Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[National Capitalist United States]

1. The Right tends to resort to violence because, for the last hundred years or so, that has worked to keep their political opponents down. Now, its backfiring. The support they had from Far-Right senators is going down since said senators are dying out, and being replaced with either more idiotic or not batshit insane senators. The Right also uses violence because, as several other people have stated, they are losing their power, and they are scared. So, while these attacks are horrible, we should be glad that the media is universally condemning them, as it shows that the Far-Right's backwards ideals are no longer welcome in the Free World.
2. Honestly, and this has a 50/50 chance of backfiring, the only way I can see of reducing Far-Right extremism is to respond with ultimate force. A Klan rally causing an uptick in racial violence? Send the National Guard to intimidate and disperse them. Militias causing trouble? Kill the ringleaders and arrest their followers. Do what the Rightwingers have been doing to the Left for generations. Oppress them. It may be undemocratic, unconstitutional, and possibly uncivilized, but that is the only way to stop Far-Right violence. To let them know that it is dangerous to believe in the Far-Right would be the only possible way to stop them.

The threat of death and violence has never deterred anyone from anything.

[Lady Victory]

The threat of death and violence has never deterred anyone from anything.

Oh sweet summerchild.

Do you really believe that?

I might've exaggerated slightly for melodramatic reasons, but I'd genuinely like to see evidence that the threat of death or violence in law has deterred crime because last I checked having the death penalty or corporal punishment hasn't impacted crime rates anywhere.

[Adamede]

1. The Right tends to resort to violence because, for the last hundred years or so, that has worked to keep their political opponents down. Now, its backfiring. The support they had from Far-Right senators is going down since said senators are dying out, and being replaced with either more idiotic or not batshit insane senators. The Right also uses violence because, as several other people have stated, they are losing their power, and they are scared. So, while these attacks are horrible, we should be glad that the media is universally condemning them, as it shows that the Far-Right's backwards ideals are no longer welcome in the Free World.
2. Honestly, and this has a 50/50 chance of backfiring, the only way I can see of reducing Far-Right extremism is to respond with ultimate force. A Klan rally causing an uptick in racial violence? Send the National Guard to intimidate and disperse them. Militias causing trouble? Kill the ringleaders and arrest their followers. Do what the Rightwingers have been doing to the Left for generations. Oppress them. It may be undemocratic, unconstitutional, and possibly uncivilized, but that is the only way to stop Far-Right violence. To let them know that it is dangerous to believe in the Far-Right would be the only possible way to stop them.

That’s the dumbest and most short sighted thing I’ve heard today.

[Page]

1. The Right tends to resort to violence because, for the last hundred years or so, that has worked to keep their political opponents down. Now, its backfiring. The support they had from Far-Right senators is going down since said senators are dying out, and being replaced with either more idiotic or not batshit insane senators. The Right also uses violence because, as several other people have stated, they are losing their power, and they are scared. So, while these attacks are horrible, we should be glad that the media is universally condemning them, as it shows that the Far-Right's backwards ideals are no longer welcome in the Free World.
2. Honestly, and this has a 50/50 chance of backfiring, the only way I can see of reducing Far-Right extremism is to respond with ultimate force. A Klan rally causing an uptick in racial violence? Send the National Guard to intimidate and disperse them. Militias causing trouble? Kill the ringleaders and arrest their followers. Do what the Rightwingers have been doing to the Left for generations. Oppress them. It may be undemocratic, unconstitutional, and possibly uncivilized, but that is the only way to stop Far-Right violence. To let them know that it is dangerous to believe in the Far-Right would be the only possible way to stop them.

That’s the dumbest and most short sighted thing I’ve heard today.

Well the dumb part is mostly wanting the state to kill the far-right when the state and the far-right have an incestuous relationship. The sentiment that fascism is an extreme threat that should be dealt with harshly, not so dumb.

[Adamede]

That’s the dumbest and most short sighted thing I’ve heard today.

Well the dumb part is mostly wanting the state to kill the far-right when the state and the far-right have an incestuous relationship. The sentiment that fascism is an extreme threat that should be dealt with harshly, not so dumb.

Having the government go around killing people solely for their politics in general is a bad idea, especially when it’s a group where half of its members actively are preparing for a civil war.

