Another imbalance can be which group has the most power. Eg, in the case of Israel/Palestine, Israel is perceived as the one with the most power. This can lead to some defenders of the less-powerful group to embrace more aggressive approaches (and I think that is a factor in Republicans being more ok with Trump’s personality, as they perceived themselves fighting a much more culturally powerful “enemy”).
Do you think if Harris had won we’d see more examples of far right type violence? I do.
There are other factors. Eg, I do think liberal/progressive aims, because they are about pushing back against perceived society-wide outrages and injustices, can lead to some very angry worldviews — worldviews that manifest in different ways compared to conservative-associated anger. There’s also the fact that young politically active people skew more liberal (see colleges) - and younger people are more immature and more emotional and more prone to embracing extreme political/cultural thinking/approaches.
But just to say I think things are very complex and it’s easy to see what we seek to find, and there’s no sense/benefit to playing a blame game with what are an extremely small number of people.
Embracing this view also helps protect “your side” if things shift. You should be able to imagine a future where republicans lose and that kicks off all sorts of weird right-associated militant/violent things.
It's even more dishonest to limit your analysis to a single year. Expand the analytical window to a more broad-based three-decade baseline and you can clearly see that political violence is bipartisan. Just a small sampling of recent violence performed by those on the right-side of the spectrum
-2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (literally cited 'the left' as motivation)
-2009 murder of George Tiller (abortion)
-2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting (again literally citing 'the left')
...after that we can get into the Oklahoma City bombing in '95 and the many attacks on abortion clinics of the 90s.
Taken as a whole, the common element is *not* right/left--it is illiberalism, usually mixed with mental derangement. If we want to talk about violence since 2000, you can see most of them were motivated by conspiracy theories that the perpetrators were sucked into by social media. The attention economy and the dominance of algorithmically-manipulated media platforms is the biggest culprit here, as it is literally designed to agitate the paranoid and angry instincts that feed political extremism. Just look at the aftermath of the Kirk shooting--the most angry, despicable, attention-getting responses to it have been augmented on social media at the expense of moderate, measured, rational responses that, according to statistics, characterize most people's views, whether on the left or the right. And in the political arena somehow the sociopathic extremists on Twitter are being framed as representative of everyone who isn't on the right. (same happened when the Minnesota legislators were shot, only with the political affiliation flipped) The entire body politic has fallen into the social media rabbit-hole. It's the biggest political issue of our time, and it is going practically unaddressed by our political leaders--and, as in the case of our president's shameful response, being actively made worse by some.
I theoretically agree with your premise that both sides have to work hard to try and understand each other. I try to live this every day. But you completely failed in your arguments to support that we are where we are at because of an equal impact from both sides. The cultural pressure points from the left were way stronger on the average persons(voter) day to day life than the powers of government on the right over the past 15 years. The impact on a normal persons(voter) day to day life from social media to school to family interactions have all been tilted strongly to support the left over the past 15 years plus. They only began to crack with the Twitter sale and then with Trumps election over the past 8 months. All you have to look at to fully believe this is what happened during COVID. The left was strong enough to shut down this country way past the time that science could justify it and they impacted the schools such that we will have a generation of young people impacted negatively. When anyone questioned this they were told they were wanting to kill the grandmothers and grandfathers. COVID. Is just one example. There are many others from how DEI impacted people in their jobs to the violence that was tolerated in support of Black Lives Matter. Trump’s election was much more a reaction to what people are experiencing not an instigator. Until people see this we will be in trouble And finally I would attest it is way harder to find a person who has been shunned from their family because they were liberal then it is to find a person shunned from family and friend because they were conservative
I think things are very complex. For one, I think both “sides” have played a role in making the other more extreme and angry. I think liberal/anti-trump people can and do tell a story much like yours, which is quite compelling, about how Republicans became increasingly aggressive and unreasonable over the past few decades, culminating in support for Trump’s contemptuous approaches. Just to say, i think it’s easy to weave stories.
I read it. I can agree tribalism begets tribalism. That is why I try very hard not to fall into that and constantly try and see the others points. One issue I have found it is hard to get past is if there is not a common moral compass. As I look at what has happened over the past 50-60 years is that we in the us may be splitting apart on this. Not the majority but very very vocal minority having a very different moral compass.
