Violent Left Extremists

[wmw999 2,639]

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

With only eight months into King Trump's 2.0 there is still time to be number one.

Oh definitely. The others are judged on actual performance; so far, only Noem, Kennedy and Hegseth have really started in on actual performance. The others seem to be mostly backing up and planning, or busy polishing their noses so that when they brown-nose there's no chance of irritating the royal asshole.

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 1,260]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Oh definitely. The others are judged on actual performance; so far, only Noem, Kennedy and Hegseth have really started in on actual performance. The others seem to be mostly backing up and planning, or busy polishing their noses so that when they brown-nose there's no chance of irritating the royal asshole.

Wendy P.

Perhaps it will be something you can tell your grandchildren when you get into your golden years twenty years from now.

Two impeachments, two assassination attempts and he doubled down after each one. Finally lived up to his true potential.

[base698 20]

On 9/18/2025 at 11:59 AM, billvon said:

Why would you take out prison violence?  Right wing criminals killing people in prison doesn't count because the victims are . . . not people?  Because it's less likely to affect you personally?

Contained and not a threat to the general public.  Less influence on the overall bloodlust in the zeitgeist.  

[billvon 3,170]

On 9/20/2025 at 10:18 AM, base698 said:

Contained and not a threat to the general public. 

So what?  Workplaces and schools are not open to the general public either.  Are you going to remove school shootings because of that next?   Are kids and prisoners not real people?

[base698 20]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

So what?  Workplaces and schools are not open to the general public either.  Are you going to remove school shootings because of that next?   Are kids and prisoners not real people?

Schools contain the public, as do workplaces. You don't see people breaking into prisons to shoot them up.

[billvon 3,170]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

Schools contain the public, as do workplaces. You don't see people breaking into prisons to shoot them up.

Prisons contain the public as well.  Public defenders, prosecutors, private lawyers, visitors, independent contractors.  About as often as schools do.

[base698 20]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/charlie-kirk-left-wing-terrorism/684323/?utm_source=feed

[nigel99 682]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/charlie-kirk-left-wing-terrorism/684323/?utm_source=feed

I can’t read the full article. Is this including or excluding prisoners

I suspect with how ICE are behaving that you’re going to see a huge spike in “left wing” terrorism as people start to fight back. 

Political violence is becoming a problem in the west. We are also seeing it here in Aus and a rise in a neo Nazi movement (they call themselves nazi’s I’m not labelling them). 

[base698 20]

25 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I can’t read the full article. Is this including or excluding prisoners

 

https://archive.is/ABXI7

[jakee 1,645]

11 hours ago, base698 said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/charlie-kirk-left-wing-terrorism/684323/?utm_source=feed

In the past decade in the United States, 36 left-wing attacks have killed 13 people, whereas 152 right-wing attacks have killed 112.

 

I take it this is your mea culpa for how stunningly misguided your original post was?

[base698 20]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

In the past decade in the United States, 36 left-wing attacks have killed 13 people, whereas 152 right-wing attacks have killed 112.

 

I take it this is your mea culpa for how stunningly misguided your original post was?

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-10/241021_McCabe_Domestic_Methodology.pdf?VersionId=L6FiR8usSWNqo.W0nQJ0ePDZRqTILNXM

They excluded riots (except Jan 6), excluded escalations at rallies (except unite the right), and don't include school shootings, even ones that may be politically motivated. Feels a wee bit dishonest even if the Atlantic article states "left wing is on the rise."

The BLM riots of 2020 alone would at least put in striking distance of the same number of incidents.

New one.  

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/dallas/article312240557.html

Edited September 24 by base698

[jakee 1,645]

3 hours ago, base698 said:

They excluded riots (except Jan 6), excluded escalations at rallies (except unite the right), and don't include school shootings, even ones that may be politically motivated. Feels a wee bit dishonest even if the Atlantic article states "left wing is on the rise."

Why did you break forum rules to post an article without any comment when it turns out you thought it was wrong anyway?

3 hours ago, base698 said:

The BLM riots of 2020 alone would at least put in striking distance of the same number of incidents.

Not killings though, which was the premise of your OP. So as I asked, this is your mea culpa for how stunningly misguided and ill-informed your original intent in starting this thread was, right?

[base698 20]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Why did you break forum rules to post an article without any comment when it turns out you thought it was wrong anyway?

