It does suggest what so many non-progressives feel, which is that anything that is to the right of the extreme left is being targeted.
I just don't fear violent rhetoric. It's not something that merits a reaction, in my view.
Basically, if an author can say it in a book, then random citizens ought to be able to say it on the internet.
So you're not concerned about it if it doesn't target you personally. Fair enough, not everyone has empathy for their fellow human beings.
>Basically, if an author can say it in a book, then random citizens ought to be able to say it on the internet.
As far as I know, authors can't attempt to incite real violence in books, either. But imminence is a relevant factor you're ignoring. A book may take weeks, months or years to publish, whereas a death threat on the internet can be acted upon almost immediately.
What seems like a desire for fair and equal treatment is still applied under a double standard.
It's a petty and immature way to see the world, and maybe non-progressives should look at getting their own house in order.
So for the things that are non-physically violent: the right certainly has it's problems but to suggest that the left, and especially the most extreme versions of it, isn't doing underhanded or otherwise despicable things (like when YouTube demonetizes channels or Twitter shadow bans accounts) is willingly turning a blind eye. At least with the NRA someone on the left knows where they stand. Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter and now maybe Reddit seem to be taking a much more selective approach to how they apply their rules. And even those rules are hazy at best.