Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?

[NobleHunter]

I suppose they have to follow the right eventually.

[DonaldD]

I’ll be surprised if we don’t see one of the left’s violent attacks turn deadly in 2020.

As opposed to all those violent attacks by "the right" which are never likely to turn deadly? 

Iowa Woman woman ran down victims she thought were Mexican

Crazy people are crazy

[ScottF]

Do you suspect the person who told the guy to take off his hat was also mentally ill? No way of knowing obviously, but curious if you see that kind of behavior as a serious mental issue.

[Crunch]

I suppose they have to follow the right eventually.

Yeah, like well know right wing  antifa, right?

Lots of people out there attacking others with Bernie bumper stickers. Aren’t there.

[DonaldD]

Do you suspect the woman who ran down "Mexicans" was mentally ill in a way that the hat guy wasn't?

[Crunch]

Well, I didn’t address the woman because you completely mischaracterized the story. There is zero political basis in it.

Crazy, sure. Racist, yeah. But it’s not a politically motivated attack as you try to frame it.

[LetterRip]

]
But if it is a racial minority, or a woman, particularly if they're liberal, it's getting wall to wall coverage. Jussie Smollet anyone?

If you put on your critical reasoning cap - I bet you might be able to think of a reason that Jussie Smollet got significant coverage, a reason that applies to anyone who shares that property and has nothing do with his minority status.

[ScottF]

Do you suspect the woman who ran down "Mexicans" was mentally ill in a way that the hat guy wasn't?

If you mean do people manifest mental illness in different ways, of course. I saw a guy sitting at a park last week shouting “I miss the twenty-tens!” over and over to strangers as they passed. That’s different from the woman driver and hat-remover guy too. Where were you going with your question and why did you avoid mine?

[wmLambert]

Democrats follow two concepts that are different from the Right. The first is "the end justifies the means." The second is the idea of the "wink and the nod." Whatever a Leftist wants to do can be rationalized by lying about the opposition and making them somehow worthy of being insulted and harassed. Maxine Waters very much must stay away from mirrors. The second concept is what allows them to stay acceptable to the complicit media. No matter how nice they sound, their people understand to read between the lines. When they hear:"Live and let live", they understand the Maxine Waters idea of "No apologies - just trash them!"

[DonaldD]

ScottF, you'll note that I said "crazy", not "mentally ill".

I don't know that either of them are clinically mentally ill, but they both absolutely suffer from being political nut jobs.

[ScottF]

Ok, not sure there’s any distinction between ill and crazy, but I think we agree they’re both unstable.

[Kasandra]

Democrats follow two concepts that are different from the Right. The first is "the end justifies the means." The second is the idea of the "wink and the nod." Whatever a Leftist wants to do can be rationalized by lying about the opposition and making them somehow worthy of being insulted and harassed. Maxine Waters very much must stay away from mirrors. The second concept is what allows them to stay acceptable to the complicit media. No matter how nice they sound, their people understand to read between the lines. When they hear:"Live and let live", they understand the Maxine Waters idea of "No apologies - just trash them!"

This is a really good example of the irrational right attacks against Democrats for purely emotional reasons.  Let's look at what you said in parts, with simple and obvious counter-examples or each:

• " Democrats follow two concepts that are different from the Right. The first is "the end justifies the means."
  * You don't give any examples, which would be very helpful to understand what you mean, but I'll counter that Trump is stonewalling Congress on impeachment by refusing to allow any member of the Executive to testify or turn over documents. That is unprecedented and the basis for one of the articles of impeachment.
• "The wink and a nod"
  * How about Trump only going on FOX network or an example comparable to Trump accusing multiple Democrats of treason for disagreeing with him?
• "Maxine Waters very much must stay away from mirrors."
  * This is just plain childish nastiness, where you follow Trump's example of attacking people for their looks.  As for childish, how about Trump calling Adam Schiff "little Adam Schitt"?  Can you give an example of any Democrat doing anything like that?
• "No apologies - just trash them!"
  * What's with your obsession with Maxine Waters?  How about Doug Collins saying on TV that "Democrats love terrorists"?

I think your post shows a kind of "political regression to the mean," by which some Republicans are shedding their traditional conservative principles and becoming just like Trump -- mean.

