Differences in political rhetoric.

The problem is that the Left got involved with identity politics in the wake of the Civil Rights Era. For decades, focusing on unions and blacks as special groups of victims whose members can succeed only by the Dems continuing to push for government largess which gives them more than whoever doesn't belong to those groups.

Over time not belonging to those groups of "victims" meant you must sympathize with victimizers, which eventually became being victimizers.

That sort of rhetoric relies on rage against the victimization, but that is hard to maintain when using the same groups over and over for decades (Americans are bored increasingly more easily). That means they have to move further and further into the fringes to find fresh, new groups of victims to champion. The problem is the further you go into the fringe, the more dramatic and boisterous the those who reside there (and their supporters) are likely to behave.

So now we've reached a point where the Left is championing illegals coming in and living off the system to the point where they don't want them deported even if they commit horrible crimes. They champion trannies to the point where they are okay with the idea of men brutalizing women as long as the men call themselves "women" and the brutalization is done under the guise of "sports." They go out of their way to purposely champion the opposite of anything those on the Right champion (or, more pointedly, anything Trump supports).

These people are so emotional that anything less than full-throated support for them and those they support is seen (by them) as a horrible and targeted personal persecution so they lash out as such. This means those on both sides of the aisle who engage with the Leftist fringe either have to agree with them or risk physical violence.

This is a very interesting topic and one I have thought about a lot. The problem is this topic is so easy to just fall into confirmation bias and believe what you want or just see the evidence that you want. Typically in this type of discussion the only "evidence" provided is highly selective/one sided or simply anecdote.

However, this should be pretty easy to look at the data - quotes directly from people or from social media posts, etc... I don't have X or bluesky or facebook so hard for me to look up social media posts.

Important questions would be whose rhetoric are you interested in: the average Joe or Jane or just the more national public figures? Are you more concerned with violent rhetoric or actual acts of violence? How do you determine what side ideologically someone is on?

My gut is that it is about 1:1 and no difference politically. This is the horseshoe nature of politics - those on either end are more similar to each other than those toward the middle; in this case, more similar in their penchant for anger directed towards the "other." Which is why I am happily politically "no party" as I think both sides are highly errored, personally and politically.

I will be reading into this further, so thanks for the post. I want to get some more information from you.

You state there is plenty of evidence where DEMs openly calling for people on the right to be killed (also implying that REPs have never called for someone on the left to be killed). Can you provide that evidence?

I just saw the Charlie Kirk Halloween costumes and that is so very disturbing. Kind of indescribable. And I really want to avoid "whataboutisms" from my end, but there is much we can already agree on without providing evidence. The left do call the right Nazi's. Some on the left have celebrated Charlie Kirk's assassination. This has been true from average Joe and Janes as well as some leaders higher up on the power ladder.

I go back to my framework questions in my previous post. Are we talking about Democrats or those on the radical left? Are we talking about Republicans or those on the radical right? How do we know? For example, just because you hate Donald Trump doesn't automatically mean you are on the left or a democrat. But probably no way to have this type of depth of discussion over text.

So how about some simpler personal questions. I want to make sure that I am clear on your beliefs here:

1. Are you saying no one on the right/Republican has ever celebrated the death or attack of a political opponent/someone on the left/DEM?

quote:

---

People on social media celebrate his death

---

2. Are you saying no one on the left/democrat has ever been assassinated by someone on the right/republican?

quote:

---

they’ve tried to assassinate Trump multiple times.

---

3. Are you saying that the Trump attempted assassin (x2) as well as the guy who put a hit out on Pam Bondi are DEMs?

quote:

---

they’ve tried to assassinate

---

and

quote:

---

Pam Bondi had a 45k hit on her and the perpetrator was released

---

4. Are you saying no one on the right has ever called for violence or spread violent rhetoric against DEMs or people on the left?

quote:

---

Social media has spread much of the DEMs violent rhetoric.

---

5. I tried to find evidence of this, so please show me the evidence

quote:

---

People in the US Congress call for REPs to be killed.

---

I think this is a good place to start. For a conversation this important, that also has a lot potential to get derailed, it is important to establish some baselines. I hope it is clear, I am not trying to just troll here. You asked the initial question and asked for thoughts on your position, so I am happy to engage.

