That's horrible. This type of behavior should be condemned in extremely strong terms. Condemnation can't literally stop it, but if the overwhelming cultural view is that it's both pathetic and vile, the incidence of these things will almost surely go down.
And it is pathetic. And vile. Absolutely not "okay".
At some point, where it's completely past any possibility of having any redeeming intellectual value and either is itself or presents a compelling threat of personal harm (which I think your examples were), it should be illegal. Free speech can extend a long way, but there's no cause for it to extend that far. There's no alternative good that is damaged if, for instance, we make death threats illegal.
But this makes me even more confused about your continuing unwillingness to see some of the actions against Adams as problematic or even acknowledge that they exist. "Condemn their horrid terrorists! Praise our marvelous freedom fighters!"
Why not perceive it all, and condemn it all, like I do?
-----
If TaraElla is inciting violence by saying ad nauseum that we should resolve differences through dialog, what on earth do you think you're doing?
Your timeline of events does not comport with my understanding. Firstly, wasn't it Jordan Peterson, not Christopher Rufo, who prominently made the case that the SJW movement was fundamentally postmodern? Rufo hadn't even hit on Critical Race Theory at that point, much less switched to anti-woke and started talking about postmodernism!
Here's Peterson from 2017: https://medium.com/taraellas-liberal-conversation/it-isnt-just-gamergate-anymore-social-justice-warriors-sjws-have-an-important-choice-to-make-860ceec9e71a. TaraElla wrote a piece criticizing his view of postmodernism in 2018, explaining that she viewed neo-Marxism as the actual intellectual underpinnings of the illiberalism of "SJW" attitudes: https://medium.com/taraellas-liberal-conversation/it-isnt-just-gamergate-anymore-social-justice-warriors-sjws-have-an-important-choice-to-make-860ceec9e71a.
So: challenge for you. Document where Rufo was complaining about postmodernism before that. You say it was invented by Rufo. Show it.
Just in case you were wondering, the pre-Rufo 2018 piece wasn't all TaraElla had to say about critical theory. For example, she pointed out the links between critical theory and feminist thought in 2019, before Rufo was on his CRT-demonization gig: https://medium.com/taraellas-liberal-conversation/how-feminism-failed-men-41d01d592005.
But then, yes, the right noticed "woke" and started to dominate "anti-woke" discourse. And here is TaraElla, early in 2022, trying to distance herself from the "woke" (not your "woke", not Rufo's "woke", but the left-appropriated "woke" that replaced "SJW") / "anti woke" terminology because it's become so polluted by right-wing anti-left ideology: https://medium.com/trad-lib-news/from-woke-to-intersectional-how-words-obscure-ideology-41b04b7ba215.
Now, in order to communicate successfully when the terms are being more and more widely used, it's true that she didn't actually manage to avoid using the words. Personally, I think she should have tried harder. But I simply don't see how anyone can read this: "[T]he current cultural and political discourse of the West is dominated by two echo chambers, the so-called woke and anti-woke. [...] the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money." She calls for both of these to be countered, while recognizing that it's daunting to try: "Some days we might get very frustrated, feeling like we are essentially shouting into the void. Other days it might all feel futile, as our well-reasoned positions get drowned out by the loud culture warriors on both sides. But we need to keep going, if we are to have any chance of changing things at all."
How is this type of thing "inciting violence"?! This is one example, but it's all like this, if you read it in context (if you read out of context, sure, you can invent anything you want about how she thinks one should proceed, because you've deleted the context that contains the answer). Very, very consistently she calls for people to oppose reactionary actions by using dialog to demonstrate that some ideas are better than others. If you were worried that someone might be moved to commit violence, wouldn't you think it was better if they read this kind of thing first? We need to keep going, continue stating well-reasoned positions if we are to have any chance at all?
Do you feel empowered, or do you think people with your outlook but a greater tendency to violence would feel empowered, by TaraElla to commit violence against the "anti-woke" right, seeing as how she criticizes them as illiberal?
Do you think people might be moved to violence upon reading your charges that she is "whipping up that kind of hate and fear", she is "the anti-woke mob", she "she puts targets on our bodies", she is "inciting violence while pretending" [not to], she is inciting people to believe "it’s okay to threaten to kill us", she is "Inciting a hateful mob."
Hm?
And why do you give examples of intrusive reactionary right-wing harms of the sort that TaraElla worries about and criticizes as arguments against her position?
We cannot uphold individual dignity and liberty by capitulating to the illiberal reactionary right.
It does not follow that we capitulate to the illiberal left.
The root danger is illiberality. The root danger is capitulation. Why pick the lesser of two evils when both are evil and you have non-evil options?
I oppose mobs being incited against Adams, and I oppose mobs being incited against you. I'm glad you survived, whether because you are more resilient than Adams was, or the mobs were less bad, or you had better support. You shouldn't need to have to survive a mob, and we should take a strong stand (by sternly disapproving, not murdering) against that as a path to achieving our goals, even if we think the goal is justice. This doesn't mean that collective action is bad, just that it has to stop before it slips into demonization, hatred, and threats or acts of violence. Occasionally a mob might end up accomplishing the best thing possible under the circumstances, but that in no way excuses our abject failure in letting things get so bad that mob justice is the only recourse, and even then we can't count on the mob to do something positive instead of wicked; we can't count on them to not murder large numbers of people and burn down Tulsa. Mobs can be grotesque horrors.
-----
I hope you have a pleasant time with Anthony and Rogue 4 Gay, if that happens. Give them my regards--Anthony, at least, since I think I've interacted with him enough so he probably will recognize who I am by name. I shan't be joining; I like interacting with people but I'm highly introverted, which leaves me exhausted after such things. So the expected benefit has to be extremely high to make it worth it. Also, I find the less people know about me, the better, when it comes to online interactions. I want my arguments to be judged by their quality, not by whether I happen to have come across as charming in person, or I wore a shirt with a logo that triggered someone, or I went to the same school as them, or any such thing. I don't want any positive bias or any negative bias; it all distracts from evaluating whether or not the argument is a good one. Argumentative Penguin has a point there.