the rest of the violence was very minor for a riot.
Tell that to the 140+ cops who got injured https://www.policemag.com/patrol/news/15310988/140-officers-were-injured-in-capitol-riot-officials-say
Including
One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake
One was beaten and tased until he passed out and another was attacking cops with a metal whip
After being pulled from the line of officers, Fanone was then beaten by rioters during one of the most brutal assaults on police protecting the Capitol that day. He was tased in the neck and eventually lost consciousness during the attack, where he had begged rioters for his life and told them he had children.
...
Andrew Taake of Texas pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers with bear spray and a "metal whip" on Jan. 6 and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Another threw a bomb at a group of cops.
There was also multiple pipe bombs planted by an unfound individual yet
Another hit cops with a baton he brought, and threw a speaker box at them
These are just a portion of the violence by Jan 6th protestors. And the property damage too, windows were smashed, offices were trashed and damaged and things were stolen off desks.
Total cost estimated around 2.7 billion dollars
Now of course, these criminals are just a small portion of the Jan 6th protest. There were tens of thousands of people there, many of whom were completely peaceful and not engaged in destructive behavior. Those people do not deserve blame for the actions of criminals just for existing in the same place together. Like members of any loosely formed group, people should be held individually responsible.
But that doesn't mean the criminals don't exist either. They do, and they were very violent and destructive. Both can be true, criminals exist and other protestors who didn't do crime aren't responsible for it.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
He also DMed me
You are a terrible person and your comments suck
So he read it enough to get really upset. Ironic, it evidences the argument that it's feelings based and not facts based.
My understanding is that the Trump pardons for Jan 6th are based on the (IMO correct) belief that this was a political persecution, where people were persecuted for non-crimes, and those that actually committed crimes were usually given excessive sentences. Many people who were pardoned did serve time, so it's not like they weren't punished.
Even if it's correct that some crimes were unfairly prosecuted, assaulting cops on video is a genuine crime deserving of long punishment. Unless there's proof that they went past legal guidelines in sentencing, it's just letting cop beaters off early because what, other people didn't beat up cops?
This is even worse than guilty by association IMO, it's innocent by association where you can drag a cop around and tase him to he passes out and it's fine even as an individual as long as you can claim a peaceful neighbor was treated unfairly.
I feel that it is a mistake to interpret a blanket clemency as individual pardons, where only the specifics of the case matter, rather than the desire to rebuke the establishment in general.
He was not forced to do a blanket clemency that covered violent crimes. The campaign even said before election that violent criminals would not be released.
“If you protested peacefully on Jan. 6 and you’ve had [Attorney General] Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned,” Vance told “Fox News Sunday.”
He added, “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”
Even Vance agreed it's obvious that violent criminals should not be sent into the general public. Yet what happened? Cop beaters with long rap sheets were freed. It sends a message that if you do violent crime in the name of the president, he'll be soft on it.
No, we can't. You have no idea how many buildings actually got burned down during the Floyd riots. You have no idea how many windows got a brick through them. You have no idea how many cars were torched or totaled. You have no idea how many people were beaten, nor how badly. Now multiply those unknowns by every other incident of organized leftist street violence, from the Battle of Berkeley on down.
That's true we don't know how much damage was caused there and by how many people. We also don't know how many, if any, are only politically motivated crimes, and not the actions of typical criminal behavior exploiting large crowds to hide in, or false flags like this or this.
Out of an estimated 16-24 million people participating, the idea that the only people in the crowds are supporters is highly unlikely. But even if they were, 16-24 million is a huge number! Even a fraction of a fraction (a very small percentage) people committing crime would be able to do a fair bit of damage.
This person's opinion, that people like me need to be killed, is not in any meaningful sense "fringe". I would probably be fired for disagreeing with it publicly prior to the Kirk shooting. You are correct that we have not had large numbers of political murders. These people are trying to change that, and if they succeed, nothing you value will survive.
