Who supports political violence?

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 10 months ago to Politics
14 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"Although most people opposed violence, a significant minority (ranging from 5-14 percent) agreed with each violent option, and 10-18 percent expressed indifference about violence in politics. This implies that millions of ordinary Americans endorse the general idea of violence in politics.

"Interestingly, these violent attitudes did not depend on standard political and demographic characteristics. For example, Republicans and Democrats were indistinguishable in their support for political violence, and liberals and conservatives were too.

"By far the strongest factor is an aggressive personality. People who behave more aggressively in everyday life are significantly more likely to support political violence."

Article from the Washington Post here:
ttps://http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mo...

Text of research paper here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf...
"The results from Table 8 suggest that Democrats might be more responsive to violent
rhetoric."
"The results in Table 10 show substantively- and statistically-strong treatment effects
among low-knowledge subjects, consistent with the patterns observed above. In contrast, highknowledge
subjects show virtually no responsiveness to the violent rhetoric."


All Comments

  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the clarifications. You might have seen "Thresholds of Violence" here in the Gulch. It was a link to a New Yorker essay on why school shootings spread.
    https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

    I think that the theory applies here, also. As speech becomes more aggressive, aggression becomes more prevalent.

    Another topic entirely, but we generalize ourselves too easily. What "most people" think or do can be very different from your expectations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I don't know what you mean by that"
    I said it awkwardly. I meant if commentators and politicians are over-the-top in their rhetoric, as I think many are today, I would expect the rhetoric to be rejected out of hand. I would expect it to increase support for political violence if it were intense but not over-the-top. I hear things lately that seem over-the-top, more than I did twenty years ago. Maybe it's just the new media. My main point is it seems like they've jumped the shark to the point I would expect it to cause people to dismiss politics altogether, not increase acceptance of political vioence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    here is an aspirin i see your point. Coffee is I get good value and the barista gets a nice tip. Politics is I get no value and they charge what they want.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The questions were meant to be tallied as a set. No one alone proved anything. They also were meant to elicit a response. I also had the same problem that you did with that one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know what you mean by that. I plussed because it was down to zero for no reason. I have seen much of that lately. We have a Zero loose in the Gulch. I am going to say something about it (again) in the Producers' Chat.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 10 months ago
    "Political leaders, pundits, and citizens regularly demonize opponents and emphasize the righteousness of their own goals."
    It seems like this should only happen if they don't go over-the-top making their rhetoric seem like facile self-serving lies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 10 months ago
    "Sometimes the only way to stop bad government is with physical force."
    I would be torn on this one because sometimes requires only example in history to make the statement true. OTOH only means there isn't even one other option, which is difficult to prove.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True but they are only politicians. Not important. If it were the barristas who make my superb cup of coffee each morning I would be truly concerned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 10 months ago
    When there are constant unfulfilled promises and no justice, many more are likely to support political violence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago
    Are we talking verbal or written violence. Of course the Dems are responsive. It's as close to reality as they ever get. Look at the movies they put out and the main theme in Saturday Morning Sugar Sales Cartoons and the plethora of games in every imaginable format....Whose first when something really violent happens...M2F Media..all weepy eyed and looking for scape goats to crucify. they love blood. as long as it isn't there's. Peaceniks? Not hardly. Troops in every corner of the world until the body bags start coming back. All of a sudden nobody voted for it. Rino's included.

    If you are talking physical violence then the stage is suddenly empty.,

    Even in my best efforts which tops out with the military living up to it's oath of office physical violence is not necessary. Precisely because the opposition will cave at the slightest suggestion of a fist much less a tank.

    Any evidence of ObeyMe in a fist fight much less boxing trunks or a solider's uniform?

    No....but he's been a wartime President as long asi it's OP in the trenches

    Basic human nature. Some people are natural moochers, looters, and more comfortable behind ...well I better add skirts since the Amazon Corps is coming to town.

    It's the difference between talking and thinking something was done and talking and then doing something. Oh! My! My nails!! My makeup!! That is not a sexist comment anymore.

    It's not just those who are openly aggressive. It's those that do it behind a wall of protection (Trump Clinton) or worse those that are acting out suppressed rage behind a wall of protection ...(LBJ) and pull the trigger by sending the trigger fingers out to die for them.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo