[If your post is what you say it is and indeed just your impression, then this is an odd claim to make. A quick Google search reveals multiple such incidents. One example.]
I honestly thought this incident and the one I linked to were the same. An error on my part.
[You are of course aware of multiple examples of violence from Trump’s supporters in the aftermath of the election, from “Based Stickman”]
As I mentioned in a previous post, I consider Based Stickman and Moldylocks both troubling figures. However, I would argue that Based Stickman is a response to Moldylocks. Without the provocation of ANTIFA, he would not be out carrying a stick. While I don't approve of his behavior, I perceive it as inappropriate response to an act of aggression. It's this type of escalation that concerns me the most, but in the end leftist aggression started the cycle.
[to Gianforte]
A gray area. We hear audio, but don't see what happened. Again, I consider this an inappropriate response to an attempt to provoke a reaction. Without the provoking, there wouldn't have been a response. Both, therefore, bear responsibility for what occurred. This is not a satisfactory or full answer, but I am trying to keep this short. We can continue discussing it if you wish.
[to Pizzagate.]
About 30 seconds after the edit locked out, I realized I forgot this one. Another oversight on my part, and certainly the largest.
[In your point about hate crimes you conspicuously twist the problem so as to make it a criticism of the left; of the 1000+ such documented incidents, only 13 have been conclusively debunked in such a manner.]
I'm going to be frank here. I don't consider Slate an objective source, nor do I give much credibility to the SPLC. I consider the latter an activist group with an agenda.
SPLC itself admits many of its recorded incidents remain anecdotal.
Additionally, of the 10 current incidents listed through the link, only three involve crimes of violence. One was committed by a homeless woman and is considered a hate crime because the victim was special needs. I doubt this incident was politically motivated, had anything to do with who is President, and it falls outside the realm of this discussion. The rest, while indefensible, do not suggest the level of violence currently emanating from the left.
Furthermore, I would point out the major incidents (like the hijhab-pulling) which received national press coverage, were all proven to be hoaxes. It's late, so they're not all coming to mind, but the anti-Semitic letters which turned to be coming from a disgruntled African-American journalist is one I remember at the moment. Again, we can continue this discussion in greater detail if you wish.
Now, looking back, I kind of got careless with my language, because I drifted from talking about violent acts to threats and acts of harassment. So I conflated two related but separate things.
In any event, the larger point is individuals on the left are acting out violence, while the right might be speaking it a little more often- though I question how much. The latter's behavior is inappropriate, the former's behavior is creating chaos and spilling blood.
[Given how easy it is to produce counter-anecdotes and statistics contrary to what you have said, I think it would be reasonable to argue that the impression you have built up is to a large extent the result of either confirmation bias or an unintentionally unbalanced news diet. At least, no less reasonable than arguing that your impression is also grounded in some truth (which it is).]
Which is why I tried to frame them as anecdotes, though I didn't use the word explicitly. The statistics issue I touched on briefly, though I am open to seeing more or discussing this in greater detail.
[To be honest, I agree with you that it feels like the left has been really hauling ass in regards to political violence recently, primarily due to the media I consume. But the media I consume has also given me the impression that terrorism is as great (or greater) a problem in Western countries as it is elsewhere, which has made me suspicious of how violence is generally presented and reported.]
Agreed. Media distortion, even the unintentional version, is a problem. This what makes dissecting some of the rally violence coverage last year so difficult, and why I chose clear examples where the aggressor was clear or there was evidence of deliberate malfeasance.
[That the left has a monopoly on political violence is a hefty and sweeping claim and one that I, in the interest of making critiques in good faith, am not ready to accept on the back of a handful of anecdotes alone.]
I didn't say it had a monopoly, just an overwhelming advantage at the moment.
I think, as i was writing up the last post, I started to develop the idea of challenging someone to present counter-anecdotes which correlate to my own in order to avert the lack of statistics. Thus, I pointed there was no similar caucus violence on the Republican side, there were no mass road blockages at Clinton rallies, there were no undercover tapes of Republican campaign figures admitting they plotted to provoke attacks, there has been no attacks on liberal media figures, there's been no right-wing group equivalent to ANTIFA, and, most importantly in my opinion, there's been no physical attack on any Democratic office-holder.
In the end, they may be anecdotes, but you would be hard pressed to find correlating anecdotes of repeated, organized, right-wing violence aimed at a specific political objective. Racial slurs and other types of identity-related verbal abuse and imagery displays are not appropriate, but they're also not on the same level as rioting or trying to kill politicians.
Featured
