Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Derec]

Let’s see, what I do today in New York City?

I think both the far left and far right make a mistake. Far right wants to restrict immigration too much, but far left wants de facto open borders - anybody who crosses the border and says "asylum" gets let in, sanctuary city policies that protect even criminal illegals like García Zárate, and not vetting any would-be immigrants.

So I came in early and met my friend of Guatemalan and Mayan descent for drinks. We chatted with the bar back, a Mexican immigrant — whether legal or illegal, I do not know or care.

Case in point: you do not care if somebody is here illegally.

 

[Derec]

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

I disagree with Kimmel getting cancelled, but isn't this a predictable blowback of the fauxgressive cancel culture of 2020?

 

[Tigers!]

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.

I have noted that Kirk made statements implying his death by a firearm was "rational". Those are his words, not mine. The logic fail is explicit in his statement. That is the point.

I have also repeatedly stated his death was immoral. This is an easy differentiation to make.

I’m not saying you’re endorsing his death. What I’m saying is that when people use his “price of freedom” line in response to his killing without clarification, they’re effectively agreeing with that framing, and by extension, endorsing his death.

Making an ambiguous statement is an indication of making an ambiguous statement. Much like flying a Palestinian flag is ambiguous and not possible to determine whether it is support for the Gazan people or support for Hamas and their 10/7 attack.

Is flying an Israeli flag ambiguous?

 

[Bomb#20]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking, skepticism and common sense even to memes you agree with. Maybe especially those, since they're the ones you're most vulnerable to. "This is what happened to the person who was mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Texas Tech." does not imply this happened to her because she was mocking it. Taking for granted this was a suppression of free speech is very much a hoofbeats-means-zebras reaction. The hoofbeats-means-horses reaction would be to expect there's more to the story and she did something police normally take an interest in. Google is your friend.

Camryn Booker wasn't expelled/arrested for free speech, but for trying to knock a fellow student's hat off his head.

OMG!! How many casualties were there??

If burning the US flag is free speech (and it is), then knocking somebody's hat off might well also be free speech.

Certainly it doesn't warrant an arrest.

Booker was arrested for assault because, according to police, she hit a guy in the head.

Texas Tech student expelled, arrested for assault at on-campus Charlie Kirk event

LUBBOCK, Texas — A former Texas Tech University student was arrested for assault after campus police say she hit a man following an argument at a Charlie Kirk e

abc7amarillo.com

If she wants to go with the "I didn't mean to -- I was aiming for his hat." defense, she's welcome to try, but whether to buy that defense is a judge/jury question, not a police question. Getting arrested for hitting a guy in the head is not the First Amendment's death knell.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

I have noted that Kirk made statements implying his death by a firearm was "rational". Those are his words, not mine. The logic fail is explicit in his statement. That is the point.

I have also repeatedly stated his death was immoral. This is an easy differentiation to make.

I’m not saying you’re endorsing his death. What I’m saying is that when people use his “price of freedom” line in response to his killing without clarification, they’re effectively agreeing with that framing, and by extension, endorsing his death.

Making an ambiguous statement is an indication of making an ambiguous statement. Much like flying a Palestinian flag is ambiguous and not possible to determine whether it is support for the Gazan people or support for Hamas and their 10/7 attack.

Is flying an Israeli flag ambiguous?

Yes, just as flying an American flag doesn't mean you support every single American military action. But personally I think all national pride is dumb.

 

[Arctish]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking, skepticism and common sense even to memes you agree with. Maybe especially those, since they're the ones you're most vulnerable to. "This is what happened to the person who was mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Texas Tech." does not imply this happened to her because she was mocking it. Taking for granted this was a suppression of free speech is very much a hoofbeats-means-zebras reaction. The hoofbeats-means-horses reaction would be to expect there's more to the story and she did something police normally take an interest in. Google is your friend.

Greg Abbot is the Governor of Texas.

His post looks like virtue signaling to his Christian neo-fascist base and dick waving about the arrest of a woman for "taunting".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Project 2025 deniers aren't as rational as they believe themselves to be.

 

[Patooka]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking, skepticism and common sense even to memes you agree with. Maybe especially those, since they're the ones you're most vulnerable to. "This is what happened to the person who was mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Texas Tech." does not imply this happened to her because she was mocking it. Taking for granted this was a suppression of free speech is very much a hoofbeats-means-zebras reaction. The hoofbeats-means-horses reaction would be to expect there's more to the story and she did something police normally take an interest in. Google is your friend.

Greg Abbot is the Governor of Texas.

His post looks like virtue signaling to his Christian neo-fascist base and dick waving about the arrest of a woman for "taunting".

