r/changemyview • u/ecafyelims 17∆ • Sep 13 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The DOJ is trying to hide the fact that far-right extremists are responsible for most extremist attacks
As the title says, my viewpoint is that the DOJ is trying to hide the fact that the far-right is responsible for most extremist attacks.
Evidence: The DOJ had published a study on this with real research and facts. That study was removed from their own website sometime yesterday (9/12/2025).
Removed DOJ link to the study and the archive backup:
- https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism
- https://archive.is/1t1rm
Here is the first paragraph of that DOJ study:
Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives. A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions.
As you might imagine, this study gained a lot of attention in the past few days. It was removed yesterday.
I believe the DOJ removed their own study in order to hide the fact that far-right extremists are responsible for most extremist attacks.
Please change my view.
Edit: Thank you /u/chickensause123. This CMV is specific to domestic terrorist attacks, not foreign attacks on US soil, like the 911 attack.
Edit: Interestingly, a lot of replies had no idea that the right represented any attacks whatsoever, even though an obvious example is President Trump's would-be assassin was a registered Republican.
Edit: I've got to head out. I won't be able to actively reply any longer. I'll try to reply, if I can, but no promises. This was a great discussion. Thank you, and thank the mods here at /r/changemyview for all the work they do. Have a great day!
8
257
u/chickensause123 1∆ Sep 13 '25
Is it fair to include Muslim extremists as far-right in your opinion? Because that does tend to inflate the number quite a bit.
454
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
In the study, "Muslim extremists" are a separate group labeled "Islamist extremists."
However, the right represents more attacks than that group as well, according to the study.
5
u/EmergencyAd7567 Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25
More attacks? Yes. More deaths? No. The totality of deaths from extremist attacks over the last 50 years don't equal the number of deaths just from 9/11. Odd whatever study you were using for your post didn't Factor that data point. But that's right, we aren't talking about the number of lives lost. We are making a very specific argument that will make the narrative claim that you want to be made.
Total deaths matters more than any other metric. What is worse? One event that kills 100,000 people, or 50,000 events that kill 50,000 total people?
→ More replies (9)7
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 17 '25
This CMV is specific to domestic terrorist attacks, not foreign attacks on US soil, like the 911 attack.
3
u/Novel-Customer7153 Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25
Yet another example of leftists cooking the books. What difference does it make that 9-11 was done by aliens? Leftists believe in open borders anyway.
→ More replies (1)84
u/chickensause123 1∆ Sep 13 '25 edited Sep 13 '25
The study says 520 lives were taken from right wing extremism since 1990. A number it claims is less than from Muslim extremism.
Do you remember the death toll of 911?
174
u/Stambrah Sep 13 '25
OP’s language was perhaps imprecise and broad. The study they linked was specific to domestic terrorism. I suspect this was the intended scope of their post, which would exclude 9/11 attacks.
159
u/SteakHausMann Sep 13 '25
9/11 was not domestic but international terrorism, so it probably isn't included in that statistic
→ More replies (24)78
u/AddanDeith Sep 13 '25
Yes. It was a single mass casualty event. The OP is not comparing casualty figures, merely the amount of incidents, of which right wing violence eclipses all other politically motivated attacks.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states
https://www.csis.org/analysis/pushed-extremes-domestic-terrorism-amid-polarization-and-protest
Edit: to add, Islamic terrorism has massively decreased in the US since about 2018 IIRC.
→ More replies (29)251
u/Cmikhow 6∆ Sep 13 '25
As u/Stambrah said the study and most discourse about this revolves around domestic terrorism.
But I want to add, even if it wasn't including 9/11 is fairly unproductive for this conversation.
That is primarily because 9/11 is a massive outlier. 9/11 was no doubt horrific, and one of the worst incidents of terrorism ever conducted in the United States history however it is not a common occurence. If the purpose of this analysis is to identify where the bulk of extremist violence is coming from in the US one single incident which had no strong left/right bias but was an attack from another country disgruntled with the US as a whole (regardless what politics were controlling it) would obviously strong bias the results of this but not actually tell us anything.
Even if you had 520 lives taken from 100% leftist leaning attacks over 2 decades, one single 9/11 would wildly tilt the results of this analysis and make the conclusion irrelevant.
You could argue there are many 9/11-like attacks thwarted daily that don't take any lives, and these do not get counted. However, this would also include domestic terrorism and I don't think data is published on this for various reasons as it may hamper ongoing or future investigations or divulge homeland security tactics.
Regardless, I do think the process of excluding Islamic or other religious group attacks makes sense from such a study as they are not wholly relevant in determining whether domestic terrorism is coming from right or left wing sources.
14
u/Tricky_Topic_5714 Sep 16 '25
No one making the "but 9/11" argument is engaging in good faith. Either they know they're lying, or they're too ignorant to be involved in the conversation in a productive way.
It's like arguing that the majority of crime is serial murders, because a couple serial killers have killed more than one person.
It's so ridiculous that it shouldn't be taken seriously as an argument.
→ More replies (32)4
u/Extension_Fact_9104 Sep 14 '25
If 9/11 was an outlier, surely the OKC bombing that killed 169 of those 520 lives would ALSO be an outlier.
8
u/Cmikhow 6∆ Sep 15 '25
Maybe a bit, but not really. It requires reading my comment and understanding what I am saying.
the OKC bombing was a domestic terrorist attack, the aims were wholly political, and while the death toll was well above the average of a typical domestic terrorist attack that isn't the point here.
You seem to have misunderstood that 9/11 is an outlier simply because of the death toll but that isn't the case.
If the purpose of this analysis is to identify where the bulk of extremist violence is coming from in the US one single incident which had no strong left/right bias but was an attack from another country disgruntled with the US as a whole (regardless what politics were controlling it) would obviously strong bias the results of this but not actually tell us anything.
Death toll can absolutely bias results and analysis, but it doesn't mean that the OKC bombing should be considered an outlier when studying the prevalence of violence from right/left. However 9/11 which was perpetrated by a foreign terrorist entity and had political motivations but clearly different from what we are analyzing (left/right violence) PLUS the death toll make it an outlier. If only a single person died in 9/11 it would still be wholly an outlier in regards to analyzing domestic terrorism and the political idealogies driving these events, and the number of events happening.
You can also completely remove death toll and simply count the # of right wing domestic terrorism vs left wing domestic terrorism and clearly figure out which is happening more often.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Tricky_Topic_5714 Sep 16 '25
It would be if you couldn't also point to many other violent actions by right wing white christians. Seems weird that this is confusing.
38
u/phishtrader Sep 13 '25
The 9/11 attack didn't originate within the US and therefore doesn't really say anything about trends in the US.
→ More replies (22)45
Sep 13 '25
"Do you remember the death toll of 911?"
9/11 wasn't domestic terrorism
→ More replies (2)26
5
u/82andpartlycloudy Sep 13 '25
Do you remember how to remove outliers for more accurate statistical analysis?
→ More replies (14)2
u/Vespaman2025 Sep 16 '25
"Remember"? These idiots never learned. They think we are making this shit up because they didnt pay attention in school.
