shivas.wisdom said:

Here, I did the work for him. Source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us

In brief, FoolOfElysium is correct to say that left-wing political violence has increased in the last decade, but wrong to say that left-wing violence has eclipsed right-wing violence. 2025 is unique in being the first year in decades where left-wing violence outnumbers right-wing violence, but this is the result of a significant decrease in right-wing violence, rather than an increase in left-wing violence. Despite the increase in political violence, left-wing attacks remain overwhelmingly non-lethal and far less lethal compared with other ideological orientations.

Quote:

Our analysis of terrorism trends in the United States shows that, indeed, left-wing violence has risen in the last 10 years, particularly since President Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence in 2016, although it has risen from very low levels and remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers.

[...]

The left-wing movement as a whole has not returned to its violent heights of the 1960s and 1970s, but the number of terrorist incidents involving left-wing extremists so far this year puts 2025 on pace to be the left’s most violent year in more than three decades. Moreover, 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumber those from the far right.

Indeed, the increase in left-wing attacks is particularly noticeable because attacks from right-wing perpetrators have sharply declined in 2025. This decline is striking, and explanations are speculative. One possibility is that many traditional grievances that violent right-wing extremists have espoused in the past—opposition to abortion, hostility to immigration, and suspicions of government agencies, among others—are now embraced by President Trump and his administration.

[...]

From 1994 through 2000, there was an average of 0.6 left-wing incidents annually; in the following decade, that figure doubled to 1.3 a year. Numbers began to grow substantially, however, in 2016, and from 2016 to 2024, they averaged 4.0 a year. Through July 4, 2025 (thus excluding the Kirk attack), there were five left-wing attacks or plots, which sets a trajectory for a record-breaking year in the last 30 years.



[...]

[D]espite the rise in the number of left-wing incidents and the likelihood that such incidents involve realized violence, the lethality of left-wing attacks remains very low. Left-wing attacks are overwhelmingly non-lethal and far less lethal compared with other ideological orientations. Since 2020, only two fatalities have resulted from left-wing terrorist attacks in the United States: Luigi Mangione’s assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City in December 2024 and Michael Reinoehl’s fatal shooting of right-wing protester Aaron Danielson in Portland, Oregon, in August 2020 (if the Kirk killing is included, as seems likely, it would be a third fatality). Right-wing and jihadist attacks, by contrast, have caused far higher fatalities.

In the past decade, despite the increase in the number of left-wing incidents, left-wing attacks have killed 13 victims, compared with 112 and 82 victims for right-wing and jihadist attacks, respectively.

---

---

From the article near the beginning:

Quote:

Definitions
This analysis defines terrorism as the deliberate use or threat of premeditated violence by nonstate actors with the intent to achieve political goals by creating a broad psychological impact. Using this definition, CSIS researchers compiled and analyzed a dataset of 750 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States between January 1, 1994, and July 4, 2025.

---

These extremely narrow definitions of violence are very convenient, aren't they?

I never made any claims about "terrorism" based on selective criteria. I'm talking about BROAD SWEEPING VIOLENCE.

A 750 person case sample? Yeah, that's nice.

How about we all just use our eyes and compare George Floyd's death to Charlie Kirk's?

Seriously man. These "studies" are just mental masturbation. They find the criteria necessary to make the case they want. Conversely, I just look the fuck around the room.

From the article at the very end:

Quote:

Appendix: What Is Excluded?
This analysis excludes a number of incidents that further contribute to the perception of an increase in left-wing violent activity in 2025. Different definitions and coding might legitimately include these, but the explanation below details why they are excluded from this dataset.

---

HagbardCeline said:

This was not intended for fool, but shiva


You said it exactly right, he believes his gut feeling carries more weight than conducting a study with actual data. Does he even recognize all the little gaslighting tactics he uses? The feigning to concede a point, but not really, because now I'm going to invalidate it by using hyperbole and exaggeration or absurd conclusions that contradict existing data. Anything to reinforce his bias and he thinks his response is relevant when it is really a pep-talk to himself to hand waive away pesky information.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Yeah, if I believed something as intensely as he does, I would put a little bit of effort into validating that belief with independent study - he can't even be bothered to find some alternative facts, it's just blatant 'I don't like it, so it's wrong'

---

You're the last person that should be passive aggressive toward me like this. I expect better than that from you. (Unlike most here.) I've read your article, I kept my promise, I've given you a thorough reply, I've made counterpoints, and you're not addressing them.

If my argument is so weak, then give my arguments the same attention I've given yours. If you can truly dismantle it, I'm happy to change my views. I didn't have to *concede* to the idea that historically the right-wing has (seemingly) produced more mass violence because I already *acknowledged* the fact in the first place. I HAVE Mormon roots! I condemned mass shooters on the right for a solid DECADE!

But as I grew in understating I realized it also ought to be obvious that most of these "republican" mass shooters rebelled against their Christian roots looooong before they shot up a school. Do you really think they *all* still believed Jesus was real before they went in guns-a-blazing?

