Cremieux Recueil getting people to think critically about survey results always gets a "like" from me.
I remember from the 2-year stint I spent working in the survey statistics, seeing those nonsense answers. Especially in the age of self-identification of gender, etc., we would see respondents with write-in answers of "Attack Helicopter" or "Batman" for their gender. Higher quality surveys will try to disqualify these respondents or at least filter out the obviously bogus responses. I doubt the mass-produced Gallup/Pew/YouGov style polling does, but I never worked with those kind of firms specifically.
This is a problem that seems to be getting worse as survey response rates plummet and surveys resort to online survey modes. A lot of people are brain dead in front of a screen from being constantly in front of screens.
“ This finding was clear: support for political violence is lowest for the least severe forms of crime. This meant that there was less support for murder than for assault with a deadly weapon; for arson than for assault; for vandalism than for protesting without a permit.”.
Yeah, my sense of the support among lefties for political violence, including murder, is not really informed by polling, which has never been persuasive to me. I’m watching the Charlie Kirk story; the reaction to his murder (which I watched in real time for three days after the murder); the confirmed preference for the violent murder of his republican political opponent and his children in 2022 by the Democrat AG candidate in Virginia; and the current ongoing support for that candidate by the Virginia Democrat party. I don’t give a damn for surveys and polls. Watch their words, watch their actions.
Could you articulate a bit more which evidence counts and which evidence does not? For example, if social media reactions are the only acceptable evidence, then does joking about the attack on Paul Pelosi by Trump Jr count? If just actual actions matter, what does January 6th tell us? It seems hard to adjudicate this conversation when you can arbitrarily decide which sets of evidence count or not. Cremieux is making an evidenced and logical case that the survey results that show a preference for left violence isn’t as clear as the results imply. Seems like citing a single highly politically charged example without exploring other similar cases is just the same type of error as trusting the survey at face value.
Polls and surveys are evidence - they just don’t persuade me anymore, because they usually appear to be intended to persuade, not to clarify.
I didn’t see Trump Jr say anything about Paul Pelosi - but if he can be reasonably interpreted as having said he said he was glad it happened, then fuck him.
I don’t believe January 6th was an “insurrection”: it was a protest march on the capital that I approved of, since it looked to me like the election was, at the least, irregular; it only became an “insurrection” by the repetition of the emotionally charged word for four years. Its also the only chaotic protest I have ever seen right wingers engage in in America; that the building was opened up and they were allowed to enter was just another example of Democrat Party law enforcement incompetence (some would say, the protesters were poked and prodded to get a reaction, much like the current Antifa/Democrat Party riots at ICE locations).
In fact, the violent and chaotic Antifa riots the Democrat Party is conducting at ICE facilities right now seem much more like what I would consider insurrectionary - repeated daily abuse and interference with law enforcement as it conducts necessary operations to remove the flood of military aged young men the Democratic Party opened the border to recruit.
The joy in murder that I witnessed after Kirk was assassinated by an Antifa scumbag (he provided the evidence on the bullets) is not just a “highly politically charged example…” It was a political murder to shut Charlie Kirk’s political talk down, politics that I mostly share, and by the Antifa murderer’s own words, he was not willing to allow Kirk to share his “hate” (my politics, that is) anymore.
And this brings us to the Virginia Democrat AG candidate, who was insisting on murder of his political opponent and his children two years ago, and the Democrat Party, that thinks that is fine. They say they are shocked, shocked, but they are not persuasive, given all the encouragement to rage rage rage rage hitler hitler nazi nazi that they vomit forth exactly as if they mean every fucking word.
So, polls, who gives a fuck? When Antifa Democrats are on the march and the Democrat Party says all but officially that they want their political opponents dead, and here you are crying for more evidence. Take the blinders off, look around you, and see, if you want more evidence.
I mean it sounds like you’re coming into this with pretty strong confirmation bias, so we’re probably not going to agree. I’m not sure how you see J6 as materially different or less bad than what you seem to think is happening now.
And I think you are experiencing cognitive dissonance and associated restriction of your higher reasoning faculty. I mean, if we’re trading diagnoses. Also, I didn’t for a minute believe you were going to be persuaded by what I wrote. I just wanted some practice testifying. And you didn’t come back with any facts, but merely diagnosis.
And here you see the Right justifying its own future violence by ignoring or underplaying its past violence while hyper-fixating on the Left’s violence.
