Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
DC Politicians, Big Tech Companies Making Violence More Likely, Not Less
By using current events as pretexts for further restricting the ability of people to speak and to communicate, national government politicians and “big tech” companies are increasing the likelihood that people will resort to violence to get their point across.
Politicians and “big tech” claim restricting speech and communication will reduce “conspiracy theories” and the planning of violent actions. But, driving such topics into hidden corners tends to reinforce them and to encourage the people involved to become more extreme and potentially violent.
Politicians and businesses told us during spring and summer 2020 that people were entitled to become violent because they had no other way to express their grievances (despite that media and the academy were routinely reciting those grievances). Now many people (mostly different people from the people who protested in the spring and summer) who believe they have grievances also believe that the powers-that-be are not listening. And they are told not only that the “powers that be” will not hear their grievances, they cannot even express their grievances or discuss their grievances with one another. A person who believes that election irregularities led to a stolen election has even more reason to believe that when he is prevented from even raising the idea. No one should be surprised if at least some of those people turn to violence as the only apparent method to get the powers that be to pay attention.
As noted in the comments on the post “Parler” by @henryracette , it is not necessary for the national government politicians and the “big tech” executives to conduct a formal conspiracy to try to silence troublesome upstarts. Big government and big business have common interests that lead them to work toward the same result without formal coordination.
Like the “protests” in spring and summer, the human isolation caused by months lacking in-person contact leads to greater frustration and more explosive results when people do finally come together. Real life in churches, in business and social organizations, in bars and restaurants, at sporting events, at cultural events, at community events, in social groups, and other places where real people interact with other real people tends to moderate extreme beliefs. Yet we don’t have those real-life interactions today, so extreme beliefs grow unchecked in isolated individuals and in isolated corners of society. So when the people with those extreme beliefs finally do react, it should not surprise us that they might react violently.
Politicians and large companies that restrict the ability of people to speak and to communicate further that isolation, making such extremes more probable, and therefore violence more likely, not less likely. Had they let the grievances be expressed and had politicians responded with factual responses, the events of January 6 would go down as one of those occasional protests that got out of hand and we could have discussed the grievances and responses to those grievances. But, by instead engaging in name-calling (including lumping everyone who expresses a concern about election integrity in with the few who rushed into the Capitol building), and implementing heavy-handed efforts to silence the grievances, politicians and business give those with grievances reason to engage in extreme beliefs, and to respond in extreme ways.
Politicians and businesses are increasing the likelihood that at least some of those with grievances will become more violent, not less.
Published in Politics
This is a feature, not a flaw. Right wing violence gives the incoming socialists an excuse for right wing oppression. Look at the history of Spain in the 1930s to see how that works.
Seems to be working in China
Yup
I am old enough to remember the America wherein a questioning and examination of an “official story” was considered a prudent response, and not a conspiracy theory.
In much more recent history, I remember Trump cancelling a summer 2016 rally he was at in Chicago when thugs showed up and it looked like his assembled crowd would be in danger. The PTB immediately claimed they knew who the thugs were: they were Bernie Bros. (Which struck people involved with Bernie Sanders as bieng ridiculous.)
Eventually it came out that the thugs were there through sponsorship by the DNC.
I think when examining the events of January 6th, it is worth realizing that.
The regulatory environment we live in causes this dangerous union.
It is like a strategy. Squeeze a dis-empowered group; the group gets frustrated and reacts; repeat.
Not only did the Democrats fail substantially to condemn the violence of last Summer, they weaponised it in political terms by proclaiming that the left-wing outrages were a symptom of “Trump’s America.”
Louie Gohmert said this and they twisted it to make it sound like he was promoting violence.
If you look for a thing hard enough, you’ll find it, whether it was there or not.
They are pouring gasoline on the fire with actions such as this. The fire is the existence of two Americas. One side can ignore Federal Law (sanctuary city), can riot and assault police with no penalty, can ignore criminal law (Hillary’s server, Hillary’s corrupt Foundation, Hunter Biden, etc., etc.), and can weaponize the IRS and Justice Department for political ends with no repercussion. The other side is scrutinized and demonized, must bake the cake, must provide birth control even if you think it is a sin against God, must call a boy a girl, must be preached to if they want to watch a sporting event, must allow men or boys into the private areas reserved for women, etc. Now Biden wants to destroy the NRA. If you want to complain or discuss it, our means of communication are being taken away which may be good because if you complain you may lose your job. It is like they have tapped a gasoline pipeline and are pouring it on the fire.
At times like this I think of the fact we are pilgrims here in this sinful and broken world:
Ephesians 2: 1-7
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
People are already angry at being locked down, having their businesses or lielihoods destroyed, and now big tech is silencing dissenters? I thought dissent was being American (from a notable on the left).
If you take away platforms for free speech, you’re gonna get free violence . . .
If remove the ability of people to air their grievances (speak) you force them to use violence.
Very true, especially if the electoral process has been stolen out from under the public.
To paraphrase John Kennedy, if you make peaceful revolt impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
Wasn’t it the other way round in Spain, hence Franco?
Spain shows that both sides can be wicked.