Rise of the conservative revolutionaries

[boutons_deux]

http://media.salon.com/2013/05/william_temple-620x412.jpg


There’s plenty of proof of an authoritarian streak and animus toward democratic ideals in today’s conservative movement. There was the movement’s use of its judicial power to halt a vote recount and instead install (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html) a president who had lost the popular vote.

There is the ongoing GOP effort to make it more difficult for people to cast a vote in an election (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830).

There is the GOP’s record use of the Senate filibuster (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html) to kill legislation that the vast majority of the country supports.

There is a GOP leader’s declaration that what the American people want from their government simply “doesn’t matter.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805#.UYEaob8Ts18)

Up until today, you might have been able to write all that anti-democratic pathology off as one infecting only the Republican Party’s politicians and institutional leadership, but not its rank-and-file voters. But then this morning Fairleigh Dickinson University released this gun control-related pollshowing that authoritarianism runs throughout the the entire party.

Take a look at the cross-tabs on page 3 of the national survey (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/).

That’s right, you are reading it correctly: Almost half (44 percent) of all self-described Republican voters say they believe “an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties.”

Just as bad, more Republicans believe an armed revolution might be necessary than believe one isn’t necessary.

This poll raises two obvious questions, each more disturbing than the next.

The first question is about gun control and gun ownership, and more specifically, what the latter is all about.

Typically, GOP leaders say that their opposition to minimal gun regulations has nothing to do with helping arm those who want to commit acts of violence, and everything to do with wanting to make sure people can defend themselves. Based on the poll, of course, it is certainly likely that many are buying such weapons in an effort to defend themselves, both for day-to-day life and in the event of a sudden armed revolution. But here’s the scary part: How many are buying weapons to arm themselves in order to foment an armed revolution? Maybe none, but maybe a lot. I don’t have an answer, but this poll suggests the question should at least be aired.

The other question is about republican democracy: Can it survive in an age when almost one-half of one of the major parties seems to support the concept of violently thwarting it?

“Politics is war by other means”: That aphorism sums up the democratic theory undergirding the American idea for two centuries. Though we haven’t always lived up to that ideal, it is a pretty simple one: A civilized society should solve disputes through a democratic process and democratic institutions, rather than through the barrel of a gun. And while our democracy has been corrupted by Big Money, it still functions better than autocracy. In that sense, Churchill had it right when he said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Incredibly, though, almost half of Republicans don’t seem to necessarily see it that way. According to the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, 44 percent of rank-and-file Republicans seem to believe that because they aren’t getting their way through the ballot box, bloodshed may be justified to impose their will on everyone else. Think of it as sore loser-ism juiced by violence.

Of course, GOP apologists will say that the poll just asked specifically about armed revolution “to protect liberties,” the idea being that almost half of Republican voters don’t support using violence to advance their own political agenda, they only support it in the face of a future dystopian nightmare whereby the population is terrorized by police-administered drone bombings and Waco-esque invasions of private homes.

But that’s the thing: We can’t be so sure that’s really true when conservative media voices and politicians are using the broad and incendiary language they now regularly employ. Today, those voices often claim that almost everything in the Democratic/liberal agenda — from Obamacare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/ron-johnson-obamacare_n_2567993.html) to taxes (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/13/obamas-tax-freedom-day-was-march-5-the-average-americans-isnt-until-april-18/) to environmental regulations to contraception policy (http://www.teapartyexpress.org/3421/obama-birth-control-mandate-takes-assault-on-constitution-religious-liberty-to-new-heights) — is an assault on “liberty.”

That means the poll might indicate something much more significant than understandable opposition to Big Brother turning our country into Oceania. It might show us that all the vitriolic language employed by the right is undermining the most basic nonviolent democratic ideals that are supposed to define America.


http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/rise_of_the_conservative_revolutionaries/

[TeyshaBlue]

http://media.salon.com/2013/05/william_temple-620x412.jpg


There’s plenty of proof of an authoritarian streak and animus toward democratic ideals in today’s conservative movement. There was the movement’s use of its judicial power to halt a vote recount and instead install (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html) a president who had lost the popular vote.

