Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Except your standards would sometimes kill women. Even ones that weren't at 6 months yet. We've already seen the sort of deaths your position would lead to: the doctors won't act unless they are certain of the situation and are certain they can prove they acted properly. Medical judgment goes out the window.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

Except your standards would sometimes kill women. Even ones that weren't at 6 months yet. We've already seen the sort of deaths your position would lead to: the doctors won't act unless they are certain of the situation and are certain they can prove they acted properly. Medical judgment goes out the window.

"That's just hyperbole!"

 

[Bomb#20]

I'll be much surprised if you can produce said evidence running in the opposite direction re "perversion", since "perversion" is an entirely subjective pejorative. Re mass shootings, do you mean something like Elixir's Perplexity emission, "transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators"? That's true of pretty much any demographic, since one perpetrator typically has many victims.

No--mass shootings have many victims, but a lot of the violence is one on one or many on one.

One-on-one doesn't change anything -- when a perpetrator beats somebody up, it usually isn't the first time he beat anyone up and it probably won't be the last time.

Many-on-one could in principle change the numbers, true; but it would take an awful lot of gang-ups to outweigh the effect of the same criminals reoffending over and over.

Trans being far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator is true for society in general.

Yes, that's not in dispute. Can you name any demographic it isn't true for? Left-handed AB-negative people are far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Except your standards would sometimes kill women. Even ones that weren't at 6 months yet. We've already seen the sort of deaths your position would lead to: the doctors won't act unless they are certain of the situation and are certain they can prove they acted properly. Medical judgment goes out the window.

Let's suppose you're correct for the sake of argument. So what? Why do you think that has any bearing on the point in dispute? Emily and Elixir aren't arguing over whether Roe v Wade is good policy. They're arguing over whether Elixir infers hatred of women from opposition to abortions. Irrespective of whether Emily is right about abortion, do you in fact think Emily hates women?

 

[Jarhyn]

The thing is few would actually admit to being a Nazi.

Well, not after they lost the war. If it becomes safe to fly the flag again without losing their job, many will fly it just as proudly as they fly the "Confederate flag" now.

Yeah, they just find a new name with the same core behaviors and slightly different window dressing.

It's also one of the reasons that the easiest way to spot them is to spot the political groups whose names do not actually match their behavior, or which have names associated with nationalism and/or populism, while espousing "smaller*" government.

If you find the people seeking to hit social spending, or advocating to make certain human conditions criminal or regulated, completely agnostic to the behavior of the person with that condition, the those people are likely Nazis too.

As it is, Nazis, when they start to precipitate into power within a society, share a number of bedfellows who I will also call Nazis.

These "Nazi bedfellows" will in any era include a large number of false "free people", who believe they value justice and freedom and independence of thought, but whose values in practice skew towards "trains running on time" and re-instating conservative policies according to biases trained into them by religious and cultural sources.

These are, in fact, the majority of Nazis, like the soil in which the roots of the toxic plant of fascist government grows.

The fact is, of you don't want Nazis in your country, you will not be the fertile soil for this.

If you hate Nazis, really, if you want to be remembered not as an individual but as part of a *sort* of individual, as an instance of something we can count on next time, then today you will show that you can reject the comforts and the utilities of the trains running on time because you are one of those who will ultimately blow up the tracks before they can carry trains of people. Name those Nazis as what they are, and speak the words into history necessary to make the next instance of you who reads the words in the next cycle and understand before things get so out of hand as you let them get here.

MAGA are Nazis.

Those who pretend "MAGA" isn't "Nazis" are cheeky Nazis.

 

[Elixir]

They're arguing over whether Elixir infers hatred of women from opposition to abortions.

Really? Let me obviate that “argument” right now.
I do not infer hatred of women from Emily’s opposition to abortion.
If you like, I can list some inferences that I do make from opposition to abortion. Not all of them apply to Emily and none of them are hatred of women in her case.
It would be surprising to me if none of the apparently misogynistic Republicans in Congress were not actually misogynists, but I was unaware that that was what was under contention.

