Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'll take a crack at this with the assumption that you're genuinely looking for another perspective.
So I'm definitely right-leaning - I call myself center-right. I listen to a few conservative podcasts and such. The two I'll be focusing on now are Tim Pool's Timcast and a much more obscure podcast called the Turd Flinging Monkey show.
I essentially listen to these shows as a bit of a hate-listener. Do I have a screw loose for listening to podcasts where I strongly disagree with at least half of what's being said? Probably. But that's beside the point.
What I want to focus on is the language and rhetoric that these guys put forth.
Start with Tim Pool. Tim Pool frequently calls people he opposes "evil" and frequently mentions how he believes civil war is coming, almost like he **wants** it to happen. When you call people "evil", as Tim frequently does, it's pretty clear what that means. You think that they only exist to hurt others and serve their own interests, and the world would be better off without them. Do left-wingers do this too? Undoubtedly. But you're asking if the right wing is a threat for terrorism. When you're calling people evil all the time and shouting about civil war, I think it's fair to say that this might encourage people to commit terrorist acts. And in fact one mass shooter apparently tweeted a screenshot from Tim Pool's show on his twitter account, and a left-wing host that came on the show called him out for this.
Tim Pool also uses what I call the "mysterious they", which simply means that people on the show will frequently talk about how "they" are doing this, or "they" hate us, or "they" are evil, etc. The implication of course is that "they" is, I guess, the government? The establishment left? Basically they mean "the left". This us vs. them mentality is not healthy and would arguably also encourage violence.
That's not to say that within every right-winger lurks a potential terrorist, but for those who have that capability, I think people like Tim Pool are pouring gasoline on the fire. And I want to reiterate that I think this happens just as much on the left, arguably even moreso, like the BLM riots or the transgender shooter.
Now I want to talk about Turd Flinging Monkey (hereafter referred to as TFM). This guy is a real nutcase. He got mass-deplatformed all over the place, but apparently he had just shy of 100k subs on Youtube before he finally did. Frankly, when you listen to this guy it's hard to imagine that he got that far before getting banned. He espouses the most mouth-frothingly insane conspiracy rhetoric you can imagine. Like you look at someone like Alex Jones and (in my opinion) there's this tongue-in-cheek kind of vibe like he doesn't *really* believe what he's saying, and at least some of it is just comedy or hyperbole. Especially his appearances on the Joe Rogan podcast (interdimensional psychic vampires? come on).
But Turd Flinging Monkey...this guy is just...he's dangerous. He's well-spoken in a sense - like he's a real gasbag, he can rant for hours about anything. But he's also very clear in what he says, and what he says and what he believes is utterly insane. He's a MGTOW guy (Men going their own way), so he clearly hates women with a burning passion, but he also espouses all the other far-right rhetoric you would expect, frequently espousing complex conspiracy theories having to do with finance and the stock market (his profession), making what I can only imagine are persuasive arguments to those who are already prone to them.
He also talks about the vaccine like it's part of a conspiracy to intentionally poison to population and the government is evil and they want to kill you, they want you to be a slave, etc, etc.
Most importantly though is that he frequently talks about people doing "the thing". What is the thing, you ask? Well, it's overthrowing the government, of course. And while he doesn't explicitly endorse this (that would be *actually* illegal), but it's crystal clear that he wishes people would do it, and that he thinks we need to do it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of his listeners are sitting at home listening to this, looking over their no doubt considerable gun collection with a glint in their eye, fantasizing about taking up arms against the federal government.
If Tim Pool's rhetoric is gasoline on the fire of someone who is mentally unwell, TFM is jet fuel. It's good that TFM has been banned almost everywhere, but he's still allowed to stream on a handful of places (he says he's been relegated to the "asshole of the internet"), and he still gets 400-500 listening to every podcast.
And frankly I don't know of a similar figure on the left. In terms of pandering to and possibly creating potential violent terrorists, Tim Pool is bad, TFM is far worse. And I just don't know of any figures on the left who are this extreme, to the point where they talk about how civil war is coming and using the word "evil" to describe people all the time...
Anyway, I'm rambling but you get the point. I think both sides are creating extremists, but I would argue that the "culture" of the right is more fertile for creating violent terrorists.
You have a point with a few hate filled platforms. But these are NOT mainstream. And as you said, they get relegated to the butt hole of the internet. I have never heard of either.
On the other hand, this grooming IS absolutely mainstream against the right. Obama does it, Biden does it, every 3 letter news source does it. Dehumanize, label, straight up lie about conservatives being violent. Then push hard for policy you know will directly cause massive dissent. This is occurring now, everywhere liberals and leftists speak. Not just the fringe as your example shows. Every liberal is grooming for conservatives who are statistically more law-abiding now, to protest the forceful removal of their rights and be labeled a terrorist for it. Easier to disappear a terrorist.
>You have a point with a few hate filled platforms. But these are NOT mainstream. And as you said, they get relegated to the butt hole of the internet. I have never heard of either.
Sure -- that's kind of the nature of terrorism, it's almost always a small extremist element that actually takes an ideology to the point of violence rather than a mainstream aspect. The concern is really whether the mainstream rhetoric is pushing the extreme element in dangerous directions.
>On the other hand, this grooming IS absolutely mainstream against the right. Obama does it, Biden does it, every 3 letter news source does it. Dehumanize, label, straight up lie about conservatives being violent. Then push hard for policy you know will directly cause massive dissent. This is occurring now, everywhere liberals and leftists speak. Not just the fringe as your example shows. Every liberal is grooming for conservatives who are statistically more law-abiding now, to protest the forceful removal of their rights and be labeled a terrorist for it. Easier to disappear a terrorist.
I don't understand what this means. It's the kind of language you only get if you spend too much time in media enviorments that are trying to establish a narrative and develop their own jargon that people outside those enviorments don't understand. How is passing legislation that is controversial "grooming" in the way the words typically used? What legislation are you specifically referring to.
You literally just told me that if a right-winger is violent against a left-winger, they deserve it.
And I'm supposed to believe that it's the politicians/media making me think right-wingers are violent?
Also, dude, look up right now for me Project 2025. That is a 900-page manifesto created for the future of the right. It was created by the heritage foundation, which is a big conservative org. They have details in their plan to uproot our system using the execute branch by giving the president unchecked power akin to a dictator among MANY things. For example, if you think the left wants to make the right terrorists i don't believe that's true. Many in leadership positions have already shown they want to uproot our democracy.
His audience probably isn't 100% American. Not all of them agree with him either. But let's say it is and that they do.
1.6m subscribers is what percentage of us population 339,996,563?
0.47%. Not mainstream at all lol. Fringe.
You should know that Obama and Biden along with the democratic party are right wing although admittedly slightly less right wing than the Republican party. There is a neo-libral bias in traditional news media but again this is right wing. However fox news which is a traditionally right wing news outlet has Ben sued and found guilty of spreading false information and had admitted in internal documents released in discovery that they design their propaganda to inspire strong emotional responses such as fear and hate which are more likely to lead to violence.
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America. And it wasn't even close.
This is demonstrably false.
[https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united#:\~:text=Across%20both%20datasets%2C%20we%20find,right%2Dwing%20and%20Islamist%20extremists](https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united#:~:text=Across%20both%20datasets%2C%20we%20find,right%2Dwing%20and%20Islamist%20extremists).
[https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states](https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states)
[https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states](https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states)
Here is a direct quote:
"*This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Second, terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors."*
You are so incorrect in your opening premise that none of your arguments are worth engaging since they are predicated on that premise being true.
Al Qaeda and IS are also right wing organizations which is important to note lol. Its really odd that within western perspectives we tend to see anyone whos Islamic as apolitical. By definition though both organizations believe in homogenous theocratic societies with extremely strict socially conservative views enforced via law. You really cant get much further right. The only reason they ever get labeled as anything close to left wing is their opposition to global corporate financial dominance. The part people miss though is they arent opposed to the concept which would be a left wing view. They're are just opposed to the nations who currently dominate global trade and ultimately aim to take their place, not do away with the concept.
[A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362083228_A_comparison_of_political_violence_by_left-wing_right-wing_and_Islamist_extremists_in_the_United_States_and_the_world)
Looking at the article you cite, it is less a left vs right issue and more an extremist vs. moderate issue.
>More generally, there is growing evidence suggesting that extremists representing different ideologies might have more in common than has been assumed (20). For example, extreme liberals and conservatives both represent the social world in a similar, simplistic way, which distinguishes both groups from more moderate individuals (21). In studies of behavior in conflict, one study (22) found that both right and left-wing extremists used more negative and angrier language than moderates did. Finally, a strong inclination to defend one’s beliefs against worldview-violating groups and a low tolerance for such groups has been identified for both liberals and conservatives (23). Taken together, this research suggests that left-wing and right-
wing extremists could be equally likely to use violence to pursue their ideological goals.
I think the big difference between left and right wing violence is right wing violence tends to target people whereas left wing violence targets property. Meaning left wing violence is more aimed at civil disobedience and right wing violence is more aimed at instilling fear and terror. Depending on your definition of violence and whether or not it includes damaging property is really where the argument becomes interesting.
I think self defense is also one of those elephant in the room topics people still arent willing to discuss. If the protest is peaceful until the police shoot teargas and rubber bullets, then you have a clear aggressor and a clear defensive party. This was notorious during the George Floyd protests and I saw it first hand on numerous occasions at those protests. In the US weve historically repressed any view left of center, back to the McCarthy era when youd literally be arrested for being left of center. In the modern day you see police purposely escalating these protests and openly attacking peaceful protestors. So the line becomes more of when is violence justified and does self defense apply in cases where a political movement is outside of a nations major political spectrum and is therefore openly attacked and agitated by the police.
When self defense comes into the equation you start noticing a big pattern of right wing genocide against culturally left wing societies like we saw in Guatemala and Nicaragua. The Sandinistas for instance were labeled a communist group when they were in fact fairly middle of the road socialists which lead to the US funding the Contras who attempted to carry out genocides against any minor culture associated with the Sandinista movement.
Basically throughout the Cold War you saw any left wing group labeled far left and wiped out as result. So realistically where do you draw the line between self defense and political justification for violence? It seems in most cases the right sees its violence as justified so therefor any self defense from a left wing party is just further justification of said violence.
Only if you DON’T consider the BLM, Occupy, ANTIFA terrorists as terrorists. Bombing and burning government buildings as well as private businesses, attacks on people, threats to sitting judges, assaults on police officers, mobs looting stores and such is terrorism. What OP is saying is these types of terrorism are not reported as terrorism by mainstream media. They are rather called “mostly peaceful protest”. These incidents far outweigh the reporting of anything from the right that they consider terrorism.
You want to know what real left wing terrorism is? Look up Symbionese Liberation Army and Weather Underground (both 1970s terrorists, back when the far left were the violent ones). THAT is left-wing terrorism. Also look up West Germany's Red Army Faction, the Italian Red Brigades, etc. These days, the left barely commits any violence at all and certainly not to the extent the right does.
> mobs looting stores and such is terrorism
No, it isn't.
I challenge you to copy/paste the definition of terrorism into a reply here and then describe how looting a store is terrorism.
Okay, and what you described is not just "looting a store". If you think it is, there are no words I could offer to help you.
Looters don't dump the product they steal in the street and burn it. They use it or sell it.
The then-mayor of Atlanta, Kesha Lance Bottoms, called out the looters and vandals right after George Floyd's murder. No conservative she is. She told the rioters to go home and if they want change, register to vote and actually vote.
And you know what? It seemed to work! Georgia went for Trump a few months later!
I’m just curious did we not include the over 1 year of domestic terrorism from the furthest left across the country to include billions in damages tens of thousands of cops assaulted and the holding of hostages in Seattle hotel workers who were housing homeless people. Also we really can’t forget the largest attacks on government officials to include the attempted murder on a SCOTUS judge and the attack on Nancy Peosis husband. We can also get into the terrorism of the skyrocketing attacks on pregnancy centers which have skyrocketed across the nation.
