Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

What, exactly, do you think the Spanish Inquisition was? And weren’t the Nazis ‘good Christians?! What do you think the Crusades were? What do you think ‘mission schools’ were? Oh, sure, they were only a part of the plan but make no mistake: the goal was to beat the Indian out of NA’s and exterminate those who would not be made into useful servants.

Are you seriously comparing the spanish inquisition, which was ~400 years ago, to the CURRENT ACTUAL POLICY OF JIHAD BEING ENACTED RIGHT NOW?

How is it different? Aside from 400 years or so?

The difference ***is*** 400 years! That's the entire relevant difference. Bilby and Loren both argued that current radical christianity is a bigger threat than radical islam. The four centuries difference makes one of them a much bigger threat than the other.

Not in the USA. If Radical Christians were in power, I suspect your view would change.

I dunno, these people can't seem to be able to identify when fascist stuff is actually happening.

 

[crazyfingers]

If you all will let me know when this Emily vs everyone argument is over I'll rewatch this topic again. Thanks!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is your assertion, so defend it.

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Technically that wasn't the Constitution, that was SCOTUS's view of the Constitution in Marbury v Madison. It stuck.

And it is always possible to find an argument for or against any interpretation of a sufficiently complex document (such as the US Constitution). It may be a very bad argument, but if the Supreme Court accepts it as a majority opinion, it is the way the constitution must be interpreted, until the Supreme Court overturns it.

Actually the answer you are looking for, the 9th Amendment says and I'm paraphrasing "We didn't list every fucking right or privilege... that'd take forever. So whenever soneone asks 'where does it say that is protected', tell that fucking twit to read the Ninth Amendment and determine why it shouldn't be protected."

 

[Elixir]

tell that fucking twit to read the Ninth Amendment...

"That fucking twit" is six of the nine SCOTUS Justices.
They'll read it if Trump tells them to read it. Until then it says what they say it says. And after then, it will still say what they say it says, even if that is totally different from what they said it said before and the text hasn't changed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.

I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.

People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".

But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.

 

[Politesse]

Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.

I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.

People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".

But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.

What point do you even think you're making? How does claiming that your victims were attacking you, however incredibly, make it not a genocide?

If I walk into your house and murder you, your wife, your child, and your elderly father, and use your finger bones to make a necklace for my girlfriend, I don't get to claim that it was self defense in all four cases because your wife brandished a steak knife while I was doing it. Of course she fucking did. Because I was murdering her family. That doesn't even justify under the killing her, let alone everyone else.

 

[bilby]

chooses to sell his services as a slave on HIS terms

That's a contradiction. A slave by definition cannot sell services on his terms.

The word you need there would be "employee".

IF a man is in his right mind (not being trafficked due to an addiction or debt) AND he chooses to sell his services as an employee on HIS terms, then I see no moral issue; it should be legal.

That seems fairly uncontroversial; It's the basis of most men's lives. Including my own.

 

[bilby]

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Are you really intending to say that if the SC woke up tomorrow and said that the first amendment of the constitution says that left-handed people can be purchased as livestock and eaten for food, you think that would actually work, and we'd all just be stuck selling our left-handed cousins and having "Lefty Lou Lasagne"?

Who would have the authority to contradict them?

 

[Swammerdami]

I'd never heard of Charlie Kirk until he was already dead; and have hardly paid any attention even now. The Google summary tells me enough:

A key ally of President Donald Trump, Kirk espoused a variety of conservative and Trumpist stances, including opposition to abortion, [opposition to] gun control, [opposition to] DEI programs, and [opposition to] LGBT rights.

Google's summary was poorly phrased. I've added "opposition to" in brackets to correct an ambiguity.

I don't disagree that DEI often goes too far, but it doesn't make the Top 100 List of Problems Facing America and the World. Those who are obsessed with opposition to DEI tend to be racists, misogynists and/or xenophobes. "Tend to be" -- I won't indict on that alone.

But the rest of this brief summary makes it clear to me that Kirk was part of the problem, not part of the solution. There are "conservatives", perhaps with views farther right than Kirk's, who are NOT "Trumpists." John Bolton, Dick Cheney and his daughter, and perhaps even Ted Cruz are about as extreme right-wing as one can get without being certifiably insane, and all oppose Trump.

The ignorant equation of "conservative" with "Trumpist" is exasperating. If the fascist take-over by Trump and his MAGGOTs of our once-great country is not clearly visible by now, just Shut the F**k Up -- You're too ignorant for your opinion to have any value.

No, I'm not glad that this guy I'd never heard of is dead. I'm not cackling with glee: That's what high-placed MAGGOTs (including MOST of the FoxNews shills) did when Paul Pelosi was bludgeoned.

Kirk's assassin was a crazy man who should never have been allowed to possess a gun. WTF difference does it make if he was a left-wing psychotic, right-wing psychotic, up-wing psychotic, down-wing psychotic, north-wing psychotic, or a south-wing psychotic?

Can't say what's in Robinson's heart, but he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs. Quack like a duck, don't be surprised if you're taken for a duck.

It amazes just how far right some of the "conservatives" are here.

What the actual for realsies fuck was "far right" in Bomb's post?

Hunh?? Read my comments above. I don't want to slur Mr. Bomb more than he is already slurring himself. I had much respect for "conservatives." ... But NOT when they mutate into Trumpists.

And by the way, Emily, your views on the Second Amendment are atrocious. Please stop blaming America's stupidities on the Founding Fathers. If they were alive to see what guns represent in America today, every single one would vote to expunge the stupidities of that Amendment. Every.Single.One.

 

[Bomb#20]

he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs.

Can we sue the apricot for trademark infringement?

Yes. It's America -- you can sue anyone for anything.

”I HATE MY OPPONENTS!”

You won't win your lawsuit with that one, though -- nobody has a trademark on hating his opponents. It's interpreting your opponent disagreeing with you as proof that he hates some group higher up on the progressive stack that's the shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

 

[unapologetic]

Kirk in his own words

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Are you really intending to say that if the SC woke up tomorrow and said that the first amendment of the constitution says that left-handed people can be purchased as livestock and eaten for food, you think that would actually work, and we'd all just be stuck selling our left-handed cousins and having "Lefty Lou Lasagne"?

Who would have the authority to contradict them?

The President and Congress. SCOTUS has no actual enforcement powers.

The US Government lasted through 2016 (minus a minor scuffle in the 1860s) because everyone behaved. That has ended.

 

[Elixir]

It's interpreting your opponent disagreeing with you as proof that he hates some group higher up on the progressive stack that's the shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

Wut!?
What’s the “it” to which you refer?
My “opponent” (Trump) categorically states, announces, and embraces hate of the entire category of his “opponents”, which includes some nine digit number of American Citizens.
Yet you characterize that as shrink wrapped leftism.
Trump as a leftist is a bit much of a stretch. It reeks of desperation. You COULD just acknowledge that it was a mistake to imply hate is a leftist slur.
If a leftist (or anyone else) ascribes hate to Trump, that’s simple observation of his own expression. No “interpretation” required. It’s certainly not “a leftist slur”, or any slur at all. That’s who he is.

 

[Elixir]

The President and Congress. SCOTUS has no actual enforcement powers.

The controlling faction of Congress has abdicated their role. So in your scenario The President has total enforcement power. He says “indict that guy, he dissed my hair!” and they do it.
Sounds pretty accurate, but -
Actual enforcement is conducted by flunkies like ICE thugs who get their power from the presidunce.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason why some people are stuck on two genders is inertia, in some part religious based inertia.

Nope, it's science and biology.

Naïveté is so cute!!

A lot of unpack there. The reason many people are stuck on two genders is not really inertial. There is a real binary here, even if it's not perfect. On the physical level, there are various intersex conditions. And trans can perhaps be understood as intersex with regard to brain-genitalia disconnect. Just because it affects the brain does not make it any less real than, say, testosterone insensitivity.

Which is how I see it. It's pretty clear the brain is in some way wired with a gender perception even though we do not yet know how it works.

That said, these are failures of normal development. The human species is still gonochoric. TSwizzle is right there, and trans activists who want to eliminate the binary norm because of some exceptions are going too far. But people like TSwizzle also go too far when they try to dismiss the very real existence of people to whom the binary does not apply.

The thing is there are the non-binary. That's not a case of following the wrong path, that's in some fashion both paths. I see it more like sexual attraction--most people fall into either male-attracted or female-attracted but intermediate states exist. And if there are intermediates it is by definition not binary. The problem comes from trying to pigeonhole people. People simply are, quit trying to pigeonhole and the problem goes away. We have "male" and "female" backpacks--but there's a decent amount of cross-gender use because it's really a matter of proportions. Likewise sleeping bags. The better your bag conforms to your body shape the more warmth you will get for a given weight and bulk. The market has been shifting towards marketing based on size, not gender.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

Big difference--those are self-inflicted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There have been some pretty bad things but not at the genocide level. Nobody set out to annihilate a population for religious reasons. Yes, there has been genocidal intent towards armed groups, not against groups that aren't attacking.

You will forgive me for not taking your word for any of this.

You don't need to take Loren's word for it. All you need to do is look around.

Which countries are christian theocracies enforcing fundamentalist regimes? Which christian groups have a stated intention of exterminating all non-christians from the planet? Which have actively funded recent terrorist acts targeting civilians? Which christian sects are currently engaged in religious wars? Which christian theocracies outlaw the practice of any other religion?

Exactly. There are Christian loons that would like to do that but they are in the loon category, not in power. Loons exist on every side, the question is how much acceptance they have.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moved some more posts to the sex work thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason why some people are stuck on two genders is inertia, in some part religious based inertia.

Nope, it's science and biology.

Gender is a social construct. Why does society even need to pay attention to it? It's clearly relevant to romantic situations but otherwise I think it's not the government's business.

I don’t think it need be relevant to romantic situations. That’s not “clearly” true.

If we're talking about gender, I don't think disclosure is even a thing. I mean, gender is about how a person presents and behaves in society relative to the sex-based norms of their culture. I would assume that those means of presentation would be known prior to any romantic engagement, probably before romantic desire even really developed.

On the other hand, if we're talking about sex... well... I'm pretty sure it's relevant to romantic situations what combination of innies and outies is involved.

That's why I said "romantic". If you're on the road towards playing with innies and outies it's only proper to disclose what bits you bring to the table.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.

I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.

People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".

But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.

What point do you even think you're making? How does claiming that your victims were attacking you, however incredibly, make it not a genocide?

If I walk into your house and murder you, your wife, your child, and your elderly father, and use your finger bones to make a necklace for my girlfriend, I don't get to claim that it was self defense in all four cases because your wife brandished a steak knife while I was doing it. Of course she fucking did. Because I was murdering her family. That doesn't even justify under the killing her, let alone everyone else.

That's not how it started. It wasn't originally attacks on the Indians, it was taking what appeared to be open resources but they were actually claimed by the Indians.