Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Toni]

I have to say, this kind of situation really does exemplify what I have been saying about how those who have been apparently merely "rhetorically cheeky" up to now only did so as a pretext to support hate and horrors being visited on people, and that this was always where they were headed.

Yes, you were always Nazis, the word Nazi always applied, and none of it was a Godwin after all (although Godwin himself admitted that sometimes, the guy calling the other a Nazi... Well, sometimes in the current climate they are right!)

We always knew that fascism would come to the world wrapped in the visage of Christianity, but representing utter mal-social selfishness. It was written over 2000 years ago describing the actions of tyrants of the day and humanity at that scale is still the same as it ever was.

The hate will be spun so that it's image confuses people as to whether it is hate; the effects of the hate will be people harmed horribly and tortured all the same, but it will be presented to everyone else confusingly.

And that is what we see... Many words used to confuse the issue that Charlie Kirk was a fascist Nazi who hated gay people and preached that hate.

Any chance your alter ego is Barbos? Sorry, bad inside joke. Kirk wasn't a Nazi. The danger with considering that everyone is a Nazi, is that you'll be continuously at war with everyone, and the real enemy will grow in power. Just a thought...

This kind of equivocation isn't helping anything. No one compares "everyone" to Nazis. People who know history compare those who espouse Nazi ideology to Nazis. Concepts like scientific racism, eugenics, anti-socialism, Aryan supremacy, and radical nationalism aren't inventions of "the left".

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

smh

That is sick. In fact, your whole post is fucking sick.

I guess B20 thinks I have made a giant unwarranted leap of faith, to believe that a guy in a relationship with a trans person killed someone who evinces hate for trans people, leaving an apologetic note for his trans partner … and making the unwarranted conjecture that these things could be related.
SHEESH!!

But it’s not a leap of faith for him to imply that since we don’t know that he’s not a boilerplate liberal gunslinger, (common as such folk are) he might well have been a Hillary-loving lib’rul murderer.

Ooookay, dude.

I think I must be missing something; B20 isn’t usually so reactionary.

Something SURELY unrelated, but to feed his confirmation bias, the MI shooter’s lifted pickup truck flying its dual ‘Murkin flags, - tha guy was probably another lib.
But we wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions, right?

JFC, did you guys smoke too much?

Bomb didn't compare transgender people to typhoid mary, get your damned brains checked. Seriously, this is not difficult.

Take as a premise that Kirk genuinely believed that transgender people are mentally ill, and that they represent a social danger. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT YOU NUMBSKULLS - JUST TAKE IT AS THE PREMISE FOR THE ARGUMENT

From there, believing that mentally ill people who represent a social danger should be institutionalized is not hatred. It's protection for them and for everyone else. It's just like institutionalizing a paranoid schizophrenic who can't be managed. There's no hatred involved.

And again - you don't have to agree with the sentiment to understand the viewpoint. In fact, understanding the viewpoint and where it's coming from is the only way you can possibly change anyone's mind. Otherwise all you're left with is your own personal pogrom killing heretics.

Goddamn, I kind of feel like several of you desperately want a civil war.

Please enlighten us because I don't 'understand where it's coming from' if my understanding that it comes from a place of ignorance and bigotry and hatred is incorrect.

Which it may be.

You know that I do have concerns about MtF trans individuals in women's and girls' sports. It may be less a concern than I sometimes worry about--I very well remember the sports scene for girls and women prior to Title IX which has not erased all of the inequalities. I do have a difficult time believing that men and boys would fake being trans in order to participate but it's possible. And I do have some concerns about MtF trans individuals in women's private spaces such as locker rooms. Again, it's probably only rarely an issue and in almost all cases there's not a problem. But there are occasionally individuals who use the cover of being MtF in order to have easier access to their preferred victims. We need to find a way to safeguard against this.

Gonna focus on that last sentence: how deep is this need you profess?

Do we need to find ways to safeguard "women" from predator "women" who use their shared "woman" status as cover to predate?

I would argue that MtF incidents are even less of a concern than CIS women doing such things or that they are similarly prevalent occurrences...

So how much do we need this?

Do we need it so much that we tear up sports, or do we allow the sports leagues to maintain whatever sanity needs be maintained through internal policy decided by those whose interests in the result lie in the interest that led them to be pivotal in said internal regulating body?

Because it looks to me like the people most obsessed about trans people have never been Democrats.

What would normally be a few pages of quiet discussion about something obscure ends up being reams of posts denying the existence of us at all.

