Violent Left Extremists

[jakee 1,645]

52 minutes ago, base698 said:

I quoted the report, did you not read it?  I stated by doing my own analysis:

The left has more incidents over all

The right incidents kill more people over all.

Exactly what the source data says.

In addition, like I stated you can even out the numbers where they are closer together by removing prison violence.

My post was very simple - I don’t get how you’ve failed to read it properly.

The report said no one set of beliefs dominates extremist killings. You are the only person in this thread who has argued that one set of beliefs does dominate extremist killings. So again, just to be absolutely sure, you do retract the entire premise of your OP, which was that the left are ‘the ones’ responsible for political violence?

[JerryBaumchen 1,489]

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

From PNAS:  (Does not include Jan 6)

A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, andIslamist extremists in the United States and the world

"In this research we address these gaps by comparing the use of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and worldwide using two unique datasets that cover real-world examples of politically motivated, violent behaviors. Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists."

"Our sample from the PIRUS data consisted of 1,563 individuals with a history of involvement in domestic extremist activities identified as affiliated with either a left-wing, right-wing, or Islamist ideological milieu. We included individuals whose public exposure occurred between 1948 and 2018. . .  .The dataset coded as violent cases where there was strong evidence that individuals were conspiring to kill or injure even if they failed to do so."

https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united

Hi Bill,

And, of course, this:  DOJ quietly removes study showing right-wing attacks 'outpace' those by left

Jerry Baumchen

[nigel99 682]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

I quoted the report, did you not read it?  I stated by doing my own analysis:

The left has more incidents over all

The right incidents kill more people over all.

Exactly what the source data says.

In addition, like I stated you can even out the numbers where they are closer together by removing prison violence.

“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives,” the study states
“In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

That’s some serious MAGA maths of yours to claim that 227 is less than 42! The right has considerably more incidents- according to the report. 

If course you could always do a Trump with the numbers and exclude anything you don’t like (inflation is gone once you exclude everything where prices went up),

[base698 20]

4 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives,” the study states
“In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

That’s some serious MAGA maths of yours to claim that 227 is less than 42! The right has considerably more incidents- according to the report. 

If course you could always do a Trump with the numbers and exclude anything you don’t like (inflation is gone once you exclude everything where prices went up),

Take out the prison violence and it's about even even in that.  Other studies that are referenced in the same doc.

 

27 minutes ago, jakee said:

You are the only person in this thread who has argued that one set of beliefs does dominate extremist killings. So again, just to be absolutely sure, you do retract the entire premise of your OP, which was that the left are ‘the ones’ responsible for political violence?

I've since corrected it I'm not going to do it again.  I don't want a balkan or Lebanese style civil war over whether Jesus is the true savior or men can become pregnant.  Pretending it's just the right excuses the lefts wrong doings.  

[nigel99 682]

50 minutes ago, base698 said:

Take out the prison violence and it's about even even in that.  Other studies that are referenced in the same doc.

 

I've since corrected it I'm not going to do it again.  I don't want a balkan or Lebanese style civil war over whether Jesus is the true savior or men can become pregnant.  Pretending it's just the right excuses the lefts wrong doings.  

So trumpenomics then. Choose what to exclude from the dataset to back up your argument. Maybe if you only take violence that happens on the full moon it will be 100% lefties

[jakee 1,645]

2 hours ago, base698 said:

I've since corrected it I'm not going to do it again. 

When did you do that? You have in fact refused to retract everything from your OP, leaving it unclear what you have or haven't retracted.

2 hours ago, base698 said:

Pretending it's just the right excuses the lefts wrong doings.  

But no-one here has pretended it is just the right. Again, you are the only person in this thread who has pretended it's all from one side, when you started this thread specifically in order to pretend it's all from the left. So why did you want to excuse the right's wrongdoing when you started this thread?

 

And what were you afraid to say about George Floyd?

[nigel99 682]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

When did you do that? You have in fact refused to retract everything from your OP, leaving it unclear what you have or haven't retracted.

But no-one here has pretended it is just the right. Again, you are the only person in this thread who has pretended it's all from one side, when you started this thread specifically in order to pretend it's all from the left. So why did you want to excuse the right's wrongdoing when you started this thread?

 

And what were you afraid to say about George Floyd?

I’ve been thinking more about your comment about not left/right. I’m really torn as I think this is the right approach to deescalate the political tensions, and it involves swallowing any concept of “justice”.

Part of me feels that people like Trump etc should be held accountable for inciting violence and excusing it. There appears to be more appetite on the left to hold everyone accountable, while the right seems to claim victimhood and make excuses more. 

It’s probably a case of not needing to force people to see that they are wrong, and that sometimes for the sake of peace we have to ignore our feelings of injustice. 

