Key word there, also I'm not aware of anybody on the left who even thinks about giving support to that short of action let alone dares to voice it.
Who was the speaker of that sermon? I'd love to email them and get the real story, because that smells suspiciously like confirmation bias in your summary.
It was probably more along the lines of, "Making your bed and lying in it" or "When you poke the lion ten times, expect to get bit"
When someone trots out crimes of the left, it smells like "and you too!" that somehow the Right, which has the rule of force as their platform gets a pass with 1:100 ratios.
Anyhow, a UU sermon that is dismissive of terroristic violence is novel enough that requires a citation. In fact the only thing I could say to generalize about the variety of topics I've heard in various UU sermons is that none of them could possibly be characterized with the word "meh" in the summary. If anything it is the "Church of Anti-meh." And I'm not even a member, so I'm sure I've only heard the tip of the iceberg.
> As a moderate, BOTH extremes in the U.S. scare the shit out of me right now.
This is painfully ridiculous. The lunatic with a rifle is not representative of Sanders or his supporters, or the left in the U.S. I don't think an honest person of any political stripe would listen to Sanders condemnation of the guy and wonder whether he really meant it.
The Nazis and the Klan... are the Nazis and the Klan. Murder is what they do, and the best that could possibly have been said about the ones marching the other day was that they were just some kind of weak wannabes, not the real thing. Which would have been a smarter thing to say before they killed somebody at their rally.
I just cannot fathom some of the over-intellectualized naivete I'm reading here.
And nazis aren't representative of Trump or his supporters. To say otherwise would insinuate that _half the country_ are nazis.
It’s actually not clear if this is the case. It took three days and a ton of media pressure to get Trump to say he condemns Nazis, and then he immediately said that he only made the statement because “bad people” in the media forced him to.
A very logical conclusion is that Trump actually does support Nazis.
I think it's just as possible that not all facts were available on Saturday afternoon. Once the facts were available on Monday, the President made a definitive statement.
Also, since when did days become inclusive? I count 2 days (48 hours) between noon Saturday and noon Monday. Another media concoction.
Putting aside the issue of his supporters, a charitable reading of Trump (whose true beliefs are well-concealed by ineloquence and constant displays of self-contradiction and dishonesty) would be that authoritarianism, nationalism, xenophobia, and many other fascist traits resonate strongly with him and he therefore feels some unconscious reluctance to criticize these guys who ought to be really, really easy for him to denounce by name. That's the charitable reading, which is consistent with him not really believing in their stated goals.
The behavior the press harps on - Trump being oddly appreciative of the qualities of "strongman" politicians when he speaks of them - is a common enough talking point, but I was shocked when Trump told the mass-murderer Duterte he was doing a great job. At some point the question of whether Trump is an amoral, dangerous idiot or an evil, dangerous idiot starts to feel a little academic.
That's precisely it. There is a line where incompetence becomes malice but once you're far enough across the line it no longer matters where the line itself is.
According to PBS, "far-right extremists tend to be more active in committing homicides, yet Islamist extremists tend to be more deadly."
Are we comparing percentage of deaths or number of events?
Personally, I think both sides are fueled by religious beliefs. Their hate is cut from the same cloth.
[0] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/analysis-deadly-threat-f...
I don't think that 8 right wing extremism homicide events over the course of 2 years shows that _half the country_ are right wing extremists.
Just like how 5 Islamist extremist homicide events over the same period of time don't show that all Muslims are extremists.
That's different than just condemning their actions and calling them nut jobs. It shifts the problem away from people who are in a position to maybe make an impact. Even if it's unlikely that extremists on either side are going to come to their senses, it's much more likely that the whip shooter would engage in conversation someone with a strong left-wing orientation, and that some white supremacists listen to Trump when he uses the right kind of language.
If you are part of a political movement, or any group with strong opinions really, it's a moral duty not just to accept that there are people in your group who go too far but also to use your standing to call them out on it.
John Oliver has made some excellent commentary, but you can hardly call it balanced. Maybe for good reason, but nonetheless. BLM is awesome and necessary, however they walk a thin line between protesting against oppression and demonizing police, which some take as encouragement for violence. It's a continuing sturggle to to tell people on "your side" that they're wrong and going too far, much harder and more important than to belittle or protest against people that you naturally disagree with.
I realize that a large portion of young social media posters have already forgotten about this. Probably because John Oliver doesn't talk about it, and that's often their primary source of news analysis. But the Majority Whip for the U.S. Congress is STILL in recovery from a mass shooting over two months ago, by a deranged left-wing activist.
In Dallas last year, 5 police officers were assassinated and another 9 injured at a BLM protest march (the deadliest incident for U.S. law enforcement since 9/11), by an Army veteran who openly cited racial hatred as his motive. I went to church the following Sunday. I was a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation, one of the most liberal American sects. The sermon more or less boiled down to, "Meh, they had it coming". I have since left the UU community, after more than a decade of fellowship there.
Where is the balancing point, at which you can declare "equivalence"? I don't know, and don't really care. But the narrative that polarization and extremism are entirely one-sided needs to go.
As a moderate, BOTH extremes in the U.S. scare the shit out of me right now. I'm a bit sick of being told that I'm "normalizing" awful things by not locking arms with one side, shutting my brain off, and chanting along with the mob. The mob has the intellect, the morality, and the attention span of a goldfish.