Breaking News! Members of Congress shot in Virginia.

[Lexicus]

If that's really your view, then I can say with 100% confidence that your view is not grounded in anything resembling reality. A riot is, by definition, violent. So if you acknowledge that they are, in fact riots, then you look a bit idiotic when you say you don't characterize a riot as violence.

Yeah I mean clearly I'm the one out of line when you're trying to draw an equivalence between murder and broken windows and torched cars.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah I mean clearly I'm the one out of line when you're trying to draw an equivalence between murder and broken windows and torched cars.

Snowflakes are so sensitive.

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

So, I guess the reason the Republicans are not really going all out gorilla rage on this is because he used a gun, and they don't want to piss off the NRA, right?

Now, if he would have used a knife or perhaps a crossbow (I'm thinking one of those old Chinese/Korean style ones... It's the Civ guy in me I guess), THEN they would really have gone ballistic about this guy being a Bernie supporter...

thank goodness it was only a baseball game.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So, I guess the reason the Republicans are not really going all out gorilla rage on this is because he used a gun, and they don't want to piss off the NRA, right?

So far no one died, only three wounded
Secondly its ok to assassinate the government when it become tyrannical but with only with guns /s In all seriousness I cant wrap my mind around that this was a Bernie supporter of all peoples.

Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!
Senator Rand Paul - 24 Jun 2016

 

[civver_764]

The riots that have taken place since Trump took office can, in my view, hardly be characterized as "violence", but sure, you can believe that SJW snowflakes are more dangerous than fascists, it's a free country...

I'm struggling to think of what has happened recently that constituted "organized political violence" from leftist groups (or any group, for that matter) that rise above the level of protest scuffle. I mean, it isn't like we are seeing rioting in the streets.

You guys are operating under misconceptions, then. Antifa is explicitly violent. They're not much different from your run-of-the-mill thugs, except that they are inspired by leftist ideas.

For one, they explicitly target right wing events in order to shut them down. They have no intentions of engaging in dialogue, they have every intention of harassing and attacking the people at the events. They are all about shutting down speech they don't like. They attack people in groups, using all kinds of weapons. This is not a case of two different groups happening to get violent with one another. Antifa are going out of their way to show up at these events, wearing masks and bringing weapons, with the full intention of inciting violence.

When left-wingers have events, right-wingers just make fun of them. When right-wingers have events, left-wingers bring weapons and try to shut them down. What does that tell you?

From where I'm standing these "anti-fascists" are actually behaving like fascists. Where are these other fascists that you're talking about Lexicus? Also do you realize that you have said that you see violence between Americans as inevitable? In a recent thread you literally made a comment about handing rifles to people to fight fascists. Is this shooting in Virginia not exactly what you wanted?

Also, I'm loving that you turned from a black-flag smash-the-state Anarchist into a "protest scuffle is organized political violence". If you were closer to Minnesota I'd love to get a drink with you to learn how your politics changed.

Haha, it's been a journey for sure. I don't think I ever would have supported these antifa thugs though. Even back then I was pretty anti-violence.

All the organized political violence in the US is from the right. The KKK. The Bundys. Sovereign Citizens. Militia groups. All right wing.

Can you show me any recent acts of violence from these groups?

I don't think that the Antifa is really a "leftist" movement, if you mean tied to actual large political parties. It is (afaik) tied to the anarchist movement, and anarchists tend to be fringe.
Moreover it is easy to use 'antifa' or similar groups, or posing as such, to instigate attacks on actual left main political parties.
Which i suppose is not an issue in the US, though, cause it doesn't have any left party

They're more like totalitarian wannabes than genuine anarchists.

 

[Camikaze]

Nice false equivalency. When was the last time a progressive blew 150+ people to pieces? Violent rightists get away with way more in this country than violent leftists.

I second danjuno, this equivalency is a big pile of garbage, for two reasons: one, the rhetoric employed by mainstream Democrats, even unto Bernie Sanders and co, is relatively tame. And two, any honest accounting of this stuff must recognize that terrorist violence from the far right is far more common and far more deadly than terrorist violence from the left.