If they’re that much of a danger, arrest and try them. Don’t fucking resort to fucking secret police and sending in the fucking goon squad. I mean what’s the point of fighting fascism if you’re just going to build an authoritarian police state anyway?

Again, it’s dumb and short sighted.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

This is just blatantly wrong. Some people cannot be dissuaded by the threat of violence, but if no-one was ever deterred by violence, there would be no use for the criminal justice system, or laws in general.

I have to wonder what your definition of "violence" is because this is just a very bizarre take otherwise.

I don't recall defense attorneys beating witnesses to near death on the stand, at least not in this country.

The 'threat of violence' is not just beating people up right there and then. Putting someone in prison is also violence. Every law in essence has to boil down to 'if you don't do this, either we will make you do it, or we will take you away'. That's a form of violence. Most laws have at least some democratic mandate, and that mandate (as well as purpose) is what sets needless violence apart from necessary violence, but all laws eventually are enforced through some form of state violence.

This is a much more useful frame, because by qualifying the state's actions as violent, you can more clearly see that not all state actions are by definition non-violent.

[Birchland and the NAF]

1. The Right tends to resort to violence because, for the last hundred years or so, that has worked to keep their political opponents down. Now, its backfiring. The support they had from Far-Right senators is going down since said senators are dying out, and being replaced with either more idiotic or not batshit insane senators. The Right also uses violence because, as several other people have stated, they are losing their power, and they are scared. So, while these attacks are horrible, we should be glad that the media is universally condemning them, as it shows that the Far-Right's backwards ideals are no longer welcome in the Free World.
2. Honestly, and this has a 50/50 chance of backfiring, the only way I can see of reducing Far-Right extremism is to respond with ultimate force. A Klan rally causing an uptick in racial violence? Send the National Guard to intimidate and disperse them. Militias causing trouble? Kill the ringleaders and arrest their followers. Do what the Rightwingers have been doing to the Left for generations. Oppress them. It may be undemocratic, unconstitutional, and possibly uncivilized, but that is the only way to stop Far-Right violence. To let them know that it is dangerous to believe in the Far-Right would be the only possible way to stop them.

You want a nationwide Crossmaglen situation? Because they’ll be snipers at work, believe me, and bacon’s gonna sizzle. You and your ilk the reason why we have a right to bear arms.

[Labbos]

The 'threat of violence' is not just beating people up right there and then. Putting someone in prison is also violence. Every law in essence has to boil down to 'if you don't do this, either we will make you do it, or we will take you away'. That's a form of violence. Most laws have at least some democratic mandate, and that mandate (as well as purpose) is what sets needless violence apart from necessary violence, but all laws eventually are enforced through some form of state violence.

This is a much more useful frame, because by qualifying the state's actions as violent, you can more clearly see that not all state actions are by definition non-violent.

How is imprisoning someone, or threatening to do so if they break the law, violence? How are you defining violence here? A quick search gave me this definition of the word, which wouldn't fit the state's behaviour in your examples: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". What do you understand the word violence to mean?

[CoraSpia]

The 'threat of violence' is not just beating people up right there and then. Putting someone in prison is also violence. Every law in essence has to boil down to 'if you don't do this, either we will make you do it, or we will take you away'. That's a form of violence. Most laws have at least some democratic mandate, and that mandate (as well as purpose) is what sets needless violence apart from necessary violence, but all laws eventually are enforced through some form of state violence.

This is a much more useful frame, because by qualifying the state's actions as violent, you can more clearly see that not all state actions are by definition non-violent.

How is imprisoning someone, or threatening to do so if they break the law, violence? How are you defining violence here? A quick search gave me this definition of the word, which wouldn't fit the state's behaviour in your examples: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". What do you understand the word violence to mean?

An arrest of someone who doesn't wish to be arrested is an inherently violent act. We can take it on a case by case basis which arrests were justified violence, but it is violence all the same.

[Nakena]

That’s the dumbest and most short sighted thing I’ve heard today.

Well the dumb part is mostly wanting the state to kill the far-right when the state and the far-right have an incestuous relationship. The sentiment that fascism is an extreme threat that should be dealt with harshly, not so dumb.

Yes and no.

Since a fair part of the far-right (we talking here like about actual neo-nazis such as AWD) in america fundamentally opposes the USG and its institutions. They do not simply want to overthrow the government and set themself at its position, they want to topple the entire system.

