Which Groups Are More Likely To Believe That Violence Is Sometimes Necessary To Gain Political Aims?

[Oompa Loompa]

And yet political murders by wing, never ever seems to show anything but that the right is FAR more frequently killing the left.

Never seen a data point support the opposite of that.

Fact check false.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If your house is on fire and the traditional exits (doors) are blocked, you will jump out any window to save yourself.

I think young liberals probably feel the same way. They see censorship of any and all media sources disagreeing with the current administration (defunding of PBS and NPR, shutting down Colbert and Kimmel to facilitate FCC approval of desired mergers, teachers and others fired for voicing their opinions, not about the tragic death of Charlie Kirk, but instead about the content of many of his comments and positions, etc., removing exhibits from the Smithsonian, rewriting the history of the pre-Civil War history in textbooks, etc.

They see traditional doors closed to diversity, democracy, etc. and are ready to jump out the window because it's their only perceived alternative.

Then liberals should jump out the the window because we are not stopping.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Of course not

There was violence on both sides. There were those who instigated violence on both sides.

It is disputable. Kinda reminds me of how a certain conservative political figure was assassinated by a leftist nut job and the liberal media tried to spin and lie to make people think it was a magazine conservative.

 

[That Guy 11200]

Consider a Venn diagram showing:

a) people who believe that violence is sometimes necessary to gain political aims, and

b) people who believe the 2nd Amendment is necessary to stop a tyrannical government.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Consider a Venn diagram showing:

a) people who believe that violence is sometimes necessary to gain political aims, and

b) people who believe the 2nd Amendment is necessary to stop a tyrannical government.

View attachment 370358

Add to that, those who find it ok to blow up boats in the Gulf of Mexico on the basis that they may be carrying drugs. Or most military actions in general.

 

[o_mlly]

You can make your exact point without re-defining enduring and well understood words.

So why do that?

? I didn't redefine the words. Moralists have long recognized the necessary distinction between the words "force" and "violence" as I showed in my citation. It appears at an instinctive level, so do you.

... peoples capacity to commit political violence ...

... as opposed to "peoples capacity to commit political force".

 

[High Fidelity]

I think we only need to look at recent events to understand that.

If Charlie Kirk was black or left wing, there would have been riots, looting, disorder and burning cities.

If the girl on the bus was black and murdered by a white man, surrounded by white people not caring and taking a photo of the dying girl, as the white man walked off saying "I got the black girl", there would have been riots, looting, disorder and burning cities.

Not only is the right less likely to do these things, but we aren't becoming unhinged when they happen to us.

Charlie Kirk's assassination kinda sums it up and I think that's why it's so shocking to many. As much as people may have disagreed with him, he showed up and the microphone was there to debate and disagree. But many on the left aren't interested in dialogue, they want a monologue, and you agree with it or else.

 

[Larniavc]

Not only is the right less likely to do these things, but we aren't becoming unhinged when they happen to us.

Statistically untrue.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

? I didn't redefine the words. Moralists have long recognized the necessary distinction between the words "force" and "violence" as I showed in my citation. It appears at an instinctive level, so do you.

... as opposed to "peoples capacity to commit political force".

Who said Rubens understanding is the one everyone should adhere to? It is not how it is normally used in society in general, as evidenced by looking at dictionaries. Technical use of terms often differ from general use, that doesn't make the technical definition more true. You are only excluding justified violence (or non-evil violence) and calling it force instead, that's not an argument. It's like talking about force in newtonian mechanics, and say it is an argument against your argument.

 

[Fantine]

Consider a Venn diagram showing:

a) people who believe that violence is sometimes necessary to gain political aims, and

b) people who believe the 2nd Amendment is necessary to stop a tyrannical government.

View attachment 370358

Well, we are certainly experiencing a tyrannical government, with tyranny escalating every day. We have National Guard troops invading cities whose crime rates have already experienced rapid downturns, disrupting businesses and creating anger and fear. We have ICE racially profiling citizens, roving about cities masked and unidentified, driving terrified people into hiding and traumatizing children. We have attacks on media--lawsuits, firings, bribes to law firms to prevent them from taking up human rights cases.
So my question is this: When are the 2nd Amendment supporters going to recognize that our government is becoming a tyranny--and going to the ballot box to stop it?

