Lucca said:
But that's not what you said. You said that we shouldn't try "to paint either side as the more politically violent side". The right-wing is objectively the more politically violent side. That's not me trying to paint anything, that's just the data. By trying to appear balanced when the actual reality is not balanced, you're just catering to the right-wing. The right-wing is multiple times more politically violent than the left-wing, and instead of saying that "both sides are politically violent", the right-wing should be moving away from the inflammatory, genocidal, supremacist, paranoid, conspiratorial rhetoric that drives these acts of violence. But, of course, that doesn't give them any political capital. And it feels too late for that, anyway. |
I fucked up my wording in my original post and if you reply again saying that's not what I said in my original post I'm not going to respond because I am telling you that I FUCKED UP. I've even edited the post to what I meant. What I was really trying to say is that if you only detest poltical violence against one group you aren't against political violence, you're against attacks against your own side. I absolutely agree that the right wing should be less inflammatory, that they are demonstrablly more violent. However that history of violence doesn't hide the fact that acts of political violence occur against both sides, and you either detest all polticial violence or none.
Last edited by badskywalker - on 17 September 2025






