Younger people have more support for political violence

[Eldarion Lathria]

I wonder if that is because in some countries young adults are second class citizens with fewer rights than older adults.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[prideandfall]

The problem is that extremists on both ends of the horseshoe are saying that about the other side as well as those in the middle part of the horseshoe.

no, the problem is that only one end of the spectrum is engaging in political violence, and the zeitgeist narrative around the few times that the other side does engage in political violence is one of derision and dismissal, and never of support.

you yourself engage in this regularly, have in this very thread in fact.

If you say left wing political violence is ok and even laudable, how can you condemn right wing political violence?

very simple: left wing political violence is in pursuit of justice, fairness, equality, and the progress of human civilization as a whole.
right wing political violence is in service to bigotry, elitism, and predatory authoritarianism.

you can find the idea of political violence as a general concept acceptable, but then have an opinion on the execution and justification for that violence, there is no hypocrisy there.
left wing violence is acceptable because it's in pursuit of worthy goals.
ring wing violence is unacceptable because it's a bunch of fucking nazi shitheads trying to make the world worse.

 

[Derec]

no, the problem is that only end of the spectrum is engaging in political violence.

Major BS! Did you sleep through 2014-2020, 1992, as well as most of 60s and 70s, Rip van Prideandfall?

the left has been dragging its feet about that for decades, to disastrous result.

On the contrary, they have been very busy. It's just that they usually get a slap on the wrist, like the two terrorist lawyers from NYC who will get merely 18-24 months for constructing and using explosive devices as part of left wing violence.

very simple: left wing political violence is in pursuit of justice, fairness, equality, and the progress of human civilization as a whole. right wing political violence is in service to bigotry, elitism, and predatory authoritarianism.

How do the deadly riots of 2020 promote "justice, fairness" and all that stuff you do not really believe in? How does burning down a dinosaur museum and a car dealership, or vandalizing a Target or taking over several city blocks and establishing a racially segregated garden promote progress?

you can find the idea of political violence as a general concept acceptable, but then have an opinion on the execution and justification for that violence, there is no hypocrisy there.

In other words, political violence is good when your side does it, but evil when the other side does it.
And the other side says the same thing.
I say pox on both you ends of the horseshoe.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The far right GOP politicians, pundits and NRA gun nuts have been peddling the claim we need 2nd amendment rights to deal with politicians they do not like with violence. Irresponsible, threatening rhetoric. If today's young Democratic supporters have taken that claim to heart seriously, this just demonstrates that the gun whackos have been successful in peddling this idea. Kharma is a mean little bitch.

 

[prideandfall]

no, the problem is that only end of the spectrum is engaging in political violence.

Major BS! Did you sleep through 2014-2020, 1992, as well as most of 60s and 70s, Rip van Prideandfall?

so, as per usual, you have no concept of reality.

2014-2020 wasn't 'the left' engaging in political violence.
1992 wasn't 'the left' engaging in political violence.
you have a point about the 60s and 70s, and WOW HOLY SHIT WAY TO POINT OUT A RELEVANT AND RECENT EXAMPLE.
(and to also prove my point about the left dragging its feet for decades)

the left has been dragging its feet about that for decades, to disastrous result.

On the contrary, they have been very busy. It's just that they usually get a slap on the wrist, like the two terrorist lawyers from NYC who will get merely 18-24 months for constructing and using explosive devices as part of left wing violence.

which, as per usual, is literally not the thing you're feebly trying to claim it it.

very simple: left wing political violence is in pursuit of justice, fairness, equality, and the progress of human civilization as a whole. right wing political violence is in service to bigotry, elitism, and predatory authoritarianism.

How do the deadly riots of 2020 promote "justice, fairness" and all that stuff you do not really believe in? How does burning down a dinosaur museum and a car dealership, or vandalizing a Target or taking over several city blocks and establishing a racially segregated garden promote progress?

well firstly it wasn't left wing political violence, and secondly it promotes progress by doing the only thing that *ever* promotes progress: reminding those in power that they are only in power because we let them be.
the cycle of human civilization is, always has been, and i suspect always will be, that the upper edges of society get themselves hard off oppressing the rest of the human species, and then eventually push too far and the rest of the human species remembers that we don't actually have to put up with this shit, and then kill them all and install a new upper edge of society and the process starts over.

violent riots and destroying property and businesses is how the people demonstrate that the status quo you like so much only exists with their permission.
you need to continue to get that permission, or else you don't get to have your status quo anymore.
that fear is the only way to get an entrenched power class to release its stranglehold on the balls of the human race, short of straight up murdering them and dismantling the entire apparatus of power structures.

you can find the idea of political violence as a general concept acceptable, but then have an opinion on the execution and justification for that violence, there is no hypocrisy there.

In other words, political violence is good when your side does it, but evil when the other side does it.

yes.

And the other side says the same thing.
I say pox on both you ends of the horseshoe.

bullshit. you already agree with that sentiment and endorse it practically every day.
you are pathetically trying to now distance yourself from it just to score a point against me. it's unbelievably sad, even for you.

