In the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination at Utah Valley University — before investigators had identified a suspect or released any evidence — the finger-pointing commenced with algorithmic precision.
This article is a miss for me. Yes indoctrination is happening on both sides, but the magnitude of the violence from the right and the normalization of that violence from our sitting president is directly responsible for this increase in violent behavior. To frame it as both sides having equal culpability is wild.
[edited to add the link] Good article, but while both sides have committed violence, such violence is far more common on the right. An analysis by Alex Nowrasteh of Cato of political violence from Jan 1 1975 -- Sept 10 2025 shows 3,599 people have been murdered in political violence.
83% of that 3,599 were killed in by 9/11 terrorists. Right-wingers were responsible for 391 murders, or 11%. Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total.
Political violence does come from both the left and the right. But let's not pretend that both sides are equivalent in their propensity for political violence.
While I do appreciate there is some good information in the article, I caution Elise, and all readers against quoting UT Gov Cox as a source. Remember, he prayed for 33 hours that the shooter would not be “one of us.”
Do not trust, nor believe, anything he says. He is not an impartial nor fair source of information.
I was also surprised he was held up as a relevant source. His statements have all been 'we don't know why he did it but we know he did it because he's on the left.' How can you assert that if you don't know why he did it, lol
I might argue that any violence at all is too much violence, and that by arguing it's worse on the other side, we, by omission, say that some violence is acceptable. It would be nice if we rose up as a society to condemn violence on our own sides, to let our own people know that it's unacceptable, and shut it down instead of evening the score.
When you “both sides” an issue to balance it out, when it’s more lopsided, you actually aren’t solving a problem but creating apathy. The psychology being “well if both sides are doing it there’s nothing that can be done.” And we have to tell the truth.
Similarly, when you focus on which side does it more, it's easier to say the other side is the real problem. I've been horrified to hear the words coming from the mouths of people who I considered myself politically aligned with. It will take all of us individually to choose to turn away from the violence. We are all vulnerable to radicalization and need to be aware so that we and people we love can avoid it.
We do need to tell the truth. We need to tell ourselves that our side is part of the problem, and that we need to do better to help those who already agree with us politically to find ways other than violence to be heard.
I’m not meeting any liberals who want violence. Because it’s literally 90% far-right people since 2016. Even conservative think tanks agree, even the FBI has said that far-right extremists are the biggest threat to our security. I think the work is far more effective to call out the side actually committing the vast majority of the violence. I’m wasting my time trying to find a needle in a haystack over here in my state while 90% of my neighbors think it’s still okay to threaten me over a rainbow flag. If political violence is a cancer and we need to operate why would I go to amputate the arm with one cancer cell when the other arm is filled with tumors?
So, Elise's article was about online radicalization and I was referring to how we have the power to engage in our own circles online in a way that doesn't lead to violence. I wasn't suggesting anyone go knocking on doors.
Your IRL situation sounds exhausting, for both mind and heart, and I'm sorry you don't feel safe around your neighbors. I hope that gets better for you. ❤️
You're never going to get it to violence to 0 because there are always going to be sick/violent people on both sides. (You could address this with gun access but I digress). But it's true that if a small portion is coming from one side and most of it is coming from the other, it's far more important to deal with that side then try to get the people committing less violence to commit no violence before you're willing to address where most violence is actually coming from.
sure. but our country is literally founded on political violence, so while 0 political violence can be the goal- that often ends up dismissing ideas to reduce political violence because it won't SOLVE ALL political violence.
comments like this seem to be "both-sides"ing the issue, but its not equally both sides- not by a long shot.
It would be nice, but I'm wondering when has that ever happened? From where I sit, the left (at least center left) has done more to condemn violence and call for solutions than the mainstream right. If you don't want to compare violence, should we compare efforts at discouraging violence? The right can pay lip service to toning down rhetoric and condemning violence, but they can't maintain that position because they don't mean it. They want the violence, and the suppression of free speech, and the doxxing and the targeting(said in their own words on the last few days) - they just don't want it directed at them.
In disturbing addition, “we're also seeing high levels of support for political violence in our quarterly surveys of attitudes in the United States on political violence.”
- per Sept. 12 NPR interview of Robert Pape, professor of political science at U of Chicago
If we put the far-right and far-left on a scale, it would not be balanced. It would be tipping far more in one direction than the other. I have a son who is the same age as Kirk’s alleged shooter. He’s deep into gaming and the internet chat boards like Discord and Reddit. I’ve talked about things he sees on there, and it’s all far-right. I’ve asked him if he’s seen anything far-left. Couldn’t even really define what it could be- like- taking everyone’s guns away? Universal basic income? Letting everyone including babies vote? More social programs?? The example given above about Waymo’s wasn’t really categorized as violence, but vandalism, just like when people vandalized Tesla dealerships (which Musk tried to claim was terrorism.) Those cars were not carrying people, and they didn’t belong to people they belonged to a corporation who will just get reimbursed by insurance. It’s like after Katrina happened and survivors were labeled “looters” for taking food from stores that had already written off the loss and would’ve been thrown away. Both-sidesing yet again is how we get Trump as president the second time. It’s not telling the whole story, but over normalizing the far-right/MAGA as “just another political party.”
I do have a friend who has tipped into the far left. It’s a lot of violence as a means to an end. He posts videos about how getting rid of billionaires is the point. It’s also a lot of fear mongering of how we might never get back to a normal place as a country bc all is lost. So even though I do think it’s more prevalent to the right it is also there on the far left.
Ugh, both-sides-ism at its worst. It all starts with leaders and the leaders of the Republican Party glorify guns, violence and revenge against their perceived enemies. At this very moment, MAGA, which by the way is not just some anonymous people posting on the internet but the actual president, VP, Cabinet and most of the powerful people in the U.S. government, is plotting over how to use Kirk’s death to go after anyone and any group to the left of center. MAGA has pardoned J6 rioters who violently attacked police in one of the largest acts of political violence in our history and will even give to one of them the flag-draped coffin military burial honors formerly reserved to those who sacrificed their lives serving their country. MAGA will make a national spectacle of the funeral for a man who like Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones before him, built a multi-million dollar empire on spreading hate and division. MAGA is currently on the hunt for people who are exercising their rights to free speech, so they can find them and destroy their lives and oh by the way, after that see if they’ve committed a crime. What you reference as a “dangerous normalization of force as a political tool” has less to do with anonymous social media posts, which we know from past investigations are often generated by Russian and Chinese troll farms and everything to do with the party whose leaders, from the very top on down, demonize their political opponents, fetishize and glorify guns and violence and use whatever power they have to pursue retribution. There is absolutely no equivalence.
While I understand young people are being indoctrinated on both sides ideologically by the dark web and it is, indeed, a tragic sign of our turbulent times, I need more information.
You cite Fuentes and his group Groypers as a divisive subcultural group fomenting violence on the right.
You write that there are similar groups on the left that foment violence also. However, you do not name one far-left group. In the name of completeness, could you give us the name of a group?
Thank you for writing about such an important subject. It is truly tearing our nation apart and urgently needs to addressed on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
I would be interested as well for additional examples other than Unity of Fields. I have learned more this week than I thought possible and am still alarmed at the dark reaches of the web 😬 So many of these groups seem to become immeshed at some point. Far right and far left become the same.
Yes. I looked up the Unity of Fields group; here’s a synopsis: the group changed its name from Palestine Action US to Unity of Fields in 2024, indicating a shift in its mission to include the spread of "militant propaganda" in the United States. The group was formed in Britain.
Critics have accused the group of actively promoting terrorism and radical propaganda within the U.S.
I understand people who criticize this piece as both-sideism, but I can see it being a vital entry point for people who have been unsure how to respond in this moment. I think there are many on the right and on the left who have been traumatized by the event itself, troubled by the response to it, confused by the coverage, and seeking clarity on what the problem is so that they can advocate for solutions. Which side is more to blame is less important than getting as many people as possible to recognize the basic problem, and giving examples of how the far right and the far left are each susceptible to this issue is so important in getting good-faith people on both sides to do something about it. We have so much trouble already with agreeing on basic facts that we can't get to the actual work of solving problems. If we can all at least stipulate that there *is* a problem with online radicalization turning into real-world violence, maybe we can start working together on a solution that will benefit us all.
Also totally agree with this. I get that many of us just want SOME acknowledgement that our current leadership is denying actual facts and blaming all of this on the left (when statistics show us otherwise) and it is infuriating. But we know that’s what DJT does, that’s all he does—speak lies and gaslight Americans. So I agree that at some very basic level we have to take the sides and the finger pointing out of it if we want to try and come together at all to fix some of this nonsense.