Random chest thumping social media accounts from leftists trying to signal how cool they are is just as meaningless as the chest thumping from the right currently calling for "civil war" or for killing judges. It's posturing by edgelords who thinks it makes them look cool, but they don't have an actual violent bone in them.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
I think I was incredibly gracious, giving you a very low bar to clear to prove political violence isn't rare at 10% of 1% of 1% of leftists.
Even just a fraction of a fraction is considered a small amount, you got a 90% discount. If you still can't manage it, maybe consider you are just wrong.
Yes, if you say that in vacuum it looks great. You are saying that as a way to deflect someone's sincere concerns about a very current issue. You should go to Palestine and tell someone in a bombed-out home about how awful "violence in general" is.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Show me where you see anyone celebrating this
He was literally on a site posting about it beforehand being cheered on.
Underneath his post, Holly engaged with several comments in a manner that suggested he was close to committing his own attack. He liked one comment reading, “You got close to a full setup now man time to make a move 👍.” He also liked a comment reading, “Just need an gopro its gonan be cool an pov [sic],” and responded, “A GoPro, battery, ear protection, and maybe a patch.” Responding to another commenter, he wrote, “I’m planning on getting a camera instead.”
Under a TikTok post from June 2025, Holly had liked a comment asking, “is bro gonna become a Hero." Some white supremacists use the term “Hero” to refer to successful ideologically motivated attackers. Holly had also liked a comment telling him to acquire a white supremacist sonnenrad patch like Tarrant and Gendron wore, replying that he had made some and sharing a photo of patches featuring a Totenkopf and sonnenrad. Both are Nazi-era symbols used today as hate symbols.
Is that good enough for you, white supremacists actively encouraging the attack?
The point is that they would have to be very stupid to say this, because it is very obviously not going to play over well regardless of what an epic and brave truth it is.
Again, facts don't care about your feelings. Facts don't care to be "politically correct". They are just facts, and the facts are that political violence is rare.
You do not belong on this site. You are gleefully violating every principle of this space with snide comments like that.
I had thought this was a rationalist aligned site, and yet you seem to be arguing that your feels beat reals. Perhaps you don't belong?
Who cares what your feels are, put up some statistics, give some numbers. Validate your point. I have earlier in a post
There was 75 million Harris voters, if even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of them was engaging in political violence, we should be seeing way more than this! And they shouldn't be constantly ending up as incoherent dudes who don't even have clear politics to slot into (this recent guy didn't even vote).
Even just one percent would be 750,000. .001% would be 750! That's still way more than what political violence we've seen.
There you go. Show some math that it's at least 750 left wing political attacks and I'll concede that .001% of Harris voters (probably one of the closest approximations of the "left" even though it would likely underestimate cause of non voters splitting between the two) are politically violent. Huge victory proving me wrong, a tenth of a fraction of a fraction (a term famously used to convey large percentages).
Convenient how you ignore every single thing that separates this from the current situation. Did you see thousands of right-wingers openly celebrating those attacks? This murderer was not a brainrotted young man. He was a completely normal person as of a week ago. He was not a schizo with a crossed wire. He was simply someone who believed that the fascists are causing harm and we must fight them outside the bounds of a system they exploit, because what did you think revolution meant, a picnic?
Yes, there are plenty of people who celebrate white nationalist attacks online. Just because they're doing it on 4chan or Telegram doesn't mean they don't exist.
"The past few years," really? Are you fucking serious? We're talking about something that happened days ago. Do you think having a big bad white supremacist rap sheet proves that the other side can never have any legitimate grievance on novel developments?
Is the only thing that matters the literal last event to happen? Silly. Especially because on the same day a dude radicalized by neonazis online shot three kids at Evergreen.
You should also consider this from a strategic perspective, if you have no interest in understanding others. I can understand why you're so desperate to deflect any attention away from something that could associate the good guy squad with a murderer. But every single word you type is only making it worse for yourself. All this comes off as is a desperate attempt to deny,
Let's see here
I say that right or left wing, it's bad to associate the violent actions of a very few rare individuals as indicative of the whole group. Pretty consistent, nonpartisan, principled.
