Holy s**t.
— Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) October 1, 2020
Over the course of three years, the number of Americans who say that they feel justified in using violence to achieve their political goals has gone up from 8 percent to over 33 percent. pic.twitter.com/JBg3Y83ASK
२ ऑक्टोबर, २०२०
"Over the course of three years, the number of Americans who say that they feel justified in using violence to achieve their political goals has gone up from 8 percent to over 33 percent."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
The Left: using violence to promote their political agenda
The Right: using violence to defend themselves
The MSM: It's all a Right-Wing White Supremacist problem
Me: Calling us Deplorables didn't work as they planned; think calling us "White Supremacists" will work any better. Bwhahahaha?
THEOLDMAN
All Progressives. Conservatives aren't violent.
There you go.
The crisis approaches rapidly.
There is no "normal" anymore, any hope for it is unrealistic.
The gun sales figures have been predicting this.
In 2020 they are wild.
I wonder what the 2016 numbers were; Trumps election certainly calmed down the US Right, going by gun sales, which had exploded in 2016.
I’m not buying it. We don’t see nearly enough violence for the true number to be 1/10th that.
We almost totally have the actions/remonstrations of our "friends" on the left to thank for fostering this attitude..
Part of this is the outcome of a campaign of deliberate socio-cultural, and political, destabilization. The American propaganda system has played its part in this.
Part of it though is the internal logic of all wars. They get worse because they have to. The enemy resists, and ones attacks fail, so stronger attacks are mounted, losses accumulate, past losses justify greater commitment and greater brutality. This cannot just be turned off.
The sick part is that in the US version of this struggle few have died, and little has been physically destroyed, so far, so there isnt yet the kind of pain that usually stops this cycle. Real wars are contests of pain, where eventually one side can no longer bear it, and gives in, in spite of all the bloodthirsty bitterness that has accumulated.
But in the US, it seems to me, that the minds are primed, nevertheless, for the cataclysmic end-state of the worst case of an actual physical war, should it get to that. That end state is extermination of the "other" as being anathema, or inhuman.
One can look for parallels where populations have been worked up, in peace, to an edge of hysteria where the outbreak of fighting is instantly ultra-savage. The Hutu-Tutsi struggle is one obvious case.
Well the media and local democrats have been telling them they should. It won't get better when they try to prosecute the Americans simply trying to defend themselves.
I see the results of who says they feel justified. But who is actually doing it?
Over the course of three years, the number of Americans who say that they feel justified in using violence to achieve their political goals has gone up from 8 percent to over 33 percent.
Using the word "justified" in the question that is likely to confound the survey results.
Self-defense is a justification. If a minority of people on one side are actually using violence to achieve their politcal goals, then a greater number of people on the other side would feel "justified" in preparing to use "violence" to defend their rights.
What you want to measure is who thinks initiating politcal violence is a legitimate means of achieving your politcal goals.
A better and more revealing question would have been: Is initiating violence a legitimate means to achieve your political goals outside of established democratic means?
I bet the numbers in response to that question would be very low.
According to the graph depicted, those numbers are for respondents who did not answer “never”. It is not decomposed into those answering “a little” “moderately”, or “a lot”. We don’t know if it shows any partisan differences on that score.
So, according to the poll Republicans are more prone to violence than Democrats. Yet, no Republicans are rioting, physically attacking their opponents or burning down buildings. I suggest this an attempt to excuse the Democrats who daily are rioting, physically attacking their opponents or burning down buildings.
Weird this became a story now, not during the earlier periods when team blue was ahead. Wonder what changed between each poll in methodology.
"Conservatives aren't violent."
Of course not. Not!
It's perfectly alright to be violent if (1) it's against the other guys, cuz they deserve it and (2) as long as the violence doesn't hit us.
The number of Americans who say that they feel justified in using polling to achieve their political goals is -?
What do you expect when democrats are out there telling their supporters to get in people's faces, to run them out of restaurants, and then to allow antifa and BLM to burn down their own cities while telling police to stand down.
Original article from Politico:
Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/01/political-violence-424157
Survey results article of 2019 and earlier data
Most Americans Reject Partisan… | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/blog/has-american-partisanship-gone-too-far
2020 data is from a different group, and the Politico has provided no link to the data, so take it w/ a huge grain of salt.
Since the chart combines all answers that express any degree of violent use, it helps to break it down more, though the article doesn't include all answers.
