You weren't talking to me here, but this post implicitly addressed me (second paragraph) and also commented on a topic I haven't really voiced my opinion on very clearly as yet that maybe I should -- Antifa -- so I just wanted to respond:

Regarding Antifa: I've had my own run-ins with people calling themselves antifa on the social medias and on a certain level I actually agree with you: they're "just an idea" like Al Qaeda or ISIS was/is "just an idea". They're very real people and they're legitimately scary and dangerous. I really do think their whole "anti-fascism" hook is an exercise in projection because their entire purpose is to harass and attack (sometimes physically) really anyone who disagrees with their aggregate worldview in any way. I mean I know from first-hand experience that these people will gang up on you in huge numbers and collectively threaten your life over and over and over and over again, try and hack your web accounts, and will not leave you alone once they learn you hold one view they expansively define as "fascist". And you don't have to be a "Nazi" or even a Donald Trump supporter or a conservative at all for this to happen to you, you can be assured. Most of the antifa people call themselves anarchists in terms of their broader politics, but frankly they act more like the tyrants they claim to be fighting. I would denote in particular their fetish for Jacobin-inspired imagery, like their cutesy cardboard guillotines they often carry around. This is a serious psychological problem that much of the like "democratic socialist" left in this country has, in my observation. Like the Democratic Socialists of America, similarly, runs a newspaper called Jacobin. The main thing the historical Jacobins have been known for was publicly beheading their critics. ...Their's just something interesting implied there about the crux of what these people's goals are and it has nothing to do with making the world a better place or freer or more socialistic or whatever. There is something that's legitimately hateful about it.

These things said, it also isn't truly fair to suggest that antifa people, as they call themselves, are actually, literally analogous to like ISIS or to white supremacist organizations or others that have a body count because, at the end of the day, Antifa doesn't have a direct body count (...so far anyway). Like for example, a recent study of 893 terrorism incidents in the U.S. since 1994 found no murder that was specifically attributed to antifa people or other self-identified "anti-fascists" while, by contrast, 329 deaths were attributed directly to right wing perpetrators. These are also facts, to which end I don't know that "terrorist" is necessarily the right descriptor for Antifa. I'd characterize them more as simply political hate/crime network. They're also not "highly organized" like President Trump claimed in the debate. Antifa is decentralized network of anti-right activists. So I mean like when President Trump infamously compared the people protesting the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville to the "Jews..will not..replace us! Jews..will not..replace us!" people on the other side of that event who shot at people with live ammunition and of course conducted an ISIS-style car attack that killed Heather Heyer and injured more than a dozen other people, even if he were specifically and exclusively condeming the antifa activists on the counter-protest side and not anyone else there (like Heather Heyer!), the comparison still wasn't a truly fair one. It was still a false equivalency just objectively. To be clear, it's precisely because (unlike antifa people) I legitimately believe in freedom of speech that I'm against any terrorism designation that's not truly earned. Crimes should be punished, but people should be allowed to hold whatever opinions they want, in my view; even hateful ones. I don't believe in treating them the same way they would treat me. I'm better than they are.

All this said, I am human myself. To that end, it's fair to say that I legitimately hate Donald Trump. I have already said that I hope he dies from this covid infection and I maintain that position. That's NOT the same thing as saying that I hate you or conservatives in the abstract or just people who support President Trump in the abstract or wish harm on any of you. Your actions haven't killed anyone (to my knowledge)! And I mean, living where I do on the map, I know enough Donald Trump enthusiasts to know full-well that many Trump supporters really are well-intentioned in their own way and are by no means all a bunch of racists and whatnot. Like I'm not broad-brushing here. And yeah, I can understand why my aggressive way of condemning President Trump could be hurtful to you and other such well-meaning people who perhaps really just wish for America, or for their particular communities, to have more respect or at least acknowledgment as being of value in the world and not just forgotten or disrespected. I get that. But look...this president has the highest body count of any like almost in the whole history of this country to date, has utterly disrespected me as a woman as well my family and what it represents to me, and just caused me untold volumes of very real trauma ever since entering upon the political stage more than five years ago now, and I really, really don't think he's well-intentioned at all or has a soul or is even loyal to this country. He makes fun of people like my dad for dying! I reserve the right to be human and wish ill on such a person. I don't think that's unfair. I'm sorry if you feel indirectly hurt by that, but I really can't help seething with hate whenever I think about this man. I'm human! I ask simply that you allow me to be human instead of politically correct.

