Michael TraceyVerified account

@EricLevitz Yeah, but that's a consequential stipulation! We don't presently have the capacity to make that stipulation definitively.

@mtracey I agree. Just saying the ethical question seems dependent on stipulating efficacy of any particular action.

@EricLevitz But for people who stipulate definitively that Trump is a fascist menace, ultimate efficacy is an ancillary consideration.

@EricLevitz Combating a fascist menace by extreme means would be justified NOW regardless of how the efficacy question pans out.

@mtracey I don't see why that follows. The more severe a threat is, the more important efficacy becomes in deciding on preventative measure.

@mtracey But, Michael, if Trump is a unique fascist menace than your responsibility right now is to engage in actual political violence.

@freddiedeboer Right! Which is why I think the whole "unique fascist menace" premise needs to be re-evaluated. That's my ultimate point.

@mtracey @freddiedeboer Not sure I agree, BTW: I could see lots of liberals venerating their etiquette rules even in face of real fascism

@ggreenwald @freddiedeboer For sure.

.@mtracey You should actually be hanged for suggesting it, if only to serve as a warning to other Nostradamus wannabes.

@TedKelly45 @JTGilgo No it's not. I am arguing AGAINST that view by illustrating fallacies which might be used IN SUPPORT of it.

.@mtracey @TedKelly45 So if someone says "Hillary (or Bernie) is the Antichrist, so violence is justified," how would you respond?

@JTGilgo @TedKelly45 I would say violence is not justified against any of the three candidates.

.@mtracey @TedKelly45 And would you extend that courtesy to the candidates' supporters?

@JTGilgo @TedKelly45 Of course!