Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[steve_bank]

I listened to a democrat form Oregon say how she was glad he was dead. Said with vitriol.

The left is showing itself to be as crazy and extreme as any of the MAGA.

 

[robnisch]

 

[Bomb#20]

if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place

Sorry, but a lack of logic is if anything more prevalent on the right than the left.

Let's apply some logic to your reply. You say "Sorry, but" as though you think your claim contradicts mine. What makes you think so? The "if anything" is a hedge. If you'd written *"a lack of logic is more prevalent on the right than the left", that would have conflicted with my assertion; but that isn't what you said. Is it what you meant?

If you did mean "a lack of logic is more prevalent on the right than the left", that's a claim that there are more logical leftists than logical rightists per capita; the claim necessarily implies that there exist logical leftists. Which leftist IIDB poster you think is logical? Can you exhibit any logical leftist at all, even outside IIDB?

If your "if anything" hedge was necessary and you're only claiming logic is no more prevalent on the right than the left, what's your point? You aren't contradicting me -- I don't recall saying if those guys were logical they'd be rightists. Looks to me like the most logical people here are neither leftists nor rightists -- they're independents, moderates, centrists, liberals, libertarians, apolitical, sects of one, what have you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trump is a disappointment to me, but then all presidents have been. His crime is rising to the top outside of the standard pathways. A person is supposed to start in lower offices, work their way up, and then jump from either governor or senator to president. Eisenhower was the allowable exception because he rose through the military, but he did rise through the system.

By the time anyone else is in a position to run there is so much dirt on them and dirt on their hands that they go along and get along. Doesn't matter which party, there isn't as much difference as people pretend.

Trumps position on the border is the same as that of Clinton. He failed to get rid of support for Ukraine. He's a 1990's New York City Democrat through and through. He's particularly scary because he now has in his tool kit the weapons prepared by the Democrats to bring him down. Every time, every damn time, I say "be careful the powers you give to your guy, the other guy will eventually wield them." I've been right every time I've said that.

You can call him Hitler or Nazi, or you can try to arrest this trend towards civil war. You can't have both. Which do you want? Do you want civil war? If you don't want it, what are you doing to defuse the current atmosphere?

Are you blind to how he's totally stomping all over the Constitution?

And note that your approach to avoiding war is appeasement. History will tell you how bad a solution this is.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I listened to a democrat form Oregon say how she was glad he was dead. Said with vitriol.

The left is showing itself to be as crazy and extreme as any of the MAGA.

No matter what the left does we will be viewed as "crazy". People think it's "crazy" just to oppose the death penalty ffs.

 

[unapologetic]

Do you want civil war? If you don't want it, what are you doing to defuse the current atmosphere?

Oh yeah?
What do you suggest? Voting? I'm already doing that.
Protest? I'm doing that too. They are ignoring us. They learned from the protests of the 60s. Just ignore us, we get depressed and go away.
I can't compete with FauxNews.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Do you want civil war? If you don't want it, what are you doing to defuse the current atmosphere?

Oh yeah?
What do you suggest? Voting? I'm already doing that.
Protest? I'm doing that too. They are ignoring us. They learned from the protests of the 60s. Just ignore us, we get depressed and go away.
I can't compete with FauxNews.

My question is what exactly is the limit to what is considered "divisive rhetoric"? Merely announcing you are against the Christian religion is enough for this government to consider someone "extremist". And these same Christians also are Creationist and believe accepting evolution is "anti-Christian". Should I stop talking about evolution too? I'm done with this idiotic tone policing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

But there is no point to violence that won't accomplish it's objectives.

Would violence against the current government do any good? Only if it comes from high within our own government. If the army realizes that the enemy is in Washington and not in the streets violence could accomplish something. Otherwise, it would just become a rallying point that does more harm than good.

 

[Elixir]

Would violence against the current government do any good?

It won't directly overpower them, that is certain. There are other ways that violence effects change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This past weekend an ex of mine called me. She's been doxxed from posts she made on FB regarding Kirk being a monstrous asshole. Death threats followed, her home address was publicly posted, and she's been put on leave from her job. She's almost certainly going to end up fired. There is no practical legal remedy for her. That made her furious with me, but that's why she's an ex.

Your ex works for assholes.