Don Jr's comments about Pelosi were obviously stupid and in bad taste, but it's completely dishonest to compare them (Don Jr's comments came several days after the attack when it was obvious Pelosi was going to recover) to the left's reaction to Charlie Kirk. They aren't even in the same universe in terms of severity or popularity. Do you have any idea how many viral threads with 100k, 200k, 500k likes there were on twitter (not to mention all the videos on tiktok) making fun of Kirk?
Why is it dishonest to weigh a standard bearer of the party differently than a bunch of randos and bots. Again, I’m asking for a definition of what evidence is and is not in scope so we can avoid this goalpost moving. Is Trump saying “I hate my enemies” at Kirk’s funeral in bounds? Which jokes are just in poor taste vs unacceptable? The underlying claim of “the left is more inherently violent” is a question the post and commenters seem to be attempting to evaluate empirically, but it’s not clear which evidence counts and what doesn’t. Cremieux was clear about why the survey results warrant skepticism, the commenter said “i disagree” but didn’t provide an alternative framework, just argued from intuition. When I pointed out evidence that might challenge that intuition, the evidentiary standard shifted. All I want is a set of criteria that is better than Cremieux’s or that is equally good but comes to a different conclusion, otherwise the analysis in the post overrides intuitions, no matter how strongly held.
I explained in the post you are responding to why comparing laughing about Pelosi to laughing about Kirk are not the same and shouldn't be compared.
The argument isn't that there are no right wingers who would celebrate violence, but that the portion is much larger on the left. When the Minnesota lawmaker was assassinated there was no widespread celebration of it on the right. People celebrating the attempts on Trump's life and the assassination of Kirk on the left number literally in the millions of people.
Democrats can't even get the Virginia AG candidate who said he wanted to murder Republicans and their children to drop out and he's still polling at 43%.
I appreciate the post and will admit to trying to be “funny” on surveys I took in the past. My main take away is that surveyors need to define the terms that they are using on their surveys very precisely. But even doing that won’t prevent any jokesters. But there are also the small group in a sample that I don’t think are appropriate subjects for a survey about violence. For example (yes a leftist journalist first comes to mind) Taylor Lorenz who voiced out loud the words “understanding” and “joy” after the assassination of Brian Thompson. I think her muddled mind would rationalize around even the most stringent definitions. Hopefully statistics will prevail.
I agree that the surveys are bad but the more reasonable conclusion is that they downplay the left's support for violence, not overstate it. It's pretty easy to see that from the left's insane reaction to Charlie Kirk's assassination. Ezra Klein wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he did not even praise Kirk, he simply said it was bad to murder him for his political views, and Klein has essentially been excised from progressive politics. He is regularly called a Nazi on Bluesky. They brought out Ta Nehisi Coates to rake him over the coals (they knew Klein wouldn't fight back and would just take it because Coates is black).
We also, as of this moment, have a political scandal in Virginia where the Democratic nominee for attorney general repeatedly expressed fantasies of murdering Republicans and their children. To my knowledge no major Democrat, including gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger and Senator Tim Kain (two mainstream establishment Dems, not far left kooks) have called for Jay Jones to drop out. His polling has only dipped marginally, about 5 points. He's still polling at 43 percent overall, so a majority of Democrats in Virginia are fine with the state's lead attorney and head of law enforcement wanting to murder Republicans and their children.
If only it were so simple to know that X percent of self-reporting survey responses are unreliable and adjust outcomes accordingly. My viewpoint, knowing that self-reporting is clearly dubious, is to pay little attention to survey data.
I am sympathetic to this reaction and don't hold it against anyone who resorts to a general skepticism toward survey data. But as someone who has worked on surveys and who uses survey data for my own research, I can affirmatively say there is a huge spectrum in quality in surveys (and in how they are reported), and with a little experience, you can recognize the good from the bad pretty quickly.
Of course, everyone is in charge of their own time, and it is entirely valid to spend one's resources on other things besides figuring out who is lying to you with survey junk.
Respectfully disagree, the Left seem to be bat shit crazy. Maybe it’s because the political right is more guided by traditional social norms and violence is traditionally taboo.
I’m no fan of the Left, but “violence is traditionally taboo” so the right is less violent seems like a hard position to defend? Aren’t the MMA, military, law enforcement, and honor culture all right coded? You’re correct that the right tends to be more guided by traditional social norms, but I’m not entirely sure traditional social norms are less violent.
