We Are Not The Same

[Pepperdoodle]

What is the left leaning's narrative? A black man is murdered by police and they protest. The fact is that very few of the protests turned violent but you want to condemn the peaceful protests because a small percentage turned violent. That's your narrative.
The facts are that over 95% of the protests caused no damage or injuries.
The family said that he was left leaning. His friends said that he wasn't political. Left leaning means that he was a moderate, not a liberal.
I agreed. Most of the violence caused by the right comes from the far right not the right leaning. Just like the J6ers, the far right pushed those that wouldn't normally turn violent into a violent mob. The right leaning condemned the J6ers.
Kirk isn't right leaning but no violence has went further than speech.
The BLM protests were because one person was murdered. They were a response to many murders over many years. We haven't seen a violent protest in several years by B
I never said that they did

Overall, you live in a world of your own making, one that doesn't face reality.

 

[Yarddog]

Overall, you live in a world of your own making, one that doesn't face reality.

Everything I wrote is recorded and factual

 

[childeye 2]

The fact he was in a relationship with a trans person, what he wrote on bullet casings, and what his friends and family have said and described him saying he was getting way more political and enraged if you were against his leftist views and would be openly hostile as well as the action of political assassination itself. That doesn't sound like someone just "leaning" left.

Having a relationship with a trans person is not a left-wing ideology nor any political ideology for that matter. It makes sense that he started leaning left once he started the relationship because Liberal ideology is for the protection of the civil rights of all people including trans, immigrants, and conservatives.

 

[childeye 2]

Haven't there been murders by the “far right” too?

The terms left and right are metaphorical in politics. They are used to represent opposing subjective views on various policy matters that are of valid interest to a society. Most people are left on some issues and right on other issues. Therefore, far right carries no meaning until there is a substantive issue that the terms left and right can be applicable.

The left/right dichotomy is structured to be an analytical tool, but some people improperly use it for propaganda, division, tribalism, ad hominem attacks, accusation, insinuation, and slander. These types of propaganda can and do twist minds, stoking undue angst against others, creating paranoias when believed upon, and subsequently justifying violence in the minds of people who have become disconnected from reality through propaganda.

I therefore do not want to contribute to the dysfunction of our body politics by using far "Right" in the context of a murderous intent. I think the case can be made that the current form of the slogan MAGA which began in 2016 has come to represent an anti-intellectualism founded upon negative prejudice, rather than any legitimate or valid substantive stance on policy.

 

[childeye 2]

They are SO quick when there's a hint of a Right leaner doing something wrong with less proof than there is about the Kirk murderer, but they jump on it and hold it tight.
But when it's one of their own who has done the wrong, they are SO quick to keep running away from it with their fingers in their ears. Some of them will always be deniers. A weak people they are.

This is all slanderous. Devil= accuser/slanderer, and paranoia is not proof. Who are you claiming does this?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you please stop?

If only it were that easy.

But Kirk's murder was a catalyst, and things are only going to get worse.

God save us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Overall, you live in a world of your own making, one that doesn't face reality.

If we want to talk pure objective facts, politically Right ideology has been the cause of far more violence committed than politically Left ideology. That isn't opinion, that doesn't justify or excuse violence committed by people with Left ideology. But it is an objective, actual, real fact.

Left-Wing Terrorism and Political Violence in the United States: What the Data Tells Us

The Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program examines the state of political violence, finding left-wing violence has risen in the last decade but from very low levels and still well below historic levels of violence by right-wing and jihadist actors.

www.csis.org

https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states

That doesn't make "the Right" inherently violent. At least I certainly don't believe it does.

But if we are going to deal with real facts based on hard evidence, then let's face reality.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jerry N.]

I don’t live in America, but I would like to know what are the differences between “far left,” “lean left,” “far right,” and “lead right?” Where exactly is the center?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don’t live in America, but I would like to know what are the differences between “far left,” “lean left,” “far right,” and “lead right?” Where exactly is the center?

The American political compass tends to skew right if one compares it to most other Western nations.

And the question of "lean left/right" and "far left/right" can often be subjective.

One person's moderate is another person's extremist.

