Basically the title.
I'm seeing people praising this Luigi dude. However, I cannot think of a time in history when it became popular to advocate murdering people in the streets that wasn't followed by leftists committing mass atrocities.
All I have seen is an increase in advocacy for murdering white men, right wing ceos, our future president, and anyone seen as wealthy.
I am struggling to see how anyone is reconciling being right wing with the complete disorder and moral failing that murdering random people in the street would involve.
This isn't some issue that is bridging the gap with the left. They want you dead too. They will celebrate your death as well.
This is an example why I think we will never ultimately win because the right is so quick to adopt the ideas of the left.
So please give me an example in history where this hasn't led to bad examples.
To further illustrate my point. Look at the difference in media coverage. We know more about Luigi than the Nashville shooter or Crookes and one murdered a bunch of children and the other shot the president.
Yet we know Luigis social media, his goals and motivation, his childhood and every single picture meant to make him look cool.
Both ancient Rome and Greece had their periods of populist unrest and political mob killings. Many of those were notably nationalist in flavor, targeting politicians who were perceived to have betrayed their countrymen.
Granted leftism wasn't even a thing back then so it's hard to say exactly how much overlap there was with "leftists" back then, but at the very least their patriotism and nationalism are anathema to the globalist bootlicking lefties of the modern era.
I suspect you have to keep looking pre-marx or pre- rousseau for more readily available examples though. Not that unrest became inherently leftie after that, but those philosophies have emboldened lefties so that they typically take the first strike advantage in such states of unrest since their invention. And with that advantage have taken control of those cultural moments more often than not ever since.
Leftist may not have been a recognized term but the definition-based left-right axis does still function as a tool to look at older governments.
The modern "it means whatever I want it to mean, x team good y team bad" left right bastardizations certainly don't fit, but those are marxist propaganda efforts.
TBH unless you're trimming the definition down to a single issue like big gov Vs small gov, I'm not sure it is a unified axis without the definitions to coalesce around. For lots of things on the left-right axis there's no intrinsic reason for them to be linked other than historic "that's the left's position, and that's the right's". Example, I don't think there's an intrinsic link between wanting the government to coddle layabouts and ignoring the obvious differing average abilities between the sexes, or idolising faggotry and sexual deviance. I don't think it's inherent human nature to link those together, I think it's a learned behavior.
Without that historic baggage I think you would have so many more people with mixed political ideals that the whole axis breaks apart.
I said the definition based left right axis because there is a clear definitional axis. What you're identifying is something like the reddit political compass, which is self contradicting propaganda. Horseshoe theory is propaganda.
An axis is defined by it's extreme endpoints. The left end is authoritarian or statist / collectivist, the right end is anarchist / individualist. It is also sometimes identified as a vertical scale where they explain the natural tendency of government to grow and become corrupt as gravity, but that is honestly just an attempt at reframing it as "good / bad" by libertarian types. I agree with it morally, but the purist measuring tool is just left right.
The reason this works and the retarded reddit political compass (horseshoe theory) doesn't is this is an objective and clear axis. Every ideology can be placed on it related to other ideologies. And it doesn't have any retarded contradictions like "right wing socialists" or "left libertarians" because you aren't trying to tack arbitrary relative cultural elements onto what is supposed to be an objective measuring scale.
Honestly I always thought the entire point of the using a vague, abstract nomenclature like left-right is so you can lump a bunch of goals that aren't easily described quickly together. E.g. Whole post revolution political dockets.
Using left-right as a simple stand-in for "big gov-no gov" does make left-right a properly opposed and philosophically cohesive axis. But I just don't see the point of the nomenclature existing at all that point, when you can just as succinctly describe the single axis with its actual foundational premise. It's just inviting the confusion when there's an already hijacked homonym out there.