Unless I overlooked it in Elise's article, something that was left out is that in our current environment, our LEADERS are calling for retaliatory action. This is jaw-dropping to me. After the 9 church members were killed during Obama's term, he did not call for action against the right. Nor, after the murder of the MN lawmaker and her husband not too long ago, did Gov. Tim Walz call for retaliation against the right. Only Trump and his administration / party in Congress are calling for this, when their role, really, SHOULD be to calm the nation and try to bring us together. That is the biggest distinction in the "both-sides-ism" that is going on. One side clearly stokes the violence, IMO.
“If someone tells you it's raining and another tells you it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. It's your job to look out the f***ing window and find out which is true.”
Like others have stated, this article is a miss for me. I truly do understand the need for everyone to look within themselves and decide if they are going to choose violence or non violence as we move forward. It is an important conversation and one that needs to be reinforced as much as possible. But this article flattens the narrative in my opinion, when we don't acknowledge the fact that our President and his cabinet are in the midst (and some would say we've already arrived) of crumbling our democracy in favor of an authoritarian regime and we are witnesses large corporation after large corporation--especially our news and media organizations-- capitulating to this movement in breathtaking speed. The violence, both in language and in action, coming from the White House itself--their own horrific memes depicting ASMR deportation, and more--is unprecedented in modern times. Sure there is a both sides to the gaming world, and the dark web, but I'm not seeing a both sides when it comes from our political leaders and that is arguably a bigger more concerning threat than the seedy recesses of the internet. It's mainstream, bold and in broad daylight. Yes this article does mention Jan 6th, and The President but it does not do a good job of speaking to this imbalance, both in political power and rhetoric, and how this might be affecting each side differently. This article speaks of the "far right" and the "far left" but what about the mainstream right? The ones in the Oval office who are engaging in political violence against it's citizens in a less overt, but no less violent manner--Ice raids, alligator alcatraz, and again starting with a President whose violent rhetoric since the early days of his candidacy have been met with less shock and more cheers over the years? That is where the conservative right is coming from. While in my view, the left is reeling with this bizzaro upside down world and feeling reactive in the aftermath. "I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white [conservative] community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard" --MLK Yes to more non-violent action, but also yes to clear-eyed understanding of where the violence on each sides stems from.
I completely agree with you. I once worked in crisis response at a domestic violence hotline, and they talked about how couples therapy is often very damaging in abusive relationships - there is one party who is doing something unacceptable and wrong, and coming from a framework of 'it takes two to tango' legitimizes the abuser the and forces the victim to blame themselves for being human. Sure, one person may have forgotten to pick up milk but that 'offense' is nothing next to being beaten. Or maybe the person who is constantly abused hits back one time, and then the relationship gets labeled 'mutually abusive.'
Anyway, that's what this article feels like to me. Once side is doing unbelievably awful things, over and over again with explicit approval from its highest officials, and the other is not able to fully control every single person who agrees with its platform, and we're expected to look at this and say 'ah yes, this is an all- America problem" as opposed to 'America has a gun problem and there's a political group that's really into guns, and wouldja look at that, most of the violence is coming from that group"
Thank you! And lol I didn't even get into the gaslighting parallels of it all, as it relates to emotional reactions - how not only are we seeing this with our own eyes, but we're then policed for not having the right emotional reaction. A country that turns a blind eye to school shooting after school shooting suddenly expects people who have been begging for gun control to weep over the loss of someone who espoused that loss of life is the moral and right price to pay for unfettered access to firearms. I.E. an abused person who gets angry about abuse is accused of contributing to the hostility but like, who wouldn't get angry about being abused? Policing emotional responses is just one more way to retain control, making people once again be like 'oh no, am I part of the problem because I'm not feeling sad enough?'
100%. The crime of not coddling conservatives while in my own grief is not equivalent to the crime of actually KILLING PEOPLE 🙃 I practice gentle parenting, but I’m not going to soothingly ask my toddler to put down a bazooka. I’m going to f***ing snatch the bazooka from them.