Maybe the difference is related to organized violence in the right (Army, self defense, border control, ICE, law enforcement) vs. "spontaneous" chaotic or even "grassroots" violence in the left (BLM riots, Antifa, terrorist attacks, guerrillas, looting, gang violence).
Organized violence is always subjected to at least some norms that would enforce accountability (entering a church and opening fire against someone isn't self defense and the attacker will be charged, law enforcement will be dragged to court even for situations where force had to be applied to protect innocents, border control has to be compliant with international agreements like ECHR at least here in Europe).
Chaotic "grassroots" violence is free to do whatever the attacker wants because they tend to believe that the Cause® they defend overwrites any moral limit. That's why they can happily justify looting tvs, the Charlie Kirk assassination, Hamas 7-O, ETA, Al Qaeda, FARC guerrillas, and even drug cartels.
I've described this violence as "spontaneous" despite it isn't like that all, it is also organized (and handsomely funded in many cases) but it appears as not.
But a taboo on chaos is fundamentally different from a taboo on violence. A taboo doesn’t go away because it’s well organized?
We also need to address the KKK, ruby ridge, January 6th, the Oklahoma City bombing, and Islamic terrorism. The implicit claim that disorganized violence is norm free is also not true? Like “left wing” violence is usually anti corporation or against institutions of power, they don’t usually just attack random people. So it’s organized and follows a predictable pattern, right? That’s how we know it’s “left coded” in the first place.
I don’t want us getting off track here though. The claim that “violence is taboo” on the right is the original argument and that’s the claim I’m disagreeing with, not that left or right violence has different methods, targets, goals, or norms. I’ll grant all that, but that’s categorically different from the right having a taboo on violence.
I said organized violence but "legitimated" violence would be more appropriate. Since the Enlightenment, the State holds the monopoly of violence (at least in the West), if an ICE officer exerts violence within the law it isn't seen as taboo violence because it's the legitimate form of violence. The Left aligns with illegitimate forms of violence (terrorism, rioting, looting, islam religious zealotry), which are indeed taboo for most people in the Right/ Conservative spectrum.
First of all, Islamic terrorists are aligned with the LEFT. Then, Oklahoma was a big exception that occured 40 years ago. January 6th wasn't terrorist violence, just Stoopid distorted and exaggerate narratives currently in trial because of all the lies and media manipulation around it. The left is violent and terrorist in a disorganized, non legitimated way. Achille Lauro hijacking, London bombings in the metro, Manchester Arena bombings, 11S, 11M, 7O, Munich Olympics, London bridge stabbing, Southport, Algeciras priest decapitation, ETA, AMIA bombing in Argentina, Balinese bombings, Moscow bombing, the Bataclan attack, all of them were leftists/islamos.
The phenomenon is called islamogauchism. It is spread across Western Europe, and includes not just UK but Spain, France, Germany, Low Lands and Ireland. For example, Sinn Fein has a strong Islamogauchist component, despite its "Catholic" provenance. UK Labour is just part of the picture.
As a purveyor of graphic information (good) perhaps you could join my plea for better presentation. For instance, the first bar graph in your article could use the technique of making the width of the bars represent the relative percentage of the population sampled, unless the number of ‘moderate’ responders is the same as the number of either extreme responders. I see this is someone else’s data, but I am led to believe that the data people I follow on X have insight into the raw numbers. You are one of the best, so your help in this would be substantial. Thanks, Gene
"Revolution is wrong"? Any revolution against any regime, no matter how oppressive? Or just your own preferred regime? Let's agree that "revolution is wrong unless it has no negative effects whatsoever on me and my family and friends and the price of guacamole."
I knew about this phenomenon as the "lizardman constant". Apparently the "lizardman constant" is higher for young people. This actually explains a number of things.
Cremieux Recueil getting people to think critically about survey results always gets a "like" from me.
I remember from the 2-year stint I spent working in the survey statistics, seeing those nonsense answers. Especially in the age of self-identification of gender, etc., we would see respondents with write-in answers of "Attack Helicopter" or "Batman" for their gender. Higher quality surveys will try to disqualify these respondents or at least filter out the obviously bogus responses. I doubt the mass-produced Gallup/Pew/YouGov style polling does, but I never worked with those kind of firms specifically.