Hold on, that sounds like some critical thinking right there. MAGA no likey people providing context.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I have noted that Kirk made statements implying his death by a firearm was "rational". Those are his words, not mine. The logic fail is explicit in his statement. That is the point.

I have also repeatedly stated his death was immoral. This is an easy differentiation to make.

I’m not saying you’re endorsing his death. What I’m saying is that when people use his “price of freedom” line in response to his killing without clarification, they’re effectively agreeing with that framing, and by extension, endorsing his death.

Making an ambiguous statement is an indication of making an ambiguous statement. Much like flying a Palestinian flag is ambiguous and not possible to determine whether it is support for the Gazan people or support for Hamas and their 10/7 attack.

Is flying an Israeli flag ambiguous?

You are so desperate to try and make a point. You could join in on the conversation instead of looking like all you care about is making an "A-ha! Both sides. *smug*"

 

[pood]

I could go on. The point is that white men as president haven’t been all that impressive, taken as a whole. I’m betting black women like Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, Shirley Chisholm and Kamala Harris, to name just a handful, could have done a much better job.

Why do you think that the flaws of white male presidents have not been because they are fallible human beings, but rather due to their un-woke skin color and genitalia?
And what do you base your claim that the women you mentioned "could have done a much better job"? Just on your prejudices about race and gender?
I get it. You don't like white men, and think black women are superior.

Nope. Every word is wrong, as usual for you. You are not capable of being right about anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking,

We aren't fanning flames of war. We don't have the head of the FCC threatening a corporate merger ax'ing in order to get someone fired from television because they don't like what they are saying.

Perhaps it'd been easier for some to know what happened at the campus if Gov. Abbott knew and didn't post false information.

This Administration has arrested a judge, has masked people pulling other people off the streets, threatening Networks and got at least one person fired, and is targeting "the left" because some entitled white boy shot another white boy over something personal.

There are similarities to what was happening between '01 and '03 when Maher was fired for saying something that wasn't even critical of W Administration, liberals were accused of providing aid to Hussein and not being patriots for not supporting an invasion of Iraq, being manipulated by a fake terror warning system. They didn't arrest judges though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

I disagree with Kimmel getting cancelled, but isn't this a predictable blowback of the fauxgressive cancel culture of 2020?

Firstly, "cancel culture" was about people being held accountable for their actions. The firing of Colbert and Kimmel was about the content of their speech. And Kimmel's speech wasn't even provocative.

Secondly, the GOP cancelled Bill Maher (ABC again) in 2001 when he suggested that the terrorists weren't cowards, as was being portrayed by the right-wing. In no way trying to justify the actions. But fired all the same. Of course, Kimmel can't go to HBO like Maher did as Warner Bros / Discovery are looking at some sort of merger with another company and they won't want the FCC getting in the way.

 

[pood]

Meeting minimum qualifications was not the issue. The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

Oh, nonsense. There are and were plenty of black women qualified for the job, including Harris.

Nonresponsive to my point.

Of course it was responsive.

I usually trim the quotes to the parent layer only, but here I leave the full exchange, just to show how non-responsive you are.
I said that meeting minimum qualifications is not the issue, as all of them do. The question is about selecting somebody close to optimal for the job, which is unlikely to find somebody like that if you restrict your candidate pool to 6.5% of the population based on race and sex.
You responded with "there are and were plenty of black women qualified for the job" because that was not in dispute. But you are more likely to find a great fit if you do not arbitrarily exclude 93.5% of the population.

Except that blacks, women and other minorities have always been arbitrarily excluded. Biden changed that, to his credit. Again, let’s be honest: you know perfectly well that if Biden had not announced he was restricting his search to black women, you still would have complained that Harris, had he picked her, was a “DEI hire.”

It is just astonishing how you destroy irony meters everywhere. Eliminating from consideration blacks and women because of their skin color and plumbing was always the national norm, and Biden decided to end it.

No, he didn't. He did not eliminate exclusion, he doubled up on it and made it explicit. And not just for Veep, but for SCOTUS too!

No, he ended arbitrary exclusion. Good job, Joe!

Women only just got the vote a little over a hundred years ago, and as little as 60 years ago blacks could not even vote in many places!

In what way does that justify excluding everybody who is not a black woman from consideration?

It is justified by ending the exclusion of black women.

She barely lost the election,

Yes, and a better candidate would have probably won it.

with racism and misogyny being the likely reasons for her loss.

Bullshit. Some of her disadvantages were not her fault, like having a very short time in which to prosecute a campaign, or the global anti-incumbent sentiment. Others were, for example focusing her campaign on "vibes".