There is the ongoing GOP effort to make it more difficult for people to cast a vote in an election (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830).

There is the GOP’s record use of the Senate filibuster (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html) to kill legislation that the vast majority of the country supports.

There is a GOP leader’s declaration that what the American people want from their government simply “doesn’t matter.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805#.UYEaob8Ts18)

Up until today, you might have been able to write all that anti-democratic pathology off as one infecting only the Republican Party’s politicians and institutional leadership, but not its rank-and-file voters. But then this morning Fairleigh Dickinson University released this gun control-related pollshowing that authoritarianism runs throughout the the entire party.

Take a look at the cross-tabs on page 3 of the national survey (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/).

That’s right, you are reading it correctly: Almost half (44 percent) of all self-described Republican voters say they believe “an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties.”

Just as bad, more Republicans believe an armed revolution might be necessary than believe one isn’t necessary.

This poll raises two obvious questions, each more disturbing than the next.

The first question is about gun control and gun ownership, and more specifically, what the latter is all about.

Typically, GOP leaders say that their opposition to minimal gun regulations has nothing to do with helping arm those who want to commit acts of violence, and everything to do with wanting to make sure people can defend themselves. Based on the poll, of course, it is certainly likely that many are buying such weapons in an effort to defend themselves, both for day-to-day life and in the event of a sudden armed revolution. But here’s the scary part: How many are buying weapons to arm themselves in order to foment an armed revolution? Maybe none, but maybe a lot. I don’t have an answer, but this poll suggests the question should at least be aired.

The other question is about republican democracy: Can it survive in an age when almost one-half of one of the major parties seems to support the concept of violently thwarting it?

“Politics is war by other means”: That aphorism sums up the democratic theory undergirding the American idea for two centuries. Though we haven’t always lived up to that ideal, it is a pretty simple one: A civilized society should solve disputes through a democratic process and democratic institutions, rather than through the barrel of a gun. And while our democracy has been corrupted by Big Money, it still functions better than autocracy. In that sense, Churchill had it right when he said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Incredibly, though, almost half of Republicans don’t seem to necessarily see it that way. According to the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, 44 percent of rank-and-file Republicans seem to believe that because they aren’t getting their way through the ballot box, bloodshed may be justified to impose their will on everyone else. Think of it as sore loser-ism juiced by violence.

Of course, GOP apologists will say that the poll just asked specifically about armed revolution “to protect liberties,” the idea being that almost half of Republican voters don’t support using violence to advance their own political agenda, they only support it in the face of a future dystopian nightmare whereby the population is terrorized by police-administered drone bombings and Waco-esque invasions of private homes.

But that’s the thing: We can’t be so sure that’s really true when conservative media voices and politicians are using the broad and incendiary language they now regularly employ. Today, those voices often claim that almost everything in the Democratic/liberal agenda — from Obamacare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/ron-johnson-obamacare_n_2567993.html) to taxes (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/13/obamas-tax-freedom-day-was-march-5-the-average-americans-isnt-until-april-18/) to environmental regulations to contraception policy (http://www.teapartyexpress.org/3421/obama-birth-control-mandate-takes-assault-on-constitution-religious-liberty-to-new-heights) — is an assault on “liberty.”

That means the poll might indicate something much more significant than understandable opposition to Big Brother turning our country into Oceania. It might show us that all the vitriolic language employed by the right is undermining the most basic nonviolent democratic ideals that are supposed to define America.


http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/rise_of_the_conservative_revolutionaries/




"44 percent of rank-and-file Republicans seem to believe that because they aren’t getting their way through the ballot box, bloodshed may be justified to impose their will on everyone else. Think of it as sore loser-ism juiced by violence."

lol salon fail. The survey/poll says no such thing.

lol question phrasing. "In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties." WTF? This poll is a joke.

