Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[The Don]

What was my claim again? Please quote the post where I made the claim you're referring to.

I've highlighted it for you below:

No, I don't respond because it is too much work and won't do any good. Most conservatives are well aware that almost all political violence is coming from the left side of the spectrum. If you want to believe we're wrong or deluded, that's fine with me. I am open to a contrary argument if you want to present your evidence, however. I just don't want to do the work.

So how about some evidence (as opposed to arm-waving and anecdotes). So far the evidence that others have provided disproves your claim.

 

[varwoche]

Pretty ironic coming from the otherwise intelligent fellow who has been wallowing in a ridiculous conspiracy theory about Russian collusion for the last six months.

When cornered, change the subject.

You need to try harder. A lot harder.

 

[sunmaster14]

I've highlighted it for you below:



So how about some evidence (as opposed to arm-waving and anecdotes). So far the evidence that others have provided disproves your claim.

Technically my claim is about what most conservatives are well aware of (believe, in other words). Do you doubt this? I think I would need to do a poll to be really scientific about it, but a fair-minded person would simply spend a little time reading about the assaults on free speech in academia and the workplace.

 

[sunmaster14]

When cornered, change the subject.

You need to try harder. A lot harder.

Cornered? That's a laugh. I actually think I might have a touch of kenophobia.

 

[Hellbound]

To add to my previous post, one of the studies is available that specifically looks into the patterns of attacks, including who performs them:

Miller, Erin. Patterns of Terrorism in the United States, 1970-2013: Final Report to Resilient Systems Division, DHS Science and Technology Directorate. College Park, MD: START, 2014.

http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_TEVUS_GTDPatternsofTerrorisminUS1970-2013_Oct2014.pdf

Page 13 has a table breaking it down. They only go to 2014, so not entirely current, and they break it down by organization, so it's a bit hard to compare. Neo-Nazis, KKK, and White supremacists together are responsible for 5 attacks according to this methodology. I'm not sure what groups we'd need to consider as representing the antifa...anarchists are listed with 1, not sure about others.

Of additional interest, starting on page 16:

Generically identified perpetrators that have carried out attacks in the United States for at least 20 years include neo-Nazis, white extremists, anti-abortion activists, Cuban exiles, Jewish extremists, and Puerto Rican nationalists. Attacks attributed to anti-Castro perpetrators spanned 16 years, and attacks attributed to anti-government perpetrators spanned 13 years. The longest-lasting named perpetrator organizations include the Ku Klux Klan, the ALF, the Macheteros, Army of God, the Jewish Defense League, the Black Liberation Army, the ELF, Aryan Nations, Mujahedin-e Khalq, and The Justice Department. Although these perpetrators share in common that they persisted in carrying out terrorist attacks for more than 10 years, the volume, concentration, and impact of their activity varies. Among these perpetrators, anti-abortion activists carried out the highest number of attacks per year (5.9), while several groups carried out very few attacks that were separated by long periods of inactivity in the United States.

 

[The Don]

Technically my claim is about what most conservatives are well aware of (believe, in other words). Do you doubt this? I think I would need to do a poll to be really scientific about it, but a fair-minded person would simply spend a little time reading about the assaults on free speech in academia and the workplace.

...and the deflection begins

"well aware of" <> "believe"

"Well aware of" implies knowledge of something based in fact. You wouldn't say "most people in the 18th century were well aware that the Earth was around 6,000 years old" when it was a belief.

Now if you wanted to talk about the beliefs of Conservatives then you should have phrased it that way and those beliefs would appear to run counter to the available evidence

 

[Shalamar]

It's always the lefts fault. ALWAYS.

And no one will answer: Why do the right have freedom of speech, but the left does not have the freedom of speech to respond?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

sunmaster14 is right. For those of us who've been paying attention, we're aware of the outrageous amount of left wing violence to shut down speakers on campuses in recent years.

They undermine their credibility about "Nazis and KKK" and such when you recall the fact that they have gone absolutely nuts over basic conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro, used violence and shouting over speakers and pulling fire alarms and such to completely prevent speech they don't want to hear or want others to hear. Even when the stuff in question is rather mild. Pushback on feminist issues, etc.