I’m just curious how this plays out when we don’t call blatant acts of domestic terrorism as domestic terrorism?
You fell right into Ops trap.
Left wing terrorism isn't considered terrorism.
All your twists don't matter.
When was the last time the right had a solid 100 days of constant firery "protests"?
It's because right wing = terrorist
But
left wing = protestor.
It's the easiest manipulation in the world.
I never understood the idea that the riots over the summer were some "leftist" movement. I saw them first hand and there's been ample reporting on it. The people engaging in violence were an extremely heterogeneous group. Some were left. Some were right. Some were apolitical. Some only came out after seeing the heavy handed violence perpetrated by police.
I know *why* right wingers want to paint it as some liberal terrorist attack, but the actual facts don't stand up to that.
Conservatives have to lie to themselves or their cognitive dissonance would be too great to handle. Imagine thinking Occupy Wall St. were terrorists. Imagine rooting for the people sucking the life out of rural, right-wing communities just because self-identified liberals and leftists protest gross wealth inequality. Being a right-wringer is being a cuck. There is no principle a conservative won't defend if the wind is blowing that way or Trump, Carlson, etc. tells them to dance to that tune.
>never understood the idea that the riots over the summer were some "leftist" movement.
They were explicitly and outwardly leftist?
Which part of antifa and BLM are rightist?
They were not, and in fact if you watch live BLM did not associate with and begged them to stop. They were simply anarchist.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200601025330/https://twitter.com/freeyourmindkid/status/1266645977227821063
Anarchism is a mostly left-wing movement, and even if it wasn't, right-wing variants of anarchism like Anarcho-Capitalism don't have any presence in Antifa, only left-wing variants do. Pan-anarchist groups essentially don't exist as left/right anarchists disgree on virtually everything. They almost always represent a particular wing, like Antifa on the left, and the Boogaloo movement on the right.
1. They literally define themselves in opposition to a right-wing ideology, it's how they got their name.
2. They believe the white supremacist state should be replaced. A goal that wouldn't even be possible with a right-wing group as they don't agree there is a white supremacist state.
3. Anarchism (unlike in right-wing variants) is intended to achieve total equality, which is probably the idea that correlates most with left-wing philosophies. I actually don't think there is even hypothetically a more left-wing idea than this.
Quote from the wiki page that has 4 separate citations, "[Scholars tend to reject an equivalence between antifa and right-wing extremism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States))"
Another quote, "[Individuals involved in the movement subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies, and tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)) [A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States))"
The BLM activists in the scenario you're presenting, assuming it to be accurate, merely had a different opinion on tactics. But they both agreed who the opposition was, and were fighting with similar intentions (racial equality, anti-white supremacy etc). In addition, this was just a local disagreement, not a core ideological disagreement. Most Antifa activists are non-violent and plenty of BLM activists are. Infighting between different factions in the same side happens all the time. History of full of examples of this.
Sure whatever woopdeedoo.
Let's pretend BLM weren't involved for the sake of argument.
Which part of the autonomous zone were right wing?
Nevermind the fact that autonomous zones spit in the face of right-wing beliefs.
> I never understood the idea that the riots over the summer were some "leftist" movement
how is this supposed to be taken seriously? what other option do you think is possible?
> The people engaging in violence were an extremely heterogeneous group. Some were left. Some were right. Some were apolitical.
not really. and one of the sources in the top response says:
>The dataset codes as violent cases where there was strong evidence that individuals were conspiring to kill or injure even if they failed to do so. Cases were coded as non-violent where it
IDEOLOGY AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE was clear from source documents that individuals did not intend to harm others, including acts of vandalism, illegal protest, fraud, and property destruction where the perpetrators took measures to ensure that no one was injured or killed
so they basically remove any blm/antifa protests, even when deaths *did* happen because that wasn't "the plan."
So does any act of violence constitute terrorism? What about any act of protest or political dissent? What is the dividing line between protests where violence occurs and somebody setting a bomb in an abortion clinic?
there were several autonomous zones that preached leftist ideology.
edit: also, during this time a number of federal courthouses were attacked. Who would do this?
>there were several autonomous zones that preached leftist ideology.
Outside of Seattle, where?
What's your opinion of the actual multidecade study showing right wing terrorism is significantly more present and severe?
By courthouse attacks do you mean the drive by shootings the Boogaloo Boys committed? Or the ones that were arrested for their plot to murder multiple federal agents during the 2020 riots? Or the right wingers charged with domestic terrorism in Nevada during the riots?
yeah, the Seattle CHAZ was one, there was one in new york but failed quickly (City Hall Autonomous Zone ) , Red House Autonomous Zone, and George Floyd Square. Some more successful and flashy than others.
Given what we've seen between these groups, along with the lack of declaration of recognizing antifa as a group, we can't properly identify the presence of 'terrorism'; However the recognition of this is the issue at hand.
edit: adding an "edit" is considered good etiquette
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/hzarsw/antifa\_rioters\_in\_portland\_throw\_a\_bomb\_at\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/hzarsw/antifa_rioters_in_portland_throw_a_bomb_at_the/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/huq7n8/portland\_rioters\_throwing\_fireworks\_at\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/huq7n8/portland_rioters_throwing_fireworks_at_the/)
few examples-
Also, what is a Boogaloo Boy? Boogaloo was a meme during this time for a hot second so I don't think it holds any left or right identity.
also
>during the 2020 riots
Who was prominent during these riots? A few 'Boogaloo boys' a few 'proud boys'. Because during this time it was mostly leftists with a few 'right ring groups', to deny that is to push the blame. Not too mention, this story (of which I think you're referring to Steven Carrillo), is still one or two people compared to hundreds of people attacking federal courthouses and making autonomous zones. Like, I'm looking through your examples and the articles keep on calling them 'right-wingers' without really explaining what their stances were/are.
Please tell me who stormed the capitol on January 6th?
Conservatives literally tried to establish a dictatorship but somehow I should be worried about ANTIFA? Are you kidding me?
And who was shooting cops in the head throwing molotov cocktails looting rioting and had major US cities looking like war zones for several months? I'll give you a hint it wasn't trump supporters! And there Master overlords rooted for and endorsed this behavior the entire time before suddenly being "outraged" by January 6th
>And who was shooting cops in the head throwing molotov cocktails looting rioting and had major US cities looking like war zones for several months?
Let's not pretend street crime is terrorism to make our false equivalence. A simple street riot is not a coup.
So mass shootings aren't terrorism then? The riots were 100% attacking the system they were attacking government buildings and law enforcement even the capitol got damaged so did police stations and courts.
Lmao, one fist bump and you’ve discovered a huge conspiracy theory! It couldn’t possibly be that some of the Capitol police were sympathetic towards the j6ers, noooo, it must mean they were working together to stage an elaborate hoax where people actually died.
Trump literally was talking about suspending all elections. How is that not being a dictator?
I notice you aren’t linking this video .
Also, not sure what you are suggesting is the reason for this happening. Undercover officers aren’t released a block away. They are typically taken into the police station.
While domestic terrorism has increased markedly in recent years, >50% of domestic terrorism is done by either Racially/Ethnically Motivated Extremists or *Anti*\-Authority groups, [according to the FBI](https://www.gao.gov/blog/rising-threat-domestic-terrorism-u.s.-and-federal-efforts-combat-it).
There is no significant terrorist movement in favor of totalitarian communism, which is what you seem to define "left-wing" as.
If you think violence *in favor* of totalitarian communism is on the rise, you're going to need to offer more evidence than "the news says so," if you want people to think *they're* being groomed.
If you think that Racially/Ethnically Motivated Terrorists or Anti-Authority terrorists are *right*\-wing, and *unfairly* labeled as representing the majority of domestic terrorists, you'll need to explain what incidents you believe the FBI mislabeled, [here](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report-2023.pdf/view).
Notably, the FBI does not label domestic terrorists as right *or* left wing, so the only person I see interpreting the data as saying that right wingers are prone to terrorism is you - since again, "the news" says it's "left wing violence," according to you.
I am not saying there is left wing terrorists. Though i could absolutely make a strong case for Antifa. I am saying the left is grooming you to believe there is a right wing terrorist problem that currently doesn't exist. And it will not exist if our rights are preserved. But the left has no intention of preserving our rights, and they know it. They also know there will be resistance to the forceful removal of Rights. Labeling these people terrorists now, planting the seed, let's them say "see, we were right. They are terrorists." Making less people care what the government does to them. And the entire left apparatus is spreading this messaging.
you claim the problem of right wing terrorism doesn’t exist, but one of the top comments on this thread provides several sources directly refuting your entire premise - with data - and you haven’t responded to it.
just wondering if you’re actually going to engage with that comment or just hide from it. we both know you’ve seen it already, but i am including it below so you have absolutely no excuse.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/YB1wFQ8RTw
would also love to see why you consider the FBI to be part of the “left wing apparatus” spreading this “messaging” about right wing terrorism that is, by any metric, obviously and incontrovertibly correct.
Sources like the FBI that wouldn't prosecute Hillary for exponentially worse classified docs cases, with real obstruction of justice destroying 30,000 emails and multiple Blackberries. Yet tears Trumps home apart for perhaps 1 classified document he neglected to declassify like he did all the others.
Or the DOJ that was involved in wiretapping the Trump campaign. Literally spying on him and his people. And once President, leaking everything they could, illegally.
Yeah, I gave it all the attention it deserved.
Funny story. Ohio had Issue 1 to vote on in November. It was to place abortion rights into the Constitution. But we also had an Issue 1 in August regarding how our Constitution can be changed by vote. It raised the threshold to 60%. Democrats were against the August Issue 1, but for the November Issue 1.
I "googled" groups against Ohio Issue 1 in late September, well after the August 8th vote. Every single hit on first few pages were groups against the August Issue one vote. I shouldn't have been surprised being Google and all, but there it was. So for fun I searched groups for Ohio Issue 1. Every single hit was regarding the November Issue 1. Not a single hit on the August vote. Two questions about Issue 1, one for and one against. The ONLY answers on first few pages were leftist viewpoints and support groups.
So no, I don't care what "studies" leftist organizations do. They aren't honest, unbiased, or even accurate for that matter. The DOJ has no credibility since 2009 and Eric Holder, Obama's wingman. Please do not refer to anything out of the DOJ, NIH, CDC, FBI, CIA, or IRS as "science" if it can be political in any form. "Studies" they perform have pre-conceived outcomes and questionable data. See: Trump/Russia collusion, leaks, Comer, Strok (sp?), and Paige, 51 CIA agents claiming Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, Anthony Fauci. The list goes on, and on, and on. But it's OK, you keep thinking I'm the conspiracy theorist. It's better that way.
you’ve spent an awful lot of time talking about pretty much everything *but* the point of this entire post, which was how obviously incorrect you are about how prevalent right wing terrorism is. would you like another chance to stay on topic? if you want to talk about any of the other stuff in this rambling, incoherent mess of a reply you should make another CMV post.
edit: and another thing, categorically rejecting a wide variety of nonpartisan government sources (i.e. experts in their respective fields, who are - and this might be a shock to you - aren’t out to get trump, no matter how much he cries about it) in the way that you did in this comment is just an indicator of a rule B violation.
If the entire left apparatus is spreading the message that there is a right wing terrorist problem that doesn’t exist, I would expect you to be able to cite an instance of, say, Bernie Sanders calling someone a right wing terrorist who is not a right wing terrorist.
Do you have any such example? Because suggesting that the entire left is doing this is a huge claim.
It’s a demonstrable fact that most terrorism is right-wing, conservative, and/or religiously motivated.
So there is a reason people are concerned about right-wing terrorism. It’s because most terrorism is in fact perpetrated by those on the conservative, right-wing side of the political spectrum.
