Authorities Sunday arrested 57-year-old Vance Boelter following the largest manhunt in state history. He's charged in the targeted fatal shootings of Minnesota House DFL leader Melissa Hortman and her spouse, and the shooting of state Sen. John Hoffman and his spouse.
It’s not unclear to me why people feel differently toward the victims - what I’m pointing out is the inconsistency in how people react to vigilante violence itself. I’m not asking anyone to mourn a murdered healthcare CEO - though I do question the celebration of it. And likewise, I feel sympathy for the recently murdered politicians.
What I’m criticizing is the double standard in how the shooters are treated.
And it’s not really about political leanings specifically, even if there’s overlap. It’s more about the broader “us vs. them” mentality - where people’s moral judgment flips depending on which side they perceive someone to be on.
Okay this went a totally different direction than how you made it sound at outset, which you presented like an “our guy versus your guy” argument and why you’re reaping downvotes and people willing to challenge you.
what I’m pointing out is the inconsistency in how people react to vigilante violence itself
So then is this what your actual problem is, that there is any celebration of vigilantism at all?
I have a tendency to present my views in a provocative way, so I don’t exactly fault people for misreading me or my intentions.
that there is any celebration of vigilantism at all?
Pretty much, yeah. I think violence should, for the most part, only ever be a response to immediate violence - not a tool for political or ideological expression. I believe in due process, reason, and honest discourse as the means to influence those we oppose - not bullets, or even fists. So when people cheer for acts of vigilante violence, even against those they despise, I see that as both morally bankrupt and strategically self-defeating. It undermines the claim to the moral high ground and reinforces the very hostility many claim to oppose. We should hold ourselves to the same standards as we do others.
Well then you’ll be surprised to know that I also condemn vigilantism broadly so we have less to argue about than it seemed, however I don’t understand the need for provocation on this issue if you actually care about delivering your message. You should understand that in this space, if you’re coming from the angle of saying that political violence is never an option, you’re upholding the liberal mindset that existing power structures are adequate for creating systemic change and equality, and MOST leftists will tell you that no, it’s not. That argument comes from the neo-liberal, pro-capitalist movement and it will do as well to shift hearts as coming at it from the right and claiming “no fair.” It’s a weak approach to denouncing violence.
Unless you’re going for a full-pacifist angle, which least ethically clear and consistent, we need to understand that revolutions are violent. Were either of these people engaged in a revolution? No, but that’s not because someone needs to “declare” a revolution, it just becomes one when enough people are doing the same thing. So it’s expected that a “side” is going to cheer for someone who is furthering the goals of the group.
I think the better question you should be pondering though is at what point do you start agreeing with the violence? At what point do you see enough of the people standing up for what’s right commit enough violence that you decide “oh, so this is now a revolution” and it’s no longer vigilantism?
While you’re there, ask what “law” means in this context. What are the rules around our society and what enforces them? It’s always the threat of violence, so again we need to ask at what point do violent actions constitute overthrowing an old legal system and writing new laws? How do you do that anyway if you don’t have other means?
If it were any other point in history of America I would be right alongside you decrying all forms of violent action, and I still do condemn taking lives without an organized movement, but we’re well into the “grey” zone now where change comes at the end of a sword, because all other options are rapidly being closed in the faces of the people. In this kind of climate, it feels like saying “killing a corporate leader of the ruling class is wrong and you should feel bad for not feeling bad” just feels like more the leftist “scolding” that makes people broadly turn away from the movement, and enough of us should know this by now that engaging in this kind of rhetoric feels bad-faith. Polarities shift as the noose tightens and scolding people about their soft support for violence will have the opposite effect if you care about human life and are not just performatively clearing your conscience.
Mostly yeah.
It’s not unclear to me why people feel differently toward the victims - what I’m pointing out is the inconsistency in how people react to vigilante violence itself. I’m not asking anyone to mourn a murdered healthcare CEO - though I do question the celebration of it. And likewise, I feel sympathy for the recently murdered politicians.
What I’m criticizing is the double standard in how the shooters are treated.
And it’s not really about political leanings specifically, even if there’s overlap. It’s more about the broader “us vs. them” mentality - where people’s moral judgment flips depending on which side they perceive someone to be on.
Okay this went a totally different direction than how you made it sound at outset, which you presented like an “our guy versus your guy” argument and why you’re reaping downvotes and people willing to challenge you.
So then is this what your actual problem is, that there is any celebration of vigilantism at all?
I have a tendency to present my views in a provocative way, so I don’t exactly fault people for misreading me or my intentions.
Pretty much, yeah. I think violence should, for the most part, only ever be a response to immediate violence - not a tool for political or ideological expression. I believe in due process, reason, and honest discourse as the means to influence those we oppose - not bullets, or even fists. So when people cheer for acts of vigilante violence, even against those they despise, I see that as both morally bankrupt and strategically self-defeating. It undermines the claim to the moral high ground and reinforces the very hostility many claim to oppose. We should hold ourselves to the same standards as we do others.
Well then you’ll be surprised to know that I also condemn vigilantism broadly so we have less to argue about than it seemed, however I don’t understand the need for provocation on this issue if you actually care about delivering your message. You should understand that in this space, if you’re coming from the angle of saying that political violence is never an option, you’re upholding the liberal mindset that existing power structures are adequate for creating systemic change and equality, and MOST leftists will tell you that no, it’s not. That argument comes from the neo-liberal, pro-capitalist movement and it will do as well to shift hearts as coming at it from the right and claiming “no fair.” It’s a weak approach to denouncing violence.
Unless you’re going for a full-pacifist angle, which least ethically clear and consistent, we need to understand that revolutions are violent. Were either of these people engaged in a revolution? No, but that’s not because someone needs to “declare” a revolution, it just becomes one when enough people are doing the same thing. So it’s expected that a “side” is going to cheer for someone who is furthering the goals of the group.
I think the better question you should be pondering though is at what point do you start agreeing with the violence? At what point do you see enough of the people standing up for what’s right commit enough violence that you decide “oh, so this is now a revolution” and it’s no longer vigilantism?
While you’re there, ask what “law” means in this context. What are the rules around our society and what enforces them? It’s always the threat of violence, so again we need to ask at what point do violent actions constitute overthrowing an old legal system and writing new laws? How do you do that anyway if you don’t have other means?
If it were any other point in history of America I would be right alongside you decrying all forms of violent action, and I still do condemn taking lives without an organized movement, but we’re well into the “grey” zone now where change comes at the end of a sword, because all other options are rapidly being closed in the faces of the people. In this kind of climate, it feels like saying “killing a corporate leader of the ruling class is wrong and you should feel bad for not feeling bad” just feels like more the leftist “scolding” that makes people broadly turn away from the movement, and enough of us should know this by now that engaging in this kind of rhetoric feels bad-faith. Polarities shift as the noose tightens and scolding people about their soft support for violence will have the opposite effect if you care about human life and are not just performatively clearing your conscience.