Much to the chagrin of "some"

[flockofseagulls104]

SSS:

I'm not going to defend this guy. He's a nut and he deserves whatever punishment he's going to get. Political violence is wrong, regardless of the target or motivation. But let's not pretend that this is all a matter of left-wing radicals who don't like Trump. Remember January 6? Remember Melissa Hortman in Minnesota?

Here's some thoughts from someone that disagrees with you:

There seems to be some confusion between insults/ridicule and incitement of violence. Here's a little rhetorical quiz for those who are confused. Perhaps it will help.

Trump posts that Rob Reiner was crazy and had TDS after Reiner's death. Who did that incite violence towards?

Gavin Newsom claims that Trump is disappearing American citizens never to be seen again and that Black and Brown people are specifically being targeted and should be afraid. Newsom repeatedly claims that America will not have an election in 2028 and that Trump will use the National Guard to arrest people who try to vote. Who might that incite violence towards?

Trump posts a warning to Iran that an entire civilization may die. Which person did that incite violence towards?

Ted Lieu, without evidence, claims that Trump is guilty of raping and killing children. The entire Democrat party spends a year claiming without evidence that Trump is a pedophile. Who does that incite violence towards?

Trump posts a meme of Adam Schiff with a long neck and calls him a watermelon head. Does that incite violence towards someone?

Adam Schiff spends three years falsely accusing the President of being a traitor and working for Russia. He claims that the President is illegitimate and should not be in office. Does that incite violence towards anyone? What happens if someone believes Schiff's lies?

Tim Walz claims that Trump is disappearing people, having American citizens grabbed and sent to torture dungeons, never to be seen again. He warns people that anybody could be next and urges people to fight. Who does that incite violence towards?

Trump posts a meme with a clip of Obama as a gorilla. Who does that incite violence towards? Were people angry at Obama for being portrayed as a gorilla or were they angry at Trump for posting it?

Biden spends five years calling Trump an existential threat to the world and says that democracy can never survive if Trump gets back in office. He gives multiple prime time speeches as President calling Trump and his supporters a threat to democracy. Does that incite violence towards someone or some group?

Trump calls someone garbage. Biden says that Trump supporters are garbage almost immediately after an attempt on Trump's life. Do either of those incite violence?

Chris Murphy says that we are at war (with MAGA and the right) and that people need to do whatever it takes to win the war. Who might that incite violence towards?

Trump posts that he's glad that Robert Mueller died. Who does that incite violence towards? Do people want to kill Mueller's dead body after reading that?

James Comey posts "8647." Might that incite violence towards someone?

Trump posts a meme of Hakeem Jeffries in a sombrero. Who does that incite violence towards? Do the people who are angry about that meme want to hurt Jeffries?

Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly says that the biggest threat America faces is MAGA Republicans. Who does that incite violence towards?

Trump says "there are very fine people on both sides, but I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and white supremacists, they should be condemned totally." Who does that incite violence towards?

The entire Democrat party and virtually the entire MSM spend years claiming that Trump said that nazis and white supremacists are very fine people. Who does that incite violence towards?

Trump ridicules Rosie O'Donnell. Did that incite violence towards O'Donnell?

A journalist reads on national TV from a manifesto of a deranged would be assassin who wrote that he was angry with pedophiles and then asks the same President who was the target of said assassin if the manifesto was about him? Who would that, if anyone, incite violence towards?

Trump tells the journalist who just read the manifesto accusing him of being a pedophile that she should be ashamed of herself. Who does that incite violence towards?

AOC says that the country has become nazi Germany, compares Trump to Hitler, and claims that Trump is putting people in concentration camps. Who would that incite violence towards?

I could go on and on. Maybe these questions will clear things up a bit for those who do not understand the difference between insults and incitement of violence.

[silverscreenselect]

SSS:

I'm not going to defend this guy. He's a nut and he deserves whatever punishment he's going to get. Political violence is wrong, regardless of the target or motivation. But let's not pretend that this is all a matter of left-wing radicals who don't like Trump. Remember January 6? Remember Melissa Hortman in Minnesota?

Here's some thoughts from someone that disagrees with you:

Paul Pelosi. Heather Heyer. Melissa Hortman. 150 DC police on January 6.