[Kasandra]

I suppose they have to follow the right eventually.

Yeah, like well know right wing  antifa, right?

Lots of people out there attacking others with Bernie bumper stickers. Aren’t there.

No right wing antifa?  It doesn't bother you that the vast majority of "political" murders are committed by white nationalists?

[Grant]

No right wing antifa?  It doesn't bother you that the vast majority of "political" murders are committed by white nationalists?

This all depends on when you are counting from and where you are counting. 

Start counting JUST the USA AFTER Sept 11th, 2001?  Sure, political murders by Islamic Extremists are not going to top your list.  But White Nationalism may not either, depending on how you classify some Anti-Semitic attacks. White Nationalism definately has a Anti-Semitic flavoring, but the question remains whether all Antisemitism is White Nationalism.  Certainly, some recent antisemitic attacks were committed by African-Americans, generally ruling out White Nationalism as a cause. 

Start counting from June 12th, 2016?  Islamic Extremism is back on top with Orlando nightclub shooting. 

Start counting AT 9-11?  Islamic Extremism on top. 

Counting the entire world?  Starting when?  High scorers include the Mass Killing of Landlords and the Cultural Revolution, the Holocaust, the Holodomor, genocide of the Poles 1941-1945, The Three Alls Policy, The Cambodian Genocide, The Rwandan Genocide, the Armenian Genocide, The Conquest of Algeria, The Partition of India, The Great Purge of 1936-38, The Greek Genocide of 1922, Soviet killings of Poles 1937-38, The Occupation of Tibet, Destruction of Kurdish Villiages in 1991, the Al-Anfal Genocide of 1989,  War crimes by the Syrian government during the Syrian Civil War 2015-2019. 

Basically, your highest scorers for political killings are Mao, Hitler and Stalin.  Since Mao and Stalin can both be counted as Communists, the Communists have officially racked up a higher death toll worldwide and throughout history than either White Nationalists or Islamic Extremists. 

If we are looking at prevention, which is what we should be doing instead of trying to figure out which ideology is the worst, we should look at what all these have in common.  The one thing that they all have in common is that they were committed, by definition, by politically motivated individuals, either in or out of power.  The worst type of person in the world, hence, is a politically motivated or invested individual. 

In order to protect the innocent, I would suggest rounding up all individuals who are either in elected positions, or have run for elected office, or are politically invested in some way, i.e.: people who read or post on internet political forums, or read or write political books or articles that paint some other political ideology as "bad", and have them all shot.  Failing this, these individuals should be stripped of the capability to serve in office or vote for elected officials. 

[DonaldD]

Grant, do you really think that was the distinction that crunch was making when they started this particular aside by opining:

I’ll be surprised if we don’t see one of the left’s violent attacks turn deadly in 2020.

specifically in response the the "hat guy" incident?

[Grant]

Grant, do you really think that was the distinction that crunch was making when they started this particular aside by opining:

I’ll be surprised if we don’t see one of the left’s violent attacks turn deadly in 2020.

specifically in response the the "hat guy" incident?

I was responding only to Kasandra's post.  I didn't even read whatever new next thing Crunch said.  I'm probably not going to.  My commentary on this entire thread is found in a different thread. 

[DonaldD]

I get the urge to ignore crunch, but if you are going to reply to a post about one subject by responding with a completely different topic, don't you think you should either not quote the initial post, or make it clear that you are changing the subject?

Kasandra's post was very specifically in response to a point being made by crunch.  By ignoring that context, you change the meaning of the words you quoted, making your response a complete non sequitur

[Grant]

Kasandra's post was very specifically in response to a point being made by crunch.  By ignoring that context, you change the meaning of the words you quoted, making your response a complete non sequitur

Don't you cuss at me.  I'll report you. 

if you are going to reply to a post about one subject by responding with a completely different topic, don't you think you should either not quote the initial post,

1.  I didn't quote the initial post. 

or make it clear that you are changing the subject?

I'm changing the subject. 

