Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Bomb#20]

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...

Kirk was a Nazi.

I will gladly be at continual war with actual Nazis, thanks.

Charlie Kirk isn't "everyone" and for that matter neither is Bomb.

The each have histories of statements and support whether blatant in Kirk's case or cheeky in Bomb's. Either way, they stand for themselves.

I have no such history. You have a history of making false damaging claims about other posters with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

I'm not at war with "everyone" but I will always be at war with "Nazis" heretics.

FIFY.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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".

Which of those concepts did Kirk advocate?

I'll give you anti-socialism, perhaps. But the rest seems to be reaching a bit far. You don't have to like the guy, hell you can despise every one of his views as far as I'm concerned. But I'm so incredibly fucking tired of progressives sticking labels on people they don't like as if just calling someone a bigot actually makes it true. Use your damned brain and make a cogent argument once in a while.

I mean, you could stand to do a bit of research of your own. What are you even talking about? Not the real Charlie Kirk, that's certain. Though I imagine you would insist that any and all quotations in which Kirk advocated for race essentialism, European exceptionalism and so forth are all just liberal lies or something? I mean yes, I agree that his ideology "stretched too far" but he's the guy who stretched it. Would I call him a Nazi personally? No. There are intentional Nazi revivalists out there, and giving their label to others confuses things. But it's not like the comparison comes out of nowhere.

"Make a cogent argument"? I've filled the last few pages of evidence of exactly what kind of a man Kirk was, and what he advocated for and against. You present no evidence for your own views whatsoever, but accuse me of lacking a cogent argument? Honestly!

Words mean things. It's not my job to run disingenuous PR for a dead man, who wouldn't even want or appreciate my help were he alive. Nor yours. You claim to be a Democrat and a liberal, yes? You are defending the honor of someone who would have happily seen you committed or jailed, for what reason I cannot imagine.

Imagine, a hardcore feminist covering up for a Christian Dominionist who told teen girls to birth them babies instead of have a career, and if they went to college, only find a dude to be submissive with for life.

 

[Bomb#20]

... You sir are trivalizing hate.

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

That is sick. ...

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

smh

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

I guess B20 ...

... At the end of the day, your argument is clever, but it's evasive. It shifts attention away from the real-world impact of Kirk's words and policies onto a word game about whether "hate" means subjective malice or objective harm. The effect on trans people is what's substantive.

Look at the misrepresented, sanitized, positions of Kirk all to set up straw men. Creationists tend to be less disingenuous. Sure looks like the writing of someone that supports Kirk/Heritage.org or someone that is severely snowed by their propaganda.

You are rearranging the tables and chairs on the Titanic here. Kirk advocated for dark stuff against transgender. It doesn't matter if he "hated" them. ... All that matters is what he did and advocated for. And what he advocated for was returning the US to the 19th Century.

I wouldn't be that charitable. It's just typical conservative denialism/willful ignorance.

I don’t think B20 would disagree, except maybe about what “culture” he was immersed in. He certainly goes off though, if it is implied that Chuckie in any way brought it on himself by hating or threatening trans people.

Try again dipstick. Typhoid Mary was infecting OTHERS. Transgendered people hurt NO ONE.

Good lord, what a firehose of stupid posts. The garbage you guys are saying about me, you have no right to believe on such evidence as is before you*. Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place -- but seriously, you've gone off the deep end. Teaching all of you how to stop relying on invalid inference procedures is going to be a problem -- it looks to be a lifetime of work and I don't have that kind of time -- I'm already an old man. But we might as well get started, and just see how far we can get before my clock runs out. Who wants to go first?

(* The Ethics of Belief, Clifford, https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf )

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... You sir are trivalizing hate.

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

That is sick. ...

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

smh

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

I guess B20 ...

... At the end of the day, your argument is clever, but it's evasive. It shifts attention away from the real-world impact of Kirk's words and policies onto a word game about whether "hate" means subjective malice or objective harm. The effect on trans people is what's substantive.

Look at the misrepresented, sanitized, positions of Kirk all to set up straw men. Creationists tend to be less disingenuous. Sure looks like the writing of someone that supports Kirk/Heritage.org or someone that is severely snowed by their propaganda.

You are rearranging the tables and chairs on the Titanic here. Kirk advocated for dark stuff against transgender. It doesn't matter if he "hated" them. ... All that matters is what he did and advocated for. And what he advocated for was returning the US to the 19th Century.

