blackjacki2 United States. Jul 27 2020 23:43. Posts 2582
Btw here's some more examples of right-wing white supremacist extremist murder per ADL
Corey Allen Trumbull, whom authorities have described as having "white supremacist beliefs," allegedly beat an 11-year-old boy to death in a domestic violence incident. He has been charged with capital murder and other charges.
James Thomas Seay, a white supremacist with past ties to a number of Klan and other groups, was charged with second-degree murder for the shooting death of his uncle. No motive was made public at the time of the arrest.
White supremacist Traver Proulx stabbed his mother to death during an argument.
White supremacist Damien Seace murdered his girlfriend by beating her to death with a leg from a piece of furniture. In June 2020 he pleaded guilty to first degree murder and received a life sentence.
Two men were arrested for the shooting death of a third man in North Ogden, Utah. The face of one of the men arrested, Ryan Joseph Dash, is covered in white supremacist tattoos.
So yeah... The standard for Dayton shooter is that we have to specifically know that his crime was politically motivated but the standard for right-wing extremists is that any crime regardless of motivation is automatically attributed to white supremacy extremism through any loose association, tattoos, beliefs, ex-prison gangs, etc. If you can't see the biases of your own sources then I don't know what to tell you
On July 27 2020 11:04 Loco wrote:
Actually, I'm worried that you'll double down after grasping at straws and I don't want you to embarrass yourself blackjacki, so I'm going to give you a hand. At least you won't have that to answer to. Here's a separate database:
Not a single murder in the last four years. Wait, could it actually be more than 4 years?! *curious emoji*
"Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades.
A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database."
‘Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat’
The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a centrist thinktank, and reviewed by the Guardian.
Its launch comes as Trump administration officials have echoed the president’s warnings of a violent “leftwing” revolution. “Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate, violent and extremist agenda,” the attorney general, William Barr, said amid nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd. A new justice department taskforce on violent anti-government extremists listed “antifa” as a major threat, while making no mention of white supremacy."
Is this a Cultural Marxist conspiracy, and the real data is being suppressed from all of these databases somehow?
By the way, quick bit of trivia: did the great "journalists" that you guys follow, Tim Pool, Andy Ngo, etc. or people such as Joe Rogan ever mention this a single time? These brilliant truth seekers who are just trying to inform people to the best of their ability? One would think that anyone who spends so much time ranting about antifa and left-wing extremism and about how there is a violent revolution underway would concern themselves with such data.
I'm sure you'll counter my last post by saying "I'm not an apologist for left-wing extremist violence, I've already conceded it exists."
But if that's the case then what drives you to make this post to dismiss and downplay left-wing extremist violence? As SantaFairy pointed out, are we not considering environmentalists, pro-choice, anti-white, anti-trump, pro-LGBT, anti-Republican etc. to be part of the left?
What the fuck dude. The answer to your question is in the very post that you are quoting and responding to. I'm going to quote it again and put it in bold this time to help you out.
""Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades."
My concern has been with this "violent anarchist" conspiracy theory that's been used by the far-right which claims that BLM is no longer a valid movement (if it ever was.) "Outside agitators" and "violent anarchists" starting a violent revolution have been talking points from the very beginning of BLM. Anarchists are the most violent and threatening people in the US according to them. It has been spreading for a long time and it's becoming increasingly popular, and you seriously wonder why I highlight anarchists in that graph? You have this Navy Seal video making the rounds on the internet now talking about the Georgo Soros conspiracy theory and telling people they've been lied to about BLM and telling people to prepare to fight back. It's the same old Cultural Marxist shit that has its roots in literal Nazism.
I don't give a shit to figure out who exactly you follow, I just know you're not getting your info from people who have an interest in truly informing you about 1) the historical moment we are in and 2) what is happening on the ground. For christ's sake, you're using Santafairy's post to try to make an argument. The guy literally said that anti-semitism is left-wing, do you not realize how batshit fucking insane that is? Yes, please do go ahead and stack up all of the left-wing ones you think are relevant. Even though my concern is to highlight anarchist violence, I didn't hide anything from the graph so you could do that. The Guardian article and the report I linked did that. They compared broadly speaking all instances of left-wing vs right-wing violence. It is still wildly disproportionate in both number of instances and severity.
