Bad blog posts and their costs
Case Decker
It's time for another unpopular post, but the principle is right.
During human history, there has been a very large number of civil wars, coups, and state collapses due to political turmoil. During those times, two or more opposing factions started killing each other once they gave up trying to live together in peace. Sometimes political elites were assassinated. This is not unusual at all. Going from a peaceful time to a turbulent time meant that members of the various political factions started preparing for violent action, whether this involved an attempt at hostile take-over of the country (say, the French revolution), or some kind of secession (say, the American revolution). Here's what American political polarization looks like right now:
And it's not merely people saying they hate members of the other political faction, it's those with guns who especially think so:
You can find more similar surveys to this one. So it might appear that the US is headed for civil war again and it makes sense to start preparing for this, such as by acquiring a gun and getting training. Further steps could be taken, but those would probably be illegal (such as having contingency plans on who to assassinate in case violence breaks out). Economics PhD student Nicholas Decker wrote a blogpost about this, from his left-wing or anti-Trump perspective. He thinks that Trump is getting close to achieving dictator status and Democrats should start preparing for war (When Must We Kill Them?):
What remains for us to decide is when we fight. If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can effect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.
If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them. None of us wish for war, but if the present administration wishes to destroy the nation I would accept war rather than see it perish. I hope that you would choose the same.
Combined with his profile showing he is a gay, queer-flag, Ukraine-flag, open borders guy:
This post sparked an outrage online, and apparently even a visit from the Secret Service. The content of the post is certainly protected speech in the USA, and no legal action was taken to my knowledge. Clearly, this is the kind of post that, although the author is clearly not well mentally, it is worth fighting back the MAGA horde on. No one needs free speech for opinions that are popular, only unpopular opinions need free speech. Apparently, Decker was stupid enough to post his address online, and some people contacted his landlord and got him evicted. Others were asking how they could give him money, but Decker stood firm on his universalist morality beliefs and suggested people give money to charity instead:
He eventually caved to pressure and made a gofundme (it has 4k USD as of writing).
While, I don't agree with his beliefs in general or about Trump administration, I think he behaved well in this case, so I tweeted in support:
Naturally, this resulted in me also getting swarmed by MAGA supporters. I think it is worth replying to their various points.
Point 1: But the landlady was reasonable in evicting him
I agree, and it was presumably legal too because the contract has a clause about "Endangering the peace and quiet enjoyment of the property.". Clearly, landlords should act to protect their own property and that's not something we can fault them for much. My tweet only faults people for getting some unwell student evicted for writing an unwise blog post. Do we really want to live in a society where one has to worry about one's rental agreements for writing blogposts? This is not a good society to live in.
Point 2: But the left would do it to you.
I am sure they would. Leftists have been harassing me for years with various large media (e.g. British Guardian, Danish Politiken) and even German national news running pieces trying to involve me in their current political thing (I don't have anything to do with German, Danish, or American politics). However, the principle stands. The goal is to avoid escalation and violence. In the great scheme of things, I don't see how getting some student evicted (briefly, since he has been given many new options) helps American political polarization.
Point 3: It's war-time and everything is fair game.
It's not war-time yet (hopefully never). And even if it was war-time, this target is rather unimportant.
I think the world would be a better place if:
People like Nicholas Decker could write a vague blogpost about potential violent actions in the case of civil war could live in peace and not get evicted.
Anyone else could write blogposts, engage in politics, or do science without worrying about getting debanked, stalked, fired etc.
Americans and others found new ways to love their neighbors with other opinions than their own.
We could have less violence, more tolerance of divergent opinions, more trade and technological progress in general.
The hysterical response to Nickolas Decker has proven the power of liberal academics over conservatives.
When a black person says, "I'm going to kill white people," nobody bats an eye. This is because no one really takes black people seriously. They aren't organized; they aren't educated; they aren't disciplined; they aren't dedicated.
But if a white person says, "I'm going to kill black people," it's a 5 alarm fire. This is because we all know that white people are capable of extremely effective violence.
We can call this the "double standard test." If one group's threats of violence are treated as a non-event, but the other groups threats of violence are responded to with HYSTERIA, you know which group is more powerful.
Nicholas is not mentally unwell, if you watch his interview with Hanania. His post is isn't a schizophrenic rant -- it's a careful reprinting of passages from the declaration of independence and writings from the founding fathers.
Imagine if you, or any of your commenters wrote the following:
"If the left tries to destroy the constitution, 1776 will commence again. We have guns, and we know how to use them. It's just a matter of time." Same exact sentiment as Nicholas, which is that there will come a point when violence becomes necessary if the other side goes too far.
There's two responses we would collectively have:
1. "Hell yeah, yee haw brother! MAGA! American First!"
2. Roll our eyes and keep scrolling.
Ergo, no one would take it seriously.
Now consider the response to Nicholas:
1. "Hey, I'm a liberal too, but this is crazy! Be careful!"
2. "I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY IT LIBTARD, WE WILL KILL YOU FIRST."
3. "OMG THIS GUY IS CRAZY THE LEFT IS INSANE"
Do you see the difference?
Everyone understands that liberals are more powerful than conservatives in the exact same way that whites are more powerful than blacks. They are more organized, educated, disciplined, and dedicated.
When conservatives wonder, "why do liberals always win?" it's because they are more powerful. Now maybe it's that liberalism makes people powerful, or maybe it's that liberalism attracts people who have inherently higher capacity for organization, education, discipline, and dedication. Either way, this hysterical response has shown just how unequal the power balance is between the two sides.
What rubbish are you writing? It wasn't an unpopular opinion It was a call to public homicidal violence. It's written by a PhD student at a respectable university who should by now have some measure of insight and self regulation. Are not recent events in the USA sufficient warning.
Getting kicked out by his landlady seems the least I would expect. Why do I even read you if this is your level of insight?
Perhaps you may want to reflect further