You're better than just avoiding this. You've criticized me FAR more than I have you (often talking to others rather than saying it to me directly. Cowardly, and you're better than that.), and yet I still try to bring you back to the talking points themselves. You're a smart cookie with a good soul, you're just *limiting* your scope.

We have more common ground than you realize. We both obviously condemn violence, we both acknowledge it comes from both sides. The only thing you seem to be stuck on that I am not (which is ironic given you're an anarchist and shouldn't be partisan), is that leftist violence has been publicly waaaaaaay worse than MAGA violence since 2016 if you stop just looking at a cherry picked version of the worst of the worst, and look instead at the overall ENERGY of the parties instead. (I know how cherry picking works well because well... I was Mormon.)

Everything is energy, mate.

This. This photo is energy. Step back. Look at the energy. Maybe you've already made your choice. I've also made mine. I'm no Christian, but I can't ever align with one of these two. It's just not in my nature to do so.

Sometimes in War, innocents get caught in the wake, but Antifa charges in like they are under the influence of a "Beserk" spell. They are not *cautious* about sparing the innocent in their wake.

I can never, ever, align with them because of that. They lost my support a long time ago.

shivas.wisdom said:

You dismissed the first study as outdated, and said that I needed to focus on the last decade - so I found a study that focused on the last decade, and when it didn't conform to your beliefs you dismissed it as well. You haven't given me anything to work with except your gut feelings - if the hard numbers didn't convince you, what will? - you can't reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into.

Want me to put more effort into responding to your belief? Then find an alternative study that supports your conclusion, so I have something more than "I realized it ought to be obvious" to work with.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

It's standard practice for research studies to acknowledge limitations. A study with limitations is still better than the gut feelings you've provided.

George Floyd vs Charlie Kirk? Do you mean extrajudicial State execution that initially went unpunished vs murder by a citizen who will face the full weight of the law? Maybe different situations elicit different reactions - no one had to riot in order for Charlie F. Kirk's killer to be arrested.

Anyways... data or gtfo.

---

FoolOfElysium said:

You are doing nothing more than empowering MAGA who had FAR MORE reason to retaliate. A true leader of MAGA was robbed from them. George Floyd had no impact on society. He was a drug addict who got caught up in the political spotlight due to a shitty cop and a camera.

---

FoolOfElysium said:

And yet the latter study actually *admits* to selective data-gathering at the end. They literally had a section that basically said, "Why we did not include data that would make the left look more guilty than they already do in 2025."

But it's not just 2025. My god, STOP making it about my "gut feeling." You're embarrassing your own soul.

George Floyd Vs. Charlie Kirk. Full stop.

I get it. I was more on board with leftism's ideals too. But you gotta let go when the ship is sinking, mate. It's over. The left, antifa... all of it. They played the game the wrong way. The illusion is fading. They lost due to their adolescent approach and now they are spiraling out of control. It's going to become clearer and clearer as time goes on. I'm telling you now because I care.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

FoolOfElysium said:

You are doing nothing more than empowering MAGA who had FAR MORE reason to retaliate. A true leader of MAGA was robbed from them. George Floyd had no impact on society. He was a drug addict who got caught up in the political spotlight due to a shitty cop and a camera.

---

Says a lot about you, that you think the George Floyd uprising was a retaliation (the act of hurting someone because they have done or said something harmful to you), rather than a struggle for justice against a State unwilling to grant it.

Also says a lot about you, that you think some people are less-deserving of justice because they haven't lived a life worthy of your standards.

---

dinosaurs said:

FoolOfElysium said:

And yet the latter study actually *admits* to selective data-gathering at the end. They literally had a section that basically said, "Why we did not include data that would make the left look more guilty than they already do in 2025."

But it's not just 2025. My god, STOP making it about my "gut feeling." You're embarrassing your own soul.

George Floyd Vs. Charlie Kirk. Full stop.

I get it. I was more on board with leftism's ideals too. But you gotta let go when the ship is sinking, mate. It's over. The left, antifa... all of it. They played the game the wrong way. The illusion is fading. They lost due to their adolescent approach and now they are spiraling out of control. It's going to become clearer and clearer as time goes on. I'm telling you now because I care.

---

fool, you gave yourself away when you admitted to being an (ex?) mormon.  you were raised to be a blind believer/follower and you've carried that with you as you switched from one cult to another.  having someone else tell you what to blindly think and believe is your warm fuzzy place. 

---

FoolOfElysium said:

What bullshit. The *force* of my point lies behind the 2 billion+ dollars in property damage the riots caused.

---

funny how you bring this up over and over and never mention how the jan 6 party that totally-was-not-a-riot-or-insurrection cost the American taxpayers $2.7 billion dollars according to the US Government Accountability Office.

now on one hand, BLM protests were in response to decades of extra-judicial violence against minorities by agents of the state, whereas jan 6 was... well you can weave your own web of bullshit to explain jan 6 away...

Fool when you continually pull shit like this it makes people think that you're either an idiot or that you're intellectually dishonest.  I only mention it because I care

FoolOfElysium said:

If you want to take this further, I'm game. But be warned, I'll obliterate you, because I understand how cults operate on every level, whether they are religious or secular. Best back down now.

---