because they wanted shiny thing. There's no noble aim to looting, it's just a mixture of envy and selfishness.

The looting of corporate chains does not bring a tear to my eyes.

And the looting of small businesses?

[Vassenor]

More to the point is there a reason we need to call the riots stemming from police repression of protests terrorist attacks other than to fudge the numbers to support a "both sides equally bad" arguement?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The looting of corporate chains does not bring a tear to my eyes.

And the looting of small businesses?

That does.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Of course this has jack-all to do with a study by the non-media organization CSIS finding that right-wing terrorism is far more common than any other kind. Let's get back on topic, please.

I thought that this thread concerns possible reasons for it? I believe that the way the media has painted right-wing politicians is one of those reasons.

Possible reasons for it? I mean, should it really be much surprise considering how bad life has gotten for the average American who doesn’t earn six figures? Left wing terrorism is rising as well, just not at the same rates as far right terrorism, but the phenomenon being observed here is a general and justified reaction against the establishment