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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"If you don't believe me, just ask me." — Questioner

It was literally someone else.

Trump has put a lot of targets on a lot of backs. — Questioner

This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses in another thread, I shall bow out. Take care :)

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

Yep.

This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses — AmadeusD

Truth is important to us philosophers. I am confused, though, why the truth should be called "unhinged" and "emotional" and in "bad-faith" - Here's the truth -

There has been an onslaught of death threats against Mark Kelly because Trump posted that Kelly should be put on trial for “seditious behavior.” “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Did Trump put a target on Biden when he posted an image of Biden kidnapped and hogtied in the back of a pick-up truck, on his social media?

Or how about when he doxed Letitia James? – he shared a link with her home address, accusing her of a “miscarriage of justice” - raging against her, including calling her a “lunatic” who had “defrauded the public with this trial.” Yes, she received death threats.

Trump also incited death threats against Mark Milley - Trump (posting on social media) accused him of committing “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”

And on January 6, Trump knew that windows at the Capitol were being kicked in, that the riot was underway, and that rioters were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.” So, he tweets the green light to his supporters: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

The violence – especially directed at police - at the Capitol escalated quickly after that tweet. (Some White House officials describe that tweet as their breaking point that prompted them to resign).

I recently read an article that said the reason so many Republican lawmakers toe the Trump line is because they fear the death threats that come from going against Trump.

So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster.

Something work examining. There are great philosophical lessons in politics.

So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster. — Questioner

Fwiw, I don't. The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. That's fine, bt not something I'm keen to lean into. You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance.

The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. — AmadeusD

Our conversation will go a lot more smoothly if you refrain from making unfair and inaccurate accusations against me.

You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance. — AmadeusD

Well, then, let's have an examination of incitement. I guess we could begin with "what is the power of words?"

I would find this more compelling if Trump wasn't also the target of political violence and threats. Not that I approve of the current flavor of political discourse, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and imo Kathy Griffin started this Trump's first term with the severed head thing and it has only continued since. People openly wish for Trump's violent death in some parts of both the real world and internet, and there have been at least 2 high profile attempts on his life.

Kathy Griffin started this Trump's first term with the severed head thing and it has only continued since. People openly wish for Trump's violent death in some parts of both the real world and internet — MrLiminal

The thing Griffin did was horrible. I certainly wouldn’t condone that sort of thing.

But, as I mentioned before, for every leftist extremist, there's two (or more) that belong to the right.

For example, I subscribe to the website MAGA Report that monitors MAGA online forums and reports on them. With the news that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was to be released, posters to one particular forum suggested extrajudicial violence as the solution to immigration

Here are the copied comments:

***

• We should have killed this guy months ago. It would have saved us a lot of time and hassle while taking a violent criminal off the streets.
Why is it that we can blow up foreign criminals/terrorists in international waters and abroad, but the moment they set foot on US soil, they’re entitled to an attorney, a trial, an appeals process, etc?
o It baffles me how a criminal alien, involved in human trafficking, and open gang member doesn’t get the rope.
 Why not have the cameras malfunction for a few minutes while he “hangs himself” like Jeffery Epstein did?
 Criminal aliens charged with felonies should be under military court jurisdiction and justice.
 You might run into some issues with that due to ex parte Milligan.
Which is why I’d prefer to deny them a trial outright
 Just a hundred years ago, regular people like you and me would have already hanged him from a tree...
 60 years ago.
20 years ago no judge would dare do this.
We’ve been conquered. There hypothetically and unfortunately needs to be a civil war to end this.
 Revolution, not civil war.
There’s a huge difference

***

What is the source of this hate?

Indeed, much of the research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence.

And -

“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives…”

“In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

The Trump DOJ quietly removed the results of this study from its webpage in September. Why? What false narrative is it trying to advance?

When Trump tells the base that all Somalians are “garbage” – and even specifically calls Rep. Ilhan Omar the same epithet - when he constantly dehumanizes and hammers home that any political opposition are “enemies that must be destroyed” – he is radicalizing a good portion of his base.

My point is this – Leadership must be held accountable. They set the tone.

The assassination attempts on Trump were sickening, and they were soundly denounced by Democrat leadership.

But Trump says things like this: “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave that the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”

Death threats to lawmakers have doubled during the Trump years.

Here’s one example:

Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat)

“You stand toe to toe with me, I rip your head off. You die.”

FBI agents issued Smith a warning, but he didn’t stop, and ramped up his messages, alluding to guns.
His accusations were vague – “you’re pedophiles and you’re criminals”

When they arrested Smith, they confiscated four shotguns, five rifles, eight pistols, a homemade silencer and nearly 1,200 rounds of ammunition. Smith pleaded guilty to threatening to injure and murder a US Senator and was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.

So these questions remain –

What incited Smith and made him so angry? Who creates the political environment? What role does leadership play? Can leadership be held accountable for incitement? What limits should be put on political rhetoric? Are politicians role models?

