That's exactly why I didn't use Republicans as an example; because I know there's lots of people on the Democrat side who consider that perfectly acceptable rhetoric as long as it's not targeting them.
I maintain that this sort of vitriolic language is unacceptable no matter what group it's targeting, unless your goal is to start a flame war (or a real war) rather than actually solve problems.
So your position is that it's also unacceptable to say "cartel members are violent, abusive thugs"? I don't think I agree with that.
I do think it's a bit strong to say police are all violent, abusive thugs.
But there are many police officers who share unfortunate characteristics with violent, abusive thugs, and nearly all of their fellow supposedly-good officers are unwilling to call them out and enforce any sort of consequences for being violent, abusive thugs. That's nearly as bad, in my book.
So maybe let's stop policing (heh) people's specific language, and instead talk about the actual issues.
Well for one thing, I don't think "starting a war" against the cartels would necessarily be a bad idea.
And my concern isn't with the language used, but the casually hateful attitude being expressed. It's not constructive, and probably actively harmful to just be casually demonizing your neighbors like that.
Great question! I wouldn't call it acceptable (thought it sure seems to be widely accepted), but I would argue it's certainly not equally bad. Put differently: I take issue with your specific example but agree with your larger point.
I think bringing race into it conflates separate issues. On the other hand, I really like the "cartel members" vs "[opposing political party]" example! It feels like these obviously shouldn't be equally bad, but explaining why is harder than I expected...