I guess it must have been something in the water that incited the people responsible for those attacks. This article appeared shortly after the Charlie Kirk killing. There are numerous other similar articles citing similar research. So, no matter how you twist what people say to make it appear more or less inflammatory, the fact is that right-wingers commit far more acts of political violence than those on the left do. Perhaps they don't possess Flock's keen sense of discernment about what is or is not an actual threat.

Right‑wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left‑wing violence − what the data shows

September 17, 2025

Policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From our research on extremism, it’s clear that the president’s and Miller’s assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts. Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.

The understanding of political violence is complicated by differences in definitions and the recent Department of Justice removal of an important government-sponsored study of domestic terrorists. Political violence in the U.S. has risen in recent months and takes forms that go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers, including social media death threats, intimidation and doxing.

Kirk’s assassination illustrates the growing threat. The man charged with the murder, Tyler Robinson, allegedly planned the attack in writing and online. This follows other politically motivated killings, including the June assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband. These incidents reflect a normalization of political violence. Threats and violence are increasingly treated as acceptable for achieving political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society.

Politically motivated violence is a small fraction of total violent crime, but its impact is magnified by symbolic targets, timing and media coverage. In the first half of 2025, 35% of violent events tracked by University of Maryland researchers targeted U.S. government personnel or facilities – more than twice the rate in 2024. Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence in recent years.

Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001. Illustrative cases include the 2015 Charleston church shooting, when white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23 people. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example, killed 168 in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.

By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities. Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front arson and vandalism campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s, which were more likely to target property rather than people. Violence occurred during Seattle May Day protests in 2016, with anarchist groups and other demonstrators clashing with police. The clashes resulted in multiple injuries and arrests. In 2016, five Dallas police officers were murdered by a heavily armed sniper who was targeting white police officers.

Politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared with overall violent crime. Political violence has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarization. Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence. The number of extremist groups is substantial and skewed toward the right, although a count of organizations does not necessarily reflect incidents of violence.

High-profile political violence often brings heightened rhetoric and pressure for sweeping responses. Yet the empirical record shows that political violence remains concentrated within specific movements and networks rather than spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Distinguishing between rhetoric and evidence is essential for democracy. Trump and members of his administration are threatening to target whole organizations and movements and the people who work in them with aggressive legal measures – to jail them or scrutinize their favorable tax status. But research shows that the majority of political violence comes from people following right-wing ideologies.

[tlynn78]

https://truthout.org/articles/8-in-10-p ... b08Apj87Ug

Circling back to this. As usual, I'm right.

[jarnon]

James Comey posts "8647." Might that incite violence towards someone?

Apparently a U.S. Attorney in North Carolina agrees with Flock and not SSS. He as indicted Comey for his 8647 post.

[Weyoun]

Comey’s speech is SO VERY VERY protected that I am wondering if he would have the avenue of a civil rights litigation for this malicious and stupid prosecution.

[silverscreenselect]

James Comey posts "8647." Might that incite violence towards someone?

Apparently a U.S. Attorney in North Carolina agrees with Flock and not SSS. He as indicted Comey for his 8647 post.

Comey didn't "post" 8647. He took a picture of some seashells on the beach that someone had arranged to form the numbers 8647, along with the caption "Cool shell formation on my beach walk." on Instagram. Comey claims he didn't realize the significance of the number for some people when he posted his message. I'm not so sure I believe that, but I didn't know the meaning of the number until it was explained to me the first time. Regardless, the indictment said his message was a "serious expression of an intent to do harm to President Trump."



There are hundreds of anti-Trump 8647 items available on the internet, including tee shirts, pins, and caps. The U.S. attorney will be vey busy indicting everyone bought one of those caps or tee shirts.

This case will get thrown out the minute a judge looks at the inevitable motion to dismiss. This is harassment of Trump's political enemies, or as Flock likes to call it, "lawfare."

[Weyoun]

Trump is a pussy crybaby and Patel/Blanche are complete idiot toadies.

[tlynn78]

Trump is a pussy crybaby and Patel/Blanche are complete idiot toadies.

Careful there, doc. Calling people names apparently makes homicide all good.

[Weyoun]

Trump is a pussy crybaby and Patel/Blanche are complete idiot toadies.

