Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Emily Lake]

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.

Rapes by males are rapes by males. I don't give a fuck how those males identify, nor how they like to dress and adorn themselves. Why the hell do you think I should give special excuses for males who rape women, just because those males have special feelings about their gender? They're still males, and they're still raping women.

Seriously, why the fuck do you think women should be expected to pretend like the sexual offender in question is somehow a special exception because of what they claim their gender identity is? Why should women be expected to ignore and be sanguine about ANY "handful of rapes"?

 

[Emily Lake]

Em has so much difficulty here because she's the only woman who dares to be transgender critical.

Yet, she claims that her arguments are "how women feel", and that anyone who disagrees with her does so because they "hate women".

No, I don't.

I do, however, think that a whole lot of you men in this thread care less about women's safety and dignity than you care about the happiness of men. I don't think any of you actually hate women.

 

[Emily Lake]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

Who do I want to have committed for what someone else did? What do you think I want done to innocent people, and can you provide ANY quote that supports your malicious and downright evil mischaracterization?

And where the holy fuck do you get off insinuating that I want neighborhoods bulldozed and people rehomed? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

This behavior from you is immoral, unethical, and wholly unacceptable.

 

[blastula]

Lesson plans for St. Charlie Kirk.

 

[Emily Lake]

What's clear is that she doesn't actually care about protecting women, she cares about hurting trans people.

You are making a false statement about me, presumably because you somehow imaging that if you intentionally misrepresent my views you'll win some imaginary internet points in your own head. Or because you somehow fail to comprehend that you saying things doesn't alter reality.

 

[Politesse]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

In post 1381, Emily wrote:
 

"I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society."

Does that sound like she "demands" institutionalization?

Yes, obviously.

I'm stumped. I will need it explained to me. What Emily wrote is by no means a demand. Unless one doesn't notice, or understand, the words 'some', ' might', and 'may', and the context in which they are used; or, if one believes the person using those words is being insincere.

Perhaps it would make more sense to you if I explain that from my perspective, psychopathy is at best a disputed diagnosis, and that there is no reputable data to suggest that for those tarnished with the label, detainment in a residential facility would be beneficial in any way. Surprisingly enough, we do not generally treat social disorders by reducing the patient's opportunities to socialize. If Emily is demanding that "some" psychopaths be involuntarily detained based on the arbitary judgement of non-psychologists, she is necessarily demanding that a system be created to do so which does not currently exist; a new avenue for subjecting US citizens to deprivation of rights that they are not, currently, subject to being deprived of. In order to create that system, you would need a corresponding vocational regime of psychologists and psychiatrists willing to make formal, life-changing diagnoses that conflict with the conclusions of the APA and DSM-V. These would most assuredly be conservatives, since only Trump is currently in a position to create such an agency. Just because she softens the edges of that opinion that with wiggle words like "some" and "maybe" does not meant that she isn't calling for an authoritarian solution to a possibly fictive problem. It's best not to mistake style for substance. I know Emily does not desire to come across as an extremist (understandably) but that doesn't mean the political actions she advocates for aren't extreme. And given that Emily is reasonably literate, no matter how many hedge words you put around the shitty parts, I don't believe for a second that she honestly believes it would actually " probably" benefit "some" of those indiviuals that conservatives "sometimes" brand as "psychopaths" to "maybe" spend even "some of" their lives in "mostly" involuntary "partial" confinement. In short, no, I don't think she is sincere. The root words of a sentence matter more than the dressing.

 

[Politesse]

What's clear is that she doesn't actually care about protecting women, she cares about hurting trans people.

You are making a false statement about me, presumably because you somehow imaging that if you intentionally misrepresent my views you'll win some imaginary internet points in your own head. Or because you somehow fail to comprehend that you saying things doesn't alter reality.

(She said to a person she falsely accused of mental illness and intent to physically assault just a few pages ago...)

 

[Emily Lake]

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths".

This is demonstrably untrue, and you are blatantly misrepresenting what I said.

What I actually said was:

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Learn to fucking read for comprehension. That's the most generous thing I can say to you right now.

And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

I did not defend Kirk's views. I don't agree with his views on most things. What I've done is the same thing that Bomb#20 did - try to reason with unreasonable people and opine that Kirk's views are likely not motivated by hate, nor did he appear to advocate for violence of any sort. He called for violence far less than some posters in this very thread.

 

[Politesse]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

Who do I want to have committed for what someone else did? What do you think I want done to innocent people, and can you provide ANY quote that supports your malicious and downright evil mischaracterization?

And where the holy fuck do you get off insinuating that I want neighborhoods bulldozed and people rehomed? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

I didn't. That was my example, not yours. An analogy. The point is that it is wrong to deprive any entire social class of rights based on how scared you feel about the crimes some of them have been accused of, even if some members of that class are genuinely guilty of the crimes that scare you. Is that more clear?

