Absolutely. I wrote about this earlier.

BUT, and this is the critical BUT: Tucker Carlson and the rest of the Fox News punditocracy are absolutely ****ing irredeemable, it's not who I'm talking about here, and if you are irredeemable and you have a huge audience and spread nihilist dehumanizing bull**** on a nightly basis and you make a highly lucrative career off of it, yeah burn the guy's ****ing house down, don't sweat that.

We should make the penalties for small errors like voting for Trump or being fascist-curious very light to non-existant but make the penalties for being like chief propaganda minister for an authoritarian state absolutely catastrophic. well named is correct that this is obviously a very crude, simplified heuristic but effectively an easy way to consider how to behave.

If Carlson is an Enemy of the People why stop at burning his house down, you should probably just murder him, right?

But you were also very fixated on the idea that there are not roving bands of conservatives looking to beat up SJWs, and like, being photographed in your paper holding a sign that probably didn't say anything too radical where a few people might recognize you is one thing. But if you really want to prove your thesis, try giving a speech in bumble**** Montana with some strong opinions about gender and bathrooms (throw some Trump shots in there too) and see if you still feel the same about your personal safety never being in jeopardy.

If your point is that the general level of political violence is low, I think that's certainly true at a macro level, for the vast majority of people who live within a narrow, uncontroversial boundary of political expression. I am not so sure it is true for people who step outside of that normal, narrow boundary.

I jumped into this conversation to express discomfort with posts suggesting that Tucker Carlson should be made to feel afraid for his life, or that violence against Carlson was justified because right-wingers are "already beating us and shooting us." My criticisms of those posts are not rendered illegitimate just because I haven't outlined some comprehensive non-violent #resistance strategy, or because I acknowledge that it's difficult to lay out in advance a decision procedure for deciding unequivocally when violence is justified.

Democracy only worth protecting when results are not razor thin, got it. [Editors note: Results only razor thin because of voter suppression and disenfranchisement.]

That worked so great that 20 years later the problems have only gotten worse.

This was a particularly directed, pointed question I am not sure you answered:

I think the bolded is the part your response to microbet doesn't get at. You suggest your answer is "yes", but, okay, when?

That was the point, and it's a point made in context of a specific disagreement. The problem you are pointing out is also a problem I agree exists, and it was also something I discussed explicitly in the larger argument I made. I've already repeated this same argument like 3 times in 3 different ways, so I don't really want to do it again, but you could go back and re-read it, or read my post to microbet this morning.

I've assigned myself the more modest task of arguing that the kind of violence people are suggesting is acceptable in this thread is not acceptable right now. I'm not going to try to answer hypotheticals about when it may become acceptable any more than I already have. It seems difficult enough to settle the argument about whether it's acceptable now.

Sure, WN, so your criticisms are not invalidated, but your lack of any meaningful ideas whatsoever despite constant "complaints" about your own self-admitted observations that right wingers consistently engage in escalating violent rhetoric about religious and racial minorities, women, etc. suggest though that I'm correct that you just derive a certain amount of gratification from hectoring people and championing yourself the defender of some non-existent values, and that in fact you sort of tacitly acknowledge your values aren't shared, which is why you're having to admit over and over how often you're complaining at everyone about it.

Again, this isn't about you but consider how almost bizarre the "I have no ideas but I complain in many, many peoples' direction about how outside the norms they are" style of politics is, and what you're REALLY trying to accomplish. At the very least, admit it's not norm guardianship. You ain't guarding ****, these aren't norms, by your own "check the receipts, I've been complaining to everyone, equal opportunity hectoring here!" back-patting.

Again, at this point you're likely getting agitated and going to scream strawman, but these are more or less your words, just extrapolated. That is: you're trying to ENFORCE a non-existent norm but then bizarrely admit the right-wing isn't listening to any of it, ever, and so you've taken to schoolmarming the left as a next best resort. I mean really: THE **** dog?

Again, then, we ask: what's the point of that, exactly?

Glibly, WN:

- non violence isn't a norm anyone really shares, you tacitly admit you're frustrated manning the front lines on this and people are just blowing right past you
- the right isn't listening and couldn't give a ****
- you've taken to criticizing the left for retaliating

This is not the coherent story of someone who wants to protect a norm but enforce a new one. Again, glibly. The norm: the left sits meekly and quietly and takes their beating, maybe file some complaints.

You're still arguing one side of the slippery slope without addressing the other bro. When is it acceptable to use something other than peaceful protest which by the way is sure to subject you to threats of violence and arrest itself?

So far I've got:

Slavery? Ok
Civil rights in the 60s? Ok

Anything that's happening in modern times including police brutality, mass deportations, racism and xenophobia, attacks on democracy: DEFINITELY not ok

Well how convenient.

the **** you waiting for Dvault, get out there and burn down some Fox News hosts houses. Start making moves.

The analogy is thin at best but even so if you can get away and seek other recourse (or even just walk away) then that's usually best. Especially if what they really want is a fight - don't cooperate with them.

If violence is the only choice available then of course you fight back. Even then you chose your battles if you can.

We should smash open his door and force Tucker to fill out a census form.

I think there are a couple reasons why I mentioned my past behavior on this subject.

1) it's fairly common in this forum for people to dismiss similar arguments on the grounds that they are only offered hypocritically. And they are right, those arguments are often made hypocritically. So it seemed reasonable to address that objection right away.

2) If we want to be psychological, I knew that I was going to get flamed and I was trying to prepare for it because being flamed by people in this forum bothers me. I find it pretty unpleasant and usually try to avoid it.

You are of course free to concoct whatever imaginary motivations for me as you like, but I'm not very interested in debating them further than the above.

What kind of violence do you think is justifiable to right these wrongs? I agree that gerrymandering is bad but man I don't think we should be blowing up politicians' houses or anything because of it. And lawsuits, filming cops, insistence on body cameras all seem preferable to violent action against cops for police brutality. Those nonviolent means seem to be making good progress in recent years, and the violent action would backfire horribly.

Standing outside of every Fox News talking head house shouting that he's an ******* is a justified kind of "violence".

I get that keed is a troll, but ffs that other guy.

From a distance the last few pages look like the first steps in a debate about a liberal/right civil war.

here ya go

Not only is chanting “lock them up” at people and worse not even remotely considered a violation of these vague statutes that the Bootlickers cite when they are ready to crack some leftists skulls.... it is considered a national pastime in 40% of the country...

It's certainly not a closed question as to what was more effective, peaceful marches or riots. What actually happened was both. In the Watts riots alone there were nearly a thousand buildings destroyed, damaged or looted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...0%E2%80%931969

The immediate effect of the 60s may have been reactionary support for Nixon, but the liberalization of the 70s may well have been more a result of the terror of the 60s than the sober peaceful protest.

That's a fair point.

Except it's just fringe/forum fantasy stuff. The vast majority of the left aren't on board. Notice even Tom doesn't really mean anyone should do it. 'Poetic justice' is far more accurate than anything to do with politics

dvaut1 says

but the reality is that whether he is correct or not, it's far more the case that he is criticising the liberal/left for how we respond. (That's even ignoring the people who do nothing)

I think Trump showed that it's not-being-racist that doesn't travel well as opposed to being from New York.

What Trump (and all bullies) wants is precisely for us to roll over and let him stomp on us. Notice how much of a pussy he turns into when he is actually confronted.