ah yes, burning down someone's house: good old fashioned nonviolent protest

Do you think that a person's property is part of them? Man Bill is getting fat he just added an extension onto his house. He's now 5 tons heavier he really needs to do something.

I think that burning someone's house down is violence. Do you think burning a cross in a black man's yard is violence?

Nope. It's evil but not violent. Lynching a black man for looking at your lady wrong is violence.

Worth repeating, here's Trump, just last week, yelling and wondering aloud where all his paramilitary forces are:



Just seamlessly mixing together ICE, the police, and bikers. Healthy country. Healthy President.

And Tucker and the rest of the Fox n Friends and Hannity form an obvious, clear and undeniable feedback loop with Trump, aggrandizing each other and feeding into the fascist whims of their voters who simultaneously provide the popular backing for all of this.

So a lot of posts here, I get that well named is going to wake up to lots of stuff at his direction, but I asked before and I think it's worth repeating. Here's well named:

Will there ever, ever be a moment where it will be righteous to do more than complain about this?

AND. And this is critical. If things devolve further, AND YOU HOLD THE LINE on insisting that everyone stop at complaining about this and go no further, could you be complicit?

It's nowhere near as disturbing as the frequent rape analogies from yesteryear, but cross burning is still a weird point to keep bringing up.

at the very least both burning someone's house down and burning a cross in his yard are terroristic threats of violence. I can't imagine you actually disagree with that.

He's trying to twist it into some stupid gotcha. Please stop responding to keed ffs

I mean given the current state of affairs, yelling at McConnel at dinner and knocking on Tucker's door seems entirely ****ing JUDICIOUS and RESTRAINED. Not sure history is going to look any kinder on the guardians of the system that gave some hand-waving allusions in the direction about how creeping fascism was a problem and they complained but insisted we stick to boycotts and letters and terse and strongly worded complaints but no more.

trying to get someone to admit that burning someone's house down is at the very least a terroristic threat of violence: a stupid gotcha

I totally disagree. Saying I will harm your person is a threat of violence. Saying I will take your property from you because that property was unjustly acquired via evil means ain't violence. It's justice.

Are we certain that the "mob" at Cucker's house wasn't just a crew from TMZ? Were they carrying 51 oz beverage cups? Was Harvey Levin spotted in the vicinity?

If taking property from people is violence then isn't TC one of the most violent people ever? How many senile racist grandpas have emptied their bank accounts for goldscam.com and all the other pure grifts endorsed by tucker and his cronies? Burning down his mc mansion is the bare minimum of self defence. Like if he's "initiating violence" every day of the week don't we owe it to all the poor grandpas to actually do physical violence against him as self defence against his violent, property taking ways? You're advocating for straight up capping him. Which like I said I'm open to argument.

The fact that we're even bickering about Tucker Carlson instead of the 55,827 explicitly and implicitly condoned acts of violence by the right, in the last year, against figures it doesn't like on the left - means we're all ****ing idiots.

Are you willing to take similar actions in your own life?

Well that goes without saying.

this was good. how did yall miss it?

I think it was a false flag operation intended to boost ratings.

For the old people

The police have opened an investigation. Right now there is no reason to expect a criminal complaint, and there certainly hasn't been any convictions yet.

If I understand correctly, your identified underlying principle here was "it's the law". As in it's fully legal for an absentee landlord to make overtly violent threats to a tenant's spouse and children to extract profit... so you are fully ok with those kinda threats. So... if the police do not in fact make a criminal complaint in this T.Carlson incident -or- if they do so and the defendants are acquitted (and again for you to be consistent)... you would be fully ok with what happened in front of T.Carlsons DC area estate.

So... are you in fact fully ok with all this, just as long as there are no convictions ??

In listing the conservative violence I (and others) missed the mass shooting at the synagogue.

Well named, Senorkeeed,

Are you pacifists? Is war ever justified?

Burning someone's empty house is not violence, not really. It's not the same thing. Conservatives, I think genuinely, value property more than they value other people and that's why antifa breaking windows at Wells Fargo counts as heinous violence to them.

Dvaut asked a similar question I think. I'm not absolutely committed to pacifism and war is sometimes justified. My argument was that war (or even just an increase in violence and a further erosion of society) is very costly and thus we ought to try to avoid it. Further, my argument was that we aren't at the point where violent threats against people like Carlson are justified, in my view. I made an analogy to other forms of terrorism because I think that analogy is helpful. What responses are justified should depend on some realistic assessment of the size of the threat. I have in mind data like these, although of course they need updating.

More fundamentally, what concerns me is this: we're already seeing how violent political rhetoric contributes to growing political violence. I'm well aware of recent events. We also have some understanding of how these social processes work, and how people become radicalized to accept violence against groups of people they see as less than human. The problem is acute on the right at this moment. My worry is that I see the seeds of similar processes beginning to happen with some people on the left. Just because the problem is much worse on the right doesn't mean that this process won't also have negative consequences on the left. We don't need more Scalise shooters any more than we need more synagogue shooters.

Obviously I can't predict the future, and I have imperfect knowledge of the present. I'm making moral and political arguments based on my best judgement. Maybe it is already too late. I certainly understand the sentiment that it would be justice for Carlson to be afraid for his life. But it's not the kind of justice that seems likely to lead to a better outcome for anyone in the near future. As long as we have other means by which to pursue justice I think we ought to pursue them because I think other means will result in better outcomes.

Well Named where is the line where your Neville Chamberlin policies are no longer tenable to what’s going on?