Again I gave you an alternate database and you are still trying to cherry-pick from the ADL database. I don't care about the ADL's reports, I'm perfectly happy to say that they could do a hell of a better job by distinguishing between political and non-political, even though that's sometimes going to be ambiguous (a Neo-Nazi being violent towards women for instance -- that's perfectly in line with the ideology). The problem with your rhetoric is that you are not just uncovering something of a flaw in the standards they use, but that you also seem to assume that as a result of poorly distinguishing between the two on the right, they must also be embellishing the left-wing stats too. But there is no evidence for that, and there is still no comparison to be made even if you remove all of those non-terroristic, non-politically motivated murders on the right.
Edit: here's an article I found that makes your point, and that also makes mine:
"And if you consider only incidents that either are classified as hate crimes or terrorism by law, or were described as having been motivated by extremist views by the press — as most people likely do when they think of "extremist violence" — just 58% of the incidents cited by the ADL fit that definition, my investigation found.
To be sure, the ADL's most promoted and reported statistic — ultrarightist groups accounting for a disproportionate number of hate crimes and acts of terror — still holds up."
Now, when go big picture, you take all of that into account, and you realize that Trump is weaponizing a false narrative which puts 100% of the blame for violence in this country on radical leftism, and which puts 0% of it on right-wing extremism (which he actively fuels) you have a reason to highlight that. Highlighting that is not equivalent to apologia for left-wing violence.
Remember how these protests started months ago? They started because of unaccountable police violence. And they continue to this day because of it, because in fact it has gotten worse due to Trump's "strongman" move of bringing in the Feds. And do you remember how the argument we're having started? It started because of some apparently left-wing person who was actually held accountable for his violence. He was beaten by the mob, dragged to a police station, and he's being charged with felony assault. That was some swift fucking justice. Can you see how putting a laser focus on this man's violence, while ignoring or actively downplaying the former is a problem if one is said to be concerned with critical thinking and objectivity? It's completely irrational to put all your focus on people who are being held accountable in a world where powerful people who pull a number of strings are immune. Everything that currently doesn't deal with the topic of accountability is a distraction that serves their interests. It does not serve yours and it does not serve mine.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
So today an armed Antifa member tried to shoot a Jeep that forced his way through protesters blocking the steets, the Jeep didn't run over anybody and already passed by the shooter when he opened fire, missing the Jeep driver and shooting 3 fellow protesters.
Yeah, it's really funny how the right has been championing the idea of trying to run over protesters over for a while now... and it's even funnier when people get hurt as a result of that, whether directly or indirectly. If you're a sociopath anyway.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Except that this guy didn't run over anybody, he managed to get through and was cleanly getting away cleanly, but this unstable TM Antifa moron thought that warrated to get him killed, but nearly killed his peers instead.
Also, you don't get to trample other people's rights, you don't get to burn's or loot peoples businesses and homes, I support the now famous couple of lawyers and rooftop koreans; you don't get to close roads people don't have to obey your rules and if a mob surrounds a car, violentingly banging on it, breaking windows, climbing on it, then by all means floor it, and get home safe, don't get pulled out of the car to get hurt or killed.
On July 28 2020 00:17 Baalim wrote:
Except that this guy didn't run over anybody, he managed to get through and was cleanly getting away cleanly, but this unstable TM Antifa moron thought that warrated to get him killed, but nearly killed his peers instead.
Also, you don't get to trample other people's rights, you don't get to burn's or loot peoples businesses and homes, I support the now famous couple of lawyers and rooftop koreans; you don't get to close roads people don't have to obey your rules and if a mob surrounds a car, violentingly banging on it, breaking windows, climbing on it, then by all means floor it, and get home safe, don't get pulled out of the car to get hurt or killed.
That's insane. "People don't have to obey your rules"... it's called the right to protest, you authoritarian filth. It's not "our rules". There is no right to using public roads that supersedes the right to protest when it endangers people protesting. It was a peaceful protest, no one got pulled out of their cars.
Here's footage from a different angle that shows that some people barely got away from the Jeep. He could have hit someone until the very end.... able-bodied people barely got away, so a person with a physical disability could have easily been hit, yet here you are making it sound like this person was in his right mind and you would have done the same... it's insane. Anyone in his right mind can see that this has nothing to do with "trampling people's rights" and opposing looting or vandalism. This driver wasn't getting away from a riot.