 

[Elixir]

"transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators"? That's true of pretty much any demographic

Patent bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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. 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.

And again - you don't have to agree with the sentiment to understand the viewpoint. In fact, understanding the viewpoint and where it's coming from is the only way you can possibly change anyone's mind. Otherwise all you're left with is your own personal pogrom killing heretics.

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

Before you go locking someone up as a public danger you need to demonstrate why they are a public danger. And nobody has demonstrated such danger, it's all bogeymen with no data to back it up. It's women not wanting to see dicks. You think it's better to lock that dick up for life so you don't risk seeing it??? Do the trans somehow corrupt children? No, the only "corruption" is a tolerance of difference, something the reich wing can't tolerate. As I recently saw it presented--why in the would would someone be a drag queen to get access to children when they could take the route of priest and have them handed to them on a silver platter?

And it's not that we want a civil war, it's that the reich wing has already chosen the path of war.

 

[Toni]

I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.

Okay, I get that this is abstract reasoning here, but bear with me.

You perceiving Kirk's views as hateful views is not the same as Kirk advocating hate.

My grandfather believed that miscegenation was sinful. My stepdad is black. My grandfather didn't hate my stepdad.

I can absolutely understand that many people see my grandfather's belief as hateful; my grandfather himself wasn't hateful - he didn't see it as hateful, and he didn't have any hate in his heart toward my stepdad. Doesn't mean there wasn't tension especially early on. There were arguments, there was a lot of anger, it went on for years. It sucked and it was sad and it was painful... but it wasn't hate.

Racists often make exceptions, ‘for the good ones.’

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What if I said all MAGA are mentally ill (they are BTW according to social norms), and should be put in an institution for their own and society's safety? Oh, but that's just something "I" believe, and is therefore harmless to that group. If someone decides to act on that (my statements) and start rounding up all MAGA for transportation to an appropriate place, that's alright. They would be doing so lovingly. It would be a vacation for all those MAGA people.

And note the reality: MAGA actually is an existential threat to the American way of life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Somebody is against male boxers punching female boxers? He hates trans people. Somebody is against illegal immigration? He hates brown people. Somebody is against affirmative action? He hates black people. Somebody is against abortion? He hates women. Somebody is against socialism? He hates poor people. Get some new material for chrissakes!

***Somebody*** is paranoid.

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

Glad to hear it. But enough leftists trump up those charges on a regular basis to make them tropes.

What you say reeks of totalitarian generalities employed to suppress.
Just like Trump’s new executive order to
“Dismantle left wing groups” including ones that don’t exist (e.g. Antifa).
Create boogeyman groups, assign individuals to it and put them away.
What individuals would you name as members of Antifa? Trump’s answer:
WHOEVER ... FAILS TO BEND THE KNEE TO ME!!

Your “somebody” is everyone in the country outside of core MAGA, the very moment they stand up to the coming fascism.

I find that despicable and shameful.
You assign me to your hated “outgroup” for observing Robinson’s hate of anti-trans people, accusing me of being in his group of capital criminals, a member of the leftist hate group of your fantasy. One might presume that you think Robinson was ambivalent toward trans people, and any perception to the contrary is a symptom that *somebody* is leftist and needs arrested.

Almost as if you’ve been marinating your brain in Stephen Miller’s X-tra hot Trump sauce.

And you call me paranoid.

You suffer from survivorship bias. Things have always turned out ok, therefore things will turn out ok. The reality is the times it didn't turn out ok basically disappear unless found by the archeologists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place

Sorry, but a lack of logic is if anything more prevalent on the right than the left.

 

[Politesse]

The thing is few would actually admit to being a Nazi.

Well, not after they lost the war. If it becomes safe to fly the flag again without losing their job, many will fly it just as proudly as they fly the "Confederate flag" now.

Yeah, they just find a new name with the same core behaviors and slightly different window dressing.

It's also one of the reasons that the easiest way to spot them is to spot the political groups whose names do not actually match their behavior, or which have names associated with nationalism and/or populism, while espousing "smaller*" government.

"How can you say I'm persecuting the communists? Yes, criminals and terrorists should be in jail, but I'm a National Socialist myself! Learn to read, dumbo!"

 

[WAB]

No one has any business calling any particular group of people mentally ill. That kind of diagnosis can only be done individually, case by case, and determinations need to be made by professionals. No armchair diagnosis of mental illness means a damn thing.

I recall some high profile people calling god-belief a mental illness, and while some god-believers may be mentally ill, they are almost certainly not all so. Same with any group.

Moreover, many mentally ill people can live just fine in total freedom, with appropriate medication and treatment. Sometimes a limited stay in a facility is helpful, even mandatory, as in my case when I cut my wrists and was taken to a mental hospital in Vegas about ten years ago. I wasn't given a choice, and it turned out to be helpful. I stayed for about three weeks.

No one in this thread wants to lock all people of a particular group away forever against their will, to be given all sorts of draconian, evil-scientist shock therapy or lobotomies.

It is apparently a trend now to dismiss someone's argument on the suspicion that they are lying or in some manner being insincere, and there is the laughably simplistic "Every accusation is an admission", which any fool should see could be turned right back on the person uttering it.

Having a conversation is difficult here. It always was to a degree but it has gotten silly.

 

[Politesse]

No one in this thread wants to lock all people of a particular group away forever against their will, to be given all sorts of draconian, evil-scientist shock therapy or lobotomies.

I wish that were so. But nearly all of our conservative leaning posters see incarcerations as a one trick solution to nearly all social ills. Homelessness? Mental illness? Illegal immigration? Voter fraud? Lock them up, lock them up, lock them all up. Moderates are more likely to insist that this isn't supposed to be the end goal, that jails are really "rehabitilation centers", asylums are really "treatment facilities", deported asylum seekers can simply reapply next year. But the impulse is the same. You know how you know? Because if you point out that sending people to jails does not in fact rehabilitate them, that the few treatment options available in most long-term facilities are limited if they exist at all, or that asylum seekers sent "back" to hostile nations most often immediately disappear never to be seen as living persons again, they do not want to talk about it. They get angry you even brought it up. How dare you challenge their belief that their solutions are benevolent? Are you saying they are a Bad Person? As opposed to being genuinely concerned about the victims of their policies, and being as fervent in demanding prison reform as they were about demanding mass incarceration. Conservatives want to torture evil people like God in His heavens. Moderates don't, but they won't lift a fucking finger to stop it, because their end goal is for problems to disappear, not for them to be addressed. Anyone who wants the government to take concrete actions to improve society is a Progressive Woke and danger to the precious status quo. How things used to be, we're informed! The Good Old Days when the Good Old Boys just "took care of things" and we all had peace as long as we didn't ask too many questions.

The result of this unholy alliance between Right and Center is a carceral state extreme beyond any other nation on earth, in which over 1% of the national adult population is imprisoned either in the penal or healthcare system at any one time, the well-documented abuses within those systems are a hot button issue that no poltician will touch with a ten foot pole, and a proposal to deport 11-14 milllion people over the course of the next year is treated as a serious policy proposal.

 

[Elixir]

Before you go locking someone up as a public danger you need to demonstrate why they are a public danger.

Unless your intent is to cow people into lockstep compliance with your fascist agenda by demonstrating your power to lock up people whom you designate as a threat.
I that case, the LAST thing you want to do is actually show that they’re a threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When the options are to tolerate fascism or put down a coup, I would desperately choose civil war to return our constitutional freedoms.

This is quite the point.

If you would rather not have a civil war when Nazis stand in the halls of government to do Nazi things, that makes you a Nazi; it means you prefer Nazis in government.

I don't like the idea of a civil war.

I in fact hate it.

But I hate Nazis more than I hate wars.

Disagree. I don't like Nazis in power, but I see a civil war against them not improving the situation but likely causing even more of a crackdown.