You're confusing comparison with equivalence (or at least taxonomy with moral judgment). Though I'll grant it would've been possible for me to be clearer that I'm not saying the rhetoric or 'revolution' or even 'resistance' is equal to Palin's sins. But my post was mainly focused on introspection, which generally involves considering one's own actions independent of the worse actions of others, and it's precisely this sort of reaction which I find problematic. It's symptomatic of an unwillingness to engage in any sort of reflection, which you find yourself freed of because the other side is worse (and I would point out I'm no saint in this regard and think the concept has its limits, such as during elections, where last year I argued it was unproductive to focus on the deficiencies in Clinton in what was an entirely relative contest). Acknowledging that there is a causal connection between political rhetoric and violent actions is a step in the direction of considering whether the left could be doing something better, which doesn't involve any consideration of whether the right could be doing something better. The Giffords example simply supplies evidence of the logical connection.

I honestly don't understand what the 150+ people example is meant to be replying to, but I assume it's a reflexive deflection from any sort of critical reflection.

Shifting to the problem I identified in my post itself, I guess part of the issue I have is that the left seems to have adopted the word 'resistance', but then kinda approbates and reprobates as to how that ought to be put into action. I'm not opposed to the use of the word 'resistance' in the current circumstances, but only assuming it's given some meaningful content. If the left constantly uses the word 'resistance', which is quite a strong word, without providing any meaningful content for that term (and given the word signifies something more than normal participation in the democratic process, that alone wouldn't be meaningful content), then people left to their own devices will provide their own content, which will in some circumstances end up being far more severe than is intended.

What a load of dribble. Political violence is unacceptable. End of story.

I sincerely doubt you believe that.

 

[Lexicus]

It's symptomatic of an unwillingness to engage in any sort of reflection

If by this you mean "you're not going to stop opposing Trump even though I'm trying to draw a tenuous line between Democrats opposing Trump this shooter", well, I have nothing to say except that you're right, I'm not going to stop insulting/opposing Trump and the Republicans. I'm not going to 'reflect' on any connection because as yet I've seen no evidence of any connection that would require any reflection on my part. As I already pointed out previously if there were some connection to Democratic rhetoric I would expect this guy to have taken a shot at Trump.

I honestly don't understand what the 150+ people example is meant to be replying to, but I assume it's a reflexive deflection from any sort of critical reflection.

That was when Timothy McVeigh, a far-right anti-government white supremacist who loved the Turner Diaries, blew up a government building in Oklahoma City, killing 150+ people including dozens of children.

If the left constantly uses the word 'resistance', which is quite a strong word, without providing any meaningful content for that term (and given the word signifies something more than normal participation in the democratic process, that alone wouldn't be meaningful content), then people left to their own devices will provide their own content, which will in some circumstances end up being far more severe than is intended.

I think 'the left' has been pretty clear that resistance means stuff like rallies, marches, calling your Congresscritter, and so on. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a pacifist that Congress has.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

To be fair, the political right has been calling for this exact violence as recently as two days before the shooting.

 

[BvBPL]

I sincerely doubt you believe that.

Go stuff it.

Moderator Action: Disagreement is fine. Insults are not. FP

 

[Lexicus]

Go take a leap.

Let's break this down, it simply isn't productive to respond in this way. I'll ask a few leading questions the answers to which will give us an idea of whether you actually do oppose all political violence. Do you support US involvement in World War II? Do you support the enforcement of property rights? Do you think that the police should carry guns and that sometimes they need to use them?

 

[Ammar]

The over-hyped partisanship is strong from both sides there. Is it any surprise some unstable people will act on it? I mean, if you truly believed that Trump was a traitor delivering your country to a dangerous enemy, you'd feel a duty to shoot him. People don't do it because they know it is political hype. Only most people, it seems...

Perhaps politicians over there should cease spewing bullcrap in hopes of an impeachment that won't happen, and start talking real politics that have an impact on people's daily lives? There is the huge issue of health care to sort out, the myriad wars, but all american political news I see are russia trump impeachment hackers treason... The left is sinking with all that rhetoric, instead of gaining ground. And the right is laughing all the way to the bank.

Eh, every poll shows Trump being less popular and the Democrats gaining ground. Elections in districts that have been solidly red for decades are suddenly close. Also, it is not as if the Republicans have managed to implement much of their agenda so far. If the presidential vote was repeated today, Trump would go down.