The person who did the shooting is still unknown, but apparently "antifa member" = any protester who does anything reckless now, and every "antifa member" is a violent anarchist who is attempting to overthrow Western Civilization™ by all means necessary, therefore any protester is trying to overthrow Western Civilization™ by all means necessary. To hell with reason, logic and evidence; it's good enough to make spurious associations that serve your authoritarian politics.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
That's insane. "People don't have to obey your rules"... it's called the right to protest, you authoritarian filth. It's not "our rules". There is no right to using public roads that supersedes the right to protest when it endangers people protesting. It was a peaceful protest, no one got pulled out of their cars.
No, you don't get you violate others rights with your protests, no looting, no arsoning, no impeding movement, and many people have been pulled out of their cars and sent to the hospital, in the LA riots a trucker was beaten to death.
Here's footage from a different angle that shows that some people barely got away from the Jeep. He could have hit someone until the very end.... able-bodied people barely got away, so a person with a physical disability could have easily been hit, yet here you are making it sound like this person was in his right mind and you would have done the same... it's insane. Anyone in his right mind can see that this has nothing to do with "trampling people's rights" and opposing looting or vandalism. This driver wasn't getting away from a riot.
lol nice sjw plug there.
Obv driving into people with the intent to hurt is wrong, I dont think that needs clarifying, but if you get yourself into a situation where you are surrounded and people are violently attacking your car or trying to get in, then I think is justified to drive away even if you run over people. That wasn't the case for this person at least from what we can tell so I'm not exonerating him at all, but he had already passed the riot and had a clear road ahead of him when the guy opene fire.
The person who did the shooting is still unknown, but apparently "antifa member" = any protester who does anything reckless now, and every "antifa member" is a violent anarchist who is attempting to overthrow Western Civilization™ by all means necessary, therefore any protester is trying to overthrow Western Civilization™ by all means necessary. To hell with reason, logic and evidence; it's good enough to make spurious associations that serve your authoritarian politics.
The police posted a picture and it was a white guy all in black, so yeah quite likely Antifa.
BTW now that we are talking, what is your position regarding certain things, like if you own a shop and don't have insurance, do you think its ok to defend it with firearms korean style or should you let it burn or whatever, what if you find yourself surrounded by people breaking your windows and trying to open your doors? don't resist and submit yourself to the mercy of the mob?
On July 28 2020 04:02 Loco wrote:
"in the LA riots..." whataboutism. This was not a riot, period.
"forget the coup that I support wholeheartedly because I'm an authoritarian, Morales is a a bad person because of X" also whataboutism
yawn
You are not reading, I said when the car is surrounded by an angry mob, not this guy in the Jeep. In the LA riots a trucke was killed but plenty of people have been beaten up badly being pulled from cars, I can post videos if you want.
I support 100% when the people take down a dictator, Morales was a dictator that changed the constitution to remain in power 4 terms, how would you feel if Trump changed the constitutioin to extend his presidency over his allowed terms?
Yes, you said that right after posting the video for a reason. The reason was to insinuate that what the Jeep guy did was okay. It's okay to feel righteous and get mad at protesters on the highway because "they don't have a right to be there", and it's okay to drive through protesters and risk harming them because it's safer than taking the risk of being pulled out of the car and beaten by the mob "because it happened in the LA riots". Your take was shit, you downplayed what this was and you're now distracting from my calling you out on it.
I also support people overthrowing dictators, but I don't support it when the US empire has a hand in it, unlike you.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I already said twice that I think what the guy in the Jeep did was wrong... but you just keep saying I'm lying, so is this what we are doing now? then why are you a pedophile? don't deny it, because I say you are. I posted the video to show the Antifa guy trying to kill the Jeep driver when he was already past the blockade and injured other people.
They can't infinge other's rights, in the US the law says that to block a road you require a permit, this obv doesn't men you go full carmageddon, but it means you have a right to use the road, and its common sense that if a mob is trying to lynch you, you drive away and don't let them pull you out of your car, not because of what happened in LA, but because of what has happened now to many people, and in general, don't let mobs destroying your car pull you out of it, protect yourself.
So was Evo Morales a dictator?
You didn't answer my questions about your thought son ppl defending their shops and what should they do if a mob is trying to pull them out of the car.
On July 27 2020 11:04 Loco wrote:
Actually, I'm worried that you'll double down after grasping at straws and I don't want you to embarrass yourself blackjacki, so I'm going to give you a hand. At least you won't have that to answer to. Here's a separate database:
Not a single murder in the last four years. Wait, could it actually be more than 4 years?! *curious emoji*
"Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades.
A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database."
‘Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat’
The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a centrist thinktank, and reviewed by the Guardian.
