• Questioner
    137
    There is decidedly more events of left wing violence.AmadeusD

    This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this?

    The right simply doesn't kill people for their opiinons. The left will.AmadeusD

    What a wholly unfounded statement.

    For every crazy on the left, I can find for you two crazies on the right. Here's one specific example - death threats against election workers and candidates in the 2024 election spiked to over 2,000. Fed by Trump's lies and hate, many MAGA lashed out against those Trump said were the enemy.

    According to Gary M. Restaino, the U.S. attorney in Arizona, “There’s a common denominator in many of these cases: election denialists announcing an intent to violently punish those who they believe have wronged them.

    He’d announced that a judge had sentenced an Ohio man, Joshua Russell, 46, to 30 months in prison for sending death threats to Katie Hobbs, then Arizona’s secretary of state, between August and November 2022.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/13/us/politics/election-workers-threats.html

    Not only Kirk, but two attempts on the President's life.AmadeusD

    I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" -

    -- which, lumps a whole lot of different people together. It is viewing the world through an "us vs them" lens and that leaves no room for critical thinking.

    I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters.

    It's leadership that especially has to be held accountable.
  • BC
    14.1k
    I'm a agéd leftist; my experience has been that very ideologically committed leftists (Marxists) can be intolerant of other people's statements, when they don't match the ideology.

    I've been denounced for disagreeing with the idea that the working class must achieve class consciousness in order for the global warming crisis to be averted. "I never want to speak to you again", he said, and he hasn't for several years. It would be just great if the working classes DID achieve class consciousness this afternoon, but our enlightenment doesn't seem to be on the horizon, and at this point, the global warming crisis is becoming present tense, rather than future tense.

    Defenders of embattled ideology (which Marxists are, pretty much, especially in rampantly capitalist economies) are reluctant to agree with the opposition on anything. That said, the opposite very conservative, ultra-religious types are in the same boat. They find it difficult to grant credit to dissenters on just about anything.

    Ideology is a chunk of the problem, as is personality. Some people have rigid personalities who experience pain when they have to bend, even a little. Some informed ideologues, left and right, are able to be flexible enough to agree with opposing ideas.

    Group think sets in, too. Social dynamics make it difficult to wander even a little from the party line, be that revolutionary or reactionary in nature.
  • AmadeusD
    3.8k
    I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" -Questioner

    What a wholly unfounded statement.Questioner

    Not only unfounded, entirely unreasonable. They are left-wing individuals killing, or attempting to kill 'right wing' individuals on policy grounds. There isn't another way to spin this. If you are wanting to do so, I suggest it's better we do not go into this because I can only ignore that type of thing.

    This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this?Questioner

    It seems to me you can't really say the first thing and then ask the second in good faith. Forgive me for ignoring hte former. The latter seems better to go on. Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting.

    We can also look at the fact that the 'right wing' has not killed anyone for their opinions in a very, very long time. We've had the Left do it in the last 12 months. And attempted several more. In fact, if some reports are to be believed they will kill their own: Hortman. I'm not going to stand too strongly behind that because, like everyone else, I can only go on what's public and what's public is a shitshow mess of a narrative. The list given in the Senate hearing is pretty damn ample for current purposes.

    I am not denying that the right-wing has had a history of political violence. Its not as if the left haven't either, but i recognize the disparity. You need to carefully understand what my claim was - in the last two election cycles it has skewed one way. And perhaps there is only one example on either side, but Kirk is the prime example evidencing the claim that they will kill over speech/opinions.

    This is to also entirely ignore the on-the-ground damage done by protests across the country - which almost universally turn violent at the behest of left-wing protestors.

    I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters.Questioner

    He has not. He did not. Sincerely, someone who wishes the constant lies about Trump were true.
  • AmadeusD
    3.8k
    Why differentiate political liberalism from classical liberalism on this point? Aren't they the same with respect to your example of opposing racism?Leontiskos

    Possibly, but "classical liberal" values are considered either cowardly centrist or right wing values in a lot of quarters these days. The current "political liberalism" seems to me more like running with scissors.

    All the talking points are out of date, but everyone still wants to be smug like 20 year old, irrelevant gotchas are conversation enders.MrLiminal

    100%. No one states their goals, no one listens to the other person, massive ad hominem, ignorance of facts etc... It's all about point-scoring. I thought high school was where that was meant to end.
  • Questioner
    137
    Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting.AmadeusD

    Using that video as your source is the equivalent of saying, "If you don't believe me, just ask me."

    Trump has put a lot of targets on a lot of backs. The latest ones are the six courageous lawmakers who reminded military that they should not follow illegal orders. Trump is totally and completely intolerant of anyone who does not kiss his ring.
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.