Even the milder white nationalist (who would be happy with a 1950s timecapsule whitetopian US within the current constitional framework) are politically separated from the current liberal establishment that rules the US and has taken over most of the US state organs by now. It's proponents like Nick Fuentes are currently banned and being subject to extreme restrictions such as being put on no flight lists and cutoff from stuff such as holding bank accounts etc.

The days of an intrinsically anti-communist deep state with pseudo-fascist tendencies from the cold war days are over. Given the generational change most institutions experience, its fair to say that most people from that phase have long retired.

[Adamede]

The 'threat of violence' is not just beating people up right there and then. Putting someone in prison is also violence. Every law in essence has to boil down to 'if you don't do this, either we will make you do it, or we will take you away'. That's a form of violence. Most laws have at least some democratic mandate, and that mandate (as well as purpose) is what sets needless violence apart from necessary violence, but all laws eventually are enforced through some form of state violence.

This is a much more useful frame, because by qualifying the state's actions as violent, you can more clearly see that not all state actions are by definition non-violent.

How is imprisoning someone, or threatening to do so if they break the law, violence? How are you defining violence here? A quick search gave me this definition of the word, which wouldn't fit the state's behaviour in your examples: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". What do you understand the word violence to mean?

Because the you kill them if they don’t comply.

[CoraSpia]

How is imprisoning someone, or threatening to do so if they break the law, violence? How are you defining violence here? A quick search gave me this definition of the word, which wouldn't fit the state's behaviour in your examples: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". What do you understand the word violence to mean?

Because the you kill them if they don’t comply.

The state is in itself an institution built on violence and coercion. Deprived of the ability to exercise those things it would quickly cease to function.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The 'threat of violence' is not just beating people up right there and then. Putting someone in prison is also violence. Every law in essence has to boil down to 'if you don't do this, either we will make you do it, or we will take you away'. That's a form of violence. Most laws have at least some democratic mandate, and that mandate (as well as purpose) is what sets needless violence apart from necessary violence, but all laws eventually are enforced through some form of state violence.

This is a much more useful frame, because by qualifying the state's actions as violent, you can more clearly see that not all state actions are by definition non-violent.

How is imprisoning someone, or threatening to do so if they break the law, violence? How are you defining violence here? A quick search gave me this definition of the word, which wouldn't fit the state's behaviour in your examples: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". What do you understand the word violence to mean?

The same, but imprisoning someone is physical force with the intent to hurt, isn’t it?

Violence is not necessarily bad. Violence can be justified. But in order to recognise that, we must also recognise state violence when it happens. Right wing violence is not simoly bad because it is violence, but because it is violence in service of a damnable goal without democratic legitimacy.

[The Lone Alliance]

If being berated in public is the worst you get for being part of such a problematic organisation, honestly, how bad is that? They get the power to kill and attack people with little consequence. Those people deserve mistrust.

Now try that with Muslims.
You're pretty much stating the profiling and mistrust shown towards Muslims is justified because of Islamic terrorism.

That's the problem with an "All X are Y" system of profiling, you'll get blowback that leads to further radicalization, if it doesn't work on Muslims, why the fuck do you think it'll work on police, or any other group you're against?

[Washington Resistance Army]

If being berated in public is the worst you get for being part of such a problematic organisation, honestly, how bad is that? They get the power to kill and attack people with little consequence. Those people deserve mistrust.

Now try that with Muslims.
You're pretty much stating the profiling and mistrust shown towards Muslims is justified because of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim terrorists don't help run our state.

[Helidan]

1. The Right tends to resort to violence because, for the last hundred years or so, that has worked to keep their political opponents down. Now, its backfiring. The support they had from Far-Right senators is going down since said senators are dying out, and being replaced with either more idiotic or not batshit insane senators. The Right also uses violence because, as several other people have stated, they are losing their power, and they are scared. So, while these attacks are horrible, we should be glad that the media is universally condemning them, as it shows that the Far-Right's backwards ideals are no longer welcome in the Free World.
2. Honestly, and this has a 50/50 chance of backfiring, the only way I can see of reducing Far-Right extremism is to respond with ultimate force. A Klan rally causing an uptick in racial violence? Send the National Guard to intimidate and disperse them. Militias causing trouble? Kill the ringleaders and arrest their followers. Do what the Rightwingers have been doing to the Left for generations. Oppress them. It may be undemocratic, unconstitutional, and possibly uncivilized, but that is the only way to stop Far-Right violence. To let them know that it is dangerous to believe in the Far-Right would be the only possible way to stop them.