Its launch comes as Trump administration officials have echoed the president’s warnings of a violent “leftwing” revolution. “Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate, violent and extremist agenda,” the attorney general, William Barr, said amid nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd. A new justice department taskforce on violent anti-government extremists listed “antifa” as a major threat, while making no mention of white supremacy."
Is this a Cultural Marxist conspiracy, and the real data is being suppressed from all of these databases somehow?
By the way, quick bit of trivia: did the great "journalists" that you guys follow, Tim Pool, Andy Ngo, etc. or people such as Joe Rogan ever mention this a single time? These brilliant truth seekers who are just trying to inform people to the best of their ability? One would think that anyone who spends so much time ranting about antifa and left-wing extremism and about how there is a violent revolution underway would concern themselves with such data.
I'm sure you'll counter my last post by saying "I'm not an apologist for left-wing extremist violence, I've already conceded it exists."
But if that's the case then what drives you to make this post to dismiss and downplay left-wing extremist violence? As SantaFairy pointed out, are we not considering environmentalists, pro-choice, anti-white, anti-trump, pro-LGBT, anti-Republican etc. to be part of the left?
What the fuck dude. The answer to your question is in the very post that you are quoting and responding to. I'm going to quote it again and put it in bold this time to help you out.
""Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades."
My concern has been with this "violent anarchist" conspiracy theory that's been used by the far-right which claims that BLM is no longer a valid movement (if it ever was.) "Outside agitators" and "violent anarchists" starting a violent revolution have been talking points from the very beginning of BLM. Anarchists are the most violent and threatening people in the US according to them. It has been spreading for a long time and it's becoming increasingly popular, and you seriously wonder why I highlight anarchists in that graph? You have this Navy Seal video making the rounds on the internet now talking about the Georgo Soros conspiracy theory and telling people they've been lied to about BLM and telling people to prepare to fight back. It's the same old Cultural Marxist shit that has its roots in literal Nazism.
I don't give a shit to figure out who exactly you follow, I just know you're not getting your info from people who have an interest in truly informing you about 1) the historical moment we are in and 2) what is happening on the ground. For christ's sake, you're using Santafairy's post to try to make an argument. The guy literally said that anti-semitism is left-wing, do you not realize how batshit fucking insane that is? Yes, please do go ahead and stack up all of the left-wing ones you think are relevant. Even though my concern is to highlight anarchist violence, I didn't hide anything from the graph so you could do that. The Guardian article and the report I linked did that. They compared broadly speaking all instances of left-wing vs right-wing violence. It is still wildly disproportionate in both number of instances and severity.
Again I gave you an alternate database and you are still trying to cherry-pick from the ADL database. I don't care about the ADL's reports, I'm perfectly happy to say that they could do a hell of a better job by distinguishing between political and non-political, even though that's sometimes going to be ambiguous (a Neo-Nazi being violent towards women for instance -- that's perfectly in line with the ideology). The problem with your rhetoric is that you are not just uncovering something of a flaw in the standards they use, but that you also seem to assume that as a result of poorly distinguishing between the two on the right, they must also be embellishing the left-wing stats too. But there is no evidence for that, and there is still no comparison to be made even if you remove all of those non-terroristic, non-politically motivated murders on the right.
Edit: here's an article I found that makes your point, and that also makes mine:
"And if you consider only incidents that either are classified as hate crimes or terrorism by law, or were described as having been motivated by extremist views by the press — as most people likely do when they think of "extremist violence" — just 58% of the incidents cited by the ADL fit that definition, my investigation found.
To be sure, the ADL's most promoted and reported statistic — ultrarightist groups accounting for a disproportionate number of hate crimes and acts of terror — still holds up."
Now, when go big picture, you take all of that into account, and you realize that Trump is weaponizing a false narrative which puts 100% of the blame for violence in this country on radical leftism, and which puts 0% of it on right-wing extremism (which he actively fuels) you have a reason to highlight that. Highlighting that is not equivalent to apologia for left-wing violence.
Remember how these protests started months ago? They started because of unaccountable police violence. And they continue to this day because of it, because in fact it has gotten worse due to Trump's "strongman" move of bringing in the Feds. And do you remember how the argument we're having started? It started because of some apparently left-wing person who was actually held accountable for his violence. He was beaten by the mob, dragged to a police station, and he's being charged with felony assault. That was some swift fucking justice. Can you see how putting a laser focus on this man's violence, while ignoring or actively downplaying the former is a problem if one is said to be concerned with critical thinking and objectivity? It's completely irrational to put all your focus on people who are being held accountable in a world where powerful people who pull a number of strings are immune. Everything that currently doesn't deal with the topic of accountability is a distraction that serves their interests. It does not serve yours and it does not serve mine.
