Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[Neu California]

Edit: found a study from earlier this year that says that right wingers are NOT disproportionately silenced by social media.

The study doesn't control for self-censorship.

If right wingers stopped self-censoring, results would differ.

https://cspicenter.org/reports/academicfreedom/

Here is a study of a similar phenomanae which accounts for this.

I like to do research on organizations that I haven't heard of before, and I can find basically nothing about this particular org, which leaves me highly skeptical of it.

Also, how can you measure self-censorship?

And all in all, it does still detract from your argument that the right is disproportionately silenced.

[Odreria]

The study doesn't control for self-censorship.

If right wingers stopped self-censoring, results would differ.

https://cspicenter.org/reports/academicfreedom/

Here is a study of a similar phenomanae which accounts for this.

I like to do research on organizations that I haven't heard of before, and I can find basically nothing about this particular org, which leaves me highly skeptical of it.

Also, how can you measure self-censorship?

And all in all, it does still detract from your argument that the right is disproportionately silenced.

Yeah this is literally the peer-reviewed soyjack meme lol. If you think that article isn't an accurate description of academia idk what to tell you

[Ostroeuropa]

HAHAHAHA no.

https://fortune.com/2016/12/19/social-media-election/

Except history has shown just the opposite. Right wingers tend to be the ones to psychologically abuse the out-groups (blacks, hispanics, lgbt individuals, etc.). You notice that it's not Democrats trying to pass restrictive voting bills or ban transgenders from using their preferred bathroom or playing sports with people of their identified gender.

And yet we see anti-white and anti-male ideologies prevalent on the left as well.

Debunked in the edit to my last post

You may think you did, but you did not account for the self-censorship conservatives undertake in order to exist in social media. "We're not censoring black people more than white people.". -> "Because we know if we post our actual opinions, we'll be banned. So we have to dance around it.".

See the academia study above.

Yet, it's the right-wing white supremacists who have infiltrated police departments. I'd love to see your evidence, though.

Well, there's the hate speech laws and their lopsided application. This is more relevant outside of the US though i'll grant you.

Riots fall under the heading of public disturbance. Terrorism is a completely separate thing, legally. If that bugs you so much, get the law changed.

Right. So basically we're talking about an artificial category that is not particularly noteworthy.

Okay, challenge for you. Go through each of the incidents listed here under post-2001 and explain how they are not terrorism under the definition I gave earlier in the thread.

Those are indeed terrorism.

Okay, show us the laws that the left is using under the guise of "preventing right-wing terrorism" to seize more power for itself and suppress the right.

There's a number of examples.
https://medium.com/@Doomskander/many-of ... 74275535a9

Here's one.

Another would be the Ryerson university suppression of mens groups and the common tactic of framing them as sources of violence, or the similar treatment of white advocacy groups, to deny them funding and support and so on. Or the state violence in the UK against stuff like count dankula.

BTW, I know you don't care but terrorism is defined by its desire to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact. Your attempt to redefine the term will not work, I'm afraid.

I'm not trying to redefine it. I'm pointing out that once you consider these things, it shows we shouldn't care about terrorism as a category or phenomanae, especially given how fringe it is as a phenomanae.

"Voter fraud while having an afro" is not a thing that we should care about compared to "Voter fraud", and the artificiality of the category reveals the actual motivations of those who use it. It's a similar chicanery to the war on drugs, dressing up an attack on your political opponents behind moral rhetoric by creating arbitrary categories of offence, then focusing on one that disproportionately includes your opponents because of material circumstance.

[Ostroeuropa]

And all in all, it does still detract from your argument that the right is disproportionately silenced.

How?

[Picairn]

I honestly thought, when I clicked this link to this thread, it would say Domestic US Terrorism fueled mostly by far left.

It's now pretty obvious to me, that you have conveniently forgotten about the radical left that riled up, the BLM protests and turned them into violent thugs, that kill, rape, pillaged and set fire to shops and ruined peoples livelihoods.

To most Americans these are domestic terrorists, because they spread terror, mayhem and murder throughout the US. Some would even call the Democrats domestic terrorists, for they fear monger, spread discord, divide people and terrorise the populace into voting them.

This thread should be taken down as this debate is aimed at dividing people, when we should be coming together to fight the Wuhan Virus

Ah yes, the hottest of all takes that melted my brain while reading.