[murps2000 87]

Not sure if this is the correct thread but the other ones were straying off course. If you’re looking for a simple answer as to whether this is right or left, it might be a bit more complicated than that. Only a 4 minute video. Puts some context to the engravings found.

[JoeWeber 3,021]

3 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Not sure if this is the correct thread but the other ones were straying off course. If you’re looking for a simple answer as to whether this is right or left, it might be a bit more complicated than that. Only a 4 minute video. Puts some context to the engravings found.

What is it with these videos of someone blathering in lieu of simply posting a reasoned analysis? I ask seriously, is there anyone here who enjoys them? I’m not saying never ever but I am saying that, at least for me, they come off as both lazy and rude.

[nigel99 682]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

What is it with these videos of someone blathering in lieu of simply posting a reasoned analysis? I ask seriously, is there anyone here who enjoys them? I’m not saying never ever but I am saying that, at least for me, they come off as both lazy and rude.

It depends on the poster for me. I’m not going to watch some music video or obscure podcasts but sometimes there’s really interesting stuff.

[wmw999 2,639]

It does depend on the poster, and the summary that Murps gave was enough, but yeah, I'd rather read than listen when I'm on the computer. I normally have it turned to silent. Even captions are preferable to spoken word as a rule.

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 1,260]

43 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

It does depend on the poster, and the summary that Murps gave was enough, but yeah, I'd rather read than listen when I'm on the computer. I normally have it turned to silent. Even captions are preferable to spoken word as a rule.

Wendy P.

Agree, I hate fluff and b.s. and when I can read I'll skip to the relevant parts. Many videos have personal narrative v just give me the facts. That why I love accurate, trustworthy polls.

[dogyks 30]

10 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Not sure if this is the correct thread but the other ones were straying off course. If you’re looking for a simple answer as to whether this is right or left, it might be a bit more complicated than that. Only a 4 minute video. Puts some context to the engravings found.

I agree that this puts the incident in a more nuanced light than simply 'left vs. right.'

[gowlerk 2,303]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

What is it with these videos of someone blathering in lieu of simply posting a reasoned analysis? I ask seriously, is there anyone here who enjoys them? I’m not saying never ever but I am saying that, at least for me, they come off as both lazy and rude.

I much prefer to simply read an analysis or two about the available evidence. There is enough to get some idea of what may have been his motive. It seems that some level of isolation from reality coupled with an understanding of the basic evil in the victim's methods lead to him thinking it was the right thing to do. He will probably end up sentenced to death and he probably deserves as much as anyone does. He made his choice and it was even more evil than Kirk's.

[billvon 3,170]

22 hours ago, base698 said:

Take out the prison violence and it's about even even in that. 

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?

[jakee 1,645]

29 minutes ago, 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?

I guess he’s making the point that right wing criminals are more likely to be hopeless recidivists while left wing criminals are more open to rehabilitation? 

Not quite sure why though.

[JerryBaumchen 1,489]

36 minutes ago, 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?

Hi Bill,

Lest any of us forget:

The Nazi's first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up

because I was a Protestant.  Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.

 Rev. Martin Niemoeller

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 3,021]

7 hours ago, dogyks said:

I agree that this puts the incident in a more nuanced light than simply 'left vs. right.'

I hear you. Makes me sad for the days when murders were easily understood. Maybe we need a video explaining how it also wasn’t an up or down issue.

[dogyks 30]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I hear you. Makes me sad for the days when murders were easily understood. Maybe we need a video explaining how it also wasn’t an up or down issue.

My point is that the immediate reaction from various corners was pretty much either

A) The radical left killed him for being too far right

or

The radical right killed him for talking to the left.

That it was some incel gamer who decided that anyone disrespecting homosexual/transsexual/furries needed to die wasn't one of the primary options.

A very short video providing a description of the subculture and this guy's apparent place in it was moderately painless.  Charlie Kirk's delusion centered around his relationship with Magic Jewish Zombie.  His killer's delusion was exemplified by the idea that he'd committed the perfect crime and nobody would figure it out.

I guess he watched too much of our Commander in Chief, and concluded that the rules could be put on 'pause.'

[JoeWeber 3,021]

1 hour ago, dogyks said:

My point is that the immediate reaction from various corners was pretty much either

A) The radical left killed him for being too far right

or

The radical right killed him for talking to the left.

That it was some incel gamer who decided that anyone disrespecting homosexual/transsexual/furries needed to die wasn't one of the primary options.

A very short video providing a description of the subculture and this guy's apparent place in it was moderately painless.  Charlie Kirk's delusion centered around his relationship with Magic Jewish Zombie.  His killer's delusion was exemplified by the idea that he'd committed the perfect crime and nobody would figure it out.

I guess he watched too much of our Commander in Chief, and concluded that the rules could be put on 'pause.'

