9 ms·

Poll: Americans increasingly justifying political violence

34 points by cwwc 5y ago

imtringued 5y ago
Rolls eyes. Land value taxes and negative interest rates anyone?
bmeski 5y ago
Democracy is currently threatened from inside, and it’s not the citizenry. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking 62% of the country, or whatever large stat, is a bunch of blood thirsty crazies. Both political parties have committed atrocities and are equally complicit in the current state of affairs. Tribalism will not solve this. Please respect each other and do not accelerate our national divide.
- olliej 5y ago
  Ah yes, I do recall both sides having used violence to overthrow the results of an election. I remember how both sides have delayed and rushed Supreme Court nominations in order to allow the majority of the court to be appointed by a minority of citizens. I remember how one side has actively changed laws to make voting for the wrong party harder. Both sides have created created camps that separate children from their family, and then lose those children. Both sides have worked to prevent people from being able to live safely regardless of gender or orientation. Both sides have actively attacked the free press. Etc. Very much both sides have committed atrocities.
  - rhexs 5y ago
    Take a break from the news and whatever political Reddit/discord bubble you appear to be in.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - GaveDrohl 5y ago
      Gotta agree with you. This guys is part of the problem and doesn't even realize it. I know people "on the other side" that are equally part of the problem, and don't realize it either. I get called a "centrist" and though I agree on many of the points made, if I disagree with one, I'm suddenly the bad guy not worth listening too since I'm not in 100% agreement. I'm Not until we start holding the media and politicians accountable for their lies and profiting off of them and getting people worked up, and people start thinking critically for themselves, things won't change. The individuals who've been fed this for years are not likely to wake up, at least not the ones I know. This won't end well.
  - newbie789 5y ago
  - pokey00 5y ago
    You've managed to provide a perfect example of what the parent comment was trying to point out. You've turned several extremely complex political and social issues into angry one-liners you can scream at your fellow countrymen- your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers. You know, the regular, non-evil people you live beside day in and day out.
blockwriter 5y ago
Not being violent is the simplest and most ethical thing one can do. How we excuse it in others is beyond my comprehension.
- olliej 5y ago
  Is it though? Let's say there's a group of people that has decided to round up a few specific groups, concentrate them in camps, and then systematically execute them. Is it more moral to just let it happen, or use force to prevent it? (Just to note the nazi concentration camps were not any part of the motivation for the allies in WW2, they were perfectly content letting it happen until the Axis invaded. We can see almost exactly the same thing with the Uyghurs in China today)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - blockwriter 5y ago
    For a nation or for a person?
    - olliej 5y ago
      Does it matter? For example if a nation chooses to use force it needs the citizens to participate. Similarly violence of an individual against the state may also be morally justified: for example many people argue the US revolution was a good thing, a slave using force to escape, etc. This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend? Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true
uejfiweun 5y ago
I said it in 2016, this whole polarization spiral in the US will inevitably result in blood in the streets. Looks like we are sliding further and further towards that abyss. I hope that 10 years from now, once all the dust is settled, we will be able to hold accountable the people who really caused this catastrophe: the news media. There is no question in my mind that their hyperbole, lying, and greed are the thing polarizing people most of all. I mean, in the past 5 years, they have just moved to blatant propaganda and lies. These lunatics are going to get people hurt, and I hope the people responsible face a harsh punishment for inciting civil unrest.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > will inevitably result in blood in the streets Who do you think is going to start the violence? > who really caused this catastrophe: the news media There may be some truth to that, but surely we expect individuals to have some responsibility for their own ideological position and treatment of people they believe they disagree with?
BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
> About 1 in 3 Americans believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified," Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions. This poll doesn't highlight polarization. It highlights polling minus a clue. Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
- morelisp 5y ago
  In fact in many states (countries and US states) the right to violence against an unjust government is explicitly codified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_as_positive_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a... Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics?
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics? To a new breed of globalists, yes. Populism is a bad word now, remember?
    - morelisp 5y ago
      No agreement from me. It’s got nothing to do with globalism and populism is bad. We’ve just had an unprecedented period of peaceful transition of power in the US (~150 years) and people are a bit forgetful.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.
  - deleted 5y ago
plandis 5y ago
The United States of America, like many nation states, was founded on political violence. Here’s Thomas Jefferson on the subject: > And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
- krapp 5y ago