Careful there, doc. Calling people names apparently makes homicide all good.

Then just imagine what prosecuting them for stupid nonsense entails.

[tlynn78]

Trump is a pussy crybaby and Patel/Blanche are complete idiot toadies.

Careful there, doc. Calling people names apparently makes homicide all good.

Then just imagine what prosecuting them for stupid nonsense entails.

Ooh! Let's ask Letitia!

[flockofseagulls104]

SSS:

I'm not going to defend this guy. He's a nut and he deserves whatever punishment he's going to get. Political violence is wrong, regardless of the target or motivation. But let's not pretend that this is all a matter of left-wing radicals who don't like Trump. Remember January 6? Remember Melissa Hortman in Minnesota?

Here's some thoughts from someone that disagrees with you:

Paul Pelosi. Heather Heyer. Melissa Hortman. 150 DC police on January 6.

I guess it must have been something in the water that incited the people responsible for those attacks. This article appeared shortly after the Charlie Kirk killing. There are numerous other similar articles citing similar research. So, no matter how you twist what people say to make it appear more or less inflammatory, the fact is that right-wingers commit far more acts of political violence than those on the left do. Perhaps they don't possess Flock's keen sense of discernment about what is or is not an actual threat.

Right‑wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left‑wing violence − what the data shows

September 17, 2025

Policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From our research on extremism, it’s clear that the president’s and Miller’s assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts. Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.

The understanding of political violence is complicated by differences in definitions and the recent Department of Justice removal of an important government-sponsored study of domestic terrorists. Political violence in the U.S. has risen in recent months and takes forms that go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers, including social media death threats, intimidation and doxing.

Kirk’s assassination illustrates the growing threat. The man charged with the murder, Tyler Robinson, allegedly planned the attack in writing and online. This follows other politically motivated killings, including the June assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband. These incidents reflect a normalization of political violence. Threats and violence are increasingly treated as acceptable for achieving political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society.

Politically motivated violence is a small fraction of total violent crime, but its impact is magnified by symbolic targets, timing and media coverage. In the first half of 2025, 35% of violent events tracked by University of Maryland researchers targeted U.S. government personnel or facilities – more than twice the rate in 2024. Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence in recent years.

Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001. Illustrative cases include the 2015 Charleston church shooting, when white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23 people. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example, killed 168 in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.

By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities. Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front arson and vandalism campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s, which were more likely to target property rather than people. Violence occurred during Seattle May Day protests in 2016, with anarchist groups and other demonstrators clashing with police. The clashes resulted in multiple injuries and arrests. In 2016, five Dallas police officers were murdered by a heavily armed sniper who was targeting white police officers.

Politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared with overall violent crime. Political violence has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarization. Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence. The number of extremist groups is substantial and skewed toward the right, although a count of organizations does not necessarily reflect incidents of violence.

High-profile political violence often brings heightened rhetoric and pressure for sweeping responses. Yet the empirical record shows that political violence remains concentrated within specific movements and networks rather than spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Distinguishing between rhetoric and evidence is essential for democracy. Trump and members of his administration are threatening to target whole organizations and movements and the people who work in them with aggressive legal measures – to jail them or scrutinize their favorable tax status. But research shows that the majority of political violence comes from people following right-wing ideologies.

Right, SSS. I really need to ignore what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears because 2 associate professors from the University of Dayton have done their own research and concluded otherwise. How ignorant of me. Just the artful word salad they've put together is enough to require us to forget about the murder of Charlie Kirk and at least two of the attempts at Trump's life (that we know of). Those domestic terrorists that speak up at school board meetings really are more dangerous to our 'democracy' than the guys with the guns and manifestos. [Anyone who refers to this country as a 'democracy' has an immediate and severe credibility problem.]

[Weyoun]

Careful there, doc. Calling people names apparently makes homicide all good.

Then just imagine what prosecuting them for stupid nonsense entails.

Ooh! Let's ask Letitia!

We should. Trump should, too. At least she knew how to get a conviction.

[silverscreenselect]

Right, SSS. I really need to ignore what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears because 2 associate professors from the University of Dayton have done their own research and concluded otherwise. How ignorant of me. Just the artful word salad they've put together is enough to require us to forget about the murder of Charlie Kirk and at least two of the attempts at Trump's life (that we know of).

It's called statistics. And it's not just two professors at the University of Dayton. There are numerous studies to the same effect. I didn't want to list 20 sources, but if I did you probably would have found some reason to pooh-pooh all 20 of them in favor of what you and your anonymous twitter buddy can see with your own eyes.

Did you forget about Paul Pelosi? (Of course, that attack was intended for Nancy.) Or 150 DC police officers? Or Melissa Hortman? Or Heather Heyer? Or Gabby Giffords? Or Gretchen Whitmer (kidnapping plot thwarted)? Or Josh Shapiro (setting the governor's mansion on fire)?

But it's a lot easier to ignore all contrary evidence because of what some twit posted on twitter, apparently your go-to source for political news.

[flockofseagulls104]

Right, SSS. I really need to ignore what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears because 2 associate professors from the University of Dayton have done their own research and concluded otherwise. How ignorant of me. Just the artful word salad they've put together is enough to require us to forget about the murder of Charlie Kirk and at least two of the attempts at Trump's life (that we know of).

It's called statistics. And it's not just two professors at the University of Dayton. There are numerous studies to the same effect. I didn't want to list 20 sources, but if I did you probably would have found some reason to pooh-pooh all 20 of them in favor of what you and your anonymous twitter buddy can see with your own eyes.

Did you forget about Paul Pelosi? (Of course, that attack was intended for Nancy.) Or 150 DC police officers? Or Melissa Hortman? Or Heather Heyer? Or Gabby Giffords? Or Gretchen Whitmer (kidnapping plot thwarted)? Or Josh Shapiro (setting the governor's mansion on fire)?

But it's a lot easier to ignore all contrary evidence because of what some twit posted on twitter, apparently your go-to source for political news.

How about Jussie Smollett?

[Weyoun]

Right, SSS. I really need to ignore what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears because 2 associate professors from the University of Dayton have done their own research and concluded otherwise. How ignorant of me. Just the artful word salad they've put together is enough to require us to forget about the murder of Charlie Kirk and at least two of the attempts at Trump's life (that we know of).

It's called statistics. And it's not just two professors at the University of Dayton. There are numerous studies to the same effect. I didn't want to list 20 sources, but if I did you probably would have found some reason to pooh-pooh all 20 of them in favor of what you and your anonymous twitter buddy can see with your own eyes.

Did you forget about Paul Pelosi? (Of course, that attack was intended for Nancy.) Or 150 DC police officers? Or Melissa Hortman? Or Heather Heyer? Or Gabby Giffords? Or Gretchen Whitmer (kidnapping plot thwarted)? Or Josh Shapiro (setting the governor's mansion on fire)?

But it's a lot easier to ignore all contrary evidence because of what some twit posted on twitter, apparently your go-to source for political news.

How about Jussie Smollett?

“there’s this thing called statistics which deals with large sample sizes.”

“what about this one example?”

[flockofseagulls104]

It's called statistics. And it's not just two professors at the University of Dayton. There are numerous studies to the same effect. I didn't want to list 20 sources, but if I did you probably would have found some reason to pooh-pooh all 20 of them in favor of what you and your anonymous twitter buddy can see with your own eyes.

Did you forget about Paul Pelosi? (Of course, that attack was intended for Nancy.) Or 150 DC police officers? Or Melissa Hortman? Or Heather Heyer? Or Gabby Giffords? Or Gretchen Whitmer (kidnapping plot thwarted)? Or Josh Shapiro (setting the governor's mansion on fire)?

But it's a lot easier to ignore all contrary evidence because of what some twit posted on twitter, apparently your go-to source for political news.

How about Jussie Smollett?

“there’s this thing called statistics which deals with large sample sizes.”

“what about this one example?”

Smollett is proof that what SPLC did is a thing. It has precedence. The two Dayton professors could possibly be doing the same thing, as they are using the same techniques. THEY are defining what are RIGHT WING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. And some of the examples they have used are bullshit, just like SPLC did with TPUSA, Moms for Liberty, Ben Carson and many other groups and entities towards which they had animus. Yes, there are right wing hate groups, but they are nowhere near as numerous or influential as these left wing nuts portray them to be. They are small groups at the edges and fringes that nobody in the mainstream conservative movement recognizes or takes seriously. Sort of like David Duke. Only important to you leftists.

