Quote of the Day
I’ve come to realize the left doesn’t actually oppose crime or violence on principle.
They only oppose it when it hurts their own agenda or allies. Otherwise, they actually cheer it on when it’s inflicted upon their enemies, or just ignore it when it can’t be exploited.
For example, killing is good when it’s a health insurance CEO or Charlie Kirk. But it’s bad if it’s Renee Good or George Floyd (for the purpose of this argument, we will assume, as leftists do, that George Floyd was actually killed and did not OD). And killing doesn’t register at all when it’s someone like Iryna Zarutska being murdered by a black man.
The same goes with violence and crime as a whole. Violence against ICE is good. However, violence against ICE protestors is bad. And violence between black gangs is simply unimportant.
Furthermore, stealing from Walmarts and other big chains is good, but “stealing” from indigenous people is bad. Somalis stealing from taxpayers, on the other hand, should just not be discussed at all.
Unlike most people, the leftist views violence and crime as morally neutral tools, with acceptability or importance wholly dependent on who or what these tools are being used against.
Now, you might say, the right acts similarly! After all, weren’t the ICE agent’s and Kyle Rittenhouse’s killings excused by conservatives?
But no, actually, these cases are not the same. The right doesn’t excuse these killings because they were perpatrated by conservatives against progressives, which is how leftists view these scenarios.
It is not the “who” that provides justification for these killings in the eyes of the right, but rather, the “why,” which is self-defense.
Regardless of the parties involved, conservatives, in general, recognize the right to self-defense. Leftists, conversely, might only recognize self-defense as valid depending on who is using it.
Case in point, according to leftists, the ICE agent was not justified in shooting as self-defense after being hit with a car at a protest. But somehow, self-defense has been the go-to defense for Karmelo Anthony, a black teen who stabbed an unarmed student after getting into an argument at a campus sports event.
Again, for the leftist, the justification for crime and violence comes not from “why,” but from “who.”
And so, why does this matter? Why is this worth discussing?
It matters because, as we saw with Charlie Kirk, regardless of how law abiding or moral you may otherwise be, as long as you are conservative, it means the left will support any and all violence or theft that befalls you. Unfortunately, the justification for harming you comes from who you are: their enemy.
This phenomenon also explains the leftist indifference to the crimes of minority groups, like Somalis, or trans people, or illegal immigrants, or whatever other protected class. Put simply, in the left’s belief system, if a crime happens, but there’s no way to use it to gain political power, has it even really happened at all?
Finally, with these revelations in mind, the right must stop entering into debates with leftists assuming they share the view that crime and violence are inherently bad, because though they may deny it, the truth is they do not.
Lauren Chen @TheLaurenChen
Posted on X, January 11, 2026
Interesting assertion. We see further evidence to support this assertion from the beginnings of the USSR:
The USSR created hoodlums just as the UK is creating them now and our political opponents in the U.S. appear to want to create. What is even more chilling is that in the USSR the political leaders openly wrote about how the thieves “were allies in the building of communism”. This was because they were the enemy of those who owned property.
One might claim this is contradicted by another model. But that other model measures something a little different than the actions of the political left. It measured the claims of political groups.
Prepare appropriately.
I reiterate myself once again, the criminal class is the natural ally (fellow traveler) of the political class.
Indeed, and that explains well why the political class aims to disarm honest people.
It was pointed out some years ago that Sullivan’s law — one of the first victim disarmament laws, in NY — is named after a Tammany Hall machine politician who advocated for it in order to protect his organized crime friends.
For that matter, the even earlier laws in the South disarming blacks were clearly intended to protect the KKK, to ensure they could continue their terrorist activities without fear of consequences from their intended victims.
“… the right must stop entering into debates with leftists assuming they share the view that crime and violence are inherently bad, because though they may deny it, the truth is they do not.”
So, were the Right to shut up and simply identify, investigate and fully prosecute “crime” on the basis of “actions relative to statutory non-compliance” – which, IIRC, has been a hallmark of civilized societies since…forever – the Left would go Chiroptera-excrement crazy.
