also this quote from an actual principled anti-slavery person:
I am quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.
- John Brown
This “political violence is never justified” narrative just lacks so much nuance.
I mean, ok, don’t jump for joy when Charlie Kirk was murdered for saying heinous shit, because in the United States we do value freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I get that.
But never justified?!
So, it wasn’t justified to kill Hitler?
I think a more accurate thing to say might be something like “it’s not justified to murder people for what they say politically, in a society that values freedom of speech.” That’s better. Then we can start having a discussion about where the line might actually be, then.
John Brown didn’t hack people to bits for things they said, but for things they did. And I’d say his political violence was pretty easily justified, from our POV.
Charlie Kirk is a gray area. He didn’t do anything politically violent himself. But he did arguably help incite others to political violence by means of his words. Does that mean he should have been shot for it? No. But it does raise interesting questions that we need to answer, about free speech and personal responsibility. Somewhere along the “college debate edgelord” to “slaver” spectrum is a line past which we can justify political violence, and on the other side of which we cannot. Where is that line, exactly?