Look, I’m not the smartest person, I had a knee-jerk reaction to this news that thinks the removal of the DOJ paper was mostly not a bad thing. Not saying we shouldn’t have data on acts of terrorism, but that it might be skewed by bad politics.
A couple recent instances stand out to me:
One is the dismissal of terrorism charges in the Luigi Mangioni murder case. Would this be in the DOJ report since it’s not legally a terrorism case anymore?
The second is the BLM protests. Left wing extremism laid siege to entire cities. Massive groups of people attempted to set fire to federal buildings while people were still knowingly inside, and the designation of “autonomous zones” in downtown Portland - CHAZ / CHOP - that directly contributed to violent criminality.
These seem like petty glaring instances that the data misses, or that the study is too narrow to draw any legitimate conclusions. It just feels like the report suffered from Left leaning bias, it was removed for Right leaning bias, and is made another battleground for Left leaning bias to “prove” definitively that the Right is more violent.
For good reasons, the studies all count politically motivated killings, not property damage. It’s a clear data point. During the BLM protests, the politically motivated violence that came from the left was overwhelmingly property damage, not killings. With property damage, how do you assess what’s serious enough to count in a data set? That’s the problem that’s acknowledged by the Cato Institute and the Anti Defamation League.
Look, I’m not the smartest person, I had a knee-jerk reaction to this news that thinks the removal of the DOJ paper was mostly not a bad thing. Not saying we shouldn’t have data on acts of terrorism, but that it might be skewed by bad politics.
A couple recent instances stand out to me:
One is the dismissal of terrorism charges in the Luigi Mangioni murder case. Would this be in the DOJ report since it’s not legally a terrorism case anymore?
The second is the BLM protests. Left wing extremism laid siege to entire cities. Massive groups of people attempted to set fire to federal buildings while people were still knowingly inside, and the designation of “autonomous zones” in downtown Portland - CHAZ / CHOP - that directly contributed to violent criminality.
These seem like petty glaring instances that the data misses, or that the study is too narrow to draw any legitimate conclusions. It just feels like the report suffered from Left leaning bias, it was removed for Right leaning bias, and is made another battleground for Left leaning bias to “prove” definitively that the Right is more violent.
It just all feels so dumb.
Yes you are not the smartest person. You are a typical dumbass Substacker, @KyleD.
Thanks for the dialogue. Very productive
I’d rather you get rectal cancer, but that’s just me.
For good reasons, the studies all count politically motivated killings, not property damage. It’s a clear data point. During the BLM protests, the politically motivated violence that came from the left was overwhelmingly property damage, not killings. With property damage, how do you assess what’s serious enough to count in a data set? That’s the problem that’s acknowledged by the Cato Institute and the Anti Defamation League.