 

[durangodawood]

Well, we are certainly experiencing a tyrannical government, with tyranny escalating every day. We have National Guard troops invading cities whose crime rates have already experienced rapid downturns, disrupting businesses and creating anger and fear. We have ICE racially profiling citizens, roving about cities masked and unidentified, driving terrified people into hiding and traumatizing children. We have attacks on media--lawsuits, firings, bribes to law firms to prevent them from taking up human rights cases.
So my question is this: When are the 2nd Amendment supporters going to recognize that our government is becoming a tyranny--and going to the ballot box to stop it?

Its an emerging tyranny. Its not there yet. But they are having a lot of success corrupting the institutions and norms that would prevent tyranny in the USA. We'll see how far it gets.

I dont see ardent 2A supporters putting up any resistance to this. History has shown that people who enjoy liberty are often happy to see it eroded to nothing so long as the particular culture and policies that remain suit them.

 

[Nithavela]

Its an emerging tyranny. Its not there yet. But they are having a lot of success corrupting the institutions and norms that would prevent tyranny in the USA. We'll see how far it gets.

I dont see ardent 2A supporters putting up any resistance to this. History has shown that people who enjoy liberty are often happy to see it eroded to nothing so long as the particular culture and policies that remain suit them.

Too bad the left isn't into guns, isn't it?

 

[durangodawood]

Too bad the left isn't into guns, isn't it?

Im skeptical of people with just small arms going up against a modern military/security state.

 

[o_mlly]

Who said Rubens understanding is the one everyone should adhere to? It is not how it is normally used in society in general, as evidenced by looking at dictionaries. Technical use of terms often differ from general use, that doesn't make the technical definition more true. You are only excluding justified violence (or non-evil violence) and calling it force instead, that's not an argument. It's like talking about force in newtonian mechanics, and say it is an argument against your argument.

? While you recognize that the use of force can be moral but wish to call such force justified violence really doesn't make a difference to anyone's argument except to those who prefer economy and clarity in their use of words.

Newton? I haven't read all his works on the laws of nature but I would not think he ever used "violence" in his descriptions. Nature is not a moral agent.

 

[durangodawood]

? While you recognize that the use of force can be moral but wish to call such force justified violence really doesn't make a difference to anyone's argument except to those who prefer economy and clarity in their use of words.

Correct that the argument is basically the same, but..... you have the implication backwards.

Using the softer word "force" is just a tactic to subtly shield oneself from the full implications of justified violence.

 

[childeye 2]

Of course not

There was violence on both sides. There were those who instigated violence on both sides.

In the carnal battle this above is true. In the spiritual battle it's about persevering in Love. See this dichotomy --> Left/Right <-- In this dichotomy the carnal side works the ends against the middle, and the spiritual side works the ends towards the middle.

 

[Lukaris]

This is a very detailed set of poll results. Note the sectioned where we see which groups are most likely to support violence to get their political aims.

Majorities would never accept violence as a political strategy. Who is shocked that liberals are much MORE likely to condone violence? Those who are "very liberal" are at about 25% as are 18-44 year old liberals. The more liberal, the more accepting of violence. I certainly would have expected the opposite, but then I just watched documentary for an hour that focused on Mandela.

What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov

Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.

today.yougov.com

Catch 22 for American conservatives ( mostly Christians) is that they are easily lumped with mentally insane extremists. If the same analogy was applied to Islamic extremism & Muslims in America, the rage of the righteous would deafen. When conservatives condemn & pray when extremist violence happens, the radical leftists scream & tell them to shove their prayers while liberal Christians convince themselves leftist,secular radicals still mean well.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/08/nx-s1-5495457/trump-is-trying-to-rewrite-the-history-of-the-2021-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol

 

[Gregory Thompson]

 

[Gregory Thompson]

^ Those groups.