Yes. and really on a much longer scale than that.
Well, the original question was to try and figure out why the violence happens.
I tend to think the question, as it is generally asked, is rather disingenuous. I donât think the right is really trying to figure out a way to work with the frustrated, angry ultra-left people who are committing the violence. I donât see peace offerings or any sort of outreach. What I do see is blame, belittlement, and returned anger. A lot of nonsensical labeling.
Because being left wing is basically the norm nowadays, therefore, people feel safe in expressing their anger in ways they otherwise wouldnâtâŠthe same used to be true with regards racism & homophobia etc.
2 Likes
Damn this is the realest shit Iâve ever read here.
Well, you certainly canât fix it if you deny the problem. Like the people here claiming those people arenât real liberals. Liberalism has a violent intolerance problem. They might could do something about it if they recognized it. Maybe conservatives are just trying to raise awareness of the issue. Raising awareness, solution or not, is good right? Lol.
But itâs just kind of ridiculous to lay the burden of a solution for liberal violence on conservatives. The solution to irrational violent libs isnât ever going to be conservatives unless they agree to start macing and punching themselves.
2 Likes
ok, you said a few things hereâŠ
-
I didnât claim these arenât real liberals. I donât know anything specific about the group that did the Berkley thing, but Iâm perfectly willing to say they represent some facet of liberalism. I mean, theyâre protesting an alt-right conservative figurehead, so that part makes sense. What I disagree with is that these people represent anything larger than a tiny minority of liberals in the US. Literally half-ish of the country is liberal. How many of these people have actually committed violent politically-related activities? The number is extraordinarily small, a fraction of 1%. So it is a problem that SHOULD be relegated to an extremist view, something you seem to disagree with.
-
Based on what I just said, Iâm hard pressed to say liberalism has a violent intolerance problem.
-
âthey might could do something about it if they recognized itâ is a ridiculously useless thing to say. Thatâs like just saying âopen your eyes manâ and expecting something to happen. I would hope that we can come to a more useful idea than that, if our goal really is limiting or eliminating this sort of violence.
-
Yes, Iâm suggesting that conservatives need to behave better. The constant taunting, the name calling, the bragging, the belittlement, the bullying ABSOLUTELY has relevance here. And that is a conservative problem that it seems conservatives wonât admit to. I doubt you would admit to that as being a real problem. because sticks and stones, right?
-
So ultimately, I think your conclusion that the solution doesnât involve conservatives is unfounded. If you actually believe that, then this this thread is pointless and stupid, because a) you know as well as I do itâs not going to serve the purpose of âopening up liberals eyesâ, which is the thing you said is the only thing that will work. And youâre not up for conservatives doing ANYTHING to make things better. This is why I said the whole premise is disingenuous.
1 Like
Well, it doesnât take a lot of violent people to cause big problems. It wasnât a huge percentage of libs that got into the whole fire bombing thing back in the weather underground days, but a small group can have big impacts. It is also pertinent that the right doesnât have a parallel. Even the extreme right underbelly of conservatism like the modern KKK and white nationalists are non-violent and vocally anti-violence. The question isnât how small the percentage is that commit violence, itâs what in the liberal ideology allows or even encourages it. And what in mainstream liberals actions enables it. While no, the majority of libs at Berkley didnât attack people, the mainstream majority was hateful and supporting violent rhetoric. They carry violent signs and spout violent rhetoric. Like mentioned previously if half what the main stream liberals shout were true, violence would be just. If Trump actually were like Hitler mainstream liberal Sarah Silverman would be just in her military coup effort. You canât seriously make the claim someone is a Nazi who wants to kill all blacks and then get upset when someone hears you and treats that person like an actual Nazi.
How many libs committed violence at Berkley? Way too many. Numbers Iâve seen put them in a minority, but a sizable one in the hundreds. These sorts of numbers are exclusive to the left.
âBut only a minority actually commit violenceâ. Well again, a mob of 150 violent criminals may be a small minority (10% by estimates in this case), but itâs still way too many. And again, the problem is not just committing the acts, but justifying them. How many main stream liberals spout nonsense that if real would justify violence? A lot.
Assuming itâs their problem to fix.
Ok, again the vast preponderance of bullying is by libs, but what should libs do to fix the problem of conservative bullies?
I never said it did or didnât involve them. Itâs ridiculous to make it their responsibility though. And yeah itâs pointless. What thread on PWI has ever solved a problem? Iâll hold my breath. Thatâs fine to believe, but then why are you here when you donât have a workable solution?
1 Like
no. not at all true. THIS is where I think you make a huge mistake, because you donât seem to consider conservative rhetoric to be bullying. It absolutely is.
I donât believe youâve identified the problem correctly, because I DONâT agree that itâs a liberal ideological problem. Thereâs no way Iâm going to convince you of that though, so youâre right, I donât have a reason to discuss this anymore.
2 Likes
We may have different definitions of bullying. Public speeches arenât bullying. I find it hard to call things like name calling bullying. Bullying is using intimidation and threats to make someone do something. No, I donât see much of that on the right. Even the âalt-rightâ. I guess they probably get into some grey area with insults on twitter, but thatâs the most of it. Forcing someone to do something through intimidation is mostly a lib thing. Maybe you could give me something specific.