This is a problem that seems to be getting worse as survey response rates plummet and surveys resort to online survey modes. A lot of people are brain dead in front of a screen from being constantly in front of screens.
“ This finding was clear: support for political violence is lowest for the least severe forms of crime. This meant that there was less support for murder than for assault with a deadly weapon; for arson than for assault; for vandalism than for protesting without a permit.”.
Lowest for the least, or lowest for most?
For most! Fixed.
Yeah, my sense of the support among lefties for political violence, including murder, is not really informed by polling, which has never been persuasive to me. I’m watching the Charlie Kirk story; the reaction to his murder (which I watched in real time for three days after the murder); the confirmed preference for the violent murder of his republican political opponent and his children in 2022 by the Democrat AG candidate in Virginia; and the current ongoing support for that candidate by the Virginia Democrat party. I don’t give a damn for surveys and polls. Watch their words, watch their actions.
Could you articulate a bit more which evidence counts and which evidence does not? For example, if social media reactions are the only acceptable evidence, then does joking about the attack on Paul Pelosi by Trump Jr count? If just actual actions matter, what does January 6th tell us? It seems hard to adjudicate this conversation when you can arbitrarily decide which sets of evidence count or not. Cremieux is making an evidenced and logical case that the survey results that show a preference for left violence isn’t as clear as the results imply. Seems like citing a single highly politically charged example without exploring other similar cases is just the same type of error as trusting the survey at face value.
Polls and surveys are evidence - they just don’t persuade me anymore, because they usually appear to be intended to persuade, not to clarify.
I didn’t see Trump Jr say anything about Paul Pelosi - but if he can be reasonably interpreted as having said he said he was glad it happened, then fuck him.
I don’t believe January 6th was an “insurrection”: it was a protest march on the capital that I approved of, since it looked to me like the election was, at the least, irregular; it only became an “insurrection” by the repetition of the emotionally charged word for four years. Its also the only chaotic protest I have ever seen right wingers engage in in America; that the building was opened up and they were allowed to enter was just another example of Democrat Party law enforcement incompetence (some would say, the protesters were poked and prodded to get a reaction, much like the current Antifa/Democrat Party riots at ICE locations).
In fact, the violent and chaotic Antifa riots the Democrat Party is conducting at ICE facilities right now seem much more like what I would consider insurrectionary - repeated daily abuse and interference with law enforcement as it conducts necessary operations to remove the flood of military aged young men the Democratic Party opened the border to recruit.
The joy in murder that I witnessed after Kirk was assassinated by an Antifa scumbag (he provided the evidence on the bullets) is not just a “highly politically charged example…” It was a political murder to shut Charlie Kirk’s political talk down, politics that I mostly share, and by the Antifa murderer’s own words, he was not willing to allow Kirk to share his “hate” (my politics, that is) anymore.
And this brings us to the Virginia Democrat AG candidate, who was insisting on murder of his political opponent and his children two years ago, and the Democrat Party, that thinks that is fine. They say they are shocked, shocked, but they are not persuasive, given all the encouragement to rage rage rage rage hitler hitler nazi nazi that they vomit forth exactly as if they mean every fucking word.
So, polls, who gives a fuck? When Antifa Democrats are on the march and the Democrat Party says all but officially that they want their political opponents dead, and here you are crying for more evidence. Take the blinders off, look around you, and see, if you want more evidence.
I mean it sounds like you’re coming into this with pretty strong confirmation bias, so we’re probably not going to agree. I’m not sure how you see J6 as materially different or less bad than what you seem to think is happening now.
And I think you are experiencing cognitive dissonance and associated restriction of your higher reasoning faculty. I mean, if we’re trading diagnoses. Also, I didn’t for a minute believe you were going to be persuaded by what I wrote. I just wanted some practice testifying. And you didn’t come back with any facts, but merely diagnosis.
So there’s that.
And here you see the Right justifying its own future violence by ignoring or underplaying its past violence while hyper-fixating on the Left’s violence.
Don Jr's comments about Pelosi were obviously stupid and in bad taste, but it's completely dishonest to compare them (Don Jr's comments came several days after the attack when it was obvious Pelosi was going to recover) to the left's reaction to Charlie Kirk. They aren't even in the same universe in terms of severity or popularity. Do you have any idea how many viral threads with 100k, 200k, 500k likes there were on twitter (not to mention all the videos on tiktok) making fun of Kirk?