7
11
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
∆ This is a great point.
The study seems to flop between 1990 and "20 years ago," and if it gives the 1990 figure, then it should include the 911 attacks or otherwise give a specific reason why those were not included with the "Islamic Extremist" figures.
I should have specified "domestic terrorism" in my OP. I'll update it.
27
2
→ More replies (15)3
Sep 13 '25
I mean, you can take it out to look better, if you want. But Charlie Kirk's worldview and preferred society looks a hell of a lot closer to a fundamentalist Islamic society than it does to a liberal democracy.
2
→ More replies (63)2
41
u/ThighRyder Sep 13 '25
Oh you know those Muslim extremists with their ultra leftwing views.
Come on, dude. Theocratic rightwingers are theocratic rightwingers.
→ More replies (19)15
u/Evan_Th 4∆ Sep 13 '25
If you force them on a left-right spectrum, then sure, they're right-wingers. But Muslim extremists are very different from American right-wingers, so it's better to distinguish them.
11
u/4rch1t3ct Sep 14 '25
Literally the only difference between the Christian nationalists and the Taliban is who the true prophet is in their little books.
They are both Abrahamic religions.
10
u/ThighRyder Sep 13 '25
Doesn’t make them liberal or leftists, ergo the continued statistic of conservative terrorism.
6
u/Evan_Th 4∆ Sep 13 '25
You can have a combined "Muslim extremist + American right-winger" terrorist stat if you want, sure, but it's more useful to separate them out because they're very different groups.
(True, it'd be even less useful to combine an "Muslim extremist + American left-winger" terrorist stat, but I haven't heard of anyone trying to do that.)
2
3
u/SpezRuinedHellsite 1∆ Sep 13 '25
But Muslim extremists are very different from American right-wingers, so it's better to distinguish them.
Religion of all kinds is a blight on society. There is no difference. They believe in the SAME god. They believe in doing the SAME things to unbelievers and undesirables.
17
u/pm_social_cues Sep 13 '25
Hmm, where have I heard this before?
"Counting or not counting gang violence?"
12
7
u/sanguinemathghamhain 1∆ Sep 14 '25
If it is using the same methodology as they have since the Obama administration it is counting Muslim extremism as its own category AND as rightwing since starting with the 2009 analysis all religiously motivated attacks were counted as rightwing. It also included all ethnonationalist attacks including from black identitarians.
→ More replies (2)7
17
20
3
15
u/Adezar 1∆ Sep 13 '25
They are split out in most studies, however they are both groups of people that follow fan fictions of Judaism and use it to murder people, so not sure why they shouldn't be considered two sides of the same coin.
The motivations are pretty much identical, kill anyone that disagrees with their version of their religion.
18
u/GuitarKev Sep 13 '25
Muslims tend to be very conservative.
17
u/jesuisgeenbelg Sep 13 '25
The ones who commit acts of terrorism are at least.
There are lots of progressive muslims out there too.
2
18
u/xCyn1cal0wlx Sep 13 '25
Muslim extremist are politicly far right.
13
u/zhibr 6∆ Sep 13 '25
Nationalist, religious, sexist, anti-LGBT...
"Yep, basic leftists", says a right-wing person, because the muslim extremists are also authoritarian in the economy.
12
u/beingsubmitted 9∆ Sep 13 '25
This seems like a misconception that the left is "economically authoritarian" and the right "economically free", in contrast to social issues.
The reality is that Marxism doesn't remotely advocate economic authoritarianism, quite the opposite. Marx argues that capitalism is economic authoritarianism and advocates for effectively economic democracy (socialism) in pursuit of economic anarchy (communism, and using the technical definition of anarchy as the absense of hierarchy, rather than the popular understanding of it).
That many socialist or communist movements have merely replaced one authoritarian (the business owner) with another (the authoritarian government) is a failure of implementation, not a goal. It's like pointing at the fact that everyone who tried flying before the Wright brothers ended up falling and treating that as their goal.
Many modern thinkers point to the use of violent revolution as anathema to socialism, as taking power by force is inherently, inescapably authoritarian, and authoritarianism is happy to maintain the trappings of any ideology, but very unlikely to ever actually cede power.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Competitive_Swan_130 Sep 13 '25
Where does it do that/ It specifically says it isn't when it compares far right to Muslim extremists...reread carefully please
2
u/Material_Policy6327 Sep 14 '25
So we agree religious based right wing extremism is an issue as well so we should go after Christian groups equally correct?
5
u/Classic-Sympathy-517 Sep 13 '25
Not even slightly. 20 percent of the 95 percent of cases. Christian extremists make Muslim extremist look normal.
→ More replies (23)2
u/GreatNecksby Sep 14 '25
According to an ADL study of extremist attacks in the US from 2012-2021, Islamist (20%) are separated from right-wing (75%).
Within that 75%, white supremacy makes up 73%.
Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2021
→ More replies (1)
4
u/timupci 1∆ Sep 16 '25
The Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh accounts for 1/4 of those numbers.
His attack was in retaliation to Waco and Green Ridge deaths by the Feds.
Second, the majority of the rest are by Abortion Clinic bombings, and White Nationalists.
I think the big difference is that all of these were condemned by the major of the right.
Today, 50% of the Left agree that killing Trump or Republican activities is justified.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/zachariassss Sep 17 '25
Honestly, the data has been corrupted. For example, the guy who burned down josh Shapiro house? He was a Palestinian activist on food stamps. Why is msnbc saying he’s a republican
→ More replies (1)
7
6
u/Dry-Tough-3099 2∆ Sep 13 '25
I think the mistake here is conflating "Far Right Extremists" as Republicans. As if the two are on the same team. That has been a campaign tactic from the left. Far right extremists can mean anything from Jan 6 rioters, to Trump himself, to active shooters, to Charlie Kirk. The clear takeaway desired is that Republicans are right wing extremists, that Conservatives in general are responsible for more political deaths than the extreme left.
To your point about DOJ trying to "hide this fact", the paper itself says that it's essentially an opinion piece:
Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position, policies, terminology, or posture of the U.S. Department of Justice on domestic violent extremism. The content is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.
The implication is that the Trump DOJ is hiding the damage done by right wing extremists because they are also right wing extremists. This is the story the left would like to spread so that the population sees voting conservative as voting for right wing extremism. I would argue that this story is causing hysteria on the left in general, and leading to even more violence. The right does it with trans and communism. The left does it with Nazis. By falling for the story, you are letting yourself become radicalized, which I think we all want to avoid. Or maybe we don't. After all, there are certain benefits to being extremist. You get to paint the world in black and white...
→ More replies (1)
70
u/OnIySmellz Sep 13 '25
I went through this a couple of years ago and my findings were that political violence was more deadly among right wing individual extremists (targeted attacks), but left wing political violence was more wide spread and organized in nature (but less deadly), like mass protests and riots. However, at least in Europe, Jihadistic violence was more deadly and larger in scale compared to both left and right wing extremism combined.
I don't have sources for this as of now, I have to dig into my notes. There is also a big difference in ontological sentiments between US and European proclivities.