There's a whole lot that's wrong here, but the claim that social media's impact has been 'tilted to the right' is completely wrong. Social media has been tilted towards political extremism, without any pattern of political affiliation. It has radicalized people on the left and the right and if you look behind any politically-motivated violent incident in the country in the past 20 years, you almost always find its influence.
Indeed, here's what people have to get their head around: the nexus of extremism here is not political, it is technological. The way social media has been designed, and the ruinous business model behind it (selling people's data to advertising consultancies for revenue) has made society as a whole more cranky and paranoid by elevating extreme, conflict-driven, attention-getting political behavior over cooperative, moderate behavior. You need merely ask yourself: what will get the most retweets? A moderate statement condemning Charlie Kirk's murder and calling for political reconciliation or an immoderate statement dancing on his grave, and/or blaming it on a faceless 'opposition' of pedophiliac Deep State saboteurs? Anyone whose spenty any time on Twitter knows the answer is the latter.
Multiply that dynamic to a global scale, and voila--extremism rises at the expense of moderation across the political spectrum.
So, if polarization is rational, how do you reason your way out of it. You can't. Wars go on until one or both sides are exhausted and often times beyond. You are here.
This is a little dishonest, because all of the assassins of the past year have supported Left Wing causes, like "Free Palestine" or trans rights:
Elias Rodriguez 2 victims "Free Palestine"
Luigi Mangione 1 victim "Socialized Medicine"
Robin Westman 2 children LGBT rights
Mohamed Sabry Soliman 1 elderly woman, 6 others injured by firebomb "Free Palestine"
Loay Alnaji 1 elderly man killed "Free Palestine"
Tyler Robinson LGBT rights
Thomas Matthew Crooks, Trump shooter Anti-Trump
The man who firebombed Josh Shapiros house was also a "Free Palestine" nutjob.
I'm sorry but the majority of political violence these past two years are coming from one side. And it's not the Right.
Another imbalance can be which group has the most power. Eg, in the case of Israel/Palestine, Israel is perceived as the one with the most power. This can lead to some defenders of the less-powerful group to embrace more aggressive approaches (and I think that is a factor in Republicans being more ok with Trump’s personality, as they perceived themselves fighting a much more culturally powerful “enemy”).
Do you think if Harris had won we’d see more examples of far right type violence? I do.
There are other factors. Eg, I do think liberal/progressive aims, because they are about pushing back against perceived society-wide outrages and injustices, can lead to some very angry worldviews — worldviews that manifest in different ways compared to conservative-associated anger. There’s also the fact that young politically active people skew more liberal (see colleges) - and younger people are more immature and more emotional and more prone to embracing extreme political/cultural thinking/approaches.
But just to say I think things are very complex and it’s easy to see what we seek to find, and there’s no sense/benefit to playing a blame game with what are an extremely small number of people.
Embracing this view also helps protect “your side” if things shift. You should be able to imagine a future where republicans lose and that kicks off all sorts of weird right-associated militant/violent things.
It's even more dishonest to limit your analysis to a single year. Expand the analytical window to a more broad-based three-decade baseline and you can clearly see that political violence is bipartisan. Just a small sampling of recent violence performed by those on the right-side of the spectrum
-2025 Minnesota Democratic legislators shooting (anti-leftism)
-2023 Allen, Texas mall shooting (white supremacist, Neo-Nazi)
-2023 Jacksonville Dollar General shooting (white supremacist, Neo-Nazi)
-2022 Paul Pelosi attack
-2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting ('Great Replacement' theorists)
-2021 Attack on the U.S. Capitol (conspiracy theories, fanned by the leader of the right, about the left stealing an election)
-2020 attempted kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer
-2019 El Paso Walmart shooting (perpetrator claimed he was defending against a 'Hispanic invasion' of Texas)
-2019 Poway synagogue shooting (white supremacism)
-2018 Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shootings (perpetrators acting according to conspiracy theories about Jews supporting illegal immigration)
-2017 Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' rally killing
-2016 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation (right-wing 'anti-government' motivations)
-2015 Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting (abortion)
-2015 Charleston church shooting (white supremacism)
-2014 Bundy ranch standoff (right-wing anti-government motivations)
-2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (literally cited 'the left' as motivation)
-2009 murder of George Tiller (abortion)
-2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting (again literally citing 'the left')
...after that we can get into the Oklahoma City bombing in '95 and the many attacks on abortion clinics of the 90s.