Questions 1-4 above are simple Yes/No questions that we can easily support or disprove. For question 5, I was admittedly not aware of this, but definitely want to know which DEM congresspeople directly called for REPs to be killed. That in no way is ok.

1) no
2) no
3) yes
4) no
5) Jay Jones

You still haven't provided any evidence to support your beliefs. Which is fine. You can have whatever belief that you want. It just makes it too difficult to have a conversation on it, if that is what you want to have. I don't want to do the heavy lifting here or provide counter examples that you won't engage with anyway.

I am not around internet news enough to know which websites are left leaning or right leaning, so just engage with the content, instead of immediately criticizing the source.

1 and 4. Are you saying no one on the right/Republican has ever celebrated the death or attack of a political opponent/someone on the left/DEM? Are you saying no one on the right has ever called for violence or spread violent rhetoric against DEMs or people on the left?

Don Jr. Halloween costume about Paul Pelosi attack LINK

Trump retweeting Biden hog tied (simplest link I could find LINK)

Plenty of pro Trump people calling to hang Mike Pence


2. Are you saying no one on the left/democrat has ever been assassinated by someone on the right/republican?

Gabby Giffords (attempted assassination)
Minnesota state legislators LINK

3. Are you saying that the Trump attempted assassin (x2) as well as the guy who put a hit out on Pam Bondi are DEMs?

Provide your evidence that these individuals are DEMs. I have read a lot this. They have no clear ideology that I can see. In fact, they show more right leaning support than left. I am not sure if donating 15 dollars to a dem organization makes you a dem anymore than the other guy voting for Trump in 2016 automatically makes him a REP.


5. I tried to find evidence of this, so please show me the evidence
quote:
People in the US Congress call for REPs to be killed.

I was not able to find a US Congressman named Jay Jones. I found a story about a former Virginia state congressman named Jay Jones say some pretty horrible things. Not ok at all and saying to shoot someone is no just easy mistake to make.

There is a lot more information I could easily find about violent rhetoric from the right, and there is just as much I could find about violent rhetoric from the left. Which supports my position that violent rhetoric is equivalent from either side. I am starting to think that you are just trolling me as you could find the same information that I do, yet you just choose not to provide it. Certainly there is more and more as you look at individual social media posts from just regular individuals. I don't want to put more effort into this than you are.

So if you want to engage more, provide specific links that show the Trump potential assassins were DEMs (which begs the question, how do you know if someone is a DEM?)

Also, what evidence would you need to see that could change your mind that REPs might be more violent than you believe currently?

My position is that I want people to just be honest about the facts and genuinely engage with them, regardless of your final conclusion. Social media echo chambers aren't great for that...

I don’t have to explain myself to retards.

quote:

---

2lbsshellcracker:The REPs however, seem to just point out the obvious of the DEMs. That their arguments are incoherent, that they don’t hold up. And that the DEMs are acting stupid.

---

quote:

---

2lbsshellcracker: There is plenty of evidence.

---

quote:

---

2lbsshellcracker: I don’t have to explain myself to retards.

---

Most of the extreme viewpoints of radical leftists have been attempted to be made mainstream Democratic stances. In lieu of actual policies, trans ideology, wide open borders, no violent crime enforcement or repercussions and DEI in general is what the Dems preach today. Since they have largely controlled the medium for which communications are consumed, the message has always been pro Dem also. This creates the illusion of everyone being a lefty and agreeing with lefty talking points. It also leads to mentally ill people believing the BS that is put out there without any critical thinking skills. It clearly led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassination of Pres. Trump. All perpetuated by fear mongering and misinformation. The right usually doesn't advocate for violence if you don't agree. They usually mock you and try and engage why you are wrong but at some point the leftist version of this was to shut down all debate and resort to either censorship or violence. It's really not hard to see, but Dems will act like it's the opposite.

How about one simple example of the difference. When George Floyd died, did anyone on the right celebrate his death after it was made known? A lot of people wanted to get to the truth of why he died (overdose vs. cop) and a lot of people were angry that the left chose to elevate a career criminal to be their martyr and riot about it, but I cannot recall anyone of consequence on the right celebrating his death or if you are were a lefty, calling it his murder. Contrast that to Rush Limbaugh dying or the Kirk assassination. People openly on the left cheering a man dying of cancer and a man gunned down in cold blood. Gleefully celebrating a person they disagreed with's demise. And some of them were Dem politicians in office.