> Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already
I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents--not encourage his followers to assault them. I couldn't find anything about him "promoting violence for years."
Kirk supported deporting naturalized citizens for their support of palestine.
Professors on TPUSA's watchlist regularly received death threats. I know at least one who left the country. Kirk clearly knew of this effect of the watchlist.
> I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
You are lying here. Literally across the board, left leaders denounced the attack.
Unlike right wing leaders and politicians who praise violence and literally call for violence. Right wing politicians engaged in violent rhetoric for years already and it always makes them more popular. It is manly man to be violent, as long as you are also conservative or on the right.
> And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents
His literal entry into politics was organized harassment campaign against his list of suspect leftists. After attack on Pelosi husband, he said that he hopes an 'amazing patriot' will bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker.
Bullshit, it was not debate by any reasonable definition. His legacy was toxic environment he consciously created. He should not be murdered, but that does not mean I am going to pretend he was somehow interested in something positive.
I'll make this simple for you: do most leftists currently agree with "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" (and other variations)? Yes (even back in 2017, per the poll I cited, that was the case). Do most conservatives agree with "punch/kill Marxists/Islamists/Anarchists" (and similar variations)? No. That's the issue. Pointing to the mere existence, or even the magnitude, of rightwing political violence, doesn't negate this fact, viz., that orthodox leftwing thought now condones, if not encourages, violence in response to speech.
EDIT: even in this very thread, there are examples:
> . Do most conservatives agree with "punch/kill Marxists/Islamists/Anarchists" (and similar variations)?
Yes they do. Most conservatives support harm and violence to those who are not them. You see that on who they vote for, on what they say and what kind of influencers they promote.
> do most leftists currently agree with "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" (and other variations)
No they dont. They leaders openly dont. And they do not vote for those who promote violence.
I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents--not encourage his followers to assault them. I couldn't find anything about him "promoting violence for years."