|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 12 2025 11:20 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences.. It is exactly what it means. Otherwise you can argue Hitler as a champion of free speech. Of course you could go and say he is an idiot. You would have to face a consequences, but you were free to say it. If I think you're a moron for this post, does that mean I've violated your free speech? (I don't think you're a moron, just pointing out that 'free speech' very obviously does not mean 'freedom from consequence')
No it doesnt. I dont even see argument here? You are free to think I am a moron, you are free to say it as well. That is entire point of free speech.
|
On September 12 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences.. It is exactly what it means.
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from all consequences. For example, it's possible for a private company to fire someone for their speech, or a gamer to be banned from an online game/forum for their speech. Those don't necessarily violate the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech simply means that the government can't censor you. Unless you think the government assassinated Charlie Kirk, it's not relevant here.
|
United States43505 Posts
It should mean freedom from state interference while also not forfeiting the basic rights, privileges and protections from being a member of society. So the state can’t go “we won’t punch you but if an off duty cop punches you then we won’t investigate it”. Within the philosophy of free speech it’s not completely fair game for non state actors to respond to speech however they wish while the state says “technically it’s not me repressing you”.
It’s all well and good to say freedom of speech is not freedom from non state consequences but those consequences should be limited to speech, association (or refusal to associate), denial of business, and so forth. It’s covered by the general rules against punching anyone.
I think the broader problem is that free speech isn’t doing a great job right now. We haven’t yet worked out how to strike an appropriate balance between individual freedom of political expression and mass media algorithm driven populist lies. Rights are not divinely ordained, they are rules that we come up with to try and make a working society and those rules should be continuously evaluated to see if they continue to work. It’s important that people be able to say “I think Biden’s health is worse than they’re reporting”. It’s not important that demagogues with a wide audience be able to knowingly lie about voting machines being under the control of deceased Venezuelan Hugo Chavez. If anything it’s important that they face state repression for knowingly making false claims that undermine and destabilize the basic fabric of democratic society. However that naturally creates potential for abuse by bad state actors. Though bad state actors don’t need the help, they’ve already got plenty of options for repression.
We’re yet to work out where the right balance is. What we’re doing isn’t working.
|
On September 12 2025 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It should mean freedom from state interference while also not forfeiting the basic rights, privileges and protections from being a member of society. So the state can’t go “we won’t punch you but if an off duty cop punches you then we won’t investigate it”. Within the philosophy of free speech it’s not completely fair game for non state actors to respond to speech however they wish while the state says “technically it’s not me repressing you”.
It’s all well and good to say freedom of speech is not freedom from non state consequences but those consequences should be limited to speech, association (or refusal to associate), denial of business, and so forth. It’s covered by the general rules against punching anyone.
I think the broader problem is that free speech isn’t doing a great job right now. We haven’t yet worked out how to strike an appropriate balance between individual freedom of political expression and mass media algorithm driven populist lies. Rights are not divinely ordained, they are rules that we come up with to try and make a working society and those rules should be continuously evaluated to see if they continue to work. It’s important that people be able to say “I think Biden’s health is worse than they’re reporting”. It’s not important that demagogues with a wide audience be able to knowingly lie about voting machines being under the control of deceased Venezuelan Hugo Chavez. If anything it’s important that they face state repression for knowingly making false claims that undermine and destabilize the basic fabric of democratic society. However that naturally creates potential for abuse by bad state actors. Though bad state actors don’t need the help, they’ve already got plenty of options for repression.
We’re yet to work out where the right balance is. What we’re doing isn’t working.
I want to bring attention to the bolded. While I agree in theory, that doesn't always stop people from continuing to spew idiotic vitriol and then pikachu face when the bad thing they're promoting happens. People who directly influence a bad situation with the "free speech" they use, should be punished in a way that hopefully stops the next person from repeating said acts.
While I don't want to get banned for calling Kwark (you're the guest of honor this time lol) a cunt, I can't be upset that I get banned afterwards. All of the stuff leading up to CK's demise is a consequence of his free speech. You can say what you want, but if someone doesn't like what you say, then you face the consequence. Either by being shunned or assaulted. That's a consequence.