I wouldn't be that charitable. It's just typical conservative denialism/willful ignorance.

I don’t think B20 would disagree, except maybe about what “culture” he was immersed in. He certainly goes off though, if it is implied that Chuckie in any way brought it on himself by hating or threatening trans people.

Try again dipstick. Typhoid Mary was infecting OTHERS. Transgendered people hurt NO ONE.

Good lord, what a firehose of stupid posts. The garbage you guys are saying about me, you have no right to believe on such evidence as is before you*. Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place -- but seriously, you've gone off the deep end. Teaching all of you how to stop relying on invalid inference procedures is going to be a problem -- it looks to be a lifetime of work and I don't have that kind of time -- I'm already an old man. But we might as well get started, and just see how far we can get before my clock runs out. Who wants to go first?

(* The Ethics of Belief, Clifford, https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf )

That seems about par for the course. Can't defend your opinion, therefore you attack the posters.

Poor Kirk, the misunderstood Christian Dominionist who wanted women not to have careera and go to college to find a husband. Who didn't want a Muslim as mayor. The Future's 19th century man.

 

[laughing dog]

Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place

Ahem.

 

[Elixir]

I know for sure that I do none of your “somebody” things, and don’t know anyone who does.

Um... you insinuated that I hate women simply because I want to uphold the exact same standards for abortion that existed under RvW.

You can infer whatever idiocy floats your boat, but that’s on you.

 

[Elixir]

... You sir are trivalizing hate.

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

That is sick. ...

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

smh

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

I guess B20 ...

... At the end of the day, your argument is clever, but it's evasive. It shifts attention away from the real-world impact of Kirk's words and policies onto a word game about whether "hate" means subjective malice or objective harm. The effect on trans people is what's substantive.

Look at the misrepresented, sanitized, positions of Kirk all to set up straw men. Creationists tend to be less disingenuous. Sure looks like the writing of someone that supports Kirk/Heritage.org or someone that is severely snowed by their propaganda.

You are rearranging the tables and chairs on the Titanic here. Kirk advocated for dark stuff against transgender. It doesn't matter if he "hated" them. ... All that matters is what he did and advocated for. And what he advocated for was returning the US to the 19th Century.

I wouldn't be that charitable. It's just typical conservative denialism/willful ignorance.

I don’t think B20 would disagree, except maybe about what “culture” he was immersed in. He certainly goes off though, if it is implied that Chuckie in any way brought it on himself by hating or threatening trans people.

Try again dipstick. Typhoid Mary was infecting OTHERS. Transgendered people hurt NO ONE.

Good lord, what a firehose of stupid posts. The garbage you guys are saying about me, you have no right to believe on such evidence as is before you*. Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place -- but seriously, you've gone off the deep end. Teaching all of you how to stop relying on invalid inference procedures is going to be a problem -- it looks to be a lifetime of work and I don't have that kind of time -- I'm already an old man. But we might as well get started, and just see how far we can get before my clock runs out. Who wants to go first?

(* The Ethics of Belief, Clifford, https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf )

Nice bunch of personal invectives.
Your lofty opinion of yourself is belied by a stunning inability to address the points that have been laid out.
Your clock could tick on forever at this rate and you’d still just be an old redneck ranting semi- coherently about the intellectual shortcomings of anyone who isn’t a lockstep conservotard. I thought you could do better, and that’s on me.
Who wants to go first?
I’ll go first. Show me the golden wisdom of blaming your shortcomings on libtards!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Indeed, it is not necessarily hatred. It could just be flat out ignorance or simply willful ignorant apathy.

But you did need to presume it wasn't hatred, in order to conclude it wasn't hatred (or apathy).

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.

Just early 20th century mental health practices. Indeed, it doesn't need to matter if he was saying all of this because he hated them or whether he was incredibly stupid for him to be utterly wrong.

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

That is okay, I feel like you only feign being feminist.

 

[Elixir]

Just early 20th century mental health practices.

Zackly. Bleeding heart conservatives call it “caring”. Slaves don’t have to run through the jungle and scuff up their feet, they are happy on the plantation. Likewise, people we consider crazy are much happier among their own in the big old “care facility” that we generously provide them*.

* WE will tell you who “they” are.