Moderate republicans? Have you been on Parler? Moderate is "I think universal healthcare is dumb, minimum wage is bad for business, we need more oil pipelines, etc." Positions that are reasonable and can be discussed using more reason. What's on Parler is not moderate, it's pretty much nothing but calls for a violent overthrow of democracy, to be replaced by a society where anyone they deem as a "liberal" can be put to death.
Do you have a reference for this? Parler has obviously been nuked off the internet for the last week, so I think asking for sources is a fairer request than normal. Most people had never heard of Parler before it got banned, and "I clearly remember that the site was made up of violent, bloodthirsty terrorists!" isn't a neutral opinion at the moment.
If you have the stomach for it you can just start going through some of the threads of well known left wing people and you'll soon find the extremists posts in between that you can follow further.
The first one I’m sure how it’s well known, considering it has 9 retweets. Yes, it should be taken town, but I can see how it might be a little low on Twitter’s priority list considering he’s just some random Scottish dude, not really an “influencer” or anything.
The second one was definitely bad taste, and I’m surprised it didn’t get taken down considering she’s at least famous, but I don’t think that’s actually calling for him to be beheaded, I think it’s a really shitty attempt at being an art piece.
But neither of these are really plotting armed insurrection against a democratically elected government, are they? Not really as vile as spreading word that liberals are baby rapers and calling for their death. It’s like gerrymandering: sure, technically both parties do it, but I only ever here calls to end it from one party, whereas the other does all it can to continue the process, and the scale at which republicans do it is much, much greater.
Dylann Roof, James Alex Fields, Cesar Sayoc, Patrick Crusius. Those are very few of the many, many right wing terrorists this country has produced recently - just the ones I could name off the top of my head. The only examples of left wing terrorist attacks I could find were the SDS and SLA from half a century ago. We don’t have a problem with left wing terrorism. Left wing groups aren’t infiltrating police departments. Sure, there are a few bad actors on the left. But it’s several orders of magnitude different than the right and to say “well both sides do it” is basically just willful ignorance at this point.
Most leftists I interact with want basic healthcare to be covered by tax dollars, living wages, a path to citizenship for immigrants, equal rights, etc. I’ve encountered very few outside of very small little cliques who were actually interested in taking rights away from people or in killing anyone. I was in the WTO protests in Seattle, I have lived in Portland for many years, and now I live in a really red area. The right wingers I encounter(ed, pre-covid) were happy to tell me how they think illegals should be shot, how liberals aren’t really people, how all democrats are pedophiles, how they don’t want (insert minority) living in this community because they’re dirty/criminals/whatever, how they carry a gun at all times in case a black person comes up on them. On and on. Waiting to have a chance to kill a fellow American. This is not something I see from both sides. These are just regular people, not extreme radicals part of some splinter group. This is the run-of-the-mill right wing.
Did you know that in 1983 far leftist group actually bombed the Capitol [1]? The goal of a FAR left has historically always been a revolution, a violent take over of power or as we call that today an insurrection. I have no problem calling a spade a spade when I see it and feel sorry for you that you can't.
Did you read my post? I said it’s been decades since there was any far left terrorist attacks, and then I named two far left groups who did commit terrorist acts back then. I’m saying right now, currently, this century, there isn’t a problem with it, and the right wing is much more dangerous and more radicalized.
I have read your post and i don't find compelling evidence that your anecdotes are anything more than anecdotes. I don't know what company you keep but in my experience most right or left wingers are decent people. The most extreme 5% on both sides are nuts.
American cities burned, people were killed and beaten, property destroyed for the last 7 months now. How is that decades ago. I can't even understand why would you even try to whitewash any kind of such primitive violence.
Some of the deaths caused at the protests last summer were actually caused by right wingers shooting protestors, such as Kyle Rittenhouse, a child with an illegally-purchased firearm, breaking curfew, but whose presence was condoned by the police even though he was breaking the law. Garrett Foster was killed at a protest by a right-wing guy who shot him as he (the right-wing guy) was trying to drive through the protest crowd. Heather Heyer in Charlottesville. Even when left-wing people are having a peaceful protest, they are murdered by right-wing terrorists.
The very few incidents of left-wing people attacking/killing others are not planned, premeditated, organized things like the attack on the U.S. capitol. No left-wing people are showing up to marches with zip ties planning to kidnap politicians. No left-wing people are planting pipe bombs at political offices. No left-wing groups are trying to infiltrate the police to...demand police reform or make them stop killing minorities? Shit maybe they should. Much better than right-wing groups infiltrating them to hopefully incite a race war.
If you can't tell the difference between people protesting police brutality and the police targeting of minority groups, and people storming U.S. state capitols and the federal capitol with guns, trucks full of bombs, zip ties, etc., as part of a planned action, then this discussion is pointless.
A source for a site that is supposed to be for content too extreme for Twitter has content too extreme for Twitter? Yes, sure, Wikipedia. Every news article posted about Parler from the beginning. The CEO. The court filing after Amazon warned them to implement some moderation policies and they didn’t[0].
Parler was also notorious for banning non-hardcore right-wing opinions, much like how r/conservative is somehow both a “free speech zone” but you aren’t allowed to post dissenting opinions.
Personally, I believe ISIS have a right to believe we all need to live under Sharia law. These wackjobs have a right to believe we all need to live in a fascist state where we can hang gays, Jews, liberals, and dissenters. But I have a right to believe views like that are abhorrent and dangerous and that Amazon and every other host is well within their rights to say, “we prefer social stability, thanks” and I would feel exactly the same about some violent left wing movement (if one existed that wasn’t some boogeyman created by OANN or NewsMax). Twitter removes violent left wing content just as much as it removes violent right wing content. The left just doesn’t bitch about nearly as much, or as loudly. And yes, I’m sure you can cherry-pick a few examples where lefties posted vile shit and it didn’t get removed, then I would cherry-pick some vile shit a right winger posted that didn’t get removed, and we would continue in this fashion indefinitely. It’s hard to moderate content when you have millions of users and millions of bots. No system is going to make everyone happy, but I think calling for the violent death of our democratically elected representatives is over the line, no matter who is making the call, and content like that should be removed. I feel like that’s a pretty sensible line to draw.
None of those is "stupid". They are anti democratic and violent assholes. But, there is no reason to think they are dumb or that they cant affect thing toward worst.
Oh in my home country (Russia) tanks once get "democracy" into the country.
I couldn't see much difference between anti democratic and anti socialistic (both are anti-"you") and both a violent. While no one will claim that was a bad thing.
In the case of capitol siege they followed the orders their leader. This is not always that bad: unlocking people to do violent things are half of the issue too. You can dream about killing someone, thinking about suicide or whatever - difference is if it will lead to action. Unlocking people to attack capitol or commit suicide are also a crime and in both cases target is not capable to think clearly. Why we treat two cases differently?
Those are right-wing economic positions, I think you'd find all right wing social positions abhorent. Even "we need to ban immigration from poor and disfunctional countries" is likely to be termed racist and not "moderate". Let alone things like "the word "woman" should not be used to refer to so-called "transwomen"" or "buggery is dangerous and should be made illegal".