 

[WAB]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

In post 1381, Emily wrote:
 

"I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society."

Does that sound like she "demands" institutionalization?

Yes, obviously.

I'm stumped. I will need it explained to me. What Emily wrote is by no means a demand. Unless one doesn't notice, or understand, the words 'some', ' might', and 'may', and the context in which they are used; or, if one believes the person using those words is being insincere.

Perhaps it would make more sense to you if I explain that from my perspective, psychopathy is at best a disputed diagnosis, and that there is no reputable data to suggest that for those tarnished with the label, detainment in a residential facility would be beneficial in any way. Surprisingly enough, we do not generally treat social disorders by reducing the patient's opportunities to socialize. If Emily is demanding that "some" psychopaths be involuntarily detained based on the arbitary judgement of non-psychologists, she is necessarily demanding that a system be created to do so which does not currently exist; a new avenue for subjecting US citizens to deprivation of rights that they are not, currently, subject to being deprived of. In order to create that system, you would need a corresponding vocational regime of psychologists and psychiatrists willing to make formal, life-changing diagnoses that conflict with the conclusions of the APA and DSM-V. These would most assuredly be conservatives. Just because she softens the edges of that opinion that with wiggle words like "some" and "maybe" does not meant that she isn't calling for an authoritarian solution to a possibly fictive problem. It's best not to mistake style for substance. I know Emily does not desire to come across as an extremist (understandably) but that doesn't mean the political actions she advocates for aren't extreme. And given that Emily is reasonably literate, no matter how many hedge words you put around the shitty parts, I don't believe for a second that she honestly believes it would actually " probably" benefit "some" of those indiviuals that conservatives "sometimes" brand as "psychopaths" to "maybe" spend even "some of" their lives in "mostly" involuntary "partial" confinement.

Okay, I won't continue to quibble over the meaning of a word ("demand " - lest it be forgotten), though I do believe I'm right in this case.

As for what Emily meant, I have already made so bold as to speak for her too many times. Lord knows the last thing she needs is for anyone to speak for her.

Hint: what she meant is what she explicitly wrote.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily Lake was providing cover for Charlie Kirk who suggested revisiting the 50s/60s for transgenders which meant electroshock therapy and other barbaric treatment. Emily Lake (and Charlie Kirk) might not understood what she (they) were talking about, which could be the source of confusion.

You're out of your tree. I've provided cover for nobody.

You are making assumptions about what Kirk meant, based on a very small snippet with no elaboration. You can't read minds, and your assumptions could actually be wrong. Perhaps I don't understand what YOU IMAGINE THAT HE MEANT because I accept that I do not have ESP, and I also accept that the media is rife with biased reporting intended to stir up antagonism, and that you are being give the most negative possible interpretation that someone could come up with.

It's your failing that you cannot recognize that without more information you cannot actually determine what was meant.

Is it possible that Kirk was insinuating electroshock therapy etc.? Sure. But that's far from concrete - especially because other people have assumed that he meant they should be beaten up, lynched, or otherwise murdered. Which of you are right? Are you right, because that's what you've interpreted lacking other information? Or are they right because that's what they interpreted lacking other information? Or is someone else who has assumed that in the context in which the comment was made, Kirk meant that in the 50s/60s, good men would remove them from the women's bathroom or otherwise prevent them from entering in the first place?

I can't read anyone's mind. Nor can you. But to latch on to a singular assumption that you have imagined to be the case, and then to ignore that other possibilities exist is short-sighted, ineffective, and arrogant.

 

[Emily Lake]

I get upset too but when people like Emily downplay the horrible shit RFK Jr. believes about autistic prople, as someone on the autism spectrum.

I've done no such thing. Retract your blatant disinformation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh yeah and I get upset when someone like Emily denies the way the current administration is treating immigrants is Nazi-like.

Oh FFS. I think the treatment of ILLEGAL immigrants is over-zealous, and I deplore that some legal immigrants are being caught up and mistreated as well.

WTF is wrong with you that if I don't jump on your hate-train and call it "nazi-like", somehow I'm evil? Seriously, you're condemning me for things I haven't given an opinion on, haven't really discussed in any detail at all. Basically, you're making up crap out of whole cloth and assigning it to me out of some misplaced enmity.

 

[Elixir]

Oh FFS. I think the treatment of ILLEGAL immigrants is over-zealous

And democrat politicians, elected lawmakers of the opposition, and people of color that are perfectly "legal"...