[Halberto]

boutons, do something productive with your life

[boutons_deux]

page 3

"Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents."

freedom!

liberty!

water the tree!

marans!

:lol tea baggers and Repugs are totally fucking crazy.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol moonbot.

Its a ridiculous poll. But, it says what you want it to.....

[Winehole23]

:lol tea baggers and Repugs are totally fucking crazy.Unfortunately for us, you give them more oxygen in this forum than any other poster. Maybe even all of em put together.

You should reflect on that.

[Winehole23]

Not to worry, boutons_deux, once a Republican is voted in as President, they'll become Tories instantly. Same thing just happened to the Dems.

[Winehole23]

Hell, the Republicans might even improve Obamacare . . .

[boutons_deux]

Unfortunately for us, you give them more oxygen in this forum than any other poster. Maybe even all of em put together.

You should reflect on that.

you non-oxygenators have your heads up your asses. Reflect on that.

Name one policy or law or regulation the Repugs have done FOR THE COUNTRY since 2001. And now they've been pulled into blind extremism by the fucking weirdo "Christian" supremacists and red-state Confederate Repugs,

and then list all the shit like Ryan's budgets, they have voted for.

All the stuff we all bitch about, like financial reform, gun b/g checks, that Repugs have blocked or gutted.

[boutons_deux]

lol moonbot.

Its a ridiculous poll. But, it says what you want it to.....

the question about armed revolution, marans!, was straightforward, the responses, too. You're the typical right-wing fantasist, if you don't like the facts, you deny them and make up your own facts.

[TeyshaBlue]

the question about armed revolution, marans!, was straightforward, the responses, too. You're the typical right-wing fantasist, if you don't like the facts, you deny them and make up your own facts.

No, it was ridiculously construed. Weighting it with a time-frame qualifier instantly renders any context-free conclusion meaningless. It's obvious you know nothing of survey/polling methodology. You're the typical left-wing fantasist. If you don't understand the underlying facts, you just ignore them and make up your own facts.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol WH shitting all over the bot.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol What's wrong with the survey and Repug revolutionary marans' answers, other than you not liking it?

[Th'Pusher]

TB :lol What's wrong with the survey and Repug revolutionary marans' answers, other than you not liking it?
I'd like to know the answer to this as well. How does adding 'in the next few years' as a qualifier render the result useles? Too vague?

[TeyshaBlue]

It weights the results with an implied time frame. Lots of issues seem relevant in the context of immediacy. This is a known fact among pollsters and, less often, statisticians. If the Pew Research group built this poll, it would have no such qualifications unless the poll was built specifically to explore the likelihood of armed insurrection. Even then, I doubt that Pew would weight a question like that.
If it were an open question, free of qualifiers, the data would likely be quite different.

[TeyshaBlue]

Somebody translate this to bot-speak for boutons.

[TeyshaBlue]

Go to the bottom this post to see a good example of this polling methodology in action.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161521&p=4604309&viewfull=1#post4604309


"The leading statement: "A full 14 percent of Republicans said that it was "definitely true" that Obama sympathized with the fundamentalists and wanted to impose Islamic law across the globe. An additional 38 percent said that it was probably true -- bringing the total percentage of believers to 52 percent. Only 33 percent of Republicans said that the "allegation" (as Newsweek put it) was "probably not true." Seven percent said it was "definitely not true." The rest (eight percent) either didn't know the answer or didn't read the question." is equally disingenuous.
Here's the answer they didn't show:

36 Probably not true Rep33%, Dem 37%, Ind. 37%

The question is also very poorly composed.
Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations? Do you think they are…

Some people? Allegations? These are they types of descriptors that prompt particular behaviors. Some people is a soft target. We all agree with some people some of the time. Allegations often invokes images of legal system and legal structures...much different than "Rumors".