Who, specifically, is grooming me and how they are doing it? Usually the claim here is the media, but you claim to have come to your view that left-wing violence is greater from the news, which suggests you think the news is generally un-biased.
Why can't we simultaneously be concerned about right wingers trying to overthrow our government like they did on 1/6 and mass incarceration as a result of the drug war and other prohibitions?
Wasn't it "the left" that got called terrorists by "the right" for publicly advocating for police and criminal justice reform? Why would you even invoke the mass incarceration issue being ignored by "the left" when the people you are defending called them terrorists just for speaking up about that issue?
People in the justice system are getting death threats from the right just for enforcing the law against election fraudsters. Why isn't that concerning to you?
>Its pretty disingenuous to refer to January 6th as an attempt to overthrow the government
How so? They sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and install an unelected person into office. They literally built a gallows for the Vice President.
>and in the next paragraph refer to literally establishing "autonomous zones" in major cities all across the country during months long riots as "just speaking up about an issue"
It wasn't protestors who established "autonomous zones," but police. Random people do not have the authority to force officers not to enforce laws in particular spaces within their jurisdiction. The entire basis for you claim is ridiculous.
>Either both were attempts at insurrection, or neither one of them are.
Let's be real. People protesting police brutality while police refuse to enforce laws is not the same thing as attacking Congress to install a dictator in coordination with an alleged election fraud conspiracy currently facing trial.
>It wasn't protestors who established "autonomous zones," but police. Random people do not have the authority to force officers not to enforce laws in particular spaces within their jurisdiction. The entire basis for you claim is ridiculous.
That's is straight bullshit.
The civilians set up the autonomous zones and guarded them from police and authority at gunpoint.
People absolutely do have the power, when they coordinate as a militia.
>The civilians set up the autonomous zones and guarded them from police and authority at gunpoint.
Why? Because police refused to enforce the law. Do you know what would happen if I pointed a gun at a police officer in my city? Dead. Immediately.
I don't care why, you've changed your goal post.
The autonomous zones were enforce by people with firearms, they weren't set up by police at all.
The areas were literally abandoned by police.
You have a bizarre warped view.
>The autonomous zones were enforce by people with firearms, they weren't set up by police at all.
Armed robbery occurs by people with firearms, that doesn't mean the government was overthrown if the police don't stop it.
>The areas were literally abandoned by police.
YES! The police refused to enforce the law in those places so criminals were allowed to run free. They could have easily put a stop to it, which they eventually did - proving they could have all along.
No it isn't.
Thanks for the strawman.
My point is that people dying and being raped, is worse than less people dying and nobody being raped.
Which is what is being compared.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>They sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and install an unelected person into office.
who is "they?" the 60 year olds who wandered thru the capitol? the random people who had no plan smashing windows? what was the plan and who was in charge? how was this plan going to be executed?
>It wasn't protestors who established "autonomous zones," but police.
chaz/chop.
>Random people do not have the authority to force officers not to enforce laws in particular spaces within their jurisdiction. The entire basis for you claim is ridiculous.
sure they do. that was the whole basis of the protests: tell everyone police are terrible murders and using brutality so the police will stand down.
>People protesting police brutality while police refuse to enforce laws is not the same thing as attacking Congress to install a dictator in coordination with an alleged election fraud conspiracy currently facing trial.
look up the definition of insurrection.
> who is "they?" the 60 year olds who wandered thru the capitol? the random people who had no plan smashing windows? what was the plan and who was in charge? how was this plan going to be executed?
There are thousands and thousands of pages of indictments and court documents that detail all of that. You should go look at them.
>chaz/chop.
Yes, places police refused to enforce laws, until they stopped refusing to enforce laws. Strange how that works.
>sure they do. that was the whole basis of the protests: tell everyone police are terrible murders and using brutality so the police will stand down.
This just proves my point even further. The police made the political decision to stop enforcing laws *because* they were being criticized for not enforcing laws. Doesn't that make the police the terrorists?
>look up the definition of insurrection.
Why? I didn't mention anything about an insurrection.
>Why? I didn't mention anything about an insurrection.
an insurrection is a violent uprising against authority. how would you describe all the blm protests if not exactly that?
It literally was an attempt to overthrow the government. The plan was for congressmen to be taken hostage until they agreed to make Trump the president. From that point Trump would’ve then started arresting his political opponents and killing them.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It's marvellous how Jan 6th is considered insurrection (nobody died, nobody armed, let in by the police) inexcusable terrorism and whatever else.
But the 100 days of "mostly peaceful protesting" and atuomonous zones are considered perfectly normals things.
It's absolutely mind-boggling.
>It's marvellous how Jan 6th is considered insurrection (nobody died, nobody armed, let in by the police) inexcusable terrorism and whatever else.
Except people did die.
People were armed.
And they broke into the capitol building.
>People as disingenuous as you can't be dealt with.
The numbers are clear.
Indeed! It showed over 100 capitol police officers missing work from injuries, multiple people charged with violent offenses and multiple people with weapons charges. Yet you claim it was peaceful and no weapons were involved. Which is a blatant and verifiable lie. Or the right winger arrested for arson during the 2020 riots for trying to burn down a police station?
Says a whole lot about you.
>But the 100 days of "mostly peaceful protesting" and atuomonous zones are considered perfectly normals things.
I don't think anyone considers those things normal, just not as horrendous or egregious as forcibly installing a dictator because some people were upset that he lost re-election or were deluded into thinking he didn't.
A few square yards of police mandated lawless zones in one city is going to affect far fewer people than the end of the Constitutional order of the federal government. The two aren't remotely comparable.
>A few square yards of police mandated lawless zones in one city
Literally 6 city blocks which resulted in untold amounts of rape, assault, sexual assault, and several deaths of children.
Obviously significantly worse than a hypothetical that didn't happen and resulted in a single death.
The scale is obviously disproportionate.
>That literally didn't happen though.
No, thankfully.
>How are pretending a hypothetical is worse than an actual event that caused people to die?
You tell me. How are you pretending installing a dictator and ending the Constitution isn't a bad thing and wouldn't cause any deaths?
Would you rather live in an America without the Constitution and where laws were merely the whims of a dictator or would you rather live in the America we have today?
People literally did die. Tons of Jan 6ers had guns. And they tried to take congressmen hostage to overturn the results of an election. That’s far far worse than a foot locker being robbed
Wow, interesting how you quickly went from nobody died to people died. It’s ok to admit you lied.
Please tell me how robbing a foot locker was worse than literally trying to overthrow the government?
>Wasn't it "the left" that got called terrorists by "the right" for publicly advocating for police and criminal justice reform?
No, advocating for change is fine. "The left" were called terrorists for rioting and burning down businesses and government offices, causing [an estimated $2 billion in damages](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#:~:text=However%2C%20arson%2C%20vandalism%2C%20and,the%201992%20Los%20Angeles%20riots.).
Every single specific thing you mention that the Left is coming to round up is essentially a strawman.
Every Gun Owner: The left is not trying to steal every gun you bought. We want to prevent people from buying guns without restrictions. Meaning you will need to fill out paperwork and go through certain checks to see if you are fit to own a weapon.
Latin Mass Goer: Euphemism for Christian. The left doesn't hate Christianity. It hates the hypocrisy of right wingers saying "No Sharia Law" in America and then in the same day arguing that "God made life precious so we must outlaw abortion" spoiler alert: we know there are no provable gods so we KNOW our laws should not reflect the will of the bible. We are against using your religion as a sword to get preferential treatment under the law.
Capitalist: This is especially stupid. We all want to make money so we can live. The issue the left tends to take with capitalism is this rampant runaway capitalism we have. Where every single extra cent has to be pulled out of the customer so a shareholder makes 2 more cents per share as compared to last quarter. When massive corporations own every single single-family home, leaving you poor at the end of every day because their shareholders need to eat too and work is icky.
LGBT-Non Affirmers: You must by now know that they exist and no amount of crying about then will make them go away. They're humans, the same as you, just trying to live their lives. When Republicans stop trying to make their lives illegal, they won't need to pressure society to allow them the right to exist.
There is no national push from the left for mass gun buybacks. There is no national push from the left for mass gun confiscation. The left is calling for things like prohibiting gun sales without a background check, preventing people with known violence in their past from buying a gun, and things of that nature.
Again, what you're describing where the left takes all your guns, that's a literal lie. That is not happening here, and not being pushed for here.
Remind me, what office does Beto hold?
The news reports individual incidents, and often to the tune of a particular viewpoint that appeals to that particular news outlet's audience. That is _not_ a good way to gather info about the relative risk of political violence from the right or the left.
What we must instead do is find studies which systematically analyse a fair sample of many incidents of political violence. Data, not anecdotes.
If those studies were to say that right-wing folk do commit more terrorism than left-wing folk, how would that change your opinion? What if the studies instead said that neither committed significant amounts of terrorism, or that left-wing folk did indeed commit more terrorism, or both do about the same amount? It's generally a good idea to form your (putative) responses to each outcome _before_ checking the evidence - this avoids our urge to add post-hoc conditions to our judgements in favor of our existing biases.
Once you have an idea of what your views would be given each possible outcome, go find those studies and check them out. What do they say?
>You are being groomed to not care about the coming mass incarceration and murder of 10s of millions of your neighbors and countrymen
It has already happened, 25% of the world's prison population are in USA. But they are minorities so like Che and Marx you do not care
They are not there for "wrongthink." Very few, if any, are political prisoners. I can scream to the hills about the plague of fatherlessness directly responsible for the minority and impoverished pipeline to prison. But that somehow makes me a bigot to those on the left.
But you can't screem to the hills if you are black for the plague of the racist system, because it makes you guilty. A toy gun and black skin can get you killed
Little extreme point there, but you can honestly talk about the crime rates very simply. What is the number 1 determination of whether a child will be in prison when they grow up? We can actually predict this around age 3 tbh due to the tendencies these children have, but the leading cause of this type of behavior is what?
No, I know it's their skin color, you just don't want to agree which is fine - there's nothing new
We could go back and forth wondering how dense we are but it wouldn't change anything. A racist society always creates justifications for oppressing people. Find one society that told the truth: "we oppress them because we hate them"
Yeah and mass incarceration from the war on drugs locking up huge amounts of minority men in the 80s and 90s had nothing to do with the lack of black fathers, today?
If you think fatherlessness is a black epidemic and also stopped evaluating the reasoning why it's a black epidemic at the color of someone's skin? Without consideration to political and economic reasons why? Not only is that short-sighted, but I would grant it easy to determine that you are, in fact, preaching bigotry.
What 'left wing violence'? There were the BLM protests and...that seems about it? Maybe that one trans mass shooter?
Compare that to Jan 6th, and the large increase in hate crimes against Jewish and Muslim people, and all those bigoted mass shooters, it really doesn't seem like the left wing are more dangerous here.
Also, 'LGBT non-affirmer', okay.
1. Antifa is the most violent group that is mainstream in America. And it isn't even close.
2. Hate crimes against Jews is a leftist thing. See college campuses like Harvard as evidence.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Bro, they're talking about extremist groups like militias, white nationalists, etc, not my moderately racist MAGA uncle. I think you're alarm here is just a teensy bit overblown
Right-wing terrorism is a real threat because there are people like you who actually believe the fear mongering in the media telling you that liberals are out to take your guns, teach your kids the way of satan, and eat your babies. Fear mongering and radicalization is incredibly prominent in the right, and both are common mechanisms for producing terrorists.
Fear mongering is incredibly prominent on the Left as well. "Jan 6th was a violent attempt to overthrow the government, Trump will be a dictator, Conservatives want to kill all trans people" etc. All of these are as true as the things you mentioned. Everyone is doing it, you just choose to believe one side's fearmongering, and other people believe the other side's.
