Opinion Radical left vs Radical Right poll

[Social Distance Warrior]

That is not the only form of politically motivated violence.

If I answered right-wing, what would you say? You would simply just say "nuh uh" or ignore it. And it would be just as valid an answer as any. You're not asking a question that, no matter the answer, has any factual basis or statistics to support it.

and this is why it's difficult and often abjectly hopeless in discussing this with extreme partisans. you guys aren't interest in honest conversation.

good day to you and Jack.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

"I've heard the facts before, and I don't care" is basically what you're saying, no? The investigation didn't clear Trump of coordinating with Russia. In fact, it's because of the investigation that we know that he was sharing private information with them to help maximize the impact of the stolen data. And we know that he was aware of the hacking before it was made public because of the investigation. You're just OK with it because the victims are people you perceive as being your enemies and because the upshot of the attacks on democracy is that people you perceive as being in your tribe will have more power.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/



Just to be clear, you've told me numerous times that the NYTimes is one of the best and most trusted news sources in the world.


Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

 

[Jack V Savage]

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Just to be clear, you've told me numerous times that the NYTimes is one of the best and most trusted news sources in the world.


Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

Did not "establish." But the investigation did find the things that I said it found (some of which was initially redacted).

 

[Oxycodone]

and this is why it's difficult and often abjectly hopeless in discussing this with extreme partisans. you guys aren't interest in honest conversation.

good day to you and Jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

and this is why it's difficult and often abjectly hopeless in discussing this with extreme partisans. you guys aren't interest in honest conversation.

good day to you and Jack.

I understand that nothing is going to change your mind, but it's sleazy as hell to accuse me of dishonesty for prioritizing facts over images and for not playing along with your misdirection. You should just say, "I believe what rightist propaganda wants me to believe, and I won't discuss it." You often claim to like to read disagreement, but here we have an example of you simply refusing to engage when someone doesn't share your objectively false beliefs.

 

[AWilder]

Look at all those red-state utopias...like Alabama....

 

[Jack V Savage]

Same guy:

I don't agree with this philosophy of blocking/ignoring people I don't agree with.

the art of conversation/dialogue has been lost. (especially with the advent of social media, and Trump didn't help matters very much either).
when you surround yourself with only like minded posters one tends to become mentally stagnant...runs the risk of mental atrophy imo.

and this is why it's difficult and often abjectly hopeless in discussing this with extreme partisans. you guys aren't interest in honest conversation.

good day to you and Jack.

"The art of dialogue has been lost, but if someone doesn't agree with me (and I refuse to look at evidence), they're not interested in honest conversation." WTF?

 

[Iron Nick]

The side that still in large parts denies humanity's impact on the climate - which also for some reason happens to be the side that flourishes whenever the educational system is neglected.

 

[Badger67]

I dislike both but i can't tolerate the radical left for anywhere near as long. Thankfully the vast majority of my circle is similar.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Look at all those red-state utopias...like Alabama....

Any place in Alabama probably compares pretty favorably to "blue utopias" like Detroit or Baltimore.

 

[dirtypablo]

Putting aside any political biases or even the particulars of this argument, it should be obvious to everyone that SDW's approach is really dumb. You can't refute data showing that X happens more than Y by showing that Y happens sometimes or by asking "Y happens, sometimes, right?" Or "people worry about Y, right?" How can an adult fail to realize this point?

Can you share a link to this data? I assume we will be able to cross reference specific incidents in the data set?

I suspect we won't be able to do so, and if we could it would show the problem with solely relying on this 'data.' it is very limited in it's scope of what it considers political violence, such that the type of left wing violence that many of us see as concerning isn't included, so the result shows a disproportionate amount of right wing violence.

The most extreme incidences of political violence are largely committed by right wingers, but that's not the point or what many of us are concerned about. Those incidences are largely one man or a very small group of people, and they are widely condemned. The incidences of left wing violence (or other types of extreme and dangerous behavior) that occur are widespread, and largely dismissed or ignored by the mainstream. For example, you have been commenting on Trump's attempts to subvert democracy by challenging the results of the election, and I don't disagree. But there was a widespread, and well accepted movement in 2016 for the electoral college members to go against the results of their states votes and vote in Hillary. If Trump had won again, I would bet my life savings we would see similar behavior, and I think it would be even more widespread this time. Were these people called out for attempting to subvert democracy? Of course not. Everyone ignored it and made it out to be no big deal. And thats the problem - its not where things are right now, its where they could go.

