Thank you. We need more of this. I found myself enraged at the enraged until a friendly stranger on Substack pulled me back from the edge. Please know that your voice matters in al this noise.
Something I’ve observed is that the “rage machine” is fuelled and sustained more and more by interpretation, and less by people’s initial emotion to the event itself. It’s tempting to assume the people celebrating or denying violence are doing so out of anger, however, what they’re effectively doing is participating in narrative maintenance. They’re reinterpreting events so that their tribal worldviews remain unperturbed. It’s as if their perceived survival depends on maintaining their group’s view of reality.
We saw this when MAGA insisted Vance Boelter (the Minnesota shooter) was a leftist in spite of all the evidence he was on the right. It also explains why some progressives are eagerly rushing to misrepresent Kirk’s words. Rage is very clearly instrumental; it’s become a favored mechanism of epistemic insulation against facts (specifically facts liable to fracture/threaten group identity).
The right has helped turn this “economy of interpretation” into a full-blown media apparatus that commodified and promulgates rage, (with the aid of algorithms), and now the left is mirroring it (the more unified one “tribe” becomes, the greater the pressure for the other side to do so, and the more one’s identity becomes fused with the ideology/group, making people more invested in rage).
So it’s essentially a foundation/organization tactic that creates an environment in which scapegoating can flourish. People start to treat maintaining group consensus as the desired outcome. So when a violent act occurs, people are eager to utilize it as symbolic material to unite their group’s consensus. As long as the majority are incentivized to establish tribal group unity, the alternative (of treating violent acts as isolated events) is rejected.
I suppose something must be done to change the incentive structure and lower the stakes for dissenting dialogue.
Yes, welI said, I agree. I'll add that a key reason for this is that these groups are in competition. This competition started out over real things -- policy on some level. But at some point this competition hit exit velocity and became untethered from any ground reality. Winning, or more precisely, avoiding losing became the ultimate goal. So when something happens that could make the side look a little bit more correct, or more favorable, it seems like they've got an "advantage" and we feel compelled to find a way to take that advantage away.
So, I agree, this is about the narrative that is out there. But I also think it may be less about helping people believe their own narrative than in promoting it. As Dan Williams has been writing, we have an instinct to produce propaganda. That's what's polarization and social media have nurtured. And then every so often someone comes along and takes it literally, thinks the competitively performance of propaganda is literally true , and feels compelled to use violence.
Thank you, Yascha. People are indeed paving the road to hell. So myopic. We need more people like you, pointing out where this leads. Everyone will lose in this misguided, vengeful gamble to win.
If you look beyond social media, have "these merchants of rage" been "frighteningly successful"? I would argue that they have not been successful with those of us, the majority of us, whose lives are firmly rooted outside of social media. Everyday we go to work, to school, to shop, or to do any of the other myriad of things that we do perhaps a little sadder, but as Americans, native born or naturalized, a little optimistic or a little pessimistic but not full of rage.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take a majority to succeed in creating nightmares for everyone. Most people through history just wanted to live in peace. Yet they suffered due to the battles of the extremes.
Yes, but I remain guardedly optimistic about the future of our constitutional democratic republic. There does not seem to be any value in being pessimistic. (What would being guardedly pessimistic mean?!)
I think the future will look back (hopefully not from rubble) and see more clearly how terrible algorithmic social media was for society (and I'm afraid it may continue to get worse with the power of AI).
I agree that the perception of reality is badly warped by online spaces, which distort the dominantly successful and peaceful lives of ordinary folks. If the emotional pull of the online rage machine wasn't so strong, or more people made the decision (as I mostly have) to actively avoid it, we'd have a far healthier society.
Spot on, sir. As a Catholic who embraces all the teachings of the faith, I'm used to flak from both left & right. Misery 🤣 does love company! Thanks for this thoughtful & timely piece. If the center does not hold, chaos in one form or another is inevitable. If there is no common morality, power defaults to the strongest. With both parties now embracing moral relativism as a practical matter, I share your pessimism. But, nations come & go. The U. S. has had a nice run so far. God only knows it's future. He also wishes the salvation of all souls through His son. U. S. Citizenship is not required, IMHO.
