For goboy, yep. And we can also look back and see the right-wing extremists in Chile back in the 70’s. It’s funny how you get those swings.
**
I didn’t say it was. I said that right-wing racist groups are more likely to carry on killings. If you look at the people who have carried out “terrorist” activities, you find they embrace racist viewpoints. I didn’t imply that it was a part of the right wing. Only that groups that are both racist and right-wing are more likely to take action.
oohh. A whole nother bate here. Don’t even want to get into it. For now, let’s just say that yes the right wing does not hold the exculsive rights to racism, and I did not mean to imply that.
scratch, do you mean more likely to commit crimes as a group or as an individual. I would bet that there is more black on white than white on black violence. Now how many are racisit related and how many of the perps are racist is anyone’s guess.
My point is that you can’t make statements like that without some kiond of support. What you are stating is just how it “seems” based on the reports of teh media. A black guy getting killed by two yokels is big news, but a black guy knifing a white is not.
ANd goboy, I seem to recall that the republicans voted for the civil rights bill, but I will have to go look that up ::shuffle shuffle:
One left wing whacko (who tried to kill a right wing figure) who hasn’t been mentioned: Alexander Berkman. Ok, Ok, so it was a hundred years ago, but it did happen.
I was speaking in terms of the op. Not all violence is politically motivated. If you are to speak of right-wing extremists. Racist extremists seem more likely to commit acts of violence than non-racist ones.
**
To quote “…you can’t make statements like that without some kiond of support”
**
Again, I was speaking of large scale political violence; OK city bombing, massacre of villagers in Peru, or threats of large scale politcal violence; the christian identity movement, some of the millitas out there, etc.
scratch, I seem to recall you stating that you would like to blow the government up. That I can see as political violence.
But how is racism political? Sure, teh stereotypical militia member is racist, which may or may not be ther reality. But they may also dislike gays, catholics, jews, New Yorkers, etc. that seems to me to be a social phenomenon. Nopw if they killed blacks to create an anarchist society, then I can see that being political. But if they just don’t like blacks, well, I think that that is just a personal belief with no correlation to the right wing ideology.
But it does seem that lefties are more prone to property destruction that violence to humans. Although, I am not sure what the point of the OK bombing was. And if we look globally, socialists and communists are pretty handy at killing for the recvolution. What we call violence stateside isn’t really that bad.
Thanks, everyone, for your responses; actually helped change the way I think a bit. Let me just add the following:
First of all, I thought it would be obvious that the OP was a rank generalization, and I was aware of many exceptions to my “theory.” So to those who pointed out an exception or two as proof that my whole idea was wrong, thanks but I just meant to start a discussion, not make any absolute statements of fact.
Second, thanks to everyone who pointed out gray areas and less obvious wackos. I still believe the wacko scale is weighted a bit to the right, but less so, and less distinctly so, than I did when I posted.
A couple detailed reactions: I’ve had a lifelong connection to animals; worked in the pet trade in various capacities, among pretty much all disciplines (dogs, fish, birds, reptiles, cats, small mammals) for many years; I have a lifelong fascination with the “life sciences” and read extensively in evolutionary theory and biology for pleasure. But I’d be hard pressed to call myself an animal rights advocate. I don’t believe in a distinct line separating humans from all other animals, and I’m vehemently against wanton cruelty–even in the name of science. But because I don’t believe we’re separated from the rest of the birds and beasts in the literal-biblical sense, I have as little problem with Homo sapien’s status as a prey animal as I do with a lion’s. If that makes any sense.
And in re: the Seattle WTO fiasco. I live in Seattle, and my continually evolving sense of that whole mess is that the cops were unprepared and got out of control, and that a great deal of the subsequent craziness was a reaction to their quasi-fascist tactics. I believe it would have been a more peaceful demonstration if the cops had taken it seriously and treated the protesters with respect and dignity. Granted, there might have been some bad apples among the crowds, but if they had been dealt with accordingly rather than the blanket police action that occurred, I believe the rest of the protestors might not have joined with them so vehemently. If THAT makes any sense.
But again, thanks for the thoughtful responses and the food for a great deal of further thought.
First, since I haven’t said it alrady… It’s nice seeing you posting during the day again Mr. Z, I really did miss your pressence.
**
Did I say that? Gross overgeneralization on my part. I don’t recall saying that… If I did, I didn’t mean it to sound like that. Dismantle the state sure, but not go around randoming blowing things up. That dooesn’t acomplish anything. Are you sure I said that?
**
Two different issues. One is a question of how racism is political. The second is the statement that racism plays no belief in the right-wing ideology. (To avoid further confusion, I’m referring to the extreme right-wing. Not people like George Bush or even Pat Buchanan.)
I’m going to take a pass on the first one. I don’t feel like getting into an explanation of my beliefs on racism and politics here, (I think it has something to do with the bottle of wine I had with lunch, I will do it sometime though).
