Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

And I get really tired of talk about the left engaging in violence.  The only reason the right's violence isn't gossiped about the same way is because it's been normalized for most of USA history.  Maybe controversial, but it's not news.  Often carried out by institutions, not mobs.

What right wing institutions? The KKK?

Funny you mention the KKK.  I live in Indiana.  The KKK WAS LITERALLY OUR GOVERNMENT in this state for much of its history.

Joe Arpaio was mentioned just a little ways up on the same page.  Are you aware of the kind of shit he's known for, while acting as the head of law enforcement over an entire county for 23 years?

But no... it's the left that's violent, because someone got hit with a bike lock.

The Right aren't saints either. No group or political spectrum has a monopoly on violent things. Just because some people on the Right are violent doesn't mean that ALL of the Right are violent, same goes for the Left wing.

Of course.  But I'm responding to this notion that the left has a sweeping violence problem that's forcing the right to take drastic measures to protect themselves.  It's something I've seen repeated too much here and elsewhere over the last few months.

Violence was already a part of the last election, the right has already started forming protection units of ex veterans and cops to protect their own at rallies as response to the left mob violence, and the right has already attacked violently leftist that infiltrate right wing rallies.

Sorry, but I don't recognize individual people getting hurt once in a while as comparable to violence that is institutional normalcy, such as the military's endemic rape culture, racist policing, "free market" class war, voter suppression, religious persecution against LGBT, etc.

[Neonivek]

Currently the Left is starting to have a serious violence problem (In that they are starting too many riots, gang beatings, and other such activities)

The issue is more that the Left's violence is viewed to be a moral grey area, leaning to positivity, by the average person. So the controversy isn't there if, say, a Anti-Trump march becomes violent versus if a Pro-Life march becomes violent.

OR the violence is lessened on the basis that critically viewing the violence itself is considered immoral. (So say there is a riot for more homes for the homeless. Criticism of the riot is considered criticism of the homeless or of the cause itself. Something even Martin Luthor King struggled with when he had to talk about race riots)

Which is why the perception that the right is far more violent then the left occurs. The outrage keeps the right's actions in view far more. That and political leanings and demographics can also be brought up.

At least that is my guess as to why that is the case. I know the left has had a problem for a while but it is starting to get heated to the point where I actually think we might have a huge destructive riot soon.

Or rather I only know that the violence isn't as one sided as people perceive it. I can only guess onto the cause of why the confirmation bias is so one sided.

[smjjames]

And I get really tired of talk about the left engaging in violence.  The only reason the right's violence isn't gossiped about the same way is because it's been normalized for most of USA history.  Maybe controversial, but it's not news.  Often carried out by institutions, not mobs.

What right wing institutions? The KKK?

Funny you mention the KKK.  I live in Indiana.  The KKK WAS LITERALLY OUR GOVERNMENT in this state for much of its history.

Joe Arpaio was mentioned just a little ways up on the same page.  Are you aware of the kind of shit he's known for, while acting as the head of law enforcement over an entire county for 23 years?

But no... it's the left that's violent, because someone got hit with a bike lock.

The Right aren't saints either. No group or political spectrum has a monopoly on violent things. Just because some people on the Right are violent doesn't mean that ALL of the Right are violent, same goes for the Left wing.

Of course.  But I'm responding to this notion that the left has a sweeping violence problem that's forcing the right to take drastic measures to protect themselves.  It's something I've seen repeated too much here and elsewhere over the last few months.

There has been an uptick with the more vocal and viral parts of the Left, but the appearance of a sweeping violence problem is certainly being driven by the fact that it's been getting more coverage than usual or pretty visible in recent months.

Also, in 538's job approval poll aggregate, I've noticed that the approval is starting to tick downwards. Noticed it yesterday or otherwise very recently. Using the 'all adults' setting, it's not really apparent as it's not that far below the lowest in that mode, but when you use 'likely or registered voters' and 'all polls', it's visible as it's the lowest so far. I guess we'll see whether it's a temporary fluctuation or a bigger downturn.

[Neonivek]

pretty visible in recent months

Yeah that is probably more likely the case.

With anything there is confirmation bias. I mean people have said that videogames are murder simulators, but I believe ABOUT 60% of all videogame sales are for violent games if I am reading this chart correctly (And that isn't even getting into exceptions... For example Harvest Moon is an RPG but only Rune Factory has violence but no one dies in it)

[SalmonGod]

Can you point to examples of some of this stuff?  Because I feel like you're repeating a narrative that's been spun up over recent months from false extrapolation of isolated incidents, and one-sided interpretations of others.

