I'm also against murdering left wing talk show hosts? Being against murdering left wing talk show hosts and against threatening violence against right wing talk show hosts don't seem mutually exclusive.

**** you and tucker both

oh and **** that corny ass nebraska fool too

Lol, SenorKeed making up a whole host of crimes against some college kids based on his imagination and mind reading abilities.

https://splinternews.com/tucker-carl...hit-1829454231

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/21...tucker-carlson

Tucker carlson certainly has positions on immigration and immigrants. I'd hardly be so naive as to think he's discussing immigration as some platonic ideal of debate or staking out a position.

They were simply shouting that the Tuckers are not safe due to the incoming Honduran caravan. It's a good Samaritan act to warn the good white people of America.

I heard on the Television that they are mostly rapist.

FWIW, it most certainly justifies the fear of violence. Tucker should live every single day fearing he will be violently harmed.

It's so damned odd. If you go on youtube most of the videos portray Antifa as an inept group of hippies who cannot fight and here and other places Antifa is the scariest group ever.

Meanwhile, this guy thinks that Islamic propaganda is, in fact dangerous.

If we changed the 1st amendment and made it illegal for people like Carlson to spew white nationalist talking points on TV, I'd probably be OK with that. I'm definitely good with exerting all sorts of social pressure to try to remove his platform, like boycotting advertisers and things like that. I'm not comfortable with ad hoc threats of violence though. I mean, maybe we're heading inexorably towards a civil war, and at some point society breaks down so far that violence is inevitable. But there's a pretty high cost to that. I don't think we should be so quick to abandon norms and laws against violence as a means of enforcing norms, even if the motives for doing so are defensible.

Whether or not the actual antifa protestors have violating any norms or laws I don't really know, but hence why I'm just responding to your post as written. I think this trend towards increasing tolerance for violent methods is worrying, even if it hasn't reached the implementation stage like it seems to have with right-wing extremists.

I know no one cares about that opinion, but since I've spent a bit of time in the last month arguing with deplorables about how bad the problem is on the right, I feel like I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't express my reservations about this kind of rhetoric on the other side.

well named -- curious as to what your rewording of the 1st amendment would be to accomplish that goal.

My post is worded that way because obviously Tucker isn't in any sort of danger nor were any real threats made to him. Tucker is an ******* who makes a living off fear mongering so I'll be very happy if he spends the rest of his life fearing for his safety due to the same lies he spreads on a daily basis.

Being against threatening right wing talk show hosts is a passive microaggression and very problematic.

I'm not really any keener on psychological torture than I am on actual threats of violence, but your position is also kind of incoherent. He's not in any real danger but I want him to be afraid for his life is a pretty difficult needle to thread.

Keed: We had a thread on that. I don't know. I'm not sure it's workable. But the point is roughly just that there are alternative means to violence.

And there are also alternative means to outlawing free speech, and those alternatives are not necessarily violent.

What? What is so difficult for you to thread? There are no 'antifa thugs' out there to hurt him. But if he loses his mind fearing they might be, that's a pretty good outcome in my book.

I can try visual aids if it helps the coherency.

Free speech gets pretty muddy though when the population relies on news media for making informed life decisions, and half the country relies solely on fox news which is an entertainment company masquerading as an unbiased source of news, which as standard operating procedure spreads lies, hate, and fear, rather than truth, and is a mouthpiece of the Trump administration.

Huge gap between thinking someone deserves to suffer and thinking it's morally ok to inflict or allow others to inflcit that suffering.

The sort of harassment being discusses should be illegal whoever it's coming from. I doubt much happens from the liberal/left in practice because we overwhelmingly think it's wrong.

right, so walk us through how the first amendment needs to be reworded or reinterpreted to remedy this problem.

lmao this uneducated dip**** who doesn't even follow the news thinks he gets to talk down to others

I have no idea dude, I'm a ferret, not a lawyer. I just know it's not news and it's problem.

I would argue that the guys like Tucker are the ones who are breaking norms here. Feels like bull**** to have bigots peddling hatred that translates into very real violence against vulnerable people and then to turn around and accuse the other side of abandoning norms. Like, screeching about caravans of disease-laden ISIS fighters invading America to an audience of deranged morons greasing up their AR-15s is not normal, acceptable behavior in 2018.

Feels like an imperfect analogy; some dude you're arguing with on the internet is not quite the same as a guy with a TV show that reaches millions of viewers and exerts real influence.

one side sends pipe bombs to the media, the other side plays ding dong ditch. Both sides.

Of course, I implied as much directly. My point is we have good reasons to prefer non-violent ways of enforcing those norms. That's why I mentioned advertiser boycotts, for example. It's not just even entirely a problem of violence, per se, it's the idea of socially sanctioned means of enforcing norms vs means which contribute to the further breakdown of the social order. I think it is a good thing for society to ostracize someone like Carlson. I'm just hesitant about the other consequences of using violence (or threats of violence) to do it. As I said, maybe the (literal) civil war is inevitable, but I don't think anyone should be glib about the idea.

I don't think that's the analogy I was making. I was saying I complain to right-wingers that their violent rhetoric towards liberals, immigrants, refugees, muslims, and so on is dangerous and already has had real-world consequences. I've seen a lot of that lately and it's bad. I think I have some minor obligation to offer the same complaint to liberals when I see them endorsing vigilante violence as a political tactic. Note that I'm not saying the two sides are equivalent. But the fact that right-wing rhetoric has lead to an increase in right-wing terrorism is a pretty good reason to be concerned about increasingly violent rhetoric in general, and not just when conservatives do it. There are times when violence is justified. Antifa members using violent means to defend counter-protestors at Charlottesville from attack is entirely defensible. Threatening deplorable media personalities in their homes is much less so.

Part of the problem, IMO, with dvaut's argument is that it involves an over-generalization. He claims that the right is already being violent with us so we are justified to be violent back. But the overwhelming majority of people are not committing acts of violence, although I'm afraid that increasingly violent rhetoric will continue to contribute to an escalation in political violence. But I live in an overwhelmingly conservative location and I've literally never felt afraid for my safety. There are not roving gangs of conservatives looking to beat up SJWs. They are not "already [literally] beating us and shooting us". It's not reasonable to generalize from the acts of political terrorism which have occurred to the conclusion that violence is justified as a means to oppose people like Tucker Carlson.

Both sides itt.

There are roving gangs of conservatives starting violence. Wtf are you talking about well named?