I was wrong

[Cliffycomeback]

Yeah, I'm aware of all of it, I just used ChatGPT to summarise it in an easily digestible format for those in here with "room temperature IQ".

I suppose you're trying to claim the "context" of each of these statements excuses them, yes?

What a guy Charlie Kirk was.

Why don't you pick one statement & explain how it was justified?

Are there any Muslim ruled countries you would like to live/raise a family? Have you seen some of the hate being preached by many Muslims around the world? What do you think about the disproportionately high amount of Muslim criminal shootings around Sydney and Melbourne? Because you would have to be entirely disingenuous to not admit there is a very real problem there. Why is that? What do you think about the tens of thousands of Africans being butchered by Muslims? Do you feel as much outrage for the Christian Africans? What about the Taliban and the disgraceful way women are treated? How did ISIS become such a big thing? Then there's the terrible murders at Charlie Hebdo, because someone dared to draw a cartoon of Mohammad. The list just goes on and on.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

There is an amazing example of how broken some people are in this thread

A post is made on what appears to be consensus regarding politically motivated violence which shows it is far more attributable to the “right”.

How to deal with this if it goes against your beliefs?

What about Islam? Why is 9/11 not included? Trans people are bad or my favourite “it does not include property damage” (which is a different discussion l)

To be fair, Islam continues to inflict a lot of bloodshed in the name of Allah.

 

[lsz]

There is no consensus regarding politically motivated violence, which was the point I was making about violence being much broader than murders.

The discussion on Islam was relevant as the data included Islamic terrorist attacks. The omission of 9/11 deaths from those statistics would be considered a rather glaring omission by most people.

Not sure who said trans people are bad.

This study was being quoted as proof that the assertion by conservatives that leftist violence is on the rise was false. If we agree that violence includes rioting, injuries, property damage etc, then that is far from proven.

In so far as the research itself, even the author himself acknowledged that categorisations were far from objective and different ideological motivations could be assigned to attackers. The only conclusion they were willing to make is that total politically motivated murders were relatively small.

Finally, this is one study. I’m not sure how a consensus can be agreed based on a single study, particularly one with apparent self-highlighted flaws that specifically warn against just that type of over-interpretation.

Nobody is broken, just unwilling to jump to conclusions unquestioningly.

Did you not read when I gave several other examples? Perhaps you did not have the time

 

[manlyfan76]

There was recent reports of church groups flooding liberal party factions esp Melbourne to take over the party and government.

Kirk was a Christian Nationalists who believes women should abide to the "biblical submission" and not be free or equal.

Interesting points from professor Bodey:



For the past several years, Matthew Boedy, an English professor at the University of North Georgia, has been working on a book about the Christian nationalist aims of the conservative powerhouse group Turning Point USA and its late founder, right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk. In his forthcoming book, The Seven Mountains Mandate: Exposing the Dangerous Plan to Christianize America and Destroy Democracy, Boedy argues that Kirk modeled Turning Point on the seven-mountain mandate, the idea that Christians are called to take over each of seven spheres of influence—from government to education to media and beyond.

Popularized by Texas business strategist and evangelical leader Lance Wallnau, the idea of the seven-mountain mandate has become especially influential in the New Apostolic Reformation, a loose network of charismatic, Christian nationalist churches that follow prophets and apostles who claim to receive divine messages from God. NAR leaders and ideas have become deeply entwined with American politics, both on the national and local levels. As I wrote last year:

They believe that Christians are called to wage a spiritual battle for control of the United States. In the vanguard of an ascendant Christian nationalist movement, they are seeking an explicitly Christian command of public schools, social policy, and all levels of the government, including the courts. Some scholars claim NAR is the fastest-growing spiritual movement in the United States. Evangelical writer C. Peter Wagner described it as the most significant shake-up in Protestantism since the Reformation. Its laser focus on starting a spiritual war to Christianize America has led the Southern Poverty Law Center to call NAR “the greatest threat to US democracy that you have never heard of.”

Article: His book on Charlie Kirk was about to come out. Then his subject was murdered.

 

[manlyfan76]

 

[Brookie1973]

Did you not read when I gave several other examples? Perhaps you did not have the time

Several other examples of what? Not sure what you mean. I thought I responded to every point you made in your post, but clearly I am not listening.

 

[Brookie1973]

Perhaps someone could explain these survey results, given the consensus view that left wing political violence is not on the rise.

Polls Show Rising Number of Americans Justify Political Violence

www.realclearpolling.com