Exactly! And the fact that they (and to some extent, this article) suggests that those reactions lead to more violence - IDK, maybe it does but also maybe if we (as you so aptly put it) snatched the f***king bazooka from them, it wouldn't matter, and we could actually move on to healing our divides.
Thank you for putting this into a framework that makes sense to me. I've been so angry and frustrated about how it's presented and I haven't been able to figure out how to explain and express it, but the abuse victim and couples therapy comparison is perfect.
I read this with an open mind - I disagree with your take that there is equality between the two party’s extreme factions. It’s not even close!!
What the Democrats need to do is organize and immediately introduce common sense gun reform legislation and put it in Charlie Kirk’s name. Add in there funding for mental health services and outreach programs to get these young men offline and into the real world. 🤞🏼
It’s a scary day when leaders intentionally start fires instead of speaking words of calm and togetherness. It’s a distrustful day when the heads of federal authorities are unqualified yes-men. All the branches of our government are currently run by “the right,” who in their positions of power and influence, are making a concerted effort to foment violence and animosity.
It seems that, at this point, it truly is up to us, as fellow citizens, not to take the bait, and that depends on “both sides” making that effort…as we can’t seem to get off this simplistic, 2D political sea-saw we have been convinced we are on.
Honestly, I’m so sick of the labels “right, left, liberal, conservative….” They are just terms of manipulation at this point.
Lastly, social media, as it exists today, needs to be abandoned. I cancelled my Metaverse citizenship a couple of years ago and don’t ever want to be repatriated.
“And we’re not going to make any progress whatsoever in this country as long as the side that’s responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of it keeps gaslighting everyone about the supporting role they've played in it this entire time.”
The republican party has become a threat to everything that is good in this country. More than 90% of shootings in this country are perpetrated by right wing people. MAGA is too stupid to know when they are being duped, so you have all these republicans out there blaming the left, and they just eat the lies up. What happened to Charlie Kirk is a tragedy, nobody deserves to die that way. But republicans are making him out to be a saint, and he was nothing of the kind. He was misogynistic, homophobic, racist and a liar. He threatened people, put them on hit lists, all because they had a different opinion than he did. It’s just another example of how far down the republican party has fallen. Are democrats perfect? Absolutely not, we have lots of flaws, but outright cruelty and lie after lie are not part of our values. I used to think that if we could only get rid of trump our society could go back to being respectful of differences and work together for the betterment of the country. I honestly think that is not possible anymore. I don’t know where the country goes from here, but I know republicans will continue their unkind agenda, lacking morals and integrity.
I think it’s important to understand how deeply unfulfilling any analysis will be. Robinson was born into a high-demand religion that eschews LGBTQ+ individuals. It’s looking like his family had stepped away from the church somewhat, and Robinson was struggling with his sexual identity. This was complicated by his online exposure to various ideologies. Kirk’s definitive, dogmatic, and divisive rhetoric became a target, an outlet for a young man who didn’t have the personal skills to deal with his cognitive and internal dissonance. Kirk may have had a “side” he aligned with, but I don’t think Robinson’s will be as clear.
None of the groups wants to acknowledge the reality that this situation is messy and lacking clear boundaries. That leaves all the groups without someone to blame, and assigning blame is what our human brains desire to do. Do we blame Robinson’s parents for raising him with gun safety and hunting skills that enabled him to accomplish this? Do we blame Mormonism, or maybe the family’s inactivity in the church? Do we blame the nebulous “social media”? Do we blame politics?
After all the finger-pointing, the story will fizzle out as they always do. We’ll move on to something else. But what I want to assert is that we have tolerated the intolerable for too long. Let’s be aware of history, of studies and statistics, and of the motives behind the various rhetoric, and then we choose the wise response. That’s the part that shouldn’t fizzle out.
This article is a miss for me. Yes indoctrination is happening on both sides, but the magnitude of the violence from the right and the normalization of that violence from our sitting president is directly responsible for this increase in violent behavior. To frame it as both sides having equal culpability is wild.
100% accurate!
[edited to add the link] Good article, but while both sides have committed violence, such violence is far more common on the right. An analysis by Alex Nowrasteh of Cato of political violence from Jan 1 1975 -- Sept 10 2025 shows 3,599 people have been murdered in political violence.
https://www.alexnowrasteh.com/p/politically-motivated-violence-is
83% of that 3,599 were killed in by 9/11 terrorists. Right-wingers were responsible for 391 murders, or 11%. Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total.