I remain unmoved. I used to be incredibly anti-Trump and still largely disagree with him, but I have seen too many examples of actual bloodlust from friends and family further left than me to believe this isn't a politically neutral problem. What's more, the right has *always* been fine with being seen as the heartless party, so it's much more jarring to see the supposedly soft-hearted and empathetic democrats sink to their level.

I remain unmoved. I used to be incredibly anti-Trump and still largely disagree with him, but I have seen too many examples of actual bloodlust from friends and family further left than me to believe this isn't a politically neutral problem. What's more, the right has *always* been fine with being seen as the heartless party, so it's much more jarring to see the supposedly soft-hearted and empathetic democrats sink to their level. — MrLiminal

Sorry, you have ignored the main point of my post - what is the role of leadership in all this?

Do you think the bloodlust from either side would be as bad if leadership from both actually tried to stop it? This is a both sides problem, and I'm tired of pretending like it's not. Unless you can admit that, I do not think this conversation will be productive. There is clearly a growing appetite for political violence in our society that is starting to boil over, I would argue largely due to the left catastrophizing Trump from a bad President to an almost supernaturally evil one. For all the talk about how much the right hated Obama like the anti-Christ, he never came nearly as close to assassination as Trump has.

I'm moving this to the Lounge. I don't see any political philosophy.

Do you think the bloodlust from either side would be as bad if leadership from both actually tried to stop it? — MrLiminal

I haven't seen any bloodlust from Democratic leadership. I have seen them calling Trump out on the many ways he is poisoning politics in the US.

I would argue largely due to the left catastrophizing Trump from a bad President to an almost supernaturally evil one. — MrLiminal

This betrays a reluctance to accept any criticism of Trump at all. Something I have noticed, is that, MAGA takes any criticism of Trump as criticism of them - as if they have melded their identifies with his.

For all the talk about how much the right hated Obama like the anti-Christ, he never came nearly as close to assassination as Trump has. — MrLiminal

There were many, many plots made against Obama, and a lot of racist hate spewed his way.

This betrays a reluctance to accept any criticism of Trump at all. Something I have noticed, is that, MAGA takes any criticism of Trump as criticism of them - as if they have melded their identifies with his. — Questioner

Odd, seeing as I never voted for him and said I openly disagree with a lot of what he does. I really dont forsee this conversation going anywhere; you have already have made assumptions about me without evidence

There were many, many plots made against Obama, and a lot of racist hate spewed his way. — Questioner

Plots =/= almost getting domed on live tv

you have already have made assumptions about me — MrLiminal

I never mentioned you, but I invite you to review the things you have said about me.

I am sorry you could not discuss the issues with me instead of getting defensive.

This betrays a reluctance to accept any criticism of Trump at all. Something I have noticed, is that, MAGA takes any criticism of Trump as criticism of them - as if they have melded their identifies with his. — Questioner

So this was just unrelated to anything then, huh? Come on, man.

I never mentioned you, but I invite you to review the things you have said about me. — Questioner

I just did and found that I have made no assertions about you at all, aside from guessing this conversation would not be productive, which it has not been. You are tilting at windmills.

I am sorry you could not discuss the issues with me instead of getting defensive. — Questioner

I disagree with your interpretation of how this conversation has gone and will not be responding further if you're going to play these games.

we are just as intolerant because we don't accept their intolerance — unimportant

Isn’t “we don’t accept” essentially another way of saying “we don’t tolerate” or “we are intolerant of…”? I’d say your “we” and “they (their)” are both intolerant of something here. But you seem to imply that the left is not tolerant of the right, maybe for good cause.

I take your point to mean: we on the left are reacting to the particular way the right manifests its intolerance. From the view on the left, intolerance on the right looks like racism, religious intolerance and fascism (etc.), so when the left becomes intolerant of the right, it is intolerance of bad righty things, which makes the left’s intolerance good.

So your above quote seems to involve the question: whose intolerance is the good kind and whose intolerance is the bad kind?

And “more“ intolerance now becomes a question of how you measure intolerance - are 50 intolerant lefties worse than 10 intolerant righties by sheer obnoxious volume, or do 10 righties generate way more harmful intolerance than 100 intolerant lefties? Or do we measure the nature of what each side won’t tolerate, or measure how each side won’t tolerate, and is this purely subjective or somewhat objective measurement…?

But whose intolerance is worse, left’s or rights?

I am also closed minded for not liking them. — unimportant

Yes. People all seem to align so firmly as right or left, and think of each is good or bad, and easily close our minds to seeing any goodness from the opposing side.

We need to be mindful of our own closed-mindedness, of our implicit pre-judgments like “I just don’t like you, because you are bad, and intolerant like a racist, like a tyrant, etc…”. That’s bad-faith though. Tough to avoid, because we are so wrapped up in our politics, but an impediment to truth or progress nonetheless.

