Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Politesse]

A detailed summary of the day.

The one actual fight was over on Bancroft, where there are always a bunch of street vendors selling cheap random crap. Two guys got into a screaming match that escalated. On campus, four students were arrested for trying to attach a cardboard sign to Sather Gate, aka vandalism. Later, police broke up a verbal fight that they said was turning violent. That was it. The riot.

Before you ask, no, I still don't "side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley".

 

[Elixir]

There’s still a Charlie Kirk channel on Dish.
I thought he was dead.

Right wingers do like their personality cults.

Yabut, how devoid of personality do you have to be, to idolize the personality of a dead guy?
(Christians need not answer)

 

[laughing dog]

It seems pretty clear that there were not lots of civilian violent poopy heads, so the use of metaphor “fascist” appears as hyperbole or irony, depending on one’s feeling.

 

[Politesse]

It seems pretty clear that there were not lots of civilian violent poopy heads, so the use of metaphor “fascist” appears as hyperbole or irony, depending on one’s feeling.

If fascism looks like anything, it surely looks like fully armored soldiers throwing an eighteen year old to the ground and booking them for trying to glue a cardboard ladybug to a public gate, while dressed as a frog. I mean, detaining a violent thug. Not the soldier, the frog. Police are heroes.

 

[TSwizzle]

So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again,

See post #2074 above where I point out that the video you yourself posted contradicts what you claimed - the claim being that protesters were assaulting TPUSA people.

Link/quote and highlight what it is I made up.

 

[Elixir]

Link/quote and highlight what it is I made up.

Wah wah wah!!!
“Climate change is a myth”

Ok, to be fair, lacking any originality or ideas of your own, you didn’t “make it up”.
The same is likely to be true of every other stupid right wing trope you incessantly parrot.

Asking people to find something original, that is, actually made up by the Fizzle, limits them to two word insults… e.g. “insufferable prick”, even though they ritually vote for one. But I don’t see a lot of other RW pundits electing to use the phrase, so credit to the Fizzle.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Fascism is a spectrum, I suppose. There’s a murky area of authoritarian creep that leads to it. But labeling individuals who oppose fascism as the villains, even if they get violent, seems nowhere on that spectrum—though I suppose one might try to defend it.

Consider the American Revolution: colonists opposed the brutally violent tactics committed by the Redcoats, even if the original complaints were just about unfair taxes. It was really the opposition to authoritarianism and state violence that popularized independence. But not all colonists were pro-independence; a significant number were fiercely loyal to the British, and some even became spies.

Let's call these two groups the Revolutionaries and the Loyalists. The Loyalists were effectively accepting of systemic violence and oppression. If these people were all alive today, the Loyalists would likely be labeled fascist collaborators and the Revolutionaries labeled anti-fascists. Interestingly, some of the Revolutionaries went quite overboard with their own violence and thuggery (yup, "violent thugs") by doing things like tarring and feathering their neighbors.

Many of these Loyalists eventually fled to Canada, and their descendants can still be found in the eastern provinces there. But what is interesting isn't just that we celebrate the "violent" Revolutionaries today, but rather what the Loyalists said at the time. They essentially accused the Revolutionaries of being worse authoritarians than the King—or, as the Loyalist Mather Byles famously put it, they preferred one tyrant 3,000 miles away to "three thousand tyrants one mile away." In today’s language, they were accusing the anti-fascists of being the fascists.

 

[Jarhyn]

It seems pretty clear that there were not lots of civilian violent poopy heads, so the use of metaphor “fascist” appears as hyperbole or irony, depending on one’s feeling.

If fascism looks like anything, it surely looks like fully armored soldiers throwing an eighteen year old to the ground and booking them for trying to glue a cardboard ladybug to a public gate, while dressed as a frog. I mean, detaining a violent thug. Not the soldier, the frog. Police are heroes.

The facts of today should not be forgotten, especially quiet small places, limited forums, especially of those who refuse allegiance and dogma and masters and gods and kings, but accept all people not seeking to be "above" as equals.

