I don't think the reason why the neither the left nor the right is cracking down on their extremists is because the other side isn't doing it. I think both sides refuse to seriously take stock of themselves and acknowledge that they have problems with violent extremism (in most cases because, it doesn't only appear to be a fringe phenomenon. It is one). So for both Republicans and Democrats, it's easy to play the extremism off as if the other side is making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. But I don't think that it's really parallel. On the left, it does seem that college students and campus politics play a disproportionate role in antifa and other violent extremism, which, I think, makes make on the left feel as if it's really unimportant, and that the right is wasting a lot of hot air verbally attacking kids. But it's a little different on the right, because, unlike on the left, extremism has clearly entered into electoral politics on the Republican side. And it's not just because of Trump. Go back to Republican primaries in the 2012 election and you'll see Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum doing more than their fair share of dog whistling. The populist (and xenophobic, racist and antisemitic) segment makes up the largest single voting block of the Republican coalition. So Republicans have to pander to them.

I'm not too quick to say that even those racists to whom the Republican party panders are "extremists". Someone who has retrogressive views about immigration and whatever minority groups is very different from someone who trains in an armed militia and waves a swastika flag. But Republicans have broken with norms of decency that existed for most of the second half of the 20th century (at least), even in the Republican party.

Another thing about it: something that's crucial (and flawed) about the left's rhetoric right these days is that it always claims to do things out of a "defensive" posture. It's as if the right has all the agency, and the left merely responds (just look at the names: #Resistance, or, obviously, antifa). It's where much of the left gets its moral power. For that reason, I think many on the left are also unwilling to entertain the idea that violent left groups are bad. For many, the violent leftist groups are reducible to the counter-protesters. They're seen as people who are merely responding to the aggressive violence of the far right, rather than people who are engaged in hateful or destructive acts themselves.

Whoops, only just saw this post:



I think the left is to blame here. Although what exactly are they responsible for? I'm not so sure. Regardless: "White supremacist" isn't only a descriptive term. It's also a term of moral censure. If someone is a white supremacist, the things they do to earn the title should be maximally condemned, and it is the rare exception of something that is intolerable in a society that is defined by being tolerant and open.

It's true that there's a distinction between "hard white supremacy" and "subtler systemic issues", as you say. But by using the same term for both things, the left is bringing the same moral invective, alarmism and condemnation to a problem that requires a much subtler solution. That's a problem. I think it does have an impact on the right (here the fact that the left's self-understanding as taking on an exclusively defensive posture by standing up for oppressed minorities plays a role, because it makes it impossible for it to see its own antagonism), but I don't want to get into it any more because that'd take us into a conversation about white privilege... and, why go there? and we've probably had it before anyway.

Nailed it.

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising

No matter how you feel about antifa, right-wing extremism is far more egregious, violent, deadly and pernicious. And it's invading the government. Stay away from the false equivocations because it's Tucker Carlson horse****, and I mean that very seriously.

I have been mostly ignoring Trump but heard something about our man T-Rex. What's going on?

Earlier Eversor you tried to downplay his extremism because he spoke to Democrats about DACA. Well:



Turns out he was just trying to Trojan horse his stupid-ass wall and more anti-immigration stuff.

America will be in a war before the end of the Trump presidency. Nothing else makes sense as an outcome of this guy's actions.

You didn't read what i wrote but ok.

I know, I don't really have a comment on what you said specifically.

Like, I agree that antifa shouldn't be violent, it's bad for PR. But overall the right is not justified in treating the groups as equal. I'm not sure if you have a point but it sounds like you're trying to prove antifa and the far right are similar.

Antifa's probably hated more since they damage private property instead of murdering civilians tbh.

So, going back to President Dumbass, he once said the border wall should be invisible so people don't get killed by giant sacks of drugs. This is a thought from a broken brain.

My dumbass forensics attempt leads me to believe someone on his project team said "the project needs transparency" and this is what came out of his brain.

Read it aloud. It sounds insane.

My point is that both the left and the right have extremes, and the way that moderates on the left and the right relate to the extremes on their respective side is similar (neither wants to take responsibility or be accountable for their side's extremism, or acknowledge that their side's extremism is a problem). But while there are parallels, there are also asymmetries as well. Here's how I described the asymmetries:



So, in short: the big difference between extremism on the left and on the right is that the right's extremism has entered into electoral politics in a way that it hasn't on the left (although we should be careful what we mean when we're talking about "extremism" when we say that).



