US study shows link between transgender ideology and left-wing violence

@Northernlightsss set out clearly what they think is going on with the report itself, not just the authors (no proof of action; no evidence of cause & effect etc). Their post had bullet points for you.

Howse did nothing of the sort. That post was so obviously generated by AI. As soon as I see bolded subheadings I stop reading as it's AI guff.

Maybe he 'identifies' as an investigative journalist, wait no, that's what he is, not an identity but a profession. Just because he uncovers things some people consider inconvenient truths, doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means he's good at his job.

Oh bullet points, it must be true then, not in any way cherry picked to fit a certain bias because bullet points can't be used in that way.

The issue is that using violence can actually slow down the promotion, as resources have to be diverted to deal with the violence, and it often creates a power vacuum.

Disagree. Political violence does bring attention & reflection to issues despite the cost that in the long term contributes to social change. I don't think any reasonable person can look at US military interventions these days & not join the dots as to why they have become a terrorism target: American public opinion has certainly moved significantly from the 9/11revenge days.

And the support Luigi Mangione has garnered is another example that people have grown tired of waiting for power to change its stripes.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

Frederick Douglass

A court in the UK found no evidence of 'far right' ness when the 'Guardian' argued that they called him 'far right' because 'others' had also called him 'far right'.

He is called 'far right' as a smear, just like anyone else that points out the violence, and they go after him specifically because he documents in great detail the violence, including murders, that the 'trans' cults engage in.

Unit The Kingdom marches as well?

Is that caused by structural inability of the political classes to address the grievance of the many, or are they just 'racists, racists, racists'.

Demand does not mean violence. Demand can take the form of a boycott, a march, or the withdrawal of assets and customs, even the tipping of tea into a harbour.

The attention it brings is for the violent behaviour, not necessarily for the cause itself. Luigi Mangione is a great example- he murdered a CEO for what was (allegedly) a greedy and ineffective medical insurance company. That organisation and system still exist.

The only demonstrated effective vector for population change is prolonged, consistent non-violent demand. If violence does "bring down a government", it only creates a power vacuum, filled by another extremist political party.

Being concerned about orderly & sustainable immigration isn't racist. Blaming non whites for government incompetence is racist. Believing that a white global population of less than 2 billion can stop the non white 6 billion watering them down by anti immigrant policy….monumental stupidity.

Disagree. The Mangione reaction has effectively flagged political parties of health care electoral relevance. The fact that normies didn't care or were glad that a family man was shot in cold blood as a symbol for the raging hostility against these vultures who commit s social murder is electoral gold.

I was just responding to someone saying @Northernlightsss had only posted about the study itself, not just the authors. I said nothing about bullet points being BETTER than any other format - just that there WAS list of points about the study (although yes, I DO think @Northernlightsss has a much better understanding of the study than many of the other posters).

Anti-fascists and anarchists have always advocated, or certainly have never been averse to, violence. ANTIFA ( became a trend some years ago......and gave rise to the standard mask/face-covering wearing practices at just about every demonstration) has been embraced by all of the recent political trends.

Totally agree about time this was highlighted

The murder of Brian Thompson was an extremely violent and baseless murder , just like the murder of Charlie Kirk. It will change nothing. What will change the lunacy of the US healthcare system will be prolonged campaigning and coordinated work of many.

Romanticising murder and violence as a vector for change is immature and dangerous for society.

There's a sayin in the US that 'most people are one illness away from bankruptcy' so to reduce their very real hardships & rage at the irrevocably corrupt machine to 'romanticism' shows how monumentally out of touch you are.

BTW explaining is not the the same as justifying.

But violent behaviour will not solve it.

Hard work, dedication, and advocacy by thousands of unrecognised people will.

This naive approach fails to reckon with how money controls power …& who gets it particularly in the US. Lobby groups own politicians & until the American public recognise this & have had enough pain to vote in a Bernie Sanders type that won't change. But the tide seems to be changing.

I'll that guff as translating into a No then.

Are you advocating for violence?

Of course not. Explaining how the world works is not justifying it. But having said that I can't say in my heat of hearts I wouldn't fight for my or my children's freedom using fair & unfair tactics if there was no other option. I just don't know because Ive never been in such a desperate situation.

I'm a Christian so I would hope I would maintain those beliefs but I'm also human..so who knows. On can never know until the rubber meets the road.

In the USA they get treatment but it bankrupts some people with no insurance.

In the UK you just get put on endless waiting lists until you either pay privately or get taken off the lists without being told or die waiting.

In France everyone gets a percentage paid treatment, individuals pay to top that up and the government is the one going bankrupt to pay for it.

Which is better or worse? Where does there exist a healthcare system that treats everyone and pays for itself through taxation?

Lots of us are familiar with Colin Wright and his political views from twitter.

That’s not what the court found, just that the label couldn’t be applied in the manner it was in that particular circumstance.

Ngo is a far-right provocateur and has been for some years. Any pretence otherwise is laughable and I’m not sure why you’d even bother.

So you'll be able to give evidence of this then, it being so obvious an all.

Put up or shut up.

The label couldnt be applied because there is zero evidence of him being 'far-right'.

The constant labelling of completely normal centrist people as 'far-right' is what will result in the 'far-right' gaining political ground.