[Austreylia]

Ah yes, the hottest of all takes that melted my brain while reading.

He has some valid points that you didn't respond to though.

[Vassenor]

I honestly thought, when I clicked this link to this thread, it would say Domestic US Terrorism fueled mostly by far left.

It's now pretty obvious to me, that you have conveniently forgotten about the radical left that riled up, the BLM protests and turned them into violent thugs, that kill, rape, pillaged and set fire to shops and ruined peoples livelihoods.

To most Americans these are domestic terrorists, because they spread terror, mayhem and murder throughout the US. Some would even call the Democrats domestic terrorists, for they fear monger, spread discord, divide people and terrorise the populace into voting them.

This thread should be taken down as this debate is aimed at dividing people, when we should be coming together to fight the Wuhan Virus

Amazing. Every word of what you just said... was wrong.

[Austreylia]

Amazing. Every word of what you just said... was wrong.

Which parts exactly?

[Neu California]

HAHAHAHA no.

https://fortune.com/2016/12/19/social-media-election/

Paywalled. And I'm not sure it's particularly meaningful, based on the title. Also, don't just respond to one part of my argument and snip out the rest. It's dishonest.

Except history has shown just the opposite. Right wingers tend to be the ones to psychologically abuse the out-groups (blacks, hispanics, lgbt individuals, etc.). You notice that it's not Democrats trying to pass restrictive voting bills or ban transgenders from using their preferred bathroom or playing sports with people of their identified gender.

And yet we see anti-white and anti-male ideologies prevalent on the left as well.

Prove that they are in any way prominent. Because, lo and behold, I'm a white male who loves politics and I have never encountered anything like that. Let alone anything prominent.

Debunked in the edit to my last post

You may think you did, but you did not account for the self-censorship conservatives undertake in order to exist in social media. "We're not censoring black people more than white people.". -> "Because we know if we post our actual opinions, we'll be banned. So we have to dance around it.".

Which leads to a simple question: is is because they need to self-censor to stay in the rules (for example, self-censoring their calls for lynching Obama) or is it something else? I am of the honest belief that it's the former.

See the academia study above.

The paywalled one I can't read?

Yet, it's the right-wing white supremacists who have infiltrated police departments. I'd love to see your evidence, though.

Well, there's the hate speech laws and their lopsided application. This is more relevant outside of the US though i'll grant you.

I think this is because the left doesn't call for killing or otherwise suppressing whole groups of people based on immutable characteristics. The hate speech laws I'm aware of mainly have to do with things like holocaust denial, anti-semitism (Nazi in nature, both of them, and largely practiced by the far right).

Riots fall under the heading of public disturbance. Terrorism is a completely separate thing, legally. If that bugs you so much, get the law changed.

Right. So basically we're talking about an artificial category that is not particularly noteworthy.

Artificial, perhaps, but definitely noteworthy as far as this topic is concerned. As much as you want to, you can't lump riots in with terrorism.

Okay, challenge for you. Go through each of the incidents listed here under post-2001 and explain how they are not terrorism under the definition I gave earlier in the thread.

Those are indeed terrorism.

Okay, we agree here. The right has engaged in a lot of terrorism in the past 20 years.

Okay, show us the laws that the left is using under the guise of "preventing right-wing terrorism" to seize more power for itself and suppress the right.

There's a number of examples.
https://medium.com/@Doomskander/many-of ... 74275535a9

Here's one.

Really? Asking that the TOS on websites be strictly enforced and that people shouldn't flame others on the internet is BAD now? Also, I'd love a better source than some random person's blog.

Another would be the Ryerson university suppression of mens groups and the common tactic of framing them as sources of violence, or the similar treatment of white advocacy groups, to deny them funding and support and so on. Or the state violence in the UK against stuff like count dankula.

Ah, the men's group that was denied official status because they refused to include any safeguards against VIOLENT men's rights activism. Yeah, I fail to see the problem after all the violence incels have caused, and honestly, why not include such a statement? It couldn't hurt unless you're actually considering violence. Also, I can't comment on general examples other than to wonder about the specifics (this is about your statement about the white groups). If offered a specific case, I can at least look it up and see what's what.

Count Dankula was stupid, but I really don't have an opinion on it.

BTW, I know you don't care but terrorism is defined by its desire to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact. Your attempt to redefine the term will not work, I'm afraid.

