The rhetoric of Trump, Carlson, Shapiro and others has been directly cited as a contributing factor in the recent mass shooting trials in Canada fwiw.

Well extreme right wing violence is not just in the streets. It's also in public schools, Jewish synagogues, gay night clubs, yoga studios etc. and it's increasing, not decreasing. Do you disagree?

Burning his house down would be wrong. Yelling in front of his door and maybe putting a little fear into him is probably justified based on the horrific beliefs that he espouses and advances as a member of the state propaganda network. OK?

More importantly, when bad things happen to bad people (like that mob guy that got killed in prison recently) it is a totally normal human reaction to shrug it off or even derive a little pleasure from the result even if it is technically MORALLY WRONG in a perfect universe. That you feel the need to litigate this says more about you than it does about us.

Sure, but I'm talking about scale. Antifa activity has increased but we don't have left wing street violence as a common occurrence. Right wing violence is a problem, but one that merits law enforcement cracking down and not enough to rise to an every day worry, yet.

Anyways I think it'd put SenorKeeed at ease if instead of calling it morally justified, call it poetic justice. As in it would be poetic justice if Tucker and all the other GOP black souls who have been fear mongering about poor minorities and have sicked the state to destroy families who have done nothing wrong were to be separated from their own families and everyone shipped off separately.

Speaking of which Trump's going to announce rules that significantly curtail the amount of asylum seekers whose claims are accepted meaning we'll be deporting a lot more people back to where they were fleeing danger and death from. I fully expect Carlson to lie and cover for it.

That would indeed be poetic justice. Wouldn't it be fun if there were a super hero who did such things?

Haiku man? Sonnet girl?

Black Pentameter

That's a good one!

As others have mentioned, it seems like you perhaps don't exist in the empirical world and maybe suffer from a wee bit of what the SJW call privilege.

Because the hyperventilating here appears to be that norms of non-violence might be eroded if the left engages in violence. FWIW you might want to pick up a newspaper or something, pretty sure like beating up political opposition, terrorizing immigrants, cops shooting unarmed black people as Trump winks in their direction about law and order, mass rampage shootings at synagogues and black churches are a thing, something like Google can help you out with that.

I mean less glib, less cynical, I'll repeat: this really is pretty basic game theory application. The worry that the norms are at risk ("the idea of socially sanctioned means of enforcing norms vs means which contribute to the further breakdown of the social order.") assumes you have a shared norm of cooperation to prevent political violence.

That seems a bit naive at this moment. You have the luxury, as many of us do, of assuming that for now we have this norm of non-violence to cherish.

And yet, despite my joke that you're privileged to not feel that the norm has been discarded (although I am sincere when I think it's a factor in your take here), you seem to get it a little bit?:

And so:

Why are you still insisting that the left hold to this social order? Repeat: you can rattle off right wingers and the literal half dozen category of people they regularly and violently threaten?!?!!?!?

OH BUT DVAUT OVERGENERALIZES, the **** bro?!?

"Hey this group of people and their millionaire TV pundits are regularly threatening lots of people with violence, broadcasting these views to millions of people, and look, we are seeing the dangerous results...

::furrows brow, strokes beard::

...and so the real problem here is this other group of people over generalizing and being overly broad in their response."

You're going to retort that you're above it all and that no, no, you're saying both are bad because they disrespect the norms and you don't let the right wingers off. Again, in a world where you sort of happily exist as the lone wolf iconoclast standing guard over the norms, you've tactically admitted you stand ready to defend an entirely empty castle.

There's nothing to defend, it's not a norm, by your own ****ing admission you have to constantly scold right-wingers about their violent rhetoric towards liberals, immigrants, refugees, muslims, and so on is dangerous and already has had real-world consequences.

Moving on:

Kind of an lol here, you seem to have bought into senorkeed's extremely dumb strawman that we're threatening to carpet bomb Fox News viewers. I said we were justified terrorizing Tucker Carlson. Would you agree, for instance, that right wingers and their violent rhetoric towards liberals, immigrants, refugees, muslims, and so on is dangerous and already has had real-world consequences and that Tucker Carlson is one of the primary vectors of that violent and often genocidal rhetoric?

If so, and yes, you do, why are you anxious about the threats of violence against the overwhelming majority of people?

I can't really square this. You sort of agree Tucker Carlson broadcasts endless streams of violent white power to a willing audience then ask us to cling to our norms of political pluralism because otherwise we won't have these norms of political pluralism anymore. If you're a normal person not threatening people with violence, I don't think you should be under duress.