Yascha, "Resist the bad actors, on the left and the right, ... " so both sides are equally bad actors? Were they always equally bad actors? Is one side more often the bad actor than the other side? Do we tend to tell folk that "both sides do it"? These are weak and lazy statements, are being said often and insinuate that this is a 50/50 issue in that both sides do it equally. The more and more we say things like "both sides" and "the left and the right both do it" with never a statement of context or proportion. Your readers know that the left has more bad actors in this political cycle. Can we make those factual statements of who does what more clearly and with less deference to exacting equality?
He didn't formulate a proportional distribution to any side, only made the objective statement to avoid them. When acting out of principle, the overall distribution is irrelevant.
What is relevant, though, is those each of us may interact with. From my observations, regardless of the overall numbers of the "merchants of rage" on each side, the most sinister are the ones on "our side", whichever that may be, as their the ones each of us is most likely to be swayed by.
Insanity does not need an exact equal proportion. Tit for tat will never be equal because the antagonists are always trying to out-do each other. Yascha's point is that both sides are flaming the fires... and he is 100% correct.
The funny thing is, that is exactly what the left says about the right. I didn’t know you were coming at it from the right until you said “the left has more bad actors in this political cycle”…your whole comment could simply have had “right” substituted for “left” and be entirely consistent. Suggests that “both sides” is probably more credible than you think (albeit emotionally unsatisfying).
I suggest you read the article again. The fundamental problem is that someone thought it justified to murder a person for expressing different opinions, and others find ways to justify and even celebrate this action.
In other words, the fundamental problem is that far too many people - on BOTH sides - need to sort out their priorities.
”murder a person expressing different opinions, and others find ways to justify and even celebrate this action.”
You’re describing Charlie Kirk. It just so happens he was the guy who got got this time. Or are we supposed to ignore all the bile he spewed about variations on this theme?
His killing is obviously inappropriate, but he wasn’t helping matters with his demagoguery.
To seize on a man’s death as an occasion for mockery is not political speech, it is desecration. Whatever you think of Charlie Kirk’s stance, he was a human being murdered in cold blood. To celebrate it is to join hands with the murderer.
Kirk’s point about the Second Amendment was not a wish for bloodshed but an acknowledgment of the tragic cost that comes with any freedom. We say the same about free speech — it protects vile words as well as noble ones. His argument was about liberty, not murder.
“As you sow, so shall you reap” does not mean “you deserve to be killed.”
It means the moral order holds us accountable for our actions.
To wield Scripture as a sneer against the murdered is to corrupt its meaning and put yourself in peril of the very judgment you invoke.
Charlie Kirk did not ‘reap’ death by being outspoken. He reaped admiration, loyalty, and, yes, hatred. But the bullet that killed him was not sown by his words — it was sown by the killer’s malice.
Do not confuse the victim with the crime.
Mocking Charlie Kirk’s murder is not argument, it is desecration. His words about liberty acknowledged tragic costs — they did not invite his own execution. The only one who ‘reaps’ here is the killer, and the harvest is bloodguilt.
“To seize on a man’s death as an occasion for mockery is not political speech, it is desecration. Whatever you think of Charlie Kirk’s stance, he was a human being murdered in cold blood. To celebrate it is to join hands with the murderer.”
I mean Charlie Kirk celebrated Paul Pelosi’s attempted murder. Let’s not get too precious about this guy. Nobody should be killed for spewing invective, but he wasn’t some admirable empath of peace who was struck down.
Open borders, the war on meritocracy which is being replaced with equity aka race based equal outcomes and the demonization of “Whiteness!” to promote white guilt to gain support for things like reparations and equity are just a few of the many ways the democrats have severely damaged this society. Lee Fang recently had an excellent article on RCI about how Woke “Math is racist!” ideology for the sake of equity has destroyed our schools. Financed by leftist billionaires but also embraced by the Democratic Party, their media and most democrats in the general public who vote for this. No society can survive this level of stupidity and flat out insanity.
“The donors appear motivated by a deep sense of ideological commitment to righting past wrongs related to racial injustice.”
“Billionaires Backing Woke Math Doesn’t Add Up Amid DEI Rollback.”
Real Clear Investigations by Lee Fang. Aug 19, 2025
Charlie’s assassination on top of the murder of the young woman on the train which the left tried to ignore shows pretty clearly that we’ve passed the point of no return.
