Well, violence was already normalized in every other sphere of American life, I guess it was only a matter of time. Look at the Trump shooter, by American standards, the only weird thing about him is that he went after someone important instead of just shooting up his local school or walmart.
I hate to be "that kind" of leftist but political violence has always been normalized and accepted. Cops exist to uphold the law, the law is made by politicians, cops use violence to uphold it.
"Oooh but [person being beaten by cops] did something illegal" yeah. We decided it was illegal and we decided violence was fine to use to keep it that way. I'm not saying it's good or bad or I disagree or agree or whatever, it's just how it is.
Saying you're for political violence is just being honest. Everybody is for it, they're just against violence that influences them negatively.
I agree with all of that, but I think what's relevant here is that more people are becoming willing to aim the violence in the other direction, from the masses and towards the state. You are 100% right that political violence has always been normalized and accepted, but specifically (like in your example) it was the state use of violence against people that was normalized and accepted while people using violence against the state was broadly considered not just taboo but immoral.
The numbers in OP aren't just describing an increase in acceptance of all "political violence," but an acceptance for the masses to wield that political violence against the state, which is a very interesting, maybe even profound shift, a shift that is indicative of the ongoing collapse of the empire.
In theory sure but I guarantee the majority of these are chuds threatening the more progressive members of congress (or threatening regular Democrats because chud Media told them they are basically Stalin).
This seems more like it might be a polling issue given the rise of the internet since the 1990s. Nowadays It's absolutely much easier for the average person to make a threat against a politician and get away with it than it was in the 90s.
That first statistic is so funny. It reminds me of conversations that are like "He's a felon, but it was for drugs." "Oh, who cares?" It's the same thing except you'd go
"They're a murderer, but they murked a politician"
"Oh shit, which one?"
[My lawyer suggests I don't include this line]
"Oh, that rocks! Can we invite them over for dinner? I'll bring out the fine china"
taking violent action against the government can be justified
Lol, this is something nearly everyone believes CAN be justified. It's such an open ended statement, yeah I'm sure most people can imagine a situation where they would feel violent action against the government could be justified. Really the question should have been do you feel it's justified under the current administration
I'm surprised only 34% of Americans believe taking violent action against the government can be justified, isn't the whole country founded on violent action being taken against the government? Or did the founding fathers just write some lukewarm think pieces, stage a protest in the designated protest zone, and vote for George Washington?
Now, some people, they want to say that lead is bad. And maybe it is, okay? Maybe it is. But our Boomers and Xers, they didn't let a little lead slow them down. No way. They got up every morning, went to work, and made this country the powerhouse it is today. And they did it with a smile on their faces. Tremendous.
Sorry in advance for reading way tf too far into this post, but it got me thinking. How are we supposed to interpret these numbers? Is 34% (or I guess 20%) a good or bad thing? Do we want more violence in America?
I always struggle with understanding what actions are good, and what actions are bad. If I am supposed to care about the masses opinions, I would say this statistic still reinforces the idea that any violent action at all in the US is detrimental to our movement (especially if you consider a good portion of these people were probably very right wing). Are we at a period in time then that things like red papers, book clubs, and peaceful protests are enough? That doesn't sound right, but there is likely some theory I'm missing or misunderstanding.
I think it's a good thing that the populace is more accepting of political violence, because my faith in the democratic process is nonexistent. Violence is necessary to enact change at this juncture.
What is bad is that violence is necessary, not the acceptance of violence itself.
I personally think that US is currently at a stage where education and organizing are the most important tasks for the left. However, the fact that the right is increasingly becoming seeing violence as the answer can't be ignored.
Furthermore, mainstream politics is incredibly polarized now with both republicans and democrats are at the point where they see each other as a threat to their way of life. Whoever wins the election is going to be seen as an illegitimate tyrant by a large portion of the population. The whole social contract hinges on people accepting elections as being essentially fair. If people stop believing that the government holds power because it has the mandate of the people, then there's little reason to accept it.
Given all that, I expect that civil unrest is a very possible scenario after the election, and everyone should start preparing for that eventuality.
8,008 divided by 201 days... That's just about 40 per day. As for the judges, that shakes out to about 2.3 per day. (What constitutes a third of a serious threat is anyone's guess, but that's still too much for me to round down to two.)
Just eating my popcorn waiting for the whole shitshow to collapse. I just hope when their cold civil war re-ignites they don't use nukes on each other this time. Or at least that the fallout doesn't hit Canada.
As I recall, a couple of people from the Pentagon or other military agency wargamed a full-on (likely worst-case) Civil War 2.0, and the upshot was that "[tactical nukes] were used early and often". The outcome would be grim, to say the least.
I have to say I don't think this means much, the ease with which someone can send threats has improved dramatically, and that coupled with lower platform moderation has likely enabled a surge of larpers talking like villains giving monologues online. Most of this drive for violence is online and in people's head canon, and won't even motivate the people making threats enough to head upstairs and check how much fertilizer their stepdad has left in his garage.
That last 40% I don't know if I believe, how many of these reports are poorly spray painted "blacks rule" on sidewalks, probably spray painted by the judges or legislators themselves?