“Of Democrats who identify as “very liberal,” 26 percent said there would be “a great deal” of justification for violence if their candidate loses the presidency compared to 7 percent of those identifying as simply “liberal.” Of Republicans who identify as “very conservative,” 16 percent said they believe there would be “a great deal” of justification for violence if the GOP candidate loses compared to 7 percent of those identifying as simply “conservative.”

Now let's see a chart that compares who actually uses violence instead of just who is open to it.
If true then as many people who VOTE also believe violence is justified to achieve political ends? Really? Maybe over a third of us have just been convinced that some speech is equivalent to violence and other violence is just “speech.”
Well if you truly believe that "silence is violence" well then, those conservative bastards deserve to get beat up and shot, right?
To go all Peterson/Jungian, there is an element in all this of the collective unconscious.
On the gun purchase statistics for instance.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view
Add that, anecdotally, there would be a great many more gun sales in 2020, beyond surpassing all previous records, if it weren't that guns are selling faster than the manufacturers can supply the market. And as for ammunition, the makers are completely unable to meet demand.
You can ask people WHY they are purchasing guns, or more guns, or these specific guns. I think people have. You will get all sorts of answers, but mainly self or household defense of course. Most of these people probably, if examined objectively, have no particular need for a pseudo-military rifle, or even a concealable pocket pistol. Their CURRENT environment is almost certainly as safe (from crime) as it was 20 years ago, before the great waves of gun purchases. And the 2020 wave started BEFORE the 2020 riots.
There is something else going on, a subconscious or displaced set of reasons why the American public is so furiously arming itself, now. And there is no public talk among the gun-nut Youtubers and blogs of unconscious reasons. There is either a sort of blindness, or of a collective, tacit omerta. I think its more likely blindness.
I believe that the American public has been getting progressively more alienated, or apprehensive, of a general social-political environment, since at least the last 15 years, slowly first, and faster and faster. There is something out there, triggering the collective unconscious, signaling that, perhaps, Gotterdammerung is nigh.
I will never be the one to start a fight but will defend myself, up to the use of deadly force. In the unlikely event that someone starts shooting at my home or lights a Molotov cocktail nearby, I will shoot them dead. Is that "advancing my political goals"? Only if you consider self-defense as a political goal.
The only thing that has even momentarily reversed, or rather reduced the rate of the accumulation of armaments by the people was the election of Trump. This tells me that the only reprieve in the inevitable collapse into crisis is his re-election.
This is the Jungian-collective unconscious argument for his re-election. With data.
The collective unconscious is not "reasonable".
conservatives worked hard for what they have and they understand the true nature of Stalinists, Maoists and Marxists.
And, since the country is roughly split between left and right we'd expect half the riots to be populated from the right....
That, of course, is not true.
But that is, sadly, a meme of the left.
Mounk is a liberal nut. He blocked me on Twitter. Badge of pride for me.
Feel the Trump healing effect.
Interesting aspect of the violence that just came out. Apparently a lot of the looting by BLM supporters was instigated by AntiFA Marxist thugs. White guys all in black wearing masks would joking BLM protests, then go up to a business, break the glass and leave. Time after time.
We are at war, with an ideology that proved itself both very bloody and brutal, having killed a hundred million or so throughout the 20th century, and very inept at running countries. It’s a brutal and violent political philosophy, and sometimes the only answer to their sort of violence is violence in return.
When we migrate south for the winter, I plan to being enough firearms and ammunition to protect us. The level of Dem cheating keeps getting ratcheted up. The AZ Gov just sent a letter to the Sec of State, who has set up voter registration hot lines, that allow voter registration without proof of ID or citizenship. All illegal under AZ law. Republican poll watchers are being denied access to polling places in Philadelphia. And that was just yesterday’s news.
So, what happens if the Democrats manufacture enough illegal votes to win the Presidency and the Senate, and maintain control of the House? I don’t think that “we won”, as Obama so famously opined, will be successful this time. We haven’t seen this level of gun and ammunition buying ever. Ammunition manufacturing lines are running flat out, and not only have guns disappeared from gun stores, but gun parts have disappeared, to a great extent, from the Internet. This is why we have a 2nd Amendment. Not really for personal self defense, but for societal self defense against despotism and usurpation of our government, as appears to many to be the case with this election, and the election year violence by the Democrats’ shock troops, AntiFA and BLM. You cannot legitimately understand the 2nd Amdt without consideration of the Declaration of Independence, and the town militias taking on the British military starting in 1775.
Lefties burn down cities, pull people out of their cars, throw firebombs at the police.
"Bloody instructions, which being taught, return to plague the inventor. It is this even-handed justice that commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice to our own lips."
