I consider January 6 to have falsified all research along these grounds. I acknowledge, sure, that virtually nobody wants to see gun battles in the street. But if you can talk yourself into believing that a mob sent to overturn the election and install the loser doesn't count as partisan violence, you can talk yourself into believing all kinds of catastrophes don't count.
>But if you can talk yourself into believing that a mob sent to overturn the election and install the loser doesn't count as partisan violence, you can talk yourself into believing all kinds of catastrophes don't count.
How's this different than say...
>polls show 99% (or whatever) of people are against crime
>voters elect a soft-on-crime politician, crime goes up
>"I consider the fact that the soft-on-crime politicians got elected to have falsified all research that people are against crime"
It's not different. If my city elected a mayor whose buddies committed a robbery 4 years ago, and his first act in office was to parole the robbers, I would be incandescently furious and definitely say that anyone who supports him is pro-crime.
> It is. What's more, such support is roughly the same across both parties, but both parties vastly overestimate the other side's support.
The difference between the two parties is that one elected a leader that agrees with that minority. This 2012 scene from The Newsroom outlines the difference:
I don't think this addresses the main point of my question, though. Do you know any prominent Democrats, e.g., representatives, senators, or presidents, who have called for a Republican to be killed?
> "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!!" Trump went on. "LOCK THEM UP???" He also called for the lawmakers' arrest and trial, adding in a separate post that it was "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH."
So more broadly, calling for any sort of capital punishment is also "political violence"? Even if you're against capital punishment, comparing it to something like Charlie Kirk getting shot is disingenuous. When people think of "political violence" they're thinking of the former, not capital punishment. Lumping the two together is like "do you support criminals? No? Why do you support Nelson Mandela, a convicted criminal?"
> calling for any sort of capital punishment is also "political violence"?
No, of course not, but I'm sure you knew that, hence constructing this straw man so you can knock it over and claim victory.
However, and more to the actual point, calling for capital punishment strictly because you disagree with the factual words someone chose to write might reasonably be considered "political violence". Especially when the words in question clearly call out your potential political intentions and remind people that said intentions can be battled in a particular way.
It is. What's more, such support is roughly the same across both parties, but both parties vastly overestimate the other side's support.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116851119
https://x.com/JustinGrimmer/status/1966997411060215960