It would make the Leftist Crazies easier to identify (like it’s hard now….) and, in all probability, would put them pretty far out on that plank over the sharks. Which Reasonable People would probably have no problem with sawing off close to the ship.
Seems like a good plan to me; when can we ramp up the process? (And, let’s not forget the “prosecute” part, that’s key.)
“I’ve come to realize the left doesn’t actually oppose crime or violence on principle.”
The same is true of the right. The mental gymnastics required to simultaneously call the J6 folks “peaceful” and say that Good “weaponized her car” and “hit” Ross are pretty elaborate.
The Good incident in particular illustrates how conservatives have moved from “Don’t tread on me” to “Always obey authority figures,” and have decided that violence is fine if it serves to advance their agenda.
There’s no principle at work here other than the use of raw power.
A couple points:
1. The J6 protesters were mostly peaceful; a few made trouble for one day and everyone got blamed. Contrast with Antifa/BLM protests: tens of thousands of rioters looted and burned businesses (and attempted on a federal building), torched cars, assaulted police officers and private citizens, for weeks, but nothing has happened.
Leftist rioters good, conservative protesters bad. (To say nothing of the mental gymnastics required to call the Antifa/BLM riots “mostly peaceful” with cars burning in the background.)
Also remember that Biden’s Justice Department testified under oath that they had no undercover assets or confidential informants among the J6 protesters, but it has now been released that they had dozens. But we’re supposed to ignore that because — again — Leftists lying to Republican-run Congress good, conservatives lying to Democrat-run Congress bad.
2. There’s a small but critical difference between “Always obey authority figures” and “Obey authority figures’ lawful orders“. An order to get out of the car while being detained (the legal definition of “detained”, not simply “stopped”), is generally lawful.
Ms. Good not only did not obey a lawful order, she hit the accelerator with an ICE agent in front of the vehicle. It may have been by accident or it may have been intentional — and I for one am willing to entertain both possibilities — but in the end it Does Not Matter; humans were in harm’s way and had the right to react to protect themselves.
The media initially ran with camera footage from angles most favorable to Ms. Good (read: most favorable to the Left’s agenda), but every subsequent release of footage from ICE and the Justice Department makes the shooting look more justifiable.
Leftists assaulting ICE agents executing lawful warrants good, ICE agents defending themselves from Leftists’ lethal-force attacks bad.
None of your examples refute the OP’s assertions, that crime and violence are treated by the Left as neutral tools and are only “good” or “bad” depending on who’s using them on whom. Rather, with just a little context and scrutiny, they all support it.
Spot on!
Along with a hearty. Hear, here! for the OP.
Yuri showed us that what we’re seeing is “communistic weaponized tribalism”. Based soley on emotion.
And John’s pose is little better than that, wrapped in a CCP-AI chatbot with a TDS app.
He’s as predictable as rain.
1. If you think J6 rioters were “mostly peaceful” I have some beachfront property to sell you. You’ll love the neighbors…there are 1500 of them with convictions, but don’t worry, they’ve been pardoned.
2. There’s plenty of legal precedent that an officer (I use that term loosely in this case) cannot create a situation where they could get hurt and use that to justify lethal force. Ross walked all the way around the car to get in front of it, and at that point lost any legal justification for shooting her. And let’s remember that the audio includes multiple conflicting orders (“get out of the way, move!” and “stop, get out of the car”) from multiple agents. Again, there’s plenty of precedent that lawful orders have to be clear and obeyable, officers can’t create a situation that doesn’t make sense and then use that as justification for force.
Also, speaking of inflammatory, “hit the accelerator” is a phrase that doesn’t match the video of her inching forward at 2mph. These folks saying “she hit him with the car” need to explain how he remained standing and in a position to place 3 shots directly in his target, two of which are from the side of the car, within milliseconds of being “hit” hard enough to constitute a lethal attack.