Taken as a whole, the common element is *not* right/left--it is illiberalism, usually mixed with mental derangement. If we want to talk about violence since 2000, you can see most of them were motivated by conspiracy theories that the perpetrators were sucked into by social media. The attention economy and the dominance of algorithmically-manipulated media platforms is the biggest culprit here, as it is literally designed to agitate the paranoid and angry instincts that feed political extremism. Just look at the aftermath of the Kirk shooting--the most angry, despicable, attention-getting responses to it have been augmented on social media at the expense of moderate, measured, rational responses that, according to statistics, characterize most people's views, whether on the left or the right. And in the political arena somehow the sociopathic extremists on Twitter are being framed as representative of everyone who isn't on the right. (same happened when the Minnesota legislators were shot, only with the political affiliation flipped) The entire body politic has fallen into the social media rabbit-hole. It's the biggest political issue of our time, and it is going practically unaddressed by our political leaders--and, as in the case of our president's shameful response, being actively made worse by some.
I theoretically agree with your premise that both sides have to work hard to try and understand each other. I try to live this every day. But you completely failed in your arguments to support that we are where we are at because of an equal impact from both sides. The cultural pressure points from the left were way stronger on the average persons(voter) day to day life than the powers of government on the right over the past 15 years. The impact on a normal persons(voter) day to day life from social media to school to family interactions have all been tilted strongly to support the left over the past 15 years plus. They only began to crack with the Twitter sale and then with Trumps election over the past 8 months. All you have to look at to fully believe this is what happened during COVID. The left was strong enough to shut down this country way past the time that science could justify it and they impacted the schools such that we will have a generation of young people impacted negatively. When anyone questioned this they were told they were wanting to kill the grandmothers and grandfathers. COVID. Is just one example. There are many others from how DEI impacted people in their jobs to the violence that was tolerated in support of Black Lives Matter. Trump’s election was much more a reaction to what people are experiencing not an instigator. Until people see this we will be in trouble And finally I would attest it is way harder to find a person who has been shunned from their family because they were liberal then it is to find a person shunned from family and friend because they were conservative
I think things are very complex. For one, I think both “sides” have played a role in making the other more extreme and angry. I think liberal/anti-trump people can and do tell a story much like yours, which is quite compelling, about how Republicans became increasingly aggressive and unreasonable over the past few decades, culminating in support for Trump’s contemptuous approaches. Just to say, i think it’s easy to weave stories.
You might like this piece about how Republicans and Democrats have made each other more extreme. I think it’s important to see that none of this stuff happens in isolation. The fears/anger of one “side” help form the fears/anger of the other side. https://open.substack.com/pub/defusingamericananger/p/republicans-and-democrats-play-a?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I read it. I can agree tribalism begets tribalism. That is why I try very hard not to fall into that and constantly try and see the others points. One issue I have found it is hard to get past is if there is not a common moral compass. As I look at what has happened over the past 50-60 years is that we in the us may be splitting apart on this. Not the majority but very very vocal minority having a very different moral compass.
There's a whole lot that's wrong here, but the claim that social media's impact has been 'tilted to the right' is completely wrong. Social media has been tilted towards political extremism, without any pattern of political affiliation. It has radicalized people on the left and the right and if you look behind any politically-motivated violent incident in the country in the past 20 years, you almost always find its influence.
Indeed, here's what people have to get their head around: the nexus of extremism here is not political, it is technological. The way social media has been designed, and the ruinous business model behind it (selling people's data to advertising consultancies for revenue) has made society as a whole more cranky and paranoid by elevating extreme, conflict-driven, attention-getting political behavior over cooperative, moderate behavior. You need merely ask yourself: what will get the most retweets? A moderate statement condemning Charlie Kirk's murder and calling for political reconciliation or an immoderate statement dancing on his grave, and/or blaming it on a faceless 'opposition' of pedophiliac Deep State saboteurs? Anyone whose spenty any time on Twitter knows the answer is the latter.
Multiply that dynamic to a global scale, and voila--extremism rises at the expense of moderation across the political spectrum.
So, if polarization is rational, how do you reason your way out of it. You can't. Wars go on until one or both sides are exhausted and often times beyond. You are here.