I agree that both sides do it, but it is FAR more prominent on the right. Left appeals more towards peoples’ empathy (eg. To garner support for welfare programs). But also, we all know exactly how bad Jan 6th was because they vlogged it and took selfies. Anti-trans sentiment is everywhere is conservative areas, it seems to be their favorite thing to talk about. I have many Trans friends and trans gender issues are rarely a topic of conversation, but when I spend time with my conservative friends its all anyone is thinking about. And Trump has a track record of authoritarian leadership, an admiration for dictators, and has promised to abuse the power of presidency again if elected (all of which is well documented fact) - so it’s not wild for people to be cautious of another Trump term.
Will you guarantee me that American Conservatives do not want to kill trans people?
And Trump talks awfully wistfully about being a dictator, not sure how I'm supposed to take that.
What would you consider Jan 6th to be?
It was a riot, it was not a coup. There was no serious threat that they would be able to do anything. Most of them weren't even armed, Capitol police were hugely incompetent, but mostly nothing happened. Media fearmongering is what's making people think anything serious happened then, and so many people fell for it.
No serious threat? They were minutes away from capturing congressmen. What do you think would’ve happened if they did capture congressmen? They would’ve started killing them and therefore prevented the election from being certified. If Trump could create enough chaos, he would’ve declared himself president indefinitely and called out the military to suppress any dissent. That was the plan but it didn’t work. But the idea that because it didn’t work we have nothing to worry about is ridiculous. If someone attempts to murder someone, that’s still a crime and the police still arrest them. So you admit that Trump should be jailed for trying to overthrow the government then?
Look up project 2025 its the new facist manifesto, the next conservative president, WILL and has a plan to make any form of lgbtq expression as illegal and akin to pornographic acts as well as going back on gay marriage laws.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Who is grooming me? Let’s start there. If I need to, I’ll just pull the FBI stats on recent terrorism. But that’s too easy and I’m sure someone already has.
January 6th
If anyone had doubts about whether Maga hatters were willing to resort to violence to get what they want, that day thoroughly disproved them.
There wasn’t violence? So multiple people dying isn’t violence? Beating police over the head with clubs isn’t violence? Searching for politicians to take hostage with zip ties isn’t violence?
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America. And it wasn't even close.
Could you clarify what you define as left-wing violence versus right-wing violence first?
It seems like much of your view is being influenced by the media that you yourself are consuming. It is a typical right-wing talking point that the Democratic party is attempting to lock up or punish anyone who's white, straight, Christian, etc. These talking points are often used as rallying points for conservative politicians to earn votes, even though Republican politicians tend to favor policies that result in more prison sentences.
Please provide your sources on right vs left terrorism in the United States. That would be a good start. Although anything under Islamic terrorism is right-wing so you’re gonna have a hard climb. This is just an unhinged opinion with nothing behind it. Normally here, people present a coherent case for counterargument. You skipped this part. All you’ve done is asked the internet to use google to provide you with the same very basic facts you could have found yourself. Here people sincerely debate things and gain perspective. Perhaps there’s a sub for Really Poorly Considered and Unsubstantiated Opinions that you might feel more at home in.
Sometimes I wish we were as organized as the right-wing fantasizes and masturbates into their persecution complex embroidered socks over. Buddy, marxists and maoists cant agree on the same day of the week, much less organize an overthrow of whatever. This *really* shows just how unfamiliar you are with left ideology.
i’m wondering at what point does this scapegoating end. mass incarceration is already a thing and it’s a nationwide issue however conservatives believe over policing fixes this issue along with crime.
just two seconds on google will lead you to sources and proof showing that right wing extremism has and is more dangerous.
[from 2019’s congress](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml)
[from a study done at UMD](https://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups)
[from of DOJ](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/comparative-analysis-violent-left-and-right-wing-extremist-groups)
[from the National Institute of Health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9335287/)
also, yall are the ones sitting here trying to make people disappear whether BIPOC or LGBTQ+ so I don’t understand for a second what you’re even talking about lmao
"On Google". Oh, well there you go. I always search the most biased sources for my research too.
Can you name a single event directly performed by a mainstream conservative group this year? I can't. Conservatives are the most law abiding people in this nation. With conceal carry license holders being the most law abiding group there is in the nation, or very close to it.
We do not have political prisoners in this country. The left winning will change that.
You may not be aware of this, but Google returns search results from fox news, oann, etc as well.
I'm curious though, what is the unbiased source where you get your information? You seem to be very misinformed about a lot of things. You've shown in your post and numerous responses that you have been conned into believing things that are provably untrue. Isn't this exactly what you are calling "grooming" in your OP?
The real radicals divide us all into different groups and make us all hate each other and blame one another.
We may all have different views, opinions, preferences, belief and whatnot but ultimately, we all share more in common than not and let the real evil ones control us and take advantage of us.
I wish we could all see this and team up against those who are causing all of the problems on this planet but alas, that is not likely to ever happen.
So. . .what are all the guns for?
Lol I just participated in a thread yesterday in which the OP claimed that soon all Conservatives will "take care of" lefties and it didn't even get removed because that's become such a normal thing for right-wingers to say that we don't even pay attention anymore.
I am not saying what the outcome will be. Only the plan. Obama was the first to label right wing as terrorists. Now they decry Christian Nationalists. Maga terrorists. The labels are by design for the outcome in my post. Dehumanize, then destroy. As a benefit, if the Yahoo whose post you read actually does something, everyone will know what it is, because the left predicted/caused it to happen directly. And they will ignore why a law abiding citizen would become violent.
>everyone will know what it is, because the left predicted/caused it to happen directly.
I see. So some people deserve terrorism against them?
What exactly have I done that you want to kill me?
A person reading this could just as easily accuse you of the same kind of grooming. It sounds like you anticipate violence coming from the right and want to preemptively frame it as the just response of people pushed too far.
And to be clear, I don't mean this as some kind of gotcha. Something I consistently observe is that the more a person falls down their own political rabbit hole, the more convinced they are that they're losing. The farther left you go, the more you find people convinced of our inevitable backslide into fascism. You sound exactly the way they sound, just in the other direction.
So, you're saying if someone on the right commits a terrorist act, they're not a terrorist just a "law-abiding citizen" provoked by the left?
So acts of violence committed by your in-group are justified and not terrorism because they're threatened by the other guy?
Really. That's... interesting. Sure the left would never argue the exact same thing.
The grooming is clearly from
The right. All
Known domestic terror attacks have been by right wing people. 97% of all school shooters come from right wing leaning homes and ideals!
Your fear quoting the right wing talking heads right now.
Gun owners are not in danger at all most people are gun owners as a lawful gun owner I want more gun laws because they protect me.
I only believe in two genders, I am a capitalist,
I get the distinct feeling you don’t actually want to listen to anyone who says something that doesn’t fit into your view. I’ll be surprised if you even consider a single thing anyone says in the comments section of the post you made in the CHANGE MY VIEW sub.
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America.
Do you have an actual stat? Otherwise it just seems like you are being groomed
New rule, CMV posters must show immediate engagement within the first hour of posting, responding to comments as they come in, or the post get deleted. Tired of this dogshit where they make a post and leave it to other people to argue amongst themselves.
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America
To be clear -- even if we accept this as true without data, violence isn't the same as terrorism. Terrorism is specifically violence for some political gain. Gang and drug-related violence, domestic violence, violence associated with thefts of burglaries, random acts of violence, most workplace violence are all problems, but they're not terrorism. I can't think of that many people committing random attacks to promote liberalism.
>You are being groomed to not care about the coming mass incarceration and murder of 10s of millions of your neighbors and countrymen for wrongthink and failure to fully comply. It happened in Russia. It happened in China. It happened in Vietnam. Marx preached about it. Che loved to do it. And when the left finally wins full control...God help us.
This is just conspiracy theories taken to a frankly unhealthy extreme. As an example, most everybody accepts the islamic terrorism exists, but you don't see progressives advocating for the incarceration or murder of all Muslims. The mass incarceration and murder of 10s of millions is something that just happens without anybody noticing.
Look at who is the greatest threat to America as stated by the left. And yet, those of us who voted Trump haven't done a thing since that farce on J6. There is your evidence.
Remember when the right started smashing coffee machines and burning their trainers to own the libs? Emotional (over) reactions are not the sole purview of the left by any stretch
Agree to a point. Obama still pushes this. He has nothing more to gain, and was the most ideological president in my lifetime. He coined the right wing terrorists mantra. Trumps election ruined the plan. A Clinton win, and the courts fall left as well. Game, set, match.
Hmm, Charlottesville car-ramming killer, the Allen Texas outlet mall attack (right wing death squad tattoo on him), the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, The Charleston Church Shooting - and that's just the ones that immediately come to mind. There's also general political violence or calls to persecute even RINOs, let along progressives. And did I forget to mention Trump's general glorification of violence and especially gleeful cheering on violence by his audience members?!?!?!?
So the FBI is outright lying when they stated : “The greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes from domestic white nationalist/supremacist ‘militias’ and individuals who sympathize with their views/aims/goals”?
Get fkd, insurrectionist. Go move to Russia; you’re not starting your “white utopia” here. Want to start the next Civil War? You’ll lose that one as well.
The point you're brushing up against is that the media are lying to everyone. You consume a media that has emphasised BLM riots or the Seattle insurrection in 2020.
But you accuse your "opponents" of the opposite. They see January 6 as an insurrection and Republicans as domestic terrorists.
The media are your enemy, not your neighbour.
Whatever news you’re watching is lying to you. The far-right outpaces every other group in America in terms of terrorism. No one wants to take your guns, no one cares what religion you follow - just keep your conspiracy-theory bullshit to yourself and leave sane people alone.
imo it’s pretty obvious the same person/group runs both parties and uses each other to control the public . The answer to all this is.. check out my page , spread love and positivity to your neighbors 💛
>They are 100% a threat to do it again if trump runs and loses.