  Of course, he was writing that in the context of denouncing Shay's Rebellion. Note the part where he says "the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them," rather than to encourage and justify it on principle. As often happens with quotes of the founding fathers, the actual argument being made is more nuanced than the quote suggests. While Thomas Jefferson believed in the spirit of rebellion as necessary, he also understood that an ignorant and uneducated populace could be led astray by misinformation, and that such rebellions in practice were more often than not the result of a failure of the civil and cultural systems of trust which should have prevented them.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    It's unclear to me which party "them" refers to in your quote. The rulers, or the people? Any references where Jefferson expounds on his concerns over "misinformation" and an ignorant populace?
    - krapp 5y ago
      The quote comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Smith regarding Shay's Rebellion. You can find a transcript here[0] and easily elsewhere on the web, but I've excised the relevant text, emphasis mine: "(...) yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them." It doesn't make sense that "them" refers to the rulers, in context it obviously refers to the people taking arms. [0]https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html
donquichotte 5y ago
Democracy in France started with plentiful use of the guillotine, and few would argue that democracy is a bad thing. If few are ruling many, they best tread lightly, or history may repeat itself.
lykahb 5y ago
Both camps tend to hold a Manichean view - they fight the other deranged party in the name of humanity and common sense. Both camps support the freedom of speech mostly when it is advantageous to their agenda. The media thrives on outrage. Representing multiple viewpoints is likely to get pummelled on the social media. This positive feedback loop is not going to end up well. To see how much the political discourse has simplified, look up the old debates or political talk shows from the 60s-90s. Respectful disagreement and fact-based argumentation used to be common.
- gopher_space 5y ago
  A decent number of people on those old shows had actually killed Nazis themselves and felt that it had to be done. Certain points of view were simply not on the table back then.
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
- jmspring 5y ago
  I get your point, but there were a handful of people present that were armed in some form. That said, breaking into the Capitol Building was not a peaceful act.
- Fatnino 5y ago
  Why bring your guns into a city where guns are illegal when there is very low chance the people you are up against will be armed?
- standardUser 5y ago
  They are referring to the part when people with weapons stormed the US Capitol building in order to stop part of the peaceful transfer of power.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Sorry, if you break into the Capitol intending to stop the Constitutional certification of an election, insurrection is accurate whether you used guns or not.
- gwilikers 5y ago
  > An Indiana man charged with carrying a loaded firearm to the Capitol on Jan. 6 told investigators that if he had found Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “you’d be here for another reason,” according to court documents posted over the weekend. > Mark Mazza, 56, is the latest of about half a dozen Jan. 6 defendants charged with bringing a gun to the Capitol. In this case, Mazza allegedly carried a Taurus revolver known as “The Judge,” which is capable of firing shotgun shells — two of which were in the chamber, along with three hollow-point bullets. A Capitol Police sergeant obtained the weapon after allegedly fending off an assault from Mazza. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/22/man-charged-loaded-firearm-capitol-riot-523178 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/22/man-charged-loaded-...
acomar 5y ago
we're going to have pograms over the next 5 years and we'll blame the people who fight back.
jrochkind1 5y ago
Among other things, this says the belief that "violence against the government can at times be justified" is far more prevalent on the white right than among other people. It definitely was not always this way in the USA, this is very different than what you would have found even 20 years ago. In addition to seeming possibly threatening for those of us not on the white right, I think it demonstrates that people "mad as hell who aren't going to take it anymore" are largely finding a home on the right and not the left. Again, it wasn't always this way. Somehow what anti-systemic left may exist is no longer visible or accessible.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Because the left is now mainstream, and the right is counter-culture. The opposite of the 1950s and '60s.
- evv555 5y ago
  I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. It's not the "white right" occupying blocks in Portland. Not that I agree with either side. I think it's a lose/lose situation for everyone if we keep feeding this polarization.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    I am responding to the survey data that is the OP. > The new poll found that 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence can be acceptable, compared with 23% of Democrats. Forty percent of white Americans said violence can be justified, compared with 18% of Black Americans. > Flashback: The percentage of adults who said violence is justified was 23% in 2015 and 16% in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times respectively, according to the Post. That doesn't mean no "Democrats" think so, just relative. But I'm responding to this survey data. Which still could not mean what I said even if valid data, sure. For instance, since it was about "Democrats" vs "Republicans" not "left" and "right", maybe it says nothing about left vs right but just that those who are inclined toward political violence on the right identify with the Republican party but those on the left who do don't identify with the Democratic party. For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats". I am interpreting this survey within my overall worldview, it's true. But it's those numbers from the survey I was responding to, per your question.

