****ing wake me up when antifa starts abducting children, then I will vigorously chide them.

"vigilante violence" has bad name like a trillion times out of proportion with how much of it there has been in history compared to state violence.

sure, except that doesn't make it wrong to object to folks when they have takes like "actually, vigilante violence directed at Tucker Carlson is moral and good, although possibly a tactical mistake".

What? Some of those Proud Boys have even been arrested for it. One of them (conservatives - I don't know if it was specifically a Proud Boy) drove a car through a crowd of SJWs, injuring lots of SJWs and killing one.

Wrong to object about it? As in your objection is immoral? That's not saying a lot. It would be pretty hard for making an objection to be immoral.

I'm sure some folks around here could manage it. But you're right, I mean to say that it is wrong to encourage violence or threats of violence against people because of their speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.067803706273

And that's in addition to Microbet's valid examples.

I thought that the point I was making would be clear in context of my post, but maybe it wasn't. I'm not saying there is no problem of right-wing violence. I've said exactly the opposite at least twice now.

My point in saying that there are not roving bands of conservative terrorists is that those acts are being carried out by a tiny minority of extremists, and thus it's not reasonable to treat it as though it justifies acts of violence against conservatives who have never acted violently themselves. The size of the group of people who are conservatives who share Tucker Carlson's views is much, much larger than the number of Proud Boys. It's sort of like terrorism motivated by Islamic fundamentalism also exists and is a bad thing, but it doesn't justify acts of violence towards Muslims who are not engaging in violence, even against Muslims who are similarly fundamentalistic in their attitudes. I tried to make this distinction clear by saying that violence could be justified, and I used Charlottesville as an example. Violent resistance to Proud Boys is similar.

But some of the posts in this thread went beyond that, at least IMO. Dvaut's attitude towards violence was not limited to violence against Proud Boys, for example. The further point I was trying to make is that that increasing violence on the right is being driven by violent rhetoric becoming more mainstream, and by the increasing tendency of conservatives to demonize and dehumanize their political opponents. That's not a problem that can only ever happen on the right. There is a real cost to beginning to see all conservatives as violent extremists against whom violence may be justifiably used preemptively, especially given that it's not true.

@well named

Fine. But focusing on what these college kids actually did, it is unconscionable for you to support the authoritarians in wrongfully accusing them of committing crimes and thus putting their lives and freedom in actual danger. Somehow you always seem to come out supporting the authoritarians very strongly.

If Tucker feels his family is unsafe, perhaps they should be separated. Put his children, temporarily, in one location. Perhaps even split them up, just to be on the safe side.

At least until we figure out what's going on.

I said they threatened violence against Carlson, which they did. Chanting that someone is not safe and that they know where he and his family sleeps outside his house is a threat of violence, obviously. I don't know if it rises to criminality but I think it is wrong regardless. And police are investigating and will perhaps prosecute people for trespassing, vandalism, perhaps other crime. Which seems fine.

But then others ITT start saying that actual violence against Carlson is morally justified. Breaking into his house and abducting his wife, burning down his house. Which yeah man, I think that's wrong. So I'm not focusing on crimes that were actually committed, although I think that what was done was wrong. I'm focused on what people in this thread are saying would be morally justified to do to Carlson, which is far worse than what actually happened.

It's sad to me that you guys are apparently incapable of keeping any reasonable perspective on these issues, or even of reading my posts honestly. I expect deplorables not to get it, but I expect more from most of you. It's pretty disappointing to see otherwise intelligent fall so easily into the fallacy of the dramatic instance, especially when I know all of you would instantly recognize that fallacy if it were Trump talking about MS-13 to try to justify his bigotry towards immigrants.

It's also frustrating because it seems like I ought to be better able to communicate to you why this is a problem. But since I'm also apparently incapable of doing so in a convincing way I'll stop belaboring the point.

I agree with you that the left should not resort to the violence of the right in rhetoric and actions. But to say there are not roving gangs of conservative types beating and killing lefties is completely laughable. Sure, they are a minority and not the majority of right wingers, but so what? Urban predominantly black gangs such as the crips and bloods are not representative of the majority of black people, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And don't mistake this in any way to say I'm equating urban street gangs with alt right gangs like the proud boys, patriot prayer, neo nazis, KKK etc.

You also did not address the fact that our president is inciting this violence and provides moral sanction by his own violent rhetoric.

In short,

I don't think it would be morally justified, but if it happened to Carlson, Alex Jones, Trump, Richard Spencer or anyone in that sphere I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it happening. I was perfectly fine with violence against Richard Spencer. What is the difference between Spencer and Carlson? I don't know if their is any besides Carlson having a few million more viewers.

Yea and the explicit consequence of tit for tat is that you indeed have to use what the opposition is throwing at you. Otherwise it will just be might makes right. Anything coming from the left is vastly outnumbered by various influences creating threats and actual violence towards people with little power in this country. Therefore it is the height of disingeniousness to freak out about Mrs. Carlson's door if you are not ten times as aggrieved about the other stuff. And saying it in ****ing hindsight like most of these guys try to do doesn't count.

Literally nothing happened to Carlson Tucker and there are a ****load of stuff that could happen and still be far from being a problem. All this nonsense 4th grade stuff you spewed isn't remotely a 'reasonable perspective'. You'll be pretty ashamed of your hot take here in the near future.

There's a difference between right wing gangs existing and there being right wing violence in the streets as a common occurrence.

The brown shirts had a chapter in every major German city and attacked hundreds and killed dozens to hundreds of people as well as being organized across the country. The Proud Boys, Atomwaffen, etc aren't that.

If, for instance, Democrat rallies were regularly attacked and whatnot I think there'd be more of a point. As it is now the right wing mobs usually set up their own play date with a specific event where everyone knows to show up, and there's like 30 to 100 of them