On the second issue. Fuck. I just forgot what I was going to say (note to self, drink less wine at lunch). Ok. It’s like veganism and PETA. Sure veganism and vegetarianism are personall issues. But, with animal rights activists you see them raised to more than that. You see them become political issues. They go hand in hand, you can find a vegan who isn’t an animal rights activist, but you have to look long and hard to find the other. Likewise with the extreme rightwing, you can find racists who aren’t right wing wackos, but you have to look long and hard to find a right wing wacko who doesn’t espouse racism.
**
Tell that to the Shining Path.
Absolutely. When I was travelling in India I saw more political violence than I would ever care to see in several lifetimes (I just missed a bus that was bombed at one point, if I had gotten there on time I could have been killed)
Scratch, you didn’t mean it literally. I said something to the effect that socialists like you wanted the gov’t to run our lives and you said “I don’t want big gov’t. Heck I want to blow the whole thing up” or something to that effect. You din’t mean it literally. I should have put a smiley in my post. I think that there should be a “tongue in cheek” font.
I tend to think of the leftists as being racist, just in a different way. The far right says “hey, let everybody succeed or fail based on their skills and keep the gov’t out of it. And don’t give nothin’ to them niggers and kikes and preverts and fags and…” THe left says “poor little blacks and minorities. They can’t get anything done by themselves so we better help 'em out.”
Two outlandishly exaggerated, therefore very inaccurate, portrayals; no wonder they seem prejudicial.
The left is not saying let’s coddle those less able than we, as you suggest. The left says let’s accept responsibility for our past transgressions against the politically weak; own up to the racist policies, for example, that created the inner-city ghettos. We’re the ones who stacked the deck they’re playing from. The right wants to pretend we’re all playing from the same deck; that there shouldn’t be affirmative action for blacks if there isn’t going to be affirtmative action for whites. Well guess what, there is affirmative action for whites. It happens every day, and does not require legislation to make it effective. Affirmative action is not privileges offered as reparation; it’s an attempt to level the field for current inequities, caused by present-day realities as much as by past unfairness of treatment.
What the left is saying, as far as I see it, is that we as a society–as a social animal–should expect to give as good as we get. Golden rule and all that. That there are certain things that we, as a group, are responsible for, to ourselves and others; that certain things cannot be accomplished by individuals but must be accomplished collectively. Government is an expression of people’s need to work together to accomplish a larger goal than we can accomplish individually. If we as a group want to fix some of the weak points in our own society, the government is our tool for doing so. The government is the collective expression of the will of the people.
That’s the theory, anyway. The reality is that the government of this country has become a tool of the big corporations in their endeavor to avoid their responsibility to the people.
As far as I’m concerned the Big Government Boogie Man is the government as paid henchman of the big corporations: the people’s government has been hijacked. That’s the government that has come to be, that has come to inspire fear in the fearful.
There are fewer violent left-wing wackos than there are violent right-wing wackos, because liberals are all a bunch of namby-pamby tofu-eating effete little scaredy-cat momma’s boys who only talk about literature and women’s rights because they think it’ll improve their abyssmal chances of scoring with the chicks.
pldennison: I remember Peta taking credit for someone, who, in So Cal, released a bunch of minks from their cages, and the chinchella. None would survive, and they would perish in misery. BUT, you are right in that it is the ALF who is most guilty of this.
And what is “unnessary suffering”? Being used to test a cure for AIDS? A new anihistamine? A new implant proc? For valid psychlogical stuieds that cannot be very well done on Humans? For their meat? For their hide? Fur?
Now, some labs were neglecting their test animals, besides the (IMHO) the very nessesary medical testing that went on. That was wrong.
INHO the 2 biggest dangers in the US are the animal rights and the anti abortion folk, on opposite sides of the spectrum, but both willing to commit acts of terrorism for their goals. Some of the PETA folks are cowardly morally bankrupt terrorists, and terrorism cannot be justified.
I don’t think we can have a conversation with the words “left” and “wacko” without mentioning former Louisiana governor Huey Long. The man was so left that he criticized FDR for being too conservative. Long was assassinated by a doctor, but the details escape me. For a great work of fiction written loosely on the subject of Long and his life, try All the King’s Men by Robert Penn Warren
Well lissener, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I am wondering what the manifestation of this Corporate Rule is?
I checked with the treasurer and the tax rate for this big corporation is 36.5%. OSHA, ADA, FMLA, ERISA, EPA…all hinder our business to one degree or another, and I know of no corporate exemptions. How exaclty are these corporations excercizing their amazing power?
BTW, who exactly do you think is driving our booming economy, governmental agencies? Farmers?
I just don’t know where to start. What a simple universe you live in, Zambezi. The only factor in this entire discussion is money? I’m like all aquiver with wonder and rage.
>