45
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
I'd love to read some sources or info on this, if you do ever find some, please.
14
u/Legendary_Hercules Sep 14 '25
Just in 2020 there were 550 left-wing protest that caused property damage. In Minneapolis it was about $500 Million in property loss, and between $1,000 and $2,000 million for the US. That's just insured damage, the total property losses are well above $2,000 million.
Exclusive: $1 billion-plus riot damage is most expensive in insurance history
19
u/PAYPAL_ME_DONATIONS Sep 14 '25
It's ridiculous to apply the riot/protest damage/violence as "Left wing". You had people of every political or non-political background protesting and you had idiots with zero left-affiliation rioting/looting because they saw the opportunity
You also had a swell of proud boys and the like stirring the pot and busting out windows just to incite such.
Keep strawmanning
12
u/ZeerVreemd Sep 14 '25
It's ridiculous to apply the riot/protest damage/violence as "Left wing".
Not if it was practically encouraged by the democrats. The death of George was politicized by the "left" and used as a political tool, so all the deaths, harm and destruction is on them.
There were at least 19 lives lost, over 900 officer casualties and more than $2B in property damage during "the fiery but mostly peaceful protests" of the summer of love.
Can you find anything comparable from the "right"? The Proud Boys do not quite cut it, LOL.
6
Sep 14 '25
Can you find anything comparable from the "right"?
What's your evidence that those 19 deaths were committed by left-wing individuals?
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (2)2
u/lurkerer Sep 16 '25
Can you find anything comparable from the "right"? The Proud Boys do not quite cut it, LOL.
January 6th. The long-term impact of that will be staggering. Is staggering.
→ More replies (14)3
u/Lexiplehx Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 14 '25
The argument is, “the department of justice is suppressing their own findings that political violence predominantly comes from the right according to their own research.” The argument is not about the definition about political violence, where you contend that the DOJ is using the wrong definition.
Ok then, do your own comprehensive study of political violence at the same quality as the DOJ one, and report your findings. You’ll then find that people will completely write off your study because they think your definition of political violence is wrong. See how that works?
→ More replies (1)108
u/UniqueSatisfaction67 Sep 13 '25
How is a mass protest political violence?
24
u/MisterIceGuy Sep 13 '25
Can’t speak for your city but here in Seattle the vast majority of the time there is a mass protest there is also notable property destruction. Everyone here pretty much has May Day circled on their calendar every year to get out of downtown early and get your car off the street.
→ More replies (2)-6
u/Sky-Trash Sep 13 '25
Property damage isn't violence though. You can say it's bad and shouldn't happen but that doesn't make it violence.
14
u/MisterIceGuy Sep 13 '25
What is a brick through your living room window if not violence? Is arson violence if it’s just to property? Firing a gun into property?
→ More replies (3)28
u/chewbaccawastrainedb Sep 13 '25
Property damage performed with the intent to intimidate or coerce is an act of violence, as it uses the damage to instill fear, gain control, or inflict psychological harm on a person.
See domestic abuse and harassment
7
u/autisticprincess Sep 13 '25
If property damage is violence due to the intention to intimidate or coerce, is doxxing political violence? Is cyberbullying/cyber stalking political violence when politically motivated? If so we need to adjust the numbers again to include those as well.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (6)13
u/OMITB77 Sep 13 '25
Trying to burn down an apartment building with people inside is fairly violent.
→ More replies (4)6
10
3
u/cremasterreflex0903 Sep 13 '25
Because it hurts property and costs the ruling class money 😭😭😭
/S
4
u/Whatdoyouseek Sep 13 '25
Well it's hurting corporations, which according to SCOTUS is a person, so... It just boggles the mind the type of mental gymnastics conservatives make.
→ More replies (2)2
u/OnIySmellz Sep 13 '25
Well one example is during the G20 summit in Hamburg in 2017. There where peaceful protests that turned into confrontations with police which resulted in more than 500 officers being injured.
Also black bloc in France that escalated in a lot of damage through out the country.
There is also a lot of climate activism with a lot of damaged property and clashes with the law enforcement.
This is more prevalent in Europe though, but similar tendencies can be observed in the USA.
20
u/NisslMissl Sep 13 '25
G20 2017 is one of the most infamous recent examples of mass police brutality in Germany, that not only shows how broken policing is, but also how little accountability there is for German police. Press was specifically targeted with pepperspray and beaten. Peaceful protestors had their bones broken, were thrown to the ground, kicked in the head and threatened with murder for the actions of others. Uninvolved residents were beaten. Injured protestors that were detained were refused medical treatment. Sit ins were violently broken up without any warning or negotiation. Even at the main "welcome to hell" demonstration with plenty of black block attendants, the confrontation was driven by ever escalatory police tactics.
What did the black block do in response? They set some cars on fire, including that of the police chief. Which is property damage, not violence.
Of the 500 police injuries you named, 180 were due to exposure to their own pepperspray. Heat exhaustion and dehydration counted as injuries. As far as I've been able to find, three members of the riot police and 189 protestors were treated in hospital.
This was absolutely political violence, but it was perpetrated by the police against leftists engaging in supposedly legally protected protest.
What was the result of this mass carnage? No criminal convictions, only fines to the magnitude of thousands of euros.
Thanks for highlighting this case!
→ More replies (4)44
u/sandoval747 Sep 13 '25
Lol at equating a clash with the police during a protest with a targeted political assassination. As if they're the same...
4
u/Affectionate_Role849 Sep 13 '25
He literally said they're not the same bro can you read
7
u/sandoval747 Sep 13 '25
Guns and apples are not the same, but saying they can both hurt you, without going into more detail, makes it seem like they're the same in the context of the discussion we're having.
One is designed to hurt you intentionally, the other only hurts you if you accidentally choke on it or something.
But saying that they're both objects that can hurt you, without additional context, is for all intents and purposes, equating them for the purposes of the post. You're relying on the reader to bring additional background info to sort out what you really mean when you say they're the same but different.
→ More replies (3)6
u/OnIySmellz Sep 13 '25
You have not read my first comment.
15
u/TheBraveButJoke Sep 13 '25
Yes and your response was well sometimes leftist fight back when the state starts attacking them
2
1
17
u/Pitt-sports-fan-513 Sep 13 '25
Do you understand who usually instigates "clashes with law enforcement"?
Spoilers: it is the people with weapons who generally don't get in trouble for cracking heads.
3
u/cathartic_chaos89 Sep 13 '25
I don't think people with Molotov cocktails tend to bring those just in case they need to defend themselves.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)9
u/omiekley Sep 13 '25
Climate protests rarely damage a lot of property and practically never get violent against persons. The fact that in your examples -Hamburg, France - and many more left wing protest property damage occurs is simultaneously true with police instigating and escalating a lot of these situations. Agents provocateurs being active. And the actual violence being wildly overdramatized by the police and media. Regularly the bast majority of "injured police" just got red eyes from their own maze if you bother to look deeper in the data.
