My guess is that the majority of 1st. gen immigrants do not give a flying fuck about Indigenous people and their issues. Some percentage of their children might.
We will see at some point.
My guess is that the majority of 1st. gen immigrants do not give a flying fuck about Indigenous people and their issues. Some percentage of their children might.
James Hodgkinson was the result of the rise of the alt-lite and alt-rite quasi nazi movementsAndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
It does not matter who started it it. What is important would be efforts to deescalate. But I am not seeing it. Anyone have examples?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:53 amhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kinsm ... rey-young/
https://nypost.com/2018/10/20/nancy-pel ... n-florida/
I forget, are the Proud Boys libtards? :whistle:
GTDHere is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
Ie. make your own mind up.Why doesn't GTD have a single definition of terrorism?
In the absence of a universally accepted definition of terrorism, GTD uses several coded criteria to cover a broad range of definitions of terrorism through a combination of inclusiveness and filtering. The goal is to have a data set that is useful to as many interested users as possible.
Please see our Methodology Page and GTD Codebook for more details.
Were they both the product of dangerous ideologies which should be held to account as a consequence? I’m only seeing one of these two linked narratives playing out.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑James Hodgkinson was the result of the rise of the alt-lite and alt-rite quasi nazi movementsAndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
He was just crazy and didn't reflect the ideals of the always peaceful left wingers. :rimshot:
Seriously, it qualifies as both assassination attempts and terrorism. Not only that, but no matter it in no way excuses the acts nor would I say the politicians caused him to do it.
Like Brivek, he wasn't legally insane either. Although neither of those two assholes weren't exactly sterling examples of mental health, both were well aware of what they were doing. They were just 2 angry assholes that decided to use violence to further their beliefs.
You keep forgetting this. The links I posted, despite your attempts to hand-wave them away demonstrate that even quite militant conservatives believe that collective political violence is far more prevalent on the right.Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.
Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.
It will only deescalate when politicians keep their grubby orders out of law enforcement and let the police do their jobs. Political interference in law enforcement is a pernicious problem, and a prevalent one.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑It does not matter who started it it. What is important would be efforts to deescalate. But I am not seeing it. Anyone have examples?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:53 amhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kinsm ... rey-young/
https://nypost.com/2018/10/20/nancy-pel ... n-florida/
I forget, are the Proud Boys libtards? :whistle:
Are you saying Hodgkinson did it because of his violent liberal ideas but Brivek did it because he was crazy and in spite of his peaceful conservative philosophy?Were they both the product of dangerous ideologies which should be held to account as a consequence? I’m only seeing one of these two linked narratives playing out.
The SPLC is wrong about a good many things, but certainly not everything. Or do you dispute that many if not most of the groups they track are hate organizations?AndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
LoL. Speaking of "disengenous and snotty", doncha think that that characterization, by way of an attempt to tar Brive with the same brush, qualifies as precisely that?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ <snip>
Your disengenous and snotty attempts to justify your statement are getting deep into Steersman territory. You could own up to the fact that you spoke in error. You could attempt to post your own sources. But my guess is you'll go for insults and handwaving.
ICYMI, you might check out a post at Quillette by Elizabeth Finne - "lawyer and adjunct professor of philosophy" - titled The Tyranny of the Subjective. Of particular note and of some relevance to the above:AndrewV69 wrote: ↑It does not matter who started it it. What is important would be efforts to deescalate. But I am not seeing it. Anyone have examples?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:53 amhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kinsm ... rey-young/
https://nypost.com/2018/10/20/nancy-pel ... n-florida/
I forget, are the Proud Boys libtards? :whistle:
For extra credit and a somewhat broader and deeper perspective, y'all might check out my follow-on piece at Medium, Horns of a Dilemma: Tyrannies of the Subjective and Objective Narratives - which, I'm pleased to note, garnered a bit of applause from Finne herself.The primacy of subjectivity is by no means limited to politics. It now permeates the framework through which we have traditionally mediated our competing narratives. Journalism, academia, science, and law are all affected. In short, any institution that exists to accommodate competing perspectives is being undermined by a new paradigm that privileges the subjective ‘lived experience.’ And, in the process, the meta-values which have traditionally enabled us to transcend our differing subjective experiences suffer. Foundational principles such as audi alteram partem (listen to the other side), the presumption of innocence, proportionality, empiricism, and even the rule of law now must bow before the sovereignty of the subjective.
