Is your impression that “right-wing” should designate a hive mind within which there is no conflict?
Because that's not what right-wing (or left-wing) has ever meant. The political universe isn't divided into two teams that conflict with each other but lack internal conflict.
Alternatively, I guess you might accept divisions within the Right but think that the term right-wing is defined in terms of proximity to Trump's cult of personality, but, no, while Trump is a right-wing figure (or perhaps an opportunist leveraging a right-wing base) loyalty to Trump is not what defines someone as being ”right-wing”. In either case, being violently opposed to Trump is not inconsistent with being right-wing.
But in this case jumpcrisscross is identifying political violence as an almost exclusively religious (technically muslim which seems a bit off to me, but whatever) or right-wing phenomenon - presumably including political violence against leftists and rightists as perpetrated under the banner of the right wing (although note in another comment he has clarified his position somewhat). If leftists declaring autonomy and militantly seizing a chunk of Seattle isn't terrorism to him then there are some interesting meaning-of-words questions to resolve here - like what he think "right wing" means. It might be that political violence is by definition right-wing to him.
Extremism isn't something that has been accepted as a right-wing position, historically speaking. The right wingers - like everyone - prefer to enact policy from government. Anti-government vigilantism is one of those highly ineffective strategies that nobody really lays claim to.
It’s really not. It may be extremism, but it’s not threatening or using violence against civilians for political means.
> political violence is by definition right-wing
Wat? Left-wing guerillas are all over the Americas, Africa and Asia. We just don’t have a lot of them right now in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest#...
Call me old school, but it sounds like there were threats of violence for political purposes. I'm not sure how an armed and ideological group can seize an area and block the police for any interesting length of time without being a terrorist group. If not political purposes, why are they doing it? If not violence, why do they need guns (there were a few shootings) and how are they holding the police off?
And you aren't really addressing the point I was challenging you on - how are you identifying 'right wing' and 'left-wing' here?
Then every bridge protest, any strike that gets contentious and/or gang activity is terrorism. They’re not. What you describe is an attempt to consolidate power; not sow terror.
The definition of terrorism is famously ambiguous. But if we expand its definition to include Seattle then must also include armed marches and counter-protests. That still leaves us with a domestic terrorism problem that is overly concentrated amidst right-wing extremists.
> how are you identifying 'right wing' and 'left-wing' here?
Broadly, by partisan orientation. More loosely: by authoritarian and individualist manifestos versus collectivist and anti-capitalist ones. The closest we’ve had to left-wing terrorism since the ecoterrorism era is Luigi, and that’s partly because he’s almost impossible to fit on a one-dimensional metric.
as an independent i have a different perspective, the left are the violent ones and consistently push us towards a civil war with their bigotry and inability to stop attempting forced “progress”.
If you meant to respond to me, and not roenxi, nobody is forgetting the riots. They were a menace. But they weren’t terrorism and wouldn’t respond to antiterrorism tactics; they’re mass lawlessness. Same as Seattle. The solution is enforcing the laws on the books against flagrant rulebreakinh. That doesn’t work for terrorists.
For the record, and this is true for all humans, speaking words that you've INDEPENDENTLY thought of and come up with all on your own - they leave your mouth differently than words you've heard another say and now your just repeating... it's instantly and immediately identifiable - it's like an advertisement came on, totally different tone, incantation and inflection.
Your comment was the text version of that.
No. Of course we've had left-wing terrorism. It's just not been as prevalent, organised or present as the right-wing form. (And I'm aware of zero currently-operating left-wing militias anyone considers a threat in America.)
Still not terrorism. Left-wing militias are certainly a problem in some parts of the world. They aren’t in America. Our domestic terrorism comes almost exclusively from radical Islam and right-wing nutjobs. (Who, somewhat hilariously, see eye to eye on more than they realise.)