Or am I?  I mean, isn't this whole thread about how bad or how hateful or violent some political ideology is?  And aren't most posts about how bad some other political ideology is?  Did I really change the subject?  Is the point Kasandra was making in response to whatever valid if the statement was not true and in and of itself?  I don't care if the post Kasandra was responding to is guano-crazy.  I didn't read it, blessed be Jupiter's Rooster.  But if Kasandra is trying to prove whatever she was responding to was guano-crazy, I would recommend doing a better job. 

[DonaldD]

Topics absolutely do drift, but you directly quoted Kasandra's words, which had a very specific meaning, in context.  To ignore that context is either a mistake or disingenuous.

As for the original topic - it was specifically about how bad Democrats are for embracing hate and violence - so nothing at all to do with Stalin or Mao. (technically, it was about "democrats" but I have to assume crunch was not disparaging all people who support democracy)

[Grant]

Topics absolutely do drift, but you directly quoted Kasandra's words, which had a very specific meaning, in context.  To ignore that context is either a mistake or disingenuous.

Ok, Donald.  Explain to me the context of:

the vast majority of "political" murders are committed by white nationalists

You also said:

As for the original topic - it was specifically about how bad Democrats are for embracing hate and violence

And I've addressed my thoughts on this by bringing up how bad Smurfs are for embracing hate and violence in my own thread, which I find much more engaging. 

nothing at all to do with Stalin or Mao. (technically, it was about "democrats" but I have to assume crunch was not disparaging all people who support democracy)

My entire point was that White Nationalists and Democrats both suck at hate and violence.  So the entire thread is like arguing over who is the more evil Decepticon, Rumble or Laserbeak?  My final contribution was to suggest an actual proposal to make things better, rather than simply complain about Democrats, or Republicans, or White Nationalists, or Communists, etc. 

[Kasandra]

What he said.

This all depends on when you are counting from and where you are counting.

Not what you said.  I would categorize political murders as between left and right-wing ideologues.  These are groups seeking to change social or political aspects of the US culture, not to obliterate or defeat the nation as a whole.  I'm ignoring Islamic terrorism, which dwarfs the numbers for either of those groups by the 9/11 bombing alone, but I consider that in the class of religious terrorism against all Americans of any ethnicity or political persuasion. 

So, by my reckoning, left-wing terrorism would be rooted in (a partial list I cadged from elsewhere) organizations such as communists, socialists, animal rights activists, anti-white racists, LGBT extremists, attackers inspired by Black Lives Matter, and ethnic or national separatists who embrace Socialism.

Right Wing terrorists include (a partial list I cadged from elsewhere) white nationalists, neo-Confederates, non-socialist secessionists, anti-communists, fascists, anti-Muslim attackers, anti-immigration extremists, sovereign citizens, bombers who targeted the IRS, militia movements, and abortion clinic bombers.

By that reckoning, right-wing terrorists have killed about 10 times as many US civilians than left-wing terrorists over the past 25 or so years.

Your list of genocides (word invented in 20th C) is woefully incomplete, but you do make me wonder how people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others would be classified in today's US political climate.  Are they left- or right-wing?  Are they excused from the list of terrorists because they are the leaders of their countries when they commit their atrocities?  I'm only counting unofficial terrorism in the US, so I don't think they apply.

[Fenring]

Grant's sarcastic point is far more lucid than you're giving it credit for. I think he's saying that America has such a minute presence of extremist violence that disputing about which tiny group of perpetrators is 'better' at being violent extremists is absurd. Actually I agree with him to the extent that the discussion is about actual metrics of violence perpetrated. I think Crunch's original notion was more that Democrats seem to embrace a standard that has violent impulses in it. It's not so much about whether they do it or not. Now I'm not taking sides on whether Crunch is right or not, but I agree with Grant that addressing the topic by talking about terrorism is really missing the important issue in the subject, which is cultural norms. Is it true or false that left-leaning people (or I could specify, far-left leaning people) feel in their hearts that violence is ok against people they disagree with. The proposition might be very false, but I think that's the proposition. Even if it were true it could also be the case that left-leaning culture is too fearful of consequences to ever act on it, which would create a peculiar boiling pot situation. So it doesn't follow that even if the proposition is true that it would be reflected in actual acts of violence.

I'm extrapolating from what I think has been argued, and I will repeat that I'm not making this argument myself. But let's be clear about what's really on the table, since pretty much no one among American civilians ranks anywhere relevant on the public violence scale as a group.

