MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Threatening Cable News Hosts Doesn't Help Anyone

Whether it's Tucker Carlson or Don Lemon, violent threats are the wrong way to go.

Screenshots via YouTube (Fox News, CNN)Screenshots via YouTube (Fox News, CNN)Here's a not-so-shocking take: Threatening people you don't like, even controversial cable news hosts, is not productive.

Well, yes, one might say. Responding to views you dislike with violence or violent threats is clearly wrong. That should be pretty obvious. But apparently it's not obvious to everyone.

Yesterday evening, about 20 people showed up in front of Fox News host Tucker Carlson's home. A video posted to Twitter by the group Smash Racism D.C., which has since been suspended from the platform, revealed what the protesters were saying.

"Tucker Carlson, we are outside your home," said one person with a bullhorn, according to The Washington Post. "We want you to know, we know where you sleep at night." The other protesters reiterated the point, chanting: "Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!"

In a since-deleted Facebook post, Smash Racism D.C. had an ominous warning for the conservative TV host: "Each night you remind us that we are not safe. Tonight, we remind you that you are not safe either."

Carlson, who was at his office prepping for his show at the time, claims the activists damaged his door. Moreover, he claims that security video shows a protester mentioning a "pipe bomb."

It's not clear how the protesters were able to find Carlson's home address—but once they did, they doxxed him. Smash Racism D.C. posted his address (as well as the address of his friend and Daily Caller co-founder Neil Patel) to Twitter.

Meanwhile, an Arkansas man was arrested Tuesday for allegedly making death threats against CNN anchor Don Lemon. According to a press release from the Baxter County Sheriff's Office, 39-year-old Benjamin Craig Matthews has been charged with "terroristic threatening" (five counts in the first degree, four in the second) and harassing communications (nine counts).

In one of his calls to CNN, Matthews allegedly threatened to beat up Lemon. It didn't end there, the Baxter Bulletin reports:

The next day, Matthews is accused of calling the network six times in the span of 23 minutes. During one of the calls Matthews reportedly asked to be directed to Lemon's "dead body hanging from a tree."

During another call in that short span, Matthews reportedly asked the operator to help kill Lemon.

One Nov. 2, the next, Matthews is accused of placing another six calls to the network during another 23-minute time span. In three of those calls, Matthews is accused of asking his calls be directed to "pipe bombs for Don Lemon.

If Smash Racism D.C.'s goal was bring attention to how horrible Carlson is, then its actions backfired badly. In Matthews' case, it's not even clear what the goal was. In both incidents, it's highly unlikely that the threats made anyone change their views about Carlson or Lemon; nor are Carlson and Lemon likely to change their public positions. Even if the protests "worked," of course, that wouldn't make them right: It should go without saying that while protesting someone's views is perfectly acceptable, doxxing them and making violent threats is not.

It should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said.

Photo Credit: Screenshots via YouTube (CNN, Fox News)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    A mob of 20 people showing up at someone's house and terrorizing their wife is not equivilent to one nut in Arkansas calling the CNN offices in New York and threating to assault Don Lemon. Can't you just write about the Carlson incident and condem it? Do you have to scrape the bottom of the barrell and make such a blatent false equivilence just so everyone knows that the evil right is just as bad?

    Come on. This is laughable.

  • Mr. JD||

    Oh, come on. It's just like how CNN was quick to remind everyone that William Clyde Allen mailing ricin to Trump was just as bad as Cesar Sayoc mailing packages to Obama!

  • ThomasD||

    The only way they were ever going to cover the Carlson incident is if they could turn it into a 'pox on both houses' situation.

    It's right there in the Reason stylebook.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    A pox on both their houses is the only rational play.

  • ThomasD||

    Purposefully missing the point is still missing the point.

  • Just Say'n||

    And what houses are private individuals a part of?

  • Just Say'n||

    Or are you speaking literally about Carlson's actual house where people trying to forcibly break in?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Don't pretend like you don't know what I meant.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Right after you stop the false equivalencies. But it won't matter after global warming kills everyone, right?

  • ThomasD||

    That's some fine irony right there.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    World coming to an end: women amd minorities most effected.

  • AER1972||

    Nick G. is hoping to become a part of Lemon's incredible on air brain trust of lemming-like sycophants. So yes it is right out of the Reason style book. How hard did they have to look to find this nut job so they could say "look both sides are bad". Sorry no equivalence between a mob trying to beat down a door and assault a spouse and a lone uneducated nut job threatening an equally nutty and uneducated cable news entertainer.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Even more relevant is the fact that senior Democrat Party leaders have openly and explicitly called on their supporters to do what the Carlson hooligans did.

    You cannot be civil. Hillary Clinton
    You push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. Maxine Waters
    We kick Trump supporters. Eric Holder
    Get in their face. Barack Obama

    There's no serious analogous example from GOP leaders. If you think that Trump's utterances have actually welcomed such behavior by his supporters, then I'll add Obama's "bring a gun" into the mix because that would be just as disingenuous.

  • Heraclitus||

    This. You purposely left out context. I wonder why?

  • CatoTheChipper||

    I left context out of Obama's "bring a gun" comment because it was intended as a humorous movie reference to "The Untouchables" rather than as an exhortation for militant Democrats to employ intimidation, threats, and violence. In context, Obama was exhorting Democrat activists to be a bit more obnoxious with conservative family and acquaintances than in the past, but only in political argumentation. I thought that was pretty clear.

  • CLM1227||

    Because the Trump example has the context of his supporters defending themselves from rioters throwing garbage at them... which is frequently ignored when the quote is brought up.

    You get A+ in analogizing.

  • AER1972||

    Well said and so true. I squirm every time I hear some progressive fall over themselves to say there are extremists on both sides. Then they invariably say it starts with the President all the while ignoring the half baked rantings of Waters, Clinton, Holder and Booker

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    My aunt is like that. Last week we had that exact discussion where she explained the things Trump says are horrible, yet Maxine Waters rankings are perfectly reasonable. This from a retired college professor.

  • Don't look at me!||

    I thought Trump was Hitler. (Trying hard to keep up).

  • Rogers1234||

    I thought Hilary was Hitler

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    This was my first thought as I was reading the article. The best they could find was some idiot making crank calls from NINE states away. Cocktail parties uber alles!

  • Fats of Fury||

    Good thing they had Matthews, otherwise they'd have to dig up the guy who posted the video of Trump wrestling the CNN logo. CNN was tewwowized by that guy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No John, they can't. Reason clings to false equivalences at every opportunity. This problem is caused 100% by progressives. Period.

  • AER1972||

    Amen (meant nonsecular for the Libertarian/progressive purists)

  • Incredulous||

    Yes, it's ridiculous. There's no equivalency - at all. In one case, the group acted on its threats and placed Mr. Carlson and his family in physical danger. Now, his address has been publicized by them as well.

    They should be prosecuted as terrorists.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>"terroristic threatening" (five counts in the first degree, four in the second) and harassing communications (nine counts).

    first degree phoning!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "was bring attention to how horrible Carlson"

    Right wing tv personality subject of terrorist threats. Reason calls him "horrible".

  • John||

    Why is Carlson so horrible? It would be interesting to hear Joe explain that. And I would hope he finds more wrong with this than just that it backfired.

