> Even left wing dominated cities have large numbers of right wing constituents.
To think this is the cause of police brutality is a stretch to put it mildly.
> Right wing cancel culture are lynch mobs and the literal bombing of an American city and the imprisonment of an unconscionable number of black males.
Again with the random grab of different grievances. None of these are relevant to this conversation, but explaining why would require a separate explanation for each one.
Instead of trying to throw whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks, why not pick one or two things you think are the best example of what you are arguing, and I can just refute that?
> I see someone isn’t a fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.
Organizations change.
In the same way that just because the democratic party has a horribly racist history doesn’t make the current party horribly racist.
> By the by, a lot of the “left wing” violence recently was caused by right wing militia “boogaloo” people.
The “boogaloo” are a conspiracy theory.
Which is more believable:
1) A far-left wing group that has been around for decades and part of many violent protests across Europe and has branches in the US is involved in another set of left wing violent protests.
Or
2) A right wing group that nobody has heard of and doesn’t seem to be associated with any of the exisiting far-right movements has deeply infiltrated left wing protests and is causing trouble.
Since I’m partial to conspiracy theories (2) might be possible if it’s actually the feds.
>>You wanna know a true story from right-wing cancellation? Being bound by chains and dragged behind a truck. Gunning down an entire building full of gay people.
You believe there is no violence on the left? Shall I pull video of people being beaten and pulled from their cars during BLM "peaceful" protests? Or of the police captian that was burned alive in a store? Or of the Nashville mass school shotting for which the FBI is still withholding the manifesto that has it been a right wing person would have been on ever news outlet the next day?
>This is not justification of leftist actions,
if not outright justification it is attempt to "but but but look over there they are worse"
>>group you're defending
Not defending anyone, I am pointing it out is not left / Right. it is Authoritarian vs Libertarians.
Authoritarians are violent, that is how they weld authority. Right, left does not matter, In this community (technologists) people tend to want to believe only Right Authoritarians exist, and only Right are violent. That there is a nazi on every corner, and that nazi is a republican...
>>I will also save you the time by stating I don't intend on discussing this topic with you.
then I welcome your non-reply... If you did not intend on discussing this then you should have refrained from reply at all.
ironically I am a very empathetic person. I empathize with people suffering real hardship, like the people that are going to lose everything in the hurricane, not because someone on twitter did not use Xe or Xir correctly....
> it is rather odd to hear about a protest getting violent in an otherwise open minded community that is as liberal and far left as San Francisco.
Far left has been nothing but equally bad or worse than "far right"[0].
[0]: Why Nazis (short hand for National s o s i a l i s m or something) is described as far right is beyond me. Yes, I'm very well aware that people name things in interesting ways but the Nazis are more known for their collective efforts than their focus on personal liberties and free markets.
Edit: added quote. And while I don't mind your voting (-2 at the moment) I'd be interested to know if I am wrong/disrespectful/etc or if you just don't like my comment :-)
> Do you reject the idea that there no parallels to the black bloc and the brown shirts behavior?
Yes. It's very clear that organised violence in the US is overwhelmingly from the far right. Anyone denying this either isn't paying attention or is being dishonest.
>Illegal immigration, homelessness fueled by liberal/leftist policies, crime, gangs, drug trade have turned the city into a place quite unrecognizable compared to 1960.
Sounds like something that should be backed up by a data point if you're looking to contribute something to the discussion.
>Leftism is a cancer, and a road to third world culture, paved by good intentions.
You've given exactly one point, with no references. When you jump to extreme conclusions such as the one you're making, that undoubtably creates a 'cancer' you're speaking of because it puts down any intelligent discussion. Without that, how can you or I be informed? I would argue that extremes such as that are what contribute to a political climate where its more important what party or political idealogy you belong to, than what you're actually saying.
>Well, when did left wing anybody engage in violence against a right wing anything?
Bike lock guy? That guy who kicked a woman filming him at an abortion rally? There's a whole bunch of inciting online all the time, but we ignore that. There's been a whole bunch.
> The Charlottesville, VA protest by the extreme right wing however is a counterexample — but it’s an exception that proves the rule.