[Pete at Home]

Kasandra, if you looked at the actual examples list of that ridiculous study you're cribbing from, you'll see that they counted the Black Lives Matter shooter and the Muslim Beltway Snipers as "white, right-wing, anti-government" terrorists.  It's a piece of "just-so science" to justify the sort of hateful ideology that we heard spouted by the brave brave Chicago four that tortured that white mentally retarded child on facebook.

[Kasandra]

Grant's sarcastic point is far more lucid than you're giving it credit for. I think he's saying...
...
Actually I agree with him to the extent that the discussion is about...
...
I think Crunch's original notion was more that Democrats seem to embrace a standard that has violent impulses in it. It's not so much about whether they do it or not. Now I'm not taking sides on whether Crunch is right or not...
...
Is it true or false that left-leaning people (or I could specify, far-left leaning people) feel in their hearts that violence is ok against people they disagree with. The proposition might be very false...
...
Even if it were true...So it doesn't follow that even if the proposition is true...
...
I'm extrapolating from what I think has been argued, and I will repeat that I'm not making this argument myself.

You managed to give everyone's (but my) point of view credence but claim that you don't have an opinion of your own.  This isn't a review forum.  Tell us where you stand, or perhaps you should sit.  Perhaps you could explain why my point of view doesn't merit your equivocal mention.

[Kasandra]

Kasandra, if you looked at the actual examples list of that ridiculous study you're cribbing from, you'll see that they counted the Black Lives Matter shooter and the Muslim Beltway Snipers as "white, right-wing, anti-government" terrorists.

Where did I claim that, again?  I didn't say that, nor did the article (not study) I got the list from (for convenience).  Remember, I said clearly that the list wasn't intended to be definitive.  It was no more exact that Grant's listography.

[Pete at Home]

your article fails to mention center left state terrorism, which would include Janet Reno’s Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres that inspired Timmy McVeigh’s OK City massacre.

[Pete at Home]

That’s 80 at Waco and 3 at Ruby Ridge.

[Kasandra]

your article fails to mention center left state terrorism, which would include Janet Reno’s Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres that inspired Timmy McVeigh’s OK City massacre.

FWIW, using the epithet "center left state terrorism" only declares your biases, but is a meaningless term. People who commit acts of terrorism always have a reason, cause or agenda, but (by definition, I think) government actions against its own citizens can't be called terrorism.  Once terrorists gain control of a country we usually call their campaigns against the freedoms of the citizenry martial order, civil law enforcement, oppression or go all the way up to genocide, the same names they called what the previous regime had done.

[Pete at Home]

You think that governments can’t commit terrorism? You think wrong, bubba. if legal discussions of  State Terrorism bore you, then just watch the Hunger Games for a primer.

[TheDrake]

Maybe not terrorism, but certainly violence. A willingness to embrace a violent solution is much more interesting than whether it falls in a certain bucket on the spectrum.

[Pete at Home]

Violent solutions aren’t not all terrorism. Terrorism specifically involves the use of innocent blood to convey a public relations message.  Roman crucifixions for example conveyed the message that slavery isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you.  Exactly the same message as a public lynching by a bunch of sheet-heads.

[Grant]

Not what you said.  I would categorize political murders as between left and right-wing ideologues.  These are groups seeking to change social or political aspects of the US culture, not to obliterate or defeat the nation as a whole.  I'm ignoring Islamic terrorism, which dwarfs the numbers for either of those groups by the 9/11 bombing alone, but I consider that in the class of religious terrorism against all Americans of any ethnicity or political persuasion. 

K.  You're cherry picking to create data that fits your hypothesis.  If you want to have a long drawn out battle with Crunch over who has more crazies, Republicans or Democrats, left wing or right wing, be my guest.  I'm personally disinterested in argumentation that rests on cherry picked data to support claims that generally demonize political opponents.  It's factionalism and tribalism at it's worst and I generally avoid such things.  I don't think you'll be convincing anyone else either. 

The idea that international Islamic terrorism or religious terrorism is somehow different than domestic terrorism is invalid if your entire argument is about "who is worse".  Personally, I believe that Rumble is the more evil Decepticon because Laserbeak is a coward.  But it's a pedantic discussion based on ridiculous extrapolation and nut-picking. 