Suppose the descriptor "Some people" was left off and allegations are removed from the question and the question is simply stripped down to: Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world.
What do you suspect the answers would look like then? Probaly very similar to the Pew Institutes poll conducted in July.
http://people-press.org/report/645/

Here's the poll...read for yourself.
http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1004-ftop.pdf


Contrast the way the questions are asked in both polls. Notice that Pew's are clean and concise, with no open ended descriptors like "Some People" nor ID labels like "Allegations". Also notice that the results overall of the Pew and the Princeton don't exacltly jive.

Wonder why that is."

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/daily_gifdump_20_zps7fc9ad5e.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/daily_gifdump_20_zps7fc9ad5e.gif.html)

[Th'Pusher]

Very good. Thanks.

[TeyshaBlue]

Very good. Thanks.
:toast

[RandomGuy]

But that’s the thing: We can’t be so sure that’s really true when conservative media voices and politicians are using the broad and incendiary language they now regularly employ. Today, those voices often claim that almost everything in the Democratic/liberal agenda — from Obamacare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/ron-johnson-obamacare_n_2567993.html) to taxes (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/13/obamas-tax-freedom-day-was-march-5-the-average-americans-isnt-until-april-18/) to environmental regulations to contraception policy (http://www.teapartyexpress.org/3421/obama-birth-control-mandate-takes-assault-on-constitution-religious-liberty-to-new-heights) — is an assault on “liberty."


I have begun to wonder about how the right wing in this country are self-radicalizing, especially given the recent Boston bombings, i.e. lone, alienated people who do this.

Start with a violent subculture, introducea mythology of oppression, and reinforce that continuously, until someone decides to act.

What worries me most is the "god is on our side" part, in which you start rationalizing all manner of evil things in furtherance of your cause.

[boutons_deux]

Go to the bottom this post to see a good example of this polling methodology in action.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161521&p=4604309&viewfull=1#post4604309


"The leading statement: "A full 14 percent of Republicans said that it was "definitely true" that Obama sympathized with the fundamentalists and wanted to impose Islamic law across the globe. An additional 38 percent said that it was probably true -- bringing the total percentage of believers to 52 percent. Only 33 percent of Republicans said that the "allegation" (as Newsweek put it) was "probably not true." Seven percent said it was "definitely not true." The rest (eight percent) either didn't know the answer or didn't read the question." is equally disingenuous.
Here's the answer they didn't show:

36 Probably not true Rep33%, Dem 37%, Ind. 37%

The question is also very poorly composed.
Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations? Do you think they are…

Some people? Allegations? These are they types of descriptors that prompt particular behaviors. Some people is a soft target. We all agree with some people some of the time. Allegations often invokes images of legal system and legal structures...much different than "Rumors".

Suppose the descriptor "Some people" was left off and allegations are removed from the question and the question is simply stripped down to: Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world.
What do you suspect the answers would look like then? Probaly very similar to the Pew Institutes poll conducted in July.
http://people-press.org/report/645/

Here's the poll...read for yourself.
http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1004-ftop.pdf


Contrast the way the questions are asked in both polls. Notice that Pew's are clean and concise, with no open ended descriptors like "Some People" nor ID labels like "Allegations". Also notice that the results overall of the Pew and the Princeton don't exacltly jive.

Wonder why that is."

so your nitpicking totally negates that your extremist, secessionist, nullificationist, armed revolutionary gun-fellating fellow travellers don't exist, don't hold the "we need armed revolution to defend our liberty" position? GFY

[TeyshaBlue]

so your nitpicking totally negates that your extremist, secessionist, nullificationist, armed revolutionary gun-fellating fellow travellers don't exist, don't hold the "we need armed revolution to defend our liberty" position? GFY

No, my factual analysis of your "poll" renders it useless, like most of your thinkprogressbabble.

[TeyshaBlue]

Knowledge of polling methodology = nitpicking.:lmao

All that book learnin' aint no use, boy!http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

I have begun to wonder about how the right wing in this country are self-radicalizing, especially given the recent Boston bombings, i.e. lone, alienated people who do this.