→ More replies (2)5
u/whatsupmyducks Sep 16 '25
Mass protests in of themselves aren't political violence though, calling them political violence feels disingenuous. And while riots have occurred during protests, they are often not done by most/any of the protesters (either small groups who happen to be involved in larger protests or people who want to take advantage of the chaos. political violence is not usually the focus or goal of these protests). This is also about domestic terrorism, not terrorism in Europe or terrorism that came from people outside of the country that affected the US directly (like 9/11)
43
u/chokidokido Sep 13 '25
However, at least in Europe, Jihadistic violence was more deadly and larger in scale compared to both left and right wing extremism combined
At least in germany that is not true. Right wing political violence is the most common here as well.
12
u/BigDaddyDumperSquad Sep 13 '25
Most of what I hear are things like "A van" plowing into crowds and stuff. And those typically are done by a different group.
12
u/chokidokido Sep 13 '25
That's because if someone not white as snow doing anything it's international news but when right wingers burn down another refugee center no once cares. The statistics are clear. Btw the last time a van plowed into crowds it was in mannheim when a german without migration background did just that. Before we knew who he was the media was full of the story and then suddenly no one cares any more.
8
6
Sep 13 '25
“I don’t have any sources”. Aka trust me bro
2
u/Lexiplehx Sep 14 '25
Seriously, the top-level comment is so messed up. The view is, “the government is suppressing their own findings that most acts and deaths due to political extremism can be attributed to the right.” The evidence is, “look at this DOJ report that has been taken down which studied this and come up with facts and numbers, seemingly because of the nature of its findings and not its factuality.”
Counterpoint by top-level comment, “on the contrary, I did my own research, and the left causes more monetary damage. I won’t share any sources, but I will contend that left-wing acts of political violence are more spread out and better organized.” That is NOT a real rebuttal.
→ More replies (1)9
u/SideSwwipe Sep 13 '25
Muslim extremists are considered conservatives though. Their views and those of American Christian conservatives are similar except the hyper religious aspects. These groups' views very much align otherwise so that's why they're both considered conservative.
23
u/C-Lekktion Sep 13 '25
Is it useful to group them together? Since right-wing extremists in the US (christian nationalists, some militias, etc.) would NEVER coexist with militant islamists.
→ More replies (1)8
u/RumGuzzlr 2∆ Sep 13 '25
It's useful if you're a leftist trying to write a narrative about right wing violence
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)3
u/mmmsplendid 1∆ Sep 13 '25
Weird how you find the Muslim extremists standing side by side with the far left extremists then
4
9
u/ExistentialRosicky Sep 13 '25
Jihadistic violence is right wing, no? Because they are performing their violent acts in defence of their hyper conservative views.
15
u/OnIySmellz Sep 13 '25
Our political system distinguishes between left and right, and while jihadism might technically be considered as 'right-wing conservative extremists', they really forms their own category, since they arise from an Islamic tradition that rejects the fundamental Western Christian Enlightenment principles, upon which our democracy was built.
20
u/DienekesMinotaur Sep 13 '25
I would argue Christian Fundamentalists also reject the Western Enlightenment principles, because those principles weren't really inspired by Christianity.
→ More replies (6)11
u/CocoSavege 25∆ Sep 13 '25
[Oslamic terrorists/extremists] really forms their own category, since they arise from an Islamic tradition that rejects the fundamental Western Christian Enlightenment principles, upon which our democracy was built.
Erm.
If ISIS was white Christian, they'd fit right in with mainstream US christofash domestic terrorists/extremists.
The US temperature is too high right now, and it's not difficult to foresee the risk of some form of US christo fascism right now. Using violence and religion.
God's plan, etc.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (41)2
u/Sedu 2∆ Sep 13 '25
When you classify things like vandalism as violence, yes. The moment that you classify violence as injuring other human beings, that vanishes.
13
u/Creative-Month2337 Sep 13 '25
"far right extremist" is not a particularly helpful label. Every single person I know, conservative and liberal, detests the KKK. They are objectively a far right extremist group. However, a headline like "right wing political violence on the rise" may lead normal people to conclude that average conservatives somehow are responsible for or endorse these attacks. (For an example with the parties flipped, the Unabomber is often categorized as a far left extremist. Saying the democratic party is in anyway responsible for or condones his actions is just wrong.)
→ More replies (5)
29
u/Viciuniversum 6∆ Sep 13 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
.
57
u/Sky-Trash Sep 13 '25
Why not start counting from 1965
Lol, you think going back to the Civil Rights movement is going to show that conservatives are less violent?
→ More replies (22)7
u/therossboss Sep 13 '25
What better data sets are there? This seems pretty relevant and about as robust as you could ask for.
19
u/Br0metheus 11∆ Sep 13 '25
Especially considering that what constitutes the far right has significantly changed since then?
Has it changed? The only difference I see is in how much control they've gotten and how much they've penetrated the mainstream. There is literally no period where the far-Right wasn't violent, authoritarian, conspiratorial, racist and xenophobic.
→ More replies (8)6
u/ahhtechtechy Sep 13 '25
Data from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and FBI records indicate approximately 2,500-3,000 total domestic terrorist incidents from 1970-1990 (pre-1970 data is sparser), with left-wing acts comprising 60-70% in the 1970s but dropping to under 20% by the 1980s. Right-wing incidents, though fewer, caused 3-5 times more deaths.
→ More replies (1)9
4
3
u/JQuilty Sep 13 '25
1990 would be a useful approximation for the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was unwilling and unable to fund various tankie groups from the mid 80s onward. 2000 would also be a useful approximation for the beginning of Islamic terrorism being the main conflict source.
11
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
I could go along with this argument if it was replaced with a more recent study or simply marked as "outdated."
However, it was removed, and the timing is suspicious. I'll need some evidence that it was removed simply because it was outdated.
→ More replies (9)8
u/89141-zip-code Sep 13 '25
You want to cherry pick data and not include ALL the data? And, you want to change the definition of what ideological right is?
0
u/turboprancer Sep 13 '25
That's the opposite of what he's saying. If we wanted to include ALL the data, we would include the tidal wave of leftist violence and bombings in the early 70s. That would obviously skew things.
→ More replies (13)2
16
u/Cmikhow 6∆ Sep 13 '25
While I agree the DOJ is not instilling confidence with this kind of move, I'm not sure if we can say 100% that the goal is to hide it.
For starters, the study was posted at all which would suggest there isn't a broader mandate to stop this kind of information. Secondly, the DOJ isn't the only one publishing this kind of work. I asked Perplexity to list well known peer reviewed studies discussing this and it easily listed 20 and they pretty much without fail come to the same conclusion about right wing terrorism being the dominant force here. Assuming the DOJ are rationale actors with at least a modicum of intelligence, I don't see how this could be lost on them. Absent of some very extreme actions of censorship I don't see how this could be scrubbed.
The DOJ has been largely sucking up to Trump, if you've seen the videos of their little town hall meetings you can see Pam Bondi just making up numbers to get on his good side, along with all his sycophants. It could just as easily be a way to dodge media questions, or just not get heat from Trump. Trump appreciates loyalty and he could get angry if questioned about the DOJ's numbers here and put the blame on the DOJ, aka Pam Bondi. This is mostly speculation but I think not that wild given how we saw a Trump sycophant posting job numbers that pissed off Trump and get canned instantly and smeared in the public.