The way the argument started is by me calling you out for a double standard. As Baal puts it:
On July 27 2020 22:59 Baalim wrote:
The left: Stop this "lone wolf" narrative!, why not call it for what it is: a right wing terrorist!
Also the left: Unstable man.
I actually agree with you that Trump is using antifa to drum up unfounded fear in his base. I also agree that laser focusing on crazy leftist stabby guy is a distraction. I just think you can make those points without applying the double standard above and immediately dissolving antifa/leftist groups any responsibility of fostering stabby guy's instability, because we all know if stabby guy was a right-winger you would immediately blame Trump's rhetoric as his main motivating factor.
On July 28 2020 07:50 Loco wrote:
I love how your mind immediately defaulted to saying the same thing as all the right-wingers in the comments of that video lol
Because its true, which do you think has bigger odds of experiencing physical violence, a maga-hat in Portland or a BLM shirt on Nashville?
On July 27 2020 11:04 Loco wrote:
Actually, I'm worried that you'll double down after grasping at straws and I don't want you to embarrass yourself blackjacki, so I'm going to give you a hand. At least you won't have that to answer to. Here's a separate database:
Not a single murder in the last four years. Wait, could it actually be more than 4 years?! *curious emoji*
"Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades.
A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database."
‘Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat’
The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a centrist thinktank, and reviewed by the Guardian.
Its launch comes as Trump administration officials have echoed the president’s warnings of a violent “leftwing” revolution. “Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate, violent and extremist agenda,” the attorney general, William Barr, said amid nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd. A new justice department taskforce on violent anti-government extremists listed “antifa” as a major threat, while making no mention of white supremacy."
Is this a Cultural Marxist conspiracy, and the real data is being suppressed from all of these databases somehow?
By the way, quick bit of trivia: did the great "journalists" that you guys follow, Tim Pool, Andy Ngo, etc. or people such as Joe Rogan ever mention this a single time? These brilliant truth seekers who are just trying to inform people to the best of their ability? One would think that anyone who spends so much time ranting about antifa and left-wing extremism and about how there is a violent revolution underway would concern themselves with such data.
I'm sure you'll counter my last post by saying "I'm not an apologist for left-wing extremist violence, I've already conceded it exists."
But if that's the case then what drives you to make this post to dismiss and downplay left-wing extremist violence? As SantaFairy pointed out, are we not considering environmentalists, pro-choice, anti-white, anti-trump, pro-LGBT, anti-Republican etc. to be part of the left?
What the fuck dude. The answer to your question is in the very post that you are quoting and responding to. I'm going to quote it again and put it in bold this time to help you out.
""Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades."
My concern has been with this "violent anarchist" conspiracy theory that's been used by the far-right which claims that BLM is no longer a valid movement (if it ever was.) "Outside agitators" and "violent anarchists" starting a violent revolution have been talking points from the very beginning of BLM. Anarchists are the most violent and threatening people in the US according to them. It has been spreading for a long time and it's becoming increasingly popular, and you seriously wonder why I highlight anarchists in that graph? You have this Navy Seal video making the rounds on the internet now talking about the Georgo Soros conspiracy theory and telling people they've been lied to about BLM and telling people to prepare to fight back. It's the same old Cultural Marxist shit that has its roots in literal Nazism.
I don't give a shit to figure out who exactly you follow, I just know you're not getting your info from people who have an interest in truly informing you about 1) the historical moment we are in and 2) what is happening on the ground. For christ's sake, you're using Santafairy's post to try to make an argument. The guy literally said that anti-semitism is left-wing, do you not realize how batshit fucking insane that is? Yes, please do go ahead and stack up all of the left-wing ones you think are relevant. Even though my concern is to highlight anarchist violence, I didn't hide anything from the graph so you could do that. The Guardian article and the report I linked did that. They compared broadly speaking all instances of left-wing vs right-wing violence. It is still wildly disproportionate in both number of instances and severity.
