It seems you are assuming I respond this way no matter what and slare simply pushing your understanding/interpretation as truth. Instead of saying that it's just one side and that if I don't see it now, then I never will, maybe you could give detailed examples? I did ask before if there was any evidence that only one side proposed legislation, yet there was no response. So it should not be that there is a free pass by eliminating opposition, but rather ensuring that any opposition is well based in facts and proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which can vary substantially).
You mention things like bullying, political violence, etc. Yet I see that sort of thing with both sides on a variety of issues. It's also important to note that in many cases the troublemakers are a very small minority and do not represent the true virtues of any movement. Yet we see the media portray the "other" side using those worst aspects rather than having a meaningful discussion.
Those are not the facts, and again show a false narrative of 'both sides'. Hate crime has increased greatly, and the great majority of it is from one side (per the FBI and ADF). Only one side controls a major political party, has controlled the White House, has multiple people in Congress advocating for them. Only one side attacked Congress, and has large movements such as QAnon (which has major political figures, of one side, appealing to it and even joining it). Very few on the other side advocate open violence, and there is hardly an organization to speak of.
I'm not sure which facts you say are not facts. Perhaps it was just that I should have used the word "side" instead of "movement", since there are organizations/movements within both sides that call for or imply violence.
"Only one side controls a major political party, has controlled the White House, has multiple people in Congress advocating for them."
I think we have different definitions of "side". Based on the root comment this was about conservative/liberals sides, and Republican/Democrat parties. Both of them have the things mentioned above.
"Only one side attacked Congress, and has large movements such as QAnon (which has major political figures, of one side, appealing to it and even joining it)."
We could say the other side has rioted and burned down cities via BLM protests that got out of hand, including antifa instigated violence. I think both statements are a stretch and are a great example of my prior comment around using a minority to represent the group.
"Very few on the other side advocate open violence, and there is hardly an organization to speak of."
Off the top of my head, there is antifa, which advocates for violence openly. There are representatives who support them. I remember eco-terrorist movements, but maybe those are no longer a concern. There have been plenty of liberals calling for or implying violence individually too, including representatives and presidents.
About the FBI comment, do you have any stats on the ideological background of the perpetrators? I didn't see the FBI compiling that. And sure, the the number of hate crimes has gone up in the past few years, but is fairly consistent with the '08 timeframe, so it's not necessarily a new phenomenon to see them around this level and they will likely fall again.
Your last comment didn't really add anything substantial for me. It was more along the same lines of the previous ones, where you tell me I'm wrong or following a false narrative, yet offer no evidence to illustrate that. I'm going to disengage at this point since I don't see any value coming out of this (facts I've asked for) and I'm a little tired of it being implied that I'm somehow stupid (for not seeing things, things that you also won't provide facts/data to support).
You mention things like bullying, political violence, etc. Yet I see that sort of thing with both sides on a variety of issues. It's also important to note that in many cases the troublemakers are a very small minority and do not represent the true virtues of any movement. Yet we see the media portray the "other" side using those worst aspects rather than having a meaningful discussion.