Do we need to do it so badly that we tear apart our country, burning it down to end trans healthcare at all?

I really question at this point how much we really need that.

I don’t know, to be honest. Until such instances were linked on these fora, I had zero inkling that such incidents ever happened. Unfortunately, there are more than zero instances of this happening. I don’t believe the predators who have used the self label ‘trans’ are trans but who are not trans but pretend that they are and actually are seriously mentally ill in ways that put others at risk.

I’m certain that there are cis women who assault other women—and children and men, for that matter.

I do not think being trans is a mental illness. I do not believe that trans individuals are more likely to be violent in any way or that they are more likely to behave inappropriately compared with cis individuals.

It does appear that a handful of individuals claiming to be trans have exploited acceptance of trans girls and women in female only spaces to commit assaults. I don’t know how to safeguard against this, tbh. But I see and hear a resurgence of misogyny just as I see a resurgence of anti LGBTQIA individuals and racism and other bigotries, with violence as a feature, not a bug.

I am horrified by all of it. But as a victim of attempted rape and sexual assault, it is indeed difficult for me not to feel the same feelings of dread, fear, revulsion, panic that I felt when I was being targeted when I think about girls and women—gay, straight, bi, trans, having to deal with assault in intimate spaces. It’s been years but yeah, it’s still there.

I do NOT believe that trans individuals are any more likely to be violent than any other person. I absolutely believe that everyone deserves to live their life with dignity and respect and as much love and acceptance as they can find!

How to ensure safety of all is the issue.

I may be more worried than is warranted.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I may be more worried than is warranted.

At this point the main people I'm worried about are the people who want to start a civil war, and turn the country into a theocracy.

 

[Toni]

I may be more worried than is warranted.

At this point the main people I'm worried about are the people who want to start a civil war, and turn the country into a theocracy.

That’s a much bigger worry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As is this.

Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.

It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.

Yeah... bout that... there are a few steps between the 'violence' and nation getting 'back on track'. They aren't pleasant either.

At least it is somewhat a bipartisan thing. Though the Democrat numbers are definitely a cause for alarm.

The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.

The truth, however, is that the right-wing is happy with Trump telling the military they might be killing Americans soon. So the right-wing is full of crap.

This tendency towards needing violence to fix things... that is about as naive (at best) as it gets. The achievements seen for liberalism in the 50s/60s came about from non-violent protest (where the violence was hurled upon the protestors). All the violent crap, it didn't change a thing. And that goes for the right-wing as well. The assassinations, attacks on African Americans failed to stop the Civil Rights Act from happening.

 

[Jarhyn]

As is this.

Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.

It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.

Yeah... bout that... there are a few steps between the 'violence' and nation getting 'back on track'. They aren't pleasant either.

At least it is somewhat a bipartisan thing. Though the Democrat numbers are definitely a cause for alarm.

The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.

The truth, however, is that the right-wing is happy with Trump telling the military they might be killing Americans soon. So the right-wing is full of crap.

This tendency towards needing violence to fix things... that is about as naive (at best) as it gets. The achievements seen for liberalism in the 50s/60s came about from non-violent protest (where the violence was hurled upon the protestors). All the violent crap, it didn't change a thing. And that goes for the right-wing as well. The assassinations, attacks on African Americans failed to stop the Civil Rights Act from happening.

Well yeah, if you look at the shit that happened after the 40's, sure, those "nonviolent" achievements of liberalism were only possible after the violent overthrow of Nazi ideologies worldwide.

I would say a lot of violent crap was necessary before those protests became possible and let's be clear: even peaceful protest is violence, it's just deferred and "softer" violence.

It's people standing up to violence with a deferred, quiet threat: "there are more of us and it doesn't take even this many to shut it all down".

But yeah... Just ignore the fact that the children of Nazis backed down because those aligned against their parents won, and then executed as many of the survivors of the then-contemporary regime of fascism as was possible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As is this.

Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.

It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.

Yeah... bout that... there are a few steps between the 'violence' and nation getting 'back on track'. They aren't pleasant either.

At least it is somewhat a bipartisan thing. Though the Democrat numbers are definitely a cause for alarm.

The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.

The truth, however, is that the right-wing is happy with Trump telling the military they might be killing Americans soon. So the right-wing is full of crap.

This tendency towards needing violence to fix things... that is about as naive (at best) as it gets. The achievements seen for liberalism in the 50s/60s came about from non-violent protest (where the violence was hurled upon the protestors). All the violent crap, it didn't change a thing. And that goes for the right-wing as well. The assassinations, attacks on African Americans failed to stop the Civil Rights Act from happening.

