When the left responds to violence by escalating, it must be quickly and sharply rebuked due to fear of spiraling. When the right does it, that's just a natural progression that was correctly predicted and the predictors deserve applause.

More or less lunacy than you denouncing and falsely accusing college kids of terroristic threats when they are being “investigated” by the same fascists that literally thought it was proper to jail and ruin the lives of 200+ people because a couple of them broke some windows...

wasnt 10 years ago the great anarcho capitalist forum? 15 years ago was when everyone was gung ho about bombing browns in iraq.

AC is pretty right wing in my book.

Confession: I was a teenage anarchist

Nah dude, the views are "popular" BECAUSE of Fox news and talk radio.

Yes Keed has that the wrong way around. The slow drip drip drip of propaganda takes its toll on a largely supine audience, whose attitudes and values change accordingly over time, giving the impression that Murdoch was only preaching to the already converted.

I think it's reasonable to think that both arguments are true to some extent and I don't think it's easily knowable which effect is more important.

It's both. Fox is both dragged right-wards by its audience but at the same time, the constant drip drip of propaganda deepens the audience's isolation and hardens their ability to confront new or conflicting evidence.

But the part of the feedback loop wherein their consumers demand more strident right wing propaganda doesn't lessen Fox's responsibility for providing it. There might be a market demand for dog fighting or child porn or gladiator combat where the competitors battle to the death for sport. Doesn't mean they get to cater to the market demands and not bear moral culpability.

The tangent here was my claim that you want Tucker to have a platform. "I personally don't care about Tucker but Fox News is just giving people what they want, nothing you can do" is an apologetic that is really no different than saying you're OK with Tucker having a platform. Maybe you don't *want* it, I am not a mind-reader, but your stance is transparently "nothing you can do, Tucker gets his show, move on." And pointing to a market demand is an incomplete argument, surely to most of the people here who aren't say fervent ACists and accept that the government has a role to regulate things which cause grave social ills or are morally repugnant (like broadcasting violent bloodsport or say racist propaganda) should not be compelled by a "well Tucker is just giving his audience what they want" mentality.

Found this part of this apparently semi-famous blog post from 2013 interesting in light of some of the discussion in this thread.

REACTIONARY PHILOSOPHY IN AN ENORMOUS, PLANET-SIZED NUTSHELL

(PS Don't assume that the author supports the ideas above. He's using them in the service of a different sort of argument.)

Some might think that way but it clearly shouldn't be just left to the market. It's too important not to be regulated.

Fox news in the uk was taken off air. It was being investigated at the time and the regulator found against fox news even after it had gone.

and, guess who's show it was:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...es-ofcom-finds

All I've said is that I don't have any "solution" to Fox News and that the terrorize Fox News pundits solution you seem to be pushing seems unlikely to work. A vigilante campaign against Carlson and other Fox News pundits seems highly unlikely to calm down Fox News watchers or prevent Fox News from existing and will likely have the opposite effect. Did Carlson's ratings go up or down this week (no idea but I'm guessing up). If you burned down Carlson's house or if a mob tarred and feathered him, what do you think would happen to Carlson's ratings? If Carlson was murdered by a leftist activist what would happen to Fox News ratings?

If he was in his house when it was burned it down I imagine his future ratings would be 0.

But the argument that dangerous and powerful extremists shouldn't be countered by violence when other means have failed because their cause would become more popular is spurious.

Von stauffenburg is the person truly responsible for the holocaust.

I think that "would the proposed violence do more good than harm" is an important question to ask whenever you're advocating for violence to improve society. Dvault's proposed vigilante campaign against Fox News pundits fails that test.

It's ia a weak argument

whereas the argument that violence is the right way to go is so strong that it's beyond question

We saw what your attempts to appease extremists brought to P8.8, chez.

Counterpoint: Antifa's tactics have been quite effective in mitigating Proud Boy rally attendance and tone since Charlottesville.

So you haven't even got a weak argument.to support violence

A simple application of Godwin provides a strong argument, doesn't it?

Did I hit a raw nerve?

It's noticiable that people lash out when they have no answers. Here it's just fun & games but it's a good reason to be aganst violence unless there's no immediate alternative.

and back to the point. The arguments for violence are very weak. The best there seems to be is some extremely micky mouse game theory.

Did you not register his point? Killing 5 million Germans less than 100 years ago was just but the arguments for knocking on someone's door or punching a Proud Boy are very weak?

This is hard to argue with.

That's a barely even a point. Our countries were the good guys in a war that killed 60m+ people therefore this violence is justified???

Come on.

I mean let's be very clear on this point before you handwave it away. Do you think we were justified in killing 5 million Nazis? Yes or no? If yes, what would it take for you to be willing to justify committing 0.000001% of that amount of violence?