Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
I would argue that the guys like Tucker are the ones who are breaking norms here.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
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.
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.