Right Wing Extremist Violence Is More Frequent And More Deadly Than Left Wing Violence
from the what-the-data-shows dept
After the Sept. 10, 2025, assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump claimed that radical leftist groups foment political violence in the U.S., and “they should be put in jail.”
“The radical left causes tremendous violence,” he said, asserting that “they seem to do it in a bigger way” than groups on the right.
Top presidential adviser Stephen Miller also weighed in after Kirk’s killing, saying that left-wing political organizations constitute “a vast domestic terror movement.”
“We are going to use every resource we have… throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again,” Miller said.
But policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From our research on extremism, it’s clear that the president’s and Miller’s assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts.
Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.
Political violence rising
The understanding of political violence is complicated by differences in definitions and the recent Department of Justice removal of an important government-sponsored study of domestic terrorists.
Political violence in the U.S. has risen in recent months and takes forms that go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers, including social media death threats, intimidation and doxing.
Kirk’s assassination illustrates the growing threat. The man charged with the murder, Tyler Robinson, allegedly planned the attack in writing and online.
This follows other politically motivated killings, including the June assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband.
These incidents reflect a normalization of political violence. Threats and violence are increasingly treated as acceptable for achieving political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society.
Defining ‘political violence’
This article relies on some of our research on extremism, other academic research, federal reports, academic datasets and other monitoring to assess what is known about political violence.
Support for political violence in the U.S. is spreading from extremist fringes into the mainstream, making violent actions seem normal. Threats can move from online rhetoric to actual violence, posing serious risks to democratic practices.
But different agencies and researchers use different definitions of political violence, making comparisons difficult.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security define domestic violent extremism as threats involving actual violence. They do not investigate people in the U.S. for constitutionally protected speech, activism or ideological beliefs.
Domestic violent extremism is defined by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as violence or credible threats of violence intended to influence government policy or intimidate civilians for political or ideological purposes. This general framing, which includes diverse activities under a single category, guides investigations and prosecutions.
Datasets compiled by academic researchers use narrower and more operational definitions. The Global Terrorism Database counts incidents that involve intentional violence with political, social or religious motivation.
These differences mean that the same incident may or may not appear in a dataset, depending on the rules applied.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security emphasize that these distinctions are not merely academic. Labeling an event “terrorism” rather than a “hate crime” can change who is responsible for investigating an incident and how many resources they have to investigate it.
For example, a politically motivated shooting might be coded as terrorism in federal reporting, cataloged as political violence by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, and prosecuted as homicide or a hate crime at the state level.
Patterns in incidents and fatalities
Despite differences in definitions, several consistent patterns emerge from available evidence.
Politically motivated violence is a small fraction of total violent crime, but its impact is magnified by symbolic targets, timing and media coverage.
In the first half of 2025, 35% of violent events tracked by University of Maryland researchers targeted U.S. government personnel or facilities – more than twice the rate in 2024.
Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence in recent years.
Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.
Illustrative cases include the 2015 Charleston church shooting, when white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23 people. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example, killed 168 in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.
By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, have made up about 10& to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities.
Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front arson and vandalism campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s, which were more likely to target property rather than people.
Violence occurred during Seattle May Day protests in 2016, with anarchist groups and other demonstrators clashing with police. The clashes resulted in multiple injuries and arrests. In 2016, five Dallas police officers were murdered by a heavily armed sniper who was targeting white police officers.
Hard to count
There’s another reason it’s hard to account for and characterize certain kinds of political violence and those who perpetrate it.
The U.S. focuses on prosecuting criminal acts rather than formally designating organizations as terrorist, relying on existing statutes such as conspiracy, weapons violations, RICO provisions and hate crime laws to pursue individuals for specific acts of violence.
Unlike foreign terrorism, the federal government does not have a mechanism to formally charge an individual with domestic terrorism. That makes it difficult to characterize someone as a domestic terrorist.
The State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list applies only to groups outside of the United States. By contrast, U.S. law bars the government from labeling domestic political organizations as terrorist entities because of First Amendment free speech protections.
Rhetoric is not evidence
Without harmonized reporting and uniform definitions, the data will not provide an accurate overview of political violence in the U.S.
But we can make some important conclusions.
Politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared with overall violent crime. Political violence has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarization.
Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence. The number of extremist groups is substantial and skewed toward the right, although a count of organizations does not necessarily reflect incidents of violence.