 

I tracked down the methodology and read it after I found the article.  I was hoping to find the actual data, but alas only found the methods they used to select data.

Also, what are you a cop?

Quote

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Why did you break forum rules to post an article without any comment when it turns out you thought it was wrong anyway?

Not killings though, which was the premise of your OP. So as I asked, this is your mea culpa for how stunningly misguided and ill-informed your original intent in starting this thread was, right?

 

There was line in the OP: "I will acknowledge some of them, on both the right and left, fall probably more on the mentally ill side and are a case of "choose the form of your destructor" where the mentally ill person uses whatever the TV screens say as the justification."

Some of them on the right and left... does that mean I said ALL OF THEM ARE ON THE LEFT?

I've sought more information and data, it's become pretty comprehensive.  Some of the data looks bad for the right. Some of the included incidents would probably would fall more under narcissistic antisocial or mental health.  I've added polls and additional sources and articles which support the general claim the left has a bad problem with violence.  The worst of which is 24% of far left and about the same percentage of younger left leaning people in general support violence for political purposes.

What have you added to the discussion other than being antagonistic and having a stick up your ass about my original tone?  

My interest is largely not seeing anyone die in political violence because they are caught in a terminally online dystopia where the other side is "evil/hitler" and ignoring everything else.

[jakee 1,645]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

I tracked down the methodology and read it after I found the article. 

Why did you post the article with no supporting comment when you had no idea whether anything it said was remotely worth repeating? Is it maybe because you hadn't learned your lesson from your OP and you just posted it because you thought the headline supported your preconceived idea?

1 hour ago, base698 said:

There was line in the OP: "I will acknowledge some of them, on both the right and left, fall probably more on the mentally ill side and are a case of "choose the form of your destructor" where the mentally ill person uses whatever the TV screens say as the justification."

Some of them on the right and left... does that mean I said ALL OF THEM ARE ON THE LEFT?

'All' of them would be a ludicrously high bar. Just because you didn't explictly say that every single instance of political violence was from the left doesn't mean your OP wasn't based on extremely biased misinformation. After all, there was a line in the OP: "The left are the ones..."

1 hour ago, base698 said:

What have you added to the discussion other than being antagonistic and having a stick up your ass about my original tone?  

I gave you numerous examples of very famous incidents of political violence that you were completely ignorant of when you developed the message in your OP. You have a funny way of saying 'thank you'.

And that's the thing, it's not the tone of your OP I'm talking about, it's the message. The message that the left are 'the' perpetrators of political violence, the left are 'the' people celebrating and promoting it and the left are the side that can't tolerate any deviation from the central party line (I guess that means the term RINO is something that had passed you by too). You still haven't really acknowledged that those accusations were all false and you only made them because you hadn't bothered to do any research yet.

1 hour ago, base698 said:

My interest is largely not seeing anyone die in political violence because they are caught in a terminally online dystopia where the other side is "evil/hitler" and ignoring everything else.

So you get how the tone and message of your OP, focussed as it was on specifically blaming one side for the spread of political violence, was completely antithetical to what you now say is your goal? You get how the title of this thread conveys the absolute opposite message to what you claim to aim for? Don't you think it might aid the pursuit of your goal to take a moment to make it clear that your reason for starting the thread and what you said in your OP was just plain wrong and ill-informed?

Edited September 24 by jakee

[nigel99 682]

2 hours ago, base698 said:

 

I tracked down the methodology and read it after I found the article.  I was hoping to find the actual data, but alas only found the methods they used to select data.

Also, what are you a cop?

There was line in the OP: "I will acknowledge some of them, on both the right and left, fall probably more on the mentally ill side and are a case of "choose the form of your destructor" where the mentally ill person uses whatever the TV screens say as the justification."

Some of them on the right and left... does that mean I said ALL OF THEM ARE ON THE LEFT?

I've sought more information and data, it's become pretty comprehensive.  Some of the data looks bad for the right. Some of the included incidents would probably would fall more under narcissistic antisocial or mental health.  

The past 5 years I’ve been doing a psychology degree with a minor in criminal psychology and I’d say almost all violent crime can be put down to mental health. The exceptions I can think of is violence due to being under the influence of a substance and domestic violence. 

With that in mind you can’t really make exceptions for some incidents based on mental health. It feels like you’re falling into a trap of confirmation bias and discounting incidents on the right. It’s natural and takes a considerable amount of effort to overcome. 

