this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2026
377 points (99.5% liked)

News

39677 readers
2671 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What's that again about political violence coming from the "Left"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

incident of politican harassment has gone up by about 50% irrespective of party in the last 3 years federally

How much do you want to bet that the federal definition of "politician harassment" has widened dramatically during those same 3 years?

Also true across the board in the US.

Is it, though? According to who?

the system isn't responding to, connecting with, or improving constituents lives. Or the constituents have become less tolerant of not being listened to

Correct, but it's AND, not or.

And of course the media is not helping

Even more correct

[–] ravenaspiring@sh.itjust.works -4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

So the Capitol police attribute some of this to an increased detection, not a redefinition. But your point is still vaild, with a caveat. While the Federal threats have blossomed, it's not just them.

study after study after study after study shows an increase of politicians being abused, attacked, and harassed.

And it's global not just the US.

We live in a attention economy which doesn't want real answers, or real context. Whom ever sounds the best wins. The problem is that Nature doesn't take a side.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Okay, let's take a look at your sources here.

Let's just go over your first one:

While 2013-2016 had on average 38 federal charges involving threats to public officials per year, that average sharply increased during the period of 2017-2022, with the average number of federal charges increasing to 62 per year. It seems the clamor of threats to public officials has grown louder since 2017, with gradual, steady increases.

The next figure states 42% of them were against elected officials. Okay, fair.

Of those offenders who displayed an ideological orientation, the majority were anti-government, anti-authority violent extremists (AGAAVE) or racially motivated violent extremists (RMVE) in nature. Of the total count of ideologically motivated threats, 43 percent were motivated by AGAAVE ideology. For example, in 2016, a Huntington, Maryland, resident threatened to kill President Obama and multiple members of Congress including Senators John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Hillary Clinton, and Orrin Hatch because of “government corruption out of control” and what the perpetrator described as “treason against America” by officials who “sold out America.”29

Okay, there's maybe some equal opportunity stuff here....

Moreover, a portion of the threats were motivated by both AGAAVE and RMVE. Related to what other scholars have observed regarding composite violent extremism,30 23 percent of the ideologically motivated threats analyzed involved both AGAAVE and RMVE extremism. For example, on April 16, 2019, a Tamarac, Florida, resident communicated a threat by telephone targeting Representatives Eric Swalwell, Cory Booker, and Rashida Tlaib, expressing anti-Black and Islamophobic racism along with anti-government sentiments. The perpetrator also claimed the government was planning a gun confiscation while using racist and xenophobic language to describe certain groups of people.31 This particular example and the overlap between racially motivated and anti-government sentiments more broadly reflects the long-standing co-mingling of anti-government and white supremacist extremism as illustrated by the founding role white supremacists played in the late 1960s with the emergence of the anti-government Posse Comitatus Movement (which argued that any authority beyond the local sheriff is illegitimate). The Posse Comitatus Movement had spillover effects32 that influenced both the emergence of the Sovereign Citizen and Militia Movements during the 1990s and more recently.33 The intertwined ideological and organizational histories of white supremacist and anti-government extremism renders distinctions among types of threats difficult and sometimes misleading.

Finally, racially motivated white supremacists have been designated as the most persistent and lethal ideological extremist threat in the United States, and 19 percent of the ideologically motivated threats to public officials were solely classified as RMVE.34 While the authors did identify salafi jihadi orientations and issue-specific (e.g., animal rights and environmental-related) grievances in the cases, those were clearly much smaller in number, representing six percent and nine percent of the ideologically motivated threat cases, respectively.

Hmmm.....wait, this doesn't seem like BoTh SiDeS here....

Me thinks you should maybe actually read the sources and get a actuall understanding the sources you're using to back up your claim that violent rhetoric on the rise is irrespective of a party or ideology here.