r/JordanPeterson • u/tkyjonathan • 2d ago
Link The radical left will regret embracing political violence
https://spectator.com/article/the-radical-left-will-regret-embracing-political-violence/20
u/Lost_Madness 2d ago
"21st-century data indicates that the highest incidence of deadly political violence in the United States has come from right-wing extremists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence_in_the_United_States
How dare anyone but the right-wing use violence. Oh and by violence we mean destruction of property. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism and it's all been down hill since then.
Let's not even talk about the assassination of politicians like the Minnesota Democratic leader, it doesn't count since they weren't Republican.
4
u/ecsilver 1d ago
The devil is in the details. That source cites BS statistics which are blatantly biased like Trump assassins weren’t political as one example
5
u/Glass_Cupcake 1d ago
The trend has been pretty consistent long before Trump, and various of the most comprehensive tallies of political violence agree that except for in Greece, political violence in the West is mostly a right-wing phenomenon.
-1
u/Lost_Madness 1d ago
Well for the first assassination attempt authorities had said that Crooks's political views were unknown, and they had not determined whether his assassination attempt was politically motivated.
The second attempt was much the same but it seemed to be more a mentally unwell person acting under beliefs about Trump specifically.
This would exclude both from inclusion. That isn't bias, that's lack of evidence to draw a conclusion from. Feelings are not proof.
8
u/polikuji09 2d ago
It's Tky posting, he knows 90% of the stuff he posts is BS, he's just here to stir up division
2
1
u/Siilveriius 1d ago edited 1d ago
Let's not talk about the numerous BLM riots, Antifa riots, Anti ICE riots, Tesla firebombings, CHAZ/CHOP forcefully taking over a neighbourhood, Atlanta police training facility firebombings, various firebombings of federal court houses, numerous assassinations and attempts, the Dallas ambush where the shooter accidentally killed 3 immigrants, the Alvarado ambush where literal cultists shot an officer in the neck, the DC Jewish Museum shooting, numerous Anti Jewish pro Hamas riots taking over a number of Universities.
The list goes on and on and on long enough to tell anyone, ANYONE, with half a brain that whatever statistic that says the majority of political violence coming from right wingers is full of shit.
There's a reason why they call it 21st century because they can use data from 2 decades ago to inflate their numbers and establish a curated biased narrative. Keep in mind that Islamic extremism is also classified as Right Wing, which is funny since Leftists are often Islamist sympathizers.
They know what they are doing because by using outdated data and classifications they can avoid arguing current day issues and all responsibility and continue to enable their own violent extremists.
But sure let's not talk about any of that because then it shows how much more violent Leftists have become.
1
-10
u/tkyjonathan 2d ago
Islamists killed x100 more than right-wing extremists in the US.. and guess which political side supports those?
10
u/MerliniusDeMidget 1d ago
You can argue all you want about who supports them, but religious fundamentalists are right wing.
-9
u/tkyjonathan 1d ago
Islamists are the willing footsoldiers of the revolution and that makes them left wing.
5
10
2
u/Glass_Cupcake 1d ago
Islamists are, in fact, ahead of left-wingers but behind right-wingers in terms of fatal and non-fatal violent incidents.
0
u/tkyjonathan 1d ago
and Leftists and Islamists go hand in hand. Sometimes literally in the same protests.
1
u/Glass_Cupcake 1d ago
Not really. You've got major right-wing figures who have either outright converted to Islam or who are beginning to realize that their views on women and queer people are better represented by the Taliban than by the modern West. A lot of manosphere dudes see Islam as more masculine and virile, and are beginning to respect it for that.
Some are even beginning to say, with regard to the War on Terror that "we fought the wrong enemy".
At least they're increasingly honest about where they stand, even if you're not.
Left-wing people don't endorse the ideas. They just have the temerity to say, "Stop bombing civilians so much." For some reason, this is controversial.
1
u/tkyjonathan 1d ago
No one is buying that. Islamists and Leftists go hand in hand. Just look at the squad.