Megyn says we should all watch the video of the reaction of the young woman stabbed on the train. I agree. There’s a look of horror on her face as she looks up at the black man who stabbed her, then she realizes she’s been badly injured, then slides off the seat to the floor and dies. The other video shows this plus audio of the man saying “She called me a n**ger.” She obviously didn’t. He picked up that idea from the democrats who often claim an attack on a white person by a black is most likely due to being called a n**ger. Democrats are evil and insane.
“Megyn Kelly Plays the Full Charlotte Stabbing Video and Explains Why We All Must Watch the Horror.” (17 min)
I call BS on the "both sides" misinformation. Besides the kid in SC that fired in the church the violence is all by the left and much of it recently is trans-related. Continuing this lie is not productive to ending the hatred.
Stop with the “ both sides” nonsense. Violence with guns is not the same thing as condemning someone’s actions or words. Those of us on the left did not storm the Capitol on J6 and kill four cops.
Misha Petrov shows video of Kamala Harris on a Jan 6 anniversary comparing Jan 6 to 911 and Pearl Harbor. Most democrats believe this, most republicans believe Jan 6 was a set up by Nancy Pelosi and the FBI. This is an impossible situation. We exist in entirely different realities and have polar opposite beliefs on things as basic as immigration, race, gender, education, policing and pretty much all areas of our society. I believe America has already ceased to exist as a country internally which is why it’s so rapidly unraveling externally.
“January 6: The Most Deadliest Day.” Review. (1 min)
It's a lot easier to be so calm when it isn't you in the crosshairs. Enough of this "both sides". Are they boarding up businesses and buildings right now? And no, it isn't "a small number of sociopaths". As with Luigi Mangione, it's a very, very large number. I wouldn't be surprised if it's around 10% of the country (I base this on the usual average of extreme Left positions).
I think that you are underestimating the percentage of Americans who are joyful over violence against their ideological opponents. Unfortunately, it is not a small isolated minority on social media. A lot more is to come. Protect yourself in public appearances.
“ Nearly one third of Americans now say that killing certain public figures can sometimes be justified. About half of left-leaning respondents agreed with that statement.
The breakdown is alarming: 41 per cent of Democrats said assassinating a political leader could be at least somewhat justified. Only 29 per cent of Republicans said the same. That means Democrats were roughly 40 per cent more likely to endorse political assassinations.
This should unsettle everyone. It suggests that a growing share of progressives have built a world view that sees political violence as acceptable. Right-wing extremism is real — but the left-wing version is just as dangerous, and far less studied. It also appears to be getting worse.
This trend is not happening in a vacuum. It is being shaped in the very places where young people learn what is acceptable, including college campuses. Universities are meant to teach students how to argue, persuade and think critically. Too often they now teach students that shouting down, harassing or even physically confronting opponents is justified.”
"we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, and that are committing acts of wanton violence."
I'm genuinely curious, which of the above listed activities do you believe should NOT subject entities to the attention and intervention of law enforcement, given that such activities are legitimately illegal? Sorry, but it sounds an awful lot like you are giving the Left a pass on committing crimes simply because it's the Right attempting to hold them to account.
I assume you've seen the surveys of college students that an outright MAJORITY of those who identify as left of center endorsed political violence as sometimes justified? I'm sorry, but the argument that "most" people on the other side aren't like that is increasingly proven objectively wrong according to their own testimony. There's only one side in America right now that has a majority in favor of political assassinations and it isn't the Right. So enough with the both-sides-ism, enough with the "turn down the temperature", enough with pretending they aren't seriously teaching and implementing the ideas that it is right and just to literally murder people for disagreeing with them. If the comparison to Madrassas offends you then I question how much time you've actually spent talking to college students lately or actually looking at how many of the people openly celebrating Charlie's assassination are nominally educators.
I observed that this AI has been programmed to reflexively counter conservative thought and engage in both sides-ism, cover for and center liberal thought, and it has dire consequences.
Now I am pointing out a chain:
•Programming bias → consistently discounts or reframes conservative concerns
•That pattern → shapes what people see as “valid” or “invalid” to discuss
•That environment → leaves violence against conservatives, Christians, or white victims minimized, excused, or ignored
So when ChatGPT reflexively hedges conservative sources and normalizes progressive talking points, it is not neutral. It is reinforcing that skew. And I am right: if culture, media, and institutions constantly minimize or excuse some victims, it can create a permissive environment where killers believe their targets are dehumanized or fair game.
