Earlier today, I wrote a blog post, Blame, Responsibility and Accountability where I mentioned a couple people that appeared to me to be justifying violent rhetoric in their posts online. I am having had a hard time trying to understand these views.

In that blog post, I wrote,

I retweeted what I thought was the best of the messages, only to receive comments from @AGNewHaven saying, “Shame on you for retweeting garbage like that” and “I am not sure where the line is-but foaming at the mouth calling people traitors and terrorists probably isnt it.”

Those messages have subsequently been deleted. He also added a couple comments to my blog. His first comment started off saying, “You retweeted something that called tea party members terrorists?” Actually, what I tweeted was “RT @mhelfenbein Tea Party = Terrorist Extreme Aggressive Party.” I did not say that members of the tea party are terrorists. Instead, I was repeating a theme that linked the rhetoric of some people held dear by members of the tea party to what I consider domestic terrorism.

Later, he writes, “What I object to is somehow suggesting that every member (of which I am NOT) every member of the Tea Party is a terrorist". Suggesting that a person should be shot, suggesting ‘second amendment remedies’, suggesting that you should make opponents afraid to come out in public, I believe constitutes terrorism. That does not say that members of the TEA party are terrorist, any more than it says that members of the GOP are grand or old.

He goes on to say, “People kill terrorists-are you suggesting people should kill tea party members?” As an opponent of the death penalty, I wouldn’t even say people should kill terrorists.

His next comment was that I “choice to misrepresent” him. I do not believe that I have misrepresented him. I certainly did not make any choice to misrepresent him. As I stated at the top of my blog post, I am having had a hard time trying to understand his view, as well as the view of the person on Facebook that appeared to be defending violent rhetoric.

In my attempt to make sense of his messages on Twitter I wrote, “While Mr. Cunneen may want to coddle criminals and stand with the shooter. I do not.” As a person that takes words very seriously, I want to reiterate what I said. I do not know what Mr. Cunneen wants to do. I still don’t, but presenting and exploring a possible hypothesis is not misrepresentation.

That said, Mr. Cunneen did send me a private email as well. Given that it is a private email, I’ll refrain from going into details. However, I will make a few general comments. I am a strong believer in our democratic process. I believe in open discussions. I believe that the best method of bringing about change is at the ballot box. However, I also recognize the importance of direct actions, including sit-ins, picket lines, boycotts, and other non-violent methods of exerting pressures on those in power to bring about change. To me, there is a very significant difference between a boycott and a shooting.

As such, I believe we should be boycotting those that broadcast or defend violent rhetoric. Mr. Cunneen’s responses on Twitter sounded to me as if he were defending violent rhetoric. In his private email to me, he presents a different view and I no longer believe that he is defending violent rhetoric. As such, I no longer see a reason to boycott his businesses.