I’m asking people to grapple with why others justify political violence.

I answered this, albeit obliquely, in another post.

If you’re an idealogue, and cannot accomplish your objective politically, you look for another way to accomplish those objectives. Violence of this sort is simply politics by another means.

What has disturbed me more than a little is this sort of rationalization:

I’m not going to degrade the conversation by pointing out on how many levels that tweet is intellectually dishonest; it should be obvious even to a child.

But the argument is being advanced by the left that white supremacy is so noxious that it rightfully is met by citizen force, of which Antifa is at the vanguard. Again, those advancing the argument do not consider the ultimate end of what they are suggesting.

That’s not “violence”, that’s vigilanteism. It’s people in black masks taking it up on themselves to be judge and jury of a certain set of crimes, disregarding the rule of law, and vetting the punishment themselves out of anger.

This chaotic “legal process” has already led to disgraceful actions:

But our condemnations mean very little to the folks who are willing to use violence and put themselves in harm’s way.

Condemnations mean even less when they’re sullied by moral equivocation. And your screed about “both-sides-ism” suggests an axiom which belittles debate, rather than advances it.

And that’s a risky place to be when two rabid dogs are fighting it out. Eventually, one dog will win, and turn on the people who either supported or ignored it.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.