Start with a violent subculture, introducea mythology of oppression, and reinforce that continuously, until someone decides to act.

What worries me most is the "god is on our side" part, in which you start rationalizing all manner of evil things in furtherance of your cause.

smh

[Winehole23]

in Canada, otoh: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/01/john-ivison-grim-report-warns-canada-vulnerable-to-an-aboriginal-insurrection/

[TeyshaBlue]

RG and boutons will be all over this Canadian, Red-State-Right Wing self-radicalization of back bacon fellators!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the militia movement seems to be gaining steam but its hardly the 1990's.

[TeyshaBlue]

Bacon Fellation. Next album title fer sure.

[TeyshaBlue]

the militia movement seems to be gaining steam but its hardly the 1990's.

Waxes and wanes. You're right...doesn't hold a candle to the 90's.

[RandomGuy]

smh

I don't think you have been listening to the histrionics on the right in the last few years. The record sales of guns and ammunition speaks volumes. You yourself saw the information bubble that many people on the right have shielded themselves in. It is not dissimilar to that of the conspiranuts who seem incapable of looking outside that bubble.

I toodle around the internet and am amazed at the kinds of websites out there that push this stuff, they are myriad and many of them are taking on an increasingly hyterical tone, and the right-wing media are feeding that.

It is a toxic soup that should be worrying anyone.

[RandomGuy]

Waxes and wanes. You're right...doesn't hold a candle to the 90's.


I beg to differ. As I said in my previous post, I have noticed a very decided uptick in such activity in the last few years. I make it a point to see what is being said by a variety of viewpionts, and it is very obvious to me. My experience appears to be borne out by others research.

--------------------------------
08/2009
The Second Wave: Return of the Militias
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/splc-report-return-of-the-militias

Radical-right wing groups reach all time high
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/radical_right_wing_groups_reach_all_time_high/


While the more mainstream anti-government Tea Party movement faded from view as the GOP co-opted it in the past few years, the action has moved to the fringes, where the number of radical right-wing Patriot groups reached an all time high in 2012, according to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. What’s more, it’s the fourth year in a row that the record has been broken.

Conspiracy-minded Patriot groups first entered the public consciousness in the 1990s with the rise of the militia movement, and then the Oklahoma City bombing. Now, the SPLC is warning government officials that they see eerie similarities between the current era and that leading up to the bombing.

“As in the period before the Oklahoma City bombing, we now are seeing ominous threats from those who believe that the government is poised to take their guns,” the group’s president, Richard Cohen, wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The number of Patriot groups peaked after the bombing in 1996 at 858, before falling off steeply and remaining low under George W. Bush. However, since the election of Barack Obama, the number of groups tracked by the SPLC has skyrocketed and continued to climb.

Last year, the SPLC found 1,360 Patriot groups in the country — up more than 500 over the ’96 peak — including 321 militia groups.

http://media.salon.com/2013/03/militiagraph.jpg

Meanwhile, the number of hate groups the group tracks — which includes some arguably mainstream conservative groups like the Family Research Council, in addition to more radical groups like white supremacists — remained over 1,000.

The SPLC blames the resurgence on the down economy (hate and radicalism always tick up when things seem desperate), along with the election and reelection of Barack Obama, a push on gun control, and racial tensions over immigration and the declining power of white America.

“Another factor driving the expansion of the radical right over the last decade or so has been the mainstreaming of formerly marginal conspiracy theories,” notes senior fellow Mark Potock. Indeed, one needs only watch Fox News for an hour or read a Dick Morris column to see that. And conspiracy theorizing seems to have reached new heights recently.

The big fear is that some of this will lead to violence — or rather, more violence. The incidents are too often ignored or viewed as isolated from each other, but there has been much more right-wing terrorism than most people probably realize, from the Sikh Temple shooting, the Holocaust Memorial shooting, the Pittsburgh police shootings, of any of the dozens of attacks on law enforcement officers.