Accusations of who is MORE intolerant puts everyone in a tough light to start. From my experience, if someone merely knows I am left or I am right, and from that also already hates me for it, they are not going to discuss my ideas, but stay focused on me and my hateful qualities.

So is left or right more likely to let their hate for their opposition render any discussion almost pointless, if not tedious or loathsome as well?

———

Individuals on the left tend to define their personal identity and their morals based on others, and groups, and a consensus of like minded people. They identify who the good ones are, the ones they like and who like them, and who the bad ones are, and left-leaners align with the good ones, and learn to do and say what the good ones do. Because a leftie gets their moral standing from alignment with a group, if someone outside the group challenges the group or challenges one aspect of the group’s ideology, it is simultaneously a challenge to the leftist’s personal identity (since this identity is tied up with the group identity). This is why lefties often can’t even tolerate other sub-groups of lefties. Feminists and Trans folks are clearly left - but they often can’t stand (can’t tolerate) each other, and won’t accept each other into the ultimate group that defines their own identity.

Leftist’s identities therefore don’t have crisp lines, can change drastically while keeping moral justification in the fact that the whole group might change with them as they change the whole group…

All people, left and right, do this to some degree, but it seems to be more essential to leftism that classes of people fall in line, and one’s own good group has members who all pass some sort of litmus test (which can be simply showing up to protest, or raising an American flag), and unite against the bad classes of other people.

Individuals on the right tend to define their personal identity based on some ideal - like a religious figure, or a nation, or family and blood. Their identity is more rigid, and relies on things that are more permanent, have stood the test of time so to speak. So when someone challenges a rightie or a right-leaning idea (“x” country first) by saying “you do bad things” and “your group are baddies” or “you are a hypocrite and don’t really value freedom” it doesn’t affect the right as much; they can chalk that up to bad judgment and ignorance of left. But when someone in the left challenges a rightie by saying things like “your God wasn’t actually a good God, and doesn’t even exist” or “your country isn’t a good country,” the righty’s own identity is challenged and they become intolerant too.

So who knows who is worse. Maybe we should just ask: who is more capable of having a debate with the opposing side? Who can stand each other the longest?

All that said, in my experience, not everyone on the right is racist/sexist etc, (so some are very tolerant) and not everyone on the left is good at all (so some lefties are racist and sexist and facist etc.).

On the narrow question of who is more intolerant: the left is more intolerant. I’m a rightie. :grin: I don’t tolerate people on an individual basis.

Some of those folks are liberal (nuts and screamers) and some of them are conservative (arrogant pricks). I also love some people on the left who appear to hate me.

But of the two ideologies on paper, and most times in experience, I less frequently meet a person on the left who truly respects people on the right. It’s a rare wonderful pleasure. (Some of my family are like that - burning, emotional libs who still love me when I tell them they are wrong, again.)

Religious righties (particularly in America) are often intolerant of non-religious people. This is sloppy of them - this is religious intolerance and really has nothing to do with right or left. It’s also, to me another topic, because right doesn’t equal religious.

Lefty Christians are just as likely to say righty Christians are not real Christians, and righty Christians are as likely to say leftie Christians are not real Christians. They are both wrong, mixing religion with politics (like the Muslims do, also from the right) because left and right need have nothing whatsoever to do with good and bad Christians or good and bad anything. Religious intolerance does manifest from the right, but using left-leaning tactics and leftist type identity politics, subsuming religious identity under political identity. All it does is make bad politics, and provides a weak basis or justification for political argument.

But staying political, generally, more lefties hate righties, and with more passion, in a personal way. Lefties have an archetype for the righty - the rich, white man. Lefties don’t personally tolerate us for very long if at all.

For righties though, due to Hollywood, the news media, the K—PhD education system, and secular, modern culture in general, righties have long been conditioned to tolerate leftism and lefty arguments and left argument style. Righties have to reassure lefties that “I’m not a racist.” Or “I respect women” just for permission to join a conversation. Righties have to get out of the way of the protestors, or else the righty is part of the problem and may as well join ICE. Etc..

I know lefties can say all the same things about the right, and I know it is is easy to be a racist, sexist king from the right, but in my experience, there are many more righties who just get it, and understand freedom, and hate racism and facism, etc; and there are more leftists who seek to create a world where all but an elite are under one government control, everyone left subject to a headless tyrant.

———

ADDED

Economically, socialism can’t function best in a capitalist world, because capital reserves flee the socialist system (the oligarchs and elites have to hide their wealth so they remove it from the socialist system - this is why they say the rich will shrink from NYC). So socialism, in order to function best, and keep capital inside itself, has to be a closed system. It can’t coexist with any other economy and function best.

Socialism, is therefore, an intolerant economic system.

Capitalism doesn’t care what you do, just as long as everyone can make and visit and retreat from, a marketplace.