34 points by cwwc 5y ago

Rolls eyes. Land value taxes and negative interest rates anyone?

Democracy is currently threatened from inside, and it’s not the citizenry. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking 62% of the country, or whatever large stat, is a bunch of blood thirsty crazies. Both political parties have committed atrocities and are equally complicit in the current state of affairs. Tribalism will not solve this. Please respect each other and do not accelerate our national divide.

olliej 5y ago
Ah yes, I do recall both sides having used violence to overthrow the results of an election. I remember how both sides have delayed and rushed Supreme Court nominations in order to allow the majority of the court to be appointed by a minority of citizens. I remember how one side has actively changed laws to make voting for the wrong party harder. Both sides have created created camps that separate children from their family, and then lose those children. Both sides have worked to prevent people from being able to live safely regardless of gender or orientation. Both sides have actively attacked the free press. Etc. Very much both sides have committed atrocities.
- rhexs 5y ago
  Take a break from the news and whatever political Reddit/discord bubble you appear to be in.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - GaveDrohl 5y ago
    Gotta agree with you. This guys is part of the problem and doesn't even realize it. I know people "on the other side" that are equally part of the problem, and don't realize it either. I get called a "centrist" and though I agree on many of the points made, if I disagree with one, I'm suddenly the bad guy not worth listening too since I'm not in 100% agreement. I'm Not until we start holding the media and politicians accountable for their lies and profiting off of them and getting people worked up, and people start thinking critically for themselves, things won't change. The individuals who've been fed this for years are not likely to wake up, at least not the ones I know. This won't end well.
- newbie789 5y ago
- pokey00 5y ago
  You've managed to provide a perfect example of what the parent comment was trying to point out. You've turned several extremely complex political and social issues into angry one-liners you can scream at your fellow countrymen- your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers. You know, the regular, non-evil people you live beside day in and day out.

blockwriter 5y ago

Not being violent is the simplest and most ethical thing one can do. How we excuse it in others is beyond my comprehension.

olliej 5y ago
Is it though? Let's say there's a group of people that has decided to round up a few specific groups, concentrate them in camps, and then systematically execute them. Is it more moral to just let it happen, or use force to prevent it? (Just to note the nazi concentration camps were not any part of the motivation for the allies in WW2, they were perfectly content letting it happen until the Axis invaded. We can see almost exactly the same thing with the Uyghurs in China today)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- blockwriter 5y ago
  For a nation or for a person?
  - olliej 5y ago
    Does it matter? For example if a nation chooses to use force it needs the citizens to participate. Similarly violence of an individual against the state may also be morally justified: for example many people argue the US revolution was a good thing, a slave using force to escape, etc. This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend? Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true

uejfiweun 5y ago

I said it in 2016, this whole polarization spiral in the US will inevitably result in blood in the streets. Looks like we are sliding further and further towards that abyss. I hope that 10 years from now, once all the dust is settled, we will be able to hold accountable the people who really caused this catastrophe: the news media. There is no question in my mind that their hyperbole, lying, and greed are the thing polarizing people most of all. I mean, in the past 5 years, they have just moved to blatant propaganda and lies. These lunatics are going to get people hurt, and I hope the people responsible face a harsh punishment for inciting civil unrest.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> will inevitably result in blood in the streets Who do you think is going to start the violence? > who really caused this catastrophe: the news media There may be some truth to that, but surely we expect individuals to have some responsibility for their own ideological position and treatment of people they believe they disagree with?

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

> About 1 in 3 Americans believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified," Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions. This poll doesn't highlight polarization. It highlights polling minus a clue. Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?

morelisp 5y ago
In fact in many states (countries and US states) the right to violence against an unjust government is explicitly codified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_as_positive_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a... Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics?
- rayiner 5y ago
  > Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics? To a new breed of globalists, yes. Populism is a bad word now, remember?
  - morelisp 5y ago
    No agreement from me. It’s got nothing to do with globalism and populism is bad. We’ve just had an unprecedented period of peaceful transition of power in the US (~150 years) and people are a bit forgetful.
Barrin92 5y ago
>Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.
- deleted 5y ago

plandis 5y ago

The United States of America, like many nation states, was founded on political violence. Here’s Thomas Jefferson on the subject: > And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