High-profile political violence often brings heightened rhetoric and pressure for sweeping responses. Yet the empirical record shows that political violence remains concentrated within specific movements and networks rather than spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Distinguishing between rhetoric and evidence is essential for democracy.
Trump and members of his administration are threatening to target whole organizations and movements and the people who work in them with aggressive legal measures – to jail them or scrutinize their favorable tax status. But research shows that the majority of political violence comes from people following right-wing ideologies.
Art Jipson is Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Dayton and Paul J. Becker is Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Dayton. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Filed Under: charlie kirk, dhs, domestic terror, donald trump, fbi, left wing, political violence, right wing, stephen miller
Comments on “Right Wing Extremist Violence Is More Frequent And More Deadly Than Left Wing Violence”
'The dead weren't part of the cult so they don't count.'
“The radical left causes tremendous violence,” he said, asserting that “they seem to do it in a bigger way” than groups on the right.
Top presidential adviser Stephen Miller also weighed in after Kirk’s killing, saying that left-wing political organizations constitute “a vast domestic terror movement.”
Every accusation a confession, every self-given label a rejection of.
Alternatively, and even worse, it’s entirely possible that they believe what they’re saying because they don’t consider violence against non-MAGAts to actually count, which would wipe out the majority of violence since the ones doing that are on their side and leaving only the minority of violence perpetrated by non-MAGAts which would became the ‘majority’ at that point.
Re:
Came here to say precisely this.
Essentially, conservatives are more likely to have the world view of “if it didn’t happen to me or those I personally interact with, it didn’t actually happen.”
So with that view, anything affecting those of other beliefs or skin color is a minimal overall effect, as it isn’t causing a negative impact on those the individual actually values.
Thing is, this type of person ALWAYS needs an out-group. Which means, if they do get rid of all the “radical left” (which includes most of the center and right), there will be some new group they have to target, to avoid having to blame themselves for the predicaments their decisions get them into.
Re:
I’m sure those fitting that description are very few in numbers, I rather think that they just don’t want to remember inconvenient facts that threatens to upset their belief that their group is the good guys.
This behavior shows up often among them, just consider how they can’t even place events correctly on a timeline when discussing COVID-19, the Twitter files and what administration was in power.
Re:
This also works for the double standard on labeling those who commit violence (or who are claimed to commit violence). If a person who isn’t distinctly right wing commits violence or can be purported to commit violence regardless of contrary evidence, they are a “terrorist” and “an extremist.” If the violent individual or group is right wing, they’re patriots or they’re concerned citizens or they’re troubled or they’re at worst misguided.
Rittenhouse went to a protest with a gun having previously admitted a desire to shoot protesters and he’s a “hero.” Mangione is a “terrorist.” ICE and FBI officers brutalize non-violent protesters and they’re patriots. Anyone resisting rights-violating actions from these patriots are violent criminals or terrorists or radicals or extremists. It’s okay for the cops to shoot you in the eye with a rubber bullet when you’re just standing on a street corner, but if you push them back, you’re the violent criminal.
Re: Re:
Doh, and I forgot to mention the classic fallback: If the violent offender is revealed to be right wing, it’s often claimed to be a false flag, a patsy, a disguised leftist, etc. These are perhaps the best practical examples of no true scotsman fallacies in the real world.
Remember all those fires set during the “riots” that were started by boogaloo bois using the protesters as cover for their right wing accelerationist violence and destruction? Right wingers never remember this when I bring it up because they scarcely heard of it from their propaganda sources because it was counter to the narrative. And yet the fires themselves burn in the memory of the conservatives who “remember” that the “leftists” were violent. It doesn’t matter if Fox News issues a retraction or correction. The narrative is retained.
Re: Re: Re:
The phrase I see used most often is “lone wolf”. It suggests that the offender radicalized himself in a vacuum and acted independently of anything that anyone else may have said or done to inspire his violent acts. In that way, right-wing figures obscure or ignore the offender’s connections to right-wing ideologies/groups in favor of pushing the idea that right-wing violence always happens because the offender “went crazy out of nowhere” and certainly had nothing to do with an ideology that rewards adherents for hurting marginalized people.
And if anyone thinks that last bit isn’t true, consider the following: Charlie Kirk was a bigot through and through, and he’s been posthumously rewarded with martyrdom and idolatry even though he was just a guy with a podcast.
So?
Car accidents are more frequent and more deadly than political violence. Do we ban cars?
They are a means to an end we appreciate, so we tolerate the death toll as an unavoidable consequence.