Riots -- All have occurred in response to people being literally killed by conservative influence on institutional forces.  The behavior at riots which happen in response those killings are not anywhere close to equal in gravity, and much of the worst examples of violence at these are instigated or directly carried out by agent provocateurs.  This can easily be seen in situations such as Ferguson where removing the police from direct involvement in the situation immediately made it more peaceful.

Gang beatings -- All incidents I'm aware of that this might be in reference to are either street scuffles that involved equally enthusiastic participation by both sides, or extremely isolated incidents, such as the bike lock assault or punching of Richard Spencer.

There has been an uptick with the more vocal and viral parts of the Left, but the appearance of a sweeping violence problem is certainly being driven by the fact that it's been getting more coverage than usual or pretty visible in recent months.

That is literally my exact point.  It gets coverage because it's not a normalized situation.  Heightened visibility gets spun into confirmation bias and narrative, overriding recognition of basic reality.

The only reason the right's violence isn't gossiped about the same way is because it's been normalized for most of USA history.  Maybe controversial, but it's not news.  Often carried out by institutions, not mobs.

[Frumple]

... for what it's worth (not much, since what we do have generally isn't exactly in the favor of the right wing, all in all, it's rather frustratingly difficult to actually find the right kind of data you'd need to look at to identify a legitimate trend of one sort or another. For whatever reason no one seems to be particularly interested in keeping an up to date-ish tally on political violence that includes more mundane stuff.

Closest decent source I've seen was recommended by RedKing: TEVUS, which primarily deals with domestic terrorism/extremist material. Requires you to request access,* but it's pretty damn neat. Just not really good for tracking a general population trend. That sort of behavior doesn't seem to really track all that hard to more general sorts of violence/hostility/etc.

* Though if they let me have access, the standard for entry is probably not even remotely high. Does take a few days to process, if anyone feels like giving it a go.

[Neonivek]

Can you point to examples of some of this stuff?

What specifically here? Left leaning riots? Or Left Leaning Gang Beatings? Or a Left Leaning Kidnapping?

Because it is easy to cherry pick these, I am not sure examples would be a good direction for this conversation. Heck where I live we had Left Leaning terrorism as they fire bombed shops.

by conservative influence on institutional forces

The behavior at riots which happen in response those killings are not anywhere close to equal in gravity, and much of the worst examples of violence at these are instigated or directly carried out by agent provocateurs.

I often feel like this is a cop out. It is easy to just start a riot and say "Well, obviously what we did is no where close to as bad as what the conservative government is doing to us right now!" especially when a lot of the claims just end up unfounded or the claims are founded but there is a misdirection of force.

Or you know, it is just a way to blame an outward enemy for everything.

But YES some riots do happen because the police themselves do instigate it. Though it isn't to say this is always the case and sometimes all the police did is show up (and often for good reasons). They DID find that less riots happen if the police don't show, even if the police do nothing wrong, but at the same time you are also asking for less police protection with groups that have proven to immediately result in riots.

Heck there was the Left Leaning Race Riot where it turned out absolutely nothing bad actually happened... But DANG IT I need to remember the details...

Someone help me. It was a Canadian Race Riot, some kid was caught shop lifting or something like that, there was some sort of slap on the wrist... And then a race riot happened because the imagined story was completely different.

Then again I guess instead of finding a story I can barely remember I could just bring up Sports Riots.

---

I guess my opinion is: I have a low opinion of Riots and those who instigate them.

I do not make excuses for riots and the only excuse I make for rioters is that group consciousness makes it hard to resist rioting when you are part of a riot. I also find that with groups that riot often their goals are very chaotic, imprecise, and often unhelpful (Something bad happened. Lets make everyone pay!)

That and I don't think either the Left or the Right can claim the unapproachable high ground... Which I have heard the Left preach they have far more then the right, which is why I focus on them a lot more often nowadays (I mean it isn't true... they both claim the highroad constantly... But I don't want to watch anymore Christian movies!)

[smjjames]

Can you point to examples of some of this stuff?  Because I feel like you're repeating a narrative that's been spun up over recent months from false extrapolation of isolated incidents, and one-sided interpretations of others.

Riots -- All have occurred in response to people being literally killed by conservative influence on institutional forces.  The behavior at riots which happen in response those killings are not anywhere close to equal in gravity, and much of the worst examples of violence at these are instigated or directly carried out by agent provocateurs.  This can easily be seen in situations such as Ferguson where removing the police from direct involvement in the situation immediately made it more peaceful.

Gang beatings -- All incidents I'm aware of that this might be in reference to are either street scuffles that involved equally enthusiastic participation by both sides, or extremely isolated incidents, such as the bike lock assault or punching of Richard Spencer.