In both cases ... ;)MarcusAu wrote: ↑ Steers is rather obsessive on this topic, and I think he enjoys it. He's a one track lover...
[BBvideo=560,315]https: ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO-ZGP68-3w[/BBvideo]
And I think most would agree that's a pretty bad rap.
Fuck you. We've always been at war with Eastasia.Brive1987 wrote: ↑The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ In other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
I don’t think you can even remember now what the dispute was actually over.
No.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Brive wrote:Are you saying Hodgkinson did it because of his violent liberal ideas but Brivek did it because he was crazy and in spite of his peaceful conservative philosophy?Were they both the product of dangerous ideologies which should be held to account as a consequence? I’m only seeing one of these two linked narratives playing out.
Terrorism from any quarter is a problem. The situation is a lot more complex than just the numbers of incidents convey. What do the figures look like when put in the context of the Islamic population of the US and the equivalent population from which right-wing extremists are drawn? What is that population anyway? White people in total or which particular category of white people? I'm sure there are far right entities drawn from other racial groups as well. The existence of indigenous terrorists in the US is utterly irrelevant to immigration policy anyway, which is the aspect of Islamist terrorism that is most hotly disputed. Europeans do not share a common ideology calling for the subjugation or murder of anyone and only a very small subset of them have violent intentions driven by ideology, which makes controlling European immigrants a non-issue where terrorism is concerned. Muslims, by definition, share a religion which calls for violence although most of them would prefer to interpret it in a slightly more benign way. Islamic terrorism can be seen as more of an external threat with potential solutions in immigration control whereas right wing terrorism is a pure law enforcement issue.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:01 pmAnd Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.
You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.
If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.
Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.
This effort earns me a bar to my star.
Brevik's upbringing was really seriously fucked up. We are talking world class abuse by his mother. I think it is reasonable to suspect that it was more of a case of him finding an ideological vehicle for his weirdness than him being radicalised by an ideology.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:15 pmJames Hodgkinson was the result of the rise of the alt-lite and alt-rite quasi nazi movementsAndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
He was just crazy and didn't reflect the ideals of the always peaceful left wingers. :rimshot:
Seriously, it qualifies as both assassination attempts and terrorism. Not only that, but no matter it in no way excuses the acts nor would I say the politicians caused him to do it.
Like Brivek, he wasn't legally insane either. Although neither of those two assholes weren't exactly sterling examples of mental health, both were well aware of what they were doing. They were just 2 angry assholes that decided to use violence to further their beliefs.
Do you have any data or articles to support the claim that the left is primarily responsible for low-level mob violence? Everything I've read and my experience says that while the regressive left is a bunch of cunts, the right is far more dangerous and responsible for more killings. Also, there is biased reporting on all sides, unless you're suggesting Fox isn't mainstream or biased.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Terrorism from any quarter is a problem. The situation is a lot more complex than just the numbers of incidents convey. What do the figures look like when put in the context of the Islamic population of the US and the equivalent population from which right-wing extremists are drawn? What is that population anyway? White people in total or which particular category of white people? I'm sure there are far right entities drawn from other racial groups as well. The existence of indigenous terrorists in the US is utterly irrelevant to immigration policy anyway, which is the aspect of Islamist terrorism that is most hotly disputed. Europeans do not share a common ideology calling for the subjugation or murder of anyone and only a very small subset of them have violent intentions driven by ideology, which makes controlling European immigrants a non-issue where terrorism is concerned. Muslims, by definition, share a religion which calls for violence although most of them would prefer to interpret it in a slightly more benign way. Islamic terrorism can be seen as more of an external threat with potential solutions in immigration control whereas right wing terrorism is a pure law enforcement issue.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:01 pmAnd Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.
