That’s three examples! And an etc! Yes, that’s the definition of “very common”.
In which case violence was also “very common” at Trump rallies. When the crowd turned on a protester at an Obama rally, Obama calmed them down. Trump encouraged the crowd to punch protesters at his rallied, some of whom did.
And here’s five examples of Trump supporters attacking protesters. And the list even comes with an etc!
My cat’s breath smell like cat food.
In any case the point was to show once again how much of a hack historian Goldberg is.
Communists also do not like to see liberal ideas among their fake unions either.
One of whom wasn’t a Democrat and the other who had just become a Democrat because he was getting primaried from the far right by Pat Toomey. Not great examples as such; in fact you ought to add Specter to the Tea Party tally.
Translation: “I am referencing the international scene because the data shows that right-wing terrorism is doing quite well in the US at the moment (and Europe, for that matter), so I need to lump in all those Latin American types to bury that. Also, I will conveniently ignore pro-Trump violence.”
I said “far-left”, not leftist.
Source and some discussion of validity beginning in this post.
YMMV on US political violence, but it seems pretty clear to me. I don’t think I’ve seen a single example of anyone being attacked simply for publically expressing support for liberal or Democratic causes, while numerous people have been attacked just for wearing MAGA hats or the like. All instances of pro-Trump violence have been directed at anti-Trump protestors, and even there it’s most frequently left-wingers looking to attack (e.g. antifa and the like).
Joe Lieberman was a long-time Democrat, and as you may recall, the Democratic VP nominee in 2000. Specter should probably count both ways. (He served as a Republican for many years, but he was a moderate who had been a Democrat prior to turning Republican.)
I found almost nothing about leftist/rightist political ideology in this link. There were a few communist groups mentioned, but nothing about a majority (or even significant minority) of deaths coming from them or anything like that.
Whether this is true or not, this isn’t exactly what you said earlier – your earlier statement (…prone to violence against those who oppose them) would include killers like Dylan Roof and Anders Breivik – this paragraph’s description (…attacked for publically expressing support for liberal or Democratic causes) would not. In either case, it’s far from clear to me that there are more leftists/far-leftists/liberals engaged in violence than their equivalent on the right/far-right/conservative side.
I said “among the leading causes”, not “majority”. The data breaks down the numbers and you can see they’re significant.
I don’t recall Breivik’s deal just now, but Dylan Roof was most decidedly not a right-winger trying to suppress LW viewpoints. We may be talking past each other here.
“Among the leading causes” is essentially meaningless in terms of who is “far more prone” to violence. Far-right groups are likely also “among the leading causes”.
So it’s no longer “against those who oppose them” – now it’s just about suppressing viewpoints? If so, this isn’t what you said earlier. Dylan Roof definitely qualifies as someone trying to kill “those who opposed him”, by his definition of who opposed him (and probably his victims’ too).
Not significant enough to be mentioned in that report, anyway. They identify “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist” as being responsible for 77 deaths, less than a tenth of what they attribute to the various leftist groups.
I thought it was clear that “opposing them” in context meant opposing them politically.
[FWIW, there’s no doubt that black people oppose white supremacists, but that’s not why a white supremacist would want to kill them - that’s a very circular way of looking at things.]
They identify several perpetrators that can be (IMO) characterized as far-right – Sunni extremists, Lord’s Resistance Army, and Anders Breivik himself (who killed enough people to be mentioned all by himself, I suppose).
I’m sure Roof’s victims opposed him politically/ideologically, and you specifically said “…against those who oppose them”, not specifying a requirement of a mode of opposition (or separating bigotry as a motivation).
Even if you’re excluding attacks motivated by bigotry (which might, of course, also exclude many of the far-left incidents), I’m not convinced either side is more or less responsible by any significant amount.
Perhaps, with enough finagling and twists of language, a definition could be crafted specifically such that the vast majority of far-right incidents of violence would be excluded, while far-left incidents would remain. But what would be the point of that? Dylan Roof and Anders Breivik were political extremists, with political and ideological motivations for their violence. Why are they excluded from this discussion? Would the KKK bombings and lynchings during the CR movement also be excluded? That seems kind of ridiculous.
The point is about extreme intolerance of other viewpoints to the point of violence.
[Counting Islamic extremist terrorism as right wing violence is ludicrous IMO.]
Excluding violence motivated by white supremacism from this sort of discussion is far more ludicrous, IMO. In my understanding, the vast majority of political and ideological violence in US history was driven by white supremacism in various forms.
The religious fanatics are on your side. The atheist fanatics are on our side.
This response is complete gibberish to me. I get that you’re defining “Liberal” as “bad”, but I see no rational argument in support of your definition, so I have no incentive to take it seriously.
Well if we get to draft our teams like that, there’s no limit. How about: “the pedophiles and bestiality aficionados are on your side. The virgins are on our side”? Not much point in this, IMO.
To the extent that “right wing” corresponds with “conservative” corresponds with “keeping or restoring theocratic rule”… Islamic terrorism looks classically right-wing, as do the terrorist thugs of Kristallnacht and the perpetrators of religion-based atrocities of 1990s Yugoslavia.
It would be perfectly fair for the right-wing to acknowledge the extreme forms of their policies, if they want to insist that the left-wing acknowledge the extreme forms of their own.
There’s not much point, either, IMO, if the largest (by far!) source of ideological violence through US history doesn’t count.
Lieberman was an Independent from 2006 on, not a democrat. He did caucus with the democrats but he was very conservative on most issues. You’d really have to contort your definitions to label him a liberal, especially at the end of his career. Not sure why dems didn’t kick him out sooner (I think it was so the dems technically had 51 votes with him in).
Calling yourself a democrat does not make you one. The proper name for North Korea is the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. Having “democratic” in their name does not make it so. Same with Lieberman.
Since 9/11 terrorist deaths in the US:
Jihadists: 95
Right Wing: 51
Left Wing: 5
SOURCE
Right wing violence would be more than Jihadist in the US except the Orlando night club shooting was a big one that tipped the balance for the Jihadists.
He became an independent as a result of his losing a primary. He was a Democrat at that time.
What you’re saying sounds exactly like a TP guy explaining why they voted out the RINOs.
Compared to previous reactionary movements the alt-right tends to be more atheistic, especially the younger cohort. I hope to someday read how theocracies and the divine right of kings are liberal ideas, since there’s no bigger government than the one in Heaven.