I'd rather we figure out a better way to go about saying the quiet part out loud without consequences, but until then...talk shit, get hit. This time it was in the neck 200 yards away.
|
On September 12 2025 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences.. It is exactly what it means. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from all consequences. For example, it's possible for a private company to fire someone for their speech, or a gamer to be banned from an online game/forum for their speech. Those don't necessarily violate the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech simply means that the government can't censor you. Unless you think the government assassinated Charlie Kirk, it's not relevant here.
You are correct about all this, however you may notice that my freedom of speech comment was in answer to MP, and freedom of speech has an actual legal meaning. Of course you can get punched in the face by someone you called an idiot, they will however face prosecution. (unless you live in UK, where you will be the one facing prosecution).
It is different thing to say "freedom of speech" doesnt mean you are free of the consequences, and different one to say "speech" wont have consequences.
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 12 2025 11:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It should mean freedom from state interference while also not forfeiting the basic rights, privileges and protections from being a member of society. So the state can’t go “we won’t punch you but if an off duty cop punches you then we won’t investigate it”. Within the philosophy of free speech it’s not completely fair game for non state actors to respond to speech however they wish while the state says “technically it’s not me repressing you”.
It’s all well and good to say freedom of speech is not freedom from non state consequences but those consequences should be limited to speech, association (or refusal to associate), denial of business, and so forth. It’s covered by the general rules against punching anyone.
I think the broader problem is that free speech isn’t doing a great job right now. We haven’t yet worked out how to strike an appropriate balance between individual freedom of political expression and mass media algorithm driven populist lies. Rights are not divinely ordained, they are rules that we come up with to try and make a working society and those rules should be continuously evaluated to see if they continue to work. It’s important that people be able to say “I think Biden’s health is worse than they’re reporting”. It’s not important that demagogues with a wide audience be able to knowingly lie about voting machines being under the control of deceased Venezuelan Hugo Chavez. If anything it’s important that they face state repression for knowingly making false claims that undermine and destabilize the basic fabric of democratic society. However that naturally creates potential for abuse by bad state actors. Though bad state actors don’t need the help, they’ve already got plenty of options for repression.
We’re yet to work out where the right balance is. What we’re doing isn’t working. I want to bring attention to the bolded. While I agree in theory, that doesn't always stop people from continuing to spew idiotic vitriol and then pikachu face when the bad thing they're promoting happens. People who directly influence a bad situation with the "free speech" they use, should be punished in a way that hopefully stops the next person from repeating said acts. While I don't want to get banned for calling Kwark (you're the guest of honor this time lol) a cunt, I can't be upset that I get banned afterwards. All of the stuff leading up to CK's demise is a consequence of his free speech. You can say what you want, but if someone doesn't like what you say, then you face the consequence. Either by being shunned or assaulted. That's a consequence. I'd rather we figure out a better way to go about saying the quiet part out loud without consequences, but until then...talk shit, get hit. This time it was in the neck 200 yards away.
TL doesn’t have free speech. They’re allowed to ban you for calling me a cunt because they’re allowed to ban you for any reason.
You’re wrongly conflating two different things here. There’s consequences and consequences. It’s like the “she was asking for it” bullshit. You’re allowed to shun CK for his speech because that’s you exercising your personal freedom of association without violating anyone else’s rights. You’re not allowed to shoot him because that isn’t within your personal rights and does deny another of their freedom. You’re grouping them together but they’re not the same. One is fully within the rules of “you can say what you like but I don’t have to invite you to my birthday party”. One is very outside the rules.
When people say freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences they mean other people have the right to not invite CK to things. They don’t mean other people have the right to shoot CK. Other people definitely don’t have the right to shoot CK.
He had a right not to get shot for his speech. Death is not an allowable consequence for speech under the social contact we used to have. It’s not covered by the freedom from consequences argument. His problem is that the shooter didn’t care. That social contract he was tearing up would have been handy.