While the hate and incitement to violence on the left is prevalent from the top down. We see it everyday directly from their lips. So stop the frickin gaslighting and get real.

[tlynn78]

How about Jussie Smollett?

“there’s this thing called statistics which deals with large sample sizes.”

“what about this one example?”

Smollett is proof that what SPLC did is a thing. It has precedence. The two Dayton professors could possibly be doing the same thing, as they are using the same techniques. THEY are defining what are RIGHT WING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. And some of the examples they have used are bullshit, just like SPLC did with TPUSA, Moms for Liberty, Ben Carson and many other groups and entities towards which they had animus. Yes, there are right wing hate groups, but they are nowhere near as numerous or influential as these left wing nuts portray them to be. They are small groups at the edges and fringes that nobody in the mainstream conservative movement recognizes or takes seriously. Sort of like David Duke. Only important to you leftists.

While the hate and incitement to violence on the left is prevalent from the top down. We see it everyday directly from their lips. So stop the frickin gaslighting and get real.

Two oft-cited sources for the idea that 'the violence comes from the Right'

The Prosecution Project: supposed to be a listing of all acts of political violence. Somehow in their latest 'study' they missed listing Charlie Kirk's assassination, any of the Trump attempts, and the more than 20 killed during the Floyd riots, but the 20+ drug dealers at a busted meth lab made the list because they happened to have white supremacist leanings. That seems legit.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (who gets some of their data from SPLC ) reports all acts of anti-Semitism as 'right-wing.' All of them.

You cannot fix a problem by lying about it.

Oh, and Trump saying "March peacefully and patriotically" on J6 is inciting violent insurrection, but Hakeem Jeffries is pure kumbaya, calling for "Maximum warfare everywhere, all the time."

[flockofseagulls104]

Oh, and Trump saying "March peacefully and patriotically" on J6 is inciting violent insurrection, but Hakeem Jeffries is pure kumbaya, calling for "Maximum warfare everywhere, all the time."

Not to mention "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists—because they should be condemned totally" is an unmistakable endorsement of neo nazis and white nationalists and marks Trump as both a nazi and a white supremacist.

I don't understand how you leftists find your way back to your house every day.

[jarnon]

The Prosecution Project: supposed to be a listing of all acts of political violence. Somehow in their latest 'study' they missed listing Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Since Turning Point USA is a right-wing hate group, how can killing Kirk be domestic terrorism? You got to admire their internal consistency.

[Weyoun]

It’s interesting.

I don’t know of people on the left who don’t think someone on the left has committed violence.

I know several people on the right who think that all violence is left-wing and somehow all this talk and all these murders by their guys didn’t happen, or happened because there was an organization infiltrating things, or whatever. The “guy who killed Hortman was really a Democrat” is an example of this, and it has ben espoused here.

It is the difference between being reality based and fantasy based. Reality is granular. There could be a huge movement of millions of people and every once and awhile there could still be a wacko. Very few things are neat. Simples like whitefailure need simple explanations for reality, which is one reason their world breaks into neat things like “minorities are the reason I am not happy, and why their own solutions to “fix” reality are always too simple.

[Beebs52]

It’s interesting.

I don’t know of people on the left who don’t think someone on the left has committed violence.

I know several people on the right who think that all violence is left-wing and somehow all this talk and all these murders by their guys didn’t happen, or happened because there was an organization infiltrating things, or whatever. The “guy who killed Hortman was really a Democrat” is an example of this, and it has ben espoused here.

It is the difference between being reality based and fantasy based. Reality is granular. There could be a huge movement of millions of people and every once and awhile there could still be a wacko. Very few things are neat. Simples like whitefailure need simple explanations for reality, which is one reason their world breaks into neat things like “minorities are the reason I am not happy, and why their own solutions to “fix” reality are always too simple.

Um. No?

[flockofseagulls104]

minorities are the reason I am not happy

There is some deep seated dysfunction you suffer from, aside from your TDS. You claim you are in the medical profession. You need to find and talk to a mental health professional. Seriously.