Doubletree3
24d ago
Thanks for doing the legwork here. Too often political discussion proceeds purely on narrative/subjective grounds and so the effort to at least attempt to inject some objectivity is greatly appreciated!
The fundamental problem is that most modern right wing violence is an accident of ideology committed by a fringe with little support. Condemnations are widespread, the people engaging it have been mostly grossly mentally ill, no leading figures are calling for it, no mainstream institutions are calling for it or supporting it (at least up until current events).
The claim here is obviously false. There is plenty of institutonal and cultural support for violence among the right. Take, for example, conservative fascination with firearms as a political tool. Or greater suport for state sanctioned killing to achieve policy goals, like the death penalty. And, while this is less true now but was certainly true in the very recent past that conservatives were very likey to prioritize violence as a solution to foreign policy as well ("turn the whole country to glass").
The acceptance of violence, or the tendency to see the use physical force as a acceptable or effective solution to problems, seems to be so pervasive among the right that it has become "baked in" to the point where it doesn't even register, like a fish in water.
I am not claiming that the left does not have problems with violence, it clearly does (especially and perhaps exclusively the woke illiberal left), but this thing I keep seeing where conservatives are casting themselves as constitutionally cherubic peaceniks against the bloodthirsty violent and demonic left is just flatly wrong.
Doubletree3
26d ago
Yeah, sure, that's the motte. The Bailey is shooting effigies of democratic politicians, brandishing firearms at unarmed leftist protesters, and posting up open carry at polling places.
Conservatives are more than happy to use firearms as a political intimidating tactic.
Doubletree3
26d ago
I understand where you're coming from. Though realistically these people celebrating, it's all performative, for all except 1e-6% of them.
This isn't equivalent to wishing ill will on someone who was factually an illegal immigrant
theres a difference, but it's not huge. It's a crime to be here illegally but not such a crime that they deserve to be shipped off to a supermax prison, probably sodomized, etc.
Doubletree3
27d ago
Yeah I clicked over to the "popular" feed on reddit, but, same thing? Maybe I am in a weird filter bubble
Doubletree3
27d ago
Interesting. I don't doubt you but I don't use blue sky. My reddit feed is not filled with anything I'd call celebrating. Many sarcastic "thoughts and prayers", and many pointing out supposed ironies about his stance on gun control, lots of " this is a bad for the country".
I'm not saying these people don't exist. I'm saying two things:
-
The conservative fascination with politic violence goes far deeper than just a few "right wing extremist" accounts. This is just what the whole 2A/tree of liberty stuff is about. I
-
we are in this (bad) place because of a runaway tribal culture war dynamic. Highly emotive statements that are not measured or specific in their claims oftenmake this problem worse, not better, and so anyone who wants the temperature to decrease should be careful about how they frame their posts.
Especially today, when I can engage with literally any left-leaning website on its own terms and see tons of justifications of this attack, and a sickening glee for it.
I have personally observed many sickening statements concerning, for example, Kilmar Garcia, coming from conservatives. what would your point be exactly?
As much as I denounce Kirk's murder, especially if it was politically motivated, and denounce any celebration my tribe is engaging in, I have a hard time with the pearl clutching going on in conservative circles about this, and especially statement like "The American left has been fomenting violent radicalism ceaselessly for more than a decade."
For the right, it seems that the acceptance of political violence as a potential solution is just baked in. Many on the right love their guns, and they love to make ""implications"" or even more outright statements that they are willing to use their guns against "tyrants". But if you spend 5 minutes around these types you will see that their definition of "tyranny" is not far from "a liberal policy I don't like". This has been a key pillar of conservative politics going back far more than a decade.
I can rest easier knowing that these things generally stay at the level of fantasy. But it IS a consistent conservative fantasy. If we are comparing like to like, liberals "celebrating" by making bluesky posts and conservatives making gun memes about "the tree of liberty", "ten cent solutions", "kill em all and let God sort em out", or shooting targets with Hillary's face on them, do not strike me as having significantly different moral valence.
Doubletree3
27d ago
All bluesky is now alight in celebration of the murder
I doubt /all/ of them are. I have seen many calls for lowering temperatures, denouncing it, etc. meanwhile I have seen several highly popular right wing facebook groups that seem positively giddy that this might give them some excuse to kill leftists.
It is clear that your purpose in making that statement is political rather than factual.
Doubletree3
27d ago
The dude was definitely a right winger who was deep into qanon style conspiracies.
