Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[laughing dog]

A bunch of quotes from [Charlie Kirk], including that black women lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously

Um, no, Kirk didn't say that. I watched the clip and what he said was that four specific individuals he named lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously. He did not generalize about black women. I can't say the HuffPost was actually lying -- it looks like HuffPost just uncritically reposted BuzzFeed's lie without bothering to do even the most trivial fact-checking: watching the clip to see whether Kirk said what BuzzFeed claimed he said.

In the same clip, Mr Kirk referred to them “stealing a white person’s slot”. So, while he did not specifically generalize about black women, it is a reasonable conclusion that he was, given his blatant racist comment.

To quote someone, what a dirt bag.

Sorry, but in this case he's basically correct.

It is racist to assume there is a “white person’s slot”.

In the first place, what's your point? That it's okay to put words in someone's mouth if he's racist? That making up something and calling it a quote isn't lying if you have grounds to think it's a sentiment the guy you ascribed the words to would agree with?

that

In the second place, Kirk appears to have imagined the existence of white persons' slots was an implication of Rep. Lee's own statement. Accepting some of the other side's premises for the sake of argument and examining what else those premises imply is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic. It isn't grounds for imputing belief in the conclusion to the guy who tries to take his opponent's argument to its logical conclusion.

And in the third place, even if Kirk really was claiming on his own account that white persons' slots exist, the existence of white persons' slots in no way implies the words pood put in his mouth, "that black women lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously". It only implies that black women with that level of brain processing power aren't numerous enough to earn as many high-brain-power jobs as Ms. Lee et al. are advocating they get.

That is a lot of failure to defend a racist dirt bag. Assuming a slot is “a white person’s slot” is racist.

[Edited quote tag]

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are we really comparing a war of independence with some loser assassinating a political commentator because he did not agree with what he said?

The alt-right sounds like they want to make this into a war. This has a vibe of the Reichstag Fire.

And now the party that threw hissy fits over "cancel culture" has managed to get Jimmy Kimmel cancelled. Why?

It wasn't anything he said about Kirk. Or about his family. He suggested that the killer wasn't what Maga was making him out to be. He's been pulled off the air for not pushing the administration's narrative.

Oh, the right invented cancel culture. They are just better at politics than the left.

 

[Gospel]

The Democrats are in for a surprise when the midterms roll around, they’re going to find out they’re wrong once again. They are managing Charlie Kirks death in the most idiotic way possible.

 

[laughing dog]

I just read that Europe is celebrating Kirk's movement and are mourning his death. The hard right is rising in many European countries, including England, Spain, Germany, Italy, to name some. WTF is going on in the world? Racism and xenophobia are on the rise.

There are legitimate problems in Europe that the Right exploits. Economic stagnation yes, and that is always water on the mills of populists from the right and the left. But then you have the problem of mass migration and creeping islamization that the mainstream parties refuse to acknowledge. Often even the conservative ones. David Cameron, former Tory UK prime minister, said in 2007 that "it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian [in UK that means South Asian, and mostly Pakistani] way of life, not the other way around". Angela "Willkommenskultur" Merkel, the former German chancellor (CDU), opened the floodgates in 2015 and greatly exacerbated the mass Muslim migration crisis.
And many Europeans are sick of being called racist and xenophobic for opposing current mass migration where thousands of people keep coming in every day, and it is virtually impossible to deport them.
Parties like AfD, Reform UK and Rassemblement national offer wrong solutions, but they have the advantage of offering something, instead of glibly saying "wir schaffen das" while the country gets more and more islamicized.

White boy murders another white boy in America... and we are talking about Muslims in Europe?

Hobby horses get lonely if they aren’t frequently taken on rides.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Democrats are in for a surprise when the midterms roll around, they’re going to find out they’re wrong once again. They are managing Charlie Kirks death in the most idiotic way possible.

NM

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I find especially troubling is the irony here: Kirk himself dismissed empathy, and I disagreed with him. Showing indifference to his death, or to the pain felt by those close to him and/or followed him, would be the very lack of empathy that I've criticized about him.

I see your point but I do not exactly agree.

It's the very lack of empathy that's relevant to me--why should I not judge him by his own standards?

For me, the principle is simple: violence should be met with violence, but words should be met with words. If someone comes with fists or bullets, violent resistance is justified. But if someone only comes with words, no matter how offensive, the answer has to stay in the realm of words. Once we start accepting killings over speech, we’ve crossed into legitimizing the same silencing that took away great leaders. We also end up helping to create a world where every conversation is held at gunpoint. That’s not the future I want for anyone, least of all my children.

This part I agree with, except that words are not always just words. I believe that stirring up a mob can reach the point of deadly threat even when there is no imminent risk.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Kimmel helped keep me sane. Goddamn. This is worse than the early 1950s.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point was you are saying that stating as such is condoning his murder.

No, you are incorrect. The reason is simple, Kirk’s own framing of the 2nd Amendment was that gun deaths are acceptable losses for freedom. By that logic, he had already condoned his own death. So yes, anyone repeating that logic now is joining him in agreement, and by extension, endorsing his death. That’s not me saying it, that’s what the logic of the “price of freedom” argument itself says.

Yup, which is why I don't care about him being dead. He defined the outcome as acceptable, it should be acceptable when applied to him.

I have long said that I believe political figures should be subject to whatever measures they propose even if they don't become law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just in the USA alone over 8,000 people die every day. Charlie Kirk is just a name to me. His death is not a tragedy, but simply a statistic.
MAGA keep claiming "the left" is celebrating his death. Maybe some of them are. But most of the people celebrating his death are MAGA. Why? Because it gives them an opportunity to martyr him, to declare him a saint and an important person, when he was just a common scumbag who was murdered, as many people are. Also it gives them further opportunity to be divisive, play the big blame game, to be more delusional, and to achieve their unconscious aim to destroy the USA.