It's like you exist in this opposite space time continuum where the left goaded Tucker Carlson onto a popular non partisan cable news network and morphed it into a space of violent fantasies against migrant caravans eagerly lapped up by an audience of eager participants then casually assign a lot of normalcy and fictional norms to the whole affair.

I'll grant, since you seem either desperate to simply hear it or so wrapped up in your strawman that you didn't assume, but I'll grant that if you're a passive Fox News watching drone with relative non-fascist anodyne political opinions then it goes without saying you're not in the category of people that should be wary about violent retribution. I trust that's actually a lot of Fox News viewers!

But then one wonders why you yourself admit you have to hector a lot of right wingers about their violent rhetoric against hundreds of millions of people.

You're sort of a walking contradiction here. Either we have norms of pluralism and non-violence that we should respect to preserve that social order, or right-wingers regularly engage or at the very least are a passive happy audience to violent rhetoric towards liberals, immigrants, refugees, muslims, and so on is dangerous and already has had real-world consequences. I don't think we can hold to a world in which the latter is true and we insist the left respect the former.

Again, well named, maybe we can even do this in a simpler way!

Do you think that you have, at any point, a moral case to do more than simply complain?

[Written before Dvault's post, because I took some time rewriting the 1st Amendment.]

So are you more likely to be injured or killed in the US by ISIS, MS-13, the Caravan (TM), or a Tucker fan? Sure, there are more Tucker fans, but the level of social attention and fear seems disproportionately directed to the first three groups.

Are you more likely to be injured or killed by a Maddow fan or a Tucker fan?

As far as how to rewrite the First Amendment, that's both not that complex and pretty complex. It's not that complex because many societies have workable laws that prohibit hate and other harmful speech. It's pretty complex because there are already many forms of speech not protected by the First Amendment (incitement, fraud) or that are only weakly protected (commercial speech; time, place, and manner restrictions). The case law contains many exceptions to the broad language of the First Amendment, so in many ways it has (out of necessity) already been rewritten

The First Amendment was not handed down from on high and it was often ignored for the first 140 years or so of the republic. Moden free speech jurisprudence is mainly from the 1920s and after.

Here's a potential rewriting of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [or its promotion], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [other than as necessary to secure the liberty of others]; or abridging the freedom of speech [beyond strict necessity], or of the press [, except for material intentionally calculated to inflame passion over reason for the promotion of malevolent ends]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It's not perfect, but it's probably an improvement.

Also pro tip, you can always always always defeat any "both sides" tut tutters in your life in their dumb, self-aggrandizing pretensive games by letting them back pat for a while about how often they are goaded into messy political situations to school marm everyone. well named is the ultimate Bret Stephens contradiction we all recognize in the mainstream media, that if you have to constantly step down off your pedestal to scold everyone, the pedestal was a fantasy of your own making, and no one put you on it. Finger wagging in everyone's direction is a weird social tic and the practitioners will often grant themselves some insane moral vision to underwrite it. The both-siders cannot escape their prison, that no world in which the social norms they assume and assured everyone exists would need them.

Do the conservatives around you know you are an SJW? Assuming you are a white dude, might that have something to do with the sense of safety you feel in your environment?

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status...89354635972608

I mean it is frankly galling that well named types are like, oh oh oh, hold on now, if the left continues down this path, it might get violent out there. The left better be real woke about how if we all encourage violence against Tucker Carlson, NEXT those right wing crazies might meet you with their own brand of violent political rhetoric, why someday they may even ::clutches pearls, proceeds to fainting couch:: act on it. The left simply does not want that, no no. Think carefully, well named reminds you.

Huh. You don't say.

He doesn't have to stress too much about Tucker Carlson holding court with America discussing the next steps in the White Power movement, but, he's happy to remind that he is filing a lot of complaints and suggests you join him.

Just getting through this, swear I didn't read it ahead of time, but alas, we have reached the end stage of the both-sides tut-tutter: the ultimate recognition they are not needed, that no one will handle them trophies for being champions of norms either long discarded or never quite extent, which really is...

...all your fault for not listening.

As I said, this pose is a weird social phenomenon, but in any case, well named I look forward to reading you in the editorial pages of the NYT someday soon.

When a Nazi spray paints a swastika on the walls of a synagogue, I'm not upset about the destruction of private property. I'm upset because that person wants to kill all the minorities in the US.
When people shout mean stuff at Carlson Tucker, I'm pretty much okay about it.

It's kinda important who the people are and what they've done.

Top comment on WaPo article about Tucker threats.