It's not any kind of exception. Protests involving the klan and the Nazis have often been extremely dangerous.
Aside from that, the point you're making is trivial in an obvious way that you really ought to understand. Violent right wingers are not typically on the protesters' side in American demonstrations, Nazis and KKK notwithstanding, because they are on the side of the police.
Think about what these ideological categories mean for a moment and you wouldn't normally expect leftists to put on riot gear and bust heads for the man, or for conservatives to go out and violently oppose the status quo.
> especially in the context of a far-right that routinely murders people.
And you just repeated the exact same silly claim you disputed, but you switched the political affiliation!
Is every single act of violence by a liberal "antifa"? Of course not. Therefore, it seems silly to pretend every act of violence by a conservative is "the far right" which are a particular (abhorrent) set of political views.
> I think that historically law enforcement and intelligence agencies are strongly leaning to the right.
Lots of law enforcement lean left due to being in unions and government protections. Even in the intelligence community, a lot lean left.
I think you are confusing right with authoritarism. Law enforcement and the intelligence community lean to authoritarism. There are authoritarian left and authoritarian right. Both extremes hate freedom and love control.
The worst form of authoritarianism occurred when extremist left ( socialists ) joined extremist right ( nationalists ) and created nazi germany.
> That is why they are so inefficient and things like the Russian meddling with Brexit and the USA elections happen.
So you want intelligence agencies to tell the people how to vote? They do that already. And if they are rightists as you claim, wouldn't you want them to be less effective?
> For some reason, a large part of the extreme left pays lip-service to non-violence, but is always quick to deflect criticism about left violence by pointing to (more extreme) right violence.
THIS! I'm not on the right but I've always felt that one of the right's biggest tactical errors was to allow their movement to be be seen as the violent side. Nothing in history that I've seen would suggest that the right, even the extreme right, is inherently prone to violence and yet this point is made frequently, casually by even fair minded people.
> That in fact, blacks are poor because of their culture and not ongoing structural racism? I honestly feel that any worthwhile conservative arguments are being made by center-left thinkers.
What evidence do you have to suggest this is the case and that these conservative hypotheses are fairly investigated?
Sociologists are under a lot of pressure to prove leftist memes and there are many cases of fraud and very poor scientific standards.
Sociology research is effectively useless to me because of leftism. In fact, most political reporting is useless because I have to spend many more cycles tying to figure out if the person isn't just trying to virtue signal instead of be pragmatic and truthful.
> First of all, discriminating against someone because they hold intolerant beliefs is categorically different from discriminating against someone based on their religion
Religion is a set of beliefs... What?
Mainstream Islam literally calls for people to be put to death for drawing pictures of Mohammad or renouncing Islam.
> he needs to provide examples of the useful discourse we are missing out on.
Ben Shapiro is a great example.
> Frankly, the center-left vs hard-left feel like the debates we should be having as a society
No thanks, let's have a discussion about right vs left vs hard left.
> It was documented that police and city councils were afraid to go after perpetrators for fear of being seen as racist.
So you really think that "the left" would rather take that then investigate such a hot issue? Seriously?
Do you have a source on that documentation?
> This isn't about some leftist trying and failing to popularize, it's about nobody even trying to, over the course of 4 years.
So if "nobody" even tried, why is the left at fault? Wouldn't be "everybody" at fault? Maybe it's no racism conspiracy but something completely different? Whatever it is, it's completely different then what goes on in #metoo or #metwo where many people try. Many of them being affected themselves and so on.
> This is not suprising, the right has practically no cultural power.
Well, they managed #Brexit pretty well. That was 2 years ago.
> a) The left typically deals with this.
So let's wrap this up: not even the right cares about it even though it falls perfectly in their spectrum (as being the opposite of the left AND something with child abuse which is what they love to scream for death penalty), but the it's nonetheless the lefts fault...
> b) It would have been a massive deal no one forgot about if
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.
> c) If the left doesn't come up with an answer to these issues, then only the far-right does, which dramatically increases their grassroots power, since they're actually responding to reality.