That’s the dumbest and most short sighted thing I’ve heard today.

Really? How is it dumb? Throughout history the oppression of various political, ethnic, and religious groups has had one of two outcomes; either said group is removed from a country, or violent civil unrest ensues. That is why I said it has a 50/50 chance of backfiring, since the Far-Right may actually grow some balls and fight back. But, in my personal experience, the Right has never faced armed opposition on a large scale, and their targets for their attacks tend to be the weak, the unarmed, and minorities. So, if the most powerful force in the nation, the government, actively arrested and fought them, there is a chance any loyalty to the Far-Right the members of its various groups would be overshadowed by the threat of death or imprisonment. However, there is an equal chance these action would only serve to justify the Far-Right's beliefs. It would most certainly not be my first choice in dealing with the Far-Right, but I believe it would be the most effective way.

[The Alma Mater]

If being berated in public is the worst you get for being part of such a problematic organisation, honestly, how bad is that? They get the power to kill and attack people with little consequence. Those people deserve mistrust.

Now try that with Muslims.
You're pretty much stating the profiling and mistrust shown towards Muslims is justified because of Islamic terrorism.

That's the problem with an "All X are Y" system of profiling, you'll get blowback that leads to further radicalization, if it doesn't work on Muslims, why the fuck do you think it'll work on police, or any other group you're against?

Muslims is tricky, since muslims are not an organisation with a clear leadership structure.
Catholics otoh are - so it is perfectly fine to judge people for joning that organisation while knowing what "the management" did.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

If being berated in public is the worst you get for being part of such a problematic organisation, honestly, how bad is that? They get the power to kill and attack people with little consequence. Those people deserve mistrust.

Now try that with Muslims.
You're pretty much stating the profiling and mistrust shown towards Muslims is justified because of Islamic terrorism.

That's the problem with an "All X are Y" system of profiling, you'll get blowback that leads to further radicalization, if it doesn't work on Muslims, why the fuck do you think it'll work on police, or any other group you're against?

There is a difference between chosing to be part of a religious group and chosing to become part of a violent organisation. All cops chose their violent jobs willingly. Islam, on the contrary, is not an organisation, and is not inherently violent. You cannot deflect criticism of a profession by comparing it to a religious group.

The truth is, while not all cops are necessarily bad people, all of them choose to be part of a system that has time and time again shown itself to be deeply flawed, deeply racist, infiltrated by extreme right figures, and violent to the core.

Instead of comparing cops with an oft-discriminated religious group (at least in the West), compare them with other professions. Lone sharks, mercenaris, repo collectors, pyramid scheme managers. Those are all bad professions. I don’t see why criticising a chosen profession is akin to racism and biological determinism.

If your best argument against me condemning all cops is not a defence of cops but a defence of Muslims, how strong can your point actually be?

Edit: and I meant ‘mistrust’ in a practical sense. You need to watch out for people with the legal power to beat you bloody where you stand for not following their commands. They carry guns and have often been badly trained and screened. Again, you have to mistrust them.

[Labbos]

How is imprisoning someone, or threatening to do so if they break the law, violence? How are you defining violence here? A quick search gave me this definition of the word, which wouldn't fit the state's behaviour in your examples: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". What do you understand the word violence to mean?

The same, but imprisoning someone is physical force with the intent to hurt, isn’t it?

Violence is not necessarily bad. Violence can be justified. But in order to recognise that, we must also recognise state violence when it happens. Right wing violence is not simoly bad because it is violence, but because it is violence in service of a damnable goal without democratic legitimacy.

I don't think that imprisoning someone is physical force or intended to hurt. If someone doesn't attempt to resist arrest, is there physical force needed to get them imprisoned? Once more, looking up the definition of hurt, "cause pain or injury to". That's not what imprisonment is supposed to do.