I'm not trying to redefine it. I'm pointing out that once you consider these things, it shows we shouldn't care about terrorism as a category or phenomanae, especially given how fringe it is as a phenomanae.

Yes, a fringe phenomenon that has killed 91 people in the US in 20 years. I do think we should care, because people shouldn't have to live in fear of being attacked by right-wingers for their honest beliefs or immutable qualities. The same goes for attacks by any other sort of terrorism, BTW.

"Voter fraud while having an afro" is not a thing that we should care about compared to "Voter fraud", and the artificiality of the category reveals the actual motivations of those who use it. It's a similar chicanery to the war on drugs, dressing up an attack on your political opponents behind moral rhetoric by creating arbitrary categories of offence, then focusing on one that disproportionately includes your opponents because of material circumstance.

Except you're trying to lump two very distinct categories together and I'm not buying it.

I like to do research on organizations that I haven't heard of before, and I can find basically nothing about this particular org, which leaves me highly skeptical of it.

Also, how can you measure self-censorship?

And all in all, it does still detract from your argument that the right is disproportionately silenced.

Yeah this is literally the peer-reviewed soyjack meme lol. If you think that article isn't an accurate description of academia idk what to tell you

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[Thyrgga]

Human rights is meaningless idealism till your town is being torched by an invading army. It's easy to thumb your nose at human rights when your rights are in theory guaranteed by a constitution and can't disappear all in one day.

Having the concept of human rights saves you from the consequences of losing a war how?

[Vassenor]

Any terrorist, islamic, neo-nazi, communist, school shooter, etc should be delt with the same way. Jail time or capital punishment

When in doubt, create more martyrs.

[Picairn]

He has some valid points that you didn't respond to though.

Nope. All of it was bullshit, hence why I said it melted my brain.

I honestly thought, when I clicked this link to this thread, it would say Domestic US Terrorism fueled mostly by far left.

First sentence and it's already wrong.

It's now pretty obvious to me, that you have conveniently forgotten about the radical left that riled up, the BLM protests and turned them into violent thugs, that kill, rape, pillaged and set fire to shops and ruined peoples livelihoods.

Even more wrong, 93% of BLM protests were peaceful. Also there was no rape during the protests, not that I heard of. Further, many of the 19 deaths were protesters shot by police or run over by vehicles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcev ... a04c0c4de4

To most Americans these are domestic terrorists, because they spread terror, mayhem and murder throughout the US. Some would even call the Democrats domestic terrorists, for they fear monger, spread discord, divide people and terrorise the populace into voting them.

Blatantly untrue. I won't bother addressing this lie until he provides a citation for "most Americans believing BLM are terrorists", considering that 55% of all adult Americans support BLM as of September 2020. Calling the Democrats "domestic terrorists" is a blatant lie, since the Democrats didn't incite an insurrection on Jan. 6.

This thread should be taken down as this debate is aimed at dividing people, when we should be coming together to fight the Wuhan Virus

"Dividing"? Pffffft. Threads on NSG are up for discussion and debate, obviously there will be polarization. I feel a tinge of irony when he played the "Let's not divide people" card while accusing the Dems and BLM of being terrorists.

[Austreylia]

And yet 100% of riots caused by BLM resulted in billions of damage and dozens of deaths.

[Picairn]

And yet 100% of riots caused by BLM resulted in billions of damage and dozens of deaths.

Did you even read what I wrote or are you going to repeat this lie over and over?

[Galloism]

And yet 100% of riots caused by BLM resulted in billions of damage and dozens of deaths.

Did you even read what I wrote or are you going to repeat this lie over and over?

I mean, they did cause between 1 and 2 billion in damage, at last count (late last year).

Not to mention a small number of deaths.

And the 93% line is asinine. If planes landed successfully 93% of the time or 93% of car trips ended without an accident, we’d ban those forms of travel.

[Austreylia]

And yet 100% of riots caused by BLM resulted in billions of damage and dozens of deaths.

Did you even read what I wrote or are you going to repeat this lie over and over?

It isn't a lie.

The riots that happened all year, as a result of BLM and their "allies", did cause billions in damage and dozens to be killed.

[Vassenor]

Did you even read what I wrote or are you going to repeat this lie over and over?

It isn't a lie.

The riots that happened all year, as a result of BLM and their "allies", did cause billions in damage and dozens to be killed.

You mean the ones in response to police violence against peaceful protests?

