[stone-monkey]

>It's also disingenuous to suggest the extreme left isn't dominating the messaging from the left.

Except it's not disengenuous to say that at all. We can see that by the candidates each party has supported. Biden is considered a pretty centrist democrat by pretty much any metric. Trump, however, can't be considered a moderate. He's enabled fascist White nationalist supporters. Biden hasn't done the same.

Also, for the record, BLM and SJWs aren't equivalent extremist left compared to literal Nazis - the left wing extremist equivalent is Communism and the position to kill and eat the rich. That is the level of extremism that Trump has facilitated in office. If Biden also enabled people who explicitly call to overthrow the US government, I'd say you have a fairer point.

[buran77]

The 2 extremes are indeed closer to each other than they are to the center, the Horseshoe theory. Of course, extremists on either side would hate to be bundled together, their ideology is different but their extremist approach is not.

But I can't help but think this is a very asymmetrical horseshoe where the right side extends much further then the left side ever did. The problem is not even necessarily the particular ideology but rather that the right side is willing to be far more extreme in their views. That in itself is exceptionally dangerous no matter what the views are because it implies a very, very unpleasant life for those who don't share them.

It's the reason why today the US is so divided, there's no more overlap, the 2 sides each sit in their corner. The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other.

[Garlef]

> The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other.

I think this statement is wrong. There are a lot of other possibilities. For example: "A minority that is agressively vocal for extremism in one aspect could be cushioned by a strong general consensus for a political culture of reasonable cooperation and discussion."

[westwing]

There are extremists on the left, Biden disavowed them publicly.

There are extremists on the right, Trump disavowed them publicly.

Nevertheless, media commentators on either side try to portrait these candidates as if they supported, or at least "enabled" extremists.

Can you be more specific on how either of these candidates "enable" or "do not enable" extremism? How would you falsify an accusation of "enabling" something?

[tacitusarc]

What you are pointing out here is fundamentally true and verifiable. I think I find myself, along with many other americans, in a bizarre position where we see comments like this which we know are accurate get barraged by downvotes or whatever system in Internet commentary exists to decrease the visibility of the comment, and I find this troubling. This mostly happens, from what I've seen, if there is any suggestion within the comment that the right is in some way defensible. I think many internet forums have tried to use downvotes as a signal for validity, but so frequently that signal is obviously misapplied, making it almost entirely meaningless. In fact, it is has become a signal for the direction of the political leanings of the majority, rather than anything having to do with the usefulness or appropriateness of any given comment.

This is probably a bad thing.

[wholinator2]

Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists. I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate but I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him

[westwing]

> Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54381500

> I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate...

That was clearly a missed opportunity to clear things up, but the counter-question "Who do you want me to condemn?" is a fair one. It's easy for Trump to condemn the KKK, not so easy to condemn militia groups in general. Similarly, it's easy for Biden to condemn rioters, not so easy to condemn Antifa in general. Effectively, both candidates dodged that question.

> ... I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him.

That's moving the goalpost a bit too far for my taste. Trump has condemned white supremacists, that at least is on the record.

[cassepipe]

"to condemn Antifa" Antifa is a construct from Fox News to designate a broad category of mostly young people that range from anarchists calling for direct democracy to people who are against racism and intolerance that have in common that they are not against clashing with police forces. So condemning Antifa does not make much sense. Maybe he could have condemned violence in the protests but anyone who has been in a demonstration knows elements in both the protesters and the police are looking for the clash. But the police always has the upper hand and violently crush what is mostly damage to property. Just tell me how many people have been killed by so called "Antifa"? Is that comparable to the number of people that have been killed by right-wing activists? Why is it always the progressive leaders that get shot? Right wing activists always say they are here to "defend" against something but they are the one attacking.

[pba]

Here's a compilation of some of the instances he's done so: https://streamable.com/sr9o2s

[Izkata]

Title of that one says 20 times, here's one with 38 times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc

[HelloMcFly]

> Can you be more specific on how either of these candidates "enable" or "do not enable" extremism? How would you falsify an accusation of "enabling" something?

I can indeed do this, but the question itself seems to be asked in bad faith. How on earth do you need me to report to you on Trump's behavior and words even into the final debate?

[westwing]

This isn't specifically about Trump, but about the political tactic of accusing the opponent of "enabling extremists". Both sides are using it.

Let's focus on the falsifiability: What would a candidate have to do in order to disprove the accusation?

If there isn't a clear answer to that question, then how is this tactic materially different from name-calling?