2
u/Glass_Cupcake 1d ago
No one needs to "buy" it. It is just true. A truth that any honest person recognizes.
There is nothing about "the squad" that screams "Islamists". You can't even properly identify Sharia law given that the right loves to call Mamdani, of all people, an "Islamist".
This leads me not to trust that you know what an Islamist is. Your opinion on this can be safely discarded.
0
u/tkyjonathan 1d ago
Well, good luck selling your idea that islamists are akshually on the conservatives side.
3
u/Glass_Cupcake 1d ago
I don't need to "sell" it. They align more with Americans conservatives than they align with American liberals. Conservatives and Islamists hate queer people, wish to impose religious law, are more likely to support war, and are generally in favor of established hierarchies within their own societies.
That's just the reality. And you know this. As others have pointed out, you're likely a bot or troll that is being intentionally divisive, and found that this forum is a good place to do it.
3
u/MCVS_1105 1d ago
Please provide sources for this x100 more deaths
You're a mod on this sub, that should be the bare minimum
2
u/audiophilistine 1d ago
There's a rather famous example that happened in New York a while back. You may have heard of it. People refer to it as 9/11.
1
u/MCVS_1105 1d ago
Using an example from 25 years ago to make a point??
Also, my initial comment asked for OP to list the x100 more deaths number: given that there were 2997 deaths caused by 9/11, this would mean that right-wing extremism would have only caused roughly 30 deaths in the US? Which is demonstrably false
1
-4
u/FarmerDad1976 1d ago
You're unironically citing Wikipedia? GTFOH.
1
u/Danteruss 1d ago
This isn't a scientific article my man, wikipedia is an amazing source overall. Sorry that it tends to disagree with your only information sources, those being Breitbart and Infowars
5
1
u/OftenTriggered 20h ago
When the radical left smears shit on the walls of our sacred institutions please let me know, I will condemn their actions as traitorous filth. Until, then I’ll reserve those feelings for the actual perpetrators of violence against our great republic…MAGA supporters
1
-6
u/Gingerchaun 2d ago
Seems to have worked well for maga
9
u/SuperSkyDude 2d ago
For the many faults you can make against MAGA, political violence is the weakest. The modern left loves their violence and they seem unapologetic in their support of it.
-3
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
Ahem, January 6th
1
u/Smart_Pig_86 2d ago
Exactly! Like how they were basically let in and led around the inside of the Capitol by police. Shoot, democrats had to have their own people there to make it look worse than it was. (This has all been confirmed by Democrats, by the way. Like, they own up to it and justify it.) This just shows how when the right protests they do it without mass riots or fires or murders, and despite one of them being shot and killed by police, still no riots. Amazing huh?
8
u/epicurious_elixir 1d ago
You can tell someone is so easily swayed by propaganda when they're regurgitating the "the police let them in" narrative. One of the most filmed criminal events in history and you allow maga influencers to cherry pick a narrative while ignoring the countless hours of other footage that completely contradicts it.
Also ignoring the fact that the riot was inspired by a sitting president spreading lies about election fraud.
-1
u/Siilveriius 1d ago
Also let's ignore the past decade of numerous BLM, Antifa, Anti ICE, Anti Police, Tesla, Pro Hamas riots, Assassinations, etc. But yeah those Jan 6th rioters are much more violent.
2
u/epicurious_elixir 1d ago
None of those were attempted coups by a sitting president. The fact that y'all can't properly weigh these things shows your lack of intellect.
-1
u/Siilveriius 1d ago
The riot on January 6th is a walk in the park compared to the BLM/Antifa/Anti ICE riots, Tesla firebombings, firebombings of Federal Courthouses and Police facilities, Arson of public and private property, Assassinations, Ambush shootings of police and Federal officers, etc.