Which reminds me somewhat of the Supreme Court because one of the conservatives was complaining about me saying that they’re going to end up getting their appointments prematurely ended if they carry on the way they are. There’s a bit of paper that says that they get to decide what rights we have. People voluntarily choose to accept that system but it’s not divinely ordained, they accept it because they believe it works. Once Thomas starts openly taking bribes in exchange for taking rights away from Americans people are going to start reconsidering whether letting him decide which rights they have is a good system. It’s short sighted, they’re sawing away at the branch they’re sitting on. And there’s a second piece of paper that explains that they can be removed from office and replaced if they die. They ought to be highly motivated to serve honorably and with the highest ethical standards but they seem to genuinely believe that the first piece of paper gives them the absolute right to act as they see fit. It’s just paper, it only works because people believe in it, maybe stop wiping your ass with it daily.
|
On September 12 2025 12:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 11:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 12 2025 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It should mean freedom from state interference while also not forfeiting the basic rights, privileges and protections from being a member of society. So the state can’t go “we won’t punch you but if an off duty cop punches you then we won’t investigate it”. Within the philosophy of free speech it’s not completely fair game for non state actors to respond to speech however they wish while the state says “technically it’s not me repressing you”.
It’s all well and good to say freedom of speech is not freedom from non state consequences but those consequences should be limited to speech, association (or refusal to associate), denial of business, and so forth. It’s covered by the general rules against punching anyone.
I think the broader problem is that free speech isn’t doing a great job right now. We haven’t yet worked out how to strike an appropriate balance between individual freedom of political expression and mass media algorithm driven populist lies. Rights are not divinely ordained, they are rules that we come up with to try and make a working society and those rules should be continuously evaluated to see if they continue to work. It’s important that people be able to say “I think Biden’s health is worse than they’re reporting”. It’s not important that demagogues with a wide audience be able to knowingly lie about voting machines being under the control of deceased Venezuelan Hugo Chavez. If anything it’s important that they face state repression for knowingly making false claims that undermine and destabilize the basic fabric of democratic society. However that naturally creates potential for abuse by bad state actors. Though bad state actors don’t need the help, they’ve already got plenty of options for repression.
We’re yet to work out where the right balance is. What we’re doing isn’t working. I want to bring attention to the bolded. While I agree in theory, that doesn't always stop people from continuing to spew idiotic vitriol and then pikachu face when the bad thing they're promoting happens. People who directly influence a bad situation with the "free speech" they use, should be punished in a way that hopefully stops the next person from repeating said acts. While I don't want to get banned for calling Kwark (you're the guest of honor this time lol) a cunt, I can't be upset that I get banned afterwards. All of the stuff leading up to CK's demise is a consequence of his free speech. You can say what you want, but if someone doesn't like what you say, then you face the consequence. Either by being shunned or assaulted. That's a consequence. I'd rather we figure out a better way to go about saying the quiet part out loud without consequences, but until then...talk shit, get hit. This time it was in the neck 200 yards away. TL doesn’t have free speech. They’re allowed to ban you for calling me a cunt because they’re allowed to ban you for any reason. You’re wrongly conflating two different things here. There’s consequences and consequences. It’s like the “she was asking for it” bullshit. You’re allowed to shun CK for his speech because that’s you exercising your personal freedom of association without violating anyone else’s rights. You’re not allowed to shoot him because that isn’t within your personal rights and does deny another of their freedom. You’re grouping them together but they’re not the same. One is fully within the rules of “you can say what you like but I don’t have to invite you to my birthday party”. One is very outside the rules. When people say freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences they mean other people have the right to not invite CK to things. They don’t mean other people have the right to shoot CK. Other people definitely don’t have the right to shoot CK. He had a right not to get shot for his speech. Death is not an allowable consequence for speech under the social contact we used to have. It’s not covered by the freedom from consequences argument. His problem is that the shooter didn’t care. That social contract he was tearing up would have been handy. Which reminds me somewhat of the Supreme Court because one of the conservatives was complaining about me saying that they’re going to end up getting their appointments prematurely ended if they carry on the way they are. There’s a bit of paper that says that they get to decide what rights we have. People voluntarily choose to accept that system but it’s not divinely ordained, they accept it because they believe it works. Once Thomas starts openly taking bribes in exchange for taking rights away from Americans people are going to start reconsidering whether letting him decide which rights they have is a good system. It’s short sighted, they’re sawing away at the branch they’re sitting on. And there’s a second piece of paper that explains that they can be removed from office and replaced if they die. They ought to be highly motivated to serve honorably and with the highest ethical standards but they seem to genuinely believe that the first piece of paper gives them the absolute right to act as they see fit. It’s just paper, it only works because people believe in it, maybe stop wiping your ass with it daily.