There's no reason to think that. We've seen it repeatedly, companies know they aren't in position to defy the Fuhrer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't call people nazis because they're actually nazis. You call people nazis so that you can justify violence against them and justify imposing your own authoritarian views on heretics who don't adopt your beliefs.

They sure waddle and quack.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Pizza pranks, Charlie Kirk rants: More disturbing livestreams surface in Cranford murder case

In Cranford, a young man charged with murder allegedly targeted two girls on an e-bike, with disturbing online comments surfacing after the tragic crash.

nj1015.com

Why's it the left that has to "tone down the rhetoric"?

 

[bilby]

I listened to a democrat form Oregon say how she was glad he was dead. Said with vitriol.

The left is showing itself to be as crazy and extreme as any of the MAGA.

Yeah, those crazy leftist extremists. I heard one the other day saying they were glad Joseph Goebbels was dead. Said with vitriol. How nasty and mean is that??

 

[bilby]

This past weekend an ex of mine called me. She's been doxxed from posts she made on FB regarding Kirk being a monstrous asshole. Death threats followed, her home address was publicly posted, and she's been put on leave from her job. She's almost certainly going to end up fired. There is no practical legal remedy for her. That made her furious with me, but that's why she's an ex.

Your ex works for assholes.

There's no reason to think that. We've seen it repeatedly, companies know they aren't in position to defy the Fuhrer.

You're right; They are probably just cowardly assholes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Democrats have a hand in this too. Seriously, Democrats have spent nearly a decade constantly telling the public that Republicans are fascists - loudly, on TV, over and over again. Their supporters, including several on this site, have spent more than a decade insisting that conservatives and even sometimes independents are nazis, or at least nazi adjacent.

The right is on a bender, but so is the left. And if you don't think that Democrats are partially responsible for the state we find ourselves in, then you are naively and blindly partisan.

What does it take to get you to recognize fascism?

 

[bilby]

Certainly all of the Presidents (of either party) have, since 9/11, been complicit in the process of increasing the power of the executive at the expense of the other branches of government, and have allowed the proliferation of militarised police forces, and the expansion of unconstitutional powers and actions by quasi-police entities such as ICE and TSA.

This has made it easier for Trump to sieze unprecedented power, and to intimidate anyone who opposes him.

But "the left" were not involved in this process at all. The US has, for a very long time, been a two party state, comprised of a right wing party of traditional conservatives, and a far right party of batshit crazy dominionist authoritarians.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And if you don't think that Democrats are partially responsible for the state we find ourselves in, then you are naively and blindly partisan.

If you are blaming the Democrats for what Trump was going to do anyway, then you might have Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Democrats have a hand in this too. Seriously, Democrats have spent nearly a decade constantly telling the public that Republicans are fascists - loudly, on TV, over and over again. Their supporters, including several on this site, have spent more than a decade insisting that conservatives and even sometimes independents are nazis, or at least nazi adjacent.

The right is on a bender, but so is the left. And if you don't think that Democrats are partially responsible for the state we find ourselves in, then you are naively and blindly partisan.

What does it take to get you to recognize fascism?

Isn't that clear? A person is only a fascist if they say "I am a fascist".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's loaded because Emily is not concerned about "predator 'women' " (your phrase), but predator men. Primarily because men are usually much stronger and wield more force.

This is in response to post 1409.

The point would be that predator women are a threat, but not a common one... much like transgender predators. Women face problems from normal males all the time. Emily Lake, as per the norm, concentrates on the less common or trite things for whatever reason. Tens of thousands of men in jail for rape... because we need to has threads about a handful transgender rapes.

And so far they have not managed to find any unquestionable case.

We have "a skirt", but that's not proof they are trans.

We have someone who clearly is trans and has been convicted of rape in the past. What's missing is whether they were living as trans at the time of the rapes. And I get very suspicious of missing data in such situations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Something that the males posting in this forum do not completely understand is that girls and women are conditioned to fear sexual assault from a very young age. I think most of us are aware of ‘the talk’ parents of black sons have to give their sons regarding the very legitimate fears of violence and victimization they face at the hands of law enforcement and society in general. Few of us do not understand the necessity of this

The problem here is that you are applying a legitimate fear to a situation where it does not make sense. If there's enough traffic that a man hiding in the women's room would be exposed there's enough traffic that a rape would be interrupted. Thus it is not a realistic threat.