Rise in Right-Wing Extremist Violence

Kate Monster

Continued from Fail thread for those that would like to discuss the recent events, their causes, their repercussions, prevention, political action, and if we expect to see more of this sort of violence during Obama's tenure.
To start the ball rolling I will re-post my previous statement here:
In April,the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning of an uptick in right-wing extremist violence,particularly anti-Semitic and anti-abortion violence, and the conservatives pressured the DHS to rescind the warning and apologize for it (with unfortunate success). Also, the systematic waning and lapsing of laws that protect doctors and staff that work at facilities that provide abortion is a topic that really should be addressed.

Axel

I'm kinda bothered that it's referred to as Right-Wing Extremism. That just associates it with Conservatives and Republicans. It should be referred to as Reactionary Violence/Terrorism, because that's what those people are. Or hate-group violence. Calling it Right-Wing is insulting to those of us who are Conservative, but consider these acts of violence to be just as terrible as any Liberal thinks they are.
Why should abortion doctors get any more protection than the rest of us? You don't see special protection for people in charge of Pro-Life groups, do you? They're humans, we all need equal protection. Maybe if an area comes under attack, then protection should be readily available. But I feel that the efforts would be more focused in rooting out Radical/Reactionary groups who will enact violence than providing protection to whichever political ideology is in control and under criticism at the time.

Apreche

I'm kinda bothered that it's referred to as Right-Wing Extremism. That just associates it with Conservatives and Republicans. It should be referred to as Reactionary Violence/Terrorism, because that's what those people are. Or hate-group violence. Calling it Right-Wing is insulting to those of us who are Conservative, but consider these acts of violence to be just as terrible as any Liberal thinks they are.

It's called right-wing because it is right-wing. Anti-semitism and anti-abortionism are right-wing ideologies. The recent violence has been among people who are extreme adherents to these ideologies. Therefore, it is right wing extremist violence.

There are plenty of extremists out there with left-wing ideologies. But, there isn't a rise in violence among those extremists.

gomidog

Calling it Right-Wing is insulting to those of us who are Conservative, but consider these acts of violence to be just as terrible as any Liberal thinks they are.

Ummm, because these are Right-Wing hate groups? Facism considered a Right Wing political philosophy, and Muslim extremists are technically more toward the "Conservative" side of things. Communism is Leftist, as are the environmental terrorists of Greenpeace. Does this mean that all Conservatives are nazis? No! However, it does mean that Nazis are right-wing.

Before you go off being all offended, learn a little about what the terms actually mean.

edit: So, why are you conservative? What about the political philosophy do you heavily agree with? I always like to see people defend their positions. Is it because you are scared of naked breasts?

lackofcheese

Fascism isn't strictly right-wing. Fascism and "conservative" ideology both share an authoritarian stance on social issues, but they differ on economic issues.

gomidog

Thanks. Okay, they are socially right-wing. I have heard neo-nazis described as such.

chaosof99

Why should abortion doctors get any more protection than the rest of us?

Hmmmmmm, maybe because they are being actively threatened?!

Axel

Calling it Right-Wing is insulting to those of us who are Conservative, but consider these acts of violence to be just as terrible as any Liberal thinks they are.

Ummm, because these are Right-Wing hate groups? Facism considered a Right Wing political philosophy, and Muslim extremists are technically more toward the "Conservative" side of things. Communism is Leftist, as are the environmental terrorists of Greenpeace. Does this mean that all Conservatives are nazis? No! However, it does mean that Nazis are right-wing.

Before you go off being all offended, learn a little about what the terms actually mean.

edit: So, why are you conservative? What about the political philosophy do you heavily agree with? I always like to see people defend their positions. Is it because you are scared of naked breasts?