Where I come from, the justice system deals with such things. Not politics or the media or twitter. While you think it's the opposite and not only this, the left took the role of the justice system which has to be abolished if it doesn't do what you want.
I don't know man. It all sounds like the usual right wing madness argumentation which usually does not come from anywhere near reality ;)
> what are some problematic "unhinged" popular left wing places? which major politicians back them?
Start with anything related to BLM (notice the capitals, I'm talking about the organisation, not the fact of skin tone not being a factor in whether your life matters), anything related to Antifa to make it easy. The former is supported by a vocal minority of the DNC, the existence of the latter is denied by the current president elect while his running mate called for her supporters to supply funds to bail out its members after they'd been arrested. From there you might want to go past organisations like Extinction Rebellion for another example of polarised rhetoric which is supported by a vocal minority of the DNC.
> and why are they anywhere as near a threat to civilization & order as the divisive gun toting pissed off angry conspiratoroal rhetoric as is so widespread on the right, that even Fox News batshit crazy is no longer sufficient?
Have you not followed the news - and with that I do not mean just what CNN and MSNBC say - for the last 5 months? A simple count of victims of violence would answer your question.
> it is one side. the lefties hanging out in cities are not busy making new media outlets to invite ourselves into violent revolutionary overthrow & conflict.
Either you're ideologically blinded, or you're intentionally talking falsehoods. The lefties hanging out in the cities are the ones who have been or have been complicit in looting and rioting. They are the ones who have tried to start actual "revolutions" - and failed horrendously since it turns out they had not really thought it trough.
Do you know the concept of "steel-manning"? It is the opposite of "straw-manning" in that it is a way to see the opponent's point of view from as strong a position as possible. It can help you to see the opponent as something other than an object of hate. It can also help you find weaknesses in that opponent's position. I think you should try it instead of simply throwing well-worn epithets at anyone who does not share "your" point of view.
> The left ignores all literature around urban crime management
Can you elaborate here? Didn’t mean to get totally off rails but this seems the opposite to me. Social-democrat European cities tend to have less crime than American ones.
>Seems like the leftwingers are the ones being actively discriminated against by the government(s).
It seems like left wing riots are much more common than right wing riots (in Europe and America) and those seem to draw the most attention from governments.
However, the reality is more complicated. Esp. in America, there are a ton of recent examples (2016 to present) of mayors / college admins telling police to stand down / avoid protecting right wingers from left wing violence. Plenty of Trump supporters have been punched (or worse) during rallies. People openly call for punching Nazis (which seems to be a blanket term for individuals for conservative sympathies).
Berkley? Evergreen? San Jose? The stand down orders are tantamount to a conspiracy to deprive right wing people of their civil rights and that's de jure discrimination if not active de facto discrimination.
It's tough because both sides can point to some injustice and correctly say that there's an element of ideological discrimination at-play. It's disappointing that calls to reduce political violence are equivocated with partisan positions.
I'm a big fan of liberal democracy, so this was an argument against involuntary commitment and forced labor, not an argument against liberal democracy.
The 'liberal democracy' reference is not using 'liberal' in the same context as the 'liberal cities' I referred to later.
>>the vulnerable who are predated upon by drug dealers
I wouldn't characterize that as a talking point associated with the right at all. The left is known for displacing blame for the misbehavior of drug addicts onto external forces, and this particular point does the same. Though it does sound critical of drug dealers, which is a right-ish argument.
Anyway, it's impossible to not sound political, when the problem is political. And it's impossible to not be critical of the left, when it is mostly the left that is to blame. Left-wing run cities are much worse off than right-wing ones with respect to homelessness, violent crime, drug-abuse, etc, by any metric you look at, and they got that way, from a starting state of much greater social order and more functional civic life, under decades of left-wing policies that gradually became more extreme.
To think this is the cause of police brutality is a stretch to put it mildly.
> Right wing cancel culture are lynch mobs and the literal bombing of an American city and the imprisonment of an unconscionable number of black males.
Again with the random grab of different grievances. None of these are relevant to this conversation, but explaining why would require a separate explanation for each one.
Instead of trying to throw whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks, why not pick one or two things you think are the best example of what you are arguing, and I can just refute that?
reply