Lol, well that's awfully cynical.

It strikes me that your view here is pretty similar to Sam Harris' in the Chomsky-Harris debate. You think the intentions of right-wingers makes their violence morally worse than left-wing extremists. And furthermore that the intentions of the left-wingers justifies their violence morally (and that the only reason why violence is bad in their case is because it's "bad PR").

Don't forget that Rand Paul supporter who thought that stepping on a solitary, peaceful female protestor was the best way to ensure the rally went as smoothly as possible.



Sure, I don't think he really hurt her, but notice how he had to be told to stop... and at any rate, he seemed to be living out some kind of American History X fantasy of vigilante violence.

Maybe right wing violence comes from the gut, whereas left wing violence is premeditated in order to sow discord? (See Jon`C's case analysis.)

Saying "both sides have extremes" is the equivocation. Yes, both sides have extremes like bounded functions have supremums. It's obviously true. The problem is, phrasing it like that makes the sides seem closer than they are. I mostly agree with you here I'm just really not a fan of that phrasing.

I'm saying the violence of right wingers is worse because it literally is.

As in, there is worse and more severe violence coming from the right than from the left.

Go on?

But they do. Who shot Scalise?

You're not coming through. You just tried to elaborate on what "literally worse" means by saying it's "worse" and then using a synonym for worse.

You're correct, there was a murder committed by someone on the left. Now go tally up right-wing murders.

TIL that this isn't deplorable because it's more than offset (numerically by the number murdered) by this.

"It's bad, but not as bad."

You can participate in good faith or not, up to you.

I am arguing in good faith, but I'm being sarcastic in order to make a point. I think that tallying up the number of victims of left-wing violence and the number of victims of right-wing violence, and concluding that that right-wing violence is "worse" because there are more victims of right-wing violence, and therefore that the left isn't accountable for its extremists in the same way the right is, is an incredibly shallow and flippant argument.

You're the one's weaseling out of the moral implications of your own position.

You can provide another explanation of what you mean by "worse" if you're so repelled by the implications of the one you already gave.

You really do only ever bring up morals when it suits your end, and even then you abuse the discourse.

Mhmm. Another ad hominem instead of continuing the discussion. Go figure.

Ignoring **** like the war on drugs, prisons and prison sentencing, and who's most likely to be policed and prejudiced against, even then right-wing terrorism and attacks are greater in number than left-wing.

That's an ispo propter hoc ergo discuum fallacy! Fallacy fallacy! *fixes nerdy lenses*

Hahah and now you're trying to troll me.

Do you want to resume this discussion or not?

Trolling is different than making fun of you. I wrote that post for the sake of others reading the argument.

Discussions with you seem to amount to a bunch of pedantic nitpicking. You're free to pick apart anyone's claims, but you don't advance possible solutions to the ****ed-up political situation in America. It makes discussions irritating and unfun. I honestly don't know where you even land on the political spectrum, I think you're probably a moderate center-left liberal sort of person but it's hard to know. In any case I think it's pretty funny that you went on a nutty rant because I said bad things about Clinton, out of virtually all of your political opinions that one seems to be the one you got most passionate about.

Now, I know you've studied and thought about morality quite a bit, but isn't this kind of a high standard to hold people to? After all, reason is the slave of the passions, right? And is there a more passionate subject than morality?

I don't remember that "rant" as you called it, but it probably was actually more reasonable than you're making it out to be. But I voted for Clinton but I'm not a huge Clinton nut. Democrats didn't get the primaries we deserved, and our establishment inopportunely went with an establishment candidate in the midst of an anti-establishment moment. Clinton's shortcomings as a candidate should have reminded us of John Kerry's failed presidential bid (they had, I think, a lot in common temperamentally), her repeated gaffes should've reminded us of Romney's failed bid in 2012, and the excitement when there were rumors that other Democrats might enter the primaries (e.g., Biden) also should've been an indicator. The only reason why it seemed obvious that she would be president was because the Republicans were in shambles with Trump leading the primaries, and everyone thought it was impossible that Trump could win either the primaries or the presidency.

Not sure why "advancing solutions" is necessary for an equitable give-and-take. You know, I'm making arguments too. You can criticize them, if you'd like, instead of, you know, "making fun of [me]", as you put it.

I'm not always that interested in making arguments. Sometimes it's nice to just talk and not constantly contradict/be contradicted.

Pretty much the dream of every philosopher ever, good or bad, but alas...

So you want to vent to people who agree with you?