I never said anyone had the right to take the life of another. I said he faced the consequences of his speech. How am I wrong in that assertion? I'm not overtly advocating for murder of politcal foes. I'm saying that if you say something, no matter your station in life, there are consequences. You should be prepared to deal with those consequences. The social contract, as you said, only works if everyone abides by it. The dude did not, in fact, abide. Therefore, someone else said to hell with that contract as well. Where's the error in that argument?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. It means you are responsible for the stuff that you write/say. Hence why I said the punishment should be commisserate with the offense. This person took it a step further. 200 yards further.
E: I don't want to take this thread off the rails more than it already has. If you wanna continue, because interacting with you is far more enjoyable than the other poster, feel free. But I'm open to understanding your point if I'm missing it.
|
United States43505 Posts
You’re just using freedom of speech <> freedom from consequences in a different way to the normal use. The consequences in the normal use are permissible within the social contract and the asshole speaker is presumed to still deserve all the basic protections society grants everyone. The expression normally means “you’re allowed to say X but the social contract also allows me to do Y”.
An example would be Kanye losing his Nike contract. He’s allowed to speak but they don’t have to partner with him. Typically conservatives will say or do something vile, people won’t like them anymore, and then the conservatives will cry online about being cancelled by the woke mob. “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences” is what people say to them as they wail about how unfair it is that nobody likes them.
We’re not fundamentally disagreeing about what happened but you’re using language that has a specific meaning within the context of free speech discussions to mean something quite different. Not an argument, just feedback on why I thought it was unclear.
|
Thank you. I thought the way I was trying to explain myself was clear. It's how I've interpreted the meaning all of these years lol. I'll try to be a bit more thoughtful going forward in how that is used. Wish CK had done the same. But that's what happens when you talk out the side of your neck I suppose.
|
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue.
|
Its a bit dark to discuss, sorry if its not appropriate, but a few friends of mine have all alluded to the same general anxiety that a rising overall political violence level will very sharpy increase AOC/MTG's risks relative to others. I don't like lumping the 2 of them together, but if it turns out the guy who killed Kirk was of sound mind and left wing, just kinda had enough of Kirk, I think it will fuel both sides significantly. For example Luigi was very clearly of sound mind and had deeply held beliefs that compelled him to kill. But assassinations or attempts are much less culturally impactful when the person is clearly insane and doesn't have a coherent message or set of beliefs. Random human variation vs deeply held belief just hits society differently
|
United States43505 Posts
Assuming they catch him I’m rooting for it being an attempt to impress Jodie Foster. The classics are classics for a reason and she’s still got it.
|
On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue.
I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable.
edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something
|
On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something
His team put out a tweet then he insulted Walz instead of calling him vs instituting a nation wide mourning and flying his body home on fucking air force 2 lol
|
My dude, they’re basically going full court press to make this seem like an American hero instead of some content creator just got murdered. They didn’t do shit for Paul Pelosi getting his head caved in or the congressmen who got killed beyond thoughts and prayers milquetoast comments to get people off their backs.