I know that Fascism is a right-wing policy. But it is far to the right. Most right-wingers are not that far in. Therefore, calling it right-wing violence encompasses more people than are involved in this violence. It is technically a rise in Right-Wing violence, you are correct. But a very small percentage of right-wingers are being violent, so one could argue that is not a major rise, because it is a small percent. But, it is important, and so it is more logical to say a rise in Reactionary Violence. Also, Anti-Semitism may be a policy among several far-right-wingers, but it is far from a right-wing policy. My father is Jewish, never converted, I am a Christian Right-Wing, I find it hard to say that Anti-Semitism is a right-wing policy. I know that's not what you meant, but the fact is, that's how it sounds. It can be easily misconstrued by someone who doesn't know the facts.
Also, why I'm a conservative...In response to your question, I suppose you could say I am a fan of stereotypical "conservative family values." But I also agree with conservatives on a lot of real issues. I believe in lower taxes, which is a Republican policy. I don't believe in tremendously increasing taxes on the wealthy, although I do think there should be more focus on making sure they pay the taxes they do have. The percent of your income that you pay should not increase as you make more money, is my theory. It should be like, ~% of your income for everyone. Also, I support the war in Iraq on a few levels, though not all of them (raises Flame Shield). I would not place George W. Bush in the bottom 10 presidents (probably the bottom 20 though...). I can't think of any other real political stances that I can think of at the moment, but if you want to ask me about any, go ahead. Although be forewarned, my opinion on Gay Marriage is large and complex, and you may have a few disagreements with it, although it is ultimately for providing the same political rights to Gay and Lesbian couples.

chaosof99

Since I'm to lazy to quote the whole block of text Axel-of-the-Key posted just now: Maybe it would be easier for you if you would keep the "extremist" in the description, just like in the thread title. You know, that narrows down what kind of right-wingers we are talking about.

Axel

Since I'm to lazy to quote the whole block of text Axel-of-the-Key posted just now: Maybe it would be easier for you if you would keep the "extremist" in the description, just like in the thread title. You know, that narrows down what kind of right-wingers we are talking about.

I suppose, but even Extremists is a little broad. People could say that Pat Robertson, who I don't particularly like, is a Right-Wing Extremist. Pat Robertson has not open-fired on any Jews lately. He actually supports the Jews, to my knowledge. Granted, he's a jerk, but...He has yet to commit any acts of violence on anyone, to my knowledge.

lackofcheese

I know that Fascism is a right-wing policy. But it is far to the right. Most right-wingers are not that far in. Therefore, calling it right-wing violence encompasses more people than are involved in this violence. It is technically a rise in Right-Wing violence, you are correct. But a very small percentage of right-wingers are being violent, so one could argue that is not a major rise, because it is a small percent. But, it is important, and so it is more logical to say a rise in Reactionary Violence.

If the percentage of right-wingers being violent goes up from, say 0.1% to 1% (made-up numbers, obviously too high), then even though that's only 0.9% more right-wingers, it's 10 times more violence.

The percent of your income that you pay should not increase as you make more money, is my theory.

What do you base that on?

Andrew

I suppose, but even Extremists is a little broad. People could say that Pat Robertson, who I don't particularly like, is a Right-Wing Extremist. Pat Robertson has not open-fired on any Jews lately. Granted, he's a jerk, but...He has yet to commit any acts of violence on anyone, to my knowledge.

Obviously the solution is to call them Super Right-Wing Wizard A Class Extremists.

Axel

I know that Fascism is a right-wing policy. But it is far to the right. Most right-wingers are not that far in. Therefore, calling it right-wing violence encompasses more people than are involved in this violence. It is technically a rise in Right-Wing violence, you are correct. But a very small percentage of right-wingers are being violent, so one could argue that is not a major rise, because it is a small percent. But, it is important, and so it is more logical to say a rise in Reactionary Violence.

If the percentage of right-wingers being violent goes up from, say 0.1% to 1% (made-up numbers, obviously too high), then even though that's only 0.9% more right-wingers, it's 10 times more violence.

The percent of your income that you pay should not increase as you make more money, is my theory.

What do you base that on?

I think it's unfair to say that because you make more money, you have to give more of it to the government. Having a percent makes them give more already. A 5% tax, for example, would be the difference between a person giving $25 out of $500, or a person giving $50,000 out of their $1,000,000. That person is already giving a lot more money, and are fulfilling their obligations. Why should someone who makes less have to pay less percent, and vice versa?

lackofcheese

I suppose, but even Extremists is a little broad. People could say that Pat Robertson, who I don't particularly like, is a Right-Wing Extremist. Pat Robertson has not open-fired on any Jews lately. Granted, he's a jerk, but...He has yet to commit any acts of violence on anyone, to my knowledge.

Obviously the solution is to call them Super Right-Wing Wizard A Class Extremists.

Everyone knows S-class is higher than A-class.

Axel

I suppose, but even Extremists is a little broad. People could say that Pat Robertson, who I don't particularly like, is a Right-Wing Extremist. Pat Robertson has not open-fired on any Jews lately. Granted, he's a jerk, but...He has yet to commit any acts of violence on anyone, to my knowledge.

