Donald Trump and US politics

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-sees-300-violent-attacks-inspired-far-right-every-year/

Thanks for posting this. I had seen vaguely similar claims before, but never with anything I could link back to try and verify. Do you know if there is more to this? I can see where the probably cut it short for air time, but a lot of interesting ideas are raised that I'd like to see more on. The article starts out with 68 far right deaths this year, but then only mentions 9 and doesn't allude to any other specifics.

I did some digging, and found the "300" attacks per year - The CTC report they are drawing this from is:

Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right
Arie Perliger

His data is scattered throughout the article, but I found a few tables and graphs with the whole data set. One was broken down by state and in the time frame the article refers (data from and including 1990 to and including 2011) there were 4,342 attacks. At 22 years time span, that's 197.36 per year, not 300. (data on Page 96 if someone wants to check the .pdf themselves) Still a large number, but they have to be pulling that 300 from somewhere in that article.


What constitutes a far right attack according to the article?

"Many of the attacks in the dataset are compatible with all of these criteria. However, some of them, while exhibiting a clear political context, lack the instrumental use of violence."

So some attacks were non-violent attacks?

How do we know these were far right attacks? The article spends a lot of time on its methodology, but this line struck me:

"The percentages cited in Figure 12—which classifies far right attacks based on the
number of perpetrators—reflect a surprising reality. First, words of caution are necessary. The perpetrators of 40% of the attacks in the dataset were never caught or identified"

So far right attacks include people they never identified?

Where does Perliger get his data from?

1) The Anti-Defamation League (which means Pepe the Frog would be a suspect for 2016 attacks)
2) The Southern Poverty Law Center - All sorts of ethical, logical politically correct quicksand there.
3) The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism
(which I don't know enough about to judge. If someone reads Hebrew they can try searching their database - trying to run it through Google translate kept giving errors.)
4) relevant academic texts
5) various media source datasets

(note, both 1-2 USED to be reliable, and it was sad to see them decline)

The author raises some interesting questions - NOTE - these are not my opinion, and I don't share the author's opinion or assessment, I'm relaying them here as the author's report is a large part of the material used to source the NPR article linked.

"If the South is no longer the hub of far right violence, which regions are?"

"In terms of the number of attacks, the two states at the top
of the list are California and New York, which are considered liberal—or blue"

"When looking at the rest of the states that occupy the top ten spots, the blue trend is consistent: we can find Illinois (ranked 5th), Massachusetts (6th), Pennsylvania (7th), Washington (8th), New Jersey (9th) and Oregon (10th)."

"The existence of significant minority groups in the different states appears linked with
the level of far-right violence they experience. The table indicates that the top four states
in terms of number of attacks also have the highest number of combined African
American and Hispanic residents."

My thinking is that the article is somehow conflating various aspects, despite their numerical analyses to try and sort them out.


Here are a couple of tables from the report.



I'd be interested to see if Peter Bergen, the person NPR spoke with, had some additional info to lend support to what they are claiming.

I'm still somewhat skeptical at the moment, but that doesn't mean what NPR is saying isn't true, and that an awful lot has been flying under the public news radar.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

soneka101 wrote:

Those guys are the scum of this world.

It seems that soneka is a little more aware of what actual white supremecists look like. Noting any contrast between the Daily Stormer and Breitbart yet?

I don't know man, I rather keep things simple: White supremacist = someone that thinks white people are the superior race. Nazi = someone that has a hard on for Hitler and genocide. Racist = someone that discriminates based on race.

I don't even visit breitbart because I don't want to feed Bannon's baby(figuratively), but if I had to determine if someone there is a white supremacist I would do it based on what they believe(if I have proof, or if they say something that gives me that impression), not really based on how nice they are/aren't.

(BTW I wouldn't call someone "scum" for being a white supremacist/nationalist, I do think that this way of thinking is bad for our society, and I honestly disdain people that hold those views, but I think that it takes more than that to be called "scum". That dude Weev seems to be morally bankrupt and a coward, so I think this word suits could him well.)

