Buzz62 wrote:Actually I think many now do.
Why do you think Pelosi and Feinstein would say the things they have recently?
I thought they were courting conservative voters!
But your idea that they are doing this because imaginary people are sad that you don't like them is a much more logical idea!
Excess of any kind is hurtful. I saw someone claim there are 2 sides in politics.
This is not the case in reality. Only about 60% of the public claim to be either Democrat or Republican in the US.
That leaves 40% of the entire population, who are either independent or undecided. Yet the primary political ideologies, liberal and conservative, are, in an exhibition of pure genius, drifting further to extremes. The leaders of the liberal camp are trying to put a lid on this, because they see what's happening.
Pundits on the right do and say some pretty loony things sometimes, but they don't scream and cry and run around picking fights with their perceived opponents.
This is all irrelevant and we already discussed it.
The right does this so much that they actually have a whole media industry around spreading hate and saying awful things. I pointed this out and I also pointed out that the left has no comparable industry.
People make money selling hate to the alt-right.
No one makes money selling hate to the left.
Thus there is no financial incentive for the alt-left to exist.
jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:Because there's a difference between voicing your opinion and intentionally instigating a violent situation.
What does this have to do with your claim that there is a difference between yelling "N*****" at one black person and yelling the exact same thing at a whole group of them?
Why is the latter more morally correct?
Yes both sides are wrong, extremists on both sides are aggressive, irrational and do more harm than good to their own cause.
That's the key issue, would you support someone who holds your ideals even if their actions do more harm to the cause than good?
The whole "alt-left" thing was specifically made up by right wing pundits to make both sides look equally bad.
I see a difference between white supremacists who have an inherently violent ideology and who violently try to impose this ideology and those who oppose these people with violence.
One side is trying to impose an inherently unjust system. The other side is not.
One side is trying to perpetuate historical injustices. The other is not.
One side is deliberately trying to instigate violence by holding rallies in places where they know they have no support. The other side does not.
One side targets ethnic and religious minorities who are already marginalised. The other side targets right wing militants in order to defend minorities.
It is only when we ignore all of this and look only at the fact that both sides use violence at far right rallies that we can pretend both are equal.
This is all true even if we do not support the militant left, or more correctly, militant anarchists.