No, my examples don’t refute the OP assertions about the left having double-standards for violence. My examples show the right has the same set of double standards, but in this case is backing them up with the force of the state behind them…which is doubly hypocritical because the folks on the right claim to want maximum individual freedom from the state while simultaneously screaming OBEY at the top of their lungs. Funny how they weren’t screaming that at the J6 protestors….
We know you Leftists have zero points of contact with reality. We don’t care about your opinions any more. We just want you to shut up and stop trying to destroy the world.
“1. If you think J6 rioters were “mostly peaceful” I have some beachfront property to sell you. You’ll love the neighbors…there are 1500 of them with convictions, but don’t worry, they’ve been pardoned.”
And how many of those were for actual violence? Oh, that’s right, ALMOST NONE.
Of course, even if all 1500 had been for violence, there were 10s of thousands (AT LEAST) present. Much, MUCH more “mostly peaceful” than the George Floyd riots.
But the point is that the right was largely on board (I certainly saw it many places) with prosecuting any of the protestors for, say, breaking the windows or assaulting police. The fact is that *vanishingly* few of them did.
“2. There’s plenty of legal precedent that an officer (I use that term loosely in this case) cannot create a situation where they could get hurt and use that to justify lethal force.”
And walking in front of a stopped vehicle to film the situation when the driver has been given a lawful order to exit the vehicle is not that. Police walk in front of vehicles for legitimate purpose all the time. That doesn’t magically make it OK for the driver to suddenly try to drive over them, nor does it remove the officer’s right to defend themselves from being driven over.
You are committed to your tribe over facts, exactly as the original poster points out.
“suddenly try to drive over them, nor does it remove the officer’s right to defend themselves from being driven over.”
You know what “over” means, right? In English? He was not driven “over.” You can’t complain about liberals describing the incident incorrectly and then do so yourself without being called a hypocrite.
Speaking of tribal loyalty, you’re using him getting at most lightly touched by a car going 2mph to justify a murder, because you know acknowledging him being in the wrong will have a knock on effect to all the other ICE malfeasance.
The smart response from the right would have been to let him take the fall for his actions and move on. Instead, trying to justify them in the face of clear evidence we can all see has made it far worse.
“It’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the coverup.” Or in this case the celebration of his actions (watch Fox or Newsmax if you’re wondering what I mean by that. They think Ross is a hero.).
““suddenly try to drive over them, nor does it remove the officer’s right to defend themselves from being driven over.”
You know what “over” means, right? In English? ”
You what “try” means, right? In English?
He was indeed not driven over. I never claimed he was. She did indeed TRY to do so. That you have to lie about what I wrote in the IMMEDIATELY previous post, WHICH YOU EVER QUOTE, is telling.
She tried to assault him with a deadly weapon. You’re defending her. It’s disgusting.
The evidence for that is clear. There is video from multiple angles. You don’t care, because it hurts your tribe to admit it.
More generally, there actually ARE good cases to complain about, where the police or federal agents do bad things. I know – **I complain about them.** But somehow, the ones that get attention like this are almost always the bad examples – the ones where the cops didn’t actually do anything wrong.
Just like George Floyd. The guy ODed – if you bothered to so much as watch the public video, you’ll see that he is complaining that he “can’t breathe” for nearly 10 minutes, and long before the cops so much as touched him… because his lungs were filling with fluid from the OD. It was a TERRIBLE example to rally around…. just like this one.
And it got attention for the same reason as this one: the Party needs unrest and riots in the street. The reason does not matter to them.
“The Party told you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
<— you are here
To know what she was trying to do you’d have to know what she was thinking. Are you a mind-reader? Because shortly before she got shot she told the other guy, while smiling, that “It’s ok, dude, I’m not mad at you.” Doesn’t sound like somebody trying to commit murder to me, but hey, I’m not psychic.
On top of that the audio has one of the ICE guys yelling at her to move and get out of the way, so when she turns the wheels to do that, you’re now telling me she should have disobeyed that guy’s orders? Pick a lane.
And let us know where you got your psychic powers so we can all share.
Get three cops excited and you will hear eight different commands in 5 seconds.
That’s not the point.
