Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

police say Booker hit the male in the head with an open hand

Poor guy. Good thing he was supporting the dead Fascist.

Yeah, it's kind of hard for the rest of us to take it seriously when for the first time in living memory leftists start giving a rat's ass about free speech.

This you? Mr. "I only focus on the arguments and I'm so hyper-logical blah blah blah blah blahhh".

Yes, I do remember posts from 5 or more months ago because I happen to have an awesome memory.

 

[Emily Lake]

Good to know you're down for a civil war, I guess.

And you’re going to back down from it.

FFS, I'm on the side of legal and democratically addressing civil disputes, rather than wholesale political persecution and strife... and you think that's a bad thing?

I do NOT expect truly massive lethal violence killing and maiming as many (percentage of population) as last time, but that’s not a critical issue because fascists will kill millions if we all back down.
That’s what they do.

You're still more or less taking the position of "we have to kill them first". I don't support it, and I think it's incredibly antisocial, intolerant, and authoritarian.

 

[Emily Lake]

Being glad he’s not around to keep talking shit isn’t the same as celebrating his death. For many, it’s relief after years of his verbal attacks on their communities. But yes, there are people celebrating, and I guess to some, the difference in reasons don’t matter.

Not just celebrating - there's been a rash of people gleefully posting who they think should be politically assassinated next.

 

[Elixir]

Good to know you're down for a civil war, I guess.

And you’re going to back down from it.

FFS, I'm on the side of legal and democratically addressing civil disputes, rather than wholesale political persecution and strife... and you think that's a bad thing?

No, I don’t think that. (HINT: every time you are tempted to type “you think” or “do you think”, the answer is NO.
We’re all “for” those things Emily. Are they worth fighting for, or only lip service?

You're still more or less taking the position of "we have to kill them first".

You’re confusing “them” with an ideology, and “kill” with “defeat”

I don't support it, and I think it's incredibly antisocial, intolerant, and authoritarian.

I wonder how you see fighting authoritarians as authoritarian.
Unlike your sweet self, I couldn’t care less about socializing with or otherwise tolerating authoritarians. You find that objectionable? Move to Russia. Everyone loves their leader. OR ELSE.

In case you didn’t realize it (which is apparent) THAT is the model to which Republicans are committed to making us conform.
READ PROJECT 2025
Get onboard or stay smug in your tacit loving support of our dictatorial regime.
It’s nice that you really want everyone to get along. But my parents fought in three wars so you don’t have to.
Kumbaya.

 

[Emily Lake]

You can't convict without motive, so motive is very important.

Sure you can. The motive for committing burglary is irrelevant when someone has video of you robbing the place.

The right-wing is trying to paint this as a whacko liberal, and that the left-wing is at war with them. That our rhetoric led to this, that it fed Robinson the reason to commit this crime. And that they need to respond against us.

At the risk of a pile on, I think leftist rhetoric - including that used by democratic politicians - has contributed. Rightist rhetoric has also contributed. But if you think that leftist language and narratives are somehow unrelated to our current situation, I think you're being willfully blind.

A couple of decades ago, most of the shit-flinging was "demonrat" and "rethuglican", "snowflake" and "godbotherer" and similar such insulting punnification. That wasn't exactly nice and courteous, but it was somewhat reasonable.

But it's been shifting, and you can't possibly be blind to it. Just in the last decade, it's become commonplace for liberals, particularly progressives, to refer to conservatives of any sort as fascists, nazis, racists, bigots, and all sorts of extremely inflammatory terms. We just went through an election cycle where politicians and pundits regularly and routinely told the public at large that republicans are fascists intent on destroying democracy and setting up a dictator for life, that this was an existential threat, and that the people needed to do something about it.

I'm not saying that republicans are beyond reproach - they're not. They've been just as vitriolic.

But at the end of the day, we've had several years of politicians, activists, and everyday leftists defining the right in a way that essentially demands a violent response.

 

[Emily Lake]

I've been aghast at the outpouring of "who should be assassinated next" on social media related to this.

Don't keep me in suspense! Who is it? I must have missed the outpouring.

 

[Emily Lake]

Good to know you're down for a civil war, I guess.

And you’re going to back down from it.

FFS, I'm on the side of legal and democratically addressing civil disputes, rather than wholesale political persecution and strife... and you think that's a bad thing?

No, I don’t think that. (HINT: every time you are tempted to type “you think” or “do you think”, the answer is NO.
We’re all “for” those things Emily. Are they worth fighting for, or only lip service?

And yet you're still criticizing me for NOT being on board for a civil war, and for trying to convince real people to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[pood]

But it's been shifting, and you can't possibly be blind to it. Just in the last decade, it's become commonplace for liberals, particularly progressives, to refer to conservatives of any sort as fascists, nazis, racists, bigots, and all sorts of extremely inflammatory terms. We just went through an election cycle where politicians and pundits regularly and routinely told the public at large that republicans are fascists intent on destroying democracy and setting up a dictator for life, that this was an existential threat, and that the people needed to do something about it.

Well, sure, but that has the virtue of being true.