Political violence does come from both the left and the right. But let's not pretend that both sides are equivalent in their propensity for political violence.
While I do appreciate there is some good information in the article, I caution Elise, and all readers against quoting UT Gov Cox as a source. Remember, he prayed for 33 hours that the shooter would not be “one of us.”
Do not trust, nor believe, anything he says. He is not an impartial nor fair source of information.
I was also surprised he was held up as a relevant source. His statements have all been 'we don't know why he did it but we know he did it because he's on the left.' How can you assert that if you don't know why he did it, lol
I might argue that any violence at all is too much violence, and that by arguing it's worse on the other side, we, by omission, say that some violence is acceptable. It would be nice if we rose up as a society to condemn violence on our own sides, to let our own people know that it's unacceptable, and shut it down instead of evening the score.
When you “both sides” an issue to balance it out, when it’s more lopsided, you actually aren’t solving a problem but creating apathy. The psychology being “well if both sides are doing it there’s nothing that can be done.” And we have to tell the truth.
Similarly, when you focus on which side does it more, it's easier to say the other side is the real problem. I've been horrified to hear the words coming from the mouths of people who I considered myself politically aligned with. It will take all of us individually to choose to turn away from the violence. We are all vulnerable to radicalization and need to be aware so that we and people we love can avoid it.
We do need to tell the truth. We need to tell ourselves that our side is part of the problem, and that we need to do better to help those who already agree with us politically to find ways other than violence to be heard.
I’m not meeting any liberals who want violence. Because it’s literally 90% far-right people since 2016. Even conservative think tanks agree, even the FBI has said that far-right extremists are the biggest threat to our security. I think the work is far more effective to call out the side actually committing the vast majority of the violence. I’m wasting my time trying to find a needle in a haystack over here in my state while 90% of my neighbors think it’s still okay to threaten me over a rainbow flag. If political violence is a cancer and we need to operate why would I go to amputate the arm with one cancer cell when the other arm is filled with tumors?
So, Elise's article was about online radicalization and I was referring to how we have the power to engage in our own circles online in a way that doesn't lead to violence. I wasn't suggesting anyone go knocking on doors.
Your IRL situation sounds exhausting, for both mind and heart, and I'm sorry you don't feel safe around your neighbors. I hope that gets better for you. ❤️
You're never going to get it to violence to 0 because there are always going to be sick/violent people on both sides. (You could address this with gun access but I digress). But it's true that if a small portion is coming from one side and most of it is coming from the other, it's far more important to deal with that side then try to get the people committing less violence to commit no violence before you're willing to address where most violence is actually coming from.
It cannot be said often enough that any political violence is too much. No one should be trying to “get even” with the “other side”, ever.
sure. but our country is literally founded on political violence, so while 0 political violence can be the goal- that often ends up dismissing ideas to reduce political violence because it won't SOLVE ALL political violence.
comments like this seem to be "both-sides"ing the issue, but its not equally both sides- not by a long shot.
It would be nice, but I'm wondering when has that ever happened? From where I sit, the left (at least center left) has done more to condemn violence and call for solutions than the mainstream right. If you don't want to compare violence, should we compare efforts at discouraging violence? The right can pay lip service to toning down rhetoric and condemning violence, but they can't maintain that position because they don't mean it. They want the violence, and the suppression of free speech, and the doxxing and the targeting(said in their own words on the last few days) - they just don't want it directed at them.
Yes, thank you for posting the hard data here.
In disturbing addition, “we're also seeing high levels of support for political violence in our quarterly surveys of attitudes in the United States on political violence.”
- per Sept. 12 NPR interview of Robert Pape, professor of political science at U of Chicago
If we put the far-right and far-left on a scale, it would not be balanced. It would be tipping far more in one direction than the other. I have a son who is the same age as Kirk’s alleged shooter. He’s deep into gaming and the internet chat boards like Discord and Reddit. I’ve talked about things he sees on there, and it’s all far-right. I’ve asked him if he’s seen anything far-left. Couldn’t even really define what it could be- like- taking everyone’s guns away? Universal basic income? Letting everyone including babies vote? More social programs?? The example given above about Waymo’s wasn’t really categorized as violence, but vandalism, just like when people vandalized Tesla dealerships (which Musk tried to claim was terrorism.) Those cars were not carrying people, and they didn’t belong to people they belonged to a corporation who will just get reimbursed by insurance. It’s like after Katrina happened and survivors were labeled “looters” for taking food from stores that had already written off the loss and would’ve been thrown away. Both-sidesing yet again is how we get Trump as president the second time. It’s not telling the whole story, but over normalizing the far-right/MAGA as “just another political party.”
