I think the idea that the "left is calling for violence" is extremely problematic, biggest reason being the left is not some kind of homogenous group.
It's the same for right wingers.
A lot of right wingers openly have fantasies about murdering Democrats/"Socialists"/etc, or protestors or whatever other group they feel has wronged them. There are right wingers talking about having a civil war, and even that just comes across as them wanting to have a cause to kill Democrats for.
But I don't hold that against all Republicans. That doesn't make sense to me. If a particular person has those ideals, i am going to call them out for it. But I am not going to hold it against "the entire right wing for not keeping their ranks in order".
There are some exceptions to that. I don't think anyone in their right mind would (call themselves/associate with) a Nazi today, unless they were **not** in disagreement with the violence that was inherent in Nazi politics.
But left wing politics is less of a political position and more of an entire span of different political positions. There are even some people that call themselves left wingers and yet they tend to agree quite a bit with right wingers.
Frankly I think there's a lot of nuance required.
- taking people as individuals, and not representative of an entire branch of politics.
- I might even argue that a lot of people aren't even where they think they are politically. There are a lot of left wingers who espouse right wing politics. There are a lot of right wingers who espouse left wing politics.
- separating the people from the politics they claim to be. The UK's labor party has been pushing more anti-trans politics, that doesn't mean "the left wing is transphobic too", but rather than the party has shifted.
- people can kind of be representative of politics. But not that people are the politics or vice versa, but that people can advance certain political positions or espouse certain political positions.
And frankly this is way too many words for my point.