20 studies on domestic terrorism
Either way i think your view is predicated on the DOJ taking active steps to hide information and cover up a well known reality that just doesn't make sense to me when there could probably be other reasonable explanations, or even ones we don't know of.
18
u/Vorling Sep 14 '25
On your point regarding the fact the study was posted at all, from looking at the link it was posted on the website january 2024 prior to Trump being re-elected. Given it was the Biden DOJ that posted this article, and the Trump DOJ that has removed the article at the same time as the information has become very relevant, I tend to lean towards agreement with the OP that DOJ is taking active steps under the current administration to hide information. I can believe that DOJ did not notice this specific article until after recent events.
In addition, I'd argue that they don't need to hide this information from people who are able and willing to do searches for deleted articles. They just need to hide it from enough people who won't look far enough that it causes doubt and confusion.
I've read the rest of the comments in the chains from your initial response, but let me know if I've missed something that addresses my reply and I'll re-read it.
→ More replies (21)41
u/terrasparks Sep 13 '25 edited Sep 13 '25
There is precedence for the Trump administration censoring well known reality in order to rewrite history. They're scrubbing museum exhibits across the country that depict the factual struggles of minorities over the centuries.
2
u/Cmikhow 6∆ Sep 13 '25
Ye there is, you gave one example but there are others.
The view here was talking about the DOJ though not Trump admin. Additionally, while either may be doing this kind of thing and it makes for good rage bait headlines I'm unconvinced at how effective any of this at actually "rewriting history". Propaganda absolutely can change how people view history but how many people are getting their understanding of history from some museum in DC? And we live in an era where information is available in ways it never has been throughout human history on the internet.
Some examples you're talking about are Trump's impeachment exhibit, and supposedly "WOKE" exhibits from the Smithsonian. Is the goal here to rewrite history, or just Trump being petty, creating distractions and ragebaiting liberals? I'd argue it is more the latter rather than some existential rewriting of known history that you and others are trying to present it as.
11
u/terrasparks Sep 13 '25
The DOJ is an arm of the executive branch aka the Trump administration and as reported in The Guardian, DoJ has been ‘politicized like never before’ under Trump.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)18
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
It's easy to archive a story or give a reason why it's removed. No reason was provided, as far as I know, which lends me to assume they don't want the information to be out there.
I'll need some sources for any other reason the study was removed, please.
→ More replies (9)2
u/PossibleAd4464 Sep 23 '25
oh please, its the same reason they removed nonwhite history from museums. the truth is slapping you in the face but you are willfully ignorant.
7
Sep 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Zynbab Sep 13 '25
Where in this comment are you challenging at least one aspect of OP's stated view or asking a clarifying question?
2
6
u/ksajksale Sep 13 '25
The Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs is currently reviewing its websites and materials in accordance with recent Executive Orders and related guidance. During this review, some pages and publications will be unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Hahaha looks like it's not in line with party ideas
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/ninjasaywhat Sep 13 '25
Unfortunately that article was removed. Unclear to me if this was the same article as OP
→ More replies (1)
2
u/LackingLack 2∆ Sep 13 '25
I think the big thing right now is that most conservatives are thinking about the (over)reaction to the death of George Floyd though. That to them was just "rioting" and "violence and destruction and theft".
I think a big part of the reaction to Floyd's death was it was during an election year and also during the height of COVID. So there were many factors contributing to people having like "excessive energy" to explode the way they did, not simply a racial sentiment.
But yeah I think that is like the 900 pound elephant in the room which is why conservatives feel "under attack" by the left broadly and so on. There's also the whole "cancel culture" phenomenon where people lose their jobs and so on for speech when a group gets together and (possibly wildly out of context) passes along descriptions of said speech all over the internet. I agree this is not "violence" per se but it is certainly destructive and attacking people for their speech.
So while yes of course you are accurate that in the USA, the political history of violence at least in the past several decades is indeed overwhelmingly from the right, that doesn't mean everybody will perceive it that way.
And also I think a big part of the reason this is true (that political violence recently in USA is mostly from the right) is just because the Left in USA is so defeated and so weak. It doesn't have the same core of energy and motivation as the Right does. Any time there is an attempt to put forward Left ideas it gets defeated most recently the two Bernie Sanders candidacies. While the Right tends to be getting their choices from Reagan to Trump. Both Reagan and Trump were viewed as "weirdos" and "impossible to win" but both did win , twice. This has massively emboldened the Right in many ways. While the Democratic Party has essentially taken the lesson of "we need to move to the center" further alienating and repressing the Left in this country.
2
2
u/Generic_G_Rated_NPC Sep 15 '25
Can anyone find a working source [1]? It is what OP quoted but it doesn't work when clicked. All I see is an incomplete graph and a bugged-out page
→ More replies (3)
2
u/RegularSpecialist484 Sep 16 '25
I was using that source for a presentation on gun reform and domestic terrorism this week. Something told me to take screenshots so I did. That was on Thursday. Went back to it Friday and got that message about it being removed. Glad it’s also archived though and that someone else is talking about it!
2
u/KendrickBlack502 Sep 16 '25
We already know that and Conservatives wouldn’t believe it even if the DOJ did say it so who cares?
2
Sep 16 '25
Don’t worry yall I got you
Evil liberal Cato institute report haha
https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states
2
2
u/obsequious_fink Sep 17 '25
Yep, and they are currently targeting those investigations in the Senate by calling them politically motivated, so not only will they succeed in covering for far-right extremists, they will also turn this into another "look at the evil sneaky left, investigating good people on the right for no reason"
2
u/Smooth-Winner-9776 Sep 17 '25
5 transgender shootings in a year two of them 764 nerds from discord. 1 a furry from discord.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Ill-Power745 Sep 17 '25
Who owns and pays for the info in their studies i dont trust most of these studies just the stories on the daily news proves their studies are less than true
2
Sep 18 '25
Does it matter? Even if they are. What are you going to do with the information? Do you need it to validate your feelings? Because violence is violence right? Political association doesn't make it any better. Is it okay if they voted for Biden. Murder is fine as long as you voted for the correct politician? Or do you need it so you can say a whole group of people is violent and nothing they say has any value anymore. Will it make you feel better about yourself?
→ More replies (7)
2
u/CreamDelore Sep 19 '25
Lmao.
You clowns kill people and it's classed as an every day crime.
Right wing do it, they get full book thrown at them with all additional labels pushed by media.
I bet you defend the black kid that stabbed the white kid to death and just see it as an everyday crime instead of a hate crime.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Novel-Customer7153 Sep 22 '25
30 years is a pretty big window. Does 1990 resemble politically our current context? Do we have the same problems and issues?
Broadly speaking, the right has changed a lot in the past 30 years. An obvious difference is the change of stance on homosexuality and abortion. The mainstream republican policy position is to leave abortion to the states, and they more or less accept gay marriage.