    And why isn't Don Lemon horrible?

  • DiegoF||

    Lemon is certainly horrible, but ridiculous enough that that makes it a little less offensive.

    Carlson is horrible because of that "puzzled" face that he theatrically affects when a guest from the side he doesn't agree with says something idiotic, or when a guest from the side he does is talking about idiotic things that his opponents say.

  • Jerryskids||

    What was the term Ken White used? The face of a dog studying calculus? Nailed it right there.

  • Nuwanda||

    Yeah, it's an in-joke, and you're not in on it. He knows his viewers can see it. It's done on purpose.

    You don't think Carlson's impartial, do you? I don't. Doesn't mean he doesn't have some value as a commentator. Reason, et al., sure as hell ain't partial, and often give figurative winks to their audience, but how does that affect their value?

  • DiegoF||

    It would seem you are mostly not in on my joke! My small observation of one of his tics certainly does not mean I think he is a horrible person in any kind of significant way; I chose a "horrible" quality that it would be cartoonishly absurd to care about.

    Obviously I knew he did it on purpose so that his viewers could see it; how else could one do something "theatrically"?

    I did not though know that it was an actual in-joke for his audience--that Tucker pulls silly faces when his guest is talking. I suppose that's rather plausible. It's not something that's really to my stylistic taste personally, whether or not one is doing a commentary/analysis show does not make much of a difference.

  • AER1972||

    This is what passes for modern Libertarian thought? Hey progressive yoyo, Carlson is far more entertaining than most and typically hits it out of the park. His facial expressions confirm what most of the audience is thinking which is "are you serious?" Libertarian Progressives like your self don't like him because he has called you out on the open borders /welfare state insanity that you all support. In addition to Libertarian progressive lack of concern for the opioid epidemic. I once thought that Libertarians were true patriots but it appears you are all much closer akin to progressive globalists who really want to see the end of the Republic

  • Dillinger||

    also, "how horrible Carlson" what? words are missing.

  • ThomasD||

    "words are missing."

    I suspect the missing word is 'is.'

    But that's just an inference, and frankly, given the stellar writing, and brilliant editing, it's really fucking hard to tell.

  • ThomasD||

    But do note that the lack of scare quotes around 'horrible' does indicate that SloJoe is not putting words into the mouths of fascists.

    Those are his own.

  • Cathy L||

    Yes, words are missing because in context it's obvious Setyon is describing the motivations of the people who attacked Carlson's home, not calling Carlson horrible himself.

  • Just Say'n||

    www.twitter.com/KatMurti/statu.....2432436224

    Exactly. Just like this. She's just noting what antifa believes

  • Juice||

    How is Tucker Carlson racist?

  • ||

    Kat Murti
    @KatMurti
    3h3 hours ago
    More
    Libertarian doesn't mean "cool with racism." Racism is the result of collectivizing individuals, which is inherently anti-libertarian.

    I love the idea of a Libertarian Party that refuses collectivism in all forms.

  • Just Say'n||

    What's honestly the difference between this framing and the progressive mantra "words are violence"?

  • ||

    Hearing dog whistles, are we?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Are you questioning the journalistic rationale behind validating the claims of terrorists?

  • Dillinger||

    >>>"We want you to know, we know where you sleep at night."

    first degree bullhorning!

    FedGov threatens us this way all day and all of the night?

  • Just Say'n||

    LOL- you just "both sides" a man making a threat against Don Lemon with an organized mob trying to break down someone's door?

  • John||

    It is pretty remarkable isn't it? If some nut called your work from Arkansas and said he wanted to kick your ass you would feel just as threatened as you would if a mob of people showed up at your house screaming they knew were you lived and were going to get you. It is totaly the same.

    Does the author of this piece not realize how absurd he sounds? Is the fart bubble they live in so thick they really can't see that?

  • Here for the outrage||

    It's almost like the editors are a bunch of collectivists "fighting the good fight," creating false equivalencies, because the ends justify the means.

    Orange man bad

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Is Tucker Cason the guy who used to be on CNN and would always wear a bow-tie? (I haven't watched cable news in a long time.)

    Is he actually openly racist? That seems unlikely.

    Can things get any more stupid or have we reached peak idiocy?

  • Just Say'n||

    Anyone who questions open borders is now by default racist.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm old enough to remember when the Left would have praised someone like Carlson for his anti-interventionist views. Of course I also remember when bleeding heart libertarians would have done the same. Of course, now they're both stridently pro-war so long as it's woke

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Who here is pro-war? Why do you keep resurrecting this strawman?

  • Just Say'n||

    Are we really going to play this game where we pretend as if support for Russia sanctions and conspiracy theories related to Russia weren't a hallmark of the woke brand of libertarianism just recently?

    www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opi.....trump.html

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Who here has supported sanctions against Russia? Another strawman.

  • Just Say'n||

    Cathy Young's article calling for sanctions against Russia was a front page column a year ago. Also, note that the NYT article from above was written by Julian Sanchez.

    www.reason.com/archives/2017/0.....libertaria

    If you are suggesting that I overly generalized or that I was referring to any particular commentators then I guess you're right. That was an overly broad statement on my part.

  • ||

    How long are you going to keep carrying around that one article to prove your point and ignoring the constant stream of articles that don't?

    You're getting to be like Joe from Lowell with that one article about the Iraq invasion from 2003.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Joe from Lowell with that one article about the Iraq invasion from 2003."

    That Brink Lindsey article is classic, Square.

  • Just Say'n||

    I conceded the point to Chipper about the overgeneralization. I don't think you can say that I don't cede a point when it's refuted.

  • ||

    I conceded the point to Chipper about the overgeneralization. I don't think you can say that I don't cede a point when it's refuted.

    Maybe in the moment you do. But are you going to stop accusing Reason of secretly supporting sanctions against Russia? I doubt it.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Reason of secretly supporting sanctions against Russia?"

    Is it a secret if they have a front page article advocating it?

  • ||

    Is it a secret if they have a front page article advocating it?

    If it's one article weighed against dozens if not hundreds condemning sanctions, including sanctions against Russia?

    Don't be that guy.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Don't be that guy."

    Nah. I tried to engage with you civilly but you enjoy this way better it would appear.

    Your links broken by the way. Good straw man, though

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's literally one writer at Reason. You can't generalize from that to Reason as a whole. If you are gonna do that, I can argue that Reason is ancap, because Sheldon Richman has written articles for Reason.

  • Just Say'n||

    It should be noted that you've changed the conversation, however. I overgeneralized, but I didn't specifically say "Reason". You imparted that connotation. I even provided an article from Julian Sanchez to begin with.

  • John||

    Trump's strange appeasement of Russia

    http://reason.com/blog/2018/04.....-putin-new

    The president has felt compelled to go along with some measures proposed by his advisers in response to Russia's aggressive behavior. But Trump has been reluctant. Though he was persuaded to provide weapons to Ukraine, he wanted it kept secret.

    He agreed to banish 60 Russian diplomats over the poisoning. But when France and Germany each expelled only four, reports The Washington Post, he was "furious that his administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia."

    The irony of Steve Chapman, a guy who made his entire career defending one odious regime after another from the evil American government now claiming that Trump isn't tough enough on Russia is staggering to behold.

