Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds suspended from Twitter after suggesting motorists run down protestors


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/09/22/glenn-instapundit-reynolds.html


#2

[quote]
They’re going to say that “run them down” means something other than “hit people with your car”. [/quote]

Either that, or they’ll say it was a joke, or make some bullshit argument about free speech, or delete the tweet and deny having ever said anything.


#3

And if that fails,

"I am deeply sorry that people were offended by my statement."

#4

Even in the nice state of Minnesota


#5

[grumblerumble] Easily offended [arglebargle] stupid Millennials [rabbblerabblerabble]


#6

When did freedom of speech turn into freedom to riot?

Aren’t rioters by definition operating outside the law, doing things like swarming cars, or torching cop cars?

There is a difference between indiscriminately mowing down protestors because ‘angry white male’ and someone choosing the safety of their own family over that of someone who decides the interstate is an appropriate venue to command attention for their outrage / injustice / systemic generational oppression.

Would I go ‘mow them down’ for kicks, no. Would I drive through a crowd of angry protestors if I thought my life was in danger, yes.


#7

Reynolds response has been that Twitter’s message length doesn’t allow him to fully express what he meant (that you should use your car in self-defense if your life is in danger). What a disingenuous POS.


#8

When did freedom of speech turn into freedom to riot?

When I can kick you out of my house if you say something I don’t like.

Aren’t rioters by definition operating outside the law, doing things like swarming cars, or torching cop cars?

No. I mean yes, but not necessarily to the extremes you are painting. By definition being a pedestrian on a highway is breaking the law.

There is a difference between indiscriminately mowing down protestors because ‘angry white male’ and someone choosing the safety of their own family over that of someone who decides the interstate is an appropriate venue to command attention for their outrage / injustice / systemic generational oppression.

Well, apparently it’s inappropriate to protest by raising a fist, taking a knee, or refusing to stand.

Would I go ‘mow them down’ for kicks, no. Would I drive through a crowd of angry protestors if I thought my life was in danger, yes.

This is why it was advised that drivers avoid the area. Part of the reason this is happening is because of people who “fear for their lives” specifically people who should be willing to risk their lives on the chance that the situation isn’t what it seems to them. Running people down in your car isn’t going to do anyone any good.


#9

Sooo, if I see you jaywalking, I should run you down, then? Okay!


#10

I think it’s time to get pedantic about descriptions.
Right-wing is perfectly acceptable to use to describe someone who supports conservative viewpoints after thoughtful deliberation (whatever our opinons might be). Someone who simply lashes out against those they feel need to be “corrected” are reactionary.

A conservative could, and has, justified the type of civil disobedience on display in Charlotte, NC. One example was called the American Revolution. Anyone saying that these protestors are all criminals with no reasonable justification isn’t being conservative, they’re being reactionary.

A conservative could, and has, make a case that police are using too much force and that a review is necessary. Anyone saying that the police are always right, and are never prone to abuses of power isn’t being a conservative, they’re being reactionary.

A conservative could, and has, complained that if an individual is openly carrying a firearm in a state that permits “open carry” (Like North Carolina) that the police do not have the right to interfere with that right… You get the idea.

This shithead, for all his claims of being a conservative, is just a reactionary (Yes, I realize this is true of a majority of so-called conservatives). There isn’t any thought involved in his views, except those used to retroactively justify his knee-jerk responses to those whose views differ from his.


#11

This is the same pundit who was tweeting support of the “protesters” who staged an armed takeover of a Federal building in Oregon, so clearly he has some complex* thoughts on civil disobedience.

(*Light-skinned guys with guns = patriots, dark-skinned people without guns = terrorists)


#13

Of course it’s in danger. They’re black. Right?


#14

Hey, it’s a good enough excuse for the police…

I was looking for a clever way to say this but I don’t think I can do better.


#15

It’s only a matter of time before these people abandon the illusion that they have principles and finally resort to “stuff I like = good, stuff I don’t like = bad”.


#16

But you can’t run people down. Obviously, the best thing is to avoid such situations. But if you are traveling through what might be an unfamiliar city, and find yourself blocked and surrounded, just be patient. If you get attacked, running over people would ensure that the rage of the crown is focused on you, and it would then be justified.
My wife keeps a can of bear spray in her car. Using something like that might let you escape, without having to seriously hurt anyone.


#17

I’m afraid that ship has well and truly sailed. Thoughtful conservatives have had the word pulled out from under them by the contingent who are essentially scared and angry and confused and lashing out like cornered animals. They’re about as conservative as the DPRK is democratic. Y’all just gonna have to come up with a new word.


#18

On top of everything else, now we have to worry about the fucking monarchy again?!


#19

That was pretty good. A spelling mistake, but adds another dimension to the discussion.


#20

Yeah, it’s “censorship” whenever someone is not allowed to advocate casually killing people. Next thing you know I won’t be able to shout “FIRE!!!” in a crowded theater.

Tell it to the Secret Service.


#21

Ladies and gentleman, I give you the Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee advising members of the public to run down people with their automobiles.