It was at least as accurate as your accusation against me, but mine has more evidence to back it up.
Don’t forget “recently praised a man for body slamming a reporter”. FFS, did everyone forget that Donald Trump recently praised a Republican for committing violence against a member of the press? 
The AntiFa people are a bunch of losers that make it more and more likely that Trump will be re-elected. I like this John Lennon quote:
The right response to a bunch of racist clowns is to treat them like clowns. Laugh at them, take pictures of them and post them on social media so that their acquaintances and employers know who they are.
Imagine if protesters showed up in Charlottesville with marshmallows on sticks and tried to roast them over the racists’ tiki torches. That would have been hysterical. Or maybe a bunch of people turning their backs on them. Or maybe even better, just ignoring them. It would have been a nothing-burger on the nightly news.
My response to Civil War statues would be to put “2nd Place” medals on them. Write letters to the editor saying how that “in my day we didn’t just hand out medals for participation”. Make people feel ashamed, not angry. Angry people are dangerous. Especially angry white men.
I’m gonna guess that you don’t have a whole lot of experience dealing with crazy people. Because if you did, you’d know that none of that would work out the way you want it to. And the reason it wouldn’t work out the way you want it to is the people you’re dealing with are crazy. And part of being crazy is not having a discernible pattern or motivations for actions. In short, crazy people don’t react how you think they will because you’re not crazy and you don’t think like they do.
“Good morning!”
“What’s good about it? I didn’t have any orange juice. WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY MOTHER! DON"T YOU TALK ABOUT HER!”
That’s a possible conversation with a crazy person, because there’s just no telling how they’ll react to a simple greeting, let alone complex motivational schemes. You can’t use reverse physchology on a person who’s psychology you don’t understand, eh.
I couldn’t give a fuck what happens to Fucker Carlsom or anyone of his fucking ilk.
So the way to deal with crazy people is through violence? Yeah, that’ll turn out well.
Is that what you think I said?
I have no idea. You went off on a tangent about crazy people when I was talking about alternatives to violently confronting people you disagree with.
Kristallnacht? Get a grip. I have zero love for Tucker Carlson, but if you think he is a Nazi, you have succumbed to a moral panic.
Harassing someone in their own home seems rather violent to me. I believe violence is only justified in self defense.
I assumed that was the November 9 smashing homes reference made by Alessan.
But if you think Tucker Carlson’s rhetoric isn’t leading to racist violence, you are the one who needs to get a grip.
That is a dumb definition of violent.
They do, and I can understand the temptation to go after Carlson in this matter. But these tactics only embolden the Right, and reinforces their victim narrative about “liberal mobs” going after peaceful citizens for expressing their opinions.
I think you’re wrong about that. Can you provide any examples of this rhetoric?
Yeah, it might. There are also other reasons not to do it. My questions to Alessan were not rhetorical.
Why are liberals so naive? This obsession with never riling up the right is absurd. It doesn’t matter how much you try to appease the right, the right wing of this country will always hate you no matter what you do and will make up whatever bullshit to justify that hate.
Sure. But that doesn’t mean things cannot be escalated further. It is a real risk of these tactics. It is also an asymmetric risk. Fascists thrive on conflict. They need to point to lawlessness in order to justify their crackdowns.
That said, I don’t think that analysis of the risks of such tactics paints the full picture. This example was extremely mild, basically a lawful protest with some petty vandalism. And it might be enough to catalyze some renewed pressure on Fox advertisers. If so, that is a big win.
Funny you mention that…
As Carlos Maza of Vox has pointed out, white supremacists like Tucker Carlson more than they like any other Fox News commentator. The Daily Stormer has called him “literally our greatest ally,” Richard Spencer has spoken positively of him, David Duke has said “God bless Tucker Carlson.” This is because Carlson differs from other conservatives: many praise immigration and the American “melting pot,” and reserve their criticism for illegal immigrants. Carlson is different: he’s not just concerned with unlawful entry. He’s also concerned with, as we see in his book, “demographic” change. The loss of a European “ethnic majority.” Most conservatives are not openly pro-white. Carlson, on the other hand, dares to talk about how cities “look different” now—the changes are changes of color and culture. Carlson’s “ethnic majority” is pretty much exactly what Richard Spencer says. Spencer believes that European American culture is the glue that holds the country together, that we need a white ethnostate, and that changes in ethnicity, religion, and language are bad and will destroy the country. Carlson’s talking points are about half an inch away from this. Again, just to emphasize, he is clear in the book that “ethnicity” is a component of the change he finds destructive.
That would be scary enough on its own. Carlson is using his Fox show to spread fear about foreigners of all kinds, not just the unauthorized immigrants. He lies about their crime rates and singles out individual horrific crimes committed by immigrants and discusses them in lurid detail. He speaks in broad generalizations about how our differences make us weaker rather than stronger. Having the Daily Stormer’s “greatest ally” giving Richard Spencer’s arguments to an audience of millions every night is very concerning. It’s a very damning indictment of Fox, and everyone from the network should be shunned and shamed. (I do not, however, think surrounding Tucker Carlson’s house and shouting at his family is an effective political tactic.)
But it’s Carlson’s skepticism of inequality and free market capitalism that makes me even more worried. It’s not at all unprecedented to see white nationalism combined with economic populism. There was a reason the Nazis were called “national socialists,” and it wasn’t because they believed in establishing a classless, stateless worker-controlled communism. It was because they knew how to speak to the same (genuine) economic grievances that actual socialists are concerned with. Many of the other contemporary white nationalists (including Spencer) talk the same way Carlson does about the way rich elites are amassing wealth and power for themselves and leaving crumbs to the workers. (Of course they often also claim that these elites are a cabal of nefarious Jews, which Carlson does not.) “Anticapitalism” is “one of the main points of agreement of the Nationalist Front, a coalition of roughly 10 American neo-Nazi groups organized in 2016 by Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Worker Party, an anti-gay, anti-Semitic group linked to street violence.” The far right often talks about legitimate economic difficulties, but pins their causes on the marginalized. (This is one reason why the “were Trump voters economically anxious or were they racists?” question is poorly framed: racism is often fueled by people’s perceived or real loss of economic status and concern about their economic future. Their genuine hardship leads to scapegoating and hatred.)
Carlson is a white nationalist making the arguments of neo-nazis.
Look, how about we say for first person who gets in trouble for punching this guy in the face, I will pay his legal bills. The Left and the Right ought to be able to agree on that much, amirite? Or would that be divisive?
I’m pretty sure Mexico would pay for that.
Another guy who got harassed after Tucker spread hateful lies about him.
And here’s the deal: people get doxxed all the time by right-wing nuts. Most of them are ordinary people who happened to say something that some group of wingnuts took offense at. They usually don’t have much in the way of resources to deal with the crap that gets thrown at them.
But Tucker Carlson’s fucking rich. He earns more in a year than most people will see in their lifetimes. If he feels the need for a security detail outside his door 24/7 for the next year, he can afford it. Christine Blasey Ford can’t. W. Kamau Bell probably can’t. The guy who tweets as Sleeping Giants can’t.
If Tucker was saying, “this shouldn’t have happened, but at least it happened to someone like me that has the resources to keep his family safe, but think of all the people who are on the receiving end of this sort of treatment who aren’t so lucky,” I might actually have a smidgen of respect for him. Instead, he’s just “me, me, me.” Stuff like this shouldn’t be happening to him. And that’s as far as it goes for him.
Fuck him.
Personally, I’d take a selfie of my self standing right next to one, wearing an “I’m With Stupid” [arrow sign pointed toward tiki torcher] shirt.