Drink up, lefties.
The number of people who should think that violence is acceptable to achieve *some* political goals should be 100%. One of the basic premises of the United States is overthrowing tyranny and the Second Amendment exists for a reason. The real question is the threshold at which this violence triggers. It should be a very high bar to cross, the very definition of a last resort.
This poll is not useful without that context.
The left forgets the old Maxim, if they’re in range, so are you.
“You can ask people WHY they are purchasing guns, or more guns, or these specific guns. I think people have. You will get all sorts of answers, but mainly self or household defense of course. Most of these people probably, if examined objectively, have no particular need for a pseudo-military rifle, or even a concealable pocket pistol.”
Kyle Rittenhouse is alive. Two of his assailants are dead, and a third one may be permanently maimed. Except in Clint Eastwood movies, when a man with a handgun goes up against a man with a long gun, the long gun usually wins. It’s just hard to conceal long guns. So, for defense, a long gun is often preferable to a handgun -esp an AR-15 with standard 30 round magazines. It doesn’t hurt that three generations now of our military veterans are intimately familiar with their manual of arms. The concern is mostly Dem/AntiFA organized mobs, and there is probably little better for that than an AR-15.
The country needs Kanye and Kim. It's the only thing that can save us.
“In the unlikely event that someone starts shooting at my home or lights a Molotov cocktail nearby, I will shoot them dead.”
Keep in mind that a Molotov cocktail is a deadly weapon, and if used against someone’s home, is most likely an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. I.e. legal justification for the use of deadly force in self defense.
I guarantee that this is NOT being driven by people who have been WINNING the last rounds of elections.
Democraticals believe in BAMN.
They have told us who they are.
I believe in robust self defense.
"The left forgets the old Maxim"
I understand you can still get an old Maxim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbz8o5ujgSo
Presenting the results as they did in the chart aggregates “a little” and “a moderate amount” with “a lot” and “a great deal.” Leaving aside the question of what it means to be “moderately violent,” it would be interesting to see the party breakdown on the two highest propensities for violence. My sense is that Democrats are much more comfortable with “a lot” and “a great deal.”
I would also like to know how self defense figures into this chart. As a human being, I have a natural right to self defense that is unalienable, and if attacked I will defend myself. Does that mean I favor “a little“ violence? If “a lot” of violence is needed to defend myself and others, then that’s on the attackers, not on me.
I am deeply concerned to see the hate poured down on the head of Kyle Rittenhouse, who was merely defending himself from violent assault per the videos I have seen, while no one in the media cares about Julian Conley. Who is Julian Conley? He’s the man arrested in the shooting death of little 8 year old Secoriea Turner in Atlanta. Is it because Mr. Conley is black, and per Critical Race Theory black men are inherently prone to violence and we should just accept that? Is it because the life of an 8 year old black girl matters less to Democrats than adult white males committing arson, brandishing a handgun, and other acts of violence?
As others have noted, once violence starts there will be no way to keep it below “a lot.” That’s why I’m in the “never” camp — subject to the caveat in my second paragraph that in terms of my own defense, the defense of my family, or the defense of my neighbors (even the Democrat across the street) I will apply however much violence as is necessary to end the threat.
Not me. I still believe in the power of prayer and so pray for the deaths of Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff, the Squad, Hono, Wheeler, the Portland DA, Kamala and all of BLM and antifa every day.
buwaya -
Why don't you sit out the next few plays? You need a rest.
Interesting. I heard several talking about this on the radio, don't remember which station, I
channel surf alot. But they were bemoaning the results.
The first thing I thought about is our host doing the work to buy at least one weapon and train up on the physical needs to use properly, and the legal issues to consider. In effect, ready to resort to the use of physical deadly violence. Its easy to say that self defense is not action to achieve a political goal, but easy to argue, personal safety is the ultimate political goal.
I can't imagine myself instigating violence, but it is even less likely I would shoot to injure and not kill, when I pull the trigger.
Deserves the things not believed tag.
I believe that the American public has been getting progressively more alienated, or apprehensive, of a general social-political environment, since at least the last 15 years, slowly first, and faster and faster.
Probably the 2000 election controversies. It began to look like the left would cease honoring elections. 2004 was reassuring but not much. Then came 2008.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Conservatives aren't violent."
Of course not. Not!
Yeah, all those soldiers that won two world wars and stood off your Soviet Union.
The question you have to ask yourself is this- is self-defense political by nature? In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, I think you see how this question breaks down politically- an easy case, by the way, because of the explicit video evidence.
