The only change I see is that Cato is excluding the Oklahoma City bombing in some analyses, possibly because I criticized Nowrahsteh for this last month on stack. More importantly, THERE IS NO DATASET. Cato doesn't provide the data, so there's nothing we can do with this. (There are no links and the Appendix section is mysteriously blank.) Cato is a trash outlet now, and Nowrahsteh is a charlatan, not a scholar of any description. All he does is list several "sources" for his undisclosed dataset, but there's no way to know what he did or how he coded anything based on that. We need the actual data file. This is science, not a swap meet. Incredibly, Cato includes "incels" as right-wing. He claims it doesn't make a big difference, but that's irrelevant given that we can't see the data and that it's still completely unjustified. You don't do invalid things, no matter what the numbers are or what difference it makes. This is Nowrahsteh's justification for counting incels as right-wing. He asserts that they're anti-women and socially misogynistic. What does that have to do with conservatives? Are conservatives anti-women? How? Are they more anti-women than leftists who want to let predatory men stand naked in a high school girls' locker room, let men crash women's sports, and support the mutilation of over 5,000 girls age 12+? More fundamentally, what does being "involuntarily celibate" have to do with conservatism, or any political ideology? It's not a conservative ideology, at all. 1/x

Nowrahsteh cites one source, another leftist crackpot at Penn State, but the study he cites doesn't back his claims. It's a junk study about "incel beliefs" and support for political violence – it doesn't report anything about their "pro-hierarchy", "anti-outgroup" or "anti-women" beliefs. It has nothing to do with his claims. It's possible that the crackpot made some assertions in the paper's introduction that lined up with Nowrahsteh's claims, but those would just be his opinions – the paper reports a study, and the study's findings had nothing to do with Nowrahsteh's claims. It's clear that he just really likes to insult conservatives (and often the American people as such). Nowrahsteh is best understood a leftist provocateur and crackpot. A libertarian would not use so much proprietary and collectivist leftist language and mis-cite crackpot leftist academics. A serious scholar would not do those things either. We can't see his latest data, but I'm extremely confident that he's not counting many leftist-driven murders, since he didn't count them before. For example, 19-year-old Berkeley undergrad Seth Smith was murdered by a black man driven by the new leftist race ideology in the midst of the fraudulent leftist "antiracism" riots of 2020. The man walked right up to Seth – a complete stranger – and shot him in the head and walked away. No robbery, nothing stolen. The killer complained to police about "black men killed every day", so it's clear what this was. A serious researcher would look for more of those murders. I think it's likely that several white people are murdered every year simply for being white, by killers driven by the new leftist race ideology, false propaganda about police slaughtering innocent black men, etc. Since politically motivated murder is rare, this alone could be enough to put leftists at the top. 2/x

@ValidScience @threadreaderapp unroll