 

[Derec]

so, as per usual, you have no concept of reality
2014-2020 wasn't 'the left' engaging in political violence.

Black Lives Matter is a movement founded by two "trained Marxists".

1992 wasn't 'the left' engaging in political violence.

You are disavowing LA Riots? News to me. Usually you leftists support it because "police bad, black thugs good".

you have a point about the 60s and 70s, and WOW HOLY SHIT WAY TO POINT OUT A RELEVANT AND RECENT EXAMPLE.

May not be recent, but it is still relevant as the 60s and 70s violence has left lasting scars on US. Just like the leftist #BLM violence of 2014-2020 has done.

(and to also prove my point about the left dragging its feet for decades)

So you think the Left should stop dragging its feet so much and should start do more bank robbing, Senate building/military base/university bombings, police officer ambushing and other tactics of groups like WU or BPP?

which, as per usual, is literally not the thing you're feebly trying to claim it it.

What is not the thing? What are you referring to?

well firstly it wasn't left wing political violence, and secondly it promotes progress by doing the only thing that *ever* promotes progress: reminding those in power that they are only in power because we let them be.

Why do you think it was not left wing political violence?
And your second point, any radical group can use the same justification for their violence. Face it, you leftists are not special.

violent riots and destroying property and businesses is how the people demonstrate that the status quo you like so much only exists with their permission.

That applies to your favorite riot too - January 6th. If you think widespread rioting of 2020 was justified because that "is how the people demonstrate that the status quo you like so much only exists with their permission", then why should January 6th rioters not be able to make the same demonstration?
I detest all riots, including January 6th. But I am disgusted that the D politicians and the media are singularly focusing on it and ignoring and even lying about (it was not "peaceful protesting"!) all the left wing violence.

you need to continue to get that permission, or else you don't get to have your status quo anymore.

Does that apply to any mob demanding things or just left wing mobs?
If anti-abortion or anti-gay mob were to burn down some businesses and government buildings, is that legitimate demonstration that we need to get their "permission" to "have [our] status quo" or that that, in your mind, only apply to left wing mobs rioting for thugs and against police?

that fear is the only way to get an entrenched power class to release its stranglehold on the balls of the human race, short of straight up murdering them and dismantling the entire apparatus of power structures.

The president is a Democrat now. So if some right wing nut wants to "murder them all" and "dismantle the entire apparatus" of the Biden administration, you are fine with that?

bullshit. you already agree with that sentiment and endorse it practically every day.
you are pathetically trying to now distance yourself from it just to score a point against me. it's unbelievably sad, even for you.

I never endorsed any political violence. You, on the other hand, fully support political violence from the left.
Saying that it's ok to "murder them all" because your side is supposedly the righteous one is very dangerous. Not to mention hypocritical.

 

[prideandfall]

so, as per usual, you have no concept of reality
2014-2020 wasn't 'the left' engaging in political violence.

Black Lives Matter is a movement founded by two "trained Marxists".

and? it's not political violence so it doesn't matter.

1992 wasn't 'the left' engaging in political violence.

You are disavowing LA Riots? News to me. Usually you leftists support it because "police bad, black thugs good".

as i previously stated, i'm not a 'leftist' so you need to get it out of your head.

and the LA riots are only 'left political violence' if you consider any violence not perpetuated by the police or a white male with a manifesto as 'left' and any violence involving black people as 'political'

the LA riots were cultural violence, not political.

you have a point about the 60s and 70s, and WOW HOLY SHIT WAY TO POINT OUT A RELEVANT AND RECENT EXAMPLE.

May not be recent, but it is still relevant as the 60s and 70s violence has left lasting scars on US. Just like the leftist #BLM violence of 2014-2020 has done.

yeah except not to both of those things.
the only thing scarred by the 60s, 70s, and BLM is... you, and a handful of the cabal of posters on this forum who shit their pants any time the social order is disrupted by anyone who isn't a pro-trump white guy.

(and to also prove my point about the left dragging its feet for decades)

So you think the Left should stop dragging its feet so much and should start do more bank robbing, Senate building/military base/university bombings, police officer ambushing and other tactics of groups like WU or BPP?

that's an impressive non sequitur even for you.

which, as per usual, is literally not the thing you're feebly trying to claim it it.

What is not the thing? What are you referring to?

i mean the trouble is that it's you so i could be referring to literally anything you've ever posted, and it would be accurate to describe it as not the thing you're feebly trying to claim it is, but in this particular case that: is not an example of left wing political violence.

well firstly it wasn't left wing political violence, and secondly it promotes progress by doing the only thing that *ever* promotes progress: reminding those in power that they are only in power because we let them be.

Why do you think it was not left wing political violence?

because the only way you can possibly classify social unrest that is a reaction to institutional mistreatment of a particular ethnic group as 'left wing political violence' is you define that term only as a boogeyman which applies to anything that you disapprove of.

not all public action is tied to the political spectrum, and the unrest that was a response to police shootings has never espoused any kind of legislative agenda.
it's only political if you somehow try to say that "stop shooting our ethnic group" has an inherently political angle, which i suppose you probably do, but to any rational thinker that proposition is insane.

