• halfpipe [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    93·
    4 months ago

    Well, violence was already normalized in every other sphere of American life, I guess it was only a matter of time. Look at the Trump shooter, by American standards, the only weird thing about him is that he went after someone important instead of just shooting up his local school or walmart.

  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    63·
    4 months ago

    I hate to be “that kind” of leftist but political violence has always been normalized and accepted. Cops exist to uphold the law, the law is made by politicians, cops use violence to uphold it.
    “Oooh but [person being beaten by cops] did something illegal” yeah. We decided it was illegal and we decided violence was fine to use to keep it that way. I’m not saying it’s good or bad or I disagree or agree or whatever, it’s just how it is.

    Saying you’re for political violence is just being honest. Everybody is for it, they’re just against violence that influences them negatively.

    • InappropriateEmote [comrade/them, undecided]@hexbear.netEnglish
      19·
      4 months ago

      I agree with all of that, but I think what’s relevant here is that more people are becoming willing to aim the violence in the other direction, from the masses and towards the state. You are 100% right that political violence has always been normalized and accepted, but specifically (like in your example) it was the state use of violence against people that was normalized and accepted while people using violence against the state was broadly considered not just taboo but immoral.

      The numbers in OP aren’t just describing an increase in acceptance of all “political violence,” but an acceptance for the masses to wield that political violence against the state, which is a very interesting, maybe even profound shift, a shift that is indicative of the ongoing collapse of the empire.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
    50·
    4 months ago

    Gotta be honest, that infographic is kinda uninformative wrt the actual rate of increase. You made me read! 💢

    • 1 in 10 in the 1990s said violent action against the government can be justified

    • Serious threats against federal judges that trigger an investigation rose from 179 in 2019 to 457 in 2023

    • Threats against members of Congress are up nearly tenfold since 2015

      • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        23·
        4 months ago

        In theory sure but I guarantee the majority of these are chuds threatening the more progressive members of congress (or threatening regular Democrats because chud Media told them they are basically Stalin).

          • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            11·
            4 months ago

            OK first of all Tlaib and Bush have been consistent on Palestine so thats not even true.

            Second of all right wing political violence is bad! We should not support it regardless of our enjoyment for the victims because when they succeed they are empowered. Supporting fascists killing liberals is fucking stupid. What are you going to be like “based Attomwaffen” lol?

            • Hestia [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
              10·
              4 months ago

              You managed to list two people who don’t deserve the wall, congrats.

              I don’t care if fascists kill other fascists though. And that’s what liberals are. “Progressive” isn’t really a useful term as it means different things for different people. People here have a general idea of what you mean if you call someone a liberal though, at least that’s the case on hexbear.

              • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                9·
                4 months ago

                I don’t care if fascists kill other fascists though. And that’s what liberals are.

                And this is the ideological dead end that “liberals are the exact same thing as fascists” leads us to I guess. Actually believing that if an overtly fascist organization successfully assassinates a liberal public figure it would be a good thing because a “fascist” died. Like no, there is a material difference between liberals and fascists and I’m tired of people here saying otherwise partially because it leads to these absurd conclusions.

                People here have a general idea of what you mean if you call someone a liberal though, at least that’s the case on hexbear.

                Apparently not! Since it means two different things to you and me. If you think there’s no material difference between AOC and Attomwaffen, you are extremely lost.

                Like would I mourn her as a individual person? No lol. Would I consider it a political loss for all of us? Absolutely. And not because of what I think AOC can accomplish or whatever. But because we don’t want the overtly fascist organizations to get a win. When they get a win, they seek more wins. They like winning. If you think that kind of increasing right wing political violence only gets aimed at liberals and not the actual left (or just completely innocent minorities) you got another thing coming lmao.

                I wouldn’t even have liked it if “Hang Mike Pence” had worked out for them for this reason. Once it was a stated goal of the far far right, I didnt want it to happen, or at least not for them to do it. It would have been cool if we did it (if it was organized and had a stated, specific purpose and wasnt just random adventurism) but that wasn’t what was happening.

                • Hestia [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  9·
                  4 months ago

                  I’m not going to debate you on this. It’s a waste of my time and I have better shit to do. Have a good day.

                  Edit: you’re also grossly mischaracterizing me when you assume I think liberals and fascists are exactly the same. I’m simply not going to engage with you further on this.

    • cosecantphi [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      3·
      4 months ago

      This seems more like it might be a polling issue given the rise of the internet since the 1990s. Nowadays It’s absolutely much easier for the average person to make a threat against a politician and get away with it than it was in the 90s.

  • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    43·
    4 months ago

    What percent of that violence is right wingers trying to combat imaginary enemies entirely disconnected from reality?

  • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    41·
    4 months ago

    That first statistic is so funny. It reminds me of conversations that are like “He’s a felon, but it was for drugs.” “Oh, who cares?” It’s the same thing except you’d go

    “They’re a murderer, but they murked a politician”

    “Oh shit, which one?”

    [My lawyer suggests I don’t include this line]

    “Oh, that rocks! Can we invite them over for dinner? I’ll bring out the fine china”

  • Diuretic_Materialism [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    36·
    4 months ago

    taking violent action against the government can be justified

    Lol, this is something nearly everyone believes CAN be justified. It’s such an open ended statement, yeah I’m sure most people can imagine a situation where they would feel violent action against the government could be justified. Really the question should have been do you feel it’s justified under the current administration

  • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    34·
    4 months ago

    I’m surprised only 34% of Americans believe taking violent action against the government can be justified, isn’t the whole country founded on violent action being taken against the government? Or did the founding fathers just write some lukewarm think pieces, stage a protest in the designated protest zone, and vote for George Washington?