[Austreylia]

You mean the ones in response to police violence against peaceful protests?

I didn't know that police forced people to loot liquor stores, vandalise businesses and burn down car dealerships.

Strange

[Cultural Posadism]

Did you even read what I wrote or are you going to repeat this lie over and over?

I mean, they did cause between 1 and 2 billion in damage, at last count (late last year).

Not to mention a small number of deaths.

And the 93% line is asinine. If planes landed successfully 93% of the time or 93% of car trips ended without an accident, we’d ban those forms of travel.

From what I read in this Guardian article, a lot of the deaths weren't caused by BLM per se, or the victims were part of the BLM movement.

Lee Keltner, a navy veteran who made custom western hats, was shot after a “patriot rally” in Denver on 10 October. Video and photographs of the incident appear to show Keltner slapping a security guard for a local news crew, who responds by pulling out a gun and shooting him.

In Louisville, the photographer Tyler Gerth was shot and killed at a downtown park where protesters gathered. The alleged shooter, Steven Nelson Lopez, was homeless and had a history of severe mental illness, and had reportedly been asked to leave the park earlier because of his behavior.

In Las Vegas, Jorge Gomez was wearing body armor and carrying several guns when he was shot to death by Las Vegas police at a protest in June. Before he was shot, several protesters told Gomez they disapproved of him being armed, and even a journalist questioned him about why he was holding his gun in his hand with his finger on the trigger, the Las Vegas Sun reported. Las Vegas police officer Shay Mikalonis was shot in the head during the same protest, and reportedly remains paralyzed from the injury. Officials have said the 20-year-old Las Vegas resident charged in the shooting had not been participating in the protest before the attack, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

James Scurlock, a Black Lives Matter protester with an infant daughter, was shot to death in Omaha in May after a confrontation with a white bar owner outside the man’s bar.

Other demonstrators died when cars drove through or rammed into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter protester who worked in a veterinary clinic, was killed in such an incident in Seattle. So was Robert Forbes, a black protester from Bakersfield whose sister recalled him demonstrating decades earlier over the brutal police beating of Rodney King. In St Louis, Barry Perkins, a father of two, was killed after being dragged and run over by a FedEx truck during a protest in May.

[Cultural Posadism]

You mean the ones in response to police violence against peaceful protests?

I didn't know that police forced people to loot liquor stores, vandalise businesses and burn down car dealerships.

Strange

You're getting straw on the carpet.

[Ifreann]

the battle for those spaces was "fought" in 2014 and 2015, mostly
...the online left did not fight very well (or at all)

The online left didn't have to fight.

The cesspools of twitter and reddit were handed over to them on a silver platter.

Every leftist on twitter: "I hate this website. I hate the company that runs it. I hate how it's full of brands and fascists. I wish I could stop tweeting."
The right: "Leftism is when twitter and the more twitter the more leftister it is"

---

Yes. Reddit is largely a leftist space. Don't get me wrong, there are a few right-wing subreddits that are still kicking about, but the front page is full of leftist talking points and so on.

Subreddits that previously were for things as innocuous as nice pictures are now places where political points are propagated.

the front page right now contains...3 video game posts (ace attorney, pokemon, and a PC), a meme about "anime tiddies university", and a lousiana woman finding a police tracking device in her car
why do people make these claims

Videosgame, as we all know, are a leftist hobby. And tiddies are communist.

[Vassenor]

I didn't know that police forced people to loot liquor stores, vandalise businesses and burn down car dealerships.

Strange

You're getting straw on the carpet.

You're forgetting we aren't supposed to look for the why because that gets in the way of demonising everyone.

[Austreylia]

You're forgetting we aren't supposed to look for the why because that gets in the way of demonising everyone.

Instead of condemning those that are violently rioting and looting, we should understand them?

I really don't think so.

[Big Jim P]

And yet 100% of riots caused by BLM resulted in billions of damage and dozens of deaths.

Well, it is very easy to dismiss leftist terrorism if you don't count their actions as terroristic.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You're forgetting we aren't supposed to look for the why because that gets in the way of demonising everyone.

Instead of condemning those that are violently rioting and looting, we should understand them?

I really don't think so.

If you don’t understand them, how can you condemn them? You cannot hate what you do not understand. If you want to condemnhem after learning more about the reasoning, that’s fine, but if you think understanding will get in the way of your hate, you have strange priorities.