You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.
If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.
Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.
This effort earns me a bar to my star.
I think it is indisputable that the left are by far more guilty of low level mob violence and disruption than the right. I think it is also indisputable that the violence is condoned, ignored or even encouraged by mainstream left wing media and politicians. The media have been losing their shit over the word "mob" being applied to left wingers. This against the recent history of baseball bat wielding idiots taking over streets, car burnings, store front smashing, mass confrontation of any even slightly conservative gathering, disrupting speaking events and general mobbing of conservative politicians. In places like Berkley business owners have to be careful to project the correct politics for fear of getting vandalised. But moron Don Lemon tells us that "mob" can only be applied to right wingers at Charlottesville. Ironically, the idiot who used his car as a murder weapon in Charlottesville had just been attacked and was being chased by a mob at the time. The left-leaning media are in overrdrive trying to control the damage done by the NPC meme. The meme is so damaging because it is so accurate. It isnt even targeted exclusively at the left, but it has aroused such ire becasue of how perfectly it encapsulates the behaviour of SJW mobs.
Around 5-6 years ago I downloaded the SPLC "database" and looked through around 300 (over 200 at any rate) entries. I came away with the impression that they were "unreliable" (lying fucks to be blunt).CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:40 pmThe SPLC is wrong about a good many things, but certainly not everything. Or do you dispute that many if not most of the groups they track are hate organizations?AndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
This page has some statistics.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/ter ... tes-today/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... behind-it/
NewAmerica :Most of the attacks were carried out by far-right violent extremists. But more people died during attacks connected with Islamic jihadist extremists.
It’s a question of dynamics.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ But Brive's statement about violence being primarily left-based is risable.
Ok .Let me try a more serious attempt to answer your 2 sentence word salad question.Brive1987 wrote: ↑No.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Brive wrote:Are you saying Hodgkinson did it because of his violent liberal ideas but Brivek did it because he was crazy and in spite of his peaceful conservative philosophy?Were they both the product of dangerous ideologies which should be held to account as a consequence? I’m only seeing one of these two linked narratives playing out.
Does this come naturally for you now?
I'm open to that conclusion to a degree. People that grow up in fucked up environments are often damaged to the point they are nearly certain to do damage to others. On the other hand, they can be to some extent channeled into a more productive path fairly often. If they get bombarded by messages that amplify their paranoia and convince there are enemies everywhere it is not difficult to push them over the edge.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Brevik's upbringing was really seriously fucked up. We are talking world class abuse by his mother. I think it is reasonable to suspect that it was more of a case of him finding an ideological vehicle for his weirdness than him being radicalised by an ideology.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:15 pmJames Hodgkinson was the result of the rise of the alt-lite and alt-rite quasi nazi movementsAndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
He was just crazy and didn't reflect the ideals of the always peaceful left wingers. :rimshot:
Seriously, it qualifies as both assassination attempts and terrorism. Not only that, but no matter it in no way excuses the acts nor would I say the politicians caused him to do it.
Like Brivek, he wasn't legally insane either. Although neither of those two assholes weren't exactly sterling examples of mental health, both were well aware of what they were doing. They were just 2 angry assholes that decided to use violence to further their beliefs.
Your radical left side (see I’m learning how this mud throwing works) doesn’t get to play both sides.On a bright morning last June, a man who was distraught over President Trump’s election opened fire on the Republican ....
