Leftists reason in reverse. So if someone commits political violence, and the apparent consensus is that it was bad, then leftists immediately categorize that violence as right wing. It doesn’t matter who was targeted or who benefits. None of the material facts of the case matter either. If the reaction to the event is negative, then the event must be categorized as right wing.
Some prominent examples of this phenomenon in action:
when the George Floyd riots started polling badly, leftists quickly pivoted from “this violence is giving voice to the voiceless” to “this violence is the result of conservative provocateurs”. Leftists committed the violence, but they magically became the victims when their violence was revealed to be unpopular.
when imported Muslim savages commit barbaric violence in the west, such as honor killings or beheadings, the left tries to frame it as right-wing violence because “religious = right wing”, even though leftists directly enabled it to happen and conservatives tried to prevent it.
If the violence is deemed appropriate by the masses, the left doesn’t hesitate to take credit. Look at Luigi. A plurality, maybe even a majority, of people thought he was justified in murdering a healthcare CEO. So the left eagerly claimed him as their own. If the public consensus had been more negative, the left would have scrambled to paint him as right wing.
when the George Floyd riots started polling badly, leftists quickly pivoted from “this violence is giving voice to the voiceless” to “this violence is the result of conservative provocateurs”. Leftists committed the violence, but they magically became the victims when their violence was revealed to be unpopular.
That was wild. There was one video of a white man with an umbrella (often used by Antifa) smashing windows, and they immediately claimed that he was a cop and/or a white supremacist.
Of course, they did not follow their logic to its logical conclusion. If it's Evil Conservatives doing it, then you should agree with conservatives that there should be a crackdown on the riots. No such luck, of course.
"The violence at the riot-protests is by undercover cops, not the good innocent protesters." "Yeah, I agree."
"We don't want violence." "Makes sense to me."
"And you preach ACAB?" "Of course!"
"So then we should stop violent rioters with brutality while not prosecuting those that aren't violent." "ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR REBOOTING Oh, hello! How's the weather today?"
Leftists reason in reverse. So if someone commits political violence, and the apparent consensus is that it was bad, then leftists immediately categorize that violence as right wing. It doesn’t matter who was targeted or who benefits. None of the material facts of the case matter either. If the reaction to the event is negative, then the event must be categorized as right wing.
Some prominent examples of this phenomenon in action:
when the George Floyd riots started polling badly, leftists quickly pivoted from “this violence is giving voice to the voiceless” to “this violence is the result of conservative provocateurs”. Leftists committed the violence, but they magically became the victims when their violence was revealed to be unpopular.
when imported Muslim savages commit barbaric violence in the west, such as honor killings or beheadings, the left tries to frame it as right-wing violence because “religious = right wing”, even though leftists directly enabled it to happen and conservatives tried to prevent it.
If the violence is deemed appropriate by the masses, the left doesn’t hesitate to take credit. Look at Luigi. A plurality, maybe even a majority, of people thought he was justified in murdering a healthcare CEO. So the left eagerly claimed him as their own. If the public consensus had been more negative, the left would have scrambled to paint him as right wing.
That was wild. There was one video of a white man with an umbrella (often used by Antifa) smashing windows, and they immediately claimed that he was a cop and/or a white supremacist.
Of course, they did not follow their logic to its logical conclusion. If it's Evil Conservatives doing it, then you should agree with conservatives that there should be a crackdown on the riots. No such luck, of course.
"The violence at the riot-protests is by undercover cops, not the good innocent protesters." "Yeah, I agree."
"We don't want violence." "Makes sense to me."
"And you preach ACAB?" "Of course!"
"So then we should stop violent rioters with brutality while not prosecuting those that aren't violent." "ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR REBOOTING Oh, hello! How's the weather today?"