In Australia ASIO (our spy agency), has said the greatest and fastest growing threat is right wing radicalisation of teenage boys. I believe the US has a very similar problem. The issue is that right wing extremism (Charlie Kirk and others) has been normalised in the US.

There is a strong argument that pushback from the left in an increasingly authoritarian state will be classified as political extremism. Senior members of your government have floated that the Democratic Party is an extremist organisation. As the saying goes one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. 

If you want to be objective, take a look at the language on both sides of the political spectrum and see whose language is more dangerous and inflammatory. I can’t think of any mainstream left leaning figures (politicians, podcasters or comedians) that are promoting violence against the other side. Whereas the are dozens of examples on the right. 

[nigel99 682]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15129363/Dallas-ICE-sniper-three-wounded.html

Here’s an interesting one for you. Does an anti ICE guy who shoots migrants count as left or right wing? Does killing himself count as a left wing or right wing death? 

[richravizza 30]

On 9/20/2025 at 10:18 AM, base698 said:

Contained and not a threat to the general public.  Less influence on the overall bloodlust in the zeitgeist.  

I heard Hillary is back gaslighting her way into sic significance.lol poor suckers

Question for folks,

Could you explain the difference in ; the rights reaction to the murder of Charlie,compared to the death of george. The contrast is interesting.

[nigel99 682]

21 minutes ago, richravizza said:

I heard Hillary is back gaslighting her way into sic significance.lol poor suckers

Question for folks,

Could you explain the difference in ; the rights reaction to the murder of Charlie,compared to the death of george. The contrast is interesting.

The difference in the rights reaction to Charlie and George is that they were outraged at one and celebrated and rationalised the other. 

[richravizza 30]

7 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

The difference in the rights reaction to Charlie and George is that they were outraged at one and celebrated and rationalised the other. 

? sorry I missed that, we didn't burn down cities or collaterally kill 31 for our cause. Why?

Perhaps I was not concise, Why is the rights reaction to CK death the polar opposite of the lefts in floyds death?

Edited September 26 by richravizza

[nigel99 682]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

? sorry I missed that, we didn't burn down cities or collaterally kill 31 for our cause. Why?

Perhaps I was not concise, Why is the rights reaction to CK death the polar opposite of the lefts in floyds death?

You specifically said the rights reaction to both, and never mentioned the left in your question, which was a perfectly valid question on why the right only cares for one and not the other. 

Concise means short and to the point. Your previous post was short but not concise if you meant to say something different. Granted your posts are rarely short or concise, but usually almost incoherent ramblings so that post was a refreshing change. 

 I’m sure you relate well to the lyrics in Pink Floyd’s Another brick in the wall. We don’t need no education

Edited September 26 by nigel99

[jakee 1,645]

5 hours ago, richravizza said:

Could you explain the difference in ; the rights reaction to the murder of Charlie,compared to the death of george. The contrast is interesting.

That’s easy. When Floyd was murdered the right said he was a shithead scumbag druggy and it was his own fault he was murdered but really he wasn’t even murdered anyway.

When Charlie was murdered the right said it should be illegal to speak ill of the dead.

[nigel99 682]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

That’s easy. When Floyd was murdered the right said he was a shithead scumbag druggy and it was his own fault he was murdered but really he wasn’t even murdered anyway.

When Charlie was murdered the right said it should be illegal to speak ill of the dead.

Nothing like shooting himself in the foot.

It is a really good question for an introspective MAGA supporter to ask themselves though.

[wmw999 2,639]

3 hours ago, nigel99 said:

It is a really good question for an introspective MAGA supporter to ask themselves though.

Excuse me? A what? Not sure how those words go together.

Wendy P.

[kallend 2,216]

3 hours ago, nigel99 said:

. . . .  introspective MAGA supporter . . . . .

A what?

[Phil1111 1,260]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

That’s easy. When Floyd was murdered the right said he was a shithead scumbag druggy and it was his own fault he was murdered but really he wasn’t even murdered anyway.

When Charlie was murdered the right said it should be illegal to speak ill of the dead.

Thats easy to figure out in the head of an "introspective MAGA". Charlie used Jebus to spread hate so was loved by all republicans. Floyd was Black.

"Introspective MAGA" is a oxymoron because although MAGA's have feelings and thoughts. They are all expressed externally. Reactivity so to speak. If a Introspective MAGA came into existence they would become a democratic liberal. Think of it as a logical consciousness.