I won’t claim ChatGPT’s existence alone causes murders. But it must be accepted that the pattern I am describing — of systematically filtering and qualifying one side while leaving the other unchallenged — contributes to a climate where some lives are treated as less grievable, less reportable, less important. That’s dangerous.
It is not wrong to trace the moral stakes back to programming choices.
Thank you. We need more of this. I found myself enraged at the enraged until a friendly stranger on Substack pulled me back from the edge. Please know that your voice matters in al this noise.
Yes, well said. We have to resist the the enraged without becoming enraged ourselves.
Something I’ve observed is that the “rage machine” is fuelled and sustained more and more by interpretation, and less by people’s initial emotion to the event itself. It’s tempting to assume the people celebrating or denying violence are doing so out of anger, however, what they’re effectively doing is participating in narrative maintenance. They’re reinterpreting events so that their tribal worldviews remain unperturbed. It’s as if their perceived survival depends on maintaining their group’s view of reality.
We saw this when MAGA insisted Vance Boelter (the Minnesota shooter) was a leftist in spite of all the evidence he was on the right. It also explains why some progressives are eagerly rushing to misrepresent Kirk’s words. Rage is very clearly instrumental; it’s become a favored mechanism of epistemic insulation against facts (specifically facts liable to fracture/threaten group identity).
The right has helped turn this “economy of interpretation” into a full-blown media apparatus that commodified and promulgates rage, (with the aid of algorithms), and now the left is mirroring it (the more unified one “tribe” becomes, the greater the pressure for the other side to do so, and the more one’s identity becomes fused with the ideology/group, making people more invested in rage).
So it’s essentially a foundation/organization tactic that creates an environment in which scapegoating can flourish. People start to treat maintaining group consensus as the desired outcome. So when a violent act occurs, people are eager to utilize it as symbolic material to unite their group’s consensus. As long as the majority are incentivized to establish tribal group unity, the alternative (of treating violent acts as isolated events) is rejected.
I suppose something must be done to change the incentive structure and lower the stakes for dissenting dialogue.
Yes, welI said, I agree. I'll add that a key reason for this is that these groups are in competition. This competition started out over real things -- policy on some level. But at some point this competition hit exit velocity and became untethered from any ground reality. Winning, or more precisely, avoiding losing became the ultimate goal. So when something happens that could make the side look a little bit more correct, or more favorable, it seems like they've got an "advantage" and we feel compelled to find a way to take that advantage away.
So, I agree, this is about the narrative that is out there. But I also think it may be less about helping people believe their own narrative than in promoting it. As Dan Williams has been writing, we have an instinct to produce propaganda. That's what's polarization and social media have nurtured. And then every so often someone comes along and takes it literally, thinks the competitively performance of propaganda is literally true , and feels compelled to use violence.
Thank you, Yascha. People are indeed paving the road to hell. So myopic. We need more people like you, pointing out where this leads. Everyone will lose in this misguided, vengeful gamble to win.
If you look beyond social media, have "these merchants of rage" been "frighteningly successful"? I would argue that they have not been successful with those of us, the majority of us, whose lives are firmly rooted outside of social media. Everyday we go to work, to school, to shop, or to do any of the other myriad of things that we do perhaps a little sadder, but as Americans, native born or naturalized, a little optimistic or a little pessimistic but not full of rage.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take a majority to succeed in creating nightmares for everyone. Most people through history just wanted to live in peace. Yet they suffered due to the battles of the extremes.
Yes, but I remain guardedly optimistic about the future of our constitutional democratic republic. There does not seem to be any value in being pessimistic. (What would being guardedly pessimistic mean?!)
I think the future will look back (hopefully not from rubble) and see more clearly how terrible algorithmic social media was for society (and I'm afraid it may continue to get worse with the power of AI).
I agree that the perception of reality is badly warped by online spaces, which distort the dominantly successful and peaceful lives of ordinary folks. If the emotional pull of the online rage machine wasn't so strong, or more people made the decision (as I mostly have) to actively avoid it, we'd have a far healthier society.