  • Calidissident||

    Cathy Young wrote a pro-Russian sanctions article once, so everyone at Reason loves war is my favorite brand of brilliant Just Say'n logic.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's a clever way to misconstrue what was discussed in the this conversation.

  • John||

    And Steve Chapman as well. And if it is published in Reason, it doesn't necessarily represent the opinion of everyone at reason, but it does necessarily represent what reason considers to be acceptable opinion within the scope of Libertarian thought. Otherwise, why would they publish it?

    So, how is it that sanctions against Russia are accepable libertarian thought but tariffs on China are not? Clearly reason doesn't consider support of tariffs on China to be acceptable Libertarian opinion because despite publishing dozens of articles on the subject, they have never once published an article supporting them.

    So tell me Calidissident, why are sanctions on Russia now an acceptable opinion in the land of the "meh principles" free trader Libertarians?

  • Just Say'n||

    "So, how is it that sanctions against Russia are accepable libertarian thought but tariffs on China are not?"

    A better question is why sanctions against Russia are acceptable, but those against Iran are not. It's a logical fallacy.

  • ||

    A better question is why sanctions against Russia are acceptable, but those against Iran are not. It's a logical fallacy.

    The best thing about Right Answers is that they're always Correct in every context.

  • ||

    So, how is it that sanctions against Russia are accepable libertarian thought but tariffs on China are not?

    She wasn't arguing "sanctions on Russia are desirable." She was saying "sanctions on Russia would be preferable to going to war with Russia."

    Are we having a similar conversation about China? Or is there some economic reason being advanced?

  • John||

    She wasn't arguing "sanctions on Russia are desirable." She was saying "sanctions on Russia would be preferable to going to war with Russia."

    Pretty much everything is. But it is not an either or situation. We can not go to war and not put sanctions if we so choose.

    Tariffs are preferable to going to war with China. There is no defending reason here. This is worse than trying to defend Soave.

  • ||

    Tariffs are preferable to going to war with China.

    Who's agitating for war with China?

  • Just Say'n||

    Who's agitating war with Russia?

    This was your argument:

    "Especially when the point being made by the article was that if the choice is between sanctions and war, sanctions would be preferable."

    Next time try to maintain even the semblance of consistency in your arguments

  • Just Say'n||

    "She wasn't arguing "sanctions on Russia are desirable." She was saying "sanctions on Russia would be preferable to going to war with Russia."

    By that logic then tariffs against China are preferable to war. Now, of course, I invented that dichotomy, much like Cathy, because no one is advocated for war with either China or Russia.

    It's convenient to take a position and then to use a straw man to make your position sound reasonable and moderate

  • ||

    Cathy Young wrote a pro-Russian sanctions article once, so everyone at Reason loves war is my favorite brand of brilliant Just Say'n logic.

    Especially when the point being made by the article was that if the choice is between sanctions and war, sanctions would be preferable.

  • Just Say'n||

    I think you accepting the characterization that this was the topic at hand from the beginning is pretty unfair of you, Square. I don't attempt to mischaracterize your points.

    "Especially when the point being made by the article was that if the choice is between sanctions and war, sanctions would be preferable."

    A false choice that she invented since no one was calling for a war. But, please do explain to me the twisted logic of taking issue with Iran sanctions while advocating for Russian sanctions.

  • Just Say'n||

    "I'm old enough to remember when the Left would have praised someone like Carlson for his anti-interventionist views. Of course I also remember when bleeding heart libertarians would have done the same. Of course, now they're both stridently pro-war so long as it's woke"

    This is what Chipper and I were discussing and I ceded the point that the "bleeding heart libertarians" portion was over broad.

    But, thank you for reading minds, Square. I'll be sure to be as uncharitable to you in the future.

  • ||

    I think you accepting the characterization that this was the topic at hand from the beginning is pretty unfair of you, Square. I don't attempt to mischaracterize your points.

    That's pretty rich. Mischaracterizing people's points is your stock-and-trade. Of course, you seem to think of is as "sussing out what people really mean."

    What Chipper responded to was you saying "The Left" and "bleeding heart libertarians" are now "both stridently pro-war so long as it's woke."

    Chipper asked you who here is pro-war and why you keep making this accusation. You responded with a link to an NYT piece on the Russian-meddling narrative and declaring that Cathy Young's call for sanctions is of a piece with this "war-mongering" narrative, with the clearly-intended implication that this means that Reason is therefore "stridently pro-war."

    Me pointing out that Young's article was explicitly calling for sanctions as an alternative to war is not me changing the subject - it's me pointing out that you're deliberately misrepresenting Young's point in a tortured attempt to defend your obviously silly claim that Reason and "Woketarians" are "stridently pro-war."

    A false choice that she invented since no one was calling for a war.

    Other than John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, the Weekly Standard, and all the other usual shrieking Team Red voices.

  • Just Say'n||

    I agree that it was foolish of you to argue that Cathy Young was suggesting that tariffs were preferable to war and then dismissed John's suggestion that then tariffs against China were preferable to war. That doesn't make much sense.
    You said "Who's calling for war with China?"

    And I think you answered it best by just listing the usual:

    "Other than John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, the Weekly Standard, and all the other usual shrieking Team Red voices."

  • ||

    Except that all of those people explicitly were calling for war with Russia. If any of them are calling for war with China I missed it.

    And you're dodging past my actual response to John which was that the "sanctions" on China are not actually sanctions - they're tariffs being put in place for a stated economic purpose. This is not a case of "instead of responding to China's aggression with war we should consider a more measured response that the warmongers might accept as an alternative." This is "we want China to treat US-based businesses more fairly, so we're going to impose tariffs and maybe take few steps toward war."

    Your refusal to see the difference is not me putting words in your mouth. Stop the heresy-hunting for a moment and try to clear your head.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Except that all of those people explicitly were calling for war with Russia. If any of them are calling for war with China I missed it."

    Your links broken again

  • ||

    Your links broken again

    Are you seriously going with "none of those people called for war with Russia?"

    Really?

    And are you really going to just ignore everything I said about the difference between sanctions and tariffs?

    And you're accusing me of engaging in bad faith?

    Really?

    What is your actual point here? You really want to go to the mat calling Reason "strident war-mongers" and use this Cathy Young article as your airtight defense? Is it your obsession with calling Reason out as hypocrites because they publish differing viewpoints?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Just Say'n||

    I think many of them decided that it was better to be soft progressive on every issue than to stand on principles. But, please do tell me how supporting open borders is more central to limiting the role of the state and more of a humane objective than opposing overseas adventurism. Especially considering that the US already has perhaps the most liberal immigration policies in the world. But, clearly someone is a racist if they still prefer borders, but are definitely not racist when they push jingoism in order to bolster foreign overseas conflict.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Why do you insist it has to be one or the other? Classical libertarians are both antiwar and support open borders. End of story.

  • Just Say'n||

    The open borders part is a recent invention. But, I'd agree that support for liberal immigration (which is not necessarily open borders), is in fact a hallmark of classical liberalism.

    At the same time, I do not go around insinuating that people who support our involvement in Syria are "bigots". Primarily because ad hominems is a strong indicator that your position on a matter is more emotive than based on anything logical. But, the same can not be said for those who have adopted the open borders position.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Absolutely wrong. Here is the relevant part from the 1976 LP platform:

    The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments. We should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted travel and immigration.