But the people in the federal government responsible for stopping it are poorly equipped to deal with the threat. In part, that’s because Republican lawmakers, stoked by the Tea Party, neutered a Department of Homeland Security task force that was supposed to track homegrown radical groups. After a conservative uproar over a leaked report that warned about the rise of right-wing radical groups in the wake of Obama’s election, DHS relented. It repudiated the paper and dissolved the group responsible for it.

“DHS is scoffing at the mission of doing domestic counterterrorism, as is Congress,” Daryl Johnson, the man who led that task force, told Wired last year. “There’ve been no hearings about the rising white supremacist threat, but there’s been a long list of attacks over the last few years. But they still hold hearings about Muslim extremism. It’s out of balance.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2013/spring

[RandomGuy]

the militia movement seems to be gaining steam but its hardly the 1990's.

No. It is worse, and arguably so.

[boutons_deux]

Obama gun control agenda helps fuel 'explosive' rise in extremist groups


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/obama-gun-control-extremist-groups


The Second Wave: Return of the Militias

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/splc-report-return-of-the-militias#.UYfQLqKPPDM

dickless gun fellators, "kill the n!gg@s and Jews and Messcans" super patriots, "sovereign" assholes, etc, etc

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think you have been listening to the histrionics on the right in the last few years. The record sales of guns and ammunition speaks volumes. You yourself saw the information bubble that many people on the right have shielded themselves in. It is not dissimilar to that of the conspiranuts who seem incapable of looking outside that bubble.

I toodle around the internet and am amazed at the kinds of websites out there that push this stuff, they are myriad and many of them are taking on an increasingly hyterical tone, and the right-wing media are feeding that.

It is a toxic soup that should be worrying anyone.

Fringe. Look it up.

And you are correct. I don't listen to the extremist nutbars on the far right.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Anyone who thinks the problems in this country will get solved by anything short of a violent revolt is delusional. The only way politicians will stop acting corrupt and/or people at the top stop corrupting politicians is if those people fear for their lives. Unfortunately, the 30% of this country that wants an armed revolt (aka the tea party mouth breathers) doesn't have the slightest fucking idea why there need to be an armed revolt. They support an armed revolt is because they can't stand the sight of a black guy boarding Air Force One while Glenn Beck/Alex Jones have them convinced President Django Unchained and his army of Kenyans are coming to take away their guns. If 30% of this country wanted an armed revolt because of income inequality, a corrupt tax code, collapsing infrastructure, etc., that would be a good thing. The problem is intelligent people who know the real problem in this country have too much too lose where they'd be stupid to start calling for an armed revolt.

[TeyshaBlue]

President Django!:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Waxes and wanes. You're right...doesn't hold a candle to the 90's.

note that it waxes with Dem Pres elections, esp n!ggas, and waned with dubya/dickhead. the militias only distrust and hate Dems, not Repugs, not govt in general.

[DarrinS]

Lol @ RandomGuy with data from SPLC.

[RandomGuy]

Fringe. Look it up.

And you are correct. I don't listen to the extremist nutbars on the far right.

The number of such groups has risen tenfold in the past 5 years.

When does the fringe stop being the fringe?

Don't be so quick to go into apologetic mode.

[RandomGuy]

Lol @ RandomGuy with data from SPLC.

LOL ad hominem.

LOL didn't read anything.

People like you make my case for me. You aren't a radical, but you forward the emails and are part of the problem.

You aren't a total nutbag, but you give the nutbags the kind of feedback they need to self-radicalize IMO.

(shrugs)

We'll see, I guess. You won't like to admit that the right wing terrorists are terrorists of course, but that won't make the police officers and victims any less dead.

[TeyshaBlue]

The number of such groups has risen tenfold in the past 5 years.

When does the fringe stop being the fringe?