You seem to be saying that it's ok to associate them, but only if it's the actions of left radicals and we should ignore the white supremacist attacks, the assassination of Minnesota Dems, the attack on Paul Pelosi, etc. Hmm, seems inconsistent, I wonder why this logic of blame isn't applied equally.
And I don't know why you expect this to play out well. Oats_son certainly is not swayed by your argument. I'm not. I agree with everything he said below.
Oh wow, this saddens me so much that a stranger on the internet disagrees.
Your words only make your side appear more obstinately certain that they can do no wrong by virtue of being on the right side of history
What's "my side"? Are you only able to conceptualize politics, with its myriad of complex topics and viewpoints, on a single axis? That there are only two groups of "us" and "them"? One needs only look at other nations, like Germany, India or Brazil with a different electoral system allowing more political divergence to understand it's not just "left vs right".
And even those are still loose alliances of people with many varying belief systems in them.
This will go over as well as if somebody tried to shut down any fears over Kennedy's assassination by bringing up all the black people unjustly killed by police, two days after it happened.
If someone was in the 60s claiming that violence never happened to black people at that time, they would be wrong whether they said it before or after the Kennedy assassination.
I do not know what you can possibly be thinking, but your arguments are only adding fuel to the fire
I didn't know that I was this important for my words on a small site like this to have great impact on the world. I must be way more influential and awesome than I thought. Thank you for such kind praise of my importance.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
Are you illiterate? I explicitly said
Are you gonna lose your faith in humanity if despite an >2 amount of neonazi killings and bombings, I say it's still rare?
White supremacist violence in the US is also not an issue. It is possible to think neither are a major problem.
There are more events regarding neonazi idealogy but it's still very very few. There are not roving bands of neonazis going around killing people, there are one off nutjobs.
To answer your dishonest question, I am not as scared of white supremacists taking over the US, because their rhetoric is still far outside of the Overton window,
Are they? There's tons of veiled 14 words posting and other white supremacist adjacent posts. The DHS of all things made an explicit reference to William Gayley Simpson, the white supremacist who said Hitler was correct and that Jews needed to be exterminated.
The DHS doesn't want to exterminate Jews, but making references to white supremacists like that shows the Overton window of white supremacy is not too far away.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
Media, education, social media, and corporate employment are all very aggressive with pushing "silence is violence" "the personal is the political" "speech is violence" "they are going to put you in camps" "they are literally Nazis" and so on.
These things have nearly zero pushback and are firmly water for the vast majority of Americans.
Yeah stuff like "This is CIVIL WAR" and "They want you dead!" and "the left is domestic terrorists!" is not receiving much pushback on social media, I'll agree with that. Our rhetoric across the aisle is hyperbolic and charged.
But despite that, we can count the number of explicitly political attacks on our fingers. People are more likely to say they support political violence when they think the "other side" does but it doesn't seem to translate much into anything real. After all talk is cheap, extremely cheap. They're all just being edgelords.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
Are you scared of white supremacist/neonazi violence taking over the US?
We've had the Evergreen shooting
A school shooting in Nashville
Attack on Baltimore power grid
Attempted bombing in Nashville
And that's just some of the white supremacist inspired violence in the past few years.
Are you gonna lose your faith in humanity if despite an >2 amount of neonazi killings and bombings, I say it's still rare?
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
O9A are mostly just a bunch of psychopath chaos loving edgelords who call themselves whatever will piss off the most people while they spread child porn and encourage kids to shoot up their schools.
If a tranny shooting up a catholic school isn't leftwing violence
Their own school, which means they could have done it for generic school shooting reasons like 99.9% of school shooters
neither is a white guy shooting up a black church,
If a white guy has a long history of attending that church and could have been targeting it for generic shooter reasons targeting their own spaces, then yes it would not count.
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
Trump literally pardoned people who beat up cops
In May, Young pleaded guilty to assaulting Fanone, holding his wrist and pulling his arm while the officer was dragged into the mob by other rioters.