That’s the way the government sees right-wing violence and gun deaths. They are worth it to them. They are an inherent part of what makes America Great Again.
Left-wing violence, on the other hand, does not serve any desirable goal because left-wing is not making America Great Again. So getting rid of it is a net win.
This is kind of Hypocrisy 1.01.
Watching Musk argue with Grok over this was rather hilarious.
Why is it that MAGA are so gad damned stupid, naive, and gullible? Is it comforting to not think at all in the day?
Re: Like how a height requirement weeds out those to tall/short, but for intelligence
Why is it that MAGA are so gad damned stupid, naive, and gullible? Is it comforting to not think at all in the day?
Selection bias I imagine as those traits are a requirement to be a member and those without them are less likely to be a member of the group or even want to be.
Re: Re:
These are people that somehow get, and hold, jobs that require a degree of critical thinking. So in other parts of their life they are capable of, if not intelligence, at least a modicum of common sense. But when it comes to MAGA, Trump, and the GOP…poof they’re morons.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Probably the most flawed research of all time.
Re:
Show us the evidence that proves the alleged “flaws”, then.
Re:
“Any research that provides a different narrative than the one I want to believe is flawed!”
Re:
“Nuh-UH!”
Oh my! Fantastic rebuttal, dearie. You sure ARE a big boy now, yes you are. Yes you are!
Every time I see one of these ‘the politicians told a blatant lie’ stories, I like to imagine their reaction if what they said magically came true.
Like, a press conference, right after Trump or whoever makes a claim about gangs or nuclear weapons or immigrants or whatever, there’s a boom of thunder, and a loud voice, “IT IS SO!” or “YOUR WISH IS GRANTED!”.
Re:
I would rather see their reaction when a magical neon sign appeared above them and indicated they had lied.
“…it’s clear that the president’s and Miller’s assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts.”
Few, if any, of things out of Trump’s mouth are based on facts. It’s based on whatever he reads on social media. The right is all about what’s on social media and outrage. They hate facts and it shows.
Part of the problem is that any right-winger who commits violence is immediately thrown under the bus as a RINO, plant, secret fed or whatever. They aren’t seen as true believers.
So when the next right-winger commits violence, they think that they are a true believer so surely the pack won’t turn on them. They’re not like any of those fakes.
Cue the shocked Pikachu face.
Re:
Explain the January 6th pardons and commutations then. “Political prisoners”, no less.
“Right Wing Extremist Violence Is More Frequent And More Deadly Than Left Wing Violence ”
Well, don’t worry, Trump intends to incite the left to violence.
Don’t worry, the Trump regime will redefine political violence to include all words and acts that damage the crêpe paper thin skin of any registered republican to create the epidemic they need to invent in order to justify the crackdown on all opposition voters, journalists, academics, trade unionists, comedians, ethnic and religious minorities…
Thee should be a rule of the killer in a mass shooting got the gun illegally from a family member or the gun was not stored in a secure location the owner of the game n will be fined 30k or go to prison for 4 months of the person is under the age of 60 in good health .
Right wing families own more guns than left wingers and are not pro gun control eg
So it’s easier for killers to get a gun than most people
Re:
… no, no there should not.
I have faith that with hard work and determination we can turn those numbers around.
“By contrast, U.S. law bars the government from labeling domestic political organizations as terrorist entities because of First Amendment free speech protections.”
It’s not a law or the first amendment that’s preventing the government from labeling Domestic Terrorists as such, or even the amount of violent actions they have carried out. The only thing that matters is who belongs to those organizations, The Black Panthers got Cointelpro, street gangs (3 or more black people existing near each other can be classified as such) get PD gang units, Federal task forces,and laws that make being in the neighborhood you live in reason enough to be detained.
The Klan has a history of terrorism going back to reconstruction, but they’re left alone.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Techdirt Echo Chamber
I used to enjoy Techdirt, but it has become an echo chamber of political rhetoric.
Categorizing everyone as either right or left is inaccurate and attributes traits to some people that do not apply to all.
Not everyone on the right wants anarchy and not everyone on the left wants communism.
supremacists are not limited to those on the ‘right’
Very few conservatives are racist or want anything to do with racists. They also do not want anything to do with anarchy. Yet here is Techdirt grouping all of those people into one category to prove their preferred side causes less violence.
