> What's different about the two situations that warrants completely different rhetoric?
They're not particularly different, except we now have many examples of Jewish people being attacked because they're Jewish, or people being attacked because they "look" like Muslims to their attackers, or black people being attacked because they're black, or gay people being attacked becuase they're gay.
We have churches and mosques and synagogues being shot up. We have crowds of people being driven into by cars. We have people being murdered for who they are.
How often does this happen for Republicans?
This point - is violence mostly from the left or right - is tedious, becuase it's unambiguously mostly from the right and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
The more important point is that it is overwhelmingly committed by men. We need to look at why some men resort to violence.
They're not particularly different, except we now have many examples of Jewish people being attacked because they're Jewish, or people being attacked because they "look" like Muslims to their attackers, or black people being attacked because they're black, or gay people being attacked becuase they're gay.
We have churches and mosques and synagogues being shot up. We have crowds of people being driven into by cars. We have people being murdered for who they are.
How often does this happen for Republicans?
This point - is violence mostly from the left or right - is tedious, becuase it's unambiguously mostly from the right and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
The more important point is that it is overwhelmingly committed by men. We need to look at why some men resort to violence.