by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @01:28PM (#9869878)
How is it that the members of the most dovish American ideology when it comes to foreign policy always seem to be the ones for inciting violence against their domestic enemies? CrimeThinc (yes, I actually read the article) is just one of a long line stretching back to the Weatherman Underground and the SLA up to the Seattle WTO protestors smashing windows. Discounting lone nuts like Timothy McVee (and remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was universally condemned among conservatives), how is it that the half of America which owns guns is never the one calling for violence?
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @01:44PM (#9870004)
There are some anti-abortion groups (on the conservative end of the spectrum) which advocate violence, and also militia groups (some of which McVeigh had contact with) which also advocate violence. There have been numerous other right-wing groups in America which have used violence against their political enemies - in the sixties there were more than a couple anti-war protesters that got their heads bashed in with axe handles. Also don't forget the various Civil Rights workers in the south during the 50s/60s who were murdered by folks who were definitely on the right-wing end of the spectrum.
Lots of people had "contact" with militias, but McVeigh wasn't part of them - the (Michigan, I think?) militia rejected him as a member because they thought he was a loon. The dangerous military group that he _had_ been part of was the U.S. Army.
However, the KKK certainly were organized right-wing violence.
One of the differences is that left or right, the radical right is condemed, but the current left seems bent of justifying or at least excusing the violence of the radicl left.
There is no justification. Especially the "but, they did it too" phrase.
So, I looked over both of the sites you linked to. Would you mind showing me where they advocate the using violence? Everything I see says it's a last resort, the last stand against tyrany.
How is it that the members of the most dovish American ideology when it comes to foreign policy always seem to be the ones for inciting violence against their domestic enemies?
For the same reason that the radical right are always the ones who seem to be inciting violence against their domestic enemies. Tim McVee is hardly unique in his political stance and aspirations, nor have you cited anyone on the left that equals his level of destructiveness or intent (there are such people, but CrimeThinc is hardly of that caliber. He is not advocating mass murder).
The reality is that the so-called political spectrum is more of a sphere than a line. The extreme right and far left meet and become one and the same. Consider the similiarities of Stalin and Hitler, for example. Kids blowing up toilets to protest vietnam bear a striking similiarity to skinheads defacing jewish tombstones. Republican thugs terrorizing librarians and volunteers during the Florida recount bear a striking resemblence to communists in China enforcing campus-wide political correctness vis-a-vis the One True Party(tm) system.
Radicalism is radicalism, whether dressed in a Liberal Left or Reactionary Right attire, just as religious fundamentalism is religious fundamentalism irrespective of its Christian, Jewish, or Islamic trappings.
You have simply chosen to filter your perceptions through your own political dogma, as many people on both sides of the aisle often do. However, the reality is that folks of all radical stripes, in all political, religious, social, and philosophical directions, employ similiar methods to achieve their goals, those methods correlating much more strongly to their degree of radicalism and fanaticism than their particular social, political, religious, or philosophical bent.
If I had it to do over again, I would substitute zealotry for radicalism in the post above.
There are many people with radical notions (where radical = divergence from the society's mainstream assumptions) who are not at all fanatical and would never resort to violent means to achieve those changes (Richard Stallman is an example of someone who is radical and stubborn, but not zealous or fanatical in any real sense of the word... his detractor's rhetoric notwithstanding). Women's suffurage was at one time radical, but most of those persuing it were not fanatical and virtually everyone non-violent. This in contrast to those who fanatically defended the status quo and physically attacked and even murdered women for daring to insist on the same basic civil rights afforded the men of their day.
So, to recap: the reality is that folks of all fanatical stripes, in all political, religious, social, and philosophical directions, employ similiar methods to achieve their goals, those methods correlating much more strongly to their degree of zealotry and fanaticism than their political, social, relgiious, or phisophical bent, or their degree of divergence from the political "mainstream."
The reality is that the so-called political spectrum is more of a sphere than a line. The extreme right and far left meet and become one and the same.
This is extremely well said, and bears repeating. Extremists are always the ones most willing--even eager--to use violence to achieve their ends, no matter what those ends may be--and just because they're nominally "on your side" doesn't mean they merit support. Be it a nut blowing up an abortion clinic (I'm pro-life, and I still think they're nuts) or a
how is it that the half of America which owns guns is never the one calling for violence?
You don't consider war violent? I'm pretty
sure I know which group of Americans is in
favor of killing people. Oh, wait, I mean,
"Supporting our Troops" (TM) ClearChannel.
...killing civil rights demonstrators, blowing up black girls attending churches and like as right wing violence your stats are pretty good. Oh yeah, and shooting abortion doctors, bombing the Olympics, killing Jewish schoolchildren [cnn.com], attacking gays [cnn.com], the OKC bombing....
How is it that the members of the most dovish American ideology when it comes to foreign policy always seem to be the ones for inciting violence against their domestic enemies? CrimeThinc (yes, I actually read the article) is just one of a long line stretching back to the Weatherman Underground and the SLA up to the Seattle WTO protestors smashing windows. Discounting lone nuts like Timothy McVee (and remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was universally condemned among conservatives), how is it that the
CrimeThinc (yes, I actually read the article) is just one of a long line stretching back to the Weatherman Underground and the SLA up to the Seattle WTO protestors smashing windows.
Setting bombs and robbing banks is hardly the same as smashing windows (not that I approve of either).