How ’bout not f’in with the cops doing their job in the first place?
No FA, no FO?
Bitch was out looking for it.
She got it.
Case closed.
“Bitch was looking for it”
Riiiiiiight. So when just moments before she said “It’s ok, man, I’m not mad at you” that was just clever subterfuge, luring them into a sense of safety so she could quickly STRIKE like a viper. I see no confirmation bias on your part whatsoever. None. Not a bit.
And then her acceleration where she “gunned” it…that was impressive too. I mean, when *I* punch the gas, my car lurches forward and gets well beyond 2 mph pretty quickly, so anybody in front would be knocked to the ground, but clearly I’m doing it wrong.
We really need a way to view this outside of wordpress…the whole “shrinking the width with every reply” thing makes it hard to read after a few turns….
“And let us know where you got your psychic powers so we can all share.”
As long as you apply that standard to yourself, then sure. You would never be allowed to use the word “try” for any human being other than yourself ever again, so I doubt that you are putting that out in good faith, to say nothing of the constant and rampant claims people of the left make about the right all the bloody time (“RRRRRRAAAAAACCCCIIIIIISSSTTTTTT!!!!!!”).
But if you want to get super technical on the word “try”, that still doesn’t mean I claimed she actually did run over him, as you stated. That was still factually inaccurate in an incredibly direct and obvious way.
Feel free to get more verbose, like “She directed her vehicle into him as she accelerated”, if you like. Nitpicking on the exact verbiage doesn’t change any of it, including your dishonest claim about what I said.
See below John.
Tell us you didn’t understand the original post, without telling us you didn’t understand the OP.
Thanks Rolf.
that was Perfect.
He’s an Americanized CCP chat-bot with the TDS app.
The Atlantic has a piece today that speaks to the assertion that “the right must stop entering into debates with leftists assuming they share the view that crime and violence are inherently bad, because though they may deny it, the truth is they do not.”
The Right does not find crime and violence inherently bad either:
“For MAGA America, ICE is an instrument for cleansing violence. Visit ICE social-media accounts and you’ll see, again and again, videos of armed force against unarmed individuals, against a soundtrack of pumping music. There’s a montage of aggressive arrests in Minnesota of unarmed, nonwhite men, many of them thrown to the ground and cuffed, set to the 1977 hit “Cold as Ice”: “Someday you’ll pay the price.” A dozen heavily armed and armored agents round up a single unarmed woman in a T-shirt and two similarly defenseless men in California. In Indiana, armored agents throw handcuffs and ankle chains on a big haul of men and shove them in a cell, where they can be seen pacing, weeping, or with their heads plunged in their hands.
Rarely do these videos present a situation that couldn’t be managed with a couple of plainclothes officers bearing holstered sidearms. The point is to prove that the fearsome power of the American state is being wielded by righteous MAGA hands against despised MAGA targets.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/vance-defends-minneapolis-shooter-ice-maga-symbol/685584/
The OP does have one thing correct: the justification for violence on the right is “why” because they think they are righteous and therefore justified in any action regardless of the law. But it’s still a justification for raw violence, not law.
“MAGA Republicans do not reliably care about laws or the people who enforce them. One of Trump’s first actions upon entering office was to pardon more than 1,500 people charged in connection with the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, including many convicted of violent offenses against the police. He has denigrated the FBI and transformed the agency into a tool of retribution, and he regularly disparages prosecutors and law-enforcement officials if they fail to comply with his will.
… But letting protesters drive off unscathed, without punishing them for their disrespect, would let them “get away with it.” And that would be an intolerable affront to the MAGA vision of who must submit to whom.
By coming so vociferously to the shooter’s defense, Vance full-throatedly committed himself to the MAGA mission of enforcing respect by any means necessary. “
The OP does have one thing correct: the justification for violence on the right is “why” because they think they are righteous and therefore justified in any action regardless of the law. But it’s still a justification for raw violence, not law.
The difference is that the law takes into account the “why” and not the “who”, and DOES justify violence in certain, narrow circumstances.