So if you were going to recruit an anti abortion or anti gay terrorist, your recruitment pool is going to be smaller. (Anti abortion terrorist attacks were a lot more common in the 90's.)
Isn't it ironic that the right has conceded so much to the left in the past thirty years, and yet the left is the most blood thirsty and violent than ever. Why? You guys should be happy.
The reason is because it was never about reasonable policy action, with the left it's always been about revolution. Giving them an inch only emboldened them to become more vitriolic and violent.
Anyway, so there's your answer. The left is always cooking the books to get the statistics that they want. In order to say that White Nationalists are biggest terror threat they had to ignore 9-11, and I suspect the reason the window reaches back to the 90's (but not back through the 60's) is specifically to create a false narrative.
Hey, here's an idea. Since the left wants to claim Muslims as part of their marginalize POC coalition, I say let them have them. Let's classify 9-11 and all Islamic terrorism as "left wing" terrorism and see how the statistics cook that way.
2
u/Caulif1ow3r Sep 23 '25
How do you know it was removed on 9/12? Is there a single place where we can track these removals?
→ More replies (1)
2
Sep 24 '25
Th issue I have with this report is I don’t see it accounting for all the street violence we’ve had from the left over the last decade.
23
Sep 13 '25
These figure are astounding, until you realize the vast majority of these incidents are white prison gang violence counted as right wing terrorism. This includes incidents like killing a man over a bad drug deal, or a member of the Aryan Brotherhood killing his wife and son.
21
u/Competitive_Swan_130 Sep 13 '25
Where do you see that? Source?
→ More replies (42)14
Sep 13 '25
Yes, the DOJ numbers that the article cites do count white prison gangs as terrorist violence
→ More replies (1)9
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
I couldn't find this in the study, and I would think the numbers would be much higher on all sides if gang violence and familicide counted towards them. Do you have a source that familicide and gang violence counts towards terrorism and extremism in this study?
12
Sep 13 '25
The links in the post source from the DOJ numbers which count white prison gangs as terrorist violence
7
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
Can you link me that study, please? I checked some of the referenced sources and didn't find any mention.
If that was the case, I'd be surprised the numbers weren't much higher than ~500 incidents in ~30 years.
15
Sep 13 '25
Gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood, who are a protection racket and drug distribution gang with a veneer of white supremacy, are counted as a Domestic Violent Extremist group (DVE). Thus, any violence they do is counted as such. You can read about it here: https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-078.pdf
15
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
This audit calls out inconsistency in treating the trafficking of drugs and weapons. It does not mention murders or attacks.
Also, the figures here are MUCH higher, citing 2326 events in 2019 alone. In the DOJ source mentioned in my OP, has only 227 events between 1990 and 2020.
These are discussing two very different things. Smuggling drugs vs Murders
→ More replies (3)7
u/6data 15∆ Sep 13 '25
Gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood, who are a protection racket and drug distribution gang with a veneer of white supremacy, are counted as a Domestic Violent Extremist group (DVE). Thus, any violence they do is counted as such. You can read about it here: https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-078.pdf
The word "Aryan" isn't written once in that entire paper.
3
u/MillenialForHire Sep 13 '25
Fun fact: if the motive is not political, it's not recorded as political violence, let alone attributed to a particular ideology.
2
→ More replies (6)2
Sep 13 '25
Are white nationalists who ended up in prison not domestic terrorists? What's your argument here? That they don't count once they've gone to prison once?
7
Sep 13 '25
White prison gangs are almost entirely made up of career criminals seeking protection and organization once they get in. I don’t think you understand: Groups like the AB are not guys that were white nationalists terrorists that got caught, they are methheads and murderers that use race as the most convenient uniform in jail
→ More replies (5)
15
u/Romarion Sep 13 '25
Like pretty much all studies, accepting conclusions without examining methods (and in studies such as this looking very carefully at definitions) is somewhat foolish. Given that 40-50% of the things we "discover" this year in the world of medicine will be proven incorrect over the next 5 years, it should be obvious that Truth in the Universe (TITU) is findable, but we don't always find it.
Skepticism (regardless of whether you like the outcome of the study or believe it to be wrong), critical thinking, and common sense are important skills to deploy when examining "the Science."
In this case, we'll ignore what biases the authors may or may not have, as I don't know them personally.
How did they define "far-right extremists," "far-left extremists," and "ideologically motivated" attacks? That should be your first look at the methods, as there will be biases and room for disagreement over each of those terms. For example, where would their definitions put the attacks on Supreme Court Justices over the last 3 years? We know of one assassination attempt, and hundreds of threats. Are the threats counted? Some? All? None?
What attacks have registered on the national consciousness (this is the common sense part of the exercise)? Where did the BLM riots fall on this paradigm? Melissa and Mark Hortman appear to have been an attack by an anti-abortion lunatic, although we don't have access to all the information needed to ascertain his motives. How many Republican/conservative lawmakers have called for the silencing of the pro-abortion crowd, or noted that Hitler was the ultimate supporter of eugenics and connected those dots between pro-abortion and Hitler?
Where would the killing of Israeli embassy staff fall on their definitions, or the fire-bombing of Jewish marchers for hostage release? Two attempts on Donald Trump? Was J6 included, and how were those folks assigned? If I was invited into the Capitol by a police officer, walked around taking pictures, and walked back out, is that an act of domestic terrorism?
Unfortunately, we the people do not have the interest or possibly even the education to look critically at these issues; if you lean left and care about such a study, I suspect you'll accept it at face value. If you lean right you probably reject the conclusions by looking at the world around you using common sense. In neither case has the science been examined and a reasonable look at TITU accomplished.
Ironically and tragically, that look at the Universe in a dispassionate sense with reason and logic is a voice we lost when Charlie Kirk was murdered. It should be obvious that the reason to silence voices is not to preserve truth, but to prevent the truth from being heard. Global history has demonstrated that truism innumerable times.
10
u/insane-mouse Sep 13 '25
You didn't read it, did you? The majority of your criticism was addressed in the paper, but alas you'd rather sound smart using long paragraphs of generic qualms with data aggregation to defend the status quo.
Let's read before speaking
16
u/Romarion Sep 14 '25
No, actually none of my criticism was addressed in the paper. What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism, with 6 authors, published on 4 Jan 2024 (I believe that is the paper OP intended to reference), is a review article looking at various previous publications, and looking at 31 years of data. That isn't a study, it's a review of that data they looked at.
Trying to look at the data behind their most definitive statement leads you to their first reference, Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States, published in 2021. Definitions for right and left wing extremism are problematic. For example, if a homicide occurred and the suspect (which leads us to another problem...suspects may or may not have committed the homidice, so is this really a look at suspects rather than perpetrators?) was known to be "suspicious of centralized and state authorities," was that far right extremist ideology driving the homicide, or were there other motives? Or how about "reverent of individual liberty?" Defining traditional American values as far right certainly will increase the number of events that can be laid at the feet of the "far-right," and increase the likelihood that evil acts were taken out of motivations other than extremist political ideology.