Buwaya above in his several comments is hitting right on or very close to the truth of the matter, and this worries me.
I wonder who exactly is committing all this political violence in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, et al?
It isn't in Cheyenne, Pocatello, or Billins.
More ammo. Maybe more kinds of ammo.
I asked a hypothetical here back in June (at least I think it was on Althouse)- how would the mayors and governors reacted if the riots in their cities were rightwingers like Proud Boys, for example? I think we all pretty much know the answer, don't we?
Right now, the left is simply shitting in their own nests. The violence hasn't really gone outside those nests on a large scale (a scale equal in magnitude to what is seen in the city cores)- the closest such to such a thing is the Kenosha riots, but there you still had a Democratic mayor and governor- but the rioters were opposed pretty significantly by the second night with armed resistence by the populace, which finally forced Evers to act.
Those on the Left keep on teaching this lesson
Why do they expect the Right not to learn it?
If violence isn't acceptable, then when people riot, or violently "counter-protest", you arrest them & throw them in jail for years
You don't ignore, and you don't arrest, release on bail, and drop charges.
And lefties: Don't expect the Right to limit itself to burning buildings and only beating people up. Shooting people from far away is much safer, for the shooter
Just realized I had two empty 9mm mags. Will fix after lunch.
I don't see it. Yes, my neighbors and I are fairly well armed, and ready to go to lengths to protect our town and neighborhood from riots and civil unrest. But none of us are itching to go down to Crest Hill or Chicago and hunt Democrats down. There are Biden voters in my town (not many) that I know, and I'd gladly protect their homes as well from bomb throwers and firestarters.
The Left is a different story. But as widespread as the riots were over the summer, it was still likely a group of maybe up to a few thousand people who either traveled around or were based in various regions, and these folks organized many of the "peaceful protests" and then had others come in and hijack them for anarchist/Antifa purposes. This excludes places like Portland that already have a heavy insurrectionist presence. Most of the Leftists I know are still basically small-d democrats who, to the extent that they were aware of the riots, expressed support for civil rights but thought that after the first several marches began devolving into madhouses, they should have found other ways to become activists so as not to give cover to the crazies.
And precisely none of them are enthused about Biden, and some quite upset at his VP choice. But it's a small sample. A sane sample, I like to think, but small.
“Offensive” or “defensive” would be an appropriate modifier. Democrats take note. This is a “live free or die” message.
This is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.
And why "reinterpreting it" by one side over the objection of another carries so much risk.
They didn't ask me or it would be higher.
If you buy the Woke definition of violence as both words and silence, then yes, I support using violence to advance my political goals.
I'm not willing to use violence to achieve my political goals. I'm willing to use violence against those who wish me harm in pursuit of their political goals.
Wince nailed the thread, above. I am willing to defend myself using violence. That would be a justified use of violence. I would try very hard not to initiate violence against others to achieve a political goal, primarily because there is no need for that in the US, except for anarcho-communists.
Since "liberals" and other statists are okay with the use of force, we shouldn't be surprised when their younger, more raggedy cousins decide to eliminate the middleman (in this case, the State) and go the direct route.
Sure, more MSM porn. "Over the course" of the same period MSM numbers on creditability collapsed.
Violence to achieve political goals? No way. Some other goals, maybe, but not political goals.
"I don't see it. Yes, my neighbors and I are fairly well armed, and ready to go to lengths to protect our town and neighborhood from riots and civil unrest. But none of us are itching to go down to Crest Hill or Chicago and hunt Democrats down. There are Biden voters in my town (not many) that I know, and I'd gladly protect their homes as well from bomb throwers and firestarters.
"The Left is a different story."
Are you referring to Democrats when you say "the Left?" If so, do you make a distinction between Democrat politicians and Democrat voters? Why not be specific?
In fact, the Democrats are largely middle of the road, and some are right of that. However, the Republicans have gone so far right that the center has been pulled to the right. There are very few real leftist politicians in Congress, a handful at most. There is probably a "left-ish" sub-group among Democrat voters, but most are just moderates or liberals, left of Republicans, but not really "left."
And this is all beside the point: the graphs provided show both parties are close in the number of those who apparently feel violence is justified to achieve political ends, with Republicans starting even with the Dems. Over time this has changed: at first the increases of those who support violence among Democrats were greater (by small percentages) than among Republicans, while the latest data show more Republicans (by a small percentage) feel violence is justified than do Democrats.
Effectively, the number (and increase over time) of voters who feel violence is justified has remained effectively equal between the two parties.
buwaya said...