Why is it dishonest to weigh a standard bearer of the party differently than a bunch of randos and bots. Again, I’m asking for a definition of what evidence is and is not in scope so we can avoid this goalpost moving. Is Trump saying “I hate my enemies” at Kirk’s funeral in bounds? Which jokes are just in poor taste vs unacceptable? The underlying claim of “the left is more inherently violent” is a question the post and commenters seem to be attempting to evaluate empirically, but it’s not clear which evidence counts and what doesn’t. Cremieux was clear about why the survey results warrant skepticism, the commenter said “i disagree” but didn’t provide an alternative framework, just argued from intuition. When I pointed out evidence that might challenge that intuition, the evidentiary standard shifted. All I want is a set of criteria that is better than Cremieux’s or that is equally good but comes to a different conclusion, otherwise the analysis in the post overrides intuitions, no matter how strongly held.
I explained in the post you are responding to why comparing laughing about Pelosi to laughing about Kirk are not the same and shouldn't be compared.
The argument isn't that there are no right wingers who would celebrate violence, but that the portion is much larger on the left. When the Minnesota lawmaker was assassinated there was no widespread celebration of it on the right. People celebrating the attempts on Trump's life and the assassination of Kirk on the left number literally in the millions of people.
Democrats can't even get the Virginia AG candidate who said he wanted to murder Republicans and their children to drop out and he's still polling at 43%.
🤔 https://x.com/politico/status/1978149301365637316?s=46
I'll take this seriously when Jay Jones is forced to resign from pressure of his own party.
https://x.com/yrnational/status/1978188660915777973
I appreciate the post and will admit to trying to be “funny” on surveys I took in the past. My main take away is that surveyors need to define the terms that they are using on their surveys very precisely. But even doing that won’t prevent any jokesters. But there are also the small group in a sample that I don’t think are appropriate subjects for a survey about violence. For example (yes a leftist journalist first comes to mind) Taylor Lorenz who voiced out loud the words “understanding” and “joy” after the assassination of Brian Thompson. I think her muddled mind would rationalize around even the most stringent definitions. Hopefully statistics will prevail.
I agree that the surveys are bad but the more reasonable conclusion is that they downplay the left's support for violence, not overstate it. It's pretty easy to see that from the left's insane reaction to Charlie Kirk's assassination. Ezra Klein wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he did not even praise Kirk, he simply said it was bad to murder him for his political views, and Klein has essentially been excised from progressive politics. He is regularly called a Nazi on Bluesky. They brought out Ta Nehisi Coates to rake him over the coals (they knew Klein wouldn't fight back and would just take it because Coates is black).
We also, as of this moment, have a political scandal in Virginia where the Democratic nominee for attorney general repeatedly expressed fantasies of murdering Republicans and their children. To my knowledge no major Democrat, including gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger and Senator Tim Kain (two mainstream establishment Dems, not far left kooks) have called for Jay Jones to drop out. His polling has only dipped marginally, about 5 points. He's still polling at 43 percent overall, so a majority of Democrats in Virginia are fine with the state's lead attorney and head of law enforcement wanting to murder Republicans and their children.
If only it were so simple to know that X percent of self-reporting survey responses are unreliable and adjust outcomes accordingly. My viewpoint, knowing that self-reporting is clearly dubious, is to pay little attention to survey data.
I am sympathetic to this reaction and don't hold it against anyone who resorts to a general skepticism toward survey data. But as someone who has worked on surveys and who uses survey data for my own research, I can affirmatively say there is a huge spectrum in quality in surveys (and in how they are reported), and with a little experience, you can recognize the good from the bad pretty quickly.
Of course, everyone is in charge of their own time, and it is entirely valid to spend one's resources on other things besides figuring out who is lying to you with survey junk.
Respectfully disagree, the Left seem to be bat shit crazy. Maybe it’s because the political right is more guided by traditional social norms and violence is traditionally taboo.
I’m no fan of the Left, but “violence is traditionally taboo” so the right is less violent seems like a hard position to defend? Aren’t the MMA, military, law enforcement, and honor culture all right coded? You’re correct that the right tends to be more guided by traditional social norms, but I’m not entirely sure traditional social norms are less violent.
Maybe the difference is related to organized violence in the right (Army, self defense, border control, ICE, law enforcement) vs. "spontaneous" chaotic or even "grassroots" violence in the left (BLM riots, Antifa, terrorist attacks, guerrillas, looting, gang violence).