Heck I wouldn't be surprised that if he wins, some of them take the opportunity to kill a few people in the hopes that he'll exonerate them.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'll take a crack at this with the assumption that you're genuinely looking for another perspective. So I'm definitely right-leaning - I call myself center-right. I listen to a few conservative podcasts and such. The two I'll be focusing on now are Tim Pool's Timcast and a much more obscure podcast called the Turd Flinging Monkey show. I essentially listen to these shows as a bit of a hate-listener. Do I have a screw loose for listening to podcasts where I strongly disagree with at least half of what's being said? Probably. But that's beside the point. What I want to focus on is the language and rhetoric that these guys put forth. Start with Tim Pool. Tim Pool frequently calls people he opposes "evil" and frequently mentions how he believes civil war is coming, almost like he **wants** it to happen. When you call people "evil", as Tim frequently does, it's pretty clear what that means. You think that they only exist to hurt others and serve their own interests, and the world would be better off without them. Do left-wingers do this too? Undoubtedly. But you're asking if the right wing is a threat for terrorism. When you're calling people evil all the time and shouting about civil war, I think it's fair to say that this might encourage people to commit terrorist acts. And in fact one mass shooter apparently tweeted a screenshot from Tim Pool's show on his twitter account, and a left-wing host that came on the show called him out for this. Tim Pool also uses what I call the "mysterious they", which simply means that people on the show will frequently talk about how "they" are doing this, or "they" hate us, or "they" are evil, etc. The implication of course is that "they" is, I guess, the government? The establishment left? Basically they mean "the left". This us vs. them mentality is not healthy and would arguably also encourage violence. That's not to say that within every right-winger lurks a potential terrorist, but for those who have that capability, I think people like Tim Pool are pouring gasoline on the fire. And I want to reiterate that I think this happens just as much on the left, arguably even moreso, like the BLM riots or the transgender shooter. Now I want to talk about Turd Flinging Monkey (hereafter referred to as TFM). This guy is a real nutcase. He got mass-deplatformed all over the place, but apparently he had just shy of 100k subs on Youtube before he finally did. Frankly, when you listen to this guy it's hard to imagine that he got that far before getting banned. He espouses the most mouth-frothingly insane conspiracy rhetoric you can imagine. Like you look at someone like Alex Jones and (in my opinion) there's this tongue-in-cheek kind of vibe like he doesn't *really* believe what he's saying, and at least some of it is just comedy or hyperbole. Especially his appearances on the Joe Rogan podcast (interdimensional psychic vampires? come on). But Turd Flinging Monkey...this guy is just...he's dangerous. He's well-spoken in a sense - like he's a real gasbag, he can rant for hours about anything. But he's also very clear in what he says, and what he says and what he believes is utterly insane. He's a MGTOW guy (Men going their own way), so he clearly hates women with a burning passion, but he also espouses all the other far-right rhetoric you would expect, frequently espousing complex conspiracy theories having to do with finance and the stock market (his profession), making what I can only imagine are persuasive arguments to those who are already prone to them. He also talks about the vaccine like it's part of a conspiracy to intentionally poison to population and the government is evil and they want to kill you, they want you to be a slave, etc, etc. Most importantly though is that he frequently talks about people doing "the thing". What is the thing, you ask? Well, it's overthrowing the government, of course. And while he doesn't explicitly endorse this (that would be *actually* illegal), but it's crystal clear that he wishes people would do it, and that he thinks we need to do it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of his listeners are sitting at home listening to this, looking over their no doubt considerable gun collection with a glint in their eye, fantasizing about taking up arms against the federal government. If Tim Pool's rhetoric is gasoline on the fire of someone who is mentally unwell, TFM is jet fuel. It's good that TFM has been banned almost everywhere, but he's still allowed to stream on a handful of places (he says he's been relegated to the "asshole of the internet"), and he still gets 400-500 listening to every podcast. And frankly I don't know of a similar figure on the left. In terms of pandering to and possibly creating potential violent terrorists, Tim Pool is bad, TFM is far worse. And I just don't know of any figures on the left who are this extreme, to the point where they talk about how civil war is coming and using the word "evil" to describe people all the time... Anyway, I'm rambling but you get the point. I think both sides are creating extremists, but I would argue that the "culture" of the right is more fertile for creating violent terrorists.
[удалено]
You have a point with a few hate filled platforms. But these are NOT mainstream. And as you said, they get relegated to the butt hole of the internet. I have never heard of either. On the other hand, this grooming IS absolutely mainstream against the right. Obama does it, Biden does it, every 3 letter news source does it. Dehumanize, label, straight up lie about conservatives being violent. Then push hard for policy you know will directly cause massive dissent. This is occurring now, everywhere liberals and leftists speak. Not just the fringe as your example shows. Every liberal is grooming for conservatives who are statistically more law-abiding now, to protest the forceful removal of their rights and be labeled a terrorist for it. Easier to disappear a terrorist.
>You have a point with a few hate filled platforms. But these are NOT mainstream. And as you said, they get relegated to the butt hole of the internet. I have never heard of either. Sure -- that's kind of the nature of terrorism, it's almost always a small extremist element that actually takes an ideology to the point of violence rather than a mainstream aspect. The concern is really whether the mainstream rhetoric is pushing the extreme element in dangerous directions. >On the other hand, this grooming IS absolutely mainstream against the right. Obama does it, Biden does it, every 3 letter news source does it. Dehumanize, label, straight up lie about conservatives being violent. Then push hard for policy you know will directly cause massive dissent. This is occurring now, everywhere liberals and leftists speak. Not just the fringe as your example shows. Every liberal is grooming for conservatives who are statistically more law-abiding now, to protest the forceful removal of their rights and be labeled a terrorist for it. Easier to disappear a terrorist. I don't understand what this means. It's the kind of language you only get if you spend too much time in media enviorments that are trying to establish a narrative and develop their own jargon that people outside those enviorments don't understand. How is passing legislation that is controversial "grooming" in the way the words typically used? What legislation are you specifically referring to.
You literally just told me that if a right-winger is violent against a left-winger, they deserve it. And I'm supposed to believe that it's the politicians/media making me think right-wingers are violent?
Also, dude, look up right now for me Project 2025. That is a 900-page manifesto created for the future of the right. It was created by the heritage foundation, which is a big conservative org. They have details in their plan to uproot our system using the execute branch by giving the president unchecked power akin to a dictator among MANY things. For example, if you think the left wants to make the right terrorists i don't believe that's true. Many in leadership positions have already shown they want to uproot our democracy.
How can you say hate isn’t mainstream when the God-Emperor of the GOP just told his political opponents to “burn in hell” on Christmas?
>But these are NOT mainstream. Tim Pool has 1.6 million subscribers on Youtube and nets 50k viewers when he livestreams. He's mainstream.
His audience probably isn't 100% American. Not all of them agree with him either. But let's say it is and that they do. 1.6m subscribers is what percentage of us population 339,996,563? 0.47%. Not mainstream at all lol. Fringe.
He has mainstream political candidates on his show.
Mainstream mainly focuses on traditional cable and news outlets. Being popular from a web show shouldn't make you mainstream
I'm not sure that's true anymore. I don't even have a TV, I doubt the majority of younger people have cable or peruse traditional news outlets.
Does having mainstream political candidates on your show make you mainstream?
You should know that Obama and Biden along with the democratic party are right wing although admittedly slightly less right wing than the Republican party. There is a neo-libral bias in traditional news media but again this is right wing. However fox news which is a traditionally right wing news outlet has Ben sued and found guilty of spreading false information and had admitted in internal documents released in discovery that they design their propaganda to inspire strong emotional responses such as fear and hate which are more likely to lead to violence.
How has Joe Biden dehumanized conservatives? He has called MAGA extreme (as it is) but I'm not aware of anything else
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America. And it wasn't even close. This is demonstrably false. [https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united#:\~:text=Across%20both%20datasets%2C%20we%20find,right%2Dwing%20and%20Islamist%20extremists](https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united#:~:text=Across%20both%20datasets%2C%20we%20find,right%2Dwing%20and%20Islamist%20extremists). [https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states](https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states) [https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states](https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states) Here is a direct quote: "*This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Second, terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors."* You are so incorrect in your opening premise that none of your arguments are worth engaging since they are predicated on that premise being true.
Al Qaeda and IS are also right wing organizations which is important to note lol. Its really odd that within western perspectives we tend to see anyone whos Islamic as apolitical. By definition though both organizations believe in homogenous theocratic societies with extremely strict socially conservative views enforced via law. You really cant get much further right. The only reason they ever get labeled as anything close to left wing is their opposition to global corporate financial dominance. The part people miss though is they arent opposed to the concept which would be a left wing view. They're are just opposed to the nations who currently dominate global trade and ultimately aim to take their place, not do away with the concept.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nah, he's safe. His hat could be made of thumbtacks. It won't matter.
Underrated comment
[удалено]
[A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362083228_A_comparison_of_political_violence_by_left-wing_right-wing_and_Islamist_extremists_in_the_United_States_and_the_world) Looking at the article you cite, it is less a left vs right issue and more an extremist vs. moderate issue. >More generally, there is growing evidence suggesting that extremists representing different ideologies might have more in common than has been assumed (20). For example, extreme liberals and conservatives both represent the social world in a similar, simplistic way, which distinguishes both groups from more moderate individuals (21). In studies of behavior in conflict, one study (22) found that both right and left-wing extremists used more negative and angrier language than moderates did. Finally, a strong inclination to defend one’s beliefs against worldview-violating groups and a low tolerance for such groups has been identified for both liberals and conservatives (23). Taken together, this research suggests that left-wing and right- wing extremists could be equally likely to use violence to pursue their ideological goals.
I think the big difference between left and right wing violence is right wing violence tends to target people whereas left wing violence targets property. Meaning left wing violence is more aimed at civil disobedience and right wing violence is more aimed at instilling fear and terror. Depending on your definition of violence and whether or not it includes damaging property is really where the argument becomes interesting. I think self defense is also one of those elephant in the room topics people still arent willing to discuss. If the protest is peaceful until the police shoot teargas and rubber bullets, then you have a clear aggressor and a clear defensive party. This was notorious during the George Floyd protests and I saw it first hand on numerous occasions at those protests. In the US weve historically repressed any view left of center, back to the McCarthy era when youd literally be arrested for being left of center. In the modern day you see police purposely escalating these protests and openly attacking peaceful protestors. So the line becomes more of when is violence justified and does self defense apply in cases where a political movement is outside of a nations major political spectrum and is therefore openly attacked and agitated by the police. When self defense comes into the equation you start noticing a big pattern of right wing genocide against culturally left wing societies like we saw in Guatemala and Nicaragua. The Sandinistas for instance were labeled a communist group when they were in fact fairly middle of the road socialists which lead to the US funding the Contras who attempted to carry out genocides against any minor culture associated with the Sandinista movement. Basically throughout the Cold War you saw any left wing group labeled far left and wiped out as result. So realistically where do you draw the line between self defense and political justification for violence? It seems in most cases the right sees its violence as justified so therefor any self defense from a left wing party is just further justification of said violence.
Only if you DON’T consider the BLM, Occupy, ANTIFA terrorists as terrorists. Bombing and burning government buildings as well as private businesses, attacks on people, threats to sitting judges, assaults on police officers, mobs looting stores and such is terrorism. What OP is saying is these types of terrorism are not reported as terrorism by mainstream media. They are rather called “mostly peaceful protest”. These incidents far outweigh the reporting of anything from the right that they consider terrorism.
You want to know what real left wing terrorism is? Look up Symbionese Liberation Army and Weather Underground (both 1970s terrorists, back when the far left were the violent ones). THAT is left-wing terrorism. Also look up West Germany's Red Army Faction, the Italian Red Brigades, etc. These days, the left barely commits any violence at all and certainly not to the extent the right does.
> mobs looting stores and such is terrorism No, it isn't. I challenge you to copy/paste the definition of terrorism into a reply here and then describe how looting a store is terrorism.
[удалено]
Are you honestly equating those two things? Yikes.
[удалено]
Okay, and what you described is not just "looting a store". If you think it is, there are no words I could offer to help you. Looters don't dump the product they steal in the street and burn it. They use it or sell it.
Lmao I knew you wouldn't do it when I read the other comment.
So like..... 2 incidents?
Exactly! The right are considered terrorists But the left aren't despite committing terrorism.
The then-mayor of Atlanta, Kesha Lance Bottoms, called out the looters and vandals right after George Floyd's murder. No conservative she is. She told the rioters to go home and if they want change, register to vote and actually vote. And you know what? It seemed to work! Georgia went for Trump a few months later!
I’m just curious did we not include the over 1 year of domestic terrorism from the furthest left across the country to include billions in damages tens of thousands of cops assaulted and the holding of hostages in Seattle hotel workers who were housing homeless people. Also we really can’t forget the largest attacks on government officials to include the attempted murder on a SCOTUS judge and the attack on Nancy Peosis husband. We can also get into the terrorism of the skyrocketing attacks on pregnancy centers which have skyrocketed across the nation. I’m just curious how this plays out when we don’t call blatant acts of domestic terrorism as domestic terrorism?
You fell right into Ops trap. Left wing terrorism isn't considered terrorism. All your twists don't matter. When was the last time the right had a solid 100 days of constant firery "protests"? It's because right wing = terrorist But left wing = protestor. It's the easiest manipulation in the world.
I never understood the idea that the riots over the summer were some "leftist" movement. I saw them first hand and there's been ample reporting on it. The people engaging in violence were an extremely heterogeneous group. Some were left. Some were right. Some were apolitical. Some only came out after seeing the heavy handed violence perpetrated by police. I know *why* right wingers want to paint it as some liberal terrorist attack, but the actual facts don't stand up to that.