They call people like Ben Shapiro (Jewish) a Nazi, so the whole pointing and calling people Nazis thing is somewhat deflated in its credibility too. Though obviously at Charlottesville there were finally some people (SOME!) worthy of that title.

There were also tons of people there who are simply very concerned, as I am, at what they see happening with demographics, where they see it leading (whites a hated, scapegoated minority in ALL formerly majority white nations in a few decades) and are trying to advocate for their group. Not an outrageous thing at all.

Sure, you've got your abortion clinic bombers and Dylan Roof and all that. Nobody's denying that there are murderous racist and right wing people but they are pretty rare and these events aren't really very frequent. And you've got the Scalise shooter and people like that too.

Setting aside the issue of the rare ultra-violent mass killers with political motives, the fact is that the left is the only game in town for routine mob violence to silence political speech from the opposing side. There simply IS NOT anything like that going on from the right, and hasn't been for several decades.

You were solid, at least in terms of my credibly accepting how you arrived at this view, etc. That is until the highlighted portion. Too black-and-white.

You might thread the needle with specifically mob violence to specifically silence speech. But the right has plenty of mob violence (Malheur was an armed mob occupation of federal land, theft and misuse of public property and resources, and vandalism). The right silences political speech quite directly through voter suppression.

The fact there are different appendages doing these things in parallel doesn't make it less egregious.

Furthermore, antifa is not left. Ask them yourself.

I'm willing to be the answer will be something along the lines of the left being "Bourgeoisie Liberals" and most being complicit/enablers/collaborators.

Pivoting from that, I've noticed a lot of that language creeping into objections to not liking Antifa have started to take that tone as the week has gone on.

Don't mind me, I'm just working this all out now so when everyone finally takes the gloves off, I'll know to shut up because being neither side's ally means if I open my mouth, they'll both momentarily agree on ripping my throat out.

 

[marplots]

It's always the lefts fault. ALWAYS.

And no one will answer: Why do the right have freedom of speech, but the left does not have the freedom of speech to respond?

Since when? Both sides have it, they might use it differently though.

I like to think of the moderate left as more responsible and adult-acting, but that's just my bias to overlook some of the "pushier" rhetoric. It's all relative.

I'm curious why you'd say the left does not have the freedom of speech to respond. Is it because some self-censor?

 

[snoop_doxie]

No, I don't respond because it is too much work and won't do any good. Most conservatives are well aware that almost all political violence is coming from the left side of the spectrum. If you want to believe we're wrong or deluded, that's fine with me. I am open to a contrary argument if you want to present your evidence, however. I just don't want to do the work.

If this were remotely true, this discussion would be interesting.

But you start this post with an "awareness" by "conservatives" that almost
ALL political violence is coming from the left.

Are you speaking for most conservatives? Let's narrow it down to you.

You have an opinion that you can support with evidence?

PS leave out the self pity (wrong and deluded), it does not suit you.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's always the lefts fault. ALWAYS.

And no one will answer: Why do the right have freedom of speech, but the left does not have the freedom of speech to respond?

Freedom of speech does not involve disrupting another person's freedom of speech. The left is of course free to have a protest, or even a counter-protest, which does not dangerously overlap, temporally and spatially, with a previously scheduled and permitted protest.

 

[Shalamar]

Since when? Both sides have it, they might use it differently though.

I like to think of the moderate left as more responsible and adult-acting, but that's just my bias to overlook some of the "pushier" rhetoric. It's all relative.

I'm curious why you'd say the left does not have the freedom of speech to respond. Is it because some self-censor?

There are a couple posters on this thread who keep whining on how the 'left' keeps shutting down nazis free speech. They don't seem to recognize that the 'left' has the same freedom of speech and can shout down, or drown out the right.

Of course, the right can respond in kind to the left as well, but they don't seem to mind THAT.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's always the lefts fault. ALWAYS.

And no one will answer: Why do the right have freedom of speech, but the left does not have the freedom of speech to respond?