Even Trump condemns Neo-nazis and white supremacists when he said “There were very fine people on both sides, and I’m not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally.” Unfortunately that quote is often shortened to make it seem like he does support those he condemned. Both sides take quotes, manipulate them and remove context to make the other side look bad and we see that happen here on Techdirt too. I don’t like it when either side does that, all it does is cause more division and less unity.
Why does it matter so much what side is responsible for more violence? Both sides should be ashamed that either side is responsible for causing or inciting violence.
That should be the story here, that it does not matter who said what side is responsible for more violence. What matters is that violence from either side is unacceptable.
You want to make a difference? Find a way to bring people together instead of writing articles that promote and cause more division. Show what the majority of us have in common, not what the extreme fringes on either side have in common.
My views lean conservative.
You won’t find me cheering when someone I disagree with is assassinated. I believe most liberal and progressive leaning people feel that same way, that cheering violence is disgusting. Only a few on the fringe do such vile things.
We all have a lot more in common than you want to believe, we can find it if we stop applying the acts of a few extremists to entire groups just to villainize the other side.
Re:
Where does the article do that?
Where does the article suggest that?
Where does the article claim it is?
Well…
Where does the article do anything other than say that extremist right-wing violence is more prevalent than extremist left-wing violence?
Because when one side massively lies about the other side in order to justify political action against them, it should be called out. That’s what this article is doing.
One can call out lies and call for unity at the same time.
I understand your sentiment, but unity doesn’t happen from ignoring lies and trying to stay positive. It’s incredibly important to rebut sensationalist and politically divisive claims like the current administration continually spouts.
I’m sure the authors would like nothing better than to call for more common ground, but when the president and his ilk keep doing the opposite, standing against that becomes necessary.
If Trump would stop doing just that, it’d be a lot easier.
Re:
They kind of are, though. The whole ideology of conservatism is supremacy. Consider how Charlie Kirk, an avowed right-winger, said that passing the Civil Rights Act was a mistake and intimated that Black people were better off without having the same civil rights as white people. The underlying ideology of such statements is one of supremacy—white supremacy, to be precise—wherein a certain group of people is considered inherently superior to all others by virtue of some arbitrary trait (e.g., skin color).
[citation needed]
…and now you done fucked up, son.
Trump’s condemnation of those groups came with him saying “there were very fine people on both sides”. You think that’s a good thing, but think about what he was implying there: The people who marched alongside the Unite the Right rallygoers were, at the very least, marching for a cause that aligned with white supremacy and racism—which was, in case you forgot, protesting the removal of a statue honoring the Confederacy. An old saying goes that if you have a Nazi at a table and ten people sit with him, there are eleven Nazis at the table. The “very fine people” who weren’t white supremacists and Nazis marched alongside them to rally support for a statue that honored someone who fought for the preservation of chattel slavery; even if those “very fine people” weren’t wholly aligned with white supremacy or Nazism, they still marched in common cause with those groups. So please, by all means, tell me again how people marching to honor a heritage of racial hatred are “very fine people” because they weren’t wearing hoods or swastikas. I insist.
Because one “side” engages in political violence far more than the other “side”, yet the people on the more violent “side” who hold public office refuse to admit that. Republicans never condemn right-wing political violence with the same fervor as they use to condemn left-wing political violence; the same can’t be said of Democrats. If you don’t see a problem with Republicans refusing to admit reality and distancing themselves from the violence their rhetoric causes, you never will.
And yet, when a right-winger commits violence, Republicans immediately try to paint him as a “lone wolf” or “lunatic” so he that can ignore any connections to conservative ideology and/or right-wing extremist groups. Left-wing extremist groups barely even exist in the U.S. because the federal government, which has leaned right for decades, keeps focusing on trying to bring down even non-violent groups that have leftist politics.
Hey, so, how do you plan to “bring together” trans people and right-wing transphobes when the first group wants to exist and the second group wants the first group to not exist? Where’s the common ground to be found there, hmm? What’s the compromise to be made that will make everyone happy in that situation?
When one political “side” is committed to oppressing a class of people based only on who they are, those people are well within their rights to revoke any kind of relationship with those who would be their oppressors. If right-wingers don’t want to feel like society at large is being so mean to them, maybe they should abandon the politics of supremacy and stop being mean to the marginalized people they love to attack. I mean, how often do you see left-wingers seriously suggest that cis people should lose their civil rights because they’re cisgender?