Don't be so quick to go into apologetic mode.

lol apologetic mode.
Don't be so quick to go into apoplectic mode.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. It is worse, and arguably so.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2010/oklahoma_city/oklahoma_city_01.jpg

There is my counter-argument.

[RandomGuy]

lol apologetic mode.
Don't be so quick to go into apoplectic mode.

The question remains.

When does the fringe stop being the fringe?

At what point would there have to be enough violence for you to conclude there might be a problem? You don't seem to think that there is enough now, from what I can gather.

It is a serious question.

[DarrinS]

The question remains.

When does the fringe stop being the fringe?

At what point would there have to be enough violence for you to conclude there might be a problem? You don't seem to think that there is enough now, from what I can gather.

It is a serious question.



Not so much

[RandomGuy]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2010/oklahoma_city/oklahoma_city_01.jpg

There is my counter-argument.

Easily countered itself:

Sheer fatalities is an inadequate metric.

Since 9/11 we have become MUCH more aware of the problem, both from domestic terrorists and the muslim nutters.

The fact that the body count is less today owes less to the sheer nuttiness of the current political climate, and more to the vastly increased effectiveness of law enforcement in preventing such things, don't you agree?

[DarrinS]

RG is obsessed with right-wing extremists -- they're everywhere!!! :wow

[RandomGuy]

Not so much

Fuck off, unless you have more than three words to contribute. I wasn't really talking to you, but feel free to answer the question if you like.

If you don't accept that white male right wing terrorism is a problem, then what would it take for you to reach that conclusion?

[TeyshaBlue]

The question remains.

When does the fringe stop being the fringe?

At what point would there have to be enough violence for you to conclude there might be a problem? You don't seem to think that there is enough now, from what I can gather.

It is a serious question.

For such a serious question, it seems to be remarkably malformed.

It's a problem. Extremism, in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. But the subjective characteristics that make up or define extremism is fairly plastic. That's a problem.

[TeyshaBlue]

Easily countered itself:

Sheer fatalities is an inadequate metric.

Since 9/11 we have become MUCH more aware of the problem, both from domestic terrorists and the muslim nutters.

The fact that the body count is less today owes less to the sheer nuttiness of the current political climate, and more to the vastly increased effectiveness of law enforcement in preventing such things, don't you agree?

There needs to be some data points between sheer nuttiness and vastly increased effectiveness. I'm not seeing any to back up this correlative statement.

[TeyshaBlue]

For such a serious question, it seems to be remarkably malformed.

It's a problem. Extremism, in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. But the subjective characteristics that make up or define extremism is fairly plastic. That's a problem.

Also, was there ever a delineator between extremism and terrorism?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Easily countered itself:

Sheer fatalities is an inadequate metric.

Since 9/11 we have become MUCH more aware of the problem, both from domestic terrorists and the muslim nutters.

The fact that the body count is less today owes less to the sheer nuttiness of the current political climate, and more to the vastly increased effectiveness of law enforcement in preventing such things, don't you agree?

I neither agree nor disagree. 'Problem' and 'worse' are relative subjective terms. Militia groups are no longer carrying out large scale attacks. The guys here were making pipe bombs and had a collection of AK's. It's like asking whether or not Arabin Muslim terrorism is more of a problem today that it was 12 years ago. International intelligence and counter terrorism is also better now but I could argue that after bombing the region for the past 12 years has 'radicalized' a lot of jihadist types.

In the above, i has more to do with the scope of what they did. When it comes down to it, your case as to it being worse now is anecdotal as well. We're not even comparing the number of newspaper headlines. We're just doing the "yes, there are," "no there isn't."

Now one thing I will say is there are many more of the 'common man' that spout off about "we need a revolution by armed insurrection" but I don't know that they have organized. I definitely see the potential for many more problems in the years to come. Our representative government is becoming less and less representative. When the social contract is breached, people tend to get mad.

[TeyshaBlue]

Does not conform to pre-existing, right-wing extremist narrative.