Thank you, Maria.
When you compare and contrast the “sides,” yes you can find violence on both. And yes it needs to be acknowledged and condemned.
But overwhelmingly, what you get is Pepe the Frog vs Kermit the Frog.
One of these things is not like the other.
I do have a friend who has tipped into the far left. It’s a lot of violence as a means to an end. He posts videos about how getting rid of billionaires is the point. It’s also a lot of fear mongering of how we might never get back to a normal place as a country bc all is lost. So even though I do think it’s more prevalent to the right it is also there on the far left.
Ugh, both-sides-ism at its worst. It all starts with leaders and the leaders of the Republican Party glorify guns, violence and revenge against their perceived enemies. At this very moment, MAGA, which by the way is not just some anonymous people posting on the internet but the actual president, VP, Cabinet and most of the powerful people in the U.S. government, is plotting over how to use Kirk’s death to go after anyone and any group to the left of center. MAGA has pardoned J6 rioters who violently attacked police in one of the largest acts of political violence in our history and will even give to one of them the flag-draped coffin military burial honors formerly reserved to those who sacrificed their lives serving their country. MAGA will make a national spectacle of the funeral for a man who like Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones before him, built a multi-million dollar empire on spreading hate and division. MAGA is currently on the hunt for people who are exercising their rights to free speech, so they can find them and destroy their lives and oh by the way, after that see if they’ve committed a crime. What you reference as a “dangerous normalization of force as a political tool” has less to do with anonymous social media posts, which we know from past investigations are often generated by Russian and Chinese troll farms and everything to do with the party whose leaders, from the very top on down, demonize their political opponents, fetishize and glorify guns and violence and use whatever power they have to pursue retribution. There is absolutely no equivalence.
While I understand young people are being indoctrinated on both sides ideologically by the dark web and it is, indeed, a tragic sign of our turbulent times, I need more information.
You cite Fuentes and his group Groypers as a divisive subcultural group fomenting violence on the right.
You write that there are similar groups on the left that foment violence also. However, you do not name one far-left group. In the name of completeness, could you give us the name of a group?
Thank you for writing about such an important subject. It is truly tearing our nation apart and urgently needs to addressed on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
She mentions Unity of Fields with regards to the LA car arsons
I would be interested as well for additional examples other than Unity of Fields. I have learned more this week than I thought possible and am still alarmed at the dark reaches of the web 😬 So many of these groups seem to become immeshed at some point. Far right and far left become the same.
I would as well, Amber.
And there are also other examples of far right other than Groypers. It really is frightening when you learn more.
Yes. I looked up the Unity of Fields group; here’s a synopsis: the group changed its name from Palestine Action US to Unity of Fields in 2024, indicating a shift in its mission to include the spread of "militant propaganda" in the United States. The group was formed in Britain.
Critics have accused the group of actively promoting terrorism and radical propaganda within the U.S.
Yup far right and far left groups have concerning beliefs.
Thank you for asking!
I understand people who criticize this piece as both-sideism, but I can see it being a vital entry point for people who have been unsure how to respond in this moment. I think there are many on the right and on the left who have been traumatized by the event itself, troubled by the response to it, confused by the coverage, and seeking clarity on what the problem is so that they can advocate for solutions. Which side is more to blame is less important than getting as many people as possible to recognize the basic problem, and giving examples of how the far right and the far left are each susceptible to this issue is so important in getting good-faith people on both sides to do something about it. We have so much trouble already with agreeing on basic facts that we can't get to the actual work of solving problems. If we can all at least stipulate that there *is* a problem with online radicalization turning into real-world violence, maybe we can start working together on a solution that will benefit us all.
Also totally agree with this. I get that many of us just want SOME acknowledgement that our current leadership is denying actual facts and blaming all of this on the left (when statistics show us otherwise) and it is infuriating. But we know that’s what DJT does, that’s all he does—speak lies and gaslight Americans. So I agree that at some very basic level we have to take the sides and the finger pointing out of it if we want to try and come together at all to fix some of this nonsense.