Remember this, too. And I'm gonna be that guy: but forgetting the Proud Boys and the increasing rampage killing incidents and Trump encouraging his rally attendees to harass journalists and begging the Bikers for Trump and the military to go get violent with migrants. And you shouldn't forget that. But for the moment, ignore that. It's getting a lot of focus here.

Don't sleep on the way the right has for 50 years, at least going back to Nixon and now especially with Trump, successfully tried to dragoon the police into right-wing, white supremacist paramilitary work. With a lot of success! Check out how many non violent drug offenders, often racial minorities, are simply tossed into prison, given completely inadequate public defense and just left to rot there. Let's not be naive, when Trump talks about the chaos and crime in cities and talks about restoring law and order, he means the cops should go crack some black skulls.

I ain't gonna litigate how much of the guilt for the systemic, absolutely degrading violence at the hands of police and the justice system rests with the average Fox News viewer, because I never once suggested going door to door and shouting at America's racist grandparents. Distributed guilt is a thing, and whenever our political system heaps abuses on people, the reality is we're all guilty a little bit.

But what I am damn ****ing sure of is that Tucker ****ing Carlson and all these right wing ghouls that go on TV and rile up the political consensus for all of this get a heckuva lot of righteous blame and so retribution is justified, even required. Keed and well named want to direct this into how the extravagant leftist mobs are proposing beating up poor old grandma whose only crime is being a wee bit racist but bear in mind we ain't talking about that, we're talking about Tucker ****ing Carlson and they are going to dutifully and continually try to redirect this and say we're trying to harass every American instead of millionaire celebrity racist propaganda ministers, a huge chasm of difference there.

Our criminal justice system is making victims of millions, people understandably want to lash out at the inputs to that system, Tucker Carlson is a huge purveyor of systemic racism and demands for authoritarianism, don't talk to me about sociological and market norms as if they are fundamental guiding principles of life ("boycott his advertisers and respect The Discourse!") while ignoring just the innate human desire and moral intuition that our country is sick as **** and people want justice for the huge harms we're causing. If we're gonna talk about ****ing norms, I ain't nothing but an amateur sociologist but I got ****ing REAMS of evidence it is entirely natural and keeping entirely with human history to lash out violently at people who are harming you, people understandably think Tucker is at the center of it because he's mugging it for millions every night saying that **** that riles people up and gets people to buy into authoritarianism. And that violence is a very effective deterrent. Whereas "write stern letters to their advertisers and hope market effects produce the desired incentives" are the truly radical ideas. That is to say, "beat the **** out of him" is the tried and true and common sense and entirely historic solution, "when they go low, we go high by galvanizing social media to influence their ad buys" is transparently radical centrism masquerading as common folk wisdom. You can appreciate well named ideals, I guess, but "beat him up and threaten to burn down his house" is absolutely common sense to everyone how that works, "channel your energies into your role as consumer and don't buy products that advertise on Tucker" is just completely insane gibberish to most people and rightfully so, and don't forget that.

for the record, i'm not even reading your posts here because my aids meter is going kinda ham. this line sorta popped out as i was scrolling by tho

i dont need any extra perspective/consideration about whether or not it's ok to threaten tucker carlson and whether or not antifa even threatened tucker carlson. i don't turn the other cheek when someone comes at me tho.

this is a good point and is definitely what concerns me the most about all this.

however, i'm not going to just lie down and take it like a *****.

yuv spitting fire as usual but definitely this^^ if you're tut tutting about slippery slope tit for tat antifa thug meow chow

I disagree. I don’t think violence or threats of violence should be made against Tucker Carlson because of his speech, but I disagree that in all cases it is wrong to encourage violence or threats of violence against people because of their speech. There exist situations where that is the desperate, but correct and possibly only play.

BTW, I'm pretty sure antifa has numbers that approximately those of the real black panther party. It's a necessary character in a story the right wants to tell, so pretty soon every rude gay waiter or angry young minority looking for conflict becomes part of a well organized dangerous conspiracy and not just a pissed off citizen.

that would be a dumb strawman. Which you've completely made up -- it's a straight up lie. I criticized people in this thread in this thread for saying terrorizing Tucker Carlson and actual acts of violence against Tucker Carlson and his family -- including burning down his house or breaking into his home and abducting his wife! -- were morally justified.

First off, before your panties bunch up too hard I didn't say anyone should burn down TCs house just that it should be burned down, like if there was a benevolent and just god his house would be hit by lightning or an appliance would malfunction and his mansion would be gone. I didn't even want him inside it at the time, though maybe getting some superficial burns that require a painful skin graft would be ok.

Also property isn't personhood. That's the ACist bait and switch. Even if I did advocate a person burning down the house that wouldn't be violence against TC.