MrD,
We can certainly debate if Murphy's twitter data is representative of the MAGA/alt-right population. But it is one of the only "quantitative" analysis I have seen done by someone on the Left that uses empirical evidence to determine if this specific group is as racist as most claim. And yes, this was essentially inference on top of inference, but if you are aware of better empirical studies that are quantitative in nature, please alert me and I will give it a read. But in the absence of such studies, my opinion stands.
Honestly I think Murphy's article is irrelevant because I am happy to simply assume that the majority of MAGA supporters are not on the extreme right. I'll simply grant that for the sake of argument, as I mentioned earlier. That said, the response to not having confident data should not simply be 'my opinion stands,' it should be 'we don't know.'
But, like I said, I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument that the majority of MAGA supporters are not on the extreme right.
I don't find that to be a controversial idea.
I don't know that the majority of people feel that all MAGA supporters are white supremacists
Seems plentiful enough in this thread alone don't you think. It is clear to me, and I hope you as well, that majority of the Left (perhaps only progressives) see most MAGA supporters as white supremacists, which is how the Sandman fiasco happened and why I decided to enter the discussion here. Recall many forum members said MAGA hat is a symbol of hate and racism, and that is something I vehemently disagree with because it simply does not have empirical basis.
There are two different issues here.
For example, I do not believe that all people who fly the confederate flag are white supremacists.
However, I don't find it rationally incompatible to simultaneously believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of 'hate and racism' (I don't know that I would actually use those words myself, but I'm using them to prove a point).
You seem very drawn to hyperbole and keep using words like "all" or "none," when the world is most obviously not that black and white (and I don't believe you see it as black and white, but you seem to want to strawman the left into these hyperbolic categories). At least, that is how it reads... or, I should say, how I am reading it.
It is still quite possible that the MAGA crowd has emboldened and allowed the violence which is overwhelmingly coming from the right
Now let's talk about violence perpetrated by the Right after Trump got in. First Bowers. I am sure you've heard people on the Right claim the Left have all betrayed America. Are you saying the Right had at one point felt the Left supported them? Betrayal is simply a word to convey disgust on behaviors you do not agree with.
No I would not agree with your statement, but the structure of your example is fundamentally different from my Bowers comment.
In your example I
would agree with the idea that the Right had at one point felt that the left at least supported
America (the thing which they perceive has been betrayed).
Much like, it seems, Bowers felt that Trump at one point supported the Alt-Right, and had eventually betrayed them.
Betrayal is not simply a word to convey disgust of behaviors. Betrayal conveys a violation of trust or confidence.
Betrayal can only occur where there was once the perception of loyalty.
Moving on - I just want to point out the hyperbole that I mentioned earlier. Please try to put yourself in my shoes to see how it reads. If I somehow gave you the impression that I was condemning ALL people on the right, then I have not done a good job of communicating - but the following reads like a textbook strawman to me:
Society was/is greatly polarized, is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
Wealth inequality (which is known to incite violence) was/is very high, is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
Mainstream Media was/is overwhelmingly biased to one side (it was conservative back then but very progressive today), is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
The answer is... of course not, and I don't believe I ever argued for that.
But, because we cannot put ALL blame on a thing does not mean we can put NO blame on it.
We have both already agreed, the vast majority of violence is coming form the extreme right, and it is rising.
The extreme right has also shown it feels it has (or, in some cases, had) the support of Trump.
In the face of these facts it seems disingenuous to insinuate that because we cannot blame
EVERYTHING on Trump then we cannot blame anything on Trump.
I think on the big picture scale what is happening is that the social movement that began in occupy wall-st is finally manifesting itself as extreme polarization of the society and no productive public discourse is being conducted so people are looking for other avenues of venting their anger. Which unfortunately leads to violence.
That's a strange outlook to me, given that the occupy wall street movement was driven by the left.... and if it led to no productive public discourse you would think it would be the left that would be left looking for 'other avenues of venting their anger.' Yet the violence that you mentions is coming form the right. You seem to be trying to connect the dots from a left wing protest to right wing violence.
So now the left wing ideology is to blame for the violence perpetrated by those they are protesting against?
I am sincerely confused, and I hope I misunderstood what you were saying there.
What the Left ended up embracing to defeat Trump is something far worse. It is racism, Marxism, sexism, religion all wrapped in secular scholarly clothes.
I genuinely don't see it. And, unless I missed it, your examples have been limited to Farrakhan and this Sandman debacle.
I personally don't know anyone who takes Farrakhan seriously, or believes that he is anywhere near mainstream.
He is on the extreme left. But, unlike the extreme right, the extreme left doesn't seem to be actually committing violent acts in general.
The slide you linked to said it itself:
"In terms of lethal violence, 2018 was dominated by
right-wing extremism. Every one of the 50 murders
documented by the COE was committed by a person
or persons with ties to right-wing extremism"
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians.
Okay, that is a claim. That is not an argument.
I haven't seen any support for that belief.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm skeptical - but if you have data and argument to back it up, I am happy to consider it.
The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
Again, you seem afraid of some nebulous future potential danger... yet somewhat unfazed by the
actual violence and danger that is happening today. As quoted above,
50 murders committed by a person with ties to right-wing extremism.
It honestly reads as if you feel an idea is more dangerous than people who have literally killed Americans.
I have a hard time believing that... so maybe I'm not understanding you correctly. But if I am, I'm afraid we're at an impasse, because your position is simply irrational. It seems akin to being afraid that the milk might be poisoned and drinking the drano instead.
EDITED TO ADD:
I see you posted some links while I was writing this reply - so my comment about your examples being limited to Farrakhan may have been premature. I'll take a look when I have a moment.