[dylan604]

Would it require it to have gov't involvement to be bad? Let's say that the leader of a country stood up on a stage during a speech (which was preceded by years of pro-violence rhetoric) that was very suggestive of committing acts of violence. Would that be gov't involvement even if it the violence was actually perpetrated by private citizens?

[ellrob88]

No, I don't think the government needs to be directly involved for it to be considered bad. The example you describe sounds very bad to me.

But my comment was questioning OP's suggestion that the incident was tied to authoritarianism.

[dylan604]

You do realize I wasn't describing a hypothetical situation, right?

[ellrob88]

I kinda assumed you were referring to Trump (?)

But my point all along has been that "youtube personality getting house firebombed" != "ridiculous authoritarianism in Australia".

If you are arguing against this point, I may need you to explain further.

[dylan604]

I don't follow Australian politics closely, so what has/hasn't been said by its leaders is unknown to me. I was merely suggesting that if a leader has insinuated that something like that wouldn't be a bad idea, then some might say you now how a gov't official involved.