And your second point, any radical group can use the same justification for their violence. Face it, you leftists are not special.

well i'm not a leftist, and even if i was you pretty much completely defeated your own argument here, because the incredibly minor and insignificant incidences of social unrest you love to harp on and on about did not claim a political justification for their behavior, nor demand a political response under threat of an escalation.

violent riots and destroying property and businesses is how the people demonstrate that the status quo you like so much only exists with their permission.

That applies to your favorite riot too - January 6th. If you think widespread rioting of 2020 was justified because that "is how the people demonstrate that the status quo you like so much only exists with their permission", then why should January 6th rioters not be able to make the same demonstration?
I detest all riots, including January 6th. But I am disgusted that the D politicians and the media are singularly focusing on it and ignoring and even lying about (it was not "peaceful protesting"!) all the left wing violence.

well firstly, i don't really give a shit about january 6th excepting how fucking hilarious it is how hypocritical you people are about it.

secondly, i already explained this earlier, that political violence isn't inherently wrong.

thirdly and pursuant to the above, one is an act of social unrest in response to something that actually happened while the other is a bunch of nazi dipshits having a temper tantrum because they didn't like the legitimate and verified results of an election.

fourthly, jan 6th was in fact explicitly political unlike everything you keep rambling on about, so it further argues against your position.

you need to continue to get that permission, or else you don't get to have your status quo anymore.

Does that apply to any mob demanding things or just left wing mobs?

that applies to any mob that is reminding those in power that if they don't continue to get that permission they don't get to have the status quo anymore.

when your mob is formed to preserve the status quo, it is explicitly not that.

If anti-abortion or anti-gay mob were to burn down some businesses and government buildings, is that legitimate demonstration that we need to get their "permission" to "have [our] status quo" or that that, in your mind, only apply to left wing mobs rioting for thugs and against police?

nope, because that would be a riot to preserve the status quo of oppression of gays and women's bodies.
not only is the oppression of gays and of women's bodies already the status quo, but neither of those things (gays or women's bodily autonomy) in any way shape or form impact those rioting, so there would be no reasonable or acceptable argument for it.

i didn't spell it out in exacting detail before because i figured the qualifier made it pretty obvious, but i'm referring to "political violence" as in social unrest with an explicit and specific political agenda - the removal of a political person, the change of a law (or enacting a law), etc etc.
and it's not an absolute rule, but i'd say that "the thing you're rioting over needs to actually apply to you in some way" is a good measurement as well.
you rarely see riots started over things that aren't directly relevant to the rioters.

that fear is the only way to get an entrenched power class to release its stranglehold on the balls of the human race, short of straight up murdering them and dismantling the entire apparatus of power structures.

The president is a Democrat now. So if some right wing nut wants to "murder them all" and "dismantle the entire apparatus" of the Biden administration, you are fine with that?

on a cosmic level? sure - biden is one human being, we're not short of them. the US political landscape isn't sacrosanct.
but coming back yet again to the original premise: right-wing political violence is always expressly about oppression of others, so the only possible reason a right wing nut would have to kill biden or any other democrat is because they want human civilization to stop progressing and for some or another group of "others" that they don't like to be suppressed.

that isn't sound or compelling rationale, and so there is no possible justification for attacking the biden administration, thus making it unacceptable.

bullshit. you already agree with that sentiment and endorse it practically every day.
you are pathetically trying to now distance yourself from it just to score a point against me. it's unbelievably sad, even for you.

I never endorsed any political violence.

you endorse political violence repeatedly every single day that you post on this forum and you have for years.

You, on the other hand, fully support political violence from the left.

do i?
i just said that the left doesn't do it, and the right does.
is pointing that out endorsing it?

well i mean to you i know it is, because to you pointing things out is a form of violence against you. but i mean to a person who isn't delusional.

Saying that it's ok to "murder them all" because your side is supposedly the righteous one is very dangerous.

saying that it's ok to "murder them all" when it's the other side doing it to their designated targets is also very dangerous.

Not to mention hypocritical.

it's only hypocritical if you presume that i'm operating from a whiny pacifist starting point that "violence is never the answer"
i already told you, i'm not a pussy liberal crybaby like most people around here, so that shit doesn't fly with me.

 

[Bomb#20]

Isn't that the presumptive reason for having the 2nd amendment in the first place? So people can rebel if they need to?

Sure, but only against the legitimate authority of the British crown.

What's a legitimate authority of the British crown?

We are all British and I am your King.

Well Americans didn't vote for you.

You don't vote for kings!

How'd you become King then?

The Lord of Normandy, his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, showed up with an army from the bosom of the Channel signifying by Divine Providence that all his heirs down to me, George III, were to sit on his throne. That is why I am your King!

Listen. Strange Norman bastards in boats distributing their precious bodily fluids is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Be quiet!

You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery frog boinked your nana!

Shut up!

Help! Help! We're being repressed!

 

[ZiprHead]

Younger people have poorer self control than older people. News at 11.