After being pulled from the line of officers, Fanone was then beaten by rioters during one of the most brutal assaults on police protecting the Capitol that day. He was tased in the neck and eventually lost consciousness during the attack, where he had begged rioters for his life and told them he had children.
Young, Jackson said, was the individual who handed another rioter the stun gun used to electrocute Fanone. Young then showed the individual how to operate the device.
“You had to teach him how to turn it on,” Jackson said, “you armed someone.”
The individual, Daniel Rodriguez, is charged with electrocuting Fanone several times in his neck and has pleaded not guilty.
Some of them had a history of rape, manslaughter, possession of child porn, didn't matter. If a rapist beat up a cop, he was still pardoned
Arrest warrant records alleged that Daniel Ball of Florida threw an "explosive device that detonated upon at least 25 officers" during the Capitol riot and also "forcefully" shoved police trying to protect the building. According to charging documents, Ball had a criminal record before his arrest for Jan. 6, including for "Domestic Violence Battery by Strangulation," "Resisting Law Enforcement with Violence," and "Battery on Law Enforcement Officer."
Domestic abuser with history of attacking cops throws a bomb? Acceptable behavior apparently.
Andrew Taake of Texas pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers with bear spray and a "metal whip" on Jan. 6 and was sentenced to six years in prison.
He also had a prior criminal case that remains unresolved.
The Harris County District Attorney in Texas has said that Taake is wanted on 2016 charges of soliciting a minor online. "We are already in the process of tracking Taake down," District Attorney Sean Teare said in a statement shared with NPR. Taake allegedly sent sexually explicit messages to someone he thought was a 15-year-old girl, but was, in fact, an undercover law enforcement officer, prosecutors alleged as part of his Jan. 6 case.
Most Jan 6th protestors were peaceful and were never even arrested yet alone convicted, that is true. It's true of basically every group, something I've said since forever. Most people are peaceful.
But not every single one. Why pardon rapist cop beaters? That's the exact opposite of condemnation.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
If they turn the internal organs of Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, JK Rowling, and Matt Walsh's organs all into mucilage, it would still be a very low rate of political violence on paper.
Sure, when violent leftist groups go around doing a bunch of murder instead a single attack by a brainrotted young man, I'll acknowledge that it's an issue. But right now we have the latter, not the former, so you're arguing a made up scenario and getting scared by your imagination.
Did you do any spot checking to make sure known incidents were included? I saw claims that the ADL dataset didn't include a trans shooter at a Christian school under leftwing violence despite that incident being included in their timeframe
Good chance it shouldn't even be included, Westman shot up his own school and thus the likelihood it's some sort of personal grievance or other non political motive/fascination with violence like the large majority of school shooters rather than political is really high. Especially with possible O9A connections
Unless we say that anything a trans person does, even if it's for the same exact reasons that a non trans person does something, becomes inherently political just by their identity but that seems silly.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
Yeah, I would assume that's the case even before looking into the data just because of the obvious issues that
-
Violence itself is incredibly rare, only about 2-4% have a violent conviction.
-
A good portion of those aren't even directly violent against people. Armed robberies, kidnappings (which are mostly the kids own parent driving off with them), arson.
-
A good portion of the ones left over aren't extreme like we're imagining, they're assault like slaps and punches and kicks. Domestic violence, drunks getting in a fist fight, sexual assault. Shouldn't be allowed but it's not death.
-
Even the homicides themselves still contain plenty of manslaughter or heat of passion cases.
-
And even of those premeditated homicides, they're also almost entirely personal grievances. Spouses, rival gangs, employers, religion conflicts, etc.
-
And even then, it's largely repeat offenders who do violence on multiple occasions.
Explicitly political violence is so rare that whether right or left wing attacks are more common, it's like arguing which cup of water is more full compared to all the water in the ocean (the general population).
Ultimately it appears that for the most part, politically motivated violence is still extremely rare in the United States. I sincerely hope this stays true.
