4 ms·

>It's also disingenuous to suggest the extreme left isn't dominating the messaging from the left. Except it's not disengenuous to say that at all. We can see t

>It's also disingenuous to suggest the extreme left isn't dominating the messaging from the left. Except it's not disengenuous to say that at all. We can see that by the candidates each party has supported. Biden is considered a pretty centrist democrat by pretty much any metric. Trump, however, can't be considered a moderate. He's enabled fascist White nationalist supporters. Biden hasn't done the same. Also, for the record, BLM and SJWs aren't equivalent extremist left compared to literal Nazis - the left wing extremist equivalent is Communism and the position to kill and eat the rich. That is the level of extremism that Trump has facilitated in office. If Biden also enabled people who explicitly call to overthrow the US government, I'd say you have a fairer point.

buran77 6y ago
The 2 extremes are indeed closer to each other than they are to the center, the Horseshoe theory. Of course, extremists on either side would hate to be bundled together, their ideology is different but their extremist approach is not. But I can't help but think this is a very asymmetrical horseshoe where the right side extends much further then the left side ever did. The problem is not even necessarily the particular ideology but rather that the right side is willing to be far more extreme in their views. That in itself is exceptionally dangerous no matter what the views are because it implies a very, very unpleasant life for those who don't share them. It's the reason why today the US is so divided, there's no more overlap, the 2 sides each sit in their corner. The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other.
- Garlef 6y ago
  > The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other. I think this statement is wrong. There are a lot of other possibilities. For example: "A minority that is agressively vocal for extremism in one aspect could be cushioned by a strong general consensus for a political culture of reasonable cooperation and discussion."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
westwing 6y ago
There are extremists on the left, Biden disavowed them publicly. There are extremists on the right, Trump disavowed them publicly. Nevertheless, media commentators on either side try to portrait these candidates as if they supported, or at least "enabled" extremists. Can you be more specific on how either of these candidates "enable" or "do not enable" extremism? How would you falsify an accusation of "enabling" something?
- wholinator2 6y ago
  Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists. I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate but I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him
  - westwing 6y ago
    > Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-... https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54381500 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54381500 > I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate... That was clearly a missed opportunity to clear things up, but the counter-question "Who do you want me to condemn?" is a fair one. It's easy for Trump to condemn the KKK, not so easy to condemn militia groups in general. Similarly, it's easy for Biden to condemn rioters, not so easy to condemn Antifa in general. Effectively, both candidates dodged that question. > ... I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him. That's moving the goalpost a bit too far for my taste. Trump has condemned white supremacists, that at least is on the record.
    - cassepipe 6y ago
      "to condemn Antifa" Antifa is a construct from Fox News to designate a broad category of mostly young people that range from anarchists calling for direct democracy to people who are against racism and intolerance that have in common that they are not against clashing with police forces. So condemning Antifa does not make much sense. Maybe he could have condemned violence in the protests but anyone who has been in a demonstration knows elements in both the protesters and the police are looking for the clash. But the police always has the upper hand and violently crush what is mostly damage to property. Just tell me how many people have been killed by so called "Antifa"? Is that comparable to the number of people that have been killed by right-wing activists? Why is it always the progressive leaders that get shot? Right wing activists always say they are here to "defend" against something but they are the one attacking.

buran77 6y ago

The 2 extremes are indeed closer to each other than they are to the center, the Horseshoe theory. Of course, extremists on either side would hate to be bundled together, their ideology is different but their extremist approach is not. But I can't help but think this is a very asymmetrical horseshoe where the right side extends much further then the left side ever did. The problem is not even necessarily the particular ideology but rather that the right side is willing to be far more extreme in their views. That in itself is exceptionally dangerous no matter what the views are because it implies a very, very unpleasant life for those who don't share them. It's the reason why today the US is so divided, there's no more overlap, the 2 sides each sit in their corner. The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other.

Garlef 6y ago
> The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other. I think this statement is wrong. There are a lot of other possibilities. For example: "A minority that is agressively vocal for extremism in one aspect could be cushioned by a strong general consensus for a political culture of reasonable cooperation and discussion."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

westwing 6y ago

There are extremists on the left, Biden disavowed them publicly. There are extremists on the right, Trump disavowed them publicly. Nevertheless, media commentators on either side try to portrait these candidates as if they supported, or at least "enabled" extremists. Can you be more specific on how either of these candidates "enable" or "do not enable" extremism? How would you falsify an accusation of "enabling" something?

wholinator2 6y ago
Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists. I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate but I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him
- westwing 6y ago
  > Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-... https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54381500 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54381500 > I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate... That was clearly a missed opportunity to clear things up, but the counter-question "Who do you want me to condemn?" is a fair one. It's easy for Trump to condemn the KKK, not so easy to condemn militia groups in general. Similarly, it's easy for Biden to condemn rioters, not so easy to condemn Antifa in general. Effectively, both candidates dodged that question. > ... I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him. That's moving the goalpost a bit too far for my taste. Trump has condemned white supremacists, that at least is on the record.
  - cassepipe 6y ago
    "to condemn Antifa" Antifa is a construct from Fox News to designate a broad category of mostly young people that range from anarchists calling for direct democracy to people who are against racism and intolerance that have in common that they are not against clashing with police forces. So condemning Antifa does not make much sense. Maybe he could have condemned violence in the protests but anyone who has been in a demonstration knows elements in both the protesters and the police are looking for the clash. But the police always has the upper hand and violently crush what is mostly damage to property. Just tell me how many people have been killed by so called "Antifa"? Is that comparable to the number of people that have been killed by right-wing activists? Why is it always the progressive leaders that get shot? Right wing activists always say they are here to "defend" against something but they are the one attacking.