Yeah, what's there to celebrate? He's dead by the standards he proposed so I have no problem with him being dead, but where's the victory to celebrate?

 

[Shadowy Man]

What I find especially troubling is the irony here: Kirk himself dismissed empathy, and I disagreed with him. Showing indifference to his death, or to the pain felt by those close to him and/or followed him, would be the very lack of empathy that I've criticized about him.

I see your point but I do not exactly agree.

It's the very lack of empathy that's relevant to me--why should I not judge him by his own standards?

Because how you judge people reflects your values, not theirs.

It's like the difference between respect and courtesy. Whether you respect someone depends on their integrity, whether you are courteous to someone you don't respect depends on your integrity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the second place, Kirk appears to have imagined the existence of white persons' slots was an implication of Rep. Lee's own statement. Accepting some of the other side's premises for the sake of argument and examining what else those premises imply is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic. It isn't grounds for imputing belief in the conclusion to the guy who tries to take his opponent's argument to its logical conclusion.

Exactly. And it does not mean the person who says it endorses the outcome--it very well might be that they consider the outcome so obviously false or bad that they expect the reader to understand that it's really showing the problem with the presumption that was "granted". Unfortunately, when people are engaged in emotional arguments this often fails, they continue to defend what their faith says is true and do not address the chain of reasoning.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But why should we think that Kamala Harris, for example, did not get where she was on her own merits?

Because she is as dumb as a rock.

I am a sharp critic of Kamala Harris, and she did not get where she was solely on her own, but this goes too far.
She is smart, and was by all means a capable prosecutor.

Agreed. I disagree with her on many things but she's not stupid.

Her problem is her lack of judgment. As evidenced in how she prosecuted her 2020 campaign.
That's why I think it was a mistake for Biden to choose her as running mate, and that it was a mistake for her to be on the top of the ticket in 2024. With a proper primary, that election was very much winnable.

I do not believe it was winnable, as the fundamental problem is the vast amount of disinformation being pumped out by the reich wing and Moscow and Beijing. It's not that people actually preferred The Felon's positions, it's that they voted for an illusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just read that Europe is celebrating Kirk's movement and are mourning his death. The hard right is rising in many European countries, including England, Spain, Germany, Italy, to name some. WTF is going on in the world?

The Internet is causing US propaganda to propagate far beyond its intended targets.

I don't think so. There are articles in the most respected news sources about this. I'm sure if you have been following the news, you realize that it's not just the US that is turning to the far right. It's an epidemic. Of course, not all Europeans are mourning his death, but enough are to make the news in many places.

And, in the US, sadly, ABC just removed Jimmy Kimmel from the air after he made some statements about Kirk's shooter. He said he was a MAGA supporter and also criticized the felon. His show is very popular, especially among those who aren't fans of the orange menace but ABC doesn't have the balls to keep him on the air. They didn't say his show has been discontinued. They said it was indefinitely suspended.

The Felon does not need to actually impose press controls, the fear of his retaliation is enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I find especially troubling is the irony here: Kirk himself dismissed empathy, and I disagreed with him. Showing indifference to his death, or to the pain felt by those close to him and/or followed him, would be the very lack of empathy that I've criticized about him.

I see your point but I do not exactly agree.

It's the very lack of empathy that's relevant to me--why should I not judge him by his own standards?

Because how you judge people reflects your values, not theirs.

It's like the difference between respect and courtesy. Whether you respect someone depends on their integrity, whether you are courteous to someone you don't respect depends on your integrity.

The thing is in this case he defined the situation as acceptable. Ok, it's acceptable, why should I have a problem with it?

 

[Shadowy Man]

What I find especially troubling is the irony here: Kirk himself dismissed empathy, and I disagreed with him. Showing indifference to his death, or to the pain felt by those close to him and/or followed him, would be the very lack of empathy that I've criticized about him.

I see your point but I do not exactly agree.

It's the very lack of empathy that's relevant to me--why should I not judge him by his own standards?

Because how you judge people reflects your values, not theirs.

It's like the difference between respect and courtesy. Whether you respect someone depends on their integrity, whether you are courteous to someone you don't respect depends on your integrity.

The thing is in this case he defined the situation as acceptable. Ok, it's acceptable, why should I have a problem with it?

You can find whatever acceptable you want that’s up to you. That’s my point.

 

[laughing dog]

In the second place, Kirk appears to have imagined the existence of white persons' slots was an implication of Rep. Lee's own statement. Accepting some of the other side's premises for the sake of argument and examining what else those premises imply is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic. It isn't grounds for imputing belief in the conclusion to the guy who tries to take his opponent's argument to its logical conclusion.

Exactly. And it does not mean the person who says it endorses the outcome--it very well might be that they consider the outcome so obviously false or bad that they expect the reader to understand that it's really showing the problem with the presumption that was "granted". Unfortunately, when people are engaged in emotional arguments this often fails, they continue to defend what their faith says is true and do not address the chain of reasoning.

Thank you for an example of irony.

 

[Elixir]

I used to be married to a cis woman, but that doesn't even every murder I've committed since then has been "abouf feminism".

So who did you write your confession notes to?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Derec when he's talking about race but not about anything else:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Democrats are in for a surprise when the midterms roll around, they’re going to find out they’re wrong once again. They are managing Charlie Kirks death in the most idiotic way possible.

Receipts please.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The Democrats are in for a surprise when the midterms roll around, they’re going to find out they’re wrong once again.

It's not all that surprising even without this happening.