TPUSA was in service of cheering for forcing all three upon people, and still is. They demand that we believe in a contradiction that can be used to say anything; God is the tool of masters and kings, and people who would pretend being a "god" makes them the creator/administrator god of this world, or grants divine right to harm people against their consent.

And the most fucked up part is that not everyone trying to sell that contradiction sells it in the same way, and it always comes down to "the world should be just the way I want it and no other way that may vary from this".

I think, myself, we should strive for having the maximum possible variance expressed among ourselves; to interfere as little as possible and to accept a little more than we are expected to make others tolerate, and to agree on a general margin as is supported by the mercy of others.

I do think there could be more. I think there could be exactly what we see, no more or less... But we certainly see this same playbook trotted out again and again and again.

Oftentimes, there's even an undertone of gender politics, and the fascists usually side against those who press for freedom.

 

[Bomb#20]

It saying the gentleman was a street vendor is likely why one might not think he was inside.

Nobody said he was inside. Nobody said the violence was inside.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again,

See post #2074 above where I point out that the video you yourself posted contradicts what you claimed - the claim being that protesters were assaulting TPUSA people.

Link/quote and highlight what it is I made up.

And while you're at it, watch the three minute video again and let us know how many seconds in it contradicts TSwizzle's claim.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

As I said upthread, my source was ABC. There's a link in post #1870.

Post#1870, page 94. This shows that there were attendees inside, police outside and protesters also outside, with the police between the TPUSA and protesters. Then smoke bombs (police issue) and police attacks on protesters and arrests, no harm done to the people inside hall. So, no interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people by your and TSwizzle's own evidence. So the both sides were the police and the protesters, with the police being the thugs, as some protesters were bleeding.

How do you figure "there were attendees inside" and "no harm done to the people inside hall" imply "no interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people"?!? There were more TPUSA people there besides the ones inside. The Kirk fans who got beat up were outside. According to the ABC story,

"Fortune said while purchasing a T-shirt for her husband from a street vendor, she witnessed him get beat up by a protestor. ABC7 News cameras captured the vendor, with a bloody face, getting escorted away by police while another man was arrested."​

...​

"A man seen in a viral video beating a Turning Point USA supporter near the University of California, Berkeley campus on Monday evening has been arrested and charged with violent crimes, according to local police."​

If you think those don't qualify, help me out here -- what am I missing?

So, where is this footage of the vendor? Since when have unnamed media claims been evidence - "according to local police". Where is an actual police statement of what happened, not something that could quite possibly have been made-up? This is common with media (they either make stuff up, or misinterpret what actually happened). Where is this viral video? Has it been authenticated? It is well-known that Fox and others take video recordings of events that happened years ago in different circumstances, and claim it is local related news.
What has happened to being skeptical? How could TPUSA people be beaten up when there was a massive police presence? It seems the ones being beaten up were the protesters - by the police.

Are you thinking the Caber Toss at the Highland Games will feel easy to you after you trained for it doing the Goalpost Toss? Which part of your harangue about the unreliability of the media is supposed to back up your claim "TSwizzle is making up stuff again"? Which part backs up "Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him."? Which part backs up "So, no interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people by your and TSwizzle's own evidence."? What you need to write is "My accusations against TSwizzle and Bomb#20 were mistaken. Sorry, my bad.".

Now, if you want to change your criticism of me to "So, ABC reporters are making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe them. His and TSwizzle's own evidence, which prima facie does show interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people, sucks.", knock yourself out. We can discuss an amended accusation once you've withdrawn your original.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bull... being promoted by their own side, and they only have selective skepticism. They don't actually care about skepticism. Before anyone makes the "nuh uh, you do this toooo" claim about me, I'm also skeptical of bull... from my side: for example, anti-GMO and anti-nuclear power nonsense, and the idea that not voting is somehow an effective response, to name some examples.