Who on the Right is credibly claiming that any action is justified regardless of the law? So far, I’ve only seen actions justified under the law, and people — even on the Right — taking legally-unjustified actions being held to account.
(Also, remember that The Atlantic is historically NOT a neutral arbiter of truth. They’ve had a widely-recognized Leftist bias for decades, as evinced by the intentionally-inflammatory language in your pull-quotes.)
“people — even on the Right — taking legally-unjustified actions being held to account.”
Tell me more about the J6 protestors who vandalized the capitol, assaulted police officers, and tried to prevent congress from doing their work, being “held do account,” given they’ve all been pardoned. For that matter, shall we look at Trump’s list of pardons? You may want to give that a glance before claiming the Republicans are “holding people to account.”
IIRC, most all the “protestors” that were singled out for vandalism and/or theft charges turned out to actually be government agents of various sorts. (A LOT of the people involved that day were actually undercover agents, it turns out.) Mostly, the rest of the arrested people were simply acting as tourists, since the locked doors were opened by employees or other government types who INVITED them inside for a tour of the empty facility.
The reason it was empty was most of the politicians were gathered in an assembly area, expecting/hoping for the visitors to have created enough of a riotous atmosphere to give them cover/excuse for them to bypass the certification process of the presidential election voting. They damn well knew that any real look at it would show how much fraud was involved. This was all put into action to give that treasonous VP enough justification to go along with the Democrats calling for an emergency declaration of voting acceptance.
Then, to make it all look good, they spent months chasing down anyone whose phone showed they were in town that day, and had them thrown into, or under, the jail.
BTW, the cops that supposedly were assaulted that day? They were actually victims of health emergencies that evening or the next day. I think there was a heart attack and a stroke involved. One or maybe both died, unfortunately. There was an attempt to have those incidents as a result of the so called “riot”, but the timing of the medical responses made that a non-starter, except for people like you who ignore the data.
I’m curious as to what the payoff to VP Pence was.
Your reply is one of the more interesting ones, since taking it as true would require I completely ignore all the video shot that day of hundreds of people breaking into the capitol, breaking windows, forcing their way through doors that were quite obviously not opened by the staff so they could be “invited in,” ignore watching them strangle one of the cops, beat the cops with poles, etc. And of course there’s always the “it was a false flag” thing where they were all paid, that’s always fun, too. I keep trying to find the signup sheet for these paid protestor slots so I can get my share. I seem to be missing out.
It then repeats with the Rene Good video, where folks on the right are willing to describe a car moving 2mph as “weaponized,” and are willing to ignore every published standard and training manual of police work that says putting yourself in front of a car is a) stupid and b) doesn’t justify a lethal force response, to instead call it the righteous killing of a “violent terrorist.”
We truly live in different realities. It’s unfortunate that resolving the differences in those realities isn’t happening in a more civilized way.
For your consideration: ICE agent who shot Renee Good suffered internal bleeding.
A bruise is internal bleeding. I had internal bleeding just the other day when I banged my shin.
Show us the medical report from an actual doctor. Otherwise it’s just spin trying to make him look injured.
And maybe you missed the part where she backed up and pointed the car right at him?
Then “gunned” the accelerator.
After being told to get out of the car. After several encounters of obstruction. (felony act).
When looked at from the officer’s point of view. (Which SCOTUS does in all these cases.)
Like it or not, it was a good shoot.
That and the fact that’s the only way to become a good commie.
Which she is now.
Yes, I definitely missed that part because it didn’t happen. She turned the wheels to the right to get out of the way, as instructed by one of the officers, and moved at 2-3 mph when she appears to have bumped Ross (which all the real cops are saying was his fault). There was no “gunning” of an accelerator, the car didn’t get above 5mph until after she had 3 bullets in her.
We’ve all seen the videos, from multiple angles. Telling us we didn’t see what is right there in front of our eyes is very 1984, but isn’t working. You’d be better off admitting the guy fucked up and should take accountability, but I can see that’s not gonna happen.
“Yes, I definitely missed that part because it didn’t happen.”