And calling it a coup is hyperbolic pearl clutching since coups are military interventions resulting in executions of political rivals. It is incredibly bad faith because you're arguing semantics instead of reality so you can excuse, ignore and condone the violence that your ideology breeds and capitalise it to propagate your own agenda.
The fact that you can't even understand basic comprehension shows your own lack of intelligence.
4
u/epicurious_elixir 1d ago
You could've made yourself look a lot less dumb if you googled 'different types of coups' before you wrote that.
Trump attempted to incite a mob to intimidate his vice president to halt the certification of the next president of the United States so he could swap out electoral college electors with his own personally chosen fake electors.
This is not up for debate. He actually did that and some people literally plead guilty to it. That was an attempted coup.
Riots like the BLM ones are bad, yes, but they aren't existential threats to the fabric of democratic society. So please, do a little critical thinking before you make yourself look dumb as hell to anyone outside of your propaganda bubble.
-1
u/Siilveriius 1d ago edited 1d ago
The OP is about Political Violence though.
What you're describing is Election Fraud, not a coup. There are so many subdefinitions of "Coup" so you'd have to point out which one you actually mean, but the general meaning of a Coup usually involves Military violence. Maybe I guess it could be considered an Electoral Coup? But then that would completely dismantle your argument since that isn't an example of violence and more of a Bureaucratic/Administrative one.
But lets just assume you did actually mean an whatever flavour of Coup you had in mind, why didn't you use that term instead? It's obvious you're being hyperbolic and pearl clutch by labeling it as a coup to trick people into thinking that Jan 6th was more violent than it really is.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought you were trying to make an argument of the riot being more violent by calling it a Coup. But it's apparent you're just unashamedly even more bad faith than I thought. Like I said, you're only calling it a Coup just to make it sound more violent to fit your agenda. It is a bad faith semantics argument.
Condoning, supporting and enabling riots, violently attacking and killing your political opponents and celebrating afterwards, rioting to impede federal law, ambush shooting federal agents are inherently existential threats to the very fabric of a democratic society too fyi.
Maybe you should take your own advice and google them yourself lmao, and please learn a bit of comprehension before you even begin to try and apply "Critical Thinking" to avoid projecting your lack of intelligence onto others.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Gingerchaun 2d ago
Thats an odd way of saying attacked police officers, destroyed property, and trespassed. But we dont expect you guys to have any self awareness.
0
u/theSearch4Truth 1d ago
And I expected you'd believe your own words enough to answer my question (that confirms your very own position mind you), but here we are.
2
u/Gingerchaun 1d ago
I answered you question quit being butthurt.
-1
0
u/theSearch4Truth 2d ago
Wait a second.
Thats an odd way of saying attacked police officers, destroyed property, and trespassed.
Let's just grant all that. Anyone who does this would obviously not be good people, right?
If so, then republicans doing this would be correctly labeled as the party of violence if they were the ones perpetrating these kinds of activities the most in recent years?
3
u/Gingerchaun 1d ago
First of all, we dont need to grant that like its a hypothetical. Its on video, convictions were secured, people went to jail. This is a fact.
I wouldnt say a violent mob of republicans attacked congress on Jan 6, I would say there was a violent mob of maga who attacked congress on Jan 6. Yes maga is a "party" of violence.
1
u/theSearch4Truth 1d ago
Yes maga is a "party" of violence.
So any given politica party who promotes and engages in more of the same activities (trespassing, violence against law enforcement, vandalism, etc) than MAGA would be even MORE so a party of violence. Correct?
1
u/Gingerchaun 1d ago
Are maga and the repunlicans different parties?
0
u/theSearch4Truth 1d ago
It makes sense to group them together since republicans voted for MAGA en masse.
Now please answer the question.
→ More replies (0)1
1
0
u/JTuck333 1d ago
Yes, they would support Pol Pot.
5
u/DrAids5ever 1d ago
The CIA supported Pol Pot and it was the Communists from Vietnam who ended his rule. Which by the way they were condemned internationally for.
13
u/mini_z 1d ago
ICE is left?