I agree that violence isn't inherently good or bad, whether it's from an agent of the state or an individual. It's a tool, and we have to look at why it's being used to judge the morality. But what's confusing me is that the meaning of the word seems to have changed for a lot of people, and I don't get what it means to them, which makes following discussions like this hard.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The same, but imprisoning someone is physical force with the intent to hurt, isn’t it?

Violence is not necessarily bad. Violence can be justified. But in order to recognise that, we must also recognise state violence when it happens. Right wing violence is not simoly bad because it is violence, but because it is violence in service of a damnable goal without democratic legitimacy.

I don't think that imprisoning someone is physical force or intended to hurt. If someone doesn't attempt to resist arrest, is there physical force needed to get them imprisoned? Once more, looking up the definition of hurt, "cause pain or injury to". That's not what imprisonment is supposed to do.

I agree that violence isn't inherently good or bad, whether it's from an agent of the state or an individual. It's a tool, and we have to look at why it's being used to judge the morality. But what's confusing me is that the meaning of the word seems to have changed for a lot of people, and I don't get what it means to them, which makes following discussions like this hard.

You don’t think you need physical force to keep people in jail? What is prison other than a physical object to keep people contained? And prison is definitely meant to hurt people. Not by torture, but by stripping them of all their freedom. If kidnapping is violence, which it is, then imprisonment is also violence.

And do you know why people generally don’t resist arrest? It’s a crime that is likely to get you locked up. Or, if you are black, shot. Again, the threat of physical violence is enough without there actually needing to be violence.

[Labbos]

You don’t think you need physical force to keep people in jail? What is prison other than a physical object to keep people contained? And prison is definitely meant to hurt people. Not by torture, but by stripping them of all their freedom. If kidnapping is violence, which it is, then imprisonment is also violence.

And do you know why people generally don’t resist arrest? It’s a crime that is likely to get you locked up. Or, if you are black, shot. Again, the threat of physical violence is enough without there actually needing to be violence.

No, I don't think you need physical force to keep people in jail. Most prisoners aren't continually being physically constrained by guards. And the jail itself doesn't try to use physical force to cause pain or injury. It's there to stop the prisoner leaving, and as long as they don't bump into it, the building won't physically hurt them. Stripping people of their freedom without using physical force is not violence. And yes, I understand that the threat of violence is there and also there during arrests, but the threat of violence is not violence.

At least that's how I see it. To my mind, violence is always a physical act that is intended to cause physical pain or injury. Which is what confused me about your original post. What does the word violence mean to you? It's clearly something very different to how I understand it, and I'd like to understand that better.

[Senkaku]

You don’t think you need physical force to keep people in jail? What is prison other than a physical object to keep people contained? And prison is definitely meant to hurt people. Not by torture, but by stripping them of all their freedom. If kidnapping is violence, which it is, then imprisonment is also violence.

And do you know why people generally don’t resist arrest? It’s a crime that is likely to get you locked up. Or, if you are black, shot. Again, the threat of physical violence is enough without there actually needing to be violence.

No, I don't think you need physical force to keep people in jail.

“Ok, I’m going to close the door now, but you just stay right there and don’t try to escape, got it?”

Most prisoners aren't continually being physically constrained by guards.

...can you guess what happens if they try to leave, though?

[Labbos]

No, I don't think you need physical force to keep people in jail.

“Ok, I’m going to close the door now, but you just stay right there and don’t try to escape, got it?”

Most prisoners aren't continually being physically constrained by guards.

...can you guess what happens if they try to leave, though?

As I said, the threat of violence is not violence.

[Phenix Springs]

Now try that with Muslims.
You're pretty much stating the profiling and mistrust shown towards Muslims is justified because of Islamic terrorism.

That's the problem with an "All X are Y" system of profiling, you'll get blowback that leads to further radicalization, if it doesn't work on Muslims, why the fuck do you think it'll work on police, or any other group you're against?

There is a difference between chosing to be part of a religious group and chosing to become part of a violent organisation.

A religious group that has been responsible for some of the most depraved atrocities that the modern world has ever seen.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There is a difference between chosing to be part of a religious group and chosing to become part of a violent organisation.

A religious group that has been responsible for some of the most depraved atrocities that the modern world has ever seen.

Oh, please, come off it. Yes, some people of Muslim faith have committed acts of violence in the name of their religion. But that religious group is not responsible for that.

Tell me, what religious group is the greatest victim of ISIS violence?