So. Given you only need the IQ of a chimp to know FG is racist, are the Chinese sub-animal or is FG a legit non Nazi?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Brive I can only hope Faith Goldy loses her bid of mayor of Toronto and can run in Sydney and ultimately form it into a vast Chinese metropolis! :drool:
htt..ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ASjaR3YQI
While your assertion was about violence. Try again. And it's "highbrow."Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Pew research (if it hasn’t been posted already) on the Democrat drift to the pole ie the enablement of liberal mob violence and harassment all the way to the SCOTUS hearings.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... elease.pdf
This might be too high brow. So here is a completely legit sounding article for CFB from Investors.com -
“It's Official: Democrats Are The Extremists Today”
:mrgreen:
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... reme-left/
So the LSM and MSM didn't didn't blame the Hodgkinson thing on Hillary and Bernie and didn't link it to the surging wave of antifa shooting violence?The narrative around Hodgkinson barely formed as the news dropped faster than Heather Heyer in front of a Kübelwagen. But what there is, is the absolute opposite narrative. No placement within the increasing radicalisation of the Democrats. No demonisation. No bigger picture. No “surging” wave of Antifa-terrorist shooting violence.
Unfortunately I don't have time to read this just yet, but here's a data-driven site from the UMD and Homeland Security. It's Homecoming Dance, and I have been drafted as chauffeur. Do let me know if it contradicts everything else I've posted.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑Around 5-6 years ago I downloaded the SPLC "database" and looked through around 300 (over 200 at any rate) entries. I came away with the impression that they were "unreliable" (lying fucks to be blunt).CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:40 pmThe SPLC is wrong about a good many things, but certainly not everything. Or do you dispute that many if not most of the groups they track are hate organizations?AndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
This page has some statistics.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/ter ... tes-today/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... behind-it/
At any rate back then I determined that they were also a fraud, not just because they were slapping "hate" on many organizations based on political affiliation, but they had over 200 million in the kitty and a couple of accounts in tax haven and most of their expenditures were on salaries and fund raising activities.
Lately they labelled Maajid Nawaz as an "extremist" of some sort. Same old same old lying fucks. They are a hate group themselves if you apply their own standards to them.
The SPLC are a bunch of lying fucks with zero credibility.
I just scanned the two links.
Polifact: Source (but no link) to the U.S. Extremist Crime Database ... and I wind up at the University of Maryland ... again.NewAmerica :Most of the attacks were carried out by far-right violent extremists. But more people died during attacks connected with Islamic jihadist extremists.
Their chart looks interesting. I will look at it in more detail later, but at a glance it seems to mirror what Polifact is saying.
Why so mad bro? I want to assure I would never fuck your mother, not even with Steersman's dick.A or B motherfucker.
Oh, I wasn't trying to mock you. I was curious as to whether or not you'd be an honest agent and concede facts, or if you'd go full Steersman and attempt everything to avoid conceding you'd misstated facts. I have an exceedingly clear answer, thanks.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’ve been very clear and consistent with my POV here. The confusion has come from you and CFB trying to twist my comments into something you could mock. I’m quite serious with that accusation.
My point above was far from word salad and fit into the existing conversation.
The standard narrative is that brevik was the product of a resurgent Alt-Right ideology. Not that he was a puller of fly-wings nutcase who mobilised generally benign (if foolish) RW conspiracies into a personal fantasy.
The narrative around Hodgkinson barely formed as the news dropped faster than Heather Heyer in front of a Kübelwagen. But what there is, is the absolute opposite narrative. No placement within the increasing radicalisation of the Democrats. No demonisation. No bigger picture. No “surging” wave of Antifa-terrorist shooting violence.
In fact the NYT is positively sympathetic.
Your radical left side (see I’m learning how this mud throwing works) doesn’t get to play both sides.On a bright morning last June, a man who was distraught over President Trump’s election opened fire on the Republican ....
And good old Investors.com has a trove of anecdotes I mean a link to a Breitbart “database”. Eat that SPLC.Trump has changed that. For antifa, the result has been explosive growth. According to NYC Antifa, the group’s Twitter following nearly quadrupled in the first three weeks of January alone. (By summer, it exceeded 15,000.) Trump’s rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left. “Suddenly,” noted the antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down, “anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’ ” An article in The Nation argued that “to call Trumpism fascist” is to realize that it is “not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason.” The radical left, it said, offers “practical and serious responses in this political moment.”
Those responses sometimes spill blood ...