 

[Source]

Any Far Right group ever beat Stalin/Mao/Kims/Pol Pot death count?

Thats and easy one. None of those have anything on the National Socialist
German Worker’s Party’s death count.

 

[SanchoMF]

Thats and easy one, the National Socialist German Workers Party’s death count beat all of those combined.

Really? More than a 100 Million people killed by the NSDAP?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Thats and easy one. None of those have anything on the National Socialist
German Worker’s Party’s death count.

you might want to fact check that.

Stalin killed far more...
and the death count under the "cultural Revolution" in China is estimated to be as high as 20 million.

 

[Source]

Really? More than a 100 Million people killed by the NSDAP?

I think most estimates put the death toll for WW2 around 85 million. It far and away beats any of that list individually. I was intentionally being hyperbolic to see who would bite.

 

[Allosaurus Fragillis]

Well I'm a socialist, so I am a radical leftist by most people's standards. So obviously I believe the radical right is worse. The radical left just wants to give everyone healthcare and a job that pays a living wage. As well as food in their mouths and a roof over their heads when they sleep.
Meanwhile the radical right is comprised of climate change deniers, Covid deniers, anti-vaxxers, young Earth creationists, flat Earthers, racists, homophobess, transphobes, xenophobes, anti-Semites, Qanoners, white nationalists, and Neo-Nazis who believe that the Democrats are controlled by a cabal of communist Satanists who drink the blood of babies, and the radical right wants to get rid of democracy and make Donald Trump god-emperor for life. So I think it should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the far-right is far worse.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can you share a link to this data? I assume we will be able to cross reference specific incidents in the data set?

I suspect we won't be able to do so, and if we could it would show the problem with solely relying on this 'data.' it is very limited in it's scope of what it considers political violence, such that the type of left wing violence that many of us see as concerning isn't included, so the result shows a disproportionate amount of right wing violence.

Well, first, obviously no collection is going to be perfect. But then one must ask what a better source of information would be. Because "I saw some YouTube videos" or "it seems to me" are much, much worse than any good-faith attempt to collect data. This story links to some other information sources: https://theweek.com/articles/941014/political-violence-coming-from-direction-country-far-right.

The difference is large enough everyone who studies the issue gets the same directional result (one reason I just invited people to just Google the question). If someone wants to try to really study it, and they find a result that would be surprising to everyone else, I'd be interested in seeing it. But see my earlier post:

Putting aside any political biases or even the particulars of this argument, it should be obvious to everyone that SDW's approach is really dumb. You can't refute data showing that X happens more than Y by showing that Y happens sometimes or by asking "Y happens, sometimes, right?" Or "people worry about Y, right?" How can an adult fail to realize this point?

 

[SanchoMF]

I think most estimates put the death toll for WW2 around 85 million. It far and away beats any of that list individually. I was intentionally being hyperbolic to see who would bite.

Oh boy howdy did I bite, since the pestilent commies have been racking up their numbers for decades after the Krauts were rightfully stopped.

 

[dirtypablo]

Well, first, obviously no collection is going to be perfect. But then one must ask what a better source of information would be. Because "I saw some YouTube videos" or "it seems to me" are much, much worse than any good-faith attempt to collect data. This story links to some other information sources: https://theweek.com/articles/941014/political-violence-coming-from-direction-country-far-right.

The difference is large enough everyone who studies the issue gets the same directional result (one reason I just invited people to just Google the question). If someone wants to try to really study it, and they find a result that would be surprising to everyone else, I'd be interested in seeing it. But see my earlier post:

As expected, this source is only looking at one type of political violence - murders. No one sensible disputes that most political shootings or bombings are done by right wingers. But those aren't the only types of violence. Assaulting people at protests is another. Setting businesses on fire is another. Throwing rocks and other hard, dense objects at police is another. Physically blocking people from going to a campaign event is another. When it comes to this type of violence, it comes from the left and occurs on a scale that is orders of magnitude more frequent than any type of right wing violence. During the BLM riots this summer, there were violent attacks in almost every major American city. Can you point to a time in the last 50 years where there was widespread, coordinated violence committed by right wingers?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I think most estimates put the death toll for WW2 around 85 million. It far and away beats any of that list individually. I was intentionally being hyperbolic to see who would bite.

yea, 85 million casualties from all forces fighting one another.

if you're looking for a body count regarding the Holocaust it's 6 Million...some say as high as 8 million