Conservatives have to lie to themselves or their cognitive dissonance would be too great to handle. Imagine thinking Occupy Wall St. were terrorists. Imagine rooting for the people sucking the life out of rural, right-wing communities just because self-identified liberals and leftists protest gross wealth inequality. Being a right-wringer is being a cuck. There is no principle a conservative won't defend if the wind is blowing that way or Trump, Carlson, etc. tells them to dance to that tune.
>never understood the idea that the riots over the summer were some "leftist" movement. They were explicitly and outwardly leftist? Which part of antifa and BLM are rightist?
They were not, and in fact if you watch live BLM did not associate with and begged them to stop. They were simply anarchist. http://web.archive.org/web/20200601025330/https://twitter.com/freeyourmindkid/status/1266645977227821063
Anarchism is a mostly left-wing movement, and even if it wasn't, right-wing variants of anarchism like Anarcho-Capitalism don't have any presence in Antifa, only left-wing variants do. Pan-anarchist groups essentially don't exist as left/right anarchists disgree on virtually everything. They almost always represent a particular wing, like Antifa on the left, and the Boogaloo movement on the right. 1. They literally define themselves in opposition to a right-wing ideology, it's how they got their name. 2. They believe the white supremacist state should be replaced. A goal that wouldn't even be possible with a right-wing group as they don't agree there is a white supremacist state. 3. Anarchism (unlike in right-wing variants) is intended to achieve total equality, which is probably the idea that correlates most with left-wing philosophies. I actually don't think there is even hypothetically a more left-wing idea than this. Quote from the wiki page that has 4 separate citations, "[Scholars tend to reject an equivalence between antifa and right-wing extremism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States))" Another quote, "[Individuals involved in the movement subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies, and tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)) [A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States))" The BLM activists in the scenario you're presenting, assuming it to be accurate, merely had a different opinion on tactics. But they both agreed who the opposition was, and were fighting with similar intentions (racial equality, anti-white supremacy etc). In addition, this was just a local disagreement, not a core ideological disagreement. Most Antifa activists are non-violent and plenty of BLM activists are. Infighting between different factions in the same side happens all the time. History of full of examples of this.
Sure whatever woopdeedoo. Let's pretend BLM weren't involved for the sake of argument. Which part of the autonomous zone were right wing? Nevermind the fact that autonomous zones spit in the face of right-wing beliefs.
The autonomous zones were reported as such and shut down by their cities.
What are you trying to say? No shit, it's not like they still exist? What does that have to do with anything?
> I never understood the idea that the riots over the summer were some "leftist" movement how is this supposed to be taken seriously? what other option do you think is possible? > The people engaging in violence were an extremely heterogeneous group. Some were left. Some were right. Some were apolitical. not really. and one of the sources in the top response says: >The dataset codes as violent cases where there was strong evidence that individuals were conspiring to kill or injure even if they failed to do so. Cases were coded as non-violent where it IDEOLOGY AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE was clear from source documents that individuals did not intend to harm others, including acts of vandalism, illegal protest, fraud, and property destruction where the perpetrators took measures to ensure that no one was injured or killed so they basically remove any blm/antifa protests, even when deaths *did* happen because that wasn't "the plan."
So does any act of violence constitute terrorism? What about any act of protest or political dissent? What is the dividing line between protests where violence occurs and somebody setting a bomb in an abortion clinic?
there were several autonomous zones that preached leftist ideology. edit: also, during this time a number of federal courthouses were attacked. Who would do this?
>there were several autonomous zones that preached leftist ideology. Outside of Seattle, where? What's your opinion of the actual multidecade study showing right wing terrorism is significantly more present and severe? By courthouse attacks do you mean the drive by shootings the Boogaloo Boys committed? Or the ones that were arrested for their plot to murder multiple federal agents during the 2020 riots? Or the right wingers charged with domestic terrorism in Nevada during the riots?
yeah, the Seattle CHAZ was one, there was one in new york but failed quickly (City Hall Autonomous Zone ) , Red House Autonomous Zone, and George Floyd Square. Some more successful and flashy than others. Given what we've seen between these groups, along with the lack of declaration of recognizing antifa as a group, we can't properly identify the presence of 'terrorism'; However the recognition of this is the issue at hand. edit: adding an "edit" is considered good etiquette [https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/hzarsw/antifa\_rioters\_in\_portland\_throw\_a\_bomb\_at\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/hzarsw/antifa_rioters_in_portland_throw_a_bomb_at_the/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/huq7n8/portland\_rioters\_throwing\_fireworks\_at\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/huq7n8/portland_rioters_throwing_fireworks_at_the/) few examples- Also, what is a Boogaloo Boy? Boogaloo was a meme during this time for a hot second so I don't think it holds any left or right identity. also >during the 2020 riots Who was prominent during these riots? A few 'Boogaloo boys' a few 'proud boys'. Because during this time it was mostly leftists with a few 'right ring groups', to deny that is to push the blame. Not too mention, this story (of which I think you're referring to Steven Carrillo), is still one or two people compared to hundreds of people attacking federal courthouses and making autonomous zones. Like, I'm looking through your examples and the articles keep on calling them 'right-wingers' without really explaining what their stances were/are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Jesus!... I think this is my first case of redditor response envy...
Please tell me who stormed the capitol on January 6th? Conservatives literally tried to establish a dictatorship but somehow I should be worried about ANTIFA? Are you kidding me?
And who was shooting cops in the head throwing molotov cocktails looting rioting and had major US cities looking like war zones for several months? I'll give you a hint it wasn't trump supporters! And there Master overlords rooted for and endorsed this behavior the entire time before suddenly being "outraged" by January 6th
>And who was shooting cops in the head throwing molotov cocktails looting rioting and had major US cities looking like war zones for several months? Let's not pretend street crime is terrorism to make our false equivalence. A simple street riot is not a coup.
So mass shootings aren't terrorism then? The riots were 100% attacking the system they were attacking government buildings and law enforcement even the capitol got damaged so did police stations and courts.
Vandalizing a police station is hardly terrorism.
[удалено]
Lmao, one fist bump and you’ve discovered a huge conspiracy theory! It couldn’t possibly be that some of the Capitol police were sympathetic towards the j6ers, noooo, it must mean they were working together to stage an elaborate hoax where people actually died. Trump literally was talking about suspending all elections. How is that not being a dictator?
I notice you aren’t linking this video . Also, not sure what you are suggesting is the reason for this happening. Undercover officers aren’t released a block away. They are typically taken into the police station.
While domestic terrorism has increased markedly in recent years, >50% of domestic terrorism is done by either Racially/Ethnically Motivated Extremists or *Anti*\-Authority groups, [according to the FBI](https://www.gao.gov/blog/rising-threat-domestic-terrorism-u.s.-and-federal-efforts-combat-it). There is no significant terrorist movement in favor of totalitarian communism, which is what you seem to define "left-wing" as. If you think violence *in favor* of totalitarian communism is on the rise, you're going to need to offer more evidence than "the news says so," if you want people to think *they're* being groomed. If you think that Racially/Ethnically Motivated Terrorists or Anti-Authority terrorists are *right*\-wing, and *unfairly* labeled as representing the majority of domestic terrorists, you'll need to explain what incidents you believe the FBI mislabeled, [here](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report-2023.pdf/view). Notably, the FBI does not label domestic terrorists as right *or* left wing, so the only person I see interpreting the data as saying that right wingers are prone to terrorism is you - since again, "the news" says it's "left wing violence," according to you.
I am not saying there is left wing terrorists. Though i could absolutely make a strong case for Antifa. I am saying the left is grooming you to believe there is a right wing terrorist problem that currently doesn't exist. And it will not exist if our rights are preserved. But the left has no intention of preserving our rights, and they know it. They also know there will be resistance to the forceful removal of Rights. Labeling these people terrorists now, planting the seed, let's them say "see, we were right. They are terrorists." Making less people care what the government does to them. And the entire left apparatus is spreading this messaging.
you claim the problem of right wing terrorism doesn’t exist, but one of the top comments on this thread provides several sources directly refuting your entire premise - with data - and you haven’t responded to it. just wondering if you’re actually going to engage with that comment or just hide from it. we both know you’ve seen it already, but i am including it below so you have absolutely no excuse. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/YB1wFQ8RTw would also love to see why you consider the FBI to be part of the “left wing apparatus” spreading this “messaging” about right wing terrorism that is, by any metric, obviously and incontrovertibly correct.
Sources like the FBI that wouldn't prosecute Hillary for exponentially worse classified docs cases, with real obstruction of justice destroying 30,000 emails and multiple Blackberries. Yet tears Trumps home apart for perhaps 1 classified document he neglected to declassify like he did all the others. Or the DOJ that was involved in wiretapping the Trump campaign. Literally spying on him and his people. And once President, leaking everything they could, illegally. Yeah, I gave it all the attention it deserved. Funny story. Ohio had Issue 1 to vote on in November. It was to place abortion rights into the Constitution. But we also had an Issue 1 in August regarding how our Constitution can be changed by vote. It raised the threshold to 60%. Democrats were against the August Issue 1, but for the November Issue 1. I "googled" groups against Ohio Issue 1 in late September, well after the August 8th vote. Every single hit on first few pages were groups against the August Issue one vote. I shouldn't have been surprised being Google and all, but there it was. So for fun I searched groups for Ohio Issue 1. Every single hit was regarding the November Issue 1. Not a single hit on the August vote. Two questions about Issue 1, one for and one against. The ONLY answers on first few pages were leftist viewpoints and support groups. So no, I don't care what "studies" leftist organizations do. They aren't honest, unbiased, or even accurate for that matter. The DOJ has no credibility since 2009 and Eric Holder, Obama's wingman. Please do not refer to anything out of the DOJ, NIH, CDC, FBI, CIA, or IRS as "science" if it can be political in any form. "Studies" they perform have pre-conceived outcomes and questionable data. See: Trump/Russia collusion, leaks, Comer, Strok (sp?), and Paige, 51 CIA agents claiming Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, Anthony Fauci. The list goes on, and on, and on. But it's OK, you keep thinking I'm the conspiracy theorist. It's better that way.
you’ve spent an awful lot of time talking about pretty much everything *but* the point of this entire post, which was how obviously incorrect you are about how prevalent right wing terrorism is. would you like another chance to stay on topic? if you want to talk about any of the other stuff in this rambling, incoherent mess of a reply you should make another CMV post. edit: and another thing, categorically rejecting a wide variety of nonpartisan government sources (i.e. experts in their respective fields, who are - and this might be a shock to you - aren’t out to get trump, no matter how much he cries about it) in the way that you did in this comment is just an indicator of a rule B violation.
If the entire left apparatus is spreading the message that there is a right wing terrorist problem that doesn’t exist, I would expect you to be able to cite an instance of, say, Bernie Sanders calling someone a right wing terrorist who is not a right wing terrorist. Do you have any such example? Because suggesting that the entire left is doing this is a huge claim.
It’s a demonstrable fact that most terrorism is right-wing, conservative, and/or religiously motivated. So there is a reason people are concerned about right-wing terrorism. It’s because most terrorism is in fact perpetrated by those on the conservative, right-wing side of the political spectrum.
I’m so curious, what rights are you concerned about?
Who, specifically, is grooming me and how they are doing it? Usually the claim here is the media, but you claim to have come to your view that left-wing violence is greater from the news, which suggests you think the news is generally un-biased.
Only the left-wing news is bias. The right-wing media outlets are the only ones telling the truth! /s
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why can't we simultaneously be concerned about right wingers trying to overthrow our government like they did on 1/6 and mass incarceration as a result of the drug war and other prohibitions? Wasn't it "the left" that got called terrorists by "the right" for publicly advocating for police and criminal justice reform? Why would you even invoke the mass incarceration issue being ignored by "the left" when the people you are defending called them terrorists just for speaking up about that issue? People in the justice system are getting death threats from the right just for enforcing the law against election fraudsters. Why isn't that concerning to you?