 

[unapologetic]

And it's not that we want a civil war, it's that the reich wing has already chosen the path of war.

but I see a civil war against them not improving the situation but likely causing even more of a crackdown.

You don't see the contradictions in those statements.
Ignoring the Nazis will not improve the situation either.
I don't want to live in a war zone. But Rump already declared it. And put us on the wrong side.

(some of my mispellings stem from letters being worn-off my keyboard)

 

[Elixir]

When the options are to tolerate fascism or put down a coup, I would desperately choose civil war to return our constitutional freedoms.

This is quite the point.

If you would rather not have a civil war when Nazis stand in the halls of government to do Nazi things, that makes you a Nazi; it means you prefer Nazis in government.

I don't like the idea of a civil war.

I in fact hate it.

But I hate Nazis more than I hate wars.

Disagree. I don't like Nazis in power, but I see a civil war against them not improving the situation but likely causing even more of a crackdown.

Timing is everything. If said crackdown results in a reaction that turns into their ouster, that's a good thing.
If we just retreat and say "guess we shouldn't have provoked them", that's necessarily a bad thing.

("shouldn't have provoked them"... hmmm.. where have I seen THAT recently?)

 

[southernhybrid]

No one in this thread wants to lock all people of a particular group away forever against their will, to be given all sorts of draconian, evil-scientist shock therapy or lobotomies.

I wish that were so. But nearly all of our conservative leaning posters see incarcerations as a one trick solution to nearly all social ills. Homelessness? Mental illness? Illegal immigration? Voter fraud? Lock them up, lock them up, lock them all up. Moderates are more likely to insist that this isn't supposed to be the end goal, that jails are really "rehabitilation centers", asylums are really "treatment facilities", deported asylum seekers can simply reapply next year. But the impulse is the same. You know how you know? Because if you point out that sending people to jails does not in fact rehabilitate them, that the few treatment options available in most long-term facilities are limited if they exist at all, or that asylum seekers sent "back" to hostile nations most often immediately disappear never to be seen as living persons again, they do not want to talk about it. They get angry you even brought it up. How dare you challenge their belief that their solutions are benevolent? Are you saying they are a Bad Person? As opposed to being genuinely concerned about the victims of their policies, and being as fervent in demanding prison reform as they were about demanding mass incarceration. Conservatives want to torture evil people like God in His heavens. Moderates don't, but they won't lift a fucking finger to stop it, because their end goal is for problems to disappear, not for them to be addressed. Anyone who wants the government to take concrete actions to improve society is a Progressive Woke and danger to the precious status quo. How things used to be, we're informed! The Good Old Days when the Good Old Boys just "took care of things" and we all had peace as long as we didn't ask too many questions.

The result of this unholy alliance between Right and Center is a carceral state extreme beyond any other nation on earth, in which over 1% of the national adult population is imprisoned either in the penal or healthcare system at any one time, the well-documented abuses within those systems are a hot button issue that no poltician will touch with a ten foot pole, and a proposal to deport 11-14 milllion people over the course of the next year is treated as a serious policy proposal.

You've certainly stereotyped a huge number of people, but the real reason I'm posting in this crazy thread is to explain a few things about the treatment of the severely mentally ill and how much better it was for those who needed hospitalization back in the 70s and 80s when we had lots of large state supported mental hospitals. I agree that what's left of them are usually horrific, under staffed, under funded places, based on what little I've read but that wasn't always the case.

The one I did I did my psych clinical as as student nurse was in Texas, and it was a very nice place, all on one level with beautiful grounds where the residents could walk. Some of the patients were there short term to help stabilize them, while others probably were so sick and had no place to go, so they were likely there for life, unless a family member was willing and able to care for them, which is almost never the case.