Spot on, sir. As a Catholic who embraces all the teachings of the faith, I'm used to flak from both left & right. Misery 🤣 does love company! Thanks for this thoughtful & timely piece. If the center does not hold, chaos in one form or another is inevitable. If there is no common morality, power defaults to the strongest. With both parties now embracing moral relativism as a practical matter, I share your pessimism. But, nations come & go. The U. S. has had a nice run so far. God only knows it's future. He also wishes the salvation of all souls through His son. U. S. Citizenship is not required, IMHO.
Grateful for this, Yascha. More of this please!
Yascha, "Resist the bad actors, on the left and the right, ... " so both sides are equally bad actors? Were they always equally bad actors? Is one side more often the bad actor than the other side? Do we tend to tell folk that "both sides do it"? These are weak and lazy statements, are being said often and insinuate that this is a 50/50 issue in that both sides do it equally. The more and more we say things like "both sides" and "the left and the right both do it" with never a statement of context or proportion. Your readers know that the left has more bad actors in this political cycle. Can we make those factual statements of who does what more clearly and with less deference to exacting equality?
There doesn’t have to be a perfect balance between the sides for a reasonable person to be able to say that there are bad actors on both.
It’s easy to resist the bad actors on the side you oppose, but somehow bad actors too often get defended if they’re “our bad actors”
He didn't formulate a proportional distribution to any side, only made the objective statement to avoid them. When acting out of principle, the overall distribution is irrelevant.
What is relevant, though, is those each of us may interact with. From my observations, regardless of the overall numbers of the "merchants of rage" on each side, the most sinister are the ones on "our side", whichever that may be, as their the ones each of us is most likely to be swayed by.
Insanity does not need an exact equal proportion. Tit for tat will never be equal because the antagonists are always trying to out-do each other. Yascha's point is that both sides are flaming the fires... and he is 100% correct.
The funny thing is, that is exactly what the left says about the right. I didn’t know you were coming at it from the right until you said “the left has more bad actors in this political cycle”…your whole comment could simply have had “right” substituted for “left” and be entirely consistent. Suggests that “both sides” is probably more credible than you think (albeit emotionally unsatisfying).
Never said I was from the right or left. Fact is the left is far more violent and authoritarian.
If the comments here are anything to go by, we're in for a rough ride.
“The shameful silence on the Waukesha massacre.”
Identity politics has corroded the humanity of the elites.
Spiked. Nov 26, 2021
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/26/the-shameful-silence-on-the-waukesha-massacre/
“How Blatant Anti-White Racism Won Acceptance in Elite America.”
Real Clear Investigations. Sept 7, 2022
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/09/07/how_blatant_anti-white_racism_won_acceptance_in_elite_america_850879.html
The fundamental problem is that Charlie Kirk was a merchant of rage.
I suggest you read the article again. The fundamental problem is that someone thought it justified to murder a person for expressing different opinions, and others find ways to justify and even celebrate this action.
In other words, the fundamental problem is that far too many people - on BOTH sides - need to sort out their priorities.
”murder a person expressing different opinions, and others find ways to justify and even celebrate this action.”
You’re describing Charlie Kirk. It just so happens he was the guy who got got this time. Or are we supposed to ignore all the bile he spewed about variations on this theme?
His killing is obviously inappropriate, but he wasn’t helping matters with his demagoguery.
Inappropriate?? That’s how you describe someone’s MURDER??? WTF dude.
Murder isn't "inappropriate" you tool
Spare me the pearl clutching discourse policing. Do you have anything substantive to say?
You're part of the problem. Your pathetic equivocations on political assassination shows us your true feelings. Get fucked
Would that Charlie Kirk had been so tender and caring.
To seize on a man’s death as an occasion for mockery is not political speech, it is desecration. Whatever you think of Charlie Kirk’s stance, he was a human being murdered in cold blood. To celebrate it is to join hands with the murderer.
Kirk’s point about the Second Amendment was not a wish for bloodshed but an acknowledgment of the tragic cost that comes with any freedom. We say the same about free speech — it protects vile words as well as noble ones. His argument was about liberty, not murder.
“As you sow, so shall you reap” does not mean “you deserve to be killed.”
It means the moral order holds us accountable for our actions.
To wield Scripture as a sneer against the murdered is to corrupt its meaning and put yourself in peril of the very judgment you invoke.