The majority of people detained by ICE lack a criminal conviction, with data from mid-2025 showing that around 70-72% of detainees have no criminal record, while the remaining 28-30% have criminal convictions, often for nonviolent offenses like traffic violations or illegal re-entry. Only a small fraction, approximately 8%, have serious violent criminal convictions.

No repercussions for those heroes of Trumpism, so they they do wtf they want.
It's outrageous, and intended I believe, to provoke a reaction to help rationalize the coming declaration of martial law by Hair Furor.
Wanna bet, Emily? What would happen if a "well regulated militia" like the thugs that desecrated our nation's capitol on 1/6, showed up in force at an immigration courthouse where ICE was arresting people who compliantly showed up for their hearings?
Those cowardly Trumpsuckers would open fire without hesitation the moment they "felt threatened" unlike the heroic police of 1/6.

If no martial law during the Trump term, I will put the short sentence of your choice* on my profile pic for a year, and if so, you must do the same? Wanna bet @Emily Lake ?

* Something like "I am a recovering alarmist"

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

I believe that pedophiles are mentally ill. I think that being sexually attracted to prepubescent children is a mental defect and should not be normalized. I think pedophiles should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean pedophiles may need to be sterilized or institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate pedophiles, and I don't think that viewing pedophilia as a mental illness is bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

I think that sexual sadists are mentally ill. I think that being turned on by and achieving sexual gratification from causing other people pain is a mental defect and should not be normalized. I think sexual sadists should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that sexual sadists may need to be sterilized or institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate sexual sadists, and I don't think my viewing sexual sadism as a mental illness is bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

I believe that schizophrenics are mentally ill. I think schizophrenia is a mental defect and should not be normalized. I think schizophrenics should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that schizophrenics may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate schizophrenics, and I don't think my view of schizophrenia as a mental illness is bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Let's stretch this a bit. I believe that people with cross-species identities are mentally ill. I think genuinely believing you're an animal on the inside is a mental defect and should not be normalized. I think people with cross-species identities should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean they need to be institutionalized for the safety of themselves and the rest of society.

I don't hate people with cross-species identities, and I don't think my view of cross-species identities as a mental illness is bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now. Provisionally accept that Kirk genuinely believes that transgender people are mentally ill and need mental health treatment. You don't have to believe the same thing - I'm only asking that you accept that Kirk genuinely believes it.

If Kirk genuinely believes that transgender people are mentally ill and need mental health treatment... then it's entirely possible that his view and his statements are motivated by compassion for transgender people as well as care for the rest of society.

Again - you don't have to think transgender people are mentally ill in order to accept that Kirk believes it to be true.

If you can provisionally accept that Kirk believes this, then calling him a bigot motivated by hatred accomplishes nothing at all. It's ineffective, and you're fighting the wrong fight. Were he still alive, I would say that the only effective way to alter his approach is to challenge his belief, and change his mind.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You can't deconvert a christian (or any other religious person for that matter) by calling them names and saying they're hateful. The only way you can deconvert them is to successfully convince them that their belief is in error.

A lot of people used to believe that people other than white people were less intelligent and less capable of feeling pain.

A lot of people used to believe that girls abd women were less competent than boys and men at pretty much everything. They also believed that girls or women who wanted to get an education or an education beyond very elementary learning were mentally ill. A woman who was not ‘chaste’ or who seemed to enjoy sex was deemed mentally ill. Women were often institutionalized by males in their family if they were inconvenient—you know, wanted to control their bodies or own property or have a sex life.

A lot of people believed that every non straight non cis person was mentally ill.

Some people still believe some or all of those things.

I believe that such people are bigots, no matter how sincerely held their bigoted beliefs.

JFC, Toni. You didn't answer a single one of my questions, nor did you address anything I actually wrote. You have completely ignored the context and meaning of my post. I get it - you think it's bigoted. I haven't suggested that YOU should change your mind about it. But for fuck's sake, your response lacks comprehension and actual thought.

Look - I very, very, very strongly believe that nearly all muslims are sexist assholes, and I view their beliefs as being bigoted. Here's the deal though - almost none of those muslims view their own beliefs as being bigoted. They believe that their views on women are a reflection of reality, god's will, and necessary for the safety of women and the well -being of men.

I think it's stupid and sexist - you undoubtedly think it's stupid and sexist.

But I can understand their perspective enough to comprehend that they do not think they're MOTIVATED by either hatred or bigotry. And if I want to change their mind about it, and actually effect a change, you and I both need to be able to understand where their belief comes from, and how they think about it, and to address that belief.

Honesty to FSM, for all the people here who harp on about empathy being such a preeminent value, and so important to society, a huge number of you completely lack actual real empathy. Let alone sympathy. This inability to consider a topic from someone else's point of view than your own, to comprehend what someone else's beliefs and values actually are to them - it's a barrier that makes it impossible for you to accomplish anything, and it leads you to make shallow and malicious assumptions about other people. Not you specifically, Toni, lots of posters here.

I’m not obligated to address any or most of your points to make a response to your posts.

My experience has taught me differently than yours seems to have taught you.

In my experience, most Muslims, most Jews, most Christians ( all denominations), most atheists, most Sikhs, most (fill in the blank) are not assholes. But yes, I’ve known assholes of every race, religion and creed, including atheists and agnostics. Most of us are assholes at least some times. Most of us have our own bigotries. I used to be quite bigoted against tiny dogs but sure enough, my kids got some tiny dogs and I love them and have recognized that it’s not tiny dogs or any particular color, size or breed of dog who is objectionable but some of their people certainly fail to respect boundaries or teach their pets decent behavior.

No, you're not obligated to address any of my posts. But it's probably reasonable to think that you'd address them when it's a direct response to a question that you asked.

 

[Emily Lake]

What's with the eyerolls? Still not going to admit we know Project 2025 is happening and the impact it will have on marginalized groups?

Project 2025 is being implemented with gusto by that creep Russell Vought who is the real power behind the stupid evil Trump. There is no way that stupid Trump could think up all of the thousands of his executive orders. Vought is pulling all the strings. And Trump loves it. The destruction of a Nation.

Crowing ad nauseum about how your opponent is evil over and over again, framing them as the absolute worst possible person... that's the tactics used by the inquisition, jihadists, and authoritarians across the world and throughout time.

Then stop doing it.

Demonstrate where I've done so.

 

[Emily Lake]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

In post 1381, Emily wrote:

"I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society."

Does that sound like she "demands" institutionalization?

Yes, obviously.

Your reading comprehension needs some work.

 

[Elixir]

Pick some random hyperbolic criticism of Trump that has been leveled here @Emily, and show that it is indeed hyperbolic.
Until you can do that, you are nothing more than an unwitting trumpapologist for complaining on his behalf. Authoritarianism thrives on that shit.

 

[Emily Lake]

Lesson plans for St. Charlie Kirk.

This push to treat him like a martyr is absurd and counterproductive. I seriously wish everyone would knock off both extreme ends of this. Stop pretending like he's the antichrist spouting violence and hatred, but also stop pretending he's some saint who's incapable of being mean or petty or wrong.

I'm so fucking tired of this need to make everything so extreme all the time.

 

[Emily Lake]

Perhaps it would make more sense to you if I explain that from my perspective, psychopathy is at best a disputed diagnosis, and that there is no reputable data to suggest that for those tarnished with the label, detainment in a residential facility would be beneficial in any way. Surprisingly enough, we do not generally treat social disorders by reducing the patient's opportunities to socialize. If Emily is demanding that "some" psychopaths be involuntarily detained based on the arbitary judgement of non-psychologists, she is necessarily demanding that a system be created to do so which does not currently exist; a new avenue for subjecting US citizens to deprivation of rights that they are not, currently, subject to being deprived of. In order to create that system, you would need a corresponding vocational regime of psychologists and psychiatrists willing to make formal, life-changing diagnoses that conflict with the conclusions of the APA and DSM-V. These would most assuredly be conservatives, since only Trump is currently in a position to create such an agency. Just because she softens the edges of that opinion that with wiggle words like "some" and "maybe" does not meant that she isn't calling for an authoritarian solution to a possibly fictive problem. It's best not to mistake style for substance. I know Emily does not desire to come across as an extremist (understandably) but that doesn't mean the political actions she advocates for aren't extreme. And given that Emily is reasonably literate, no matter how many hedge words you put around the shitty parts, I don't believe for a second that she honestly believes it would actually " probably" benefit "some" of those indiviuals that conservatives "sometimes" brand as "psychopaths" to "maybe" spend even "some of" their lives in "mostly" involuntary "partial" confinement. In short, no, I don't think she is sincere. The root words of a sentence matter more than the dressing.

Your perspective on this is not even remotely indicative of my views. Stop imagining that your twisted interpretation is how my mind actually works.

JKC. I don't fucking care what you want to call the diagnosis, or how much you want to dispute it. The reality is that some people actually lack the capacity for empathy, and SOME OF THOSE people can and will do things that harm others. I don't think that letting them run loose to hurt people is a compassionate and empathetic approach, I think it's negligent and it demonstrates reckless disregard for the wellbeing of other people.

On the other hand, I also don't think that tossing them in prison is necessarily a good idea either. Some of them need medical and psychiatric care that they won't get in prison.

It's not even remotely "extreme" to acknowledge that some people have mental illnesses that put other people at risk.

So you can take your malicious and malignant framing and... well... kindly knock it the fuck off.