 

[Elixir]

And yet you're still criticizing me for NOT being on board for a civil war

If you are an absolute pacifist, I can dig it. So was I at your age, I suspect.
Lessons learned- don’t lie down for fascists, or incalculable suffering will result. Not “maybe”, certainly.
You probably support “peaceful protest”, right?
I wonder if you still support it when peaceful protesters are getting locked up and disappeared. That’s already happening Emily. No due process, no negative repercussions for the orange perp. Every week, the group it will happen to is being insidiously expanded, and gulags around the world are taking your money to lock them up, put them to slave labor…
If we all take your stance, Trump will be dictator for life even if he outlives the current term, and this society will very much resemble Russia’s, including our economic population profiles.
I won’t thank you.

 

[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?

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

I'm saying he said it's an acceptable outcome. Thus I'm taking him at his word and saying that for it to happen to him is an acceptable outcome. I would not consider it an acceptable outcome if he had not said that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

No. Radical Islam is a few orders of magnitude more out there than radical Christianity.
But Islamism gets defended by the far left because of the latter's rigid oppressor-oppressed paradigm that identifies Muslims as "the oppressed" because they are not western.

Disagree. Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's just we haven't seen much of their insanity.

 

[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.

I'm saying he said it's an acceptable outcome. Thus I'm taking him at his word and saying that for it to happen to him is an acceptable outcome. I would not consider it an acceptable outcome if he had not said that.

Yes. I understand your position.

Some of us find it unacceptable even if Kirk found it acceptable.

 

[Gospel]

I didn't like Kirk at all. Being honest here.

Edit: the topic on this thread is about his assassination, and I hate that even more. Sorry having a drink.

 

[Ford]

I don't want to live in a war zone.

But... It is starting to look to me like that is the only way we will keep our freedoms.

If Rump runs again in 2028, I WILL get violent.

(I am hopeing the Dems regain a majority in 2026, and impeach the king, so I won't have to get violent.)

The sad part is that even if the Democrats take back the House and garner a slim majority in the Senate, and they do try to impeach Trump again, it will amount to nothing. Because even if they manage to get the votes in the House, the Senate Republicans will never, ever convict and remove Dear Leader.

For example, yesterday Ted "Cancun" Cruz (of all people) came out and offered up a surprisingly direct criticism of Trump's handling of the Kimmel situation, saying that it was "right out of Goodfellas" and set a dangerous precedent. But make no mistake, even if Trump is drooling behind the Resolute Desk and demanding the execution of Democratic leaders, Ted will do as he's always done and kiss the ring. The current Republican party will never, ever move against Trump. Hell, if he keels over and dies in office it will be at least a weekend (at Bernie's?) before they admit he's dead, and will immediately turn around and blame "radical leftists," "Antifa," and "the liberal media" for his passing.

 

[unapologetic]

your same argument can be used against the next Democrat in office, and the next anybody at all after that. It does not solve a problem, it only leads to civil war

It is no longer about a difference of views. We are loosing freedoms worth fighting for.

We just went through an election cycle where Democrats repeatedly referred to Trump as a fascist, repeatedly referred to all Republicans as fascists,

And Rump is proving them right. Tough shit if the Repugs feel insulted.

 

[scombrid]

Oh no. The left called Trump a fascists because he does things like take bribes from UAE and extort tribute from US companies.

Nevermind the right wing militias. The left doesn’t worship Charlie Kirk enough.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

No. Radical Islam is a few orders of magnitude more out there than radical Christianity.
But Islamism gets defended by the far left because of the latter's rigid oppressor-oppressed paradigm that identifies Muslims as "the oppressed" because they are not western.

It has been pointed out to you consistently that the left doesn't defend "Islamism" but rather we just happen not to believe every single Muslim is an evil terrorist. You just conflate the two things (deleted).

 

[laughing dog]

Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's just we haven't seen much of their insanity.

Speak for yourself because your eyes must be wide shut.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Republican senator says First Amendment shouldn't be the "ultimate right"

Senator Cynthia Lummis told Semafor that the First Amendment should no longer be considered the "ultimate right."

www.newsweek.com

The party of free speech y'all!

 

[Colonel Sanders]

And yet you're still criticizing me for NOT being on board for a civil war

If you are an absolute pacifist, I can dig it. So was I at your age, I suspect.
Lessons learned- don’t lie down for fascists, or incalculable suffering will result. Not “maybe”, certainly.
You probably support “peaceful protest”, right?
I wonder if you still support it when peaceful protesters are getting locked up and disappeared. That’s already happening Emily. No due process, no negative repercussions for the orange perp. Every week, the group it will happen to is being insidiously expanded, and gulags around the world are taking your money to lock them up, put them to slave labor…
If we all take your stance, Trump will be dictator for life even if he outlives the current term, and this society will very much resemble Russia’s, including our economic population profiles.
I won’t thank you.

Yep. There is simply no credible threat of significant consequences to this administration and its growing paramilitary force (ICE). There's no potential consequences for the party and politicians that support Trump, nor for its financial supporters.

People can protest all they want, but the people that are being protested against simply don't care. They're not afraid of marches for X or anything like that. It's getting to the point where their apathy is far more dangerous than anger. If you can anger someone, it shows they care about something having to do with what you're saying, but it's apathy that really devastates.