Now ‘the hill’, why would the ‘Rats have to denounce violence ?One act [democrat shooter not Charlotteville :lol: ] does not a trend make," Pitcavage wrote after the shooting attack. "But I am concerned that, in this highly polarized and divided society, more people who have stances that fall within the mainstream, on the left and right alike, may consider political violence an attractive option."
Domestic terrorism experts say that concern is only heightened by the fact that the line between what's considered mainstream and what's considered fringe is becoming increasingly blurred.
Not angry. Just trying to jive like the cool kids. A or B?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Why so mad bro? I want to assure I would never fuck your mother, not even with Steersman's dick.A or B motherfucker.
I understand why you are so angry. That slut Faith tricked you into thinking that she was a possible love interest. A possible replacement in case Mrs. Brive happened into a shark or dingo incident...
It turns out she is whoring her way through Toronto and sucking up to all sorts of POCs like Carribean blacks and now the Chinese. I thought she wanted to limit immigrants but next thing she will probably force Canadians to speak Chinese and replace their lawns with gravel.
And eat your puppies. Especially Samoyed! :drool:
Oh, there is. That is not in dispute. You stated that the left was more violent than the right, and that any violence from the right was due to the left's provocation. Simply not true. The right is getting more violent as well. You still refuse these basic facts, so we're done.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’m sure there is an army of pussy hat wearing social science academics writing up their democrat as terrorists “reports”. :lol:
Until then, did nothing come up in your google searches? Lo!-brow options flood the results pane.
The Atlantic had this to say:
And good old Investors.com has a trove of anecdotes I mean a link to a Breitbart “database”. Eat that SPLC.Trump has changed that. For antifa, the result has been explosive growth. According to NYC Antifa, the group’s Twitter following nearly quadrupled in the first three weeks of January alone. (By summer, it exceeded 15,000.) Trump’s rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left. “Suddenly,” noted the antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down, “anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’ ” An article in The Nation argued that “to call Trumpism fascist” is to realize that it is “not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason.” The radical left, it said, offers “practical and serious responses in this political moment.”
Those responses sometimes spill blood ...
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/201 ... upporters/
NPR commented that:Now ‘the hill’, why would the ‘Rats have to denounce violence ?One act [democrat shooter not Charlotteville :lol: ] does not a trend make," Pitcavage wrote after the shooting attack. "But I am concerned that, in this highly polarized and divided society, more people who have stances that fall within the mainstream, on the left and right alike, may consider political violence an attractive option."
Domestic terrorism experts say that concern is only heightened by the fact that the line between what's considered mainstream and what's considered fringe is becoming increasingly blurred.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju ... epublicans
Hmm
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... lence.html
WaPo: If it looks, shouts and behaves like a mob ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po ... e027ffd938
Another “database”
https://beb.mobi/2018/10/12/americas-po ... sts-alone/
But you are probably right. There probably isn’t a shift to political violence and harassment on the left.
Can you remind me what the exact crime is that the star chamber would like me to confess?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Oh, I wasn't trying to mock you. I was curious as to whether or not you'd be an honest agent and concede facts, or if you'd go full Steersman and attempt everything to avoid conceding you'd misstated facts. I have an exceedingly clear answer, thanks.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’ve been very clear and consistent with my POV here. The confusion has come from you and CFB trying to twist my comments into something you could mock. I’m quite serious with that accusation.
My point above was far from word salad and fit into the existing conversation.
The standard narrative is that brevik was the product of a resurgent Alt-Right ideology. Not that he was a puller of fly-wings nutcase who mobilised generally benign (if foolish) RW conspiracies into a personal fantasy.
The narrative around Hodgkinson barely formed as the news dropped faster than Heather Heyer in front of a Kübelwagen. But what there is, is the absolute opposite narrative. No placement within the increasing radicalisation of the Democrats. No demonisation. No bigger picture. No “surging” wave of Antifa-terrorist shooting violence.
In fact the NYT is positively sympathetic.
