When the left does it, it's mostly peaceful protest.

When the right does it, it's an existential threat to democracy.

But sure...keep on guzzling down what the mainstream media feeds you. Slurp, slurp.

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

"HELP ME!!! MY HEADQUARTERS GOT BROKEN INTO AND SOMEONE POUNDED MY BACK DOOR!

(11-02-2022 09:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

"HELP ME!!! MY HEADQUARTERS GOT BROKEN INTO AND SOMEONE POUNDED MY BACK DOOR!

Quiet, the adults are talking

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

That's because both of your oars are not in the water.

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Did you sleep thru the “Summer of George” Floyd? Remember when the libs burned down half the cities in America to honor a drug addict who beat pregnant women? Is that not ringing a bell?

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Let's start with Portland shall we?
Or Minneapolis?
Or Wisconsin Christmas Parade?
Or Kenosha, WI?
Ferguson?


Let's see.. right wing violence?
Oh.. you mean those violent canadian truckers? Nope.. can't be that.
Smolett? Nope.. cant be that either.
Mr. Pelosi.. nope, can't be that..not a right winger...
The Pulse shooting.. nope that was a Muslim extremist..
Softball shooter... er, nope....

When the FBI has to "INITIATE" reported Right-wing violence.. you know there's something not right with your argument.

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link

Quote:Political violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes. Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups. The number of violent events declined, but targets shifted from property to people—minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

What is occurring today does not resemble this recent past. Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.

Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 Many evangelical pastors are working to turn their flocks away from this heresy. The details appear outlandish, but stripped to its core, the broad appeal becomes clearer: Democrats and cultural elites are often portrayed as Satanic forces arrayed against Christianity and seeking to harm Christian children.

Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link

Quote:Political violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes. Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups. The number of violent events declined, but targets shifted from property to people—minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

What is occurring today does not resemble this recent past. Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.

Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 Many evangelical pastors are working to turn their flocks away from this heresy. The details appear outlandish, but stripped to its core, the broad appeal becomes clearer: Democrats and cultural elites are often portrayed as Satanic forces arrayed against Christianity and seeking to harm Christian children.

Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

What is the definition of acts of terrorism? If that includes parents getting pissed at School boards (for example) your graph is schidt. Far Right terrorism seems to have spiked around 2016. It it probably because of Trump - but not for the reason you think it is.

Dems are really good at changing definitions when it doesn't fit their needed narrative - school board note above as an example.

(11-02-2022 10:33 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link

Quote:Political violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes. Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups. The number of violent events declined, but targets shifted from property to people—minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

What is occurring today does not resemble this recent past. Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.

Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 Many evangelical pastors are working to turn their flocks away from this heresy. The details appear outlandish, but stripped to its core, the broad appeal becomes clearer: Democrats and cultural elites are often portrayed as Satanic forces arrayed against Christianity and seeking to harm Christian children.

Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

What is the definition of acts of terrorism? If that includes parents getting pissed at School boards (for example) your graph is schidt.

For the sake of this article, assume that the same standards applied in quantifying acts of terrorism on the right are also used to quantify the left. If you doubt the assumption, read the sources to find the answer yourself. This is why I source things, so that people that have questions, like yourself, are free to read more and hopefully find an answer or concern

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link

Quote:Political violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes. Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups. The number of violent events declined, but targets shifted from property to people—minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

What is occurring today does not resemble this recent past. Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.

Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 Many evangelical pastors are working to turn their flocks away from this heresy. The details appear outlandish, but stripped to its core, the broad appeal becomes clearer: Democrats and cultural elites are often portrayed as Satanic forces arrayed against Christianity and seeking to harm Christian children.

Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

(11-02-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link

Quote:Political violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes. Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups. The number of violent events declined, but targets shifted from property to people—minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

What is occurring today does not resemble this recent past. Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.

Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 Many evangelical pastors are working to turn their flocks away from this heresy. The details appear outlandish, but stripped to its core, the broad appeal becomes clearer: Democrats and cultural elites are often portrayed as Satanic forces arrayed against Christianity and seeking to harm Christian children.

Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

The article cites This Database

lulz

(11-02-2022 09:13 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  This thread brought to you by the same dude that tells us the homeless drug addict, with BLM and gay pride flags on the bus he lives in, in Berkeley, who attacked Pelosi is a right-wing terrorist. And, the same dude that screamed RUSSIA for 4 years. And, the same dude that told us Jussie got assualted by MAGA supporters in downtown Chicago at 2am. And, on and on and on and on.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 582 times, call me Tom.

RedTom, How does one criticize the policies of Soros without being labeled anti semetic?

(11-02-2022 11:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  RedTom, How does one criticize the policies of Soros without being labeled anti semetic?

Criticize the policies.

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Strategies present today in the Republican party were inspired heavily from Newt Gingrich, with lessons learned from the Nixon campaign and the rise of the religious conservatives as a primary base for the Republicans, as evidenced by Reagan's successful appeals to that base, and resulting presidency. A good starting point for discussion could begin there, but I don't see anything prior to that as relevant

What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link

Quote:Political violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes. Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups. The number of violent events declined, but targets shifted from property to people—minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

What is occurring today does not resemble this recent past. Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.

Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 Many evangelical pastors are working to turn their flocks away from this heresy. The details appear outlandish, but stripped to its core, the broad appeal becomes clearer: Democrats and cultural elites are often portrayed as Satanic forces arrayed against Christianity and seeking to harm Christian children.

Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

(11-02-2022 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What specifically though? What strategies did Newt implement when he was speaker that made the GOP "Domestic Terrorists"? You mention the religious right. Are you saying that your typical religious person is a terrorist?

Watergate? That's an example of a break-in to steal campaign secrets. How does that compare to domestic terrorism?

Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link

Quote:Political violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes. Starting in the late 1970s, political violence shifted rightward with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia groups. The number of violent events declined, but targets shifted from property to people—minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

What is occurring today does not resemble this recent past. Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.

Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 Many evangelical pastors are working to turn their flocks away from this heresy. The details appear outlandish, but stripped to its core, the broad appeal becomes clearer: Democrats and cultural elites are often portrayed as Satanic forces arrayed against Christianity and seeking to harm Christian children.

Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

Where do you draw the line between lawfully protesting and terrorism? You seem to be under the assumption that the riots of 2020 were mostly violent when 94% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Quote:The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

94% of BLM riots were peaceful?!?!?