The only thing that has even momentarily reversed, or rather reduced the rate of the accumulation of armaments by the people was the election of Trump. This tells me that the only reprieve in the inevitable collapse into crisis is his re-election.
Not loving the analysis. Maybe Roughcoat is right and you're a little winded.
Yes, PDT's reelection is our only perceptible hope. But do you really see no way out? No Four Hundred of elites taking von Rundstedt's advice to "Make peace, you fools?" No Democratic internecine warfare, the Sanders wing and the Clinton wing trying to purge one another, and hopefully both succeeding?
You make otiose reference to the men behind the curtain. But surely in fact these people are known, if only to the highest echelons of the government, and of course to each other, and a small circle of near elites outside the classic 400? And servants? You can't wrap fire in paper, with your Asian influences surely you've heard that one, probably know the Cantonese for it.
They can be reasoned with, perhaps. They cam be touched, certainly. Look, fellas, you can't rule the world anymore, but you can keep your shit. Mostly. Maybe a haircut, where structurally necessary, but we're not going to strip you naked. Just no more Hunter Bidens.
Could that somehow be done?
Nichevo,
Haven't felt as good in a long time. The work-stress was killing me. After the kids grew up and moved out there was no point to it, no purpose to dealing with the daily emergencies. It was like being Sysiphus, which is bad enough, but with all the Gods gathered in chorus to kibitz and yell demands.
I mention the men behind the curtain to make the point that your overt political controversies and actually public public figures are facades, usually deliberately created. 500 years from now historians will be writing a story of these times that will be, probably, unrecognizable to us, and many of the players they will fawn over - we may not even know their names.
We don't know what we are yelling about, we arent playing the game, we are bits of the game board, and sometimes the pieces. Much of what we do (such as buying weapons) is reactive and unconscious. This is after all one of those better games where random nature (even human nature) is integrated in the game AI.
Anyway, your problem with the men behind the curtain is that they suck. They are grossly incompetent. They are also affected by the decadent zeitgeist, which they mostly created. Societies collapse because their elites collapse. They are likely, in the end, to be as helpless as anyone else.
You can, maybe, hope for Trump to pull more of his "great man" magic, or for some other "great man" to pop up in time to divert the stream of history. But for the rest of us - we are dust in the stream.
I dont know what you can do about it, nor can I predict the form of your crisis, when it comes. I have the curse of Cassandra, which does me no good.
I also use too many metaphors.
In fact, the Democrats are largely middle of the road, and some are right of that. However, the Republicans have gone so far right that the center has been pulled to the right. There are very few real leftist politicians in Congress, a handful at most. There is probably a "left-ish" sub-group among Democrat voters, but most are just moderates or liberals, left of Republicans, but not really "left."
"If only Comrade Stalin knew of this." You are amusing Cook.
Blogger pchuck1966 said...
I wonder who exactly is committing all this political violence in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, et al?
It isn't in Cheyenne, Pocatello, or Billins.
Chris Wallace think he knows. He asked Trump about violence in Tulsa, where they had a race riot 100 years ago. There were some minor disturbances this summer but the miscreants were quickly locked up.
I'd like to punch in the face all those folks who think violence is justified
Buwaya, I'm glad you're well. If you're not coming back here, perhaps we can get on a private Channel and you'll tell me where your weapons caches are.
So you don't see any historical precedent for getting out of this kind of tailspin? On the bright side, as you describe it, the elites are kind of inferior, so if opposed, they might be relatively easy to beat.
But as I said, they might also offer or accept surrender terms if they understand what an alternative may be. I don't know, for instance, how a George Soros expects to escape alive, and his family, a third time. Would the elimination of his line comprise a decapitation strike? A sufficient warning to the others? Or, since we know his name, is he not really "behind the curtain," just a finally expendable frontman?
I would say the overarching lesson of history is not to stay on the defensive but to find something to strike at and strike it. They certainly have.
Have you seen the film Mishima? If nothing else it offers a haunting score by Philip Glass, but perhaps it offers more than that.
I don't believe any article that doesn't link to the data. The Politico article, which is the source, is a bunch of BS.
I doubt seriously if more than 5% of Republicans would agree that violence should be used to advance their political objectives. I think the much higher number is in response to the violence committed by the far left recently across US cities. I think Republicans are indicating they would use force against force if necessary.
The article also mentioned using violence if the other Party won the Presidency. Again, if it seen as a fair election, I don't think there would be violence from the right, but I do think there would be from the left if Biden loses.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा