Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[laughing dog]

We don't know anything about how the hat wearer and the hat displacer came to be within arms' reach of each other. Which one approached the other? Was the approach casual, inadvertent, intentional, aggressive, or something else? Was one of them stalking the other, or trying to impede their free association and travel, or to intimidate them?

There’s plenty footage of the interaction. She’s an obnoxious pos.

It would be very helpful if you provided links to the footage.

If things were different, then things would be different.

If the only things different are race/ethnicity/sex/religion of those involved, then that should not affect how the incident is handled.
Of course, to the far left, such identity markers are of paramount importance, but that is the problem with modern, identity politics left.

We don't know anything about the alleged taunt. Was it inflammatory mockery?

There are videos. So we do know what she said.

Please post links to the videos.

We don't all utilize the same news feeds. There's no reason to assume everyone here has seen the same reports.

I found a video that I guess is what TSwizzle and Derec were talking about.

Texas Tech student expelled...

Her knocking the guy's hat askew was deliberate. She should be fined for that. Fifty dollars should do it.

Mostly the encounter was just arguing and being loud. IOW an exercise in Free Speech.

I weep from any country where knocking a hat askew is considered assault and battery.

 

[blastula]

Hat man didn't even want to press charges. The arrest was stupid.

 

[blastula]

When a character last seen in the first season shows up in the finale,

 

[crazyfingers]

When a character last seen in the first season shows up in the finale,

Interesting. I was thinking about them for the first time in years yesterday when I was thinking about all the right-wingers who do hate speech and don't get threatened with criminal charges by the Turd.

 

[Emily Lake]

And yet you're still criticizing me for NOT being on board for a civil war

If you are an absolute pacifist, I can dig it. So was I at your age, I suspect.

I've never been a pacifist. I think pacifism is stupid and tantamount to suicide. I am, however, very staunchly non-aggressionist. I strongly oppose starting shit, but I have no problem ending shit.

Lessons learned- don’t lie down for fascists, or incalculable suffering will result. Not “maybe”, certainly.

I think I'm perhaps a little less expansive and figurative about what the term "fascist" actually means, and to whom I would apply such a term.

You probably support “peaceful protest”, right?
I wonder if you still support it when peaceful protesters are getting locked up and disappeared. That’s already happening Emily. No due process, no negative repercussions for the orange perp. Every week, the group it will happen to is being insidiously expanded, and gulags around the world are taking your money to lock them up, put them to slave labor…
If we all take your stance, Trump will be dictator for life even if he outlives the current term, and this society will very much resemble Russia’s, including our economic population profiles.
I won’t thank you.

If you have it your way, we'll have a civil fucking war just to avoid a hypothetical possibility. Nothing quite as democratic as waging political persecution against half the country because you've decided "those people" are "evil" and deserve it for the "greater good".

 

[Emily Lake]

What I find especially troubling is the irony here: Kirk himself dismissed empathy, and I disagreed with him. Showing indifference to his death, or to the pain felt by those close to him and/or followed him, would be the very lack of empathy that I've criticized about him.

I see your point but I do not exactly agree.

It's the very lack of empathy that's relevant to me--why should I not judge him by his own standards?

Because how you judge people reflects your values, not theirs.

It's like the difference between respect and courtesy. Whether you respect someone depends on their integrity, whether you are courteous to someone you don't respect depends on your integrity.

The thing is in this case he defined the situation as acceptable. Ok, it's acceptable, why should I have a problem with it?

You can find whatever acceptable you want that’s up to you. That’s my point.

I'm saying he said it's an acceptable outcome. Thus I'm taking him at his word and saying that for it to happen to him is an acceptable outcome. I would not consider it an acceptable outcome if he had not said that.

Have you actually watched the clip in question, in context? Or are you reacting to an out of context clip selected so as to maximize outrage and schism?

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Okay. That's the context.

Now go ahead and parallel that. I assume that you're okay with society paying the price of 130 deaths per day in order to have the benefits of auto travel. Does that also imply that you are perfectly fine with intentional vehicular manslaughter? Would you say it's an "acceptable outcome" for someone to commit murder by car in order for us to retain the freedom to own and operate cars?

 

[Emily Lake]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

No. Radical Islam is a few orders of magnitude more out there than radical Christianity.
But Islamism gets defended by the far left because of the latter's rigid oppressor-oppressed paradigm that identifies Muslims as "the oppressed" because they are not western.

Disagree. Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's just we haven't seen much of their insanity.

Yeah, we haven't seen their insanity in about 400 years or so. We're seeing the impacts of common-place, modern application of Islam right now, every day.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is no longer about a difference of views. We are loosing freedoms worth fighting for.

Which freedoms have we lost?

 

[laughing dog]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

No. Radical Islam is a few orders of magnitude more out there than radical Christianity.
But Islamism gets defended by the far left because of the latter's rigid oppressor-oppressed paradigm that identifies Muslims as "the oppressed" because they are not western.

Disagree. Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's jus

Tell that to Melissa Hortman's daughter.

 

[Elixir]

I have no problem ending shit.

Yet you propose no end to the fascist shit that is going on.
Maybe you have no problem ending shit, but don't regard fascism as "shit".

Which freedoms have we lost?

As of today? The freedom speak out against a president, for one, i.e. freedom of speech.
Yeah, I know you can spend the rest of the day listing types of speech that are not (yet) verboten without ever mentioning the types of speech that were once permitted and are now forbidden. The ones still permitted but under assault are more common. Pay attention.

Yeah, we haven't seen their [Christianity's] insanity in about 400 years or so.

WUT? You mean god no longer sends those he loves to eternal torture?
Which do you belief to have been purged in the last 400 years - that god loves us or that he sends people to eternal torture?
I'm less than 400 years old and have heard that shit right up to today, represented as "Christian" doctrine. And it's insane.

Let me guess - none of that is TROOO Xtian doctrine, right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And yet you're still criticizing me for NOT being on board for a civil war

If you are an absolute pacifist, I can dig it. So was I at your age, I suspect.

I've never been a pacifist. I think pacifism is stupid and tantamount to suicide. I am, however, very staunchly non-aggressionist. I strongly oppose starting shit, but I have no problem ending shit.

Lessons learned- don’t lie down for fascists, or incalculable suffering will result. Not “maybe”, certainly.

I think I'm perhaps a little less expansive and figurative about what the term "fascist" actually means, and to whom I would apply such a term.

You probably support “peaceful protest”, right?
I wonder if you still support it when peaceful protesters are getting locked up and disappeared. That’s already happening Emily. No due process, no negative repercussions for the orange perp. Every week, the group it will happen to is being insidiously expanded, and gulags around the world are taking your money to lock them up, put them to slave labor…
If we all take your stance, Trump will be dictator for life even if he outlives the current term, and this society will very much resemble Russia’s, including our economic population profiles.
I won’t thank you.

If you have it your way, we'll have a civil fucking war just to avoid a hypothetical possibility. Nothing quite as democratic as waging political persecution against half the country because you've decided "those people" are "evil" and deserve it for the "greater good".

Don't worry Emily Lake. If this trend continues, no one that matters will care what you think, you are just a woman. They just canonized the guy who went to events trying to convince women to not work, not have a career, to become a breeder and support their husband. (here is a video to one such event, Kirk starts talking at hour 6, gaslight as you need)

Sure, Equal Protection should protect girls, but this Supreme Court has been quite special, all it would take was saying that it "isn't a Federal matter." Welcome to the 19th century.. And of course, they'd manage this in stages. And this won't be Islam that is doing this to you. But you swallowed the bait whole, so you are kind of stuck with this.

As far as protest, there is nothing we can do. People that voted for W and Trump, or voted third party in particular areas doomed our country.

 

[Shadowy Man]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

 

[laughing dog]

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

The above is so sensible which is why the US has not done it.

 

[southernhybrid]

It is no longer about a difference of views. We are loosing freedoms worth fighting for.

Which freedoms have we lost?

We are rapidly losing freedom of speech. Have you not been paying attention to how the FCC took Jimmy Kimmel off of the air due to something he said? Have you not been listening to the orange menage saying how he wants other late night show hosts and those who criticize him to be punished or lose their jobs. We haven't lost all of our free speech yet, but that's what's happening? There are limits to free speech, primarily that you can't threaten to injure or kill someone, but free speech means that you can say offensive things about anyone, including the president of the US without being prosecuted or losing your job etc.

It appears as if freedom of religion might be losing ground. The far right is doing all they can to end the SCS and make the country into a Christian theocracy of some type. Have you been paying attention to the way they've been idolizing Kirk and saying the government needs more Christianity?

I don't know what else will soon be threatened, but voting rights are being suppressed by conservatives. Some in power are saying that women should lose the right to vote.

And what would you call it when a child or an adult loses their right to obtain an important vaccine? That may not be in the constitution, but my 54 year old son is having a very hard time obtaining a COVID vaccine in Indiana because the idiot in charge or our health care is limiting it to those over 65 or those with certain conditions. I consider that a loss of a type of freedom. I'm over 70 and I had to get a doctor's order to get my most recent COVID vaccine. We should all be free to obtain the vaccines we need to prevent certain diseases. So, to me, that's loss of freedom.

 

[Elixir]

If you have it your way, we'll have a civil fucking war just to avoid a hypothetical possibility.

It's only hypothetical to the oblivious and the willfully blind.
IT'S HAPPENING.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

No. Radical Islam is a few orders of magnitude more out there than radical Christianity.
But Islamism gets defended by the far left because of the latter's rigid oppressor-oppressed paradigm that identifies Muslims as "the oppressed" because they are not western.

Disagree. Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's jus

Tell that to Melissa Hortman's daughter.

Not to mention every woman who has been forced to give birth due to abortion bans (including after rape).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is no longer about a difference of views. We are loosing freedoms worth fighting for.

Which freedoms have we lost?

You mean other than Dobbs, Trump trying to eliminate due process and Habeas Corpus, unwarranted searches, and freedom of speech?

What rights do you need to be removed before you take notice?

 

[Emily Lake]

And, yes, sex work.

Sex work is work in the same way that child labor is labor. Call it what it actually is: exploitation and commodification of women's bodies for the sexual gratification of men who don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the people that they're LITERALLY using.

 

[Gospel]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

I’m pro-Emily’s approach to gun control: license, registration, insurance, inspections, recalls. Take a number; I’ll be at window 3.

 

[Emily Lake]

But to have the Governor of Texas bragging about the arrest of the hat-knocker and saying it was because they made a taunt is a ridiculous overreaction. It's like Gov. Abbot celebrating the arrest of someone who smashed a pumpkin. Yes, it's a civil offense. No, it doesn't deserve the attention of the highest levels of state governance even if what was carved on the pumpkin was offensive to someone.

Agree, it was completely inappropriate for Abbot to portray it that way. Had she actually been arrested merely for taunting protestors, that would have been an extreme abuse of power.

It might have been an assault. Or it might have been the result of careless contact in a crowd. Or it might have been the result of a defensive move, like putting up hands to ward off someone screaming in your face.

Well, in this case we've got a fair bit of video of her being the one screaming in people's faces and being disorderly.