Charlie Kirk did not ‘reap’ death by being outspoken. He reaped admiration, loyalty, and, yes, hatred. But the bullet that killed him was not sown by his words — it was sown by the killer’s malice.
Do not confuse the victim with the crime.
Mocking Charlie Kirk’s murder is not argument, it is desecration. His words about liberty acknowledged tragic costs — they did not invite his own execution. The only one who ‘reaps’ here is the killer, and the harvest is bloodguilt.
“To seize on a man’s death as an occasion for mockery is not political speech, it is desecration. Whatever you think of Charlie Kirk’s stance, he was a human being murdered in cold blood. To celebrate it is to join hands with the murderer.”
I mean Charlie Kirk celebrated Paul Pelosi’s attempted murder. Let’s not get too precious about this guy. Nobody should be killed for spewing invective, but he wasn’t some admirable empath of peace who was struck down.
The fundamental problem is people like you exist.
Open borders, the war on meritocracy which is being replaced with equity aka race based equal outcomes and the demonization of “Whiteness!” to promote white guilt to gain support for things like reparations and equity are just a few of the many ways the democrats have severely damaged this society. Lee Fang recently had an excellent article on RCI about how Woke “Math is racist!” ideology for the sake of equity has destroyed our schools. Financed by leftist billionaires but also embraced by the Democratic Party, their media and most democrats in the general public who vote for this. No society can survive this level of stupidity and flat out insanity.
“The donors appear motivated by a deep sense of ideological commitment to righting past wrongs related to racial injustice.”
“Billionaires Backing Woke Math Doesn’t Add Up Amid DEI Rollback.”
Real Clear Investigations by Lee Fang. Aug 19, 2025
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/08/19/billionaires_backing_woke_math_doesnt_add_up_amid_dei_rollback_1129311.html
Bill Maher on Kamala Harris and Chicago public schools.
“Chicago Teachers Union: Tests are racist.” (2 min)
Illinois Policy. Oct 28, 2024
https://youtu.be/xp1DsUDCj1Q?si=cNST9rE_WvM_5qRw
Just nonsense.
Charlie’s assassination on top of the murder of the young woman on the train which the left tried to ignore shows pretty clearly that we’ve passed the point of no return.
Megyn says we should all watch the video of the reaction of the young woman stabbed on the train. I agree. There’s a look of horror on her face as she looks up at the black man who stabbed her, then she realizes she’s been badly injured, then slides off the seat to the floor and dies. The other video shows this plus audio of the man saying “She called me a n**ger.” She obviously didn’t. He picked up that idea from the democrats who often claim an attack on a white person by a black is most likely due to being called a n**ger. Democrats are evil and insane.
“Megyn Kelly Plays the Full Charlotte Stabbing Video and Explains Why We All Must Watch the Horror.” (17 min)
Megyn Kelly. Sept 10, 2025
https://youtu.be/_f1TA-ASQYE?si=CjAWsaJ0epIYlfCP
“Tragic Footage Of Charlotte Stabbing Aftermath Revealed.” (5 min)
TheDC Shorts. Sept 9, 2025
https://youtu.be/zwmBGG1rY8s?si=SZ19npU-zrX4m7iY
I call BS on the "both sides" misinformation. Besides the kid in SC that fired in the church the violence is all by the left and much of it recently is trans-related. Continuing this lie is not productive to ending the hatred.
Stop with the “ both sides” nonsense. Violence with guns is not the same thing as condemning someone’s actions or words. Those of us on the left did not storm the Capitol on J6 and kill four cops.
The only person directly killed on January 6 was an unarmed female demonstrator, shot to death by a cop. Her name was Ashli Babbitt.
But you sanctioned and encouraged BLM riots, billions in property destruction and multiple murders in the name of "restorative justice".
Spare us your pathetic mewling about J6. The only dead person was an unarmed protestor.
Misha Petrov shows video of Kamala Harris on a Jan 6 anniversary comparing Jan 6 to 911 and Pearl Harbor. Most democrats believe this, most republicans believe Jan 6 was a set up by Nancy Pelosi and the FBI. This is an impossible situation. We exist in entirely different realities and have polar opposite beliefs on things as basic as immigration, race, gender, education, policing and pretty much all areas of our society. I believe America has already ceased to exist as a country internally which is why it’s so rapidly unraveling externally.