Organized violence is always subjected to at least some norms that would enforce accountability (entering a church and opening fire against someone isn't self defense and the attacker will be charged, law enforcement will be dragged to court even for situations where force had to be applied to protect innocents, border control has to be compliant with international agreements like ECHR at least here in Europe).
Chaotic "grassroots" violence is free to do whatever the attacker wants because they tend to believe that the Cause® they defend overwrites any moral limit. That's why they can happily justify looting tvs, the Charlie Kirk assassination, Hamas 7-O, ETA, Al Qaeda, FARC guerrillas, and even drug cartels.
I've described this violence as "spontaneous" despite it isn't like that all, it is also organized (and handsomely funded in many cases) but it appears as not.
But a taboo on chaos is fundamentally different from a taboo on violence. A taboo doesn’t go away because it’s well organized?
We also need to address the KKK, ruby ridge, January 6th, the Oklahoma City bombing, and Islamic terrorism. The implicit claim that disorganized violence is norm free is also not true? Like “left wing” violence is usually anti corporation or against institutions of power, they don’t usually just attack random people. So it’s organized and follows a predictable pattern, right? That’s how we know it’s “left coded” in the first place.
I don’t want us getting off track here though. The claim that “violence is taboo” on the right is the original argument and that’s the claim I’m disagreeing with, not that left or right violence has different methods, targets, goals, or norms. I’ll grant all that, but that’s categorically different from the right having a taboo on violence.
I said organized violence but "legitimated" violence would be more appropriate. Since the Enlightenment, the State holds the monopoly of violence (at least in the West), if an ICE officer exerts violence within the law it isn't seen as taboo violence because it's the legitimate form of violence. The Left aligns with illegitimate forms of violence (terrorism, rioting, looting, islam religious zealotry), which are indeed taboo for most people in the Right/ Conservative spectrum.
As Kyle asked, how does this lens interpret "the KKK, ruby ridge, January 6th, the Oklahoma City bombing, and Islamic terrorism"?
First of all, Islamic terrorists are aligned with the LEFT. Then, Oklahoma was a big exception that occured 40 years ago. January 6th wasn't terrorist violence, just Stoopid distorted and exaggerate narratives currently in trial because of all the lies and media manipulation around it. The left is violent and terrorist in a disorganized, non legitimated way. Achille Lauro hijacking, London bombings in the metro, Manchester Arena bombings, 11S, 11M, 7O, Munich Olympics, London bridge stabbing, Southport, Algeciras priest decapitation, ETA, AMIA bombing in Argentina, Balinese bombings, Moscow bombing, the Bataclan attack, all of them were leftists/islamos.
Never seen a “fiery but mostly peaceful” conservative rally
In the UK it is those on the left who are most strongly aligned with Islam.
Yet the UK Labour party had traditional values quite opposite to the values of Islam.
I did write to prominent members of the Labour party, pointing out this anomaly. And of the few replies received, they were all in complete denial.
How curious.
See my article on this matter:
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/does-labour-have-blood-on-its-hands
The phenomenon is called islamogauchism. It is spread across Western Europe, and includes not just UK but Spain, France, Germany, Low Lands and Ireland. For example, Sinn Fein has a strong Islamogauchist component, despite its "Catholic" provenance. UK Labour is just part of the picture.
What a bizarre idea to have an applet to delete what you have written.
i am often interrupted while writing. Or my broadband goes slow or cuts out.
The very existence of the applet that you proadly boast about makes me wonder what sort of individual I am dealing with here.
As a purveyor of graphic information (good) perhaps you could join my plea for better presentation. For instance, the first bar graph in your article could use the technique of making the width of the bars represent the relative percentage of the population sampled, unless the number of ‘moderate’ responders is the same as the number of either extreme responders. I see this is someone else’s data, but I am led to believe that the data people I follow on X have insight into the raw numbers. You are one of the best, so your help in this would be substantial. Thanks, Gene
"Revolution is wrong"? Any revolution against any regime, no matter how oppressive? Or just your own preferred regime? Let's agree that "revolution is wrong unless it has no negative effects whatsoever on me and my family and friends and the price of guacamole."
I knew about this phenomenon as the "lizardman constant". Apparently the "lizardman constant" is higher for young people. This actually explains a number of things.
Further reading for people who are interested!
https://betterconflictbulletin.substack.com/p/how-many-people-actually-approve