Ot course racism and misogyny played a huge role in her loss.

 

[pood]

We all know that if Biden had never announced he was restricting his pick to black women, Derec would still be complaining that Harris was picked only because she was female and black and therefore was a “DEI” hire.

I would have still pointed out that she was the wrong decision, but it would have been less obvious that it was a DEI pick, and not just a poor pick more generally.

In any case, Biden chose to be transparent about Harris being a DEI pick.

Of course, you have not yet explained what makes her a poor pick. Any white man who had a track record as AG and senator, among other qualifications, would have been hailed as an exemplary pick.

 

[scombrid]

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.

Well murdering federal agents and agitating during BLM protests didn’t get them their boogaloo. Maybe this will get them the bump they want.

 

[scombrid]

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.

They also own most communication platforms these days.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking, skepticism and common sense even to memes you agree with. Maybe especially those, since they're the ones you're most vulnerable to. "This is what happened to the person who was mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Texas Tech." does not imply this happened to her because she was mocking it. Taking for granted this was a suppression of free speech is very much a hoofbeats-means-zebras reaction. The hoofbeats-means-horses reaction would be to expect there's more to the story and she did something police normally take an interest in. Google is your friend.

Camryn Booker wasn't expelled/arrested for free speech, but for trying to knock a fellow student's hat off his head.

OMG!! How many casualties were there??

If burning the US flag is free speech (and it is), then knocking somebody's hat off might well also be free speech.

Certainly it doesn't warrant an arrest.

Booker was arrested for assault because, according to police, she hit a guy in the head.

Texas Tech student expelled, arrested for assault at on-campus Charlie Kirk event

LUBBOCK, Texas — A former Texas Tech University student was arrested for assault after campus police say she hit a man following an argument at a Charlie Kirk e

abc7amarillo.com

If she wants to go with the "I didn't mean to -- I was aiming for his hat." defense, she's welcome to try, but whether to buy that defense is a judge/jury question, not a police question. Getting arrested for hitting a guy in the head is not the First Amendment's death knell.

It was reported to be about speech by the GOVERNOR of Texas. And he was happy about it.

If you don't think free speech is now a big deal in this country I suggest you ask Jimmy Kimmel.

 

[scombrid]

Brian Kilmeade has the answer.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Of course racism and misogyny played a huge role in her loss.

Would have to be a moron to look at the past 47 elections and think racism or misogyny doesn't play a role. Especially when other more developed countries have had more women leaders already, and the fact that there's only been one non-white president of the U.S. And the fact that there was doubt about Obama's birth certificate at all. Wouldn't have happened if he was white.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Meeting minimum qualifications was not the issue. The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

Oh, nonsense. There are and were plenty of black women qualified for the job, including Harris.

Nonresponsive to my point.

Of course it was responsive.

I usually trim the quotes to the parent layer only, but here I leave the full exchange, just to show how non-responsive you are.
I said that meeting minimum qualifications is not the issue, as all of them do. The question is about selecting somebody close to optimal for the job, which is unlikely to find somebody like that if you restrict your candidate pool to 6.5% of the population based on race and sex.
You responded with "there are and were plenty of black women qualified for the job" because that was not in dispute. But you are more likely to find a great fit if you do not arbitrarily exclude 93.5% of the population.

Except that blacks, women and other minorities have always been arbitrarily excluded. Biden changed that, to his credit. Again, let’s be honest: you know perfectly well that if Biden had not announced he was restricting his search to black women, you still would have complained that Harris, had he picked her, was a “DEI hire.”

It is just astonishing how you destroy irony meters everywhere. Eliminating from consideration blacks and women because of their skin color and plumbing was always the national norm, and Biden decided to end it.

No, he didn't. He did not eliminate exclusion, he doubled up on it and made it explicit. And not just for Veep, but for SCOTUS too!

No, he ended arbitrary exclusion. Good job, Joe!

Women only just got the vote a little over a hundred years ago, and as little as 60 years ago blacks could not even vote in many places!

In what way does that justify excluding everybody who is not a black woman from consideration?

It is justified by ending the exclusion of black women.

She barely lost the election,

Yes, and a better candidate would have probably won it.

with racism and misogyny being the likely reasons for her loss.

Bullshit. Some of her disadvantages were not her fault, like having a very short time in which to prosecute a campaign, or the global anti-incumbent sentiment. Others were, for example focusing her campaign on "vibes".

Ot course racism and misogyny played a huge role in her loss.

I don't know about huge, but it for sure was a factor. But she lost because she didn't address what most people cared about: the economy. And I think that she was a little too left for the middle. The Biden moderate voters voted for Trump or weren't motivated enough to vote.