https://www.google.com/search?q=fiery+but+mostly+peaceful
There's a palatable element of partisanship distorting the presentation of these issues. Instead of looking for equivalence or ranking which side is worse, perhaps we should blanketly condemn political violence.
You can see how this destroys anything that you're about to say, right?
To try to engage with your point: there's a difference between a demonstration (BLM) and bombing a church (far right). There's a difference between riots (BLM) and mass murder at a synagogue (far right). There's a difference between organising a march (BLM) and driving cars into protestors at that march (far right).
Stop trying to draw equivalence between these things. They are not the same.
> There's a palatable element of partisanship
The FBI isn't a partisan organisation and they're very clear: the current domestic threats are from the far right and islamic extremism.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/26/580677742/the-massive-case-of...
From NPR (2018), widely regarded as having a left slant, "The Massive Case Of Collective Amnesia: The FBI Has Been Political From The Start"
You posting that NPR link is incoherent. For that to make any sense you'd have to be claiming that, during the Trump administration, the FBI was deceptively hiding terrorism by the left and by islamicists and pushing excessive focus on the right.
>You posting that NPR link is incoherent
From where I stand your entire reply is incoherent and inflammatory. You accuse me of seeking equivalence before citing the most inflammatory examples of political violence by one side. This despite the fact that I explicitly suggest that equivalence or ranking isn't interesting to me.
Historical context of the FBI's evolving political agendas may help to illustrate that we may in fact be inside of a bias bubble. Especially if you are asserting that the FBI is apolitical. The mainstream presses' presentation of political violence last summer may also be instructive.
At the end of the day, I'm not sure why it is important which flavor is more terrorist-y. It seems like an irrelevant partisan distinction. I'd like to avoid that debate, thanks.
1) Given that those succumbing to group think and confirmation bias are generally unaware of their biases, how would we know that we are not experiencing something similar now?
2) What are the implications for civil liberties, if the state targets political opponents of the current administration?
3) Could these issues be resolved targeting political violence generally, instead of making partisan pleas and accusations?
4) If political extremism & intolerance are issues driven by the contentious political environment, are these partisan blame games contributing to the climate of toxic political divisiveness or helping to resolve it?
Could 'these issues be resolved targeting political violence generally, instead of making partisan pleas and accusations'? No -- in factual reality world, there is an ideology which is responsible for the problem, and so it seems sensible to focus on that ideology. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/white-supremac...
"are these partisan blame games contributing to the climate of toxic political divisiveness"? I'll tell you what's contributing to the climate of toxic political divisiveness -- overwhelmingly, the right wing, its conspiracy theorists, and their enablers; see, for example, qanon/8chan, the count of trump's lies while in office. These are radical outliers. Let's worry about that before we start worrying about the impact of us complaining about that.
>You can see how this destroys anything that you're about to say, right?
Not so much, unless you would like to dispute that riots count as violence. Or that terrorism is politically motivated violence. :)