Your radical left side (see I’m learning how this mud throwing works) doesn’t get to play both sides.On a bright morning last June, a man who was distraught over President Trump’s election opened fire on the Republican ....
Oh, there is. That is not in dispute. You stated that the left was more violent than the right, and that any violence from the right was due to the left's provocation. Simply not true. The right is getting more violent as well. You still refuse these basic facts, so we're done.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
No. I said contemporary political violence was more a characteristic of American left wing structures and liberal democracies than equivalent right wing structures. I defined the Lib-Dem ‘violence’ as a movement to authoritarianism. I said that if one wanted to review systemic mob practice then Antifa should be your focus, not Alt-right. I noted the adoption by the DNC of Antifa rhetoric and, increasingly, practice.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Oh, there is. That is not in dispute. You stated that the left was more violent than the right, and that any violence from the right was due to the left's provocation. Simply not true. The right is getting more violent as well. You still refuse these basic facts, so we're done.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.
Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.
I don’t know if I’m dealing with trolling, senility or something darker with you. And I have wasted more time than I have trying to explain the colour “red” to you. But I am a patient man. So, last effort.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.
Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.
I'm not the one with the problem with truth. You redefine common words to suit your purposes. Your word salads mean whatever you need them to at a particular time. So we're done.Brive1987 wrote: ↑I don’t know if I’m dealing with trolling, senility or something darker with you. And I have wasted more time than I have trying to explain the colour “red” to you. But I am a patient man. So, last effort.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.
Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.
Sentence 1 notes the liberals have vacated the centre, providing oxygen to the extremes including RW conspiracy theories. These theories can, presumably, be picked up by the criminally insane / twisted fucks that lurk out there. An over abundance of non negotiable social liberalism is an unbalanced environment - not a healthy state. As recent events demonstrate, it is undesirable. True, Brevik may have found an alternative outlet if immigration / social policy wasn’t problematic. Meh. More importantly my use of “brevik is what happens ..” says I’m using him as a ‘type’. Ie shit happens when the centre doesn’t work. Per below, this was the most general of my three points. Though it seems to have triggered you no end.
Sentence 2 warns against over emphasising this general context to account for isolated incidents. The “x” implies neither right nor left should be excluded. It suggests that ideologies should be rated by what they preach , not by how they are misused. This fundamental tempering is lost from your subsequent brain explosions. So no. I’m not saying liberalism (or the alt right) “explicitly made” Brevik kill 69 youths on the Island or bomb the PM. I term him insane.
Sentence 3 is limited to “collective political violence” ie that of organised groups. It suggests “punch a Nazi” and “harass them where you find them” are now part of the formal democrat playbook. The sentence doesn’t actually preclude finding violence in equivalent right-wing structures. Though I don’t see them clearly advocated by the Republicans (why would they need to?) Or even in the Identitarian / AfD protest movements. But to be clear, this doesn’t mean there aren’t other forms of right-wing violence (Kek) or any number of American idiots pursuing parallel unibomber fantasies. But it is “typical” now for the left.
So. Are you now back in cognative control?
:-) Apropos of which, maybe something to warm the cockles of Brive's heart (? ;-) ), and temper your intemperate and unfair criticisms:free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Brive I can only hope Faith Goldy loses her bid of mayor of Toronto and can run in Sydney and ultimately form it into a vast Chinese metropolis! :drool:
https: ... //www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ASjaR3YQI
Conrad Black: Nothing Faith Goldy has done warrants this assault on her campaign
The portrayal of mayoral candidate Faith Goldy as a white supremacist, and use of that unfounded characterization to blackball her from candidates’ debates, and ban her advertisements from CTV is outrageous. ....
But there is also no excuse for such a vicious pile-on, either. .... My erratic friend Michael Coren, who has turned the former grace of religious conversion into a revolving door, accused me of an almost sociopathic act in acknowledging Goldy as a cordial acquaintance. Why not throw her into Lake Ontario and see if she floats? ....
