This thread is a place to discuss the recent protest of Fox News Host Tucker Carlson, and more generally the nature of protesting and non-violence.

Edit: Recent news seems to support the idea that Tucker Carlson lied significantly about what was actually done at his house.

Edit Edit: Further research indicates he is incredibly incontinent.

Oh ****, they RANG TUCKER CARLSON'S DOORBELL YALL. Thugs! Did they really take it that far?! Did they at least offer a trigger warning before telling him to leave town? Because man, no trigger warnings before calling racists 'racist' could lead to sad racists, and we wouldn't want that.

Here's the plan guys: We'll silence the protesters, probably by arresting them for using words that make Mommy's Precious Boy feel sad. Then we'll go on a free speech tour. Bet?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/38110...ign=benshapiro

Hot take: **** Cucker and his whole family. You wanna be a Nazi living in the bluest city there is, expect to get harassed. No sympathy for the hate-peddling *******s who have demolished our most basic norms of acceptable behavior.

I still don't understand why people would be shaming him. What he said seems perfectly reasonable. Harassing Tucker's wife at their house is tactically and strategically unsound but Tucker knows exactly what he's doing.

i feel no sympathy for public figures getting harassed in public. i feel no sympathy for public figures houses being protested.

they chose this life. they chose to rip healthcare away from millions of people. they chose to be racist asshats. they chose that for money and "fame" and being harassed in public is what comes with that life.

obviously no violence, but i think they should be shouted down everywhere they go.

so chanting "you're not safe, we know where you sleep" outside someone's house? OK or not?

Just like any random someone, or a fascist racist propagandist? Because while I too was raised by wolves, my human handlers have told me that Tucker's professional notoriety as a fascist racist propagandist are important missing context in this question.

in the context that that person has specifically given out home addresses of people he disagrees with to his crazies on his show. i see no reason why he deserves better treatment than he's given people..

are the protesters on public property? there was a report that they damaged something- opbviously thats not ok. but yeah im totally fine with protesting someones house.

these dudes dont get to say they have 9-5 jobs. they are ruining people's entire lives. you dont get to hide behind, "well, that's just my day job".. "sorry i ruined your life and possibly caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, plz let me eat dinner in peace since it's after 5pm..."

oh forgive me, I thought that "obviously no violence" and by extension no threats of violence was a general moral rule that perhaps would apply even to Tucker Carlson

Womp womp

Tucker Carlson doesn't apply that rule to vast swaths of people in America, and, in fact, gets paid millions not to do so.

Like when I emerged from the forest as a human wolf pup and did not understand normal human customs, the first thing my adopted human caretakers told me was that it was generally impolite and uncouth to threaten people outside their homes, people deserve piece and quiet, but they did make exceptions for bad people although candidly they did not hand me a decision tree that laid out every scenario and they instructed me that sometimes humans will have to insert some ad hoc judgement into their ethical dilemmas.

I am observing human society with curiosity too. Is it so that humans say "obviously no violence"? That sounds a little glib, for instance recently some Nazis got punched in the face and I noticed lots of people had a good laugh about that and cheered it on, for instance:

https://canipunchnazis.com/

Many people said yes, in fact we should absolutely beat the **** out of Nazis and enjoy that as sport. That seems OK? I am new to this human world but Richard Spencer, he seems like he should absolutely be punched right in his ****ing face. Perhaps Tucker Carlson is like this fellow, too?

So my wolf mother, god bless her, she did not tell me much about this human world and I am having to learn as I go, and yet I do not think "obviously no violence" is some normative rule? I think perhaps you have misunderstood these rules but wolf brother I am excited to be on this journey with you, god bless and amen.

When did Tucker give out home addresses of people he disagreed with? I'm certainly not for that either.

Chanting "you're not safe, we know where you sleep" isn't protesting. It's a threat of violence. I'm as big of a free speech advocate as you can be but that sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated. Let alone banging on his door so hard it breaks, if that turns out to be true. And Tucker wasn't even home -- and they knew he wasn't. He was getting ready to shoot his show. It was targeted at his wife, who isn't a public figure.

I guess I have to be the one to spell it out but harassing Tucker Carlson's wife is bad on strategic and tactical grounds. Tactical because Tuck Carlson is a rich motherf*cker whose just going to ensconce himself in layers of security. Strategic because it doesn't really persuade anyone.

But morally, no. Tucker Carlson should enjoy having his door kicked down, his loved ones separated from him, and shipped to far off places they've never been just like he's advocated be done to others, other than just the general harassment his supported.

Just like Sanders doesn't deserve to eat a meal in a restaurant in peace, Turtleman, etc.

It shouldn't happen because it's not strategically sound, but morally, hard to see why it isn't deserved. That's not much different than a lot of things that are morally sound, but bad ideas strategically.

Tucker Carlson should have his house burned to the ground. We can argue the morality of whether he should be inside it at the time or not. I'd say on balance probably not but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Realllllllly scary

Almost as intimidating as Karate Acosta

Why is it bad on strategic and tactical grounds? Is the concern that like turnabout is fair play, and we don't want to live in that world, like Tucker Carlson will retaliate and might go on TV and rile up a bunch of revanichist whites to get angry and put violent and genocidal thoughts into America's mindspace about how to treat the political opposition and racial minorities?

My god, what a world, could you imagine?

Next your going to tell me some of those right-wing crazies will pick up on the cues laid out to them nightly by Tucker's very hypothetical White Power Hour on Fox that would exist in this dystopian alternate universe where Tucker's peace is threatened, and those right wing crazies they've been riling up for fun and profit will arm themselves, mail bombs to the political opposition and stage random rampage shootings of black churches and Jewish synagogues? DOES THE LEFT REALLY WANT TO LIVE IN THAT WORLD!?!? Better meekly think of a different and better strategy?

I imagine cucker tarlson is actually happy about getting his door vandalized and he'll be offering $5000 to the perpetrators as a thank you gift for helping him and his wife meet new friends in the neighborhood

Breaking into Tucker Carlson's house and abducting his wife while he's at work. Tactically unsound, but obviously the moral thing to do.

You lot might as well go ahead and have a full on civil war, and get it over with.

Yes, think of the poor defenseless white woman trying to fend off the angry mob

#jobsnotmobs

Remember the implicit threat of tit for tit relation in any game theory is that you don't want to invoke the response.

Here's the ****ing thing, and this is critical, THE RIGHT IS ALREADY BEATING THE **** OUT OF US AND SHOOTING US and Tucker Carlson is like at the epicenter of the movement, and so the fear we might create a theater of political violence seems a bit naive, we already have front row seats everyone, wake up.

dvault, walk us through the moral and game theoretic implications of burning a cross on Clarence Thomas' lawn

“It’s okay to be violent toward Nazis” is a value my human grandparents were pretty keen on, maybe we’re just weird.

They were also keen on "It's okay to be violent towards Japanese". Because, you know, they were at war with the Japanese and the Nazis.