  • Just Say'n||

    "We defend the rights of individuals to engage in any religious activ- ities which do not violate the rights of others. In order to defend religious freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and state. We oppose govemment actions which either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation."

    How does this fit in with the whole "bake the cake" stuff?

    My definition of classical liberalism extends beyond the LP. But, if we are to use the LP platform for what the defines classical liberalism then I suppose you can say that I am wrong to not support complete open borders. But, it would appear that I'm not the only who is presenting themselves as classically liberal, while ignoring the statements of the platform.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    We are not talking about "bake the cake" stuff right now. That's another discussion. We are also not talking about the current LP. That's why I brought out the original LP platform, which was written when Murray Rothbard was involved and which reflected the original principles of libertarianism as the philosophy solidified into a coherent vision. If you don't want to accept the LP platform as proof, fine. Find me ANY quote from a libertarian writer before about 1990 that reflects an opposition to open borders.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Find me ANY quote from a libertarian writer before about 1990 that reflects an opposition to open borders."

    You may be right on the point. To be fair, though, immigration was not really a primary topic of discussion then, however. And then, of course, comes the question of what is meant by "open borders". Are we talking about anyone who desires entry must be promptly admitted or do we mean anyone who desires entry who does not pose a threat must be promptly admitted. What I mean is if we are discussing an ideal minarchist "watchman state" wouldn't there still be security checks for people who desire admittance within the country?

    And I don't want to obfuscate, but I thought we were talking about "classical liberalism" and not "libertarianism", specifically. I think "classical liberalism" is a broader category. And that's what I was addressing.

  • ||

    How does this fit in with the whole "bake the cake" stuff?

    Holy shit, dude. Is this what you'll be screaming out as you rage against the dying of the light?

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm sorry, are you just here to read bits of comments and then read minds about what the conversation was about?

    Chipper noted that the LP platform called for open borders and that to oppose such a thing was un-libertarian (originally we were discussing classical liberalism, but then he changed it to libertarianism).

    And so I noted:

    "But, if we are to use the LP platform for what the defines classical liberalism then I suppose you can say that I am wrong to not support complete open borders. But, it would appear that I'm not the only who is presenting themselves as classically liberal, while ignoring the statements of the platform."

  • John||

    Whether Libertarianism can include both open borders and closed borders positions is a semantic question. I don't think there is a definitive answer to that. You think that Libertarianism precludes any position other than open borders and others disagree. Neither side is right or wrong. They just define the term differently.

    That, however, is a different question from whether supporting open borders is a good idea from a tactical point of view. Reality always forces you to choose between competing values and make comrpomises to achieve better but less than ideal results.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Whether Libertarianism can include both open borders and closed borders positions is a semantic question. I don't think there is a definitive answer to that.

    The open borders positions follows logically from the NAP. All arguments that try to use the NAP to justify closed borders are laughably bad.

  • John||

    If the NAP necessarily entails totally open borders, then it prohibits governments in general. Every law restricts people's freedom in some way. Moreover, it is highly debatable that the NAP prohibits popular sovereignty, which is all a nation state is. If a group of people collectively decide to own a piece of land, I don't see how the NAP requires them to let you enter it. And that is all a border is.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If a group of people collectively decide to own a piece of land, I don't see how the NAP requires them to let you enter it. And that is all a border is.

    I would be very careful with that line of reasoning, John. We can easily change that to:

    If a group of people collectively decide to own a piece of land, I don't see how the NAP requires them to let you own a gun.

    OR

    If a group of people collectively decide to own a piece of land, I don't see how the NAP requires them to let you keep your income.

    OR

    If a group of people collectively decide to own a piece of land, I don't see how the NAP requires them to let you speak your mind.

  • John||

    You are just begging the question. Gun rights and self defense are a human right. Is going across land collectively owned by other people a human right? Well that is kind of the entire issue isn't it? You are just assuming the answer is yes and then claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is violating human rights.

    If you want to claim people have no right to form soverienties and control the borders of those soveriegnties, then I don't see how you can claim that there is any right to have a government at all that enforces laws on a piece of land. If that is the case, Libertarian just becomes another word for anarchist.

  • ||

    The open borders positions follows logically from the NAP. All arguments that try to use the NAP to justify closed borders are laughably bad.

    Too bad the NAP isn't even all encompassing when it comes to aggression let alone libertarianism.

  • JesseAz||

    Open borders is not an isolated discussion amongst libertarians. One can recognize the incongruent nature of open borders and a welfare state and not be a racist. In fact classical libertarianism intrinsically linked the issues when discussed at length. Comparing an open borders argument from mid century with a lesser welfare state as a defense of open borders now with an increased welfare state is idiotic. Stop promoting the naive brand of libertarianism.

  • DiegoF||

    Whoever did that meme, they cannot be dismissed as a prog--because it is a good meme.

    Here again we see "alt-right" being used as the ultimate weasel word. From what I have seen, absolutely no one in the online crowds that the users of that subreddit travel in would use "alt-right" to mean anything but ethno-identitarians of some sort. This is the rather specific way it's used in those crowds--not whatever broad sense it may have been used, nor the broad "whomever we feel like insulting" sense the prog media uses it. So to suggest that adopting cultural conservatism or cultural nationalism like being for closed borders, or wanting to defend European culture, or being protectionist--well you might say any or all of those things are wrong, or are not libertarian, or even morally repugnant, whatever. But to say that libertarians got "infected" with them mostly through alt-right influence is factually ludicrous. And to say that adopting them makes you identical to the alt-right is insane.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I don't think true libertarians got infected. Rather, it was people that became attracted to libertarianism for the wrong reasons, and were really alt-right at heart, that later shifted to their true home. Examples include Christopher Cantwell, Stephan Molyneux, and Hans Herman Hoppe.

  • John||

    Believing in borders and understanding the costs of unrestricted immigration does not make you alt right at all. The Alt right are well and true tribalists who think that people are defined by their race such that tribal identity is all that matters.

    You can be for total closed borders because you want a tight labor market, you think we are risking becoming balkinized if we don't let the current immigrant polulation melt into the larger society, or because you think the world has become so dangerous that there is no safe way to have large scale immigration without being a tribalist or racialist in the way the SJWs and alt right are.

    You just accuse people of being Alt Right as a way to avoid defending your position and declaring all others to be morally illegitimate and therefore unworthy of rebuttal.

  • Just Say'n||

    I think the bogeyman of the "alt-right" should probably end. There was very little complaints about people supporting the existence of a border until progressives made it a racial issue. And then we suddenly saw the need for a certain brand of libertarianism, that is forever attempting to catch-up with the latest grievance of the Left, to attack anyone who even thought that some semblance of a border was OK.

  • John||

    I can't speak for Libertarianiam. But the idea that "classical liberalism" prohibits borders is just retarded. Classical liberalism was created in a time of nation states and always recognized the concept of borders and popular sovereignty. If Libertarians want to reject borders, good for them. But they need to stop lying and claiming that classical liberalism agrees with them because it doesn't.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's what I noted above. Chipper switched the topic from "classical liberal" to "libertarianism".

  • ||

    Chipper switched the topic from "classical liberal" to "libertarianism".

    Actually Chipper started with the "What happened to libertarianism?" meme and you started into your "you're No True Libertarian" thing, changing the subject to Classical Liberalism and Cake Baking over the course of it.

  • Just Say'n||

    I really didn't. You should probably read the conversation.

    It was a civil conversation and fair, as I usually have with Chipper. I wish I could say the same about you, but you seem to want to invent remarks that weren't made.

    Take care

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Thanks, man. I enjoy discussions with you. You are a good dude.

  • DiegoF||

    Liberalism and nationalism arose together, historically. The relationship between the two concepts has been interesting and complicated.

  • Kivlor||

    LMFAO Stefan Molyneux is "alt-right".

    You really are just some paid shill aren't you. Go home Sharia Blue.

  • ||

    Whoever did that meme, they cannot be dismissed as a prog--because it is a good meme.

    I disagree in this instance. It's not like some of the other memes where even if you don't agree with whatever premise, whatever's going on in the background is still funny. It requires you to be very much tuned into and/or agreeing with the creator before viewing the meme.

    Was libertarianism about to kick liberalism's ass before the alt-right stopped them? If communism, socialism, fascism, and alt-right are identical instances of the same virus attacking liberalism, how do we have so many brown-skinned (and other) socialists? How can a movement that's auspiciously white assimilate and convert a more diverse ideology? Turns out the whole clip is a lot of garbage to poorly convey this particular message. It was a bit of a tired trope when the Wachowskis adopted it, which is why they jazzed it up with special effects.

  • DiegoF||

    I have to admit I spoke from ignorance. I have never seen any of the sequels, which impedes my ability to make proper sense of the meme.

  • Red Tony||

    DRILL DRILL DRILL

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Can things get any more stupid or have we reached peak idiocy?

    There's no such thing as peak idiocy. Stupidity is the world's only infinite resource. It's just too bad there's no way to put it to good use.

  • Alcibiades||

    "Is he actually openly racist? That seems unlikely."

    Neither openly nor is there a smidgeon of evidence to suggest he is a closet racist.

    He's one of the better cable news presenters.

  • kevrob||

    Idiocy is no mountain, with a peak. It is an abyss, with no bottom. One can always reach a lower level of derp.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It is an abyss, with no bottom.

    And don't stare into the abyss for too long...

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    ....for it will stare back.

  • TuIpa||

    Look at you threatening people.

  • Alcibiades||

    Carlson had an exchange with Jon Stewart (who I really, really can't stand, he's an unfunny, smug, condescending little prick) a while back on CNN. Stewart was doing his smart alecky schtick, playing to the CNN audience but then in the closing seconds inserts foot firmly in mouth:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

  • John||

    Tucker seems to be a pretty smart guy. His show is from what little I have seen is a modern form of intellectual bear baiting where he goes and finds various crazy and stupid Progs and demolishes them for the entertainment of his audience.

  • Alcibiades||

    Tucker is great, he's described himself previously as small "L" libertarian. I don't agree with some of his positions but he's a firm advocate for the Bill of Rights, First Amendment, Second Amendment, due process etc. In other words the real basic and important stuff that the left abandoned ages ago cause it didn't get them what they wanted. My problem with his show is that he'll have guests on from the other side who clearly have no intention of engaging in debate and are just there to get their face on the box and for publicity. However, I understand from what Carson has said before, it's real difficult getting guests from the other side to appear on his show so they just have to do the best they can.

  • John||

    I don't agree with some of his positions but he's a firm advocate for the Bill of Rights, First Amendment, Second Amendment, due process etc.

    And yet, Reason still finds him horrible. Open borders seems to be the only issue reason cares about anymore. They will apologize for the worst socialist if they are pro open borders.

  • Alcibiades||

    Yeah I know, it's depressing, very, very depressing.

    It's obvious to me Carlson's worldview is pretty much mainstream America in almost all respects...and that makes it all the sadder.

  • JesseAz||

    He has people like Candace Owens on constantly. Having minorities who walked off the DNC plantation on his show and giving them a platform is racist.

  • Nardz||

    He had a woman from Alabama on once who's introduction was the characterization (not hers, but of her position) that "climate change is racist" (to paraphrase it).
    He engaged her skeptically at first, but fairly, and as she argued her beliefs they weren't at all ridiculous. She made the argument that pollution is generally shoved off to poorer areas, thus resulting environmental damage disproportionately harms the poor.
    I had to agree with her and to Carlson's credit, he came around from skeptical and initially dismissive to siding with her as well.
    It was satisfying to watch - a rare instance where an issue was brought up, explored honestly, and minds were changed.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The next day, Matthews is accused of calling the network six times in the span of 23 minutes. During one of the calls Matthews reportedly asked to be directed to Lemon's "dead body hanging from a tree."

    During another call in that short span, Matthews reportedly asked the operator to help kill Lemon.

    CNN doesn't have an automated phone menu system? No wonder their ratings are so low.

  • John||

    The guy asked the operator to help him kill Lemmon. I am just going to go out on a limb here and say that this guy is not in control of his mental faculties in the same way the mob that was outside Carlson's door were.

  • DiegoF||

    Joke's on him, crazy bastard; Lemmon's been dead since that horrible Odd Couple sequel killed him out of shame.

  • damikesc||

    But it was totes the same thing. Breaking a front door and crank calls are the exact same fucking thing.

    Much like how "rape" can now mean violent, unwanted intercourse OR rude comments. It's all the same, right?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Wait until the lefty violence increases after RBG is replaced by Trump.

    Fucking Lefty heads will explode!

  • Alcibiades||

    How is she doing?

    ...fingers crossed.

  • Anomalous||

    I hope she lives and decides to retire.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ditto. She can,Ive til 110 for all I care. Preferably retired.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    In Matthews' case, it's not even clear what the goal was.

    Dude was probably shit faced drunk in the middle of the day, and the 23 minutes is how long it took him to finally pass out in a puddle of his own vomit, shit, and urine. I say this as someone who lived for a while in Texarkana, TX, which is right on the Arkansas border so I'm quite familiar with the habits of the typical Arkansan.

    The "antifa" protectors, OTOH, are a bunch of spoiled perpetual children who grew up listening to grandma and grandpa's stories about the '60s and Woodstock and shit and how they "really did something" back then (newsflash: no they didn't) and now want to reenact their own little slice of the '60s.

    They're all pretty much worthless shitheads.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    One of these days the Panty-fa mob is going to be heading to someone's house to scare the person's kids (because that's their speed; a cowardly lot they are) but the GPS is going to give them wrong directions (heh I doubt if any of them have ever even seen an actual map) and they'll end up at the house of some crusty old Marine sergeant or Navy CPO. Hilarity will ensue.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'm picturing something like this happening

  • Alcibiades||

    Fingers crossed.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    LOL!

  • ThomasD||

    If it were me I'd be nice and start with the garden hose - give them a chance to get home in one piece.

  • Anomalous||

    I'd be a little less nice and show them the shotgun.

  • CLM1227||

    Turn on the irrigation system...

  • Number 2||

    I was thinking more like the home of someone with a vowel at the end of his name and no sense of humor. The thought of one of these "heroic" resistance fighters finding a severed horse head in his bed is probably too good to be true.