He could have also been crazy, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Doubletree3
27d ago
I don't think there was any indication the attacker was a conservative who hated them for being liberal.
I think you should go back and reacquaint yourself of the details of this case because there is ample evidence that he was both a right winger and targeted the Pelosis because they were Democrats.
DePape answers, "Absolutely." He grows increasingly angry and emotional, claiming that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats committed crimes to steal the election from Donald Trump. Then, Depape says, "I was going to hold her hostage and get her to tell the truth. If she didn't tell the truth, I'd break her kneecaps."
Doubletree3
1mo ago
The difference with Christians is indeed that I've never heard an individual Christian sincerely deny allegiance to the Pope one minute and then affirm it when it suits them
I don't know about that particular example but it is common, and I have personally experienced, individual Christians picking and choosing different parts of the Bible to reference according to their instrumental needs. I have not noticed any tendency towards strong logical consistency in Christians vs any other group.
Fatos is an Albanian name. I could not find info on "dumana" but the related "Dumani" seems to be traceable to Albania as well.
So yes, very much European ethnicity
Doubletree3
1mo ago
but can anyone name a single time Democrats opted for grace and forgiveness, for not "punching back twice as hard", for not "sending one of theirs to the morgue"?
This is quite easy. Unfortunately from the rest of your post I suspect you have quite a different standard of evidence than the plain meaning of your words as written. But here goes anyway. If your standard is, "John McCain telling his supporters to be less racist", then here is a symmetric example:
Former Vice President Joe Biden spoke out against the suppression of speakers and defended free speech during an event Tuesday with Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R.).
Speaking to an audience at his alma mater, the University of Delaware, Biden said shouting down speakers is "simply wrong." Biden noted that when he was going through college, free speech was also at the forefront but it was those on the left who were "shouted down when they spoke."
"Liberals have very short memories," Biden said. "I mean that sincerely."
Biden placed blame on those who have engaged in "violence" by stopping speakers from speaking.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/joe-biden-on-free-speech-liberals-have-very-short-memories/
Doubletree3
1mo ago
There are a great many situations where your statement would be obviously untrue. Should cons start getting abortions to own the libs?
Doubletree3
1mo ago
This statement is wrong in the general case on game theoretic grounds. Not everything is a prisoners dilemma, and not everything your opponent does that you don't like is a game-theory defection. In this case, if you believe that government intervention in the market is bad, then cons are just doing a harm and not disincentivising future similar actions by liberals.
Doubletree3
1mo ago
I can buy the argument that the specific shape of a district matters less over time as people re-assort themselves. The corollary to this is that what does matter is the cycle-to-cycle changes in the districts. But on this basis, Texas' current actions are more likely to be a unilateral defection versus a tit-for-tat against previous democratic actions.
Also, if the district maps can be drawn at the whims of the legislature then the incumbent party can in general continuously redraw the map to maintain their advantage. This hurts your argument that everything will equalize eventually. The only way to prevent that is a norm that says "redistricting with the purposes of consolidating partisan advantage is bad". But your argument is the opposite of this.
Doubletree3
1mo ago
Characterizing Texas' current actions as "a patsy finally noticing and fighting back" is a-historical nonsense im afraid. Republicans have had their share of innovation in the gerrymandering space. See operation REDMAP.
Doubletree3
1mo ago
We don't have to go back far in time to find a situation where NJ was roughly 50-50 in party congressional seats (2014 and 2016). The big swing towards Democrats happened in 2018, but new maps were not drawn until 2021, so partisan gerrymandering could not have played a role there.
the previous district map was drawn in 2011 by a bi partisan committee, in which a Republican cast the tie-breaking vote.
Looking at the two maps, one is not clearly more gerrymandered than the other.
So my conclusion is that regardless of how squiggly lines on the map are, Republicans have historically been proportionally competitive in nj-- so the squigglyness tells us little.
Of course cherry picking squiggly districts is orthogonal to the question of whether Republicans in this specific case are smashing the 'defect' button and trying to pick up extra house seats 'for free' . (They definitely are.)
The most gerrymandered states in the union are all blue
Evidence for this?
Combine it with red states not being dumb enough to establish independent redistricting commissions
Note that California's process in particular was enacted in 2008, opposed by the democratic party and supported by the Republican party, but they shot themselves in the foot and lost several seats. calling California "dumb" for this is probably ignoring a lot of path dependency and/or requires applying some double standards.
He made statements to police indicating that he attacked the pelosis because they were Democrats and he believed they stole the election from trump.
More options
Context Copy link