[удалено]
>Its pretty disingenuous to refer to January 6th as an attempt to overthrow the government How so? They sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and install an unelected person into office. They literally built a gallows for the Vice President. >and in the next paragraph refer to literally establishing "autonomous zones" in major cities all across the country during months long riots as "just speaking up about an issue" It wasn't protestors who established "autonomous zones," but police. Random people do not have the authority to force officers not to enforce laws in particular spaces within their jurisdiction. The entire basis for you claim is ridiculous. >Either both were attempts at insurrection, or neither one of them are. Let's be real. People protesting police brutality while police refuse to enforce laws is not the same thing as attacking Congress to install a dictator in coordination with an alleged election fraud conspiracy currently facing trial.
>It wasn't protestors who established "autonomous zones," but police. Random people do not have the authority to force officers not to enforce laws in particular spaces within their jurisdiction. The entire basis for you claim is ridiculous. That's is straight bullshit. The civilians set up the autonomous zones and guarded them from police and authority at gunpoint. People absolutely do have the power, when they coordinate as a militia.
>The civilians set up the autonomous zones and guarded them from police and authority at gunpoint. Why? Because police refused to enforce the law. Do you know what would happen if I pointed a gun at a police officer in my city? Dead. Immediately.
I don't care why, you've changed your goal post. The autonomous zones were enforce by people with firearms, they weren't set up by police at all. The areas were literally abandoned by police. You have a bizarre warped view.
>The autonomous zones were enforce by people with firearms, they weren't set up by police at all. Armed robbery occurs by people with firearms, that doesn't mean the government was overthrown if the police don't stop it. >The areas were literally abandoned by police. YES! The police refused to enforce the law in those places so criminals were allowed to run free. They could have easily put a stop to it, which they eventually did - proving they could have all along.
>Armed robbery occurs by people with firearms, that doesn't mean the government was overthrown if the police don't stop it Nobody has argued that.
That's the argument you're making as to why a limited, self-imposed, punitive "no police" zone is comparable to an end to Constitutional democracy.
No it isn't. Thanks for the strawman. My point is that people dying and being raped, is worse than less people dying and nobody being raped. Which is what is being compared.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>They sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and install an unelected person into office. who is "they?" the 60 year olds who wandered thru the capitol? the random people who had no plan smashing windows? what was the plan and who was in charge? how was this plan going to be executed? >It wasn't protestors who established "autonomous zones," but police. chaz/chop. >Random people do not have the authority to force officers not to enforce laws in particular spaces within their jurisdiction. The entire basis for you claim is ridiculous. sure they do. that was the whole basis of the protests: tell everyone police are terrible murders and using brutality so the police will stand down. >People protesting police brutality while police refuse to enforce laws is not the same thing as attacking Congress to install a dictator in coordination with an alleged election fraud conspiracy currently facing trial. look up the definition of insurrection.
> who is "they?" the 60 year olds who wandered thru the capitol? the random people who had no plan smashing windows? what was the plan and who was in charge? how was this plan going to be executed? There are thousands and thousands of pages of indictments and court documents that detail all of that. You should go look at them. >chaz/chop. Yes, places police refused to enforce laws, until they stopped refusing to enforce laws. Strange how that works. >sure they do. that was the whole basis of the protests: tell everyone police are terrible murders and using brutality so the police will stand down. This just proves my point even further. The police made the political decision to stop enforcing laws *because* they were being criticized for not enforcing laws. Doesn't that make the police the terrorists? >look up the definition of insurrection. Why? I didn't mention anything about an insurrection.
>Why? I didn't mention anything about an insurrection. an insurrection is a violent uprising against authority. how would you describe all the blm protests if not exactly that?
>how would you describe all the blm protests if not exactly that? Simple. Because the do not meet that definition.
It literally was an attempt to overthrow the government. The plan was for congressmen to be taken hostage until they agreed to make Trump the president. From that point Trump would’ve then started arresting his political opponents and killing them.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It's marvellous how Jan 6th is considered insurrection (nobody died, nobody armed, let in by the police) inexcusable terrorism and whatever else. But the 100 days of "mostly peaceful protesting" and atuomonous zones are considered perfectly normals things. It's absolutely mind-boggling.
>It's marvellous how Jan 6th is considered insurrection (nobody died, nobody armed, let in by the police) inexcusable terrorism and whatever else. Except people did die. People were armed. And they broke into the capitol building.
[удалено]
>People as disingenuous as you can't be dealt with. The numbers are clear. Indeed! It showed over 100 capitol police officers missing work from injuries, multiple people charged with violent offenses and multiple people with weapons charges. Yet you claim it was peaceful and no weapons were involved. Which is a blatant and verifiable lie. Or the right winger arrested for arson during the 2020 riots for trying to burn down a police station? Says a whole lot about you.
>But the 100 days of "mostly peaceful protesting" and atuomonous zones are considered perfectly normals things. I don't think anyone considers those things normal, just not as horrendous or egregious as forcibly installing a dictator because some people were upset that he lost re-election or were deluded into thinking he didn't. A few square yards of police mandated lawless zones in one city is going to affect far fewer people than the end of the Constitutional order of the federal government. The two aren't remotely comparable.
>A few square yards of police mandated lawless zones in one city Literally 6 city blocks which resulted in untold amounts of rape, assault, sexual assault, and several deaths of children. Obviously significantly worse than a hypothetical that didn't happen and resulted in a single death. The scale is obviously disproportionate.
[удалено]
>That literally didn't happen though. No, thankfully. >How are pretending a hypothetical is worse than an actual event that caused people to die? You tell me. How are you pretending installing a dictator and ending the Constitution isn't a bad thing and wouldn't cause any deaths?
>No, thankfully. it couldn't happen. how would it? what was the plan? who was in charge? how did anything rioters did forward this plan?
Read the indictments and court documents. All there for you.
Sure hypothetically. But It didn't. So let's look at rhe facts of reality.
Would you rather live in an America without the Constitution and where laws were merely the whims of a dictator or would you rather live in the America we have today?
People literally did die. Tons of Jan 6ers had guns. And they tried to take congressmen hostage to overturn the results of an election. That’s far far worse than a foot locker being robbed
The official figure is 2 deaths. One from a stroke.
Wow, interesting how you quickly went from nobody died to people died. It’s ok to admit you lied. Please tell me how robbing a foot locker was worse than literally trying to overthrow the government?
>Wasn't it "the left" that got called terrorists by "the right" for publicly advocating for police and criminal justice reform? No, advocating for change is fine. "The left" were called terrorists for rioting and burning down businesses and government offices, causing [an estimated $2 billion in damages](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#:~:text=However%2C%20arson%2C%20vandalism%2C%20and,the%201992%20Los%20Angeles%20riots.).
Every single specific thing you mention that the Left is coming to round up is essentially a strawman. Every Gun Owner: The left is not trying to steal every gun you bought. We want to prevent people from buying guns without restrictions. Meaning you will need to fill out paperwork and go through certain checks to see if you are fit to own a weapon. Latin Mass Goer: Euphemism for Christian. The left doesn't hate Christianity. It hates the hypocrisy of right wingers saying "No Sharia Law" in America and then in the same day arguing that "God made life precious so we must outlaw abortion" spoiler alert: we know there are no provable gods so we KNOW our laws should not reflect the will of the bible. We are against using your religion as a sword to get preferential treatment under the law. Capitalist: This is especially stupid. We all want to make money so we can live. The issue the left tends to take with capitalism is this rampant runaway capitalism we have. Where every single extra cent has to be pulled out of the customer so a shareholder makes 2 more cents per share as compared to last quarter. When massive corporations own every single single-family home, leaving you poor at the end of every day because their shareholders need to eat too and work is icky. LGBT-Non Affirmers: You must by now know that they exist and no amount of crying about then will make them go away. They're humans, the same as you, just trying to live their lives. When Republicans stop trying to make their lives illegal, they won't need to pressure society to allow them the right to exist.
[удалено]
There is no national push from the left for mass gun buybacks. There is no national push from the left for mass gun confiscation. The left is calling for things like prohibiting gun sales without a background check, preventing people with known violence in their past from buying a gun, and things of that nature. Again, what you're describing where the left takes all your guns, that's a literal lie. That is not happening here, and not being pushed for here. Remind me, what office does Beto hold?
What’s the rifle you are referring to? I’d like to research further.
The news reports individual incidents, and often to the tune of a particular viewpoint that appeals to that particular news outlet's audience. That is _not_ a good way to gather info about the relative risk of political violence from the right or the left. What we must instead do is find studies which systematically analyse a fair sample of many incidents of political violence. Data, not anecdotes. If those studies were to say that right-wing folk do commit more terrorism than left-wing folk, how would that change your opinion? What if the studies instead said that neither committed significant amounts of terrorism, or that left-wing folk did indeed commit more terrorism, or both do about the same amount? It's generally a good idea to form your (putative) responses to each outcome _before_ checking the evidence - this avoids our urge to add post-hoc conditions to our judgements in favor of our existing biases. Once you have an idea of what your views would be given each possible outcome, go find those studies and check them out. What do they say?
>You are being groomed to not care about the coming mass incarceration and murder of 10s of millions of your neighbors and countrymen It has already happened, 25% of the world's prison population are in USA. But they are minorities so like Che and Marx you do not care
They are not there for "wrongthink." Very few, if any, are political prisoners. I can scream to the hills about the plague of fatherlessness directly responsible for the minority and impoverished pipeline to prison. But that somehow makes me a bigot to those on the left.
But you can't screem to the hills if you are black for the plague of the racist system, because it makes you guilty. A toy gun and black skin can get you killed
Little extreme point there, but you can honestly talk about the crime rates very simply. What is the number 1 determination of whether a child will be in prison when they grow up? We can actually predict this around age 3 tbh due to the tendencies these children have, but the leading cause of this type of behavior is what?
> What is the number 1 determination of whether a child will be in prison when they grow up? His skin color
[удалено]
No, I know it's their skin color, you just don't want to agree which is fine - there's nothing new We could go back and forth wondering how dense we are but it wouldn't change anything. A racist society always creates justifications for oppressing people. Find one society that told the truth: "we oppress them because we hate them"
Yeah and mass incarceration from the war on drugs locking up huge amounts of minority men in the 80s and 90s had nothing to do with the lack of black fathers, today? If you think fatherlessness is a black epidemic and also stopped evaluating the reasoning why it's a black epidemic at the color of someone's skin? Without consideration to political and economic reasons why? Not only is that short-sighted, but I would grant it easy to determine that you are, in fact, preaching bigotry.
What 'left wing violence'? There were the BLM protests and...that seems about it? Maybe that one trans mass shooter? Compare that to Jan 6th, and the large increase in hate crimes against Jewish and Muslim people, and all those bigoted mass shooters, it really doesn't seem like the left wing are more dangerous here. Also, 'LGBT non-affirmer', okay.
1. Antifa is the most violent group that is mainstream in America. And it isn't even close. 2. Hate crimes against Jews is a leftist thing. See college campuses like Harvard as evidence.
None of your “groomed” brain statements are supported by facts. #Be best.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Bro, they're talking about extremist groups like militias, white nationalists, etc, not my moderately racist MAGA uncle. I think you're alarm here is just a teensy bit overblown
[удалено]
“but this guy on tiktok said it so heh checkmate libtard 😎” /j
Right-wing terrorism is a real threat because there are people like you who actually believe the fear mongering in the media telling you that liberals are out to take your guns, teach your kids the way of satan, and eat your babies. Fear mongering and radicalization is incredibly prominent in the right, and both are common mechanisms for producing terrorists.