In theory: if you mean the same form of expression in both instances, that shouldn't be the case.

In practice: because the system is rigged.

 

[Shalamar]

Freedom of speech does not involve disrupting another person's freedom of speech. The left is of course free to have a protest, or even a counter-protest, which does not dangerously overlap, temporally and spatially, with a previously scheduled and permitted protest.

Freedom of speech means it cannot be suppressed by the government. Of course, freedom of speech should not be met by physical violence either. By anyone.

it does not make one immune to the consequences of that speech, and people have the freedom to yell at each other, or even to be drowned out. Such is freedom. Of speech.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What was my claim again? Please quote the post where I made the claim you're referring to.

le sigh

No, I don't respond because it is too much work and won't do any good. Most conservatives are well aware that almost all political violence is coming from the left side of the spectrum. If you want to believe we're wrong or deluded, that's fine with me. I am open to a contrary argument if you want to present your evidence, however. I just don't want to do the work.

 

[sunmaster14]

Freedom of speech means it cannot be suppressed by the government. Of course, freedom of speech should not be met by physical violence either. By anyone.

it does not make one immune to the consequences of that speech, and people have the freedom to yell at each other, or even to be drowned out. Such is freedom. Of speech.

You're wrong as a matter of law actually. The government has a duty to protect somebody's freedom of speech (including from a heckler's veto) under certain circumstances (as in this case). It is actually against the law to infringe on somebody's civil rights too.

Furthermore, I and most enlightened people (I hope) have a more expansive definition of freedom of speech than just what is contained in the First Amendment. Most Americans, and certainly conservatives, believe in the principle of free speech, not just the Constitutional right to be free of government suppression.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Technically my claim is about what most conservatives are well aware of (believe, in other words). Do you doubt this? I think I would need to do a poll to be really scientific about it, but a fair-minded person would simply spend a little time reading about the assaults on free speech in academia and the workplace.

Saw that one coming a mile away.

Unfortunately the sentence right after the highlighted portion is where you inadvertently preemptively defeated the escape hatch you thought you could use in the aftermath of being called out.

ETA: Even accepting this little tapdance, the question remains: is that belief credible and accurate?!?!

 

[sunmaster14]

le sigh

I've actually asked for recent examples (e.g. since the 2016 Presidential cycle began) where the right has used violence or the threat of violence to disrupt a left-wing protest or rally. There have been many left-wing rallies of course, from campaign rallies to BLM protests to anti-globalist and anti-war marches to that weird Women's March the day after Trump's inauguration.

Hell, even Trump's inauguration was disrupted. Do you think Hillary's inauguration would have been disrupted (in the alternative dystopia wherein she actually, you know, could beat a mental midget in a nationwide election)?

 

[Shalamar]

You're wrong as a matter of law actually. The government has a duty to protect somebody's freedom of speech (including from a heckler's veto) under certain circumstances (as in this case). It is actually against the law to infringe on somebody's civil rights too.

Furthermore, I and most enlightened people (I hope) have a more expansive definition of freedom of speech than just what is contained in the First Amendment. Most Americans, and certainly conservatives, believe in the principle of free speech, not just the Constitutional right to be free of government suppression.

The Nazis were given permits, and marched with hate. The left should just shut up and accept it?

It's.. very enlightening.

It's always the lefts fault.

What the quote I heard in that video I posted? Oh yes 'Jews will not replace us'. Just accept it. To do otherwise would infringe on their freedom of speech.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You're wrong as a matter of law actually. The government has a duty to protect somebody's freedom of speech (including from a heckler's veto) under certain circumstances (as in this case). It is actually against the law to infringe on somebody's civil rights too.

Furthermore, I and most enlightened people (I hope) have a more expansive definition of freedom of speech than just what is contained in the First Amendment. Most Americans, and certainly conservatives, believe in the principle of free speech, not just the Constitutional right to be free of government suppression.

In other words, you have no legal basis for it, no authority to enforce it, and yet this 'expansive' view is conveniently interpreted in a way that prevents others from doing the same.

Fascinating.