Obviously the solution is to call them Super Right-Wing Wizard A Class Extremists.

Do you all just have a problem with the word Reactionary, or are you just ignoring that? I have proposed a simple solution to the problem that no one has commented on yet.

Andrew

Do you all just have a problem with the word Reactionary, or are you just ignoring that? I have proposed a simple solution to the problem that no one has commented on yet.

Reactionary implies actions which have little or no thought behind them and, while amusingly fitting, ultimately it does not work. These crimes are planned and deliberately carried out for an ultimate purpose or goal. Ultimately, the issue is just semantic. You can use whatever buzz or code word you wish, but in the end these crimes are carried out by people with right wing ideologies carried to the extreme. You could call it Extreme Right-Wing violence. Oh wait...

chaosof99

I suppose, but even Extremists is a little broad. People could say that Pat Robertson, who I don't particularly like, is a Right-Wing Extremist. Pat Robertson has not open-fired on any Jews lately. He actually supports the Jews, to my knowledge. Granted, he's a jerk, but...He has yet to commit any acts of violence on anyone, to my knowledge.

Question: How is one supposed to classify people by the actions they have yet to do or will never do?
The DHS warned of possible right-wing extremist violence but until they actually commit violence you can't really distinguish between an actual radical extremist and an extremist who does not take violent action because neither have yet taken violent action.

lackofcheese

I know that Fascism is a right-wing policy. But it is far to the right. Most right-wingers are not that far in. Therefore, calling it right-wing violence encompasses more people than are involved in this violence. It is technically a rise in Right-Wing violence, you are correct. But a very small percentage of right-wingers are being violent, so one could argue that is not a major rise, because it is a small percent. But, it is important, and so it is more logical to say a rise in Reactionary Violence.

If the percentage of right-wingers being violent goes up from, say 0.1% to 1% (made-up numbers, obviously too high), then even though that's only 0.9% more right-wingers, it's 10 times more violence.

The percent of your income that you pay should not increase as you make more money, is my theory.

What do you base that on?

I think it's unfair to say that because you make more money, you have to give more of it to the government.

So you don't just want the same percent, you want the same amount?

Having a percent makes them give more already. A 5% tax, for example, would be the difference between a person giving $25 out of $500, or a person giving $50,000 out of their $1,000,000. That person is already giving a lot more money, and are fulfilling their obligations. Why should someone who makes less have to pay less percent, and vice versa?

Okay. The amount of money you give to the governmnent needs to be a function of income. However, you can't just arbitrarily pick a class of functions (in this case, linear functions) and say that that's the only way to do it. You're still not giving any real justification - what does "fairness" mean in terms of taxation?

Axel

Question: How is one supposed to classify people by the actions they have yet to do or will never do?
The DHS warned of possible right-wing extremist violence but until they actually commit violence you can't really distinguish between an actual radical extremist and an extremist who does not take violent action because neither have yet taken violent action.

Well, I think at this point it is obvious when an extremist is planning violence (KKK) or simply spouting lots of hot air (Pat Robertson). But, I suppose that's a good point.

Reactionary implies actions which have little or no thought behind them and, while amusingly fitting, ultimately it does not work. These crimes are planned and deliberately carried out for an ultimate purpose or goal.

I was taught that Reactionary was a reaction to a loss of power, or political control swinging to the other end of the spectrum. As such, these men, while perhaps pre-meditated, are reacting to their (misguided) belief that the Jewish populace should be killed.

Axel

Okay. The amount of money you give to the governmnent needs to be a function of income. However, you can't just arbitrarily pick a class of functions (in this case, linear functions) and say that that's the only way to do it. You're still not giving any real justification - what does "fairness" mean in terms of taxation?

I would say fairness is allowing someone who earned their money to spend it. Some people want to raise the percentage for richer people because they don't need all that money. They might say lower class should pay 5%, middle class should pay 7.5%, and upper class should pay 10%, or something of the sort. They say that because the upper class makes so much money, even raising the percent won't put them into a deficit. But I say that most rich people have earned their money. Even if you have a company handed down to you, running a business is hard work. It is very easy to drive something into the ground. They have earned their money, and while they have an obligation to the government to pay taxes, they also have a right, I believe, to spend the excess money they make, because they worked hard to make it.