  • DajjaI||

    I follow these lefty mobs on twitter and basically they radicalize each other into a self-righteous frenzy. If you dare to question any aspect of their orthodoxy they all immediately block you. Meaning, there is no voice of moderation so they incite each other and then falsely believe that no one can or will oppose them. And yes the same thing happens on the right albeit they are more likely to respond with threats and bullying, though I agree that this mob is worse than the crazy Lemon caller (though not worse than the crazy bomb mailer or synagogue shooter).

    However I wish that twitter didn't delete the account because I would have liked to tell them not to act this way (yes of course I would have been blocked immediately). There is another org that I actually supported a few years ago but they did a GOP protest a few weeks ago where they got arrested and when I dared criticize them on Facebook they muted me. Fortunately I had the email of one of the members to complain to.

  • Just Say'n||

    "I follow these lefty mobs on twitter and basically they radicalize each other into a self-righteous frenzy."

    You just described how Twitter works for both sides

  • esteve7||

    This happens on other sites too. Friend of a Friend on FB posted some thing about how she wanted to punch that guy, and it was a picture of Jim Acosta and Trump, so I asked 'which one, or both'?

    Then the whole thread below was between her leftist friends saying: "I have to unfollow most of my friends.... I can't deal anymore. I was just thinking he is totally untouchable. He will probably win in 2020 too. I see no hope at all even after the midterms"

  • Mickey Rat||

    Hasn't Seyton been told whataboutism is an illegitimate argument?

  • Just Say'n||

    Not when talking about orange man bad

  • Nardz||

    Itd be a shame if seyton was physically beaten.
    Yep, a real shame...

  • HouseHubby||

    For me, the difference here is that it's one lone nut threatening Lemon, while it's an organized group of people getting their pitchforks and torches against Carlson.

    This is always how it goes...liberals love equating the lone nutjob as evidence of widespread systemic _________ (fill in the blank...racism, sexism, homophobia, islamaphobia, etc).

    There are always lone nut jobs, but the pitchfork groups are growing exponentially it seems.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The group mobbing Carlson's house is the same one that chased Ted Cruz and his wife out of a DC restaurant recently.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If someone got in my face like that it would likely effect my equilibrium in an adverse manner. Likely causing me to stumble forward. Now on the way down, it's possible, mind you, just possible that in a panicked attempt to break my fall, that I might grab the nutsack of the dipshit Antifa moron directly in front of me to break my fall. And confusedly also use the aforementioned nutsack to lull. Myself back up to my feet.

    Just possibly.

  • damikesc||

    This is always how it goes...liberals love equating the lone nutjob as evidence of widespread systemic _________ (fill in the blank...racism, sexism, homophobia, islamaphobia, etc).

    Like how THEIR excesses (slavery, Jim Crow, etc) are AMERICAN faults while Republican excesses (Watergate, etc) are specifically Republican ones.

  • jdgalt1||

    If the police won't do their job and keep these mobs away, the Carlson family needs some armed guards, and maybe their own guns.

  • Alcibiades||

    The Tucker Carlson household is armed, he's mentioned on air owning and shooting an AR-15.

    Much like this household:

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-
    home-invasion-shooting-no-charges-
    against-man-who-killed-3-intruders

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Will CNN, Which Has Repeatedly Defended/Justified Antifa Violence and Refused to Call Antifa Mobs "Mobs," "Claim Any Responsbility" for the Attempted Home Invasion on Tucker Carlson's Family, as They Demanded of Trump and the Not-a-Bomb Mailer?
    Well, here, we have a network that has repatedly defended, supported, and encouraged the very cell of antifa which is now attempting home invasions against journalists at rival networks -- will CNN claim any responsibility for excusing and encouraging their antifa allies?

    No, of course not.

    Not only will CNN not claim responsibility, or apologize for its previous apologism for antifa, but they'll barely cover it on their precious air.

    This is the network that screams "You're threatening the media!" when people chant "CNN sucks!"

    But when a violent domestic terrorist group that CNN has repeatedly supported threatens a journalist, busting through his door and chanting "We know where you sleep at night! We know how to fight!," CNN's response is... tepid.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Matthew Yglesias
    I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson's wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn't be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

    Why did Adam delete this?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Not surprised that sadbeard is incapable of empathizing with another human being. You know else is incapable of feeling empathy?

  • John||

    He is just a horrible human being. The fact that the Washington media still accepts him into polite society and seems in no way embarassed by being associated with him shows just how depraved they all are.

  • damikesc||

    I cannot ait until Yglesias dies. Not many people fall into that camp, but he is neck deep in it. He is a boil on the ass of humanity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    When I see what these progtards say and what these Antifa fucks do, it makes me very glad I am well armed at home. The next time some proggie piece of shit asks why I need an 'assault rifle', I'll reference the Carlson harassment. If an angry mob of twenty assholes stormed my house, I am very glad I have the firepower to stop all of them if necessary.

    And if they keep this up, something li,e that will eventually happen somewhere.

  • blondrealist||

    My advice to everybody: stop watching cable network news programs. CBS, NBC, and ABC news are easy to let go of too. The News Hour on PBS used to be somewhat reasonable - but I have not watched it years. I just find TV to be a waste of time for the most part. I cut the cable 14 years ago. If I want to watch March Madness or perhaps the Super Bowl or the Olympics, I get fine reception with my "rabbit ears" antenna. Other than that, I stick with streaming on NetFlix and Amazon Prime - on my schedule. Commercials? Don't miss them in the least. As far as news consumption goes, the internet is fine. I just sample Reason, NRO, The Atlantic, The Nation, and some of the Real Clear sites. Oh, almost forgot, I read the WSJ too, but that's mostly due to my profession (financial advisor) and my local newspaper.

  • Heraclitus||

    This comment thread is instructive. Many are expressing incredulity as to how anyone could consider Carlson problematic. This is arguing in extremely bad faith. There are plenty of articles you can find on the internet explaining why people think Carlson is problematic. Yes, you can disagree, but stop pretending he is not controversial.

  • Just Say'n||

    Besides neocons, can you name a non-progressive that progressives don't find controversial?

  • Just Say'n||

    Because someone gets offended more often than everyone else in no way means that they are right to be offended.

  • Bubba Jones||

    When I find TV shows "problematic", I turn them off.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm old enough to remember when this was the libertarian response to social conservatives when they were offended by Howard Stern.

  • DiegoF||

    Back when he was on WNBC?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I caught the reference. Nice.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The idea that Carlson is an appropriate target for a group claiming to be against racism is absurd. That he should have his home damaged and his wife feel like she is in physical danger is obscene.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Heraclitus, that would require stepping outside of the right-wing bubble for one second, which most commenters on here are simply not capable of doing.

  • Just Say'n||

    I feel as if I heard a version of this statement said before to justify the offense that social conservatives took with regards to TV programs in the 90's. I guess moral outrage over TV programs is not reserved to social conservatives.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I don't understand your point.

  • Just Say'n||

    My point is that it wasn't too long ago that liberals (not specifically of the modern variety) mocked social conservatives for complaining about Howard Stern on the radio or raunchy television programs. To the point where even their complaints about publicly funded provocative art work (think "piss Christ") were dismissed. And I don't disagree with that (although, I don't support the notion of public art).