I think you are on to something.
Ok, but what is the basic problem this article provides clarity on?
Unless I overlooked it in Elise's article, something that was left out is that in our current environment, our LEADERS are calling for retaliatory action. This is jaw-dropping to me. After the 9 church members were killed during Obama's term, he did not call for action against the right. Nor, after the murder of the MN lawmaker and her husband not too long ago, did Gov. Tim Walz call for retaliation against the right. Only Trump and his administration / party in Congress are calling for this, when their role, really, SHOULD be to calm the nation and try to bring us together. That is the biggest distinction in the "both-sides-ism" that is going on. One side clearly stokes the violence, IMO.
Please don’t do this, Ms. Labott.
“If someone tells you it's raining and another tells you it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. It's your job to look out the f***ing window and find out which is true.”
-Jonathan Foster, journalism professor
yessssssssssssssss
Like others have stated, this article is a miss for me. I truly do understand the need for everyone to look within themselves and decide if they are going to choose violence or non violence as we move forward. It is an important conversation and one that needs to be reinforced as much as possible. But this article flattens the narrative in my opinion, when we don't acknowledge the fact that our President and his cabinet are in the midst (and some would say we've already arrived) of crumbling our democracy in favor of an authoritarian regime and we are witnesses large corporation after large corporation--especially our news and media organizations-- capitulating to this movement in breathtaking speed. The violence, both in language and in action, coming from the White House itself--their own horrific memes depicting ASMR deportation, and more--is unprecedented in modern times. Sure there is a both sides to the gaming world, and the dark web, but I'm not seeing a both sides when it comes from our political leaders and that is arguably a bigger more concerning threat than the seedy recesses of the internet. It's mainstream, bold and in broad daylight. Yes this article does mention Jan 6th, and The President but it does not do a good job of speaking to this imbalance, both in political power and rhetoric, and how this might be affecting each side differently. This article speaks of the "far right" and the "far left" but what about the mainstream right? The ones in the Oval office who are engaging in political violence against it's citizens in a less overt, but no less violent manner--Ice raids, alligator alcatraz, and again starting with a President whose violent rhetoric since the early days of his candidacy have been met with less shock and more cheers over the years? That is where the conservative right is coming from. While in my view, the left is reeling with this bizzaro upside down world and feeling reactive in the aftermath. "I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white [conservative] community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard" --MLK Yes to more non-violent action, but also yes to clear-eyed understanding of where the violence on each sides stems from.
I completely agree with you. I once worked in crisis response at a domestic violence hotline, and they talked about how couples therapy is often very damaging in abusive relationships - there is one party who is doing something unacceptable and wrong, and coming from a framework of 'it takes two to tango' legitimizes the abuser the and forces the victim to blame themselves for being human. Sure, one person may have forgotten to pick up milk but that 'offense' is nothing next to being beaten. Or maybe the person who is constantly abused hits back one time, and then the relationship gets labeled 'mutually abusive.'
Anyway, that's what this article feels like to me. Once side is doing unbelievably awful things, over and over again with explicit approval from its highest officials, and the other is not able to fully control every single person who agrees with its platform, and we're expected to look at this and say 'ah yes, this is an all- America problem" as opposed to 'America has a gun problem and there's a political group that's really into guns, and wouldja look at that, most of the violence is coming from that group"
This is such a bang-on comparison👏
Thank you! And lol I didn't even get into the gaslighting parallels of it all, as it relates to emotional reactions - how not only are we seeing this with our own eyes, but we're then policed for not having the right emotional reaction. A country that turns a blind eye to school shooting after school shooting suddenly expects people who have been begging for gun control to weep over the loss of someone who espoused that loss of life is the moral and right price to pay for unfettered access to firearms. I.E. an abused person who gets angry about abuse is accused of contributing to the hostility but like, who wouldn't get angry about being abused? Policing emotional responses is just one more way to retain control, making people once again be like 'oh no, am I part of the problem because I'm not feeling sad enough?'
100%. The crime of not coddling conservatives while in my own grief is not equivalent to the crime of actually KILLING PEOPLE 🙃 I practice gentle parenting, but I’m not going to soothingly ask my toddler to put down a bazooka. I’m going to f***ing snatch the bazooka from them.
