Discussion on Political Violence and Rhetoric

86 47 explain it to me

I like the colors kill the son

of the bitch kill who really what's your name

Dixie glad we got that on camera

you know that's illegal right

you don't threaten the president you don't threaten anybody

but that's the problem with your guys

aside you guys get so emotional

you feel you need to threaten people

but don't worry we're spreading love and we're gonna fix it

again this is another perfect example

with the left this man is openly wearing

a shirt that says kill Donald Trump 86 47

and the left is silent and again

I go back to talking about the permission structure

for violence that the left perpetuates

and they continue to perpetuate this unapologetically

Because again, you won't see people coming

out on the left saying, hey, we need to condemn this.

This is not okay. They don't condemn the crazies within their party.

In many cases, they embrace them.

This man's walking around with a shirt saying,

kill Donald Trump, and is proud of it.

But what led this man to think that that is the solution?

The left's rhetoric. He's a fascist. He's a Nazi.

He's going to destroy the country. He's a threat to our democracy.

When they say threat to our democracy,

replace the word democracy with Democrats political power.

That's what Trump is a threat to. And

again, they say they're against political violence,

but they do things that lead people to believe that violence is the correct answer.

And then when that person does take action and commits violence

against conservatives, people on the left say, oh, well, we condemn political violence.

Yeah, that's awfully convenient because you perpetuate the permission structure that allows it,

then your political opponents get offed, and then you say, oh, well, we condemn that.

The more technical term for this is stochastic terrorism.

And here's the definition of it.

Stochastic terrorism is a phenomenon where public figures use inflammatory,

often deniable rhetoric to incite unpredictable acts of violence from individuals who are statistically likely to be influenced.

The stochastic part refers to the randomness.

While the specific individual act of violence is unpredictable,

the overall probability of violence occurring increases due to the repeated public messages.

This can be observed in cases of mass communication that

create a heightened sense of urgency or hostility, leading an ideologically aligned person to commit an act of violence.

That is what the left does, and then they claim deniability

once someone commits an act of violence. We condemn violence, they say. Then stop perpetuating the permission structure.

Again, I've said this before, the left currently has a problem with political violence.

It is not the right right now. It is the left.

You can go from people wishing death upon Elon Musk and Donald Trump,

to Teslas being burned, to Teslas being shot,

to Charlie Kirk being shot, to ICE facilities being shot, to news stations being shot.

The left has a problem with political violence.

Also, just a reminder, I have a free email newsletter

where I give you morning updates about what's going on.

The link to that is in my profile.

Once you click the link, you'll see this screen right here.

Drop your email in, hit subscribe, and you'll be good to go.

I'll see you guys in the next one.