Goldy is being over-punished for testing the sensitivities of political correctness. She should have been allowed to be heard, and if she had been, she would have used her enhanced access to debunk falsehoods levelled at her. She should not have been so insouciant about tempting fate; nor should she be chastised for speaking frankly against the howling gale of political correctness. Its malicious blowback threatens to deform the ambitious political cityscape of Canada’s metropolis.
$3,000? Not enough, evidently. She'd have done better to go to Marks and Sparks and buy a £15.99 niqab.
It is going to take me some time to go through the entries (well a subset) and see how they were characterised. I have been fucked over too many times. By stories that do not link to the study. By studies where I never examined the methodology. By studies that played games with the data.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Unfortunately I don't have time to read this just yet, but here's a data-driven site from the UMD and Homeland Security. It's Homecoming Dance, and I have been drafted as chauffeur. Do let me know if it contradicts everything else I've posted.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑Around 5-6 years ago I downloaded the SPLC "database" and looked through around 300 (over 200 at any rate) entries. I came away with the impression that they were "unreliable" (lying fucks to be blunt).CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:40 pmThe SPLC is wrong about a good many things, but certainly not everything. Or do you dispute that many if not most of the groups they track are hate organizations?AndrewV69 wrote: ↑No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:57 amIn other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...
Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .
I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).
Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029
So far so good?
This page has some statistics.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/ter ... tes-today/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... behind-it/
At any rate back then I determined that they were also a fraud, not just because they were slapping "hate" on many organizations based on political affiliation, but they had over 200 million in the kitty and a couple of accounts in tax haven and most of their expenditures were on salaries and fund raising activities.
Lately they labelled Maajid Nawaz as an "extremist" of some sort. Same old same old lying fucks. They are a hate group themselves if you apply their own standards to them.
The SPLC are a bunch of lying fucks with zero credibility.
I just scanned the two links.
Polifact: Source (but no link) to the U.S. Extremist Crime Database ... and I wind up at the University of Maryland ... again.NewAmerica :Most of the attacks were carried out by far-right violent extremists. But more people died during attacks connected with Islamic jihadist extremists.
Their chart looks interesting. I will look at it in more detail later, but at a glance it seems to mirror what Polifact is saying.
Again, anybody got anything about left-wing violence? Keep me posted.
My laptop is like Triggers broom, 3 new keybords, 2 new fans, 1 new hard drive and a new battery so far. Oh and at least 3 (I've lost count) new power cables.
Kavin was one of the only speakers left doing actual skepticism at Skepticon, last I checked:HoneyWagon wrote: ↑ As an aside, Kavin is supposed to be a Co-host along with CFI LA Executive Director Jim Underdown of CFI's Point of Inquiry podcast. She really seems to hate/dislike CFI (she thinks they will edit her talk to remove her discussion of patriarchy) and hates the people they honor.
Next year's CSICON is going to be combined with the humanist wing of the CFI umbrella (one time only) . Several I've talked to may skip it depending on the speakers. There is a fear the SJW count will go up for it.
I've enjoyed TAMs and CSICONs because the most ardent SJWs stopped going.
Just out of curiosity I took a look over at FTB and unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any mention of CSICON at all. I guess now that PZ and friends have made A/S cons safe for women they aren't interested anymore. PZ does say that he may be get lured to the proper venue though.HoneyWagon wrote: ↑ So, I'm at CSICON 2018 in Vegas. This is their 3rd one in Vegas since basically filling in the void of TAM.
Really enjoying it. Every year, seems more TAM like.
Well, we are not allowed to have a skeptic convention without SJW generated drama.
One speaker, Kavin Senapathy (her talk was about her path to skepticism. Wasn't that interesting to me personally) had decided to have a go at this year's guest of honor, Stephen Fry.
He made the mistake of encouraging rational discussion between differing points of view, and not being a part the more shrill, caustic voices on the far left and right.
I enjoyed the discussion between Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins, even though they are white privileged men. But others, see the worst interpretation in any discussion. Especially in people more popular than oneself.