Calling Antifa terrorists is going a little overboard, as Trump does, yet no less worse than pretending like Antifa is just an idea. Aryan supremacy was also just an idea, and look at what it lead to. It's one thing if something is just an idea near conception. It's another if it's being put into violent practice, or used as cover for ill means. Antifa is tougher to properly label because they don't operate in a typical format. It makes it much easier to defend, whether that's by design or not. It doesn't however change the hate, chaos, violence, destruction, etc, caused because of it.

Well in terms of the numbers, it looks as though the accuracy is questionable. That's not to say they're false entirely. It does show left wing deaths which aren't zero, so if Antifa isn't considered terrorist then it should be considered left wing you would think. What exactly constitutes right wing for example, and at times, things that obviously don't seem right wing, are called right wing, can't help but make you wonder. Then there's the question about everything else besides direct deaths? Direct deaths are one thing, indirect are another, along with everything else. If a group burns down half a city, country wide in total, what does that equate to? That's not exactly easy to calculate and answer.

People need to be allowed to think freely and hold certain views, yes. It's how they put them into action if they decide to bring them into the public sphere. It's the reason why peaceful protests are legal, so as avoid hostile protests, for good reason. Just because you protest peacefully, doesn't mean you'll automatically get what you want either. Sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes not. All people can do, is offer their best, and hope for the best. Nothings perfect and you don't always get what you want. Life's a waiting game, and to say it's complicated would be an understatement. Multiply that by 300 million unique viewpoints and you can't help but wonder how progress is ever made period. Gotta rise above. I agree.

The reason a conservative would have an issue with wishing death on someone has more to do with a question of morals. Now death penalty through the law is a little different because it's a system we put together and agreed to, but you still don't wish death on them, you decide logically based on their actions as per the system. While I would assume there is a very small fraction of people on the far right who might hate Dem politicians enough to wish an illness related death on them, which is vile, that doesn't speak for the vast majority of conservatives. That's not to say conservatives don't want people to pay for what they've done, but it must be agreed upon by the people, like the justice system. While it's not perfect, it's sure as heck more civil than many other ways we used to deal with people. Conservatives also don't like winning by default. Heaven forbid Biden got covid and died before the election. Conservatives would be sympathetic and disappointed. They don't want anyone to die unnecessarily and want to attempt winning legitimately based on playing by the rules of the system and what it allows.

Trumps not perfect and not the only one to blame. When you have an entire country to run, you're always going to piss some people off, especially those who don't vote for you. The American people being seemingly so divided also makes it harder for one leader to please both sides equally. The covid count is questionable in a lot of ways. The flu/cold typically kills around 60,000 Americans per year. How many of these people got covid instead of the flu and died? What about people dying up to 60 days after testing positive for covid, who recovered, then died in say an auto accident for example, which counted towards covid deaths? Forcing hospitals to hold off on services to focus on covid, while also heavily incentivizing them to diagnose as covid to keep money coming in was also brought to light. That's not to say no blame whatsoever lies with Trump, but the more information we have, the better we can ascertain how poor or well he handled things. The media likes to say American covid testing hasn't been the best because it should be based on pop, yet they don't do the same for deaths. Imagine that. Something people also don't ask themselves, if you want to put the blame solely on him, is how many Americans aren't dead because of Trump, like due to a booming economy for years? Beyond that, how many people worldwide aren't dead because of Trumps lack of war? I know these aren't easy to calculate, some would say impossible, but it's tough for everyone to do so because people don't like to focus on the good, typically the most negative, which is natural.

You can feel and think how you wish, but the problem is politics has been seeping into everyday life and in extremely negative ways like cancel culture for example. Conservatives didn't start that. They didn't bring political movements into sports, entertainment, etc. Everything that seems positive, also has a negative side to it. I don't hate anyone even if they hate me. I do dislike some people, but never to the level I wish them ill. It's a mindset that has served me well, so for people who do flat out hate, it makes me question them overall, but also makes me hope they can better themselves. I didn't always used to think as I do now, so people can change and hopefully for the better. Sometimes all you need is time.

A civil response is always welcome btw.