------------

"

DalaiLama wrote:

As I have said before, one of the reasons I participate in these threads is for the different points of view. Someone else may know or have learned something I haven't seen, or have a better perspective on it. I would much rather learn when I have been wrong, and correct my mistakes, than "win" a discussion

That's a good reason to chat about stuff. I don't really know why I come here tho. Probably it has to do with curiosity. In the left wing bubbles there's a stereotype that the other side is uneducated, old and stubborn, but that isn't really true for everyone (maybe only a little bit about the stubborn part).

On the left bubbles they talk and talk about Trump voters but it doesn't really feel real sometimes. I come here when I want to hear what people are thinking about stuff that happened recently.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

You should! There's no intent to misinform on my part, but my sources could be in error, as we both have seen just now. The things I know first hand or have a good knowledge of, I tend not to source/link. Sometimes the source I learned it from is no longer in print, and not readily available.

In any case, questioning others honestly, and sharing what we know and think is the only way we can discover the truth.

Yes, indeed.

-----------------

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

soneka101 wrote:

He looks like a victim to me:
https://twitter.com/i/videos/897311005419728897

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Here's how it went down: https://streamable.com/svxcr

You can blame him, it's still cowardice tho. Killing someone isn't that hard, and doing stupid shit like that makes it even easier. Whoever started that is indeed an asshole, but the guys that ganged up with sticks at someone down on the floor have no excuse.

"Play stupid games win stupid prizes"? That could very well apply to any legal repercussion that might come out of this.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

The guy on the ground does not really look that innocent with this long black something (weapon ?)

It's a cane. While normally not a weapon, there have been numerous discussions on various boards (going back several months) by people talking about what they can take to a rally/protest to do harm and not get arrested for carrying a weapon. Canes and Bike locks were among them. Whether the person on the ground actually needs or uses a cane regularly, I have no idea.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

in his hand....( reason for editing ? )

If that picture is OK with support, I'll post what I had seen, and what I had before I edited it:

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

From this picture it´s totally uncertain what happened there.

Agreed. It is certainly more questionable.

"

soneka101 wrote:

I don't even visit breitbart because I don't want to feed Bannon's baby(figuratively)

If you do want to check a page, but don't want to give it clicks, you can try
https://unvis.it/

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

soneka101 wrote:

I don't even visit breitbart because I don't want to feed Bannon's baby(figuratively)

If you do want to check a page, but don't want to give it clicks, you can try
https://unvis.it/

Thanks, that will be useful ;)

"

soneka101 wrote:

You can blame him, it's still cowardice tho. Killing someone isn't that hard, and doing stupid shit like that makes it even easier. Whoever started that is indeed an asshole, but the guys that ganged up with sticks at someone down on the floor have no excuse.

"Play stupid games win stupid prizes"? That could very well apply to any legal repercussion that might come out of this.

Of course it's cowardice. But framing it as "poor black kid gets beaten up because of his skin color" is reaching. He marched side by side with violent people near other violent people. He should've known that getting beaten up was fairly probable in this scenario.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Of course it's cowardice. But framing it as "poor black kid gets beaten up because of his skin color" is reaching. He marched side by side with violent people near other violent people. He should've known that getting beaten up was fairly probable in this scenario.

I don't remember saying that the sole reason he got beaten up was because of the color of his skin, but I don't think you can argue that it definitely wasn't either.

"A group of internet trolls, Klansman, and Neo-Nazis ganged up and beat a young black man bloody. But I'm sure his race has nothing to do with it."

Say out loud and you will see how silly that sounds.

"

The_Reporter wrote:

That's the same as stating a woman should expect and accept that she will get raped when going out for a walk in short shorts and a low top.

Come on.

A violent leftist protester got beat up, so what? The video proved that regardless of the media narratives suggesting he was an innocent victim, that he himself was engaging in violence. If you go out looking for a fight, you just might get one, and you just might get your ass beat just like he did.

"

The_Reporter wrote:

That's the same as stating a woman should expect and accept that she will get raped when going out for a walk in short shorts and a low top.

Come on.

It would be the same if she knowingly did this among a group of rapists.