People who celebrate the murder of their political opponents are not participating in the marketplace of ideas, they are encouraging deadly political violence by building a permission structure to legitimize and justify the murder of those they disagree with.
My freedom of speech means I get to clearly and succintly explain to the whole world that if you call for the assassination of your rivals this is not free speech, it is a direct incitement to political violence.
John Stewart Mill gave a famous example where he said that if someone claims corn dealers are starvering the poor this can be allowed if circulated through the press, but is not allowed when shouted in front of an excited mob assembled outside the house of a corn dealer....
1/ The Radical Left has used political violence to advance their cause for decades. What's new is the progressive left's professional class building a permission structure to justify the use of political violence
It's called Assassination Culture, and we need to talk about it
🧵
2/ To understand what's happening, you need to understand that the line between progressive-left professional class and radical left has been blurred. The extremist radical left and the socially progressive "bluesky left" are increasingly intertwined both socially and politically
3/ This is because many of the extremist radical from the 60's and 70' who advocated for, and participated in, the use of political violence have been welcomed into the mainstream institutions that are run by the progressive left professional class.
Look at the number of pro-athletes posting condolences about Charlie Kirk, and you'll see what a huge cultural figure he was.
He wasn't just famous in conservative circles, his clips debating college students were a loadbearing pillar of online political pop-culture
His willingness to calmly and politely debate all comers on any issue (at the very moment when cancel culture was strongest and people were afraid to say what they think) made him a sort of lovable internet folkhero.
He was an indelible piece of the online landscape.
Charlie was not quarantined to the "conservative ghetto" of online content; he broke contain and became a mainstream cultural figure.
Charlie became the cultural symbol of free debate, free speech, and settling differences in public with words
What he is describing here is the deconstruction of America as an ideal. The goal is to destroy America by subverting the conception of America as a force for good which sustains American confidence, and attacking the founding narrative from which America derives it's legitimacy.
They will try to redefine America in a way which subverts the legitimacy of America as a national project. They want to erase the current American narrative, and replace it with a new one which grants them the right to inherit America's wealth, power, prestige, and influence.
They will attack America the same way they attacked Universities: by undermining legitimacy, authority, and self-confidence by asserting that the whole project is just racism, colonialism, and oppression in disguise.
2/ on racist resentment against white people and racialist identity politics, complete with the racist stereotyping.
This shows a continuity of thinking over a period of a decade, and there has been no take back, or explanation for the disgustingly racist tweets she made.
3/ Chris said he didn't care if she was fired, the point was to use her posts to force the New Yorker to choose between equal enforcement of bans on hiring racists who make racist content, or to be explicit that racism against Jews and whites is allowed...