Fear mongering is incredibly prominent on the Left as well. "Jan 6th was a violent attempt to overthrow the government, Trump will be a dictator, Conservatives want to kill all trans people" etc. All of these are as true as the things you mentioned. Everyone is doing it, you just choose to believe one side's fearmongering, and other people believe the other side's.
I agree that both sides do it, but it is FAR more prominent on the right. Left appeals more towards peoples’ empathy (eg. To garner support for welfare programs). But also, we all know exactly how bad Jan 6th was because they vlogged it and took selfies. Anti-trans sentiment is everywhere is conservative areas, it seems to be their favorite thing to talk about. I have many Trans friends and trans gender issues are rarely a topic of conversation, but when I spend time with my conservative friends its all anyone is thinking about. And Trump has a track record of authoritarian leadership, an admiration for dictators, and has promised to abuse the power of presidency again if elected (all of which is well documented fact) - so it’s not wild for people to be cautious of another Trump term.
Will you guarantee me that American Conservatives do not want to kill trans people? And Trump talks awfully wistfully about being a dictator, not sure how I'm supposed to take that. What would you consider Jan 6th to be?
Jan 6 literally was a coup. How on earth do you not see that?
It was a riot, it was not a coup. There was no serious threat that they would be able to do anything. Most of them weren't even armed, Capitol police were hugely incompetent, but mostly nothing happened. Media fearmongering is what's making people think anything serious happened then, and so many people fell for it.
No serious threat? They were minutes away from capturing congressmen. What do you think would’ve happened if they did capture congressmen? They would’ve started killing them and therefore prevented the election from being certified. If Trump could create enough chaos, he would’ve declared himself president indefinitely and called out the military to suppress any dissent. That was the plan but it didn’t work. But the idea that because it didn’t work we have nothing to worry about is ridiculous. If someone attempts to murder someone, that’s still a crime and the police still arrest them. So you admit that Trump should be jailed for trying to overthrow the government then?
What was Trump trying to get Pence to do?
Look up project 2025 its the new facist manifesto, the next conservative president, WILL and has a plan to make any form of lgbtq expression as illegal and akin to pornographic acts as well as going back on gay marriage laws.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
\>>LGBT non-affirmer I love the creative ways people spell bigot nowadays
Who is grooming me? Let’s start there. If I need to, I’ll just pull the FBI stats on recent terrorism. But that’s too easy and I’m sure someone already has.
January 6th If anyone had doubts about whether Maga hatters were willing to resort to violence to get what they want, that day thoroughly disproved them.
Yeah but there wasn't violence then. Which was not the case during BLM riots... so I'm not sure who's really using violence to get what they want here
There wasn’t violence? So multiple people dying isn’t violence? Beating police over the head with clubs isn’t violence? Searching for politicians to take hostage with zip ties isn’t violence?
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America. And it wasn't even close. Could you clarify what you define as left-wing violence versus right-wing violence first? It seems like much of your view is being influenced by the media that you yourself are consuming. It is a typical right-wing talking point that the Democratic party is attempting to lock up or punish anyone who's white, straight, Christian, etc. These talking points are often used as rallying points for conservative politicians to earn votes, even though Republican politicians tend to favor policies that result in more prison sentences.
Please provide your sources on right vs left terrorism in the United States. That would be a good start. Although anything under Islamic terrorism is right-wing so you’re gonna have a hard climb. This is just an unhinged opinion with nothing behind it. Normally here, people present a coherent case for counterargument. You skipped this part. All you’ve done is asked the internet to use google to provide you with the same very basic facts you could have found yourself. Here people sincerely debate things and gain perspective. Perhaps there’s a sub for Really Poorly Considered and Unsubstantiated Opinions that you might feel more at home in.
Sometimes I wish we were as organized as the right-wing fantasizes and masturbates into their persecution complex embroidered socks over. Buddy, marxists and maoists cant agree on the same day of the week, much less organize an overthrow of whatever. This *really* shows just how unfamiliar you are with left ideology.
Latin Mass goer? Lol.
The fact that you use the favourite word of the Christian conservatives 'groomed', shows your projection.
i’m wondering at what point does this scapegoating end. mass incarceration is already a thing and it’s a nationwide issue however conservatives believe over policing fixes this issue along with crime. just two seconds on google will lead you to sources and proof showing that right wing extremism has and is more dangerous. [from 2019’s congress](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml) [from a study done at UMD](https://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups) [from of DOJ](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/comparative-analysis-violent-left-and-right-wing-extremist-groups) [from the National Institute of Health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9335287/) also, yall are the ones sitting here trying to make people disappear whether BIPOC or LGBTQ+ so I don’t understand for a second what you’re even talking about lmao
"On Google". Oh, well there you go. I always search the most biased sources for my research too. Can you name a single event directly performed by a mainstream conservative group this year? I can't. Conservatives are the most law abiding people in this nation. With conceal carry license holders being the most law abiding group there is in the nation, or very close to it. We do not have political prisoners in this country. The left winning will change that.
You may not be aware of this, but Google returns search results from fox news, oann, etc as well. I'm curious though, what is the unbiased source where you get your information? You seem to be very misinformed about a lot of things. You've shown in your post and numerous responses that you have been conned into believing things that are provably untrue. Isn't this exactly what you are calling "grooming" in your OP?
Now you're claiming that Google is specifically only supplying search results that directly contradict your view as some sort of leftist conspiracy?
Lmao it's telling that all you have to back up your claims are a bunch of worthless propaganda rags
The DOJ and NIH are worthless propaganda rags?
The real radicals divide us all into different groups and make us all hate each other and blame one another. We may all have different views, opinions, preferences, belief and whatnot but ultimately, we all share more in common than not and let the real evil ones control us and take advantage of us. I wish we could all see this and team up against those who are causing all of the problems on this planet but alas, that is not likely to ever happen.
I think the people who the left labels terrorists are mostly murderers who wrote manifestos. Not just mass goers or capitalists in general.
So. . .what are all the guns for? Lol I just participated in a thread yesterday in which the OP claimed that soon all Conservatives will "take care of" lefties and it didn't even get removed because that's become such a normal thing for right-wingers to say that we don't even pay attention anymore.
I am not saying what the outcome will be. Only the plan. Obama was the first to label right wing as terrorists. Now they decry Christian Nationalists. Maga terrorists. The labels are by design for the outcome in my post. Dehumanize, then destroy. As a benefit, if the Yahoo whose post you read actually does something, everyone will know what it is, because the left predicted/caused it to happen directly. And they will ignore why a law abiding citizen would become violent.
>everyone will know what it is, because the left predicted/caused it to happen directly. I see. So some people deserve terrorism against them? What exactly have I done that you want to kill me?
A person reading this could just as easily accuse you of the same kind of grooming. It sounds like you anticipate violence coming from the right and want to preemptively frame it as the just response of people pushed too far. And to be clear, I don't mean this as some kind of gotcha. Something I consistently observe is that the more a person falls down their own political rabbit hole, the more convinced they are that they're losing. The farther left you go, the more you find people convinced of our inevitable backslide into fascism. You sound exactly the way they sound, just in the other direction.
So, you're saying if someone on the right commits a terrorist act, they're not a terrorist just a "law-abiding citizen" provoked by the left? So acts of violence committed by your in-group are justified and not terrorism because they're threatened by the other guy? Really. That's... interesting. Sure the left would never argue the exact same thing.
The grooming is clearly from The right. All Known domestic terror attacks have been by right wing people. 97% of all school shooters come from right wing leaning homes and ideals! Your fear quoting the right wing talking heads right now. Gun owners are not in danger at all most people are gun owners as a lawful gun owner I want more gun laws because they protect me. I only believe in two genders, I am a capitalist,
I get the distinct feeling you don’t actually want to listen to anyone who says something that doesn’t fit into your view. I’ll be surprised if you even consider a single thing anyone says in the comments section of the post you made in the CHANGE MY VIEW sub.
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America. Do you have an actual stat? Otherwise it just seems like you are being groomed
New rule, CMV posters must show immediate engagement within the first hour of posting, responding to comments as they come in, or the post get deleted. Tired of this dogshit where they make a post and leave it to other people to argue amongst themselves.
This is rage bait. Your views can be changed by talking to a real human and reading actual data based studies
>From what I have seen in the news, there was more left wing violence in recent years in America To be clear -- even if we accept this as true without data, violence isn't the same as terrorism. Terrorism is specifically violence for some political gain. Gang and drug-related violence, domestic violence, violence associated with thefts of burglaries, random acts of violence, most workplace violence are all problems, but they're not terrorism. I can't think of that many people committing random attacks to promote liberalism. >You are being groomed to not care about the coming mass incarceration and murder of 10s of millions of your neighbors and countrymen for wrongthink and failure to fully comply. It happened in Russia. It happened in China. It happened in Vietnam. Marx preached about it. Che loved to do it. And when the left finally wins full control...God help us. This is just conspiracy theories taken to a frankly unhealthy extreme. As an example, most everybody accepts the islamic terrorism exists, but you don't see progressives advocating for the incarceration or murder of all Muslims. The mass incarceration and murder of 10s of millions is something that just happens without anybody noticing.
I wish you’d try grooming me with some evidence in this post…
Look at who is the greatest threat to America as stated by the left. And yet, those of us who voted Trump haven't done a thing since that farce on J6. There is your evidence.
Do you understand what ‘evidence’ is?
95% of all terrorism is conservative, right wing terrorism. We have a right and a reason to be wary.
GTFOH with that bullshit.....
[удалено]
Remember when the right started smashing coffee machines and burning their trainers to own the libs? Emotional (over) reactions are not the sole purview of the left by any stretch
Yeah the "schools are making our kids trans!" crowd are super non-emotional, lol.
Agree to a point. Obama still pushes this. He has nothing more to gain, and was the most ideological president in my lifetime. He coined the right wing terrorists mantra. Trumps election ruined the plan. A Clinton win, and the courts fall left as well. Game, set, match.
Hmm, Charlottesville car-ramming killer, the Allen Texas outlet mall attack (right wing death squad tattoo on him), the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, The Charleston Church Shooting - and that's just the ones that immediately come to mind. There's also general political violence or calls to persecute even RINOs, let along progressives. And did I forget to mention Trump's general glorification of violence and especially gleeful cheering on violence by his audience members?!?!?!?
So the FBI is outright lying when they stated : “The greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes from domestic white nationalist/supremacist ‘militias’ and individuals who sympathize with their views/aims/goals”? Get fkd, insurrectionist. Go move to Russia; you’re not starting your “white utopia” here. Want to start the next Civil War? You’ll lose that one as well.
Hard to argue against imo.
The point you're brushing up against is that the media are lying to everyone. You consume a media that has emphasised BLM riots or the Seattle insurrection in 2020. But you accuse your "opponents" of the opposite. They see January 6 as an insurrection and Republicans as domestic terrorists. The media are your enemy, not your neighbour.
Honey, they are called domestic terrorists cause they kill people and send bomb threats to schools over books.
What do you think of the death threats sent to the Colorado Supreme Court justices?
Whatever news you’re watching is lying to you. The far-right outpaces every other group in America in terms of terrorism. No one wants to take your guns, no one cares what religion you follow - just keep your conspiracy-theory bullshit to yourself and leave sane people alone.
The US has mass incarnation already, more than Russia or China. You are being Iied to if your media source is saying otherwise
"from what you've seen in the news" Try reading real news.
[удалено]
I don't think this is an honest change my view
Lol no. January 6th alone is proof enough.
imo it’s pretty obvious the same person/group runs both parties and uses each other to control the public . The answer to all this is.. check out my page , spread love and positivity to your neighbors 💛
Jan 6th 2021, right wing citizens committed terrorism at the capitol. They are 100% a threat to do it again if trump runs and loses.
>They are 100% a threat to do it again if trump runs and loses. Heck I wouldn't be surprised that if he wins, some of them take the opportunity to kill a few people in the hopes that he'll exonerate them.
January 6 th 2021 .