If violent right-wing extremists didn’t represent the ideology of the right to its fullest and most unleashed extent, maybe you’d have a point. But they do, because American conservatism is steeped in the politics of supremacy and there is no greater supremacy than violence. Just look at ICE agents being violent towards peaceful protests: When fully armored, fully armed, backed-by-qualified-immunity agents of the federal government fire “less lethal” ammunition directly at the heads of unarmed protestors, what else could that be other than a demonstration of supremacy through violence?
Re:
If very few conservatives are racist, why do they keep voting for President Racism of the Racism Party?
Re:
I’m inclined to think this is either a lie or else you just liked it when people didn’t call out people you agree with.
This is one of those self-unaware shoot the messenger statements. “Stop talking about Trump.” “I’d love to. Stop him from being relevant to talk about.”
It’s not an echo chamber. It’s just that all the nuances that we’d otherwise be discussing are being overshadowed by an authoritarian speedrun on collapsing our society that stands in the middle of the room demanding attention. You should ask yourself why you think it’s not so bad and that these issues shouldn’t be discussed.
Except this is the framing of the right. They want the black and white simple categories.
The article literally never mentions right wingers wanting anarchy. That seems silly. Trump and his supporters want authoritarian power, not anarchy. Also when you say anarchy, you likely mean the non-political concept of total lawlessness rather than the anarchism that many on the left do actually want which is dismantling the abusive authoritarian state.
You seem completely ignorant of the fact that right wing violence isn’t in service of anarchy. It’s privileged people lashing out when the rest of the world doesn’t comply with their demands or respects their superiority. It is an attempt to push people back down into “their place.” It’s exactly the same as klansmen burning crosses on lawns. It’s exactly the same as lynching. It’s the exact same as Trump telling cops not to go easy on arrestees. Conservatives devoutly believe in hierarchy and they think even the lowest among them is higher up than the out-group members and out-group members must be reminded not to stand up for themselves. Conservative violence looks like dogs and firehoses and cops dropping bombs from helicopters and kneeling on the backs of people in medical distress and shooting people experiencing a mental health crisis because you “don’t have time for this.”
White supremacists? Mostly. Christofascists? Mostly. Chauvinist misogynist trad wife fetishists? Definitely.
It’s telling that you can only refer to a single quote. We can refer to the fact that he’s twice hired Stephen Miller. We can refer to the fact that he thought a vocal racist like Charlie Kirk was a good guy. We can refer to his administration’s stripping of female, black, and gay history from government records and websites and museums. You think that quote was the only evidence anyone had against him on the topic? Sounds like you’ve been living in an echo chamber.
Wait, just sentences before you were saying that “Categorizing everyone as either right or left is inaccurate” but you’re talking as if there are only two sides. Hypocrite much? Let me guess, it’s not hypocrisy when you do it, only other people. But that’s probably something “both sides” do, amirite?
If you have to ask this question, your bias is obvious and your desire to “muh both sides” and minimize it is reprehensible. “This conservative went on a shooting spree and killed five people and over here these ‘radical leftist’ rioters burned a few cop cars. Clearly they’re the same and should be equally condemned!”
Do some research. Look for quotes from Biden and Harris and Obama that incite violence against conservatives. Then look for quotes from Trump that incite violence against his enemies. Come back and tell me about who is “responsible for causing or inciting violence.” Harris didn’t tell her supporters to storm the capitol when she lost the election. Also, Biden, Harris, and Obama aren’t even leftists, so the terminology and the “both sides” terminology that you’re hypocritically using isn’t accurate.
You finally said something that is true. And to the proportion that members of a group commit more violence, especially against human beings rather than just smashing some windows or burning some cars, the violence of the most violent people should be the most unacceptable. You’re clutching pearls and saying the CEO who embezzled $500 million from his company should get the same 30 days in jail that the poor person who shoplifted diapers and baby formula for their infant gets.
You’re very deliberately nodding as the messenger is telling you his message as you load your gun and aim it at his forehead here. They’re reporting on the division caused by the extreme violence of conservatives. The reporting isn’t the cause of division. Why are you providing cover for the actual cause with this both sides bullshit?
We’ve heard this before. “Meet me in the middle” says the man who keeps marching further towards authoritarianism. Violence on the right isn’t the extreme fringe. It’s literally what you voted for. It’s built into the current administration. We don’t have a lot in common if you think the people who aren’t in power who are just observing human rights and constitutional violations and being honest about what they’re seeing are the ones who need to compromise and accommodate your biases.
Yeah, that was fucking obvious.