[Grant]

You think that governments can’t commit terrorism? You think wrong, bubba. if legal discussions of  State Terrorism bore you, then just watch the Hunger Games for a primer.

While I might disagree on the idea of state terrorism in the way it is being discussed, I can bring the discussion back around to the larger umbrella of "political violence".  Some conflate political violence to terrorism and it's a valid point because it's the primary definition of terrorism. I've discussed my reticence to use the expansive definition of terrorism, but whatever.  The idea that governments don't use violence on their own people is ridiculous.  It is in fact the largest source of violence in the world.  Throughout time, no one is more likely to murder someone then their own government. 

[Kasandra]

I don't think appealing to fiction advances the argument, and it would be a rathole to debate the meaning and "message" that slavery conveyed in a culture that no longer exists.  Don't forget that the bible mentioned slavery favorably well over 100 times.  Do you want to pin the label "terrorism" on the peoples of the Old and New Testament eras?  Waco and Ruby Ridge were examples of law enforcement, however disastrously they turned out due to the target's armed resistance, misguided tactics on all sides, and mishandling by the government that occurred. 

[Kasandra]

Not what you said.  I would categorize political murders as between left and right-wing ideologues.  These are groups seeking to change social or political aspects of the US culture, not to obliterate or defeat the nation as a whole.  I'm ignoring Islamic terrorism, which dwarfs the numbers for either of those groups by the 9/11 bombing alone, but I consider that in the class of religious terrorism against all Americans of any ethnicity or political persuasion. 

K.  You're cherry picking to create data that fits your hypothesis.  If you want to have a long drawn out battle with Crunch over who has more crazies, Republicans or Democrats, left wing or right wing, be my guest.  I'm personally disinterested in argumentation that rests on cherry picked data to support claims that generally demonize political opponents.  It's factionalism and tribalism at it's worst and I generally avoid such things.  I don't think you'll be convincing anyone else either. 

The idea that international Islamic terrorism or religious terrorism is somehow different than domestic terrorism is invalid if your entire argument is about "who is worse".  Personally, I believe that Rumble is the more evil Decepticon because Laserbeak is a coward.  But it's a pedantic discussion based on ridiculous extrapolation and nut-picking.

I don't think I'm cherry picking, but focusing on a specific aspect of political violence.  You have your more expansive (but not complete) list, but I'm not interested in a wider range of topics that loses focus altogether. 

Likewise, governments don't engage in "political violence," since by definition what they commit is "state violence".

[Fenring]

Violent solutions aren’t not all terrorism. Terrorism specifically involves the use of innocent blood to convey a public relations message.  Roman crucifixions for example conveyed the message that slavery isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you.

So I guess you'd argue that capital punishment is an act of terrorism by the state? Actually that's a dangerous question, because you might answer yes...

[Fenring]

You managed to give everyone's (but my) point of view credence but claim that you don't have an opinion of your own.  This isn't a review forum.  Tell us where you stand, or perhaps you should sit.  Perhaps you could explain why my point of view doesn't merit your equivocal mention.

My message about how your idea to bring up terrorism was wrong-headed, and you're complaining that I didn't give it credence? I gave it attention, but why should I give credence to an idea that I'm literally posting to say I disagree with?

If you want my point of view, there is a lot of data to suggest that violent rhetoric has become normalized on the left. I have seen enough posts and 'liked' articles by far-left leaning people that endorse "punching a Nazi" and in fact punching various other groups not quite as extreme as Nazis. The memes themselves gloss over the fact that some people need punching, and that (in essence) true believers should take up the mantle of doing the punching. The fact of that matter, though, is that many of the actual individuals posting these things are cowards, in the sense of clearly not being in the category of people who are physically threatening. So there does seem to have a strange convergence of people who are (a) clearly more in the physical cream-puff realm, and (b) fantasize openly of doing violence to people they hate. I'm not sure if this is what Crunch is talking about, or whether he means political attacks of whatever. Me, I'm just talking about what I see on social media and occasionally IRL.