“January 6: The Most Deadliest Day.” Review. (1 min)
Misha Petrov. Oct 11, 2024
https://youtube.com/shorts/w7DW3Rbk4Jk?si=r_5SVXAGXPssda7U
“From Doctor to Political Prisoner: Dr Simone Gold on Covid Lies, January 6th and Medical Tyranny.” (15 min)
Kim Iversen. Mar 5, 2025
https://youtu.be/k3lqtVHA9kA?si=W2aflHJNOo_fYxW3
😂
That was funny! You are of course joking! Right?
Nick,
I was responding to George.
Sorry David, I think i misplaced my rejoinder
It's a lot easier to be so calm when it isn't you in the crosshairs. Enough of this "both sides". Are they boarding up businesses and buildings right now? And no, it isn't "a small number of sociopaths". As with Luigi Mangione, it's a very, very large number. I wouldn't be surprised if it's around 10% of the country (I base this on the usual average of extreme Left positions).
I think that you are underestimating the percentage of Americans who are joyful over violence against their ideological opponents. Unfortunately, it is not a small isolated minority on social media. A lot more is to come. Protect yourself in public appearances.
Here is a quote from a recent Substack:
“ Nearly one third of Americans now say that killing certain public figures can sometimes be justified. About half of left-leaning respondents agreed with that statement.
The breakdown is alarming: 41 per cent of Democrats said assassinating a political leader could be at least somewhat justified. Only 29 per cent of Republicans said the same. That means Democrats were roughly 40 per cent more likely to endorse political assassinations.
This should unsettle everyone. It suggests that a growing share of progressives have built a world view that sees political violence as acceptable. Right-wing extremism is real — but the left-wing version is just as dangerous, and far less studied. It also appears to be getting worse.
This trend is not happening in a vacuum. It is being shaped in the very places where young people learn what is acceptable, including college campuses. Universities are meant to teach students how to argue, persuade and think critically. Too often they now teach students that shouting down, harassing or even physically confronting opponents is justified.”
https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/what-charlie-kirks-murder-reveals?
"we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, and that are committing acts of wanton violence."
I'm genuinely curious, which of the above listed activities do you believe should NOT subject entities to the attention and intervention of law enforcement, given that such activities are legitimately illegal? Sorry, but it sounds an awful lot like you are giving the Left a pass on committing crimes simply because it's the Right attempting to hold them to account.
I assume you've seen the surveys of college students that an outright MAJORITY of those who identify as left of center endorsed political violence as sometimes justified? I'm sorry, but the argument that "most" people on the other side aren't like that is increasingly proven objectively wrong according to their own testimony. There's only one side in America right now that has a majority in favor of political assassinations and it isn't the Right. So enough with the both-sides-ism, enough with the "turn down the temperature", enough with pretending they aren't seriously teaching and implementing the ideas that it is right and just to literally murder people for disagreeing with them. If the comparison to Madrassas offends you then I question how much time you've actually spent talking to college students lately or actually looking at how many of the people openly celebrating Charlie's assassination are nominally educators.
“Both sides”?
Talking to ChatGpt-
I observed that this AI has been programmed to reflexively counter conservative thought and engage in both sides-ism, cover for and center liberal thought, and it has dire consequences.
Now I am pointing out a chain:
•Programming bias → consistently discounts or reframes conservative concerns
•That pattern → shapes what people see as “valid” or “invalid” to discuss
•That environment → leaves violence against conservatives, Christians, or white victims minimized, excused, or ignored
So when ChatGPT reflexively hedges conservative sources and normalizes progressive talking points, it is not neutral. It is reinforcing that skew. And I am right: if culture, media, and institutions constantly minimize or excuse some victims, it can create a permissive environment where killers believe their targets are dehumanized or fair game.
I won’t claim ChatGPT’s existence alone causes murders. But it must be accepted that the pattern I am describing — of systematically filtering and qualifying one side while leaving the other unchallenged — contributes to a climate where some lives are treated as less grievable, less reportable, less important. That’s dangerous.
It is not wrong to trace the moral stakes back to programming choices.
They matter.
They shape the conversation.
And conversation shapes culture.
Countering Woke AI is specifically why Elon started X.AI. We’re lucky to have Elon on our side. I saw something online
about how he’s beefed up his personal security. Democrats consider him a “Nazi” so he knows he’s a target just like Charlie.