Andrew

I was taught that Reactionary was areactionto a loss of power, or political control swinging to the other end of the spectrum. As such, these men, while perhaps pre-meditated, are reacting to their (misguided) belief that the Jewish populace should be killed.

This violence hasn't been isolated to times when liberal parties have been in control of the government, but rather fairly omniscient throughout history. One could say that right-wing extremist violence is rising in reaction to a shift in power, but to call it reactionary violence shows a fundamental ignorance of the history and operation of such groups.

lackofcheese

Well,

Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) and opposes changes in society it deems harmful.

The U.S. government has just transitioned from Reps to Dems. So, anyone who wants a Republican government in power is reactionary.

Axel

I was taught that Reactionary was areactionto a loss of power, or political control swinging to the other end of the spectrum. As such, these men, while perhaps pre-meditated, are reacting to their (misguided) belief that the Jewish populace should be killed.

This violence hasn't been isolated to times when liberal parties have been in control of the government, but rather fairly omniscient throughout history. One could say that right-wing extremist violence is rising in reaction to a shift in power, but to call it reactionary violence shows a fundamental ignorance of the history and operation of such groups.

I didn't say liberal parties, I said ideas contrary to whoever was in power. For instance, the Crusades could be considered Reactionary violence, reacting to Muslims trying to take Israel. Both parties are conservative, in a way, and so it is not a battle between liberal and conservative. And, now that liberals have a majority in the government, there could be some liberal reactionaries in the future, who might attack conservative opposition to Obama. Not saying it'll happen, but that would be Reactionary violence.

Axel

Well,

Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) and opposes changes in society it deems harmful.

The U.S. government has just transitioned from Reps to Dems. So, anyone who wants a Republican government in power is reactionary.

Actually, that kinda fits in with what I just posted above.

Andrew

I didn't say liberal parties, I said ideas contrary to whoever was in power. For instance, the Crusades could be consideredReactionaryviolence, reacting to Muslims trying to take Israel. Both parties are conservative, in a way, and so it is not a battle between liberal and conservative. And, now that liberals have a majority in the government, there could be some liberal reactionaries in the future, who might attack conservative opposition to Obama. Not saying it'll happen, but that would be Reactionary violence.

Fine then. Right-Wing Reactionary Violence. How's that? Again, semantics.

lackofcheese

Okay. The amount of money you give to the governmnent needs to be a function of income. However, you can't just arbitrarily pick a class of functions (in this case, linear functions) and say that that's the only way to do it. You're still not giving any real justification - what does "fairness" mean in terms of taxation?

I would say fairness is allowing someone who earned their money to spend it. Some people want to raise the percentage for richer people because they don't need all that money. They might say lower class should pay 5%, middle class should pay 7.5%, and upper class should pay 10%, or something of the sort. They say that because the upper class makes so much money, even raising the percent won't put them into a deficit. But I say that most rich people have earned their money. Even if you have a company handed down to you, running a business is hard work. It is very easy to drive something into the ground. They have earned their money, and while they have an obligation to the government to pay taxes, they also have a right, I believe, to spend the excess money they make, because they worked hard to make it.

You still haven't answered anything. You say that they have an obligation to pay tax but also a right to possess material wealth, both of which I can agree with. If you balance one against the other, you find that one has a right to some, but not all, of the money they make. However, you've made no statement on why the amount you pay should be directly proportional to the amount you make.

What are the criteria for determining how much tax you should pay?

Rym

I think it's unfair to say that because you make more money, you have to give more of it to the government. Having a percent makes them give more already. A 5% tax, for example, would be the difference between a person giving $25 out of $500, or a person giving $50,000 out of their $1,000,000. That person is already giving a lot more money, and are fulfilling their obligations. Why should someone who makes less have to pay less percent, and vice versa?

I would say fairness is allowing someone who earned their money to spend it.

The arguments against you are manifold and complete, but I'm sick of typing the same thing over and over and over again. To sum it up: you're wrong from both the historic and pragmatic perspectives, ideology nonwithstanding.

Fixed citation of first quote thanks to buggy Vanilla code.

Axel

Okay. The amount of money you give to the governmnent needs to be a function of income. However, you can't just arbitrarily pick a class of functions (in this case, linear functions) and say that that's the only way to do it. You're still not giving any real justification - what does "fairness" mean in terms of taxation?