[NobleHunter]

The point of punching Nazis and other fascists isn't about doing violence to people you hate, it's about doing violence to people before they're in a position to do violence to you (which is what they say they're going to do). Some of us are on the list of undesirables and we're not sanguine about waiting until after they start putting us in camps to start fighting back.

[Grant]

The point of punching Nazis and other fascists isn't about doing violence to people you hate, it's about doing violence to people before they're in a position to do violence to you (which is what they say they're going to do). Some of us are on the list of undesirables and we're not sanguine about waiting until after they start putting us in camps to start fighting back.

My question, for whomever remains sane, is: "whom is the most hysterical"? 

1.  People who believe the government is on the verge of taking away their guns. 

2. People who believe the government or illuminati is spraying them with dangerous chemicals from aircraft. 

3. People who believe Ukraine is behind the 2016 election interference. 

4.  People who believe the Clintons had Epstein murdered. 

5. People who believe George Soros funds Christianity Today.

6.  People who believe there are pedophile rings being run out of pizza parlors.

7. People who believe American Nazis are about to start rounding people up and put them into camps. 

[NobleHunter]

Like most cancers, fascism is best dealt with early rather than waiting until it poses an immediate threat.

Also, they're already putting people into camps.

[Grant]

Like most cancers, fascism is best dealt with early rather than waiting until it poses an immediate threat.

Doctors arn't *censored*ing prescribing invasive surgery or chemo for every single mole on your skin. 

Also, they're already putting people into camps.

American Nazis are?

So far, you're in the lead for today's prize. 

[TheDrake]

(b) fantasize openly of doing violence to people they hate

I see plenty of this on the right as well. Usually about shooting illegal aliens, often about prominent democrats, students who advocate for gun control, etc. Now, I don't believe I've seen much acting out these fantasies. I also won't make any attempt to quantify any of this sentiment - I'm not even sure how you could go about it.

As for punching Nazis or more accurately white supremacists at large, I know that's the common excuse, that it is pre-emptive self-defense. But its a far cry from defending a statue to rounding people up in camps.

[Fenring]

I see plenty of this on the right as well. Usually about shooting illegal aliens, often about prominent democrats, students who advocate for gun control, etc. Now, I don't believe I've seen much acting out these fantasies. I also won't make any attempt to quantify any of this sentiment - I'm not even sure how you could go about it.

I have far more left-leaning people on my social media than right, so I'd be interested to hear if the scenario is proportionately mirrored on the other side. Is it quite normal for you to see regular (as in, daily) messages from right-wingers memeing about punching or doing other violence to these people? "Gotta go punch us some Mexicans!" kind of message? And I mean literally this, and not the sort of innuendo which suggests disliking illegal immigrants and which you might draw the inference that they'd like to round them up. I'm talking about straight-up saying it. If such memeing is mirrored exactly on the right-wing spectrum it wouldn't suprise me, I suppose, but I haven't seen it.

[NobleHunter]

Doctors arn't *censored*ing prescribing invasive surgery or chemo for every single mole on your skin. 

But they'll do minor surgery.

American Nazis are?

So far, you're in the lead for today's prize.

So we should wait until the existing machinery of oppression is co-opted by Nazis? That the processes are already in place means we should be extra vigilant, rather than less.

I have far more left-leaning people on my social media than right, so I'd be interested to hear if the scenario is proportionately mirrored on the other side. Is it quite normal for you to see regular (as in, daily) messages from right-wingers memeing about punching or doing other violence to these people? "Gotta go punch us some Mexicans!" kind of message? And I mean literally this, and not the sort of innuendo which suggests disliking illegal immigrants and which you might draw the inference that they'd like to round them up. I'm talking about straight-up saying it. If such memeing is mirrored exactly on the right-wing spectrum it wouldn't suprise me, I suppose, but I haven't seen it.

I've seen it in "safe spaces" for the Right or in cesspools like comment sections.

[TheDrake]

Fenring, again I can't think of a good way to quantify. And a sample of "people I know on social media" is frightfully inadequate. To be clear, I cull out the screechiest voices from my feed by unfollowing, so I'm always pruning that tree. Anecdotally, sitting around a bar, I've heard both - expressing hate and violence toward immigrants and nazis. Go to Breitbart and you won't have long to wait. They'll even tell you exactly what kind of ammunition should be used.