Funny story about that. So it turns out TS wasn't making up stuff; and the person I believed (mistakenly or otherwise yet to be determined) wasn't him; and the reason SI thought there was no mention of protesting thugs beating up Kirk fans was he didn't read the news story TS linked but only watched the video. So SI was making up stuff, and you mistakenly appear to believe him. So however skeptical about some selection of bull from your side you may be, you do not appear to have been at all skeptical of the bull SI was peddling. So if you still think this case confirms your suspicions that I and my ilk*, whoever they are, are far less skeptical of bull being promoted by our own side, and that we only have selective skepticism, then can you clarify what you think my "side" is, and why you think ABC is a mouthpiece for it?

(* "Ilk", in my experience, is a word used almost exclusively for the construction of ad hominem arguments.)

Plus, I think Obama is highly overrated,

Compared to whom? The U.S. doesn't have much of a track record of electing great presidents. Grade on the curve, man.

Of course won't stop the disingenuous right wingers from still claiming I'm selectively skeptical too.

That's called "poisoning the well". I could point out more examples of you uncritically accepting partisan bull, but you'd just pretend your prediction proves I'm disingenuous and proves I'm a right winger, so let's just take it as read and move on.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bull... being promoted by their own side, and they only have selective skepticism. They don't actually care about skepticism. Before anyone makes the "nuh uh, you do this toooo" claim about me, I'm also skeptical of bull... from my side: for example, anti-GMO and anti-nuclear power nonsense, and the idea that not voting is somehow an effective response, to name some examples.

Funny story about that. So it turns out TS wasn't making up stuff; and the person I believed (mistakenly or otherwise yet to be determined) wasn't him; and the reason SI thought there was no mention of protesting thugs beating up Kirk fans was he didn't read the news story TS linked but only watched the video. So SI was making up stuff, and you mistakenly appear to believe him. So however skeptical about some selection of bull from your side you may be, you do not appear to have been at all skeptical of the bull SI was peddling. So if you still think this case confirms your suspicions that I and my ilk*, whoever they are, are far less skeptical of bull being promoted by our own side, and that we only have selective skepticism, then can you clarify what you think my "side" is, and why you think ABC is a mouthpiece for it?

(* "Ilk", in my experience, is a word used almost exclusively for the construction of ad hominem arguments.)

Plus, I think Obama is highly overrated,

Compared to whom? The U.S. doesn't have much of a track record of electing great presidents. Grade on the curve, man.

Of course won't stop the disingenuous right wingers from still claiming I'm selectively skeptical too.

That's called "poisoning the well". I could point out more examples of you uncritically accepting partisan bull, but you'd just pretend your prediction proves I'm disingenuous and proves I'm a right winger, so let's just take it as read and move on.

You are making stuff up again, in claiming that I only watched the video and didn't read the article below it, because some of what I mentioned was only in the article and not in the video (in post of mine that you quoted in your post #2091). I will quote what I said again, because you didn't quote it in this current post. I have bolded some relevant parts only mentioned in the article, not the video.

so, where is this footage of the vendor? Since when have unnamed media claims been evidence - "according to local police". Where is an actual police statement of what happened, not something that could quite possibly have been made-up? This is common with media (they either make stuff up, or misinterpret what actually happened). Where is this viral video? Has it been authenticated? It is well-known that Fox and others take video recordings of events that happened years ago in different circumstances, and claim it is local related news. What has happened to being skeptical? How could TPUSA people be beaten up when there was a massive police presence? It seems the ones being beaten up were the protesters - by the police.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is where I am in looking at this:

TSwizzle's claim was that Politesse supported "violent thugs" at Berkeley against TPUSA persons.

