@techsouth saidThe actions and rhetoric of U.S. conservatives indicate they condone and even defend political violence.
Okay. Tell me what is the point?
Who supports political violence? What causes it?
Tucker Carlson to this day defends the Jan 6th rioters, conservatives on this site like Mott either downplay the riots or claim it was liberal conspiracy, etc. Trump once asked his crowd to "knock the crap out" of protesters, resulting in them being attacked at more than one rally.
JJ Adams recently rushed to the defense of white supremacists on a thread about the Buffalo mass shooting.
"Who supports" it? Apparently, your kind does.
19 May 22
@vivify saidOnce again, I will re-ask the question.
The actions and rhetoric of U.S. conservatives indicate they condone and even defend political violence.
Tucker Carlson to this day defends the Jan 6th rioters, conservatives on this site like Mott either downplay the riots or claim it was liberal conspiracy, etc. Trump once asked his crowd to "knock the crap out" of protesters, resulting in them being attacked at more t ...[text shortened]... ists on a thread about the Buffalo mass shooting.
"Who supports" it? Apparently, your kind does.
Why don't we just make it illegal to disagree with democrats?
Let's say I have a problem with how Jan 6th is being handled and how it is being framed. What should I be free to say that would not be seen as condoning violence?
19 May 22
@techsouth saidDisagree all you want. Just don't plot to blow up people you disagree with.
Once again, I will re-ask the question.
Why don't we just make it illegal to disagree with democrats?
Let's say I have a problem with how Jan 6th is being handled and how it is being framed. What should I be free to say that would not be seen as condoning violence?
19 May 22
@vivify saidAnd yet again, we come full circle with those on the left being oblivious to their inconsistency?
Disagree all you want. Just don't plot to blow up people you disagree with.
So by your standard, who has Tucker Carlson blown up?
How many times can we go back and forth before you realize your inconsistency?
19 May 22
@techsouth saidWhen you defend deliberate, organized violence, like Tucker's defense of Jan 6th rioters, you're condoning that violence.
And yet again, we come full circle with those on the left being oblivious to their inconsistency?
So by your standard, who has Tucker Carlson blown up?
How many times can we go back and forth before you realize your inconsistency?
Let me guess: unless Tucker actually says on live TV "go kill people", you won't believe his speech promotes violence...right?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
@vivify saidnext thing you know they will be mowing them down at baseball games
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-07-15/2-charged-with-plotting-to-blow-up-democratic-headquarters
2 Charged With Plotting to Blow up Democratic Headquarters
Two California men have been charged with plotting to blow up the Democratic Party's headquarters in the state capital, a bombing they hoped would be the first in a series of politica ...[text shortened]... 45 to 50 firearms, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and five pipe bombs, prosecutors said.
@vivify saidI don't watch Tucker often, but I am absolutely certain he does not condone violence.
When you defend deliberate, organized violence, like Tucker's defense of Jan 6th rioters, you're condoning that violence.
Let me guess: unless Tucker actually says on live TV "go kill people", you won't believe his speech promotes violence...right?
Edit: To answer your question... If Tucker gave the charge on live TV for someone to "go kill people", then at that point, I'd believe Tucker condones violence. That's quite the hypothetical though, isn't it?
But tell me more, how has Tucker "[defended] deliberate, organized violence"?
Is it something like "they were right to commit violence", or is it more like "many of the protestors who committed no violent act are languishing in jail"?
Or is it something like "the 2020 election has some troublesome irregularities"?
If he cannot say the latter 2 without being accused of condoning violence, then it appears you are in favor of making it illegal to disagree with democrats.
If you have a quote, in context from Tucker Carlson that condones violence, post it. But enough of these unsubstantiated assertions that TC condones violence because he disagrees with Democrats on some issue pertaining to Jan 6th.
I'll repeat once more, it is possible to disagree with some aspects of how Jan6th is being handled or the narrative framed that is not, in any way, condoning violence, even if we know some violence happened on Jan6th. How is it you can't understand that?
But as far as condoning violence, consider this...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html
And consider the "dodge" by the NY Democrat congressman, who seems to condone violence by his defense of Maxine Waters. Find any major figure on the right who has encouraged confrontations toward violence this clear.
19 May 22
@techsouth saidTucker defends violent insurrectionists: he is condoning violence.
I don't watch Tucker often, but I am absolutely certain he does not condone violence.
JJ Adams defended whites supremacists on a thread where one of them targeted and murdered blacks: he is condoning violence.
When Trump says "knock the crap out" of anyone who protests against him, he is promoting violence.
Condoning violence doesn't have to be explicit. You don't have to say "I'm glad he was murdered" to condone violence.
19 May 22
@vivify saidThere were more than 100,000 people protesting in DC on Jan 6th.
Tucker defends violent insurrectionists: he is condoning violence.
JJ Adams defended whites supremacists on a thread where one of them targeted and murdered blacks: he is condoning violence.
When Trump says "knock the crap out" of anyone who protests against him, he is promoting violence.
Condoning violence doesn't have to be explicit. You don't have to say "I'm glad he was murdered" to condone violence.
Tucker has maybe said something like "not all of them were violent". Or he has perhaps said that those accused should have a chance to post bail. He has perhaps suggested that it wasn't an insurrection. And maybe he has posited that there could have been some provocateurs there. All of these would entail disagreeing with Democrats, but none of them entail condoning violence.
Once again, may I ask that you post something specific he has said that you say is condoning violence.
Let's say that I say the following:
Rioters arrested on Jan6th have the right to a lawyer and should be allowed to post bail in most cases.
Have I, or have I not condoned violence?
If a court appointed lawyer fulfills his legal obligation to mount a defense for an accused Jan6th rioter, is he somehow "defending violent insurrectionists" and thus condoning violence?
What if someone is accused of committing violence and that person says he didn't commit violence. Are we condoning violence by suggesting that the prosecutors need to produce evidence?
With so many potential legitimate reasons to disagree with a narrative or process, you can understand why I'm asking for a specific example of what Tucker Carlson has said that supposedly condones violence. So far, I can only imagine him saying things that a reasonable person might think and say, albeit that it would disagree with the preferred Democratic narrative.
So far you've said nothing to convince me that you are willing to hold Republicans morally culpable for nothing more egregious than disagreeing with Democrats.