OK, the GOP has *formally stated* that it believes political violence in service of conservative political power is legitimate.

Can we stop "debating" this shit now?

I'm on hold with the WA Dept. of Revenue -- have been for an hour! -- so I might as well tweet a thread while I wait. Let's talk about two different ways of conceiving legitimacy. What is its source? From whence does legitimacy derive?

One way to see it: moral & social legitimacy derive from a set of principles that apply to to all tribes & factions alike. A tribe's actions are legitimate insofar as they accord with those principles. So, eg, "it's bad to torture," no matter who's doing the torturing.

Another way to see it: moral & social legitimacy inhere *in the tribe itself*. Some tribes are "good" -- chosen by God, genetically superior, derived from the right bloodline, whatever -- & some aren't. The legitimacy of an act derives from *who did it*.

So in this latter way of thinking, if a bad tribe tortures members of a good tribe, it's bad. But if a good tribe tortures members of a bad tribe, it's ok, ie, legitimate, *because the tribe is good*. Actions in pursuit of the interests of the good tribe are inherently good.