Well yeah, if you look at the shit that happened after the 40's, sure, those "nonviolent" achievements of liberalism were only possible after the violent overthrow of Nazi ideologies worldwide.

I would say a lot of violent crap was necessary before those protests became possible and let's be clear: even peaceful protest is violence, it's just deferred and "softer" violence.

It's people standing up to violence with a deferred, quiet threat: "there are more of us and it doesn't take even this many to shut it all down".

But yeah... Just ignore the fact that the children of Nazis backed down because those aligned against their parents won, and then executed as many of the survivors of the then-contemporary regime of fascism as was possible.

I suppose that makes some sense if one looks at situations in a bubble, scoping out the next seven moves in a chess game... without taking into account the response of the opponent. The USS Maine and the Reichstag Fire are two notable incidents which weren't even controversial that were abused by those in power to seize control of the narrative and/or more power.

MLK Jr used the violence against protestors to win. Gandhi used the violence against protestors to win. Weather Underground or any of the radical leftist groups achieve a damn thing? Gandhi got Britian to leave India! MLK Jr, Malcolm X, Medger Evers got the Civil Rights Act signed.

And this ignores the whole, well if we are going to do violence... then what exactly? What is the game plan? Off a few people and you think this all ends? Do you have any idea how huge the MAGA is? How the GOP is entirely backing it now? How the Christian Dominionists are almost running the show? You think a little bit of violence will work?

The only thing right now that helps us is the Courts . And some of them are waving red flags, particularly this one which excoriates the entire thing. Right now we are in a Brown v Board of Education set up, where the courts are required to take a stand. That is all we have going for us. No amount of violence is going to change anything. And if you think the Nazis were just one or two bullets away from never achieving anything, you really need to recheck your history notes.

There is also the military. President Trump put the military on notice and they noticed it.

 

[Jarhyn]

As is this.

Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.

It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.

Yeah... bout that... there are a few steps between the 'violence' and nation getting 'back on track'. They aren't pleasant either.

At least it is somewhat a bipartisan thing. Though the Democrat numbers are definitely a cause for alarm.

The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.

The truth, however, is that the right-wing is happy with Trump telling the military they might be killing Americans soon. So the right-wing is full of crap.

This tendency towards needing violence to fix things... that is about as naive (at best) as it gets. The achievements seen for liberalism in the 50s/60s came about from non-violent protest (where the violence was hurled upon the protestors). All the violent crap, it didn't change a thing. And that goes for the right-wing as well. The assassinations, attacks on African Americans failed to stop the Civil Rights Act from happening.

Well yeah, if you look at the shit that happened after the 40's, sure, those "nonviolent" achievements of liberalism were only possible after the violent overthrow of Nazi ideologies worldwide.

I would say a lot of violent crap was necessary before those protests became possible and let's be clear: even peaceful protest is violence, it's just deferred and "softer" violence.

It's people standing up to violence with a deferred, quiet threat: "there are more of us and it doesn't take even this many to shut it all down".

But yeah... Just ignore the fact that the children of Nazis backed down because those aligned against their parents won, and then executed as many of the survivors of the then-contemporary regime of fascism as was possible.

I suppose that makes some sense if one looks at situations in a bubble, scoping out the next seven moves in a chess game... without taking into account the response of the opponent. The USS Maine and the Reichstag Fire are two notable incidents which weren't even controversial that were abused by those in power to seize control of the narrative and/or more power.

MLK Jr used the violence against protestors to win. Gandhi used the violence against protestors to win. Weather Underground or any of the radical leftist groups achieve a damn thing? Gandhi got Britian to leave India! MLK Jr, Malcolm X, Medger Evers got the Civil Rights Act signed.

And this ignores the whole, well if we are going to do violence... then what exactly? What is the game plan? Off a few people and you think this all ends? Do you have any idea how huge the MAGA is? How the GOP is entirely backing it now? How the Christian Dominionists are almost running the show? You think a little bit of violence will work?

The only thing right now that helps us is the Courts . And some of them are waving red flags, particularly this one which excoriates the entire thing. Right now we are in a Brown v Board of Education set up, where the courts are required to take a stand. That is all we have going for us. No amount of violence is going to change anything. And if you think the Nazis were just one or two bullets away from never achieving anything, you really need to recheck your history notes.