-10 yards + loss of down.

[boutons_deux]

the dickless white supremacists, sovereign assholes, Oath Keeprs, Promise Keepers, Dick Holders, right-wing extremists, tea bagger super patriot marans, NRA suckers are truly dickless, since they all talk real big and tough, but never do anything.

dicklessness personified. All Talk, No Walk.

after Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Philadelphia Black Panter MOVE bombing, they know they would "water the tree of liberty" only with their own blood and nobody else's.

[TeyshaBlue]

boutons is all about the dick.:lol

[RandomGuy]

For such a serious question, it seems to be remarkably malformed.

It's a problem. Extremism, in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. But the subjective characteristics that make up or define extremism is fairly plastic. That's a problem.

I would disagree. Extremism in and of itself *is* a problem. I find it hard to fathom a case where it would not be.

It seems to me that extremism of any kind tends to be either symptomatic or causal of the sort of thinking that leads to really irrational outcomes. Either way such thinking tends to be less and less associated with reality and truth, and therefore, harmful. Do you agree? Or can you think of a case where extremism isn't a problem?

[TeyshaBlue]

I would disagree. Extremism in and of itself *is* a problem. I find it hard to fathom a case where it would not be.

It seems to me that extremism of any kind tends to be either symptomatic or causal of the sort of thinking that leads to really irrational outcomes. Either way such thinking tends to be less and less associated with reality and truth, and therefore, harmful. Do you agree? Or can you think of a case where extremism isn't a problem?

Once again, it completely depends upon your definition of extremism. Off the top of my head tho, the American revolution seems to have worked out pretty well.

[RandomGuy]

I neither agree nor disagree. 'Problem' and 'worse' are relative subjective terms. Militia groups are no longer carrying out large scale attacks.


Such things take time to develop. The recent upswing in activity strongly suggests more attacks and plots will be in the offing in the coming years, as the groups coalesce and start to self-rationalize their violent behavior.

While only a vanishingly small portion will ever do anything or even talk about doing something violent, the sheer numbers of people means that the odds are increasing. i.e. if only 1 in a 100,000 go so far, the number of people that might do something is expoentially higher when you are talking about drawing from 10,000,000M people versus 100,000.

[boutons_deux]

"define extremism is fairly plastic"

like pornography, I know extremism when I see it, most moderate people can. right-wing extremism IS A PROBLEM, MUCH than Muslim extremism.

[TeyshaBlue]

And I think your narrative that extremism leads to irrational outcomes, the implication of which is the exclusive outcome, is disingenuous at best or a product of your particular biases at worst.

[TeyshaBlue]

"define extremism is fairly plastic"

like pornography, I know extremism when I see it, most moderate people can. right-wing extremism IS A PROBLEM, MUCH than Muslim extremism.

lol comprehension fail.

Nobody is saying it's not a problem. The magnitude is a product of completely subjective criteria.

[TeyshaBlue]

There needs to be some data points between sheer nuttiness and vastly increased effectiveness. I'm not seeing any to back up this correlative statement.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol comprehension fail.

Nobody is saying it's not a problem. The magnitude is a product of completely subjective criteria.

The idiotic poll in the OP is a good illustrator of this.

[RandomGuy]

There needs to be some data points between sheer nuttiness and vastly increased effectiveness. I'm not seeing any to back up this correlative statement.

Violence by far right is among US’s most dangerous terrorist threats, study finds
This article is more than 4 months old
Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis of domestic terrorist incidents found majority have come from far right

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/27/us-far-right-violence-terrorist-threat-analysis

[RandomGuy]

There needs to be some data points between sheer nuttiness and vastly increased effectiveness. I'm not seeing any to back up this correlative statement.

A new database of domestic terror incidents shows attacks by far-right extremists have become far more lethal since Donald Trump became president.

Domestic Terror in the Age of Trump
https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/07/09/domestic-terror-in-the-age-of-trump/

.. and there we go.