I suspect there may also be a deplatforming effect. Perhaps the right-wingers are getting blocked and dumped, as they claim? This would make their extreme statements harder to find.

[Lloyd Perna]

The point of punching Nazis and other fascists isn't about doing violence to people you hate, it's about doing violence to people before they're in a position to do violence to you (which is what they say they're going to do). Some of us are on the list of undesirables and we're not sanguine about waiting until after they start putting us in camps to start fighting back.

How do you know a Nazi when you see one?

Where is this list of Undesirables?  I want to make sure I'm not on it.

[Fenring]

I suspect there may also be a deplatforming effect. Perhaps the right-wingers are getting blocked and dumped, as they claim? This would make their extreme statements harder to find.

Fair enough. My point at any rate is I don't have to go out and search for it, and it's not something you might sometimes hear at a bar (for me). It's a pretty normal, basically standard everyday kind of post. That's what I mean by normalized; it's not just in extremis, but seems to be more a statement of basic belief: 'we believe in doing violence to the enemy', whoever that enemy is. I've seen the enemy referenced variously as "Nazis", "white supremacists", "racists", "slavers", and some non-literal but still violent-sounding rhetoric about Trump supporters. The question that's been posed here before, is how broad are these groups in the minds of those saying these things? If "Nazi" means the teeny group of literal neo-Nazis, then as Grant points out we're talking about a vehement rhetoric campaign against a puny group with no teeth (and that never will have any). If it means...well, something more inclusive, then that's something else.

[NobleHunter]

How do you know a Nazi when you see one?

Where is this list of Undesirables?  I want to make sure I'm not on it.

Wearing Nazi paraphernalia or espousing Nazi beliefs is a good indicator. I admit there can be a problem of target identification so one shouldn't be too quick to punch.

It's not that hard to find a list of who Nazis intend to murder wholesale.

[Kasandra]

My message about how your idea to bring up terrorism was wrong-headed, and you're complaining that I didn't give it credence? I gave it attention, but why should I give credence to an idea that I'm literally posting to say I disagree with?

Perhaps you mentioned it in another subset that I didn't happen to see actually stated.  You have an urbane way of speaking where I sometimes miss your point.  My sincere apologies.

If you want my point of view, there is a lot of data to suggest that violent rhetoric has become normalized on the left.

There are two interesting things there.  I was talking about actual violence, not rhetoric, as I think Grant was and to whom I was responding and about which I thought you were triangulating in your response.  The second is that you don't mention the equivalent violent rhetoric from the right.  Is that another subset that you don't need to mention, or is the right not guilty of that?  The third interesting thing is that you explicitly stated that you weren't opining whether Crunch was right or not.  In fact, your post equivocated on everything, as I tried to point out, apparently unsuccessfully.  That's why I say you couch your opinions in an urbane style.  I'm not saying you're wrong, of course.  You could be right. Or you could be talking about something other than what I was talking about.  Or perhaps I was talking about something different than what you were talking about.  What are we talking about?

I've seen the enemy referenced variously as "Nazis", "white supremacists", "racists", "slavers", and some non-literal but still violent-sounding rhetoric about Trump supporters.

Interesting (the fourth thing, I guess) that you accuse leftish people of talking about violence against groups that openly espouse violence against people they don't like.  That doesn't count, either?

[Seriati]

I’ll be surprised if we don’t see one of the left’s violent attacks turn deadly in 2020.

As opposed to all those violent attacks by "the right" which are never likely to turn deadly? 

Iowa Woman woman ran down victims she thought were Mexican

Crazy people are crazy

I think this kind of post should be strongly condemned by all.  There's nothing in that article that relates to politics.  No reason to think this particular racist isn't a Democrat for example rather than a Republican.  Based on the multiple arrests (she was in jail at the time they questioned her about this) it's more likely - statistically - that she's from a Democrat leaning demographic.  So why the free pretending that this is somehow equivalent to left wing political violence? 

It'd be kind of like if Crunch had responded to with a link to a Pedophile and attributed to the left.

Racism appears in both parties.  It is not a "right wing" philosophy no matter how much the left lies about it.