How can you claim the left is not gaining ground? Not to mention that during the Obama presidency, Republicans had nothing but rhetoric, and still managed to win the presidential election.

As for democrats and politics, it's not as if they have much power in Congress right now. On major policy issues (health care and tax reform) the republicans are not willing to negotiate with the democrats (see what is currently happening in the Senate regarding health care). On the other hands, blue states consistently do better than red states and California is trying to implement single payer Health Care.

As for Trump and impeachment, let's just wait. It's a slow process either way, regardless of whether he manages to solidify his position or whether he manages to actually get impeached. I think it mostly depends on whether Trump is still unpopular enough to endanger their reelection chances when the next major elections comes closer. Their is enough plausible reason besides Russia to impeach, e.g. his pretty open corruption and violation of the emoluments clause, so the impeachment process is now basically political, and depends more on his popularity and the election results than anything else.

 

[danjuno]

You're confusing comparison with equivalence (or at least taxonomy with moral judgment). Though I'll grant it would've been possible for me to be clearer that I'm not saying the rhetoric or 'revolution' or even 'resistance' is equal to Palin's sins. But my post was mainly focused on introspection, which generally involves considering one's own actions independent of the worse actions of others, and it's precisely this sort of reaction which I find problematic. It's symptomatic of an unwillingness to engage in any sort of reflection, which you find yourself freed of because the other side is worse (and I would point out I'm no saint in this regard and think the concept has its limits, such as during elections, where last year I argued it was unproductive to focus on the deficiencies in Clinton in what was an entirely relative contest). Acknowledging that there is a causal connection between political rhetoric and violent actions is a step in the direction of considering whether the left could be doing something better, which doesn't involve any consideration of whether the right could be doing something better. The Giffords example simply supplies evidence of the logical connection.

I honestly don't understand what the 150+ people example is meant to be replying to, but I assume it's a reflexive deflection from any sort of critical reflection.

Shifting to the problem I identified in my post itself, I guess part of the issue I have is that the left seems to have adopted the word 'resistance', but then kinda approbates and reprobates as to how that ought to be put into action. I'm not opposed to the use of the word 'resistance' in the current circumstances, but only assuming it's given some meaningful content. If the left constantly uses the word 'resistance', which is quite a strong word, without providing any meaningful content for that term (and given the word signifies something more than normal participation in the democratic process, that alone wouldn't be meaningful content), then people left to their own devices will provide their own content, which will in some circumstances end up being far more severe than is intended.


I sincerely doubt you believe that.

I was replying to Commodore.

 

[Ammar]

Honestly, I think the right leaning part of this Forum grossly overestimates the popularity of Antifa in the left mainstream (i.e. Democrats). I am pretty left, and I don't know anyone who supports Antifa violence. Nor has any left leaning politicians or otherwise influential person called for violence. "Resist" is not a call to violence - it might say more about the Right that it seems to be their first association with the word than it says about the Left.

I am not playing a number games here, comparing 10 people killed by the Right to 8 people killed by the Left. There is a real qualitative difference here, in that you can openly call for and insinuate violence against the Left, with a majority of the Republicans not complaining. See Sarah Palin. See Ted Nugent being invited to the White House. Also see the many other examples here, which come from prominent Republicans in state and federal politics. See how fast Trump was to denounce this attack, while saying nothing about those from the Right, while Sanders and basically all other Democrats were quick to condemn this one.

 

[civver_764]

I'm not saying all or even most leftists support Antifa, just that there is enough support for them to be consistently showing up at right-wing events in relatively large numbers. There are no right-wing groups that do this. That's something to think about.

The liberal media in general also sort of enables them. They just say "violence broke out" instead of acknowledging that Antifa are the ones who incited the violence. That's why we have people here saying that these are just "protest scuffles".

 

[BvBPL]

I'm not saying all or even most leftists support Antifa, just that there is enough support for them to be consistently showing up at right-wing events in relatively large numbers. There are no right-wing groups that do this. That's something to think about.

Huh. I would have assumed that right-wing groups would be the largest audience for right-wing events, but it turns out that they don't do to that. You learn something new every day.

 

[Ammar]

I'm not saying all or even most leftists support Antifa, just that there is enough support for them to be consistently showing up at right-wing events in relatively large numbers. There are no right-wing groups that do this. That's something to think about.