Exactly! And the fact that they (and to some extent, this article) suggests that those reactions lead to more violence - IDK, maybe it does but also maybe if we (as you so aptly put it) snatched the f***king bazooka from them, it wouldn't matter, and we could actually move on to healing our divides.
Thank you for putting this into a framework that makes sense to me. I've been so angry and frustrated about how it's presented and I haven't been able to figure out how to explain and express it, but the abuse victim and couples therapy comparison is perfect.
I read this with an open mind - I disagree with your take that there is equality between the two party’s extreme factions. It’s not even close!!
What the Democrats need to do is organize and immediately introduce common sense gun reform legislation and put it in Charlie Kirk’s name. Add in there funding for mental health services and outreach programs to get these young men offline and into the real world. 🤞🏼
It’s a scary day when leaders intentionally start fires instead of speaking words of calm and togetherness. It’s a distrustful day when the heads of federal authorities are unqualified yes-men. All the branches of our government are currently run by “the right,” who in their positions of power and influence, are making a concerted effort to foment violence and animosity.
It seems that, at this point, it truly is up to us, as fellow citizens, not to take the bait, and that depends on “both sides” making that effort…as we can’t seem to get off this simplistic, 2D political sea-saw we have been convinced we are on.
Honestly, I’m so sick of the labels “right, left, liberal, conservative….” They are just terms of manipulation at this point.
Lastly, social media, as it exists today, needs to be abandoned. I cancelled my Metaverse citizenship a couple of years ago and don’t ever want to be repatriated.
Yes, this, all of it! 👆🏼👆🏼
“And we’re not going to make any progress whatsoever in this country as long as the side that’s responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of it keeps gaslighting everyone about the supporting role they've played in it this entire time.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/shanealmgren/p/gaslighting-selective-outrage-and?r=23zl4h&utm_medium=ios
The constant, incredibly divisive rhetoric coming from the very top must take center stage here. It is dangerously destructive on every level.
The republican party has become a threat to everything that is good in this country. More than 90% of shootings in this country are perpetrated by right wing people. MAGA is too stupid to know when they are being duped, so you have all these republicans out there blaming the left, and they just eat the lies up. What happened to Charlie Kirk is a tragedy, nobody deserves to die that way. But republicans are making him out to be a saint, and he was nothing of the kind. He was misogynistic, homophobic, racist and a liar. He threatened people, put them on hit lists, all because they had a different opinion than he did. It’s just another example of how far down the republican party has fallen. Are democrats perfect? Absolutely not, we have lots of flaws, but outright cruelty and lie after lie are not part of our values. I used to think that if we could only get rid of trump our society could go back to being respectful of differences and work together for the betterment of the country. I honestly think that is not possible anymore. I don’t know where the country goes from here, but I know republicans will continue their unkind agenda, lacking morals and integrity.
As a Black Person, this article title grieves my heart. 😞💔
I'm so sorry. He was a vile person who said vile things and he should be repudiated in life and in death.
It starts at the top. Hate trickles down better than economics.
I think it’s important to understand how deeply unfulfilling any analysis will be. Robinson was born into a high-demand religion that eschews LGBTQ+ individuals. It’s looking like his family had stepped away from the church somewhat, and Robinson was struggling with his sexual identity. This was complicated by his online exposure to various ideologies. Kirk’s definitive, dogmatic, and divisive rhetoric became a target, an outlet for a young man who didn’t have the personal skills to deal with his cognitive and internal dissonance. Kirk may have had a “side” he aligned with, but I don’t think Robinson’s will be as clear.
None of the groups wants to acknowledge the reality that this situation is messy and lacking clear boundaries. That leaves all the groups without someone to blame, and assigning blame is what our human brains desire to do. Do we blame Robinson’s parents for raising him with gun safety and hunting skills that enabled him to accomplish this? Do we blame Mormonism, or maybe the family’s inactivity in the church? Do we blame the nebulous “social media”? Do we blame politics?
After all the finger-pointing, the story will fizzle out as they always do. We’ll move on to something else. But what I want to assert is that we have tolerated the intolerable for too long. Let’s be aware of history, of studies and statistics, and of the motives behind the various rhetoric, and then we choose the wise response. That’s the part that shouldn’t fizzle out.