    However, now the moral censors are from the progressive Left and there seems to be a lot more sympathy and attempts to scold those who offend the new moral censors that did not exist when social conservatives were the moral censors.

  • DiegoF||

    If one made a black Piss Christ would that be good or bad?

  • ||

    However, now the moral censors are from the progressive Left and there seems to be a lot more sympathy and attempts to scold those who offend the new moral censors that did not exist when social conservatives were the moral censors.

    Unless you look at the entire history of socially conservative censorship rather just the few moments before it died off.

  • Just Say'n||

    Rather than misconstrue your argument or read your mind as you are wont to do with me today, are you suggesting that there was a material difference between a progressive and a social conservative in the era of prohibition? It appears you want to ignore the historical censors of the progressive era to fit a truncated narrative that makes you comfortable

  • ||

    Who brought up prohibition?

    You said:

    there seems to be a lot more sympathy and attempts to scold those who offend the new moral censors that did not exist when social conservatives were the moral censors.

    Now you're saying that the "sympathy and attempts to scold those who offend the new moral censors" did exist when social conservatives were the moral censors, but it doesn't count because they called themselves "Progressives."

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm going to be honest. I don't understand the point here.

    You said: "Unless you look at the entire history of socially conservative censorship rather just the few moments before it died off."

    And I said: "are you suggesting that there was a material difference between a progressive and a social conservative in the era of prohibition?"

    Wasn't prohibition another form of censorship and morality policing? Isn't that also part of the history of progressivism?

    What I am noting is that we can accept that progressivism is a recent moral scold, but only if we ignore it's history. Much like you are arguing that "unless you look at the entire history of socially conservative censorship rather just the few moments before it died off". So to pretend as if being a moral scold is a recent phenomenon for progressivism is to deny its history. You argued the same for social conservatives.

  • ||

    What I am noting is that we can accept that progressivism is a recent moral scold, but only if we ignore it's history.

    That's not what you said at all. What you said was:

    there seems to be a lot more sympathy and attempts to scold those who offend the new moral censors that did not exist when social conservatives were the moral censors

    Clearly you see the "new moral censors" (Progressives) as a different group from "when social conservatives were the moral censors."

    Obviously I've misunderstood again - when was this period when "social conservatives" who weren't Progressives were the moral censors who didn't get the sympathy and attempts to scold those who offended their moral values?

    Because what you were doing sounded a lot like whataboutism in response to the comments about "right-wing bubbles," but it couldn't have been, right?

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't know how you could have misconstrued my point any worse.

    Read things in order.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's like going in circles with you today.

    You come in bad faith this entire comment section. I try to engage with you civilly, because I have had good productive conversations with you before, but you seem to want to misconstrue my point for some reason.

    Take care.

  • ||

    I try to engage with you civilly

    Is that what you call that?

  • ||

    Read things in order.

    Not only did I read things in order, I summarized them in order.

    Heraclitus: "Funny how people are unaware of the many ways Carlson is controversial."

    Chipper: "Right-wing bubbles!"

    JS: "mumble, mumble . . . social conservatives in the '90s . . . mumble, mumble . . . Progressives just as bad"

    Chipper: "What?"

    JS: "Liberals used to mock SoCons for being offended; now the Progressive Left are the censors and people support them more than they did the SoCons"

    Me: "That's not true - the SoCons had their day, as well."

    JS: "But the SoCons were Progressives, so . . . actually I'm arguing that Progressives have always been the censors, because they were SoCons during Prohibition. You're just trying to defend Progressives."

    You are correct that I have "misconstrued" your point in the sense that I honestly don't see what it is.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I agree with that. The left has lost its mind when it comes to censorship.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Chip, the left doesn't want to get rid of racism, censorship, slavery, or oppression. They just want to be the ones hoding the hwhip and doing it THEIR way.

  • John||

    Then enlighten us. What makes him problematic? I never watch the guy. I really don't know what he says. But unless he starts talking about me personally, I can't imagine it being problematic because nothing anyone says on a show I don't watch ever could be. Why do you find it probelmatic and just what does that mean?

  • DesigNate||

    Who here is trapped in a right-wing bubble? Is there a list?

  • damikesc||

    Saying "Saying stuff on TV Shouldn't lead to your family being threatened" is hardly "right wing bubble" talk.

  • John||

    What does "problematic" even mean? If you don't agree with Carlson, fine. A lot of people don't. But that doesn't make him problematic unless you think anyone speaking an opinion different from yours is somehow a problem that needs to be solved, which is a really stupid way to think.

  • Here for the outrage||

    "Problematic" is the new progressive suburban white asshole way of calling everyone a racist bigot homophobe. Its the bat signal to other leftist clowns.

  • DiegoF||

    stop pretending he is not controversial

    Carlson's a 'mo? I always thought he was just kind of fancy.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Anyone who uses the word problematic is a progressive asshole. It's a signal to other progressives that a message falls outside the collective mantra.

    Carlsonis one of the more reasonable people on TV, consistently having left wingers on, quoting Chomsky and Marx, and playing nice at politicon.

    You progressives are softer than baby shit, its why you get slammed here, despite the leftist crap that spews daily

  • Alcibiades||

    Name any particular issue that Carson has advocated that is not firmly in the mainstream of political debate?

  • DiegoF||

    Bowties are acceptable neckwear.

  • Alcibiades||

    ...and unrelated to his sartorial faux pas.

  • Mickey Rat||

    He has that in common with George Will.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And Matt Smith.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bow ties are cool.

  • ||

    You're absolutely right Heraclitus, many people expressing incredulity at changing a light bulb or tying shoelaces as being problematic in no way diminishes the fact that these issues are problematic for some people.

  • Wrath0fKahn||

    There's an impressive amount of moral cowardice in this article. Props for refusing to ever acknowledge the left is in some crucial areas more horrid than the right.

  • ||

    The left made this bed.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The left (liberal-libertarian mainstream, more particularly) has made this society. Right-wingers -- from the disaffected bigots to the superstitious rubes -- are entitled to watch from the sidelines, where they can mutter bitterly about all of this damned progress, reason, science, education, tolerance, and liberty.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    NPC Hicklib issued another programmed response.

  • Alcibiades||

    It's just a macro that strings a few preprogrammed words together, intelligibility not required...or attempted even.

  • ||

    Nice attempt at trying to equate the left and right Joe.

    Did Robby help you with this?

    Not to sound like a jerk or anything but come on. Why is Reason so scared of calling out the progressive left?

  • perlchpr||

    Why is Reason so scared of calling out the progressive left?

    They don't want angry mobs showing up at their houses?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And cocktail party invitations don't mail themselves.

  • DesigNate||

    Because they don't want to incur the wrath of the mob?

  • DesigNate||

    Should have hit refresh first.

  • Alcibiades||

    "Why is Reason so scared of calling out the progressive left?"

    Do we really want to know the answer to that?
    Could we handle the truth?

  • John||

    And no one on the right is defending or excusing the guy in Arkansas. Meanwhile, tons of people on the left including people from Vox are defending and excusing the mob terrorizing Carlson's wife.

    But Joe thinks both sides are totally the same. It is just fucking pathetic. What the hell is wrong with these people?

