There was another article that made this same point on this site. I thought the methodology behind their definition of “rightwing” was inaccurate. The ADL helped them with research and method too. They admitted that religious, mostly Islamic terrorism had killed more people in the US, over 3,000, in fewer supposed attacks, as compared to so-called right
wing terrorism in the same period, whose body count they defined as about 300. Wouldn’t this mean that so-called religious terrorism is more deadly/dangerous? Fewer attacks but more fatalities in the same period should mean that they are more deadly, at least to a sane person. The whole study seemed kind of sketchy, though, because they listed things like environmental terrorism as leftwing, but listed the Christ Church and El Paso shooters as right wing terrorists. Both listed ecofascism, and environmental degradation due to mass migration as a motive for their attacks. I would think that should make them at least partially left wing, if the article had consistency. The article I initially read mentioned Antifa by name, but did not mention BLM by name, even though there have been people who were radicalized by this movement who then went on to kill people: the Dallas shooter who killed 5 cops, and I think there was a guy who shot up a church who also had BLM all over his social media. BLM is left wing by the article’s definition because it is anti-capitalist, but it is also ethnonat/racial supremacist, both of which were right wing according to the article. Maybe that was how they were able to conclude that right wing attacks were on the rise, by considering BLM to be a rightwing organization. I doubt it, but it does give one pause. I also think their definition of “rightwing” in general was too broad, listing antigovernment militias who don’t care about race alongside ethnonats and white supremacists makes it seem like white supremacy is on the rise, because most people when they hear “rightwing” don’t think Ancaps, they think of the white supremacists, so their decision to lump all supposed “rightwing” people together leads to confusion as well.
Right wing???????
FT, GFY!
There was another article that made this same point on this site. I thought the methodology behind their definition of “rightwing” was inaccurate. The ADL helped them with research and method too. They admitted that religious, mostly Islamic terrorism had killed more people in the US, over 3,000, in fewer supposed attacks, as compared to so-called right wing terrorism in the same period, whose body count they defined as about 300. Wouldn’t this mean that so-called religious terrorism is more deadly/dangerous? Fewer attacks but more fatalities in the same period should mean that they are more deadly, at least to a sane person. The whole study seemed kind of sketchy, though, because they listed things like environmental terrorism as leftwing, but listed the Christ Church and El Paso shooters as right wing terrorists. Both listed ecofascism, and environmental degradation due to mass migration as a motive for their attacks. I would think that should make them at least partially left wing, if the article had consistency. The article I initially read mentioned Antifa by name, but did not mention BLM by name, even though there have been people who were radicalized by this movement who then went on to kill people: the Dallas shooter who killed 5 cops, and I think there was a guy who shot up a church who also had BLM all over his social media. BLM is left wing by the article’s definition because it is anti-capitalist, but it is also ethnonat/racial supremacist, both of which were right wing according to the article. Maybe that was how they were able to conclude that right wing attacks were on the rise, by considering BLM to be a rightwing organization. I doubt it, but it does give one pause. I also think their definition of “rightwing” in general was too broad, listing antigovernment militias who don’t care about race alongside ethnonats and white supremacists makes it seem like white supremacy is on the rise, because most people when they hear “rightwing” don’t think Ancaps, they think of the white supremacists, so their decision to lump all supposed “rightwing” people together leads to confusion as well.
Wut?