It most likely will, even in less stable countries political violence is very uncommon. When it does happen in a meaningful manner, it's almost entirely an extreme case like Nepal. Mass poverty, wide unemployment of youth (over 20%), extremely blatant corruption, and a government that egged it on by shutting down social media across the country.
I don't know what to tell you except to tell you that I just straight up don't believe you when you say that it isn't real.
I can prove that most of it isn't real by asking you to look around at the real world. There was 75 million Harris voters, if even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of them was engaging in political violence, we should be seeing way more than this! And they shouldn't be constantly ending up as incoherent dudes who don't even have clear politics to slot into (this recent guy didn't even vote).
Even just one percent would be 750,000. .001% would be 750! That's still way more than what political violence we've seen.
Most people are extremely peaceful, and of the very small portion that are meaningfully violent, it's almost always over personal grievances and incentives first. Almost all of those rare truly violent people are beating their spouses, shooting someone who cut them off in traffic, getting in fist fights at the bar or beefing with rival gangs. Not political violence. We don't see roving bands of political gangs hunting and hanging their opponents, we see random one off attacks by nutjobs.
Everyone told me the Brian Thompson shooting last year was just edgy chest thumping, too, and now look what happened. It's extremely rich that you are saying that political violence is extremely rare right after Charlie Kirk just bought the farm and tens of thousands of people are publicly declaring they want more, at expense to themselves when they actually have jobs.
It is extremely rare, in the same way that other violence is extremely rare. Saying it's rare doesn't mean it never happens, it just means it's incredibly uncommon and not what most people actually do. This was an argument that Kirk himself, like pretty much every advocate of the 2nd amendment believes.
There is no reason to take away guns because the large majority of Americans are not violent and can be trusted with them to only use in self-defense. If we are to concede this and claim that a large portion of the population is dangerous and can't be trusted with owning weapons then it dismantles that point and calls for significantly more gun control.
Pretty much all the chest thumping is just edgy people who think it makes them look cool, just like 99% of edgy people. It's the same way some conservative pundits and names are calling for "civil war" now, and yet they aren't picking up their weapons and starting one. They're saying it because it makes them feel cool and strong, but they're actually peaceful people. I know this, because just like almost every edgy leftist poster, almost every edgy right poster hasn't hurt anyone.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
Charitably: imagine being MtF with a boyfriend who has left his faith and family behind, speaking (perhaps in jest) about how he would do anything for you, even kill Charlie Kirk... and then one day he texts you or DMs you on Discord or whatever, talking about where he hid the murder weapon, and you must suddenly make a quick but calculated decision regarding the extent to which (A) you want the public up in your personal gender business and (B) you want to spend the next 20 years of your life in prison (and not the girl prison) for accessory to murder.
You aren't an accessory to murder just by being a roommate or even dating a person. You have to show knowledge of the crime and specific actions taken with the intent to help them commit it.
Now criminals can be stupid sometimes and talk instead of getting a lawyer and forcing the warrants, but it's decent evidence the roommate didn't help carry it out if they provided access to everything and strong evidence if no arrests have been made of them after.
While this wasn't a mass shooting, men are responsible for something like 97-98% of those apparently and they skew really young on average. Even violent crime in general is really male heavy. There's a racial skew but I'm pretty sure per capita white men still commit more crimes than any race of women.
Robinson seems to match this typical viral shooter type of demographic. Young, male, brain poisoned and on seven layers of "irony", amorphous views of society and politics that seem tended towards extremism/anarchy/radical change (the "need for chaos" as I've seen it called) of any kind rather than stable values that slot neatly into anything.
People keep talking about "the left" and "the right" but a single spectrum discussion is simply insufficient for covering how people operate and think. Even the slightly better political compass with the extra auth vs lib is still flattening the world far too much. These are often young men radicalized into chaos itself and we need a a way to find, intervene, and reach out to the boys before they get pulled in.
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
I don't think people should be debanked at all except for organised crime
Epstein would fit with sex trafficking and child prostitution rings.
The bigger issue here is that we don't want banks deciding on their own who is and who isn't guilty. That being said the Epstein case is easier given he was convicted of some rather serious crimes and it still took them years to drop.