Again I gave you an alternate database and you are still trying to cherry-pick from the ADL database. I don't care about the ADL's reports, I'm perfectly happy to say that they could do a hell of a better job by distinguishing between political and non-political, even though that's sometimes going to be ambiguous (a Neo-Nazi being violent towards women for instance -- that's perfectly in line with the ideology). The problem with your rhetoric is that you are not just uncovering something of a flaw in the standards they use, but that you also seem to assume that as a result of poorly distinguishing between the two on the right, they must also be embellishing the left-wing stats too. But there is no evidence for that, and there is still no comparison to be made even if you remove all of those non-terroristic, non-politically motivated murders on the right.
Edit: here's an article I found that makes your point, and that also makes mine:
"And if you consider only incidents that either are classified as hate crimes or terrorism by law, or were described as having been motivated by extremist views by the press — as most people likely do when they think of "extremist violence" — just 58% of the incidents cited by the ADL fit that definition, my investigation found.
To be sure, the ADL's most promoted and reported statistic — ultrarightist groups accounting for a disproportionate number of hate crimes and acts of terror — still holds up."
Now, when go big picture, you take all of that into account, and you realize that Trump is weaponizing a false narrative which puts 100% of the blame for violence in this country on radical leftism, and which puts 0% of it on right-wing extremism (which he actively fuels) you have a reason to highlight that. Highlighting that is not equivalent to apologia for left-wing violence.
Remember how these protests started months ago? They started because of unaccountable police violence. And they continue to this day because of it, because in fact it has gotten worse due to Trump's "strongman" move of bringing in the Feds. And do you remember how the argument we're having started? It started because of some apparently left-wing person who was actually held accountable for his violence. He was beaten by the mob, dragged to a police station, and he's being charged with felony assault. That was some swift fucking justice. Can you see how putting a laser focus on this man's violence, while ignoring or actively downplaying the former is a problem if one is said to be concerned with critical thinking and objectivity? It's completely irrational to put all your focus on people who are being held accountable in a world where powerful people who pull a number of strings are immune. Everything that currently doesn't deal with the topic of accountability is a distraction that serves their interests. It does not serve yours and it does not serve mine.
The way the argument started is by me calling you out for a double standard. As Baal puts it:
On July 27 2020 22:59 Baalim wrote:
The left: Stop this "lone wolf" narrative!, why not call it for what it is: a right wing terrorist!
Also the left: Unstable man.
I actually agree with you that Trump is using antifa to drum up unfounded fear in his base. I also agree that laser focusing on crazy leftist stabby guy is a distraction. I just think you can make those points without applying the double standard above and immediately dissolving antifa/leftist groups any responsibility of fostering stabby guy's instability, because we all know if stabby guy was a right-winger you would immediately blame Trump's rhetoric as his main motivating factor.
I can still blame Trump for this (as the continuation and worsening of what already was a deeply sick system). I can still blame every single one of these fuckers in the White House who have contributed to creating the material conditions that lead to an increase in white supremacist violence, and who have funneled so much of tax payers money into policing while cutting social services, and blame him for putting the feds in portland, and for the increase in mental health problems due to going against the scientific consensus and handling covid in the worst imaginable way, and for implementing policies that lead to even more extreme inequality, and an increase in evictions and homelessness. People are exhausted and fed up and they live in fear every day, of course reckless behavior will increase as a result of all of these compounding factors.
I said he was unstable, but that doesn't mean that this would have happened without the former preconditions. The "lone wolf" narrative has nothing to do with my understanding. It doesn't look at preconditions. It's one that has been used by the right and the mainstream media to remove the focus off of the institutions that foster the socio-economic conditions that generate social unstability which leads to increases in violence. It's been historically used in a very one-sided way in the media: when it's a black man they assume it's coming from "black culture", when it's a white guy it's a "lone wolf" and "how did his parents fail him?!?". That's not what I'm doing. I'm doing the opposite of that. I'm always bringing my attention on the institutions and the structures.
I have no clue if this guy is "antifa". I have no idea how radical he is. Neither do any of you. But I'm still going along with your assumptions. All I know is that what he was reacting to was legitimate, and he made a serious mistake. If he hadn't had something legitimate to react to, he wouldn't have been in the streets and he wouldn't have done that. That doesn't excuse what he did, and he should pay the consequences, but it's ridiculous to assume that this is just happening in a vacuum or because of "bad parenting". Antifa is a legitimate reaction to fascism. Black Lives Matter is a legitimate reaction to institutionalized racism and brutality. None of these people are angels, and many of them will make mistakes, sometimes very serious ones, but that doesn't mean you get to delegitimize the movements as a result.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Contact Users: 542 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 14:51