There is also the military. President Trump put the military on notice and they noticed it.

If no amount of violence can change this, in any level of abstraction, at least in your mind, then you have already accepted defeat.

The problem is now that the violence necessary was never wielded, in abstract or otherwise, and now the right thinks there are no consequences.

All that was asked is that you at least prepare for violence, even if the first offer is not directly violent.

MLK Jr. Never would have been successful if not for Malcolm X being the offered alternative.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If no amount of violence can change this, in any level of abstraction, at least in your mind, then you have already accepted defeat.

Violence isn't a magic button. The Allies didn't just violence things up and win WWII. Look at the IDF. How much violence in Gaza... and Hamas is still there. One can't just say violence is the answer and not even have a plan. It means they are naive and don't know what they are talking about.

The problem is now that the violence necessary was never wielded, in abstract or otherwise, and now the right thinks there are no consequences.

Well, Trump thinks there isn't. The GOP is backing this, but for the dismantling of the US. I don't know if they'd support killing Americans in the Senate. The House, oh yeah. Those people are crazy. Of course, they probably don't want to kill as much they want submission to their way of life.

MLK Jr. Never would have been successful if not for Malcolm X being the offered alternative.

Malcolm X wised up.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I may be more worried than is warranted.

At this point the main people I'm worried about are the people who want to start a civil war, and turn the country into a theocracy.

That's the position we're in though.

They want bloody conflict. They advocate for it publicly and unmistakably through their rhetoric. Even the most uneducated, alcoholic whoremonger has been told they're in God's army. Got Wit Uss. History is replete with bloody examples of what happens when God is on your side.

OTOH, there are those who understand that it would be catastrophic in every way imaginable. Therefore it's vital to do and say anything to prevent it from happening. The problem with that is that it emboldens those who want armed conflict because they can keep pushing and pushing for confrontation because they know that when push comes to shove, they're not going to get pushed back.

The bad guys are going to win because knowledgable people want peace at any price.

There is one definite event that's going to happen which will tell us exactly where we stand: the 2026 elections. Usually there's a backlash against the dominant party, but if that doesn't happen and if traditionally blue areas turn dark red then that'll tell the tale.

That leads to event two: if Trump remains in office then it ends all doubt. At that point we'd undeniably and simultaneously be a banana republic and a super power.

In between each of those elections could be inciting incidents e.g. federal troops gunning down civilian protesters and/or arrests of major political opponents and subsequent imprisonment and/or executions.

I don't think this is hyperbolic. I hated Bush/Cheney but I didn't fear for my civil liberties. I would've been disappointed had McCain or Romney won, but it didn't frighten me. This manifestation of American fascism is different.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

As is this.

Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.

It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.

Yeah... bout that... there are a few steps between the 'violence' and nation getting 'back on track'. They aren't pleasant either.

At least it is somewhat a bipartisan thing. Though the Democrat numbers are definitely a cause for alarm.

The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.

The truth, however, is that the right-wing is happy with Trump telling the military they might be killing Americans soon. So the right-wing is full of crap.

This tendency towards needing violence to fix things... that is about as naive (at best) as it gets. The achievements seen for liberalism in the 50s/60s came about from non-violent protest (where the violence was hurled upon the protestors). All the violent crap, it didn't change a thing. And that goes for the right-wing as well. The assassinations, attacks on African Americans failed to stop the Civil Rights Act from happening.

This is a different game. Nearly everyone played by the same set of rules and adhered to long established norms. That's clearly no longer the case. Protests mean nothing when the party in charge doesn't need those votes and despises them enough to see them as enemies of the state.

Nixon is reviled, but even he feared mass protests to the point where he created the all voluntary army in order to stop the protests. That policy is still working today. OTOH, today's GOP does not give the slightest damn about approval ratings from the center and left because they can turn out enough of the votes to neuter opposition.

Hate sells and they're making billions.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think this is hyperbolic. I hated Bush/Cheney but I didn't fear for my civil liberties.

You should have! They were major contributors to the decline of our democratic safeguards, and that was no accident.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think this is hyperbolic. I hated Bush/Cheney but I didn't fear for my civil liberties.

You should have! They were major contributors to the decline of our democratic safeguards, and that was no accident.