The liberal media in general also sort of enables them. They just say "violence broke out" instead of acknowledging that Antifa are the ones who incited the violence. That's why we have people here saying that these are just "protest scuffles".

First off, let me just say I suspect that you over exaggerate the frequency of Antifa attacks, but I do not have time to look up numbers now, so let's just say for sake of argument that this is correct. In that case, I would like to suggest that the extremist left is more likely to attack you for your political opinion, than anything else. So political gatherings by the right are a natural target for Antifa.

On the other hand, the extremist right is more likely to attack you for being a Muslim, having the wrong gender, being visibly gay, having the wrong color or coming from the wrong country... right violence takes place in the streets during everyday life. That does not suggest that there is less violence, just that you can't observe it at gatherings but instead in statistics. Thinking about it, it is possible that they are somewhat worse at organization but they make it up in numbers and sheer potential for violence. But going after individuals instead of gatherings also requires less organization.

The media in general (which is not as liberal as you seem to think, see how quick CNN was to laud Trump when he bombed another country) has a trouble calling things by their name. I do not see how not calling out Antifa is any different than always labelling right wing extremist as either "lone wolf" or "mentally disturbed".

 

[civver_764]

The difference is that they are lone wolves. There is virtually no support for them and their actions are universally condemned. Yeah maybe there's like 3 far-right nut jobs that support them, but it's just not even close to the level of support Antifa gets. You just can't compare the actions of individual criminals to violent political organizations, but I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The difference is that they are lone wolves. There is virtually no support for them and their actions are universally condemned. Yeah maybe there's like 3 far-right nut jobs that support them, but it's just not even close to the level of support Antifa gets. You just can't compare the actions of individual criminals to violent political organizations, but I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Universally condemned? Try again apologist. When a right wing "lone wolf" kills nine in a black church the "condemnation" from the right takes the form "good start." The denial from apologists runs deep, but the right, at it's core, is disgusting. Visit their "safe spaces" where they think they can speak freely and see for yourself.

 

[civver_764]

Universally condemned? Try again apologist. When a right wing "lone wolf" kills nine in a black church the "condemnation" from the right takes the form "good start." The denial from apologists runs deep, but the right, at it's core, is disgusting. Visit their "safe spaces" where they think they can speak freely and see for yourself.

Hmm ok, I'll humor you.

Here's the Breitbart article for that shooting: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016...-alleged-mass-murderer-competent-stand-trial/

Here's the top comment:

I'm not convinced he's not crazy as a loon, but in any case, if he doesn't get the death penalty he ought to be locked up tight for the rest of his life.

So it looks like you're talking out of your butt, as usual.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hmm ok, I'll humor you.

Here's the Breitbart article for that shooting: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016...-alleged-mass-murderer-competent-stand-trial/

Here's the top comment:



So it looks like you're talking out of your butt, as usual.

Did you search for that, or was it a "happy accident"? That article is deep into "well, he's going to prison if not being executed, better start distancing ourselves" territory.

The top comment on their "manifesto found" article was

"deeply racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic"

Sounds like the typical Democrat voter.

Here's a top response on another story from earlier in the process:

60 or 70 years ago he would have never been brought to trial and he'd be a hero in his community.

At the time of the actual shooting, of course, Breitbart didn't bother covering it. Instead they went for using it as a political tool by attacking their "enemies" and citing their "reactions" as inappropriate even if what they were doing had nothing in particular to do with the event. A typical headline:

President Obama Fundraises in Hollywood While Nation Grieves for Charleston

Of course these stories were far more popular with their readers, who provided tons of feedback like

I am a white male no one in my family owned slaves, my grandmother God rest her soul escaped Poland as the Nazi's came to power. She came to AMERICA unable to speak english but learned and worked her whole life, how was she rewarded she was robbed and beating by black teens not once not twice but 3 times. she spent 2 months in a hospital for 10 lousy dollars do i distrust blacks you bet i do.

This top comment, of course, shows exactly where you come from with your apologist view:

I am sure that we will soon find out that Dylann Roof is, like most of the other mass killings, a leftist, an atheist, and a democrat.

That guy lives in the same fantasy you do.