I would say fairness is allowing someone who earned their money to spend it. Some people want to raise the percentage for richer people because they don't need all that money. They might say lower class should pay 5%, middle class should pay 7.5%, and upper class should pay 10%, or something of the sort. They say that because the upper class makes so much money, even raising the percent won't put them into a deficit. But I say that most rich people have earned their money. Even if you have a company handed down to you, running a business is hard work. It is very easy to drive something into the ground. They have earned their money, and while they have an obligation to the government to pay taxes, they also have a right, I believe, to spend the excess money they make, because they worked hard to make it.

You still haven't answered anything. You say that they have an obligation to pay tax but also a right to spend money, both of which I can agree with. However, that does not provide any clarification on where the balance lies between the obligation and the right...

What are the criteria for determining how much tax you should pay?

There should be a literal percentage. I'm not super economically minded, so I probably couldn't determine what it is, but somewhere, there must be a good number that will allow for all classes to pay the a good amount to the government, while also being able to buy things as per their class allows for. That's probably not worded very well...

Fine then. Right-Wing Reactionary Violence. How's that? Again, semantics.

I guess that is okay. As long as it is noted that not all Right-Wings are reactionaries, and therefore that most right-wings are not included in this grouping.

lackofcheese

Okay. The amount of money you give to the governmnent needs to be a function of income. However, you can't just arbitrarily pick a class of functions (in this case, linear functions) and say that that's the only way to do it. You're still not giving any real justification - what does "fairness" mean in terms of taxation?

I would say fairness is allowing someone who earned their money to spend it. Some people want to raise the percentage for richer people because they don't need all that money. They might say lower class should pay 5%, middle class should pay 7.5%, and upper class should pay 10%, or something of the sort. They say that because the upper class makes so much money, even raising the percent won't put them into a deficit. But I say that most rich people have earned their money. Even if you have a company handed down to you, running a business is hard work. It is very easy to drive something into the ground. They have earned their money, and while they have an obligation to the government to pay taxes, they also have a right, I believe, to spend the excess money they make, because they worked hard to make it.

You still haven't answered anything. You say that they have an obligation to pay tax but also a right to spend money, both of which I can agree with. However, that does not provide any clarification on where the balance lies between the obligation and the right...

What are the criteria for determining how much tax you should pay?

There should be a literal percentage. I'm not super economically minded, so I probably couldn't determine what it is, but somewhere, there must be a good number that will allow for all classes to pay the a good amount to the government, while also being able to buy things as per their class allows for. That's probably not worded very well...

You keep saying that, but you still haven't said why it has to be a constant percentage.

Just before you seemed to be saying that you would prefer if everyone paid the same amount, e.g. $10000. Why do you go with a percentage instead?

Axel

Okay. The amount of money you give to the governmnent needs to be a function of income. However, you can't just arbitrarily pick a class of functions (in this case, linear functions) and say that that's the only way to do it. You're still not giving any real justification - what does "fairness" mean in terms of taxation?

I would say fairness is allowing someone who earned their money to spend it. Some people want to raise the percentage for richer people because they don't need all that money. They might say lower class should pay 5%, middle class should pay 7.5%, and upper class should pay 10%, or something of the sort. They say that because the upper class makes so much money, even raising the percent won't put them into a deficit. But I say that most rich people have earned their money. Even if you have a company handed down to you, running a business is hard work. It is very easy to drive something into the ground. They have earned their money, and while they have an obligation to the government to pay taxes, they also have a right, I believe, to spend the excess money they make, because they worked hard to make it.

You still haven't answered anything. You say that they have an obligation to pay tax but also a right to spend money, both of which I can agree with. However, that does not provide any clarification on where the balance lies between the obligation and the right...

What are the criteria for determining how much tax you should pay?

There should be a literal percentage. I'm not super economically minded, so I probably couldn't determine what it is, but somewhere, there must be a good number that will allow for all classes to pay the a good amount to the government, while also being able to buy things as per their class allows for. That's probably not worded very well...

You keep saying that, but you still haven't saidwhyit has to be a constant percentage. What makes you say that a constant percentage is "fair?"

Because it is discriminatory, in a sense. You get a different percentage because you make more money? The idea just seems wrong. Perhaps I can't explain it any better than that, and I'm sorry, because it does make my opinion worthless, but that's the best way I can put it.

lackofcheese

I'll try to simplify this for you.

I think it's unfair to say that because you make more money, you have to give more of it to the government.

So you'd prefer it if everyone paid the same amount, e.g. $3000?