Sure, in fact I’ll take any explanation that makes sense to anyone. Seems to me all we know for sure is that it won’t end until the social systems we build stop falling apart as all things are won’t to do.

[jakee 1,645]

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I hear you. Makes me sad for the days when murders were easily understood. Maybe we need a video explaining how it also wasn’t an up or down issue.

Like JFK. Everyone knew exactly what happened and why, no messing around whatsoever. Ah, the good old days.

[Phil1111 1,260]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

Like JFK. Everyone knew exactly what happened and why, no messing around whatsoever. Ah, the good old days.

When Trump is gone, done in by a Big Mac induced cardiac event, or something more directly related to his behaviours. When MAGA is played out and understood to be sham economics. Everyone will know exactly what happened. 

A toxic blend of religion and fascism played upon the vulnerability of a flawed constitution. One that let religion infiltrate the courts. Hate infiltrate the state. But finally political violence or the ballot box. Or a combination of the two flushed the heretics down the toilet of history.

[dogyks 30]

Greg Boyington was shot down and went headfirst into the Pacific with no parachute observed ed.  The Navy breathed a sigh of relief, he was awarded the Medal of Honor and they moved on.

When the Japanese released him from a secret POW camp, the War Department's reaction was "Holy fuck!  The drunken sonofabitch is still ALIVE?!"

He was a prime example of someone who was more valuable as a dead hero than as a living loose cannon.

Since Trump turned an assassination attempt into a brilliant photo op, I definitely don't want to see him martyred.

I'd like to see the country subject to adult supervision for once, but that's asking a lot.  I've known people who would have been great in the Chief Executive role, whose explanation for turning down the job was effectively 'I'm not a masochist.'

To try to idiot proof the Constitution is a fool's errand.  We need leadership that fully comprehends history, economics, diplomacy, psychology sociology and the art of the possible.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[wmw999 2,639]

4 minutes ago, dogyks said:

To try to idiot proof the Constitution is a fool's errand.  We need leadership that fully comprehends history, economics, diplomacy, psychology sociology and the art of the possible.

That understanding is always going to be a point of view. As long as you don’t accept the right of others to have a different one of the relevant facts and the priorities, they’ll never be considered adults. And that applies to all of us.

Consider all those MAGA types for whom “owning the libs” is a valid priority  

Wendy P. 

[Phil1111 1,260]

27 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

That understanding is always going to be a point of view. As long as you don’t accept the right of others to have a different one of the relevant facts and the priorities, they’ll never be considered adults. And that applies to all of us.

Consider all those MAGA types for whom “owning the libs” is a valid priority  

Wendy P. 

Ah!, the middle road, the centre. Or  "The government you elect is the government you deserve" as Thomas Jefferson put it. Other countries have social media yet deep social divisions don't exist. Other countries have mentally ill yet mass shootings are almost non existent. Other countries face economic challenges yet rampant drug abuse is seldom seen.

What other countries don't have is a twice impeached, convicted felon, convicted rapist, convicted and multiple admitted fraudster and narcissist as King.

But there is HOPE    "Worst presidential cabinets

Historical surveys cite the following presidential cabinets among the worst in U.S. history, predominantly due to issues of incompetence, corruption, and scandal:

1. Warren G. Harding’s (Rep., 1921-1923) cabinet is widely regarded as the worst of the worst due to the infamous Teapot Dome scandal, widespread corruption among cabinet members, and for exemplifying poor cabinet selection due to cronyism and misconduct.

2. Ulysses S. Grant’s (Rep., 1869-1877) cabinet was plagued by corruption, the Whiskey Ring scandal, the Crédit Mobilier affair, and unethical governance.

3. Donald J. Trump’s (Rep., 2017-2021 and 2025-2029) cabinets have been widely criticized for their lack of qualifications, record-setting high turnover rates, appointments based on loyalty over capability, conflicts of interest, stark public dissatisfaction, and poorly vetted appointees, but approved by Republican Senators.....

From a cabinet member’s perspective, Trump’s two attempts at being president are near the bottom of 47 presidencies. Rigorous historical research would suggest this does not bode well that the 2025-2029 time period will be successful.

With all of the chaos, uncertainty, dictatorial behavior, flip-flopping, and 192 executive orders, 47 memoranda, and 79 proclamations brought to the table by Mr. Trump since Jan. 20 and controversial cabinet member actions, the proverb “hope springs eternal” has to be Americans’ guide to find optimism. A second proverb—“you reap what you sow”—is before Mr. Trump and the GOP Senators who approved the cabinet nominations.

Let’s face reality. A cabinet that ranks historically low with respect to competence, ethical standards, experience, and other competency criteria makes the U.S. vulnerable to a multitude of operational inefficiencies, policy blunders, ethical mishaps, scandals, conflicts of interest, conspiracies, and foreign intervention"

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