Kan kjenne meg igjen litt i det TS skriver, at målestokken er forskjellig ut fra om det er høyre- eller venstresiden det appliseres på.
Man kunne lese det litt i reaksjonene på angrepene mot SIAN (Som i ettertid førte til en ganske bra debatt i Norge) i inlegg og artikler som gikk langt i å antyde at såpass fikk SIAN forvente seg av reaksjoner. Visse gikk så langt at de kalte det selvforsvar mot SIAN.

Sitat fra Stephen Cataldo om høyre-vs-venstreside:
'Fascist and communists have both killed incredible numbers of people in the 20th c. They're both similarly dangerous once in power, they look somewhat similar once they have unrestrained power. But the pattern of how they go wrong is very different.

The left-wing disasters quite consistently follow this pattern: the population rises up militarily against a very corrupt centralized power, and at the end of the violence the generals or similar keep a very tight lock on power. They gain power through ideals, concentrate power with ideals and guns, then someone just takes power. Left-wing idealism after the revolution may exacerbate this some, as when Stalin stepped into a power created by more idealistic people, but the pattern is that idealistic but sufficiently violent left-wing revolutions lead to totalitarian/authoritarian regimes that concentrate power similarly to and are just as bad as any other totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. They are bait-and-switch disasters, the less-powerful try to take power and upset the existing power-balance, but power slips into the wrong hands, the revolutions turn on their supporters as much as anyone.

Right-wing disasters are very different. Mein Kampf laid it all out, there was no bait-and-switch, Hitler campaigned on Anti-Semitism & blaming foreigners for everything, campaigned on helping aryans, and then acted on that once in power. The pattern is generally to get a chunk of the electorate to ally with the *current* powers in the military and/or industry and/or colonial or post-colonial powers. They often get a foot in the door, like winning an electoral plurality, and then break rules and cheat until they have concentrated power. They talk about conspiracies and internal-enemies, and aim to break down the compromises that the normal government runs by, to lock in power so it can't be taken back. It's a power-grab by the powerful, not a switch.

When not in power, asking about smaller scale dangers, the left has at times tended to revolution, and the right to hate-crimes. I think the left and right are less similar on their way to power than once they have it.'
-
Stemmer til stor del med intrykkene jeg selv har av ekstremistene.