I would identify myself as moderate-left. I am critical of Capitalism, but I also don't believe in Marxism; so I tend to believe in regulations on corporations, social welfare systems. E.g. I support universal publicly funded healthcare, and the eradication of for-profit healthcare because I consider it immoral and corrupt; I believe in food and housing programs for persons who are strugging financially to feed and house themselves; I believe all workers deserve a living wage and thus support increasing the federal minimum wage to compensate with cost of living expenses so that nobody in my country should ever be in fear of not being able to clothe, feed, and keep a roof over their head simply because the systemic conditions of life are designed to be unjust toward the most vulnerable. I would consider these moderate-left positions.

Others, however, would likely accuse me of being an extremist Communist, even though I regard Communism (and Marxism more broadly) as unfeasable. Full blown Marxism regards the total eradication of the State, I don't support the eradication of the State; I believe that the State serves a necessary purpose: to safeguard human liberty, and to support the social conditions for human thriving in a free and just society. My neighbor deserves justice, dignity, and freedom; and thus the chief role of the State is to safeguard and promote justice, human dignity, and freedom. To that end we need a society of enforceable laws, social security and welfare systems, and guard rails that promote human thriving and curb evil. My rejection of Capitalism stems from regarding Capitalism as inherently corrupt and unjust; full blown Capitalism is nothing more than a form of social darwinism that regards human persons as nothing more than product and means in which the wealthy and powerful can use to increase their wealth and power. I reject Marxism because it is unrealistic in its utopian vision, ignores the inherent corruption within human nature, and lends itself to abuse by power-hungry tyrants. Thus the need for systems which curb evil, promote human dignity, and maximize human flourishing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jerry N.]

The American political compass tends to skew right if one compares it to most other Western nations.

And the question of "lean left/right" and "far left/right" can often be subjective.

One person's moderate is another person's extremist.

I would identify myself as moderate-left. I am critical of Capitalism, but I also don't believe in Marxism; so I tend to believe in regulations on corporations, social welfare systems. E.g. I support universal publicly funded healthcare, and the eradication of for-profit healthcare because I consider it immoral and corrupt; I believe in food and housing programs for persons who are strugging financially to feed and house themselves; I believe all workers deserve a living wage and thus support increasing the federal minimum wage to compensate with cost of living expenses so that nobody in my country should ever be in fear of not being able to clothe, feed, and keep a roof over their head simply because the systemic conditions of life are designed to be unjust toward the most vulnerable. I would consider these moderate-left positions.

Others, however, would likely accuse me of being an extremist Communist, even though I regard Communism (and Marxism more broadly) as unfeasable. Full blown Marxism regards the total eradication of the State, I don't support the eradication of the State; I believe that the State serves a necessary purpose: to safeguard human liberty, and to support the social conditions for human thriving in a free and just society. My neighbor deserves justice, dignity, and freedom; and thus the chief role of the State is to safeguard and promote justice, human dignity, and freedom. To that end we need a society of enforceable laws, social security and welfare systems, and guard rails that promote human thriving and curb evil. My rejection of Capitalism stems from regarding Capitalism as inherently corrupt and unjust; full blown Capitalism is nothing more than a form of social darwinism that regards human persons as nothing more than product and means in which the wealthy and powerful can use to increase their wealth and power. I reject Marxism because it is unrealistic in its utopian vision, ignores the inherent corruption within human nature, and lends itself to abuse by power-hungry tyrants. Thus the need for systems which curb evil, promote human dignity, and maximize human flourishing.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you! That is a useful definition.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

Everything I wrote is recorded and factual

 

[Pepperdoodle]

If we want to talk pure objective facts, politically Right ideology has been the cause of far more violence committed than politically Left ideology. That isn't opinion, that doesn't justify or excuse violence committed by people with Left ideology. But it is an objective, actual, real fact.
That doesn't make "the Right" inherently violent. At least I certainly don't believe it does.
But if we are going to deal with real facts based on hard evidence, then let's face reality.

I disagree.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I disagree.

Whether you agree or disagree with the facts is irrelevant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pepperdoodle]

Whether you agree or disagree with the facts is irrelevant.

They aren't facts, just opinion.