  • Alcibiades||

    Vox is an intellectual sewer, and we all know the type of animal that thrives there.

    It's so tempting to answer back in kind...Maxine Waters, hint, hint.

  • John||

    It is. And at some point someone will. If that happens, I hope it is to a journalist not a politican. The journalists are much worse.

  • ||

    Exhibit A:

    More
    Matthew Yglesias Retweeted HN
    I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson's wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn't be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

    Quite the degenerate.

  • John||

    Yes he is.

  • Ron||

    Anyone else notice that other journalist aren't defending Carlson's safety while they are defending that looser from CNN who man handled a women in front of the president. I would have loved it if Trump had slapped that man for what he did

  • Kivlor||

    Man, that really was a missed opportunity for memes becoming reality. We all know it would have looked like this.

    Sadly Ron, you and I are about to be investigated by CNN, who will then promptly threaten to doxx us if we don't apologize and beg for the forgiveness of the Cathedral.

  • NashTiger||

    MUH BOTH SIDES!

  • mamabug||

    My net takeaway from the article is that whatever happened must have been at a 'brown-shirt' level extreme for both twitter and facebook to act at all.

    Or maybe they were just trying to remove the evidence that it happened...

  • Uncle Jay||

    Employing the new and improved Brown Shirts, the Antifa, is message that must be sent to anyone and everyone who is not politically correct. It is only through threats and violence can the opponents of progressive totalitarianism be subdued in order usher in the coveted peoples' revolution. This ploy worked well with Hitler and Lenin, and we all know what wonderful, delightful and humane societies they produced, and let's face it. These wonderful people, who take the time and trouble to punch, yell, scream, bang drums, blow whistles, blow up cars, start riots and physically harass the doubters and dissenters are doing God's (The State) work, and they and should be encouraged instead of disparaged. Indeed, we should all thank and encourage these new Brown Shirts for taking the concept of peace, tolerance, acceptance and love to a new level because it is only through violence, intimidation and persecution can we show the world how America has evolved politically. So instead of condemning and kicking the Antifa Brown Shirts in the groin ten or twenty times, raise your right hand as Hitler would have to show your support of them and their actions.

  • Truthteller1||

    Complete fucking idiots. Breathtaking.

  • Ron||

    one man makes threatening phone calls from far away and he is arrested, a mob of twenty show up at Carlson's house and make make threatening comments and no one gets arrested. I see a double standard here. If that many people showed up at my house they would see a lot of barrels pointed at them

  • damikesc||

    It's a lesson the Right is learning.

    The cops will not stop them. The cops will not punish them.

    So...YOU have to do it. A few dead antifa might be the lesson needed.

  • ThomasD||

    Sadly true. But also what Antifa wants.

    So long as the media is there to get the 'Kent State' photos.

    Cannon fodder and blutfahne, some assembly required.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The DOJ needs to start prosecuting police chiefs who give orders to their people to stand down and not enforce the law for civil rights violations.

  • Truthteller1||

    I don't like either of these shills, but these events are not remotely equivalent. Pathetic.

  • ToddP||

    I wish a bunch of liberal pussies would try me like that. I'd sacrifice my freedom and shoot as many as possible.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You sound like a real tough guy, ToddP -- just like a similarly bigoted right-wing he-man, Ted 'Call my wife a pig and I'll tongue your ass' Cruz.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You sound like a retarded twat.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Wingnuts told us they liked it when people "fought back."

    Should have known the right-wingers would be wrong about that, too.

    I disagree with trespassing on Carlson property, but have no interest in pointers on civility from right-wing bigots and other Trump fans.

  • DesigNate||

    Only a complete moral failure like you would ever think that fighting back in a political sense meant getting physical. Of course, it probably makes sense in your warped morality to believe that anyone who disagrees with you politically is an oppressive tyrant.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Nobody touched Mr. Carlson, so far as I am aware.

    Have you forgotten the Tea Party goobers who camped outside homes, the wingnuts who stormed town halls, or the Brooks Brothers riot, you poorly educated, bigoted yahoo?

    Have you forgotten that right-wing "fighting back" included one Youth Earth wingnut body-slamming a reporter, then another boorish right-winger applauding that assault more than once, you disaffected, authoritarian incel?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I realize your 85 IQ hayseed upbringing is making your senility increasingly worse, but I'll see all of your examples and raise you roughly two decades of left-wing violence in the 60s-80s. That Antifa is just going back to their thuggish roots doesn't mean that they don't deserve a soft-nosed bullet to the head when they threaten violence.

  • Nardz||

    Kirkland doesn't know the implications of a soft-nosed bullet

  • DesigNate||

    It would have been nice if you had provided links to any of those things, but I'll look them up. To the extent that any of those incidents got physical or threatened physical violence, they are moral failures too.

    And man is it rich when an authoritarian bigot such as you calls everyone who disagrees with you uneducated and bigoted..

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face, you slobbering retard.

  • VinniUSMC||

    "Nobody touched Mr. Carlson, so far as I am aware."

    That's probably only because he wasn't home. So instead, they terrorized his wife. No harm, no foul, right?

    You're a waste of space Artie. Do the world a favor and leave it.

  • CGN||

    What do you expect from SJW's and other fascists? They truly believe that if someone says something they don't like, they have the right to threaten violence. These creeps should be put in jail IMMEDIATELY!

  • DesigNate||

    Don't you know, if you disagree with Democrats about anything, you want to enslave black people, gas jews, and kill everyone on earth.

  • dpbisme||

    I do not understand the members of the Leftist Tribe who are so full of hate that they gather in mass and go out of their way to scare people.

  • ||

    What makes these people think that Tucker Carlson is racist? I've never heard him say anything remotely racist. Does this mean that these folks assume that anyone who is conservative must necessarily be racist? That everyone who works at Fox News is racist? Everyone who votes Republican is racist? Hmmmm.

  • DiegoF||

    I think from the bowtie they presumed solidarity with the N.O.I.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Everyone who votes Republican is racist?"

    Got it eventually, didn't you. Yes, they genuinely believe that, if you're not with them, you're the enemy.

  • Michael Cook||

    "A deeply divided nation. Vicious politics. A shamelessly partisan media. A president spurned by half the populace. Smuggling and gang warfare along the Mexican border. Armed citizens willing to stand their ground and take the law into their own hands. . .
    That was America in 1881."

    This is a blurb from the dustcover of Maria Doria Russell's 2015 book EPITAPH, A Novel of the O.K. Corral

    In essence, this highly acclaimed historical fiction explodes the romantic notion of the good old days and even my favorite wishful conceit that frontier values were some type of romantic exception to humanity's general moral, economic, and political stupidity.

    But more than that, it speaks to all the ripples, echoes, and unexpected individual and social consequences that can follow 30 seconds of mad violence for many decades, all the way from Tombstone to Hollywood, and the curious way national myths are inseminated, incubated and nurtured.

    It also is a stunning biography of incredible people, three of them being Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp, and Sadie Marcus Earp.

  • NeoLiberal||

    I'll make this comment because it's relevant. There is a noticeable difference in these two stories....and it's a clear pattern we have witnessed for decades. The fascists from the left formed an organization and willfully engaged in the intimidation. The fascist from the Right was, once again, an individual and acted on his own.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online