Discounting lone nuts like Timothy McVee
McVeigh.
(and remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was universally condemned among conservatives)
"condemned" like when Ann Coulter said "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." ?
how is it that the half of America which owns guns is never the one calling for violence?
In my limited experience, the vast majority people who shoot other people tend to be in possession of guns at the time.
It seems you've never heard of (to only quote a few examples from the last 20 years, long after the Weather Underground and the SLA went out of business):
Sure, you can distance yourself from the violence of the right, and I applaud you for that. The fact remains that there IS violence on the right, some of it is fairly organized, and some of it (especially violence against abortion clinics) has more support on the right than the Weather Underground or the SLA ever had on the left (more people wish death upon abortion providers than upon the Fascist Insect That Preys Upon the Life of the People).
I can't believe I'm feeding this troll, but here goes. How can you equate what this crimethinc guy is advocating, which is the destruction/defacement of property with committing physical violence? Property damage and murder, while both wrong, are quite different crimes. Shooting someone in the face is not the same as smashing the windows at the McDonalds they own. The nuts on the left seem more inclined to advocate property damage while the nuts on the right seem more inclined to kill you.
Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:4, Interesting)
Crow T. Trollbot
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
By your view it's, "Hey, nobody's paying attention to me. It's ok to burn stuff."
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
I suggest, if you truly wanted to understand this, that you read Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?
And here's the introduction to it:
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/intro.pdf
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not as one sided as you make it out to be.
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:1)
After all, it was Al Gore's dad that led the fight against them in the senate.
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:1)
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
McVeigh and Militias and Right-Wing violence (Score:2)
However, the KKK certainly were organized right-wing violence.
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:5, Insightful)
You've never heard of militias, have you? Listen to some of the right-wing crud that they spew and you'll see how wrong your comment is.
Southern Michigan Regional Militia [michiganmilitia.org]
Militia of Montana [militiaofmontana.com]
Those are just two to get you started but feel free to do your own research.
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
There is no justification. Especially the "but, they did it too" phrase.
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2, Interesting)
Violence is both Leftist and Rightist (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason that the radical right are always the ones who seem to be inciting violence against their domestic enemies. Tim McVee is hardly unique in his political stance and aspirations, nor have you cited anyone on the left that equals his level of destructiveness or intent (there are such people, but CrimeThinc is hardly of that caliber. He is not advocating mass murder).
The reality is that the so-called political spectrum is more of a sphere than a line. The extreme right and far left meet and become one and the same. Consider the similiarities of Stalin and Hitler, for example. Kids blowing up toilets to protest vietnam bear a striking similiarity to skinheads defacing jewish tombstones. Republican thugs terrorizing librarians and volunteers during the Florida recount bear a striking resemblence to communists in China enforcing campus-wide political correctness vis-a-vis the One True Party(tm) system.
Radicalism is radicalism, whether dressed in a Liberal Left or Reactionary Right attire, just as religious fundamentalism is religious fundamentalism irrespective of its Christian, Jewish, or Islamic trappings.
You have simply chosen to filter your perceptions through your own political dogma, as many people on both sides of the aisle often do. However, the reality is that folks of all radical stripes, in all political, religious, social, and philosophical directions, employ similiar methods to achieve their goals, those methods correlating much more strongly to their degree of radicalism and fanaticism than their particular social, political, religious, or philosophical bent.
Re:Violence is both Leftist and Rightist (Score:1)
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE MOD UP PARENT? (Score:2)
Slight Correction in the interests of accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I apologize for the sloppy use of language.
If I had it to do over again, I would substitute zealotry for radicalism in the post above.
There are many people with radical notions (where radical = divergence from the society's mainstream assumptions) who are not at all fanatical and would never resort to violent means to achieve those changes (Richard Stallman is an example of someone who is radical and stubborn, but not zealous or fanatical in any real sense of the word
So, to recap: the reality is that folks of all fanatical stripes, in all political, religious, social, and philosophical directions, employ similiar methods to achieve their goals, those methods correlating much more strongly to their degree of zealotry and fanaticism than their political, social, relgiious, or phisophical bent, or their degree of divergence from the political "mainstream."
Re:Violence is both Leftist and Rightist (Score:2)
This is extremely well said, and bears repeating. Extremists are always the ones most willing--even eager--to use violence to achieve their ends, no matter what those ends may be--and just because they're nominally "on your side" doesn't mean they merit support. Be it a nut blowing up an abortion clinic (I'm pro-life, and I still think they're nuts) or a
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:1, Interesting)
You don't consider war violent? I'm pretty sure I know which group of Americans is in favor of killing people. Oh, wait, I mean, "Supporting our Troops" (TM) ClearChannel.
If you don't count... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the right wing is just *so* peaceful.
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
Another example of the need for a -1 Ignorant flag.
As opposed to, say....
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:1)
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting bombs and robbing banks is hardly the same as smashing windows (not that I approve of either).
Discounting lone nuts like Timothy McVee
McVeigh.
(and remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was universally condemned among conservatives)
"condemned" like when Ann Coulter said "My only regret with
Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." ?
how is it that the half of America which owns guns is never the one calling for violence?
In my limited experience, the vast majority people who shoot other people tend to be in possession of guns at the time.
It seems you've never heard of (to only quote a few examples from the last 20 years, long after the Weather Underground and the SLA went out of business):
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence (Score:2)
apples and oranges (Score:1, Interesting)