When Iived in SC, one of my Home Health patients had a breakdown and was acting erratic. My guess is that part of it was due to social isolation as she lived with her older sister who may have been in the early stages of dementia. I convinced her to go to a mental health clinic for an assessment and then she was transferred to a mental hospital for about a month. I felt bad but there was no other option. Surprisingly, when she got back, she thanked me for sending her to the clinic. She admitted she needed to be in the mental hospital and they helped her get back to herself. We moved or I changed jobs, so I don't know what happened to her after that. She might have needed nursing home care since she was almost totally dependent and her sister was reaching the point where she could no longer cook and help care for her.

After we moved to NC, I considered working in a large state owned mental hospital. I had an interview and took a tour. I was amazed at how caring and competent the nurses were and the patients/residents seemed content. I especially respected the nurses who chose to work on the unit for the so called criminally insane. These were people who had violent tendencies and had committed crimes but were sent to this hospital instead of a prison. These nurses wore alarm buttons in case they were attacked. They were courageous, but kind and caring.

I had planned on working in the geriatric part of the hospital since I didn't feel experienced enough yet to work in a unit for the seriously mentally ill. The geriatric section was more like a little nursing home. The residents often had dementia after a long battle with other forms of mental illnesses. But, once again, we moved so I never worked there.

Some of my former patients in the personal care home where I worked prior to retirement were seriously mentally. ill. I've mentioned the queen before and I probably mentioned Ron, who had constant hallucinations and almost constantly talked to the voices in his head. There were some others but those two always come to mind. Ron was only in his 40s, but since most of the large mental hospitals have closed down, people like him often end up in long term care. What else is there for people like Ron? He had no family that was able to care for him. If he was homeless, he would likely not survive long at all. The queen was happy with her delusions and her son wasn't willing or able to care for her.

I strongly support prison reform, but society must be protected from violent people. I don't even know of a politician these days who ever mentions prison reform, and I've read enough investigations to know that most of our prisons are hell holes, often run by gang members who pay off guards. They are usually understaffed and unsafe. Sometimes the prisoners are only fed twice a day. Georgia does use prisoners for outside work for very little pay and I have mixed feelings about that. I think they should be paid more so they could have some money to set themselves up once their sentence is over. But, I also know that a lot of them would much rather be outside all day, working at our senior center, the animal shelter, etc. compared to sitting in a prison cell all day.

Of course no homeless person, or immigrant should be locked up. And, since voter fraud is so rare, I don't even know why you mentioned it. The few cases I've read about were mistakes and ultimately the person was found innocent, including the woman in Florida.

Let me add that my late father chose to have ECT for his severe depression and while he said it didn't help, I think it did at least for awhile because he seemed much more content after the ECT. That was in the 90s btw, I don't know if they still use it but when they did in recent decades, it was only with the permission of the patient. The person is heavily sedated so they don't feel a thing. If I remember correctly, some research in the 90s gave evidence that it sometimes helped people with depression. He had it in New Jersey, a very blue state. I just checked. ECT is still used mostly for bipolar disorder and severe depression when other treatments don't help. My father also had bipolar disorder, primarily with mania.

We certainly don't do enough for people who suffer from mental illnesses, which I prefer to call brain disorders. A lot of funding was taken away when Reagan was in office and I doubt much was ever restored. When most large mental hospitals were closed down, one idea was to have visiting nurses check on these patients to see if they were taking their meds and having any exacerbations of their symptoms, but that didn't work out. A good mental hospital isn't a prison any more than a good nursing Home is a prison. Is it better to have severely ill people living on the street, unable to get enough to eat, unable to provide hygiene, or have a safe place to eliminate, get meds etc. compared to living in a place where they will receive care, food and meds? There is no easy answer as how to care for those who suffer from severe illnesses of the brain and are unable to care for themselves. I'm not talking about homeless people who aren't ill or are mildly ill. I wish we'd do more for these people like offer them safe housing, and other help.

Let me add that my sister was in a mental hospital briefly during her late teens after she was arrested for vagrancy. She was given the option of going to a mental hospital in exchange for the charges to be dropped. My father had her released early because he thought she was having too much fun and he had to pay the bill. My sister eventually got her act together although in her 70s, she still suffers from anxiety.

Things are complicated and solutions aren't always easy, even when we think they are.