Then go watch it again.
Not that that would actually matter. As Yuri told us.
“I could take them to the camps and show them, they still won’t believe it.
But here is the real question. What’s the big plan for when Trump calls the insurrection act?
Pull that crap on the marines?
The people going to rise up! Blah, blah.
You’all done lost.
Better stop before we get to the civilian side of FTT, TTI.
“We truly live in different realities. It’s unfortunate that resolving the differences in those realities isn’t happening in a more civilized way.”
You mean the civilized commie c-nt, Kamala Harris way?
Cause it was either Trump or her.
You don’t want civilized. You want us to give up.
That ain’t going to happen.
And just so you know. Go try and stop the police when they have a warrant in hand for someone.
Try and drive away when they go to arrest you for trying to stop them from serving it.
And where was all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Lavoy Finnicum or Jack Yantas?
Sorry if I don’t get to upset over a dead commie… Well, not really sorry. Gonna be a lot more you’all keep it up.
” forcing their way through doors that were quite obviously not opened by the staff so they could be “invited in,””
There is publicly released security video of this happening at one of the doors, followed by large crowds of people walking in, generally even walking through the roped “public” areas, and leaving.
There are ALSO videos of violence, both against the police and by the police against innocent bystanders, such as the one of the police officer beating a woman unconscious, *then beating her some more*. That woman died that day, and the official cause given is “drug OD”.
There were hundreds of plainclothes federal agents there in the crowd, and that’s just the ones they’ve admitted. There were also federal agents inside the capital *dressed as Trump supporters* before the doors were opened or the windows were broken. Again, publicly released security video – I don’t care if you want to ignore reality on that point (or any other).
I’m for every single person who broke the windows going to jail, no matter if they were there as a private citizen or as an agent of the government.
I’m for every single person who engaged in violence without cause going to jail, same conditions as above.
And I’m for leaving alone the people who were let in (the security footage of the police officer opening the doors is public), looked around, and left without doing anything wrong, or those who stood in the wrong area outside long after the signs had been trampled down, and other such absolute nothings.
That’s not what happened. That’s why so many people supported the pardons – the whole process had been corrupted from the very start by bad actors in the federal government. Many innocent people were harmed, and at least a good many guilty were going free (go look up “Ray Epps”, as just the most egregiously obvious).
And it was particularly ridiculous after months of “mostly peaceful” riots that were literally the most destructive in our history, with little to no prosecution of those people, very much including people who tried to burn down federal buildings with people inside them. It made the double-standard all the more obvious.
But you’re obvious OK with a double-standard, as long as your tribe is the one that benefits.
Yup, the 20,000 lb. Colombus doors on the capital were opened from the inside.
Before anybody got there.
So were the inside doors.
And that was from Newsweek.
I stopped reading after “The Atlantic”.
I stopped two proper nouns earlier.
“Cleansing violence”? What sort of bizarre language is that?
It doesn’t make any sense to equate criminal violence with force used to enforce the country’s laws. Police have weapons because sometimes force is needed to enforce the law and apprehend perpetrators. That’s what ICE does. Use of force in law enforcement is not criminal action.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » YES, THAT: The View that Crime and Violence are Inherently Bad.
The Right is concerned with fairness for the individual.
The Left is concerned with power for the group.
That’s why we keep losing ground.
Sorry John, but having watched the cops gun down people for the last 50+ years and never face any punishment.
Even when it was a planned hit.
It’s hard to get excited over some commie twat getting it. Especially a self-entitled one that thinks she can obstruct LAWFUL and necessary police enforcement.
(And was probably getting paid to do so.)
And there in lays the real point.
She didn’t have to be there. It wasn’t an accident that she was there.
And no one is going to buy the argument that she had a right to be there doing what she was.
Doesn’t matter what or how you read the situation.
She FA’ed. Got fragged.
Kind of like not messing with rattlesnakes. And how people feel about it when you get bit doing so.
Ya, nobody cares. Unless she was a lawyer. Then we could have all cheered. That would have been nice.