Indeed. Jimmy Kimmel was fired by the same company that fired Bill Maher after his not particularly controversial remarks on 9/11 regarding the resolve of attackers that knew they were going to die in the attack. The right-wing media attacked liberals for daring to question the idea of the Iraq Invasion. W interfered with Stem Cell research very early on. W tried to privatize a portion of social security in a couple trillion giveaway to investment companies. They authorized the use of torture on detainees and while recovering from surgery at the hospital, the W Admin tried to force Ashcroft to re-sign off on a secret surveillance program. Of course, by 2007, not a single person had ever supported W for President and by now, many people have forgotten the shady shit that went down

Everything Trump is doing now, W was the warm up. Project 2025 debug'd what didn't work the first time and enhanced what did.

 

[Elixir]

today's GOP does not give the slightest damn about approval ratings from the center and left because they can turn out CHEAT enough of the votes to neuter opposition.

FIFY

 

[Elixir]

President Trump put the military on notice and they noticed it.

How did/do they feel about it? Ready to rub out some libs?
No?
Discharge awaits.

 

[Jarhyn]

Violence isn't a magic button

No more than punishment and praise is a magic button. You can't after all just wantonly punish and praise someone randomly and hope the outcom you want.

But much like the situation where you have screws and something to fasten down with them, while neither the screws and the screwdriver are magic, while wiggling them at the problem does nothing, the solution itself still requires application of those tools, and in the proper way.

No change happens, no change is possible, when there is a violent regime and that violent bully is not opposed with every measure of promised violence.

It is not a magic button... But it is definitely a necessary button have on your table, and a necessary tool to be able to use.

Your peace at all costs will lead you to the peace of the grave.

I will not share that peace. Nobody should. So it is the peace of the violent and wild and free, or it is the peace of the grave.

And bear in mind I am not the one threatening you with your peace of the grave, that's the Trumpists.

It is laughable that you will watch someone who murders others who are powerless and begging for their lives, and think that when YOU ask nicely, YOU will be spared.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Violence isn't a magic button

No more than punishment and praise is a magic button. You can't after all just wantonly punish and praise someone randomly and hope the outcom you want.

But much like the situation where you have screws and something to fasten down with them, while neither the screws and the screwdriver are magic, while wiggling them at the problem does nothing, the solution itself still requires application of those tools, and in the proper way.

No change happens, no change is possible, when there is a violent regime and that violent bully is not opposed with every measure of promised violence.

It is not a magic button... But it is definitely a necessary button have on your table, and a necessary tool to be able to use.

Your peace at all costs will lead you to the peace of the grave.

Who said peace at all costs?

I will not share that peace. Nobody should. So it is the peace of the violent and wild and free, or it is the peace of the grave.

I'm thinking that'd be a false dichotomy.

And bear in mind I am not the one threatening you with your peace of the grave, that's the Trumpists.

I think anyone who steps up to senseless violence is an enemy of the state, period. I don't play teams.

You haven't put any sense to proclaimed violence..

It is laughable that you will watch someone who murders others who are powerless and begging for their lives, and think that when YOU ask nicely, YOU will be spared.

WTF are you going on about?

 

[Elixir]

Who said peace at all costs?

Uh… Emily, for example?

I think anyone who steps up to senseless violence is an enemy of the state

Like Americans who fought in WWII?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who said peace at all costs?

Uh… Emily, for example?

Why are you listening to her?

I think anyone who steps up to senseless violence is an enemy of the state

Like Americans who fought in WWII?

As I noted in a previous post, the Allies didn't use "violence" to win WWII. There was a plan. And jebus, let's get fucking real here. We aren't at war... yet. And really there is no war to be fought. If they try to seize control, the question will be are they successful.

 

[Elixir]

Why are you listening to her?

She responds to (freaks out about) my posts. Why does anyone on a message board listen to anyone else? She’s a bright person who honestly shares the feelings she wears in her sleeve AFAIK. Not much more can be asked, really.
I do ignore most of those whom I find disingenuous.

Allies didn't use "violence" to win WWII.

That will be news to the descendents of people who lived in Dresden or Nagasaki.

really there is no war to be fought.

That will not deter the heroes who violently put down the “invasion from within”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why are you listening to her?

She responds to (freaks out about) my posts. Why does anyone on a message board listen to anyone else? She’s a bright person who honestly shares the feelings she wears in her sleeve AFAIK. Not much more can be asked, really.

I'm really not so certain about that anymore.

Allies didn't use "violence" to win WWII.

That will be news to the descendents of people who lived in Dresden or Nagasaki.

You don't need to be daft here. My words came with a context which you snipped out.

really there is no war to be fought.

That will not deter the heroes who violently put down the “invasion from within”.

That hasn't started... yet.