Well, even over on Wikipediocracy they are actively comparing Trump to Hitler as if that is not at all hyperbolic. A lot of the hostility and sense of life or death struggle people have been sucked into regarding Trump is bleeding into all other political issues. Chapman's essay feeds into that hysterical attitude and being effectively legitimized has enabled this attitude. I mentioned BullRangifer's essay being updated in a previous post and he made a slight addition regarding his insinuations about Trump secretly killing reporters should he get re-elected. The result is now it reads as such:Pudeo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:32 amThose comments about threats or jokes of violence being ok because you have to fight antisemites "by any means necessary" (which itself is a phrase used by activists who commit to violence) or per "ignore all rules" are pretty crazy. It just shows these people are willing to defend literally everything as long as they agree with the motives.
Besides, 99 % of all threats of violence are not going to happen (and legal threats are usually not credible either), so that's not an argument. If someone's going to shoot up a school for instance, he's not going to warn them beforehand, yet threats against schools are always taken seriously. The point is the ridiculous situation of having to adhere to civil WP:BRD with someone who's just giving out sarcastic replies, semi-trolling and openly calling for violence.
I don't normally comment politics directly, but what these kind of people usually refer to is Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance which purports that "we don't have to tolerate intolerance". However, if you actually read the chapter where the term comes (from the book Open Society and Its Enemies), Popper is very careful about it, saying that the society just needs to maintain the right to not tolerate intolerance for the worst case scenario. And obviously it's not easy to determine what is 'intolerant', ought we not to tolerate Islam because the Quran is intolerant? But for these kind of self-righteous people every day is the final struggle against fascism where all means are necessary. Noam Chomsky says that the Left shouldn't initiate violence, because the Right will respond and they're better at that game. Besides, violence against communists could also be justified because their ideology has resulted in mass killings so they're "bad people" too. And again, who would be a legitimate target and who not? The angry mob would decide who's fascist or communist enough? These people are insufferable zealots.
That last sentence, in cominbation with the preceding one, seems intended to imply a causal relationship. We have an editor using his userspace essay on politics to essentially imply a journalist ended up dead because he criticized the President of the United States and that, if the President gets a second term, even more journalists will end up dead because of him perhaps even at his direction. Is it really a surprise that this would encourage the violent rhetoric employed by Peter and defended by other established editors? With Chapman's essay and his flouting of community concerns they had at least some chance of sending the message that editors need to tone down their political rhetoric. Rather than do that, the community and ArbCom itself basically declared open season on wrongthinkers.Will we soon read of journalists at his rallies being attacked, killed, or "disappearing"? The leaders whom Trump admires and envies do this type of thing, and there are no indications that Trump, when given the opportunity, will act otherwise. If he's re-elected, is it just a matter of time before this happens? Remember what happened to Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Shortly after he criticized Trump on November 10, 2016, he was barred from writing in Saudi Arabia. We know how he was later killed.