And for the record Iâm not a conservative.
And this is what would make any solution impossible.
This sort of thing is the problem. Please notice Milo is one of the Nazis to punch. And the left wonders why violence happens at one of his speeches?
And how is this different from the things Trump said on the campaign trail that were meant to incite violence? Or when he said âIâd like to punch him in the faceâ?
Also letâs not pretend I couldnât find a youtube video of a conservative video game similar to this with, say, Obama getting punched. Iâm certain I could find something in about a minute.
I guess one last thing would be that Milo is a troll, he is TRYING to incite violence because of his love for being both the victim and the hero, and heâs a piece of shit alt-right leader in general. I think that has a lot more to do with violence at his speech than âliberals are just violent peopleâ.
1 Like
it actually took 1 google search. type in âpunch obamaâ and see what comes up.
1 Like
Well, I agree Trump says stupid shit. Iâd even agree that his tilt to state-ism and his brand of rhetoric has started to mirror much of the left. I even agree that if it continues it will become a problem. But thatâs all very new. And âIâd like to punch him in the faceâ and âyou are a nazi who wants to kill womanâ arenât philosophically similar. Trump said heâd like to punch a particular person, Hilary blatantly called middle America a bunch of deplorables. Yes, Trump is wrong, but even he isnât on the same sort of level as main stream libs like Hilary.
Milo is an asshole. He is a very smart one whom is probably right about a lot of stuff. And while No, I donât think he is a positive influence on politics, heâs at least entirely non-violent. But that doesnât entitle you to blame the victim (which he still is). The violence at his speech is expressly and exclusively the fault of the people calling for violence and committing violence. Milo says mean things, the left calls for, justifies, and commits violence. Again not even comparable.
1 Like
Right, you googled and still couldnât get a good comparison. First and foremost, the other game is âpunch a Naziâ. If this Obama game was âpunch a Nier" it would be closer. But even then, a game punching a flamboyant gay immigrant jew you label only as âNaziâ is something more sinister. but even with existence, acceptance is different. Mainstream conservatives just plain do not endorse at least publicly something like âpunch a gayâ or "punch a nierâ in a way that many many main stream libs do.
1 Like
oh come on. I posted the first link just because it was a video game of punching a target on the opposite end of the political spectrum, similar to this. If you want to find something horrible like what youâre talking about, google âlynch obamaâ. I didnât want to go there, and certainly didnât want to post links, but apparently you donât want to make the easy jump to assume what you should assume happens when you google those words. Thereâs no reason to act like I couldnt find links that are EXACTLY what youâre describing, on the front page of a 2 word google search.
Because the people protesting and carrying out violent acts are sheltered noobs to actual violence.
If they ever experienced the exchange of real violence first hand they would be sickened at the thought of it.
Theyâll stop when they actually have to crack somebodys skull to keep from getting gutted like a fish, or catch a brick to the head and can never speak properly again.
1 Like
Most here have the wrong take on this. Letâs all be happy that the left is burning, looting and destroying major left wing cities and institutions.
Actually, I donât like the violence but it does speak to a bankrupt philosophy.
And as long as they want to destroy something wellâŠ
1 Like
There is no right wing equivalent of Madana dreaming of blowing up the Whitehouse, or sarah sivlerman calling for a military coup. Right now it is liberal mainstream to deny the validity of the legitimately and constitutionally elected president. And even more than that you are labeled a radical facsist if you are a liberal that acknowledges the legitimacy of the duly elected president. There is not a conservative parallel to the level of normalization of violence in the liberal ideology.
But for curiosity sake, lets say Iâm wrong and the right were as hateful and bigoted as the left and normalized violent speech and signs, what is your answer to the original question. Why is there so much more political violence from the left throughout history?
so now celebrities represent mainstream liberalism? jesus christ dude. Just because celebrities have a voice that can be heard does NOT mean they represent the actual liberal population in any capacity. Youâre diminishing a political view by saying that it is represented by morons who donât ACTUALLY represent it. Madonna is a fucking 80s pop star and Sarah Silverman is a comedian. Since when do they get to represent mainstream liberals.
You know who does represent mainstream liberals? Mainstream politicians. You know, the people the liberal population is actually voting for. And I have not heard one such representative condone violence in the cases youâve mentioned, or others.
Also, Iâm not sure how you can say âthroughout history.â in your last point. You said earlier the KKK represents an extremist far right view. Does the violence perpetrated by the far left remotely compare to that of the KKK in its heyday? Or lets take a more recent example, since weâve now opened up the history books. Letâs talk about the brutal attacks on civil rights protestors who marched and conducted sit ins, just so they wouldnât be judged by the color of their skin. You REALLY want to go there? The VAST majority of the civil rights movement was violent attacks perpetrated by those on the right. And that was MAINSTREAM, albeit mostly southern, right, at the time. Murder was condoned by right-wing courts when black people were killed. But please, tell me how American history is all about leftists violently lashing out against the right.
2 Likes