There are a couple of things wrong there. The first is that Politesse said he did not support such violence. The next is that this was next to Berkeley as the lines went out onto a street (minor quibble here) and the target was a street vendor (not necessarily substantiated to be a TPUSA person though he could have been taking advantage by selling pro-fascist t-shirts, another minor quibble) and that further this is not thugs plural but one thug singular (another minor quibble). The minor quibbles in concert are something I suppose, but there is also accusations of vandalism allegations and that could be construed as "violent thugs" but that is subjective and probably depends on the extent or severity of the so-called vandalism and whether it is even true. Allegations of people being pushed is not substantiated either and this is something that can be expected when you have two large crowds and subjectively interpreted by a group that fantasizes their own victimization.

The original claim was false and we've gone onto a tangent at least some of which is questionable, probably incorrect, and/or unsubstantiated. The tangent probably doesn't matter as much as the ad hom directed at Politesse.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic.

Name a progressive idea that has resulted in "catastrophe". "Wokeness" doesn't count, because that's vague as shit.

The name your price gun?

The dog park commercial imo. They need to stick with the guy instructing older people.

 

[Bomb#20]

... So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical ...

Funny story about that. So it turns out TS wasn't making up stuff; and the person I believed (mistakenly or otherwise yet to be determined) wasn't him; and the reason SI thought there was no mention of protesting thugs beating up Kirk fans was he didn't read the news story TS linked but only watched the video. ...

You are making stuff up again, in claiming that I only watched the video and didn't read the article below it

I didn't make it up -- it was the reasonable inference based on the facts at hand. My conclusion might have been wrong of course, so if you're telling me now that you'd read the article I'll take your word for it; but following the evidence where it leads isn't the same as making stuff up. Also bear in mind that we're talking about whether you had already read the article when you wrote post #2038, linked above -- it's possible you read it subsequently and have now forgotten when you read it.

The evidence I relied on that you hadn't read it by post #2038 was that in post #2074 you wrote "So, no interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people by your and TSwizzle's own evidence.", which was not the case, and in post #2075 you wrote "See post #2074 above where I point out that the video you yourself posted contradicts what you claimed", implying that when you used the phrase "your and TSwizzle's own evidence" you were referring to the video. So if you'd only watched the video then the chain of claims makes perfect sense; but if you'd already read the article, that leaves us with some puzzles: why did you falsely claim in post #2038 that TS is making up stuff, and why did you falsely claim in post #2074 that our own evidence implies there was no interaction?

, because some of what I mentioned was only in the article and not in the video (in post of mine that you quoted in your post #2091). I will quote what I said again, because you didn't quote it in this current post. I have bolded some relevant parts only mentioned in the article, not the video.

so, where is this footage of the vendor? Since when have unnamed media claims been evidence - "according to local police". Where is an actual police statement of what happened, not something that could quite possibly have been made-up? This is common with media (they either make stuff up, or misinterpret what actually happened). Where is this viral video? Has it been authenticated? It is well-known that Fox and others take video recordings of events that happened years ago in different circumstances, and claim it is local related news. What has happened to being skeptical? How could TPUSA people be beaten up when there was a massive police presence? It seems the ones being beaten up were the protesters - by the police.

If your point is to prove you read the article, keep in mind that you're quoting post #2079, which you wrote almost eight hours later. When you read the article it might have been during the intervening time. Also keep in mind that the relevant parts you bolded weren't only in the article; they were also in post #2076, quoted by me from the article. So it's also possible you got those phrases at second hand from me, and only read the article later.

Not that any of this matters any more -- water under the bridge; we're all on the same page now. My only point is, in the immortal words of Dave Barry, "I'm not making this up!".

 

[Bomb#20]

From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating these protesters are actual fascists.

From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating Turning Point are actual fascists. ... People universally use the word metaphorically ... Nobody owns the trademark on metaphors.

I'm sorry, but  Fascism has an actual meaning that is well-known. Now, if people want to use fascism to mean violent poopy-heads, then they should expect others to explain their "metaphors".

Now professors accept Wikipedia as a research citation, do you? And since Wikipedia's list of characteristics is the "actual meaning", that's what you meant when you challenged whether the people TSwizzle's applied the word to are "actual fascists", was it? Curious -- you didn't challenge Poli for evidence that TPUSA are "actual fascists". Is it your contention then that TPUSA satisfy every item on Wikipedia's laundry list?

