The Unsatisfying Truth About Hateful Online Rhetoric And Violence

[JGalt]

This doesn't sound very scientific to me, but is that really the point of the article?

Two angry men submerged themselves in the far-right internet. One committed murder. The other walked away. Why?

Joseph Bernstein
BuzzFeed News Reporter

Posted on November 24, 2018, at 11:32 a.m. ET

We call them warning signs, but we only seem to see them too late.

Before he murdered 10 people in Toronto with his car, Alek Minassian warned on Facebook of an “incel rebellion.” Before he shot to death 11 Jews in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Robert Bowers announced his actions on the social network Gab: “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.” Before he killed two women in a Florida yoga studio, Scott Beierle ranted about women and minorities in a series of YouTube videos.

In the weeks following the Tree of Life slayings, and after years of disinterest from law enforcement and the media, the dangers posed by far-right extremists have finally come to the fore of national attention. Much of the discussion has centered on chaotic digital spaces like Gab, where Bowers left a history of anti-Semitic posts. These are disturbing communities, where the culture war’s right-wing vanguard gather, and, we are told, hateful people radicalize into dangerous ones. The question here, one of the signal questions of the Trump age, is: Does hateful rhetoric lead to violence?

Who is the kind of person for whom saturation in far-right words and ideas poses an urgent risk — and who isn’t?

It’s a very good question for cable news, because it can be argued over tendentiously forever and never really answered. It’s also woefully simplistic. Of course hateful rhetoric can lead to violence. Of course hateful rhetoric doesn’t always lead to violence. A monofocus on hateful words and the communities that allow and encourage them ignores the simple fact that the vast majority of people exposed to them will never murder anyone, and conversely, that plenty of potentially violent extremists don’t post publicly on the internet. A better question, from a public safety perspective: Who is the kind of person for whom saturation in far-right words and ideas poses an urgent risk — and who isn’t?

Continued​

Of course, we’ve gotten to the point where the term ‘far right’ is no longer accurate; indeed, we see hate speech directed against immigrants, Muslims, and transgender Americans from all points on the right side of the political spectrum.

It is not at all unusual to hear conservatives advocate that immigrants seeking asylum should be ‘shot,’ that transgender Americans are ‘mentally ill,’ and to hear the usual hateful rhetoric that Muslims are ‘un-American’ and ‘terrorists.’

Hateful online rhetoric is not the sole purview of the ‘far right.’

They're not "immigrants", they're "illegals" or "invaders." Protection of this country is the sole purpose of your President.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

is not at all unusual to hear conservatives advocate that immigrants seeking asylum

Is that why they carry the flag of their home country as they try to rush the border and invade our country?

 

[JGalt]

is not at all unusual to hear conservatives advocate that immigrants seeking asylum

Is that why they carry the flag of their home country as they try to rush the border and invade our country?

They sure as hell aren't red, white and blue flags, are they? Although I can understand the lack of red in their flag, representing the lack of blood that was spilled in order create a free nation such as ours.

The cowards don't have the balls to fight and die for their own country. They'd rather break into this country and have their freedom handed to them on a silver platter.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Wrong. I don't wanna murder anyone. There has been quite enough killing already.

Genocide is the prime directive of you Communists. You would murder every white person on earth without a second thought.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Does hateful rhetoric lead to violence?"

Indeed it does. As in all these cases >>

Ya left.out a few incidents. Like the parkland school.shootijg, Dylan roof's escapades, the MAGAbomber, the recent synagogue shooting, that incel type that shot up the yoga studio, I'm.sure I'm forgetting a bunch, the they happen so often these days.....

MAGA bomber?

Oh, you mean the Soros Bomber.

BTW, which party is it that openly hates Jews?

Yeah, that would be you Communists.

 

[protectionist]

Of course, we’ve gotten to the point where the term ‘far right’ is no longer accurate; indeed, we see hate speech directed against immigrants, Muslims, and transgender Americans from all points on the right side of the political spectrum.

It is not at all unusual to hear conservatives advocate that immigrants seeking asylum should be ‘shot,’ that transgender Americans are ‘mentally ill,’ and to hear the usual hateful rhetoric that Muslims are ‘un-American’ and ‘terrorists.’

Hateful online rhetoric is not the sole purview of the ‘far right.’

What you do is take TRUTH and stick a HATE label on it.

1. Immigrants harm Americans in a very long list of ways. List available on request.

2. Of course transgenders are mentally ill. This isn't hating them. I rather feel sorry for them more than anything else.

3. Of course Muslims are unAmerican. They follow the Koran, which preaches the destruction of all governments, and world domination by Islam. In addition, to Muslims, there is only one nation in the world. The Umma (worldwide community of Muslims). Thus, Muslims have no nationalism anywhere on earth

Example - A Muslim in Canada has more kinship to another Muslim in China, than to a fellow Canadian. A Muslim in India has more kinship to another Muslim in Denmark, than a fellow Indian.

 

[protectionist]

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The thread topic is about hate speech and violence on the right.

But your failed attempt to deflect is understandable, given the fact you cannot respond intelligently to the topic.

The OP (topic) asked the question >> "Does hateful rhetoric lead to violence?"

Post # 19 answered it. What failed was your meager challenge.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Why the stereotypes? I'm "far-right", heavily-armed, about as redneck as they come, and I don't feel an ounce of animosity toward those of the Jewish faith. I as most conservatives believe, that Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East. God bless 'em, we should arm them to the teeth. I might find the liberal ideology and the Democrat Party disgusting, but that doesn't mean I want to commit violence.

Right, you only wanna shoot the brown folks.

Left, you only want to murder white folk. ALL white folk, as in eradicate every last white human on earth.

Yes, because the left are against white people -- even themselves.....

That is why the left has murdered 9 million white Americans in just the past 5 years

 

[Crepitus]

Right, you only wanna shoot the brown folks.

Left, you only want to murder white folk. ALL white folk, as in eradicate every last white human on earth.

Wrong. I don't wanna murder anyone. There has been quite enough killing already.

Tell that to the brothers in Chicago then. Or don't you have the balls to do something about it?

I don't want them killing anyone either, but I fail to see what that has to do with this situation. You are on record volunteering to shoot people, and you accuse me of wanting to murder folks with no evidence. That's where we are here, now stop trying to evade the issue.

Go back and quote my original post. If through your own inability to read plain English you somehow interpreted that as my wanting to "volunteer" to shoot anyone, you're not as well-educated as you'd like people to believe.

Trump's military will do a sufficient amount of "shooting" if the need arises.

You are a coward. Stand behind your statements, don't hide. Be a man.

 

[Crepitus]

[
Wrong. I don't wanna murder anyone. There has been quite enough killing already.

Genocide is the prime directive of you Communists. You would murder every white person on earth without a second thought.

Yeah.... Nope. Stop spewing talking points and start thinking for yourself for a change.

 

[protectionist]

You are a coward. Stand behind your statements, don't hide. Be a man.

Like admitting that amnesty is a liberal position.

 

[Crepitus]

You are a coward. Stand behind your statements, don't hide. Be a man.

Like admitting that amnesty is a liberal position.

When was the last time.liberals granted and amnesty? I forget.