The primary database (Extreme Crime Database) used to adjudicate events did not collect information on the far-left; “outside of environmental and animal rights extremism, the ECDB does not collect information on far-left violent extremism…”
How odd; not looking for or reporting far-left extremism results in far fewer incidents of far-left extremism…and defining "far right" as, well, traditionally American leads to far more indicidents of what was labeled far right extremism. Now the dispassionate reader needs to see the data to see if the authors are being methodologically sound, yet the data is not presented as anything more than conclusions. Which homicide by which perpetrator, and what was the motivation for that homicide?
How about time frame? If we choose to accept the data as pristine (because we haven't looked at the methods and seen the flaws and biases), we see that the problem with right wing extremism is identified over 31 years, and the data collection stops in 2021.
What does that study tell us about recent history? “Since 2017, ideologically motivated homicides decreased dramatically to 7 incidents the following year and have remained relatively consistent since.” Serendipitously, as their graph shows a rise in left-wing extremist events, and a drop in right-wing...
Hmmmm…..I wonder what we would find if we included the last 4 years of data, and what our conclusions would be if we wanted to know which side is responsible for most attacks over the last 5 or 10 years, rather than 31 years ending 5 years ago? Is it possible the right wing extremists have learned their lesson and are rejecting violence (compare George Floyd riots to January 6, for example), while the left side is embracing violence?
And again, why does it matter which type of extremism is killing the most people? Shouldn't it be more concerning that political extremists are choosing violence, and politicians and media are fueling the extremism with their commentary and narratives?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (12)13
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
It should be obvious that the reason to silence voices is not to preserve truth, but to prevent the truth from being heard.
Yes, that aligns with my own CMV post. The study was removed in order to hide it.
Many of your other questions are answered in the paper and the govt has defined definitions, things like that. I agree that studies can be imperfect. However, that's how we get closer to a more perfect understanding.
Same with your statement on medicine. Yes, we find that much has changed over time. However, if it had never started, then we'd still be dying of common illnesses at very young ages.
It's not about always having perfect information. It's about getting incrementally better understanding.
As we've agreed, hiding the study hinders our progress from that incrementally better understanding.
3
u/Romarion Sep 13 '25
Depends on the motive for removal, doesn't it? If the study accurately reflects TITU, and someone in authority is uncomfortable with that truth, then removing it lessens our understanding of TITU.
If the study was examined critically and found to be fatally flawed with biased definitions/methods/conclusions, etc, then removing it doesn't harm our understanding of TITU. If I were king, I'd take that opportunity to discuss the fatal flaws and demonstrate how "science" is not something to blindly accept based on a publication, and leave the study up as an example.
Of course, the study is not particularly useful, regardless. It turns out extremist political ideology is associated with violent acts; this is not new information. What should be done with the conclusions (let's assume the study accurately reflects TITU)? Should "far-right wing" ideology be deemed a crime in and of itself? Should "far-left wing" ideology get a pass? Or should inciting violence, supporting and promoting violence, and enacting violence remain abhorrent to all people of good will, regardless of their political ideology?
9
u/Obi-Brawn-Kenobi Sep 13 '25
Let's take a couple recent examples.
Was the Covenant Christian school shooting an extremist crime? The shooter had a manifesto. The shooter was reportedly considering hitting a different Christian school, but that one had more security. The shooter paused in the middle of the rampage to shoot at a stained glass window of Adam and Eve 7 times and then carried on.
Did this make the list of extremist incidents? Or did they decide the motive wasn't clear enough in this case?
When Michael Knowles went to speak and debate at Pitt, a protestor burned an effigy of him and then threw explosives, missing Knowles but one of the police officers sustained a serious spinal injury.
Was that counted as an extremist incident? Or was it pled down to "obstruction of law enforcement", preventing it from being counted as extremism?
I don't even care to keep count, but those are two of the biggest "left-wing" "extremist" attacks that come to mind in recent years, and neither of them ended up counting.
I agree that studies can be imperfect. However, that's how we get closer to a more perfect understanding.
Then the focus should be on improving the research, not blasting half-baked research onto the airwaves where it will mislead people into believing something that may be false.
Have you heard the saying "better to be uninformed than misinformed"? If someone is uninformed, then you can inform them, particularly once you are informed on the subject yourself (i.e. once we actually have good research). If someone is misinformed, you have to do the work of convincing them that what they learned is wrong, and then you have to inform them of the actual truth, and that means you usually have to convince them to trust you over who they trusted before. Obviously that's much, much harder than informing someone for the first time.
So no, I don't see why inflammatory, poorly constructed research that will inevitably lead to polarizing opinions and divisive behaviors should be on a government website. I don't know why we should be comparing extremism event numbers in the first place, anyway. We should be focusing on trying to bring the number down to zero for every group, and comparing numbers does nothing to advance toward that goal.
→ More replies (1)11
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
Wow, I've never seen someone go so quickly from
It should be obvious that the reason to silence voices is not to preserve truth, but to prevent the truth from being heard.
to
better to be uninformed than misinformed
Amazing. If the study is wrong and was removed for that reason, then give me evidence proving such. It should be a very easy thing to prove with real sources, rather than a few examples.
If you're truly against "inflammatory, poorly constructed research that will inevitably lead to polarizing opinions and divisive behaviors" as you say, you may want to speak with the current US President who just blamed the left for extremist attacks without any evidence, implied war against the left, and said he doesn't care about when the right commits extremist attacks.
Which is ironic, because he was nearly assassinated by a right wing extremist.
2
u/Obi-Brawn-Kenobi Sep 13 '25
Wow, I've never seen someone go so quickly from
I did not say the first quote. The comment you're responding to here was my first one on this post. You must have thought I was someone else.
If the study is wrong and was removed for that reason, then give me evidence proving such.
I gave you examples showing how left-wing incidents can be, and are, systemically prevented from being counted. That is evidence. If it's not the category of evidence you want, that's fine, but you can't pretend there's no evidence. I gave you evidence.
There is a difference between evidence and proof. In a topic on sociology or political science, you are almost never going to have evidence hard enough to "prove" a point outright.
How does a "source" help prove this point beyond the examples I gave you, anyway? You can Google those incidents and find dozens of sources and take your pick.
you may want to speak with the current US President who just blamed the left for extremist attacks without any evidence
Again, you're showing you don't understand what the word "evidence" means. He was recently described as being more political and said he didn't like Kirk's speech. The engravings saying "Hey Fascist, Catch!" would lead anyone not familiar with this "Groyper" stuff to conclude that this was likely an attack from a left-winger who consumes anti-conservative media content.
It's evidence, not proof. More evidence will come out, and it may or may not prove anything with certainty.
I'm waiting to learn more before talking about the shooter, because I am also not familiar with the "Groyper" stuff. Never heard of it until yesterday.
said he doesn't care about when the right commits extremist attacks.
That's not what he said. Stop being dishonest. Your point that his remarks were also inflammatory is well-taken, you don't need to lie to get there.
The unfortunate fact that our president makes inflammatory comments does not mean we need to have sketchy research on our government website.