You can feel and think how you wish, but the problem is politics has been seeping into everyday life and in extremely negative ways like cancel culture for example. Conservatives didn't start that. They didn't bring political movements into sports, entertainment, etc. Everything that seems positive, also has a negative side to it. I don't hate anyone even if they hate me. I do dislike some people, but never to the level I wish them ill. It's a mindset that has served me well, so for people who do flat out hate, it makes me question them overall, but also makes me hope they can better themselves. I didn't always used to think as I do now, so people can change and hopefully for the better. Sometimes all you need is time.

Just got to comment on this one cause it's a pet peeve... The modern conservative party didn't start cancel culture but neither did the liberals... which isn't what you said but seems to be the implication.

Cancelling speech is not exclusive to the left and is not new. Don't ask don't tell is cancel culture. Laws against atheists holding office is cancel culture. The KKK was cancel culture. The alien and sedition act was cancel culture. Blasphemy laws are cancel culture. Depriving women of the right to vote is cancel culture. The McCarthy era was like decades of vicious cancel culture. The laws of exodus are cancel culture. The trial of Socrates was cancel culture. 

Point is people on all sides have been trying to silence opinions they disagree with for pretty much all of recorded history. The only thing the left did was use twitter for it, which the right does too.

The left also didn't bring political movements into sports. That started in 1918 when we started doing the national anthem before baseball games. Whether you stand, sit, or kneel, that's a political statement.

Politics similarly have been involved in TV and entertainment through pretty much all of recorded history. If you show gay couples on your TV show, that's political. If you refuse to show gay couples, that's also political. 

When you reinforce and endorse cultural norms, that's a political statement. When you go against them, that's also a political statement. But, it seems that it's only deemed political when it goes against the status quo.

People always want their ideas to be accepted and the ideas of others rejected. And I think both sides generally go about it in the same way. It's only called cancel culture when the left does it. And honestly I think that's to distract from the actual issue. Lets not talk about whether the idea they're fighting against is actually worthy of condemnation, lets just attack them for condemning anything.

I should've said modern. Good point.

Ok but who brought in the national anthem or decided woman can't vote? Was that strictly a political decision? Were both political parties in favor?

As for modern cancel culture, the right has used it as well, but only as defense in response, and it mostly worked. The curve seems to have flattened because now it hurts the left as well as the right. Everything has a positive and negative, and it's not always direct, though recent cancelling has been.

You do make a good point when it comes to choice and politics. That water can easily be muddied at times. I personally like incentivizing vs forcing people to do things. Most of the time, time itself will force change if it seemingly needs to happen because of growing peaceful/useful movements of any sort. People don't like to wait though, especially in the modern world.

With the national anthem and women's suffrage, the parties were very different. I'm not sure which supported that. With the NFL though, it was because of a partnership with the military, which was designed to promote enrollment I believe.

In regards to women voting, that dates back to at least the old testament of the Bible, which views women as property. So I don't think that can be answered in terms of modern politics. Dunno which party supported allowing women to vote in America. It was a constitutional amendment, so presumably both parties had to mostly agree, but I don't know which started the push. The National Women's Party was the first organized party to push for it IIRC, but that wasn't really a right/left thing, it was a one issue party.  

Even modern, I disagree. I think this has been a continuous thing. 

I think the main difference is that the left tends to be younger, and more adept in social media. So, when using that method, they're more effective. 

Saying it's just a response is kind of a bad argument in my opinion. It's basically just saying that the right's use is justified, and I'm sure the people on the left would make the exact same argument.

I don't really see how cancel culture as forcing. They have no legal authority, and no company/person has to listen to them, and they're not doing anything by force. I think everyone has the right to not give their business to any other person for whatever reason, within the limits of the law.

For example, if a local strip club employs Indian strippers, and for whatever reason I don't like Indian strippers, shouldn't I have the right to say, I won't patronize you unless you stop hiring Indian strippers? Is it wrong for me to tell all my friends to do the same? If I create a hashtag for it and tell everyone to use it, does it become a problem then?

Conversely, if I want Indian strippers at my strip clubs (which tbh I do) and the strip club doesn't have any, is it wrong to stop going unless they'll hire some (lets assume that they could easily do so)? Is it wrong to encourage my friends to join me in my demand for Indian strippers? Is it wrong to start a hashtag campaign to demand Indian strippers?

I don't think it's wrong to not support something, and I don't think it's wrong to tell your friends not to, or anyone else that will listen. At what point does it become wrong?