[jstarfish]

I agree with you too, but don't think holding politicians to their lies or fixating on class warfare is really the most pressing part of the situation. He's calling for lynchings because he knows there's a receptive audience for it.

That's the part you should be most worried about, because a mob so empowered could just as easily turn its gaze to you. Good luck trying to be a nuisance to that prominent person once the mob gets a taste for blood. Before participating in doxxing frenzies or lynch mobs, nobody ever stops and thinks "what if this guy didn't actually do it?"

No expansion of the carceral state required, we'll just deputize an angry mob to play the part of Executioner.

[jakelazaroff]

I guess, but I see this all as connected. The person (Michelle Tandler, if you’re wondering) wasn't calling for lynching because she knew she’d get clicks. She was doing it because she thinks police are breaking the social contract: she’s a wealthy white woman, cops exist to make her feel comfortable by violently subjugating poor Black and brown people, and they’re not doing it enough for her.

So yes, vigilante justice is bad, mobs are bad. But crime is also a social construct. We literally decide what is and is not illegal - aka what is and is not “vigilante justice” — and I don’t think it’s necessarily worse to find yourself in the crosshairs of an angry mob than the crosshairs of a cabal of bloodthirsty tech execs aiming the state’s monopoly on violence at you.