Yet you must admit that conservatives actually do that (or admit you live in an echo chamber if you didn’t know that). You talk about both sides, but you still vote for people like Trump who admits he hates his enemies and doesn’t want anything good for them.
If you’re focused on the “cheering” (i.e. free speech from random people) and not vocally criticizing the people with actual power who are using this incident to justify even more right-wing violence, then your pearl clutching is bullshit. Not to mention you live in an echo chamber if you haven’t seen all the non-conservatives who aren’t “cheering.” Conservative media and the Trump administration is pretending that anyone who isn’t in sackcloth and ashes and performatively weeping on exTwitter over Charlie Kirk’s death is cheering for his death.
Trump and his administration and his supporters aren’t few, unfortunately. I’m happy to welcome you over to our socialist utopian hellscape of respect for human rights. I have some extra blue hair dye and soy milk for your lattes when you’re interested in crossing the aisle.
Re:
You lying sack of shit. This is a fabricated quote from two different statements he made.
Also, you’re not a very fine person if you’re on the same side as Nazis.
Re: Re:
Not to mention that Trump was lying later when he said he wasn’t talking about the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. That’s who was at the Unite the Right rally. That’s who organized the rally. Trump defenders are pretending like he can’t be condemned for his lies because he pretended he was telling the truth.
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly what I was thinking, and failed to include. He only said that when prompted.
To bad
IF’ those on the right, that SAY THEY ARE RELIGIOUS, Could read their OWN bibles?
They call themselves The Right? For what reason? THEY arnt acting as Right wing. Not in our definition Anyway.
Long ago when there were Many parties, and Few could get enough Followers. Most of the smaller groups JOINED the More Popular groups. To get Money to Support THEIR ideals as well as to Foster THEIR side of an opinion.
The REAL problem is that NO Large can have 100% consensus. NO WAY IN HELL can you get 100%. So what is happening?
Corp backed Stooges?
Payoffs to those in the group WHO join in?
To many Promises.
I would love to Separate the Bible Thumpers from those that ARNT. Would prefer those that Can read..
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad and predictable. This blog has become and ideologues haven. First it was for years claims that censorship of conservative viewpoints were overblown nonsense. Then confronted with evidence that the opposite was the case, everyone here pretends that it wasn’t serious and didn’t matter. Now we have the exact same thing happening with political violence. Maybe cite a study that doesn’t include white nationalists shanking preople in prison as right wing.
Re:
Hi Andrew!
The sad and predictable thing is ignorant fools showing up and saying dumb shit.
My only ideology is truth. I’m sorry you are anti-facts, but what was that saying… oh, right, fact don’t care about your feelings.
It was.
No such evidence was EVER presented, and the only court case that seriously considered the matter ended with a Trump-appointed Justice laying out all the ways in which the claims of such censorship were completely bogus.
That you live in an alternative reality is on you.
There is no study anywhere that suggests left wing violence is greater than right wing violence. I’m sorry that you don’t live in the real world and can’t admit reality, but you should fucking try it.
Every single study on this topic that has looked at it finds way, way, way more right wing violence. And if you want to get into classification, the CSIS study that came out late last week that MAGA folks are misrepresenting, includes things like a mentally ill man shooting at a Democratic candidate for mayor.
Any classification is going to require some subjectivity, but there are no studies that suggest left wing violence is a significant issue. None. Zero. Zilch.
Try living in reality Andrew.
Re: Re:
To add to your point: Two of the most recent mass casualty shootings in the U.S.—one in North Carolina and one in Michigan, the latter of which could qualify as a terrorist attack—were committed by people who were sympathetic to right-wing causes and/or Trump supporters. For all the hullabaloo about left-wing violence/terrorism, when we define political violence as violence in service of a political cause or ideology, left-wing violence/terrorism has mostly been about wrecking property, while right-wing violence/terrorism has mostly been about killing people—and that’s been true for decades, from the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963 to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, from every abortion clinic bombing to every murder of a queer person for being queer. Maybe right-wingers who commit lethal violence see that violence as their last resort option, but they’re quicker to make that conclusion that left-wingers have ever been.
Hell, a not-zero amount of that kind of violence comes from the same kind of “look what you made us do” mindset that drives conservative legislation. “If we don’t kill them first, they’re gonna kill us,” say assholes who think marginalized groups want revenge for years (or decades or centuries) oppression when all they really want is to be free of that oppression.
Right us Violent extremist!
Go Fuck Yourselves Lying Traitor Pussys!