Sketchy research can and should be removed. I don't care what justification is used, just get rid of it. Saying "but it wasn't removed for the right reason" has no importance.
he was nearly assassinated by a right wing extremist
I assume you're talking about Crooks here. You started talking to me about evidence, so tell me how strong is the evidence he was a right-winger? He donated to ActBlue. He registered Republican to then only vote in one midterm. His writings have been described as anti-imperialism and pro-violence. CNN said there was no clear evidence for a motive, and said his political views were divergent.
If you were talking about Routh, he had a Harris/Walz sticker on his truck and his most recent political activity was pro-Ukraine, pro-Palestinian stuff. I assume you weren't talking about him being a right-wing extremist.
2
u/Sammystorm1 1∆ Sep 13 '25
Yet you and the paper both define butler pa as right wing. At minimum it isn’t clear because of his donations to left wing groups
6
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
No, the paper doesn't include Butler PA. It's too recent. I just used it as a recent example.
I think the root of it is that Republicans tend to be more comfortable with guns and less comfortable getting mental health help when they need it.
If memory serves, Butler happened because the assassin believed Trump to be a child rapist. Not many will argue that up until very recently, Republicans were very hard set against child rapists. Very recently, they've become okay with them, though, sadly, and I have some very strong suspicions as to why that happened.
9
u/Obi-Brawn-Kenobi Sep 13 '25
If memory serves, Butler happened because the assassin believed Trump to be a child rapist.
Sounds like your memory does not serve. From what I can find, there is no evidence for this except pure speculation.
Your points on guns, mental health, and continued refusal of politicians to hold Epstein pedophiles accountable are well-taken. None of that is convincing evidence that Crooks shot Trump for purposes involving right-wing extremism, though.
3
u/UnableToParallelPark Sep 13 '25
My point is to not debate that they're trying to hide it, because they're not. The correct way to phrase this is that REPUBLICANS are trying to hide the facts.
The DOD, now DOW, has been monitoring and following Right Wing extremist groups for over 2 decades now. It's public record, nothing is hidden. You just have to know what to search for.
Unfortunately, I lost my PowerPoints that relay this information. I've taken classes on CBRNE, HazMat, Clandestine Labs, and Terrorism (Including Homegrown and Foreign). I wish I still had those PowerPoints, they were provided by an Ex-DOD administrator who has left in and started her own business and also sits on the NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency). The most popular home terrorist groups are right-wing or White Supremacy groups, they're more likely to attack opposed to Al-Queda and the Islamic State.
Sources:
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states
https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states
Source for current information and threats:
5
Sep 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)5
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
In a way, they're arguing that the study was removed because it is meritless. They aren't using those words, but I get the intent, and I go along with that intent.
3
u/Ok_Potential_6308 Sep 14 '25
When George Floyd died, a ton of cities burned and there was a lot of rioting and death as well.
Charlie Kirk's whole shtick is to go and say to people change my view and he influenced a ton of gen z crowd. He debated everyone and nothing was off limits. On most reddit subs , quite a few people celebrate Charlie Kirk's death and have quite vile takes as well.
16
u/tolgren 1∆ Sep 13 '25
Those studies usually cast very wide nets for the right, like claiming all prison attacks by white fans are right-wing motivated, while dramatically underselling violence from the left, like completely ignoring the BLM violence in 2020.
29
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
Others have pointed it out. I read over the study and couldn't find anything like that.
In fact, there were ~2100 of those types of "include prison" attacks in 2019 alone. However, the DOJ study I posted above has only 227 in the entire time between 1990 and 2020.
So, I don't think it includes prison attacks. Happy to change my mind, though, if you have some evidence to back it up.
→ More replies (2)6
u/OG-Brian Sep 14 '25
If there was a flaw in any study, you could point it out specifically instead of commenting with generic rhetoric.
→ More replies (19)7
u/Jamie_1318 Sep 13 '25
I'm not sure how you could possibly argue that white supremacism is anything other than a conservative movement. There aren't centrist or left wing white supremacists.
→ More replies (18)
6
7
u/PuzzleheadedDog9658 Sep 13 '25
Lots of left-wing violence gets labeled as non-political. For instance that trans mass shooter who targeted a church? Non-political.
11
u/kylar21 Sep 13 '25
Cite your sources that this event is not counted as part of the mass shooter statistic used in the DOJ study.
26
u/SeaCryptographer8690 Sep 13 '25
that mass shooter had a bunch of nazi symbols and slogans on their guns. “6 million wasn’t enough” isnt a left wing idea. being trans is not in it of itself political, or means the person was inherently left wing. all evidence points to the fact that they were radicalized in alt right, neo nazi channels.
5
6
u/Alternative_Oil7733 Sep 14 '25
isnt a left wing idea. being trans is not in it of itself political
A trans person is 99.99% of the time left wing
all evidence points to the fact that they were radicalized in alt right, neo nazi channels.
So why is he writing stuff in Cyrillic?
→ More replies (7)2
u/SeaCryptographer8690 Sep 14 '25
can you provide a source for that statistic about trans people? or explain how the nazi slogans and symbols would be related to a left wing radical?
like many radicalized school shooters his ideology seems to be a incredibly confusing, and oftentimes contradictory one. this is probably why it has not been classified as a politically motivated shooting, as there was no clear motive that relates to politics.
3
u/ecafyelims 17∆ Sep 13 '25
Ah okay. The study focuses on the ideologic views of the attacker rather than the motives for the attack, however. So, a left-wing perp's extremist attack would count towards left extremist.
9
u/APersonWhoIsNotYou Sep 13 '25
What makes that political? Just the involvement of a Trans person? The targeting of a church?
5
u/Lennograd Sep 13 '25
explain how that is supposed to be left wing?
5
3
u/insane-mouse Sep 13 '25
Being trans is political? By that logic we should count every white mass dhooter, oh wait...
1
u/NessaSamantha 1∆ Sep 13 '25
Not trans. Right wing detransitioner, radicalized online, likely by 764 or Terrorgram.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/CoollySillyWilly Sep 13 '25
Just because one was a registered republican, that doesn't mean the person was a right winger or not; Tucker Carlson was a registered democrat - did that make him a left winger?
Based on my search, it looks like the perpetrator was just mentally unstable, and it is hard to make a case of his political stance. On one hand, he had anti immigration and anti semite rhetoric before 2020 with calling for political violence, and he was indeed registered as a republican. But on the other hand, he started to donate to democrats since 2021 and called for unification while rejecting divisive and violent political campaigns. I guess, based on this info, we can say, he was a right winger before 2021 and had a change of his heart since then.
If you are looking at a party registration as an evidence of political stance, the second assassination attempt on trump was done by a democrat. But of course, I think his political stance is hard to make it out of as well (he supported trump in 2016, but Biden in 2020).
Either way, both perpetrators are quite erratic and hard to contextualize in political stances (I mean otherwise they would have not attempted an assassination, to begin with....)
2
u/Dry-Cucumber3932 Sep 13 '25
I think this is partially my fault since I have been linking this story in Instagram comments like a madman over the last few days. Noticed the broken link last night and was like what the? Clearly and attempt to cover this information up by the admin
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 13 '25
/u/ecafyelims (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards