Democracy is currently threatened from inside, and it’s not the citizenry. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking 62% of the country, or whatever large stat, is a bunch of blood thirsty crazies.
Both political parties have committed atrocities and are equally complicit in the current state of affairs. Tribalism will not solve this.
Please respect each other and do not accelerate our national divide.
Ah yes, I do recall both sides having used violence to overthrow the results of an election. I remember how both sides have delayed and rushed Supreme Court nominations in order to allow the majority of the court to be appointed by a minority of citizens. I remember how one side has actively changed laws to make voting for the wrong party harder. Both sides have created created camps that separate children from their family, and then lose those children. Both sides have worked to prevent people from being able to live safely regardless of gender or orientation. Both sides have actively attacked the free press. Etc.
Gotta agree with you. This guys is part of the problem and doesn't even realize it. I know people "on the other side" that are equally part of the problem, and don't realize it either. I get called a "centrist" and though I agree on many of the points made, if I disagree with one, I'm suddenly the bad guy not worth listening too since I'm not in 100% agreement. I'm Not until we start holding the media and politicians accountable for their lies and profiting off of them and getting people worked up, and people start thinking critically for themselves, things won't change. The individuals who've been fed this for years are not likely to wake up, at least not the ones I know. This won't end well.
You've managed to provide a perfect example of what the parent comment was trying to point out. You've turned several extremely complex political and social issues into angry one-liners you can scream at your fellow countrymen- your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers. You know, the regular, non-evil people you live beside day in and day out.
Let's say there's a group of people that has decided to round up a few specific groups, concentrate them in camps, and then systematically execute them.
Is it more moral to just let it happen, or use force to prevent it?
(Just to note the nazi concentration camps were not any part of the motivation for the allies in WW2, they were perfectly content letting it happen until the Axis invaded. We can see almost exactly the same thing with the Uyghurs in China today)
Does it matter? For example if a nation chooses to use force it needs the citizens to participate. Similarly violence of an individual against the state may also be morally justified: for example many people argue the US revolution was a good thing, a slave using force to escape, etc.
This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend?
Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc
My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true
I think no violence remains a fantastically right choice, even if it is infeasible. Nietzsche describes somewhere how great a nation willing to be destroyed would be. I am unconcerned with abstract moral grey areas, but the only life that makes sense to me is one revolted by violence and is motivated by peaceful being. I understand that contemplation of those grey areas is important and valuable all the same. Still, in my view, individuals lack autonomy in no few instances. It is beyond the power of the individual to resist compulsory acts, provided that the lever of compulsion is significantly insurmountable. It seems that every act short of violence is preferable to violence. Violence remains inevitable; it is simply appalling. I understand that this position is the result of a kind of moral luck, but this is also a statement of gratitude for so much good fortune. What I cannot comprehend are those that benefit from this same luck and squander it.
The U.S. is a nation built on a foundational idea directly opposed to your point of view: that freedom is the highest ideal, and it is justifiable to seek it even at the expense of blood.
For that reason, it's my opinion that the rage experienced on the American political stage is not due primarily to the news media, but due to authoritarian political strains on both the left and the right. Everyone feels attacked from all angles because we have politicians trying to spy on your phone calls and internet activity, make the encryption that keeps you safe and free online less secure, ban you from getting married via constitutional amendment, force you to say or not say certain words, force you to get vaccinated, force you to accept political messaging from the leadership without being allowed to respond in kind, force you to serve in the military longer than you agreed (stoploss), force you to carry a pregnancy to term, force you force youFORCE YOU! to comply with the ruling orthodoxy of the day.
The root problem isn't that people want to respond to this with violence. The root problem is that people don't recognize the violence being perpetrated by the state. The Louisville chief of police directs a no-knock warrant, Breonna Taylor ends up dead in the inevitable clash, and the low level officers executing the warrant are made scapegoats instead of putting the politicians who made this happen into the electric chair.
I pray every day for this country not to erupt in further violence. But I fear with every fiber of my being that it will be inevitable unless the political leadership takes stock of what they are doing to the people.
Peace alone is beautiful. If violence happens on one side of the political spectrum or the other, it does not need to be quantified or compared. If one identifies with a political movement that engages in violence, the only valid response is to wake up in the middle of the night, startled by the racing in the chest, and realize that you no longer have a political existence. You have been made a political orphan.
If you see a [pronoun] being attacked by a [pronoun], I guess according to you it's completely ethical to walk away. It's definitely the simplest, no question.
I believe a peaceful existence transcends this specific situation. The moral principle has already been violated by the attacker. The passerby in this situation would be faced with a quandary, and all must do as they must in those circumstances.
I said it in 2016, this whole polarization spiral in the US will inevitably result in blood in the streets. Looks like we are sliding further and further towards that abyss.
I hope that 10 years from now, once all the dust is settled, we will be able to hold accountable the people who really caused this catastrophe: the news media. There is no question in my mind that their hyperbole, lying, and greed are the thing polarizing people most of all. I mean, in the past 5 years, they have just moved to blatant propaganda and lies. These lunatics are going to get people hurt, and I hope the people responsible face a harsh punishment for inciting civil unrest.
> who really caused this catastrophe: the news media
There may be some truth to that, but surely we expect individuals to have some responsibility for their own ideological position and treatment of people they believe they disagree with?
No agreement from me. It’s got nothing to do with globalism and populism is bad. We’ve just had an unprecedented period of peaceful transition of power in the US (~150 years) and people are a bit forgetful.
>Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.
> A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable
I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”.
The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)
Why is violence not justified when the sovereign authority is itself founded on nothing more than violence, as has been the case for most historical governments?
I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.
I think that's not right for two reasons. One is that legitimacy isn't equivalent to democracy. I think it's more appropriate to define a legitimate authority as one that acts in the interests of its constituency, democracy is just a process for bringing authority into power. There are non-democratic institutions or governments around that are legitimate, and there are democratically empowered governments that are illegitimate. Extreme cases including religious or ethnic populist movements that end up slaughtering substantial parts of the population.
Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.
>While a 2015 survey found no significant partisan divide when it comes to the question of justified violence against the government, the new poll identified a sharper rise on the right — with 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents saying it can be acceptable. The view was held by 23 percent of Democrats, the survey finds.
It also specifies "against the government" which is way different than against fellow citizens. This is basically asking if you think citizens have a right to fight against perceived tyranny. Republicans and Independents skew anti-government in general
> What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
>> About 1 in 3 Americans believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified,"
> Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions.
> ...Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
Also you have to remember the America was literally founded with "violence against the government" [aka the British Crown]. To answer "no" to that poll question is to basically reject American independence.
It is in the constitution, aka 2nd. Founding fathers already given us the permission to do so and expected sometime down the line, American government will go rogue. If the courts are expected to be scared or corrupted with no standing, Americans have been instructed by our founding fathers to take up arms to rectify domestic enemies. Other countries like Brits and China have no such permissions inscribe in their constitutions hence they are expected to be subservient to their governments whims (e.g. HK).
The United States of America, like many nation states, was founded on political violence.
Here’s Thomas Jefferson on the subject:
> And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
Of course, he was writing that in the context of denouncing Shay's Rebellion.
Note the part where he says "the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them," rather than to encourage and justify it on principle.
As often happens with quotes of the founding fathers, the actual argument being made is more nuanced than the quote suggests. While Thomas Jefferson believed in the spirit of rebellion as necessary, he also understood that an ignorant and uneducated populace could be led astray by misinformation, and that such rebellions in practice were more often than not the result of a failure of the civil and cultural systems of trust which should have prevented them.
It's unclear to me which party "them" refers to in your quote. The rulers, or the people? Any references where Jefferson expounds on his concerns over "misinformation" and an ignorant populace?
The quote comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Smith regarding Shay's Rebellion. You can find a transcript here[0] and easily elsewhere on the web, but I've excised the relevant text, emphasis mine:
"(...) yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."
It doesn't make sense that "them" refers to the rulers, in context it obviously refers to the people taking arms.
Democracy in France started with plentiful use of the guillotine, and few would argue that democracy is a bad thing. If few are ruling many, they best tread lightly, or history may repeat itself.
Both camps tend to hold a Manichean view - they fight the other deranged party in the name of humanity and common sense. Both camps support the freedom of speech mostly when it is advantageous to their agenda. The media thrives on outrage. Representing multiple viewpoints is likely to get pummelled on the social media. This positive feedback loop is not going to end up well.
To see how much the political discourse has simplified, look up the old debates or political talk shows from the 60s-90s. Respectful disagreement and fact-based argumentation used to be common.
A decent number of people on those old shows had actually killed Nazis themselves and felt that it had to be done. Certain points of view were simply not on the table back then.
I get your point, but there were a handful of people present that were armed in some form. That said, breaking into the Capitol Building was not a peaceful act.
Sorry, if you break into the Capitol intending to stop the Constitutional certification of an election, insurrection is accurate whether you used guns or not.
> An Indiana man charged with carrying a loaded firearm to the Capitol on Jan. 6 told investigators that if he had found Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “you’d be here for another reason,” according to court documents posted over the weekend.
> Mark Mazza, 56, is the latest of about half a dozen Jan. 6 defendants charged with bringing a gun to the Capitol. In this case, Mazza allegedly carried a Taurus revolver known as “The Judge,” which is capable of firing shotgun shells — two of which were in the chamber, along with three hollow-point bullets. A Capitol Police sergeant obtained the weapon after allegedly fending off an assault from Mazza.
Among other things, this says the belief that "violence against the government can at times be justified" is far more prevalent on the white right than among other people.
It definitely was not always this way in the USA, this is very different than what you would have found even 20 years ago.
In addition to seeming possibly threatening for those of us not on the white right, I think it demonstrates that people "mad as hell who aren't going to take it anymore" are largely finding a home on the right and not the left. Again, it wasn't always this way. Somehow what anti-systemic left may exist is no longer visible or accessible.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. It's not the "white right" occupying blocks in Portland. Not that I agree with either side. I think it's a lose/lose situation for everyone if we keep feeding this polarization.
I am responding to the survey data that is the OP.
> The new poll found that 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence can be acceptable, compared with 23% of Democrats. Forty percent of white Americans said violence can be justified, compared with 18% of Black Americans.
> Flashback: The percentage of adults who said violence is justified was 23% in 2015 and 16% in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times respectively, according to the Post.
That doesn't mean no "Democrats" think so, just relative.
But I'm responding to this survey data. Which still could not mean what I said even if valid data, sure. For instance, since it was about "Democrats" vs "Republicans" not "left" and "right", maybe it says nothing about left vs right but just that those who are inclined toward political violence on the right identify with the Republican party but those on the left who do don't identify with the Democratic party. For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats".
I am interpreting this survey within my overall worldview, it's true. But it's those numbers from the survey I was responding to, per your question.
It just seems like a poorly designed survey. Maybe even intentionally.
>For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats".
It's a matter of framing. Many "Democrats" saw leftist riots as protests not violence.
I was a in a crowd of protesters that had guns pointed at us by a group of white right PB/3%/OK last summer in Portland that were occupying a block. I realize you are probably talking about the protests to end police violence and call for accountability, but I think you're mixing up who's protesting what. PB's come to town and occupy blocks regularly, they aren't fighting for social justice, the are simply fighting against social justice.
> Not that I agree with either side.
Do you know what the sides are? Because it's rather shocking that you would say that, esp. about Portland.
>Do you know what the sides are? Because it's rather shocking that you would say that, esp. about Portland.
I'm from a communist state where my family was oppressed for being part of a "colonizer/capitalist" ethnicity. I know first hand that many leftists have adopted these narratives and view me in a hateful and dehumanizing manner. I'm well aware of leftist/postmodern narratives. The question is how many of you are and do you care?
>PB's come to town and occupy blocks regularly, they aren't fighting for social justice, the are simply fighting against social justice.
I realize there are multiple sides which I've implied in the original post. I don't think it's accurate to say they are "fighting against social justice". They have their own sense of social justice even if misguided.
At the end of the day both sides have a common root cause for their grievances. Millennials and Gen Z have been screwed by the previous generations and are operating in a regressive state as a result. Something like communists vs fascists in pre-war Germany but not exactly. Point is neither side is the root cause of the others issues.
From my perspective as a Portlander, the PNWYLF and the Proud Boys might as well be on the same side. They're all hooligans looking for a fight. The fact that one side claims to be the good guys doesn't really excuse their behavior, and if the violent treatment of the neighbors during the black bloc occupation of the Red House was any indication, they'd not be any more fun to live under than the fascists. Vigilantes are vigilantes. Right wingers are attracted to vigilantism emotionally, but it's almost worse to hear it excused in intellectual and sociological terms by the educated left.
2020 left me with the unshakeable feeling that political activism of all kinds in Portland has been displaced by LARPing.
The anti-systemic left was out looting all summer in 2020 and justifying violence and property crime as the "voice of the voiceless". They aren't violently anti-government right this moment.
The violent white right, otoh, had always existed and always been the same set of paranoid authoritarian lunatics. The fact that they've made inroads into the middle classes is a bad sign, and one which usually precedes military fascist coups in less long-standing democracies. But their ability to radicalize and foment anti-government violence is now used by the left to justify violence and vice versa.
Things will not improve until Twitter bans EVERYBODY.
The majority of white people are on the “right,” so I’m not sure the distinction means what you think it does. Virtually all non-whites in America fall into two groups: ADOS, who since the Civil Rights era have relied on the government to protect them from the rest of the population, and immigrants, who almost always come from countries where people have a much more positive view of government than Americans traditionally do.
The anti-government sentiment among Democrats, which was pretty healthy during Bill Clinton, or say Howard Dean, seems to have almost collapsed post Obama. I would chalk that up to the party becoming more reliant on immigrants to win elections.
65 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadBoth political parties have committed atrocities and are equally complicit in the current state of affairs. Tribalism will not solve this.
Please respect each other and do not accelerate our national divide.
Very much both sides have committed atrocities.
Let's say there's a group of people that has decided to round up a few specific groups, concentrate them in camps, and then systematically execute them.
Is it more moral to just let it happen, or use force to prevent it?
(Just to note the nazi concentration camps were not any part of the motivation for the allies in WW2, they were perfectly content letting it happen until the Axis invaded. We can see almost exactly the same thing with the Uyghurs in China today)
This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend?
Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc
My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true
For that reason, it's my opinion that the rage experienced on the American political stage is not due primarily to the news media, but due to authoritarian political strains on both the left and the right. Everyone feels attacked from all angles because we have politicians trying to spy on your phone calls and internet activity, make the encryption that keeps you safe and free online less secure, ban you from getting married via constitutional amendment, force you to say or not say certain words, force you to get vaccinated, force you to accept political messaging from the leadership without being allowed to respond in kind, force you to serve in the military longer than you agreed (stoploss), force you to carry a pregnancy to term, force you force you FORCE YOU! to comply with the ruling orthodoxy of the day.
The root problem isn't that people want to respond to this with violence. The root problem is that people don't recognize the violence being perpetrated by the state. The Louisville chief of police directs a no-knock warrant, Breonna Taylor ends up dead in the inevitable clash, and the low level officers executing the warrant are made scapegoats instead of putting the politicians who made this happen into the electric chair.
I pray every day for this country not to erupt in further violence. But I fear with every fiber of my being that it will be inevitable unless the political leadership takes stock of what they are doing to the people.
I hope that 10 years from now, once all the dust is settled, we will be able to hold accountable the people who really caused this catastrophe: the news media. There is no question in my mind that their hyperbole, lying, and greed are the thing polarizing people most of all. I mean, in the past 5 years, they have just moved to blatant propaganda and lies. These lunatics are going to get people hurt, and I hope the people responsible face a harsh punishment for inciting civil unrest.
Who do you think is going to start the violence?
> who really caused this catastrophe: the news media
There may be some truth to that, but surely we expect individuals to have some responsibility for their own ideological position and treatment of people they believe they disagree with?
Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions.
This poll doesn't highlight polarization. It highlights polling minus a clue.
Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a...
Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics?
To a new breed of globalists, yes. Populism is a bad word now, remember?
not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.
I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”.
The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)
I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.
Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.
Their interests as defined by who if not the constituency themselves? Legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed, i.e. democracy.
That is utterly untrue. Have you seen the "Tank Man" photo [1]?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
>While a 2015 survey found no significant partisan divide when it comes to the question of justified violence against the government, the new poll identified a sharper rise on the right — with 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents saying it can be acceptable. The view was held by 23 percent of Democrats, the survey finds.
It also specifies "against the government" which is way different than against fellow citizens. This is basically asking if you think citizens have a right to fight against perceived tyranny. Republicans and Independents skew anti-government in general
> What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I’m surprised it’s so low.
> Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions.
> ...Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
Also you have to remember the America was literally founded with "violence against the government" [aka the British Crown]. To answer "no" to that poll question is to basically reject American independence.
Here’s Thomas Jefferson on the subject:
> And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
Note the part where he says "the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them," rather than to encourage and justify it on principle.
As often happens with quotes of the founding fathers, the actual argument being made is more nuanced than the quote suggests. While Thomas Jefferson believed in the spirit of rebellion as necessary, he also understood that an ignorant and uneducated populace could be led astray by misinformation, and that such rebellions in practice were more often than not the result of a failure of the civil and cultural systems of trust which should have prevented them.
"(...) yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."
It doesn't make sense that "them" refers to the rulers, in context it obviously refers to the people taking arms.
[0]https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html
To see how much the political discourse has simplified, look up the old debates or political talk shows from the 60s-90s. Respectful disagreement and fact-based argumentation used to be common.
> Mark Mazza, 56, is the latest of about half a dozen Jan. 6 defendants charged with bringing a gun to the Capitol. In this case, Mazza allegedly carried a Taurus revolver known as “The Judge,” which is capable of firing shotgun shells — two of which were in the chamber, along with three hollow-point bullets. A Capitol Police sergeant obtained the weapon after allegedly fending off an assault from Mazza.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/22/man-charged-loaded-...
It definitely was not always this way in the USA, this is very different than what you would have found even 20 years ago.
In addition to seeming possibly threatening for those of us not on the white right, I think it demonstrates that people "mad as hell who aren't going to take it anymore" are largely finding a home on the right and not the left. Again, it wasn't always this way. Somehow what anti-systemic left may exist is no longer visible or accessible.
> The new poll found that 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence can be acceptable, compared with 23% of Democrats. Forty percent of white Americans said violence can be justified, compared with 18% of Black Americans.
> Flashback: The percentage of adults who said violence is justified was 23% in 2015 and 16% in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times respectively, according to the Post.
That doesn't mean no "Democrats" think so, just relative.
But I'm responding to this survey data. Which still could not mean what I said even if valid data, sure. For instance, since it was about "Democrats" vs "Republicans" not "left" and "right", maybe it says nothing about left vs right but just that those who are inclined toward political violence on the right identify with the Republican party but those on the left who do don't identify with the Democratic party. For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats".
I am interpreting this survey within my overall worldview, it's true. But it's those numbers from the survey I was responding to, per your question.
>For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats".
It's a matter of framing. Many "Democrats" saw leftist riots as protests not violence.
I was a in a crowd of protesters that had guns pointed at us by a group of white right PB/3%/OK last summer in Portland that were occupying a block. I realize you are probably talking about the protests to end police violence and call for accountability, but I think you're mixing up who's protesting what. PB's come to town and occupy blocks regularly, they aren't fighting for social justice, the are simply fighting against social justice.
> Not that I agree with either side.
Do you know what the sides are? Because it's rather shocking that you would say that, esp. about Portland.
I'm from a communist state where my family was oppressed for being part of a "colonizer/capitalist" ethnicity. I know first hand that many leftists have adopted these narratives and view me in a hateful and dehumanizing manner. I'm well aware of leftist/postmodern narratives. The question is how many of you are and do you care?
>PB's come to town and occupy blocks regularly, they aren't fighting for social justice, the are simply fighting against social justice.
I realize there are multiple sides which I've implied in the original post. I don't think it's accurate to say they are "fighting against social justice". They have their own sense of social justice even if misguided.
At the end of the day both sides have a common root cause for their grievances. Millennials and Gen Z have been screwed by the previous generations and are operating in a regressive state as a result. Something like communists vs fascists in pre-war Germany but not exactly. Point is neither side is the root cause of the others issues.
2020 left me with the unshakeable feeling that political activism of all kinds in Portland has been displaced by LARPing.
The violent white right, otoh, had always existed and always been the same set of paranoid authoritarian lunatics. The fact that they've made inroads into the middle classes is a bad sign, and one which usually precedes military fascist coups in less long-standing democracies. But their ability to radicalize and foment anti-government violence is now used by the left to justify violence and vice versa.
Things will not improve until Twitter bans EVERYBODY.
The anti-government sentiment among Democrats, which was pretty healthy during Bill Clinton, or say Howard Dean, seems to have almost collapsed post Obama. I would chalk that up to the party becoming more reliant on immigrants to win elections.