There has been an uptick with the more vocal and viral parts of the Left, but the appearance of a sweeping violence problem is certainly being driven by the fact that it's been getting more coverage than usual or pretty visible in recent months.

That is literally my exact point.  It gets coverage because it's not a normalized situation.  Heightened visibility gets spun into confirmation bias and narrative, overriding recognition of basic reality.

The only reason the right's violence isn't gossiped about the same way is because it's been normalized for most of USA history.  Maybe controversial, but it's not news.  Often carried out by institutions, not mobs.

Um, there haven't been any recent riots that I'm aware of. Also, I REALLY wouldn't attribute riots sparked by police shootings of minorities (if that's what you meant by "people being literally killed by conservative influence on institutional forces"), those don't even follow political lines, they happen in both bright red states and bright blue (the political blue) states.

There was a protest in Berkely in the early part of the year that went out of control, but it wasn't due to anybody getting literally killed.

If you mean the G20 stuff, there's ALWAYS protestors at major political events.

What DO you mean by "people being literally killed by conservative influence on institutional forces" anyway?

@neonivek: Canada? I don't recall any riots happening there in the timeframe that salmongod is referring to, nothing I know of anyway.

[Neonivek]

Ohh no! This was an OOOOOLD riot...

It is just an example of a riot where absolutely nothing wrong occurring to instigate it... No one actually to blame OTHER than the rioters.

That there was no one people could hold up as "Yes I rioted, destroyed homes, looted buildings, injured people, and even murdered a few... But THIS guy made me do it!"

Mind you I usually consider Race Riots to be boil over. The pressure was always there, it just needed something to trigger it.

Some people have even considered Sports riots to be the same case. That they are expressions of dissatisfaction just exploding out from the tiniest trigger.

[SalmonGod]

I don't understand how it's a cop-out, if violence in one direction is in reality so ubiquitous that it's a completely normal, expected situation, and violence returned in the other direction is a sporadic lashing out in response and is more likely to be property destruction than direct physical harm against a human being.  Which side should be defined as having the violence problem?

If a kid gets beaten up by a bully at school every day for years, and then finally loses his shit and returns a blow against the bully one day, which kid should we be referring to when we weave a narrative about a violence problem?

Um, there haven't been any recent riots that I'm aware of. Also, I REALLY wouldn't attribute riots sparked by police shootings of minorities (if that's what you meant by "people being literally killed by conservative influence on institutional forces"), those don't even follow political lines, they happen in both bright red states and bright blue (the political blue) states.

Yes, that's mostly what I was referring to.  And the political make-up of the state has little to do with the political make-up of law-enforcement.

[Neonivek]

I don't understand how it's a cop-out, if violence in one direction is in reality so ubiquitous that it's a completely normal, expected situation, and violence returned in the other direction is a sporadic lashing out in response and is more likely to be property destruction than direct physical harm against a human being.  Which side should be defined as having the violence problem?

If a kid gets beaten up by a bully at school every day for years, and then finally loses his shit and returns a blow against the bully one day, which kid should we be referring to when we weave a narrative about a violence problem?

I have no sympathy for either child in terms of the high road only grim understanding. Yet there is ONE problem with your narrative.

The Child KNOWS who his bully is. A lot of these riots? There is no bully... Just a strawman who represents all their problems.

[SalmonGod]

A lot of these riots? There is no bully.

Are you fucking kidding me?

That's just getting into the realm of irreconcilable perspectives, I guess...

[Neonivek]

A lot of these riots? There is no bully.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Who is your bully? What is his name? What did he do? How did he do it?

A lot of the time these riots form over: "I have this problem, therefor this must be instigated by this person" instead of "This person is doing this, that must be what is causing this problem"

Watch a Christian Movie to see how this sort of logic works. See how the separation of Church and State is sort of painted as a villain (even though it does more to protect Religious rights today than ever before).

I wouldn't support a Christian Riot just because they can point to a bully.

[Frumple]

I seem to be parsing that as neo complaining about riots about, say, police activity, for the participants not marching up and burning down the police station(s) rather than other stuff. Or the city hall or somethin'.

[Neonivek]

I seem to be parsing that as neo complaining about riots about, say, police activity, for the participants not marching up and burning down the police station(s) rather than other stuff. Or the city hall or somethin'.

Naw, I mean more that if you read what the Rioters want... It typically isn't anything that will fix the problem. Often it is just token responses that will make them feel better such as firing a police chief who, so far, has an unsubstantiated link to the crime... Or just firing the mayor.

Or they create a much bigger problem then the single event. One cannot blame ALL problems on a single thing. If someone spits gum onto the sidewalk you cannot create a riot where you blame him for all street trash.