There is no comparison between left radicalizsrion (rather small) and right radicalization (massive).
Especially at the part level where radical right rules Republicans and have their support while democrats are centrists and
Especially at the part level where radical right rules Republicans and have their support while democrats are centrists and
Oh no, you're totally right on that one there. The numbers of people going to those extremes are definitely far far higher on "the right" for sure. I just find it a bit "scary" that radicalization and extremism on either side is becoming so normal instead of a massive push-back against it. It's absolutely dangerous that society is coming to accept and support the sorts of extremism that they have in recent years / decades. This is not gonna play out well for humanity. :(
And what double annoys me that any centrist or leftist who correctly described what right wants and plans ended up labeled extreme left and dismissed. Except they were all right it turned out. I mean, I used to dismiss them too, but eventually figured the situation few years ago.
Cultivate in-group bias so that any dissenting opinion are from people not in the know or who can’t be trusted.
Works every time.
Yet only one side is literally dismantling the country, department by department, and selling off chunks to the richest man in the world.
The richest man in the world, who keeps appearing next to the president in interviews besides not being elected by anyone for anything.
Then some centrist turns up to say that maybe annoying shitposters are the real threat, while the US sells out its European allies and dismantles its nuclear safety and pandemic infrastructure.
in my perspective, I can see DEI-right and MEGA-right
it looks like:
left ------------------------------------------------------ right
commies------------------------------DEI---------------MEGA
---i'm here-------------------------you're here(I guess)--
DEI looks just fine to you, but to those who're 'right' enough, DEI is extreme left, commies are too far to see
A one-dimensional political coordinate cannot accurately describe this situation, we need a compass
As I think you've noted previously, there's a lot of guns in the USA.
Luigi was one of four recent, last 12 months, people in the news whom I would count as… well, I'm not sure "left" is the right word, but more generically not-the-Right Americans with guns who I would categorise as an "extremist".
(The other three being Matthew Alan Livelsberger (even if he only shot himself, given he also blew up the car he was in), Ryan Routh (golf course), and Thomas Matthew Crooks (ear)).
Like you, I find it remarkable how the US has managed to combine the 2nd amendment and lots of school shootings with relatively little political violence. Like, why are their politicians more sacrosanct than their own kids? Why is the 2nd amendment sacrosanct even to politicians who get the dangerous end pointed at them?
> Why is the 2nd amendment sacrosanct even to politicians who get the dangerous end pointed at them?
Sounds like a zinger, but isn’t really.
Why not?
From the outside, trust me: we have no idea why you're like this.
Every time gun controls come up, the American people's reaction, visible worldwide, is "No! Guns keep us safe from governments gone rogue!" — so why are politicians not scared of them even when actually fired upon?
It really, genuinely, sincerely, makes no sense. Do your politicians think the secret service is magical pixie dust? Or are you all just so numb to the ongoing threat of it that you treat it as an unavoidable part of nature? (As per Onion headline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...)
> School shootings are usually committed by children… children have little access to politicians and little interest in politics.
I think you've misunderstood the point. Why do the people of the USA support the existence of the 2nd amendment over the lives of their kids? Just that, by itself, is already weird.
The USA is a country happy to let kids shoot each other as a price worth paying for… the constitutional right to threaten politicians? Who then act as if they don't feel threatened? I'm not even sure if that's better or worse than them being terrified by the guns, but it's just so alien a culture.
I mean, where I grew up, the regular placement of political figures in crosshairs in political adverts is already at the level of "WTF!", and yet in the USA it seems to not bat eyelids any more. Even the people whose faces are put in the crosshairs (both of targets and actual live fire) don't seem to object.
It makes no sense.
> Every time gun controls come up, the American people's reaction, visible worldwide, is "No! Guns keep us safe from governments gone rogue!" — so why are politicians not scared of them even when actually fired upon?
Because the gun-loving populace is mostly on the right and they never actually do anything. Despite what you'll see claimed online, almost all of that kind of crazy comes from the gun-hating left.
But when the left discovers a love of guns, that's when you get things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
Edit: Removed distraction from my main point
besides try to assassinate the predsident twice. And yes, if your kid gets into your gun, I'd say you're responsible. So many of those school shooter gun owners were right wing.
That's not even mentioning the entire police force leans right to begin with. That's a lot of people with a lot of reckless control because they know they can't be fired easily.
I'm not really sure what Luigi's personal views are, but it's my impression that Luigi was (is) celebrated among both left-wing and right-wing people (including MAGA).
Livelsberger's uncle said "He loved Trump, and he was always a very, very patriotic soldier, a patriotic American." He was also very dissatisfied with the government but I don't see strong indications that he was criticizing from the left.
Crooks donated once to ActBlue. He was also a registered Republican and the FBI deputy director described his social media activity as anti-semitic and anti-immigration. Again, case seems open.
Routh is certainly reasonable to classify as a leftist.
> well, I'm not sure "left" is the right word, but more generically not-the-Right Americans with guns who I would categorise as an "extremist".
Despite who and what they targetted.
For a mere protest-based example of oppositon: an ex of mine is an actual literal communist, so way to the left of the Dems in a lot of regards, and yet was still so anti-Dem as to promote Trump the first time around.
The "anti" part seems more relevant than the "pro", when the question is violence.
But perhaps that's just me.