The problem with this essay (besides DHH's hyperbolic prose, e.g., "woke orthodoxies") is that DHH, not having grown up in the US, doesn't realize that the normalization of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms. The ACLU was once one of the preeminent leftwing political organizations in America, and it distinguished itself through unwavering advocacy on behalf of ALL forms of offensive speech, including flag burning and extreme pornography, but also extremist politics. Progressives who thought the answer to bad speech was more speech and that sunlight was the best disinfectant were once plentiful.
DHH's misstep is that he's resorting to arguing he and others are being falsely labeled as "Nazis," but conceding, even implicitly, the assumption that it's OK to respond to speech (and only rightwing speech; "tankies" and Sharia-pushing Islamists always fit through the Overton window) with violence is already surrendering too much.
> doesn't realize that the normalizing of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms.
What alternative history you are talking about here?
Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already. As far as American right wing goes, violence is a cool thing that makes you manly man. It is just that it should go one way only - from them to others.
> Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already
I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents--not encourage his followers to assault them. I couldn't find anything about him "promoting violence for years."
Kirk supported deporting naturalized citizens for their support of palestine.
Professors on TPUSA's watchlist regularly received death threats. I know at least one who left the country. Kirk clearly knew of this effect of the watchlist.
> I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
You are lying here. Literally across the board, left leaders denounced the attack.
Unlike right wing leaders and politicians who praise violence and literally call for violence. Right wing politicians engaged in violent rhetoric for years already and it always makes them more popular. It is manly man to be violent, as long as you are also conservative or on the right.
> And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents
His literal entry into politics was organized harassment campaign against his list of suspect leftists. After attack on Pelosi husband, he said that he hopes an 'amazing patriot' will bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker.
Bullshit, it was not debate by any reasonable definition. His legacy was toxic environment he consciously created. He should not be murdered, but that does not mean I am going to pretend he was somehow interested in something positive.
I'll make this simple for you: do most leftists currently agree with "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" (and other variations)? Yes (even back in 2017, per the poll I cited, that was the case). Do most conservatives agree with "punch/kill Marxists/Islamists/Anarchists" (and similar variations)? No. That's the issue. Pointing to the mere existence, or even the magnitude, of rightwing political violence, doesn't negate this fact, viz., that orthodox leftwing thought now condones, if not encourages, violence in response to speech.
EDIT: even in this very thread, there are examples:
> . Do most conservatives agree with "punch/kill Marxists/Islamists/Anarchists" (and similar variations)?
Yes they do. Most conservatives support harm and violence to those who are not them. You see that on who they vote for, on what they say and what kind of influencers they promote.
> do most leftists currently agree with "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" (and other variations)
No they dont. They leaders openly dont. And they do not vote for those who promote violence.
Then in the 2010s, the "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" messaging took off, and now the consensus position on the left is that it's acceptable to use violence in response to speech: https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally...
DHH's misstep is that he's resorting to arguing he and others are being falsely labeled as "Nazis," but conceding, even implicitly, the assumption that it's OK to respond to speech (and only rightwing speech; "tankies" and Sharia-pushing Islamists always fit through the Overton window) with violence is already surrendering too much.