3 ms·

I’m not sure why you think this is relevant. You can’t get out of the trouble you’re in for stealing candy at the store by saying the other children did it too.

I’m not sure why you think this is relevant. You can’t get out of the trouble you’re in for stealing candy at the store by saying the other children did it too. I’m well aware there are other problems, but I think that’s actually part of my original point. ISIS is a problem, but it’s a problem we’re actively fighting. No one seem to be taking the radical right in America serious in any manner. Even though these years, the radical right is killing quite a lot of people. I live in Scandinavia, the worst terror attack ever in our part of the works was Brevik, a far right terrorist who murdered hundred of political youths in what he viewed as a crusade against the left. In my own country we’ve seen an increase in hate crimes committed by the right being doubled every year since 2015. So it’s not like we’re not familiar with the problem, but unlike America we actually treat these people as a serious threat to our democracy. The radical right, the radical left and radical Islamists can all be dangerous at the same time, and I think they are, what I don’t get is why you treat them so differently.

philwelch 8y ago
It’s relevant because the underlying principles of not tarring vast populations with collective responsibility, or silencing entire categories of ideology, in response to the acts of a few extremists is completely abandoned by the left when they have something to gain from it. If right-wing terrorists are treated differently by the US government, it is probably because there are not large organizations of them, nor are there groups of them overseas that we can engage militarily. When there have been large, organized right-wing terror groups like The Order and the Aryan Nations, they’ve been vigorously investigated and shut down in accordance with normal law enforcement. Taking the further step of outlawing free expression or infringing upon the freedom of association—even when truly reprehensible ideologies are at issue—is not a step that any Western government has taken for any other terrorist threat.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  I think you’re not very educated on what ISIS is if you think they are more organised than the radical right groups. I mean, here in Europe many of these right groups and parties are even funded by a foreign nation state. They’ll call it fake news, but it’s actually in their own books. You can’t be a political organisation without having public books here, and every right wing movement in my country is mainly funded by Russia. They may have different names, but they’re extremely organised. Maybe that’s different in America, but I doubt it, though it’s obviously harder to prove if there isn’t public records.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    If and when that’s the case, it’s appropriate for eg the FBI to intervene, and most of the well-organized groups have been broken up. The issue in the US now is lone wolves, who are orders of magnitude less well-organized than a group that used to control vast amounts of Iraq and Syria by force of arms. The proposed solution of cracking down on, say, conspiracy theory forums is categorically different from cracking down on actual terrorist organizations, and more akin to silencing radicalized imams and the like. While it’s true that many European countries do suppress particular political ideologies, even most of these bans are superficial, which is why Europe still has crypto-fascist parties.

philwelch 8y ago

It’s relevant because the underlying principles of not tarring vast populations with collective responsibility, or silencing entire categories of ideology, in response to the acts of a few extremists is completely abandoned by the left when they have something to gain from it. If right-wing terrorists are treated differently by the US government, it is probably because there are not large organizations of them, nor are there groups of them overseas that we can engage militarily. When there have been large, organized right-wing terror groups like The Order and the Aryan Nations, they’ve been vigorously investigated and shut down in accordance with normal law enforcement. Taking the further step of outlawing free expression or infringing upon the freedom of association—even when truly reprehensible ideologies are at issue—is not a step that any Western government has taken for any other terrorist threat.

eksemplar 8y ago
I think you’re not very educated on what ISIS is if you think they are more organised than the radical right groups. I mean, here in Europe many of these right groups and parties are even funded by a foreign nation state. They’ll call it fake news, but it’s actually in their own books. You can’t be a political organisation without having public books here, and every right wing movement in my country is mainly funded by Russia. They may have different names, but they’re extremely organised. Maybe that’s different in America, but I doubt it, though it’s obviously harder to prove if there isn’t public records.
- philwelch 8y ago
  If and when that’s the case, it’s appropriate for eg the FBI to intervene, and most of the well-organized groups have been broken up. The issue in the US now is lone wolves, who are orders of magnitude less well-organized than a group that used to control vast amounts of Iraq and Syria by force of arms. The proposed solution of cracking down on, say, conspiracy theory forums is categorically different from cracking down on actual terrorist organizations, and more akin to silencing radicalized imams and the like. While it’s true that many European countries do suppress particular political ideologies, even most of these bans are superficial, which is why Europe still has crypto-fascist parties.