[mkfs]

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.

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.

[watwut]

> 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.

[mkfs]

> 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."