krapp 5y ago
Of course, he was writing that in the context of denouncing Shay's Rebellion. Note the part where he says "the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them," rather than to encourage and justify it on principle. As often happens with quotes of the founding fathers, the actual argument being made is more nuanced than the quote suggests. While Thomas Jefferson believed in the spirit of rebellion as necessary, he also understood that an ignorant and uneducated populace could be led astray by misinformation, and that such rebellions in practice were more often than not the result of a failure of the civil and cultural systems of trust which should have prevented them.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  It's unclear to me which party "them" refers to in your quote. The rulers, or the people? Any references where Jefferson expounds on his concerns over "misinformation" and an ignorant populace?
  - krapp 5y ago
    The quote comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Smith regarding Shay's Rebellion. You can find a transcript here[0] and easily elsewhere on the web, but I've excised the relevant text, emphasis mine: "(...) yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them." It doesn't make sense that "them" refers to the rulers, in context it obviously refers to the people taking arms. [0]https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html

donquichotte 5y ago

Democracy in France started with plentiful use of the guillotine, and few would argue that democracy is a bad thing. If few are ruling many, they best tread lightly, or history may repeat itself.

lykahb 5y ago

Both camps tend to hold a Manichean view - they fight the other deranged party in the name of humanity and common sense. Both camps support the freedom of speech mostly when it is advantageous to their agenda. The media thrives on outrage. Representing multiple viewpoints is likely to get pummelled on the social media. This positive feedback loop is not going to end up well. To see how much the political discourse has simplified, look up the old debates or political talk shows from the 60s-90s. Respectful disagreement and fact-based argumentation used to be common.

gopher_space 5y ago
A decent number of people on those old shows had actually killed Nazis themselves and felt that it had to be done. Certain points of view were simply not on the table back then.

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

jmspring 5y ago
I get your point, but there were a handful of people present that were armed in some form. That said, breaking into the Capitol Building was not a peaceful act.
Fatnino 5y ago
Why bring your guns into a city where guns are illegal when there is very low chance the people you are up against will be armed?
standardUser 5y ago
They are referring to the part when people with weapons stormed the US Capitol building in order to stop part of the peaceful transfer of power.
rootusrootus 5y ago
Sorry, if you break into the Capitol intending to stop the Constitutional certification of an election, insurrection is accurate whether you used guns or not.
gwilikers 5y ago
> An Indiana man charged with carrying a loaded firearm to the Capitol on Jan. 6 told investigators that if he had found Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “you’d be here for another reason,” according to court documents posted over the weekend. > Mark Mazza, 56, is the latest of about half a dozen Jan. 6 defendants charged with bringing a gun to the Capitol. In this case, Mazza allegedly carried a Taurus revolver known as “The Judge,” which is capable of firing shotgun shells — two of which were in the chamber, along with three hollow-point bullets. A Capitol Police sergeant obtained the weapon after allegedly fending off an assault from Mazza. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/22/man-charged-loaded-firearm-capitol-riot-523178 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/22/man-charged-loaded-...

acomar 5y ago

we're going to have pograms over the next 5 years and we'll blame the people who fight back.

jrochkind1 5y ago

Among other things, this says the belief that "violence against the government can at times be justified" is far more prevalent on the white right than among other people. It definitely was not always this way in the USA, this is very different than what you would have found even 20 years ago. In addition to seeming possibly threatening for those of us not on the white right, I think it demonstrates that people "mad as hell who aren't going to take it anymore" are largely finding a home on the right and not the left. Again, it wasn't always this way. Somehow what anti-systemic left may exist is no longer visible or accessible.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Because the left is now mainstream, and the right is counter-culture. The opposite of the 1950s and '60s.
evv555 5y ago
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. It's not the "white right" occupying blocks in Portland. Not that I agree with either side. I think it's a lose/lose situation for everyone if we keep feeding this polarization.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  I am responding to the survey data that is the OP. > The new poll found that 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence can be acceptable, compared with 23% of Democrats. Forty percent of white Americans said violence can be justified, compared with 18% of Black Americans. > Flashback: The percentage of adults who said violence is justified was 23% in 2015 and 16% in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times respectively, according to the Post. That doesn't mean no "Democrats" think so, just relative. But I'm responding to this survey data. Which still could not mean what I said even if valid data, sure. For instance, since it was about "Democrats" vs "Republicans" not "left" and "right", maybe it says nothing about left vs right but just that those who are inclined toward political violence on the right identify with the Republican party but those on the left who do don't identify with the Democratic party. For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats". I am interpreting this survey within my overall worldview, it's true. But it's those numbers from the survey I was responding to, per your question.