As an aside, Kavin is supposed to be a Co-host along with CFI LA Executive Director Jim Underdown of CFI's Point of Inquiry podcast. She really seems to hate/dislike CFI (she thinks they will edit her talk to remove her discussion of patriarchy) and hates the people they honor.
Next year's CSICON is going to be combined with the humanist wing of the CFI umbrella (one time only) . Several I've talked to may skip it depending on the speakers. There is a fear the SJW count will go up for it.
I've enjoyed TAMs and CSICONs because the most ardent SJWs stopped going.
A bit of a surprise is what PZ writes a little further down.Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in
It’s no secret that I am greatly disillusioned with organized atheism — it usually seems to organize around the idea of the status quo minus churches, and not much else. It leaves a great big gap where ethics and equality and social justice ought to be, all in the name of not alienating the unctuous asshats…and there are a lot of those in atheism. So I’ve just stayed away, which is very depressing, because I still think the core truth that there are no gods is important.
Tomorrow, Sunday at 2:00, Minnesota Atheists (which is a good group, one of the exceptions that is strongly committed to social justice activism) is hosting Jim Helton of American Atheists, one of the big orgs that has burned us all fairly recently, and he promises that things are changing.
I thought AB was in Dr. Carrier's polycule ? How could he possibly be a good guy?That’s a bit vague, but August Berkshire, who is one of the good guys, vouches for him.
That would be August Brunsman.. But give Peez a week, he'll find reason to hate the other August too.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑I thought AB was in Dr. Carrier's polycule ? How could he possibly be a good guy?That’s a bit vague, but August Berkshire, who is one of the good guys, vouches for him.
You didn’t read this report, did you?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ For all those pitters that have the left is more of a threat for violence than the right, except in the US (we all know they're crazy). Here is some libtard propaganda that probably won't change your mind, even if it should:
http://cco.ndu.edu/PRISM/PRISM-Volume-6 ... issues-fo/
We get this comment:white racist/rightist” terrorism accounts for 31.2 percent of the incidents and 51.6 percent of terrorism-related fatalities between 1954 and 2000, making it the number one threat ahead of “revolutionary left-wing” or “black militant” terrorism.4 In both the United States and Canada, a widespread lack of coherent analysis about the threat posed by extreme right-wing militants stands in stark contrast to the level of concern about such individuals expressed by police officials and other law enforcement agencies.5 As a means of comparison, Islamist and right-wing extremists have caused 45 and 48 casualties in the United States, respectively, since the September 11, 2001 attacks.
With no effort to explain the other 94% .....In Europe, academic and official statistics—including the University of Bergen’s Terrorism in Western Europe: Events Data (TWEED) and Europol’s annual European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT)—show a number of right-wing attacks since World War II.7 TWEED registered 648 right-wing terrorist attacks between 1950 and 2004 (approximately 6 percent of a total of 10,239 attacks),
I am suspicious of percentage increases unsupported by raw numbers.It is especially noteworthy that far-right parties seem to have gained strong support as a result of the ongoing refugee crisis as well as Islamist-motivated terrorist attacks. These external events directed against a specific country have been shown to increase electoral support for extreme right-wing parties and may be linked to peaks of right-wing terrorism and violence.13 Bold and rhetorically violent anti-immigration and Euro-skeptic platforms of right-wing parties arguably might also increase support for more violent actions by small clandestine groups.
There is academic smoke and mirrors.1,600 percent in the United States. Following the London bombings in July 2005, police reported a six-fold increase in the rate of right-wing violence against Muslims. In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015, similar incidents rose by 281 percent in France.
And it appears the definition of terrorism is about to blow wide open ...As such, possible links and supportive collaboration, if not outright institutionalized cooperation, between clandestine or extra-parliamentary groups and established political parties from the right-wing spectrum must be taken into account when considering right-wing terrorism and political violence. Though a highly under-researched topic, a few studies have looked at this intersection and found mixed results.
............ hate speech, which has been described as simply another manifestation of terrorism