Yeah it's really silly and something I've been pointing out over and over that constantly the "don't speak ill of the dead" and "Just because you don't want them dead doesn't mean you have to glaze them or not make dark jokes" switches back and forth constantly depending on who dies.
Basically any pundit you can find scolding right now you can find doing after-death criticisms/mockery and basically every pundit you can find after-death criticisms/mockery you can find times when they've scolded.
Great example how so much of claimed morals is really just signaling though, and honestly I think the main signal part is the "don't speak ill" side on both ends since when there's bipartisan agreement it's pretty much always for criticism being okay and dark jokes being funny.
Also the US in general is a country that loves being contrarian, the more you scold or try to censor the more they just love doing what upset you. The left didn't realize this from left wing cancel culture and the right censors might have to learn the same lesson.
Refer back to my last two posts in which I'm suggesting that nobody would likely have a problem with praying for more people in Congress -- which would mean that there would no longer be any special treatment. The dems should just start praying, if it bothers them so much.
This isn't an answer for why soldiers and police serving our country are apparently not seen as equally deserving of prayer. It's just saying "well if you care so much about them, you should do it." Hasn't yet explained why soldiers and police are undeserving of yours!
magicalkittycat
2mo ago
Yes.
The accounts also include references to Holocaust denial, and the name of one of the accounts appeared to end with a reference to a prominent white supremacist slogan. That account reposted several videos showing school shooting scenes from movies, as well as another video that appeared to show the two Columbine shooters taking target shots at bowling pins. Other videos the account reposted were explicitly antisemitic or depicted people in Nazi uniforms.
https://www.denverpost.com/2025/09/11/evergreen-high-school-shooting-colorado-updates/
He also had stuff like this
Holly had also liked a comment telling him to acquire a white supremacist sonnenrad patch like Tarrant and Gendron wore, replying that he had made some and sharing a photo of patches featuring a Totenkopf and sonnenrad. Both are Nazi-era symbols used today as hate symbols.
Among plenty of other explicitly neo Nazi posts and comments.
Honestly just keep in mind that the large majority of this shit is truly not real (as much foreign interference as the average person thinks there is, times it by at least 10 and they're still probably underestimating) and a lot of the few comments that are real is just edgy chest thumping by people who think it makes them look cool but are cowards in anything real or not even supporting violence like I had showed here.
Political violence is extremely rare nowadays, even with the small increase recently we're still far away from the 60s and 70s. In a short period of time you had JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Evers all killed. And those are just the bigger names. Attacks on Nixon, George Wallace, Vernon Dahmer. KKK bombings and murders, firebombed buses, Bloody Sunday, Weather Underground, Kent State and that's just a small portion of it.
And despite that no one thinks back on the 60s and 70s as some dangerous awful time. Part of it is probably nostalgia washing but part of it is because even then political violence was still a tiny tiny tiny portion of the population dominated by nutjobs.
We're pattern seeking animals evolved to detect and hyperfocus on novel and scary situations, and this means we tend to overestimate them. School shootings are rare, mass shootings are rare, political violence is rare, and kids aren't getting kidnapped by strangers if they walk into the next aisle in the grocery store despite this insane fear
The US is a largely peaceful country with largely peaceful citizens and the rare few that aren't are mostly crazies, gang members killing each other, and rare flukes.
Do you believe your general attitude of insults presents as a person operating in good faith with an open mind to change? All you've done this entire time is to continue the "feels > reals" discourse rather than actually cite any numbers, statistics, or information.
Hmm, does this mean you don't care about kids dying if you haven't made a thread on it? I hope you hold yourself to the standard of "no thread = no care" you hold me to.
You're absolutely certain how? Because you made it up in your head and therefore it's real?
Why would it matter if you said it or not? The truth remains facts don't care about your feelings and facts don't care to be politically correct.
I've met plenty of patient people before and none of them have became angry because of a commonly used slogan. You're an interesting outlier.
More options
Context Copy link