If having only some of the characteristics is sufficient to make Turning Point "actual fascists", how does that work? Are some list items essential and others nonessential? Do you have to have a certain minimum number? Maybe it's a mix -- three points for militarism, one point for forcible suppression of opposition, that sort of thing? Can you point out where Wikipedia tells us the actual fascist identification algorithm?

What "actual meaning" makes the protesters' lack of right-wing-ness a disqualification but doesn't make Turning Point's lack of militarism a disqualification?

Fair enough. Nobody owns the metaphor so suit yourself. ... As for the "right-wing" traditional qualifier, that looks an awful lot like the "non-state-actor" traditional qualifier in the U.S. government's old definition of "terrorism" -- an arbitrary limitation thrown in for the purpose of giving the definer's own people a pass.

The right-wing qualifier arises from history. Blaming history or the Oxford dictionary as "arbitrary", seems a bit desperate to defend a "metaphor".

By "history", you appear to mean "For most of the decades after WWII, the practice of calling one's political opponents 'fascist' as a metaphorical slur developed primarily within leftist culture; this makes the metaphor leftists' intellectual property."

 

[laughing dog]

From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating these protesters are actual fascists.

From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating Turning Point are actual fascists. ... People universally use the word metaphorically ... Nobody owns the trademark on metaphors.

I'm sorry, but  Fascism has an actual meaning that is well-known. Now, if people want to use fascism to mean violent poopy-heads, then they should expect others to explain their "metaphors".

Now professors accept Wikipedia as a research citation, do you? And since Wikipedia's list of characteristics is the "actual meaning", that's what you meant when you challenged whether the people TSwizzle's applied the word to are "actual fascists", was it? Curious -- you didn't challenge Poli for evidence that TPUSA are "actual fascists". Is it your contention then that TPUSA satisfy every item on Wikipedia's laundry list?

If having only some of the characteristics is sufficient to make Turning Point "actual fascists", how does that work? Are some list items essential and others nonessential? Do you have to have a certain minimum number? Maybe it's a mix -- three points for militarism, one point for forcible suppression of opposition, that sort of thing? Can you point out where Wikipedia tells us the actual fascist identification algorithm?

What "actual meaning" makes the protesters' lack of right-wing-ness a disqualification but doesn't make Turning Point's lack of militarism a disqualification?…

Beating a dead horse to save face is so sad. I’m sorry you appear to unable to grasp the difference between reality (history) and rhetoric (metaphor). But hey, I get you feel duty bound to white knight members of your tribe.

Fair enough. Nobody owns the metaphor so suit yourself. ... As for the "right-wing" traditional qualifier, that looks an awful lot like the "non-state-actor" traditional qualifier in the U.S. government's old definition of "terrorism" -- an arbitrary limitation thrown in for the purpose of giving the definer's own people a pass.

The right-wing qualifier arises from history. Blaming history or the Oxford dictionary as "arbitrary", seems a bit desperate to defend a "metaphor".

By "history", you appear to mean "For most of the decades after WWII, the practice of calling one's political opponents 'fascist' as a metaphorical slur developed primarily within leftist culture; this makes the metaphor leftists' intellectual property."

Certainly if the term “fascism” started after WWII, you’d have a compelling point. Since it didn’t, you don’t.

 

[godincarnate.me]

Well, the price of liberty is some gun deaths every year. What? I'm just saying what Charlie Kirk said.

Charlie said some very unfortunate things. It is unsurprising that some of that misfortune should visit itself upon him.
Looks like he had maybe twenty seconds before bleeding out, so... sayanara Charlie unless there was immediate intervention. If that was an AR round, no intervention would likely save him.

Unfortunate? lol, he stood for something.

 

[ZiprHead]

Unfortunate? lol, he stood for something.

Misogyny and fake Christianity?