And even then, they’re basically couldn’t even do that much in the case of Charlie Kirk and conservatives in the same sphere of influence suggesting they should pay the bail of the attacker and spitting out garbage like how this was a homosexual lover’s spat gone wrong. A difference to callous responses to Kirk’s death, which point out that he was a victim of his own rhetoric.
Shit, JD Vance bailed on the 9/11 remembrance ceremony to go touch this dude’s coffin if I’m getting my timeline right. Also no comments about the people who got shot in Colorado on the same day AFAIK - exactly what I mean when I say the American people just don’t give a shit about school shootings anymore.
|
On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators#Right-wing_misinformation
Okay.
EDIT:
They denounced it as a left-wing plot until it was revealed the murderer was a Republican voter.
Then they went with the conspiracy theories, doubling-down on the idea that it was a left-wing plot instead of apologising for incorrectly politicising a murder.
It isn't quite the same thing, is it?
|
On September 12 2025 15:29 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators#Right-wing_misinformationOkay.
I didn't say anything like that. Im referring to something I saw where a journalist talked to him in prison and he said he was pro-life, etc but he did it for other reasons. Who knows, but i think most people killing based on poltical views say so? That's what the disclaimer is for, he seems to have a vendetta against the governor. And it wasn't really the main point.
|
The BBC interviewed a former FBI agent this morning, who believes that the shooter is likely a hunter:
Former FBI agent Dennis Franks spoke to the BBC News Channel earlier, and said that he believed the shooter was likely a hunter.
“It required a lot of confidence to be able to take the shot, to execute and hit where it did,” he told the BBC, explaining that the distance of the shooting would not be challenging for an experienced shooter.
While "anyone could go down to a rifle range and train with a scope", the former FBI agent said it was a combination of the area and the "confidence" of the gunman that suggested to him that the person who shot Charlie Kirk could be a hunter.
|
said it before and will say it again, there's a significantly disproportional coverage on far right over far left on mass media.
EU, UK, Australia are sinking into anti encryption, ID check on social media. this is only the beginning, worst of all there's hardly any protests against them.
There's a lot hating on 4chan or X, but majority of them are keyboard warriors.
imo reddit is simply worst of the bunch. the insane power hungry politically biased super Mods, the upvote system, and the reach to ordinary folks.
Never liked politics much, but as a whole we are just skydiving on the freedom scale.
|
On September 12 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote:On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote:
Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder.
He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor. This type of thinking is so dumb. To think murdering someone for voicing his opinions is doing humanity a favor is so backwards, I don't know where to even start. You have lost the entire point of what humanity is. If this guy was truly a threat to you and your ideology so much, you should take a hard look as to why he was connecting with so many people and question your own ideology. Taking an intellectual debate to the level of violence is an intellectually cowardly way of debating and everyone loses in that scenario. You can have your opinions but imo you are despicable for having those beliefs. You've let group think and tribalism ruin a beautiful part of your humanity and I hope you get it back some day. Charlie Kirk was a partisan political commentator, political fund raiser, and political influencer. He was a family man and most people described him as a very nice guy. He had strong opinions and even though I'm on the complete opposite side of him, I respected his courage to put himself and his beliefs out there. No person deserves to be killed for speech. No one. Say what you want about his beliefs and opinions but if you're cheering this murder, you're a disgusting human being who completely misses the point of humanity. Would you say the same thing about Alex Jones? And if not what’s the difference? To be clear, i am not a partisan of assassinations, ever. Just, that guy was an absolute and utter piece of shit, and while i think the escalation in political violence upsets there benefits of not having him absolutely poison people’s minds, I’m really not going to shed a tear for him. What is it that he said, that “it was worth it for people to die so that we could have the second amendment”? As Mark Twain once said, “I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure”. For some reason people excuse pushing for institutional violence against political opponents as not political violence. If you shoot one man then you're a terrorist but if you encourage the national guard to forcibly disperse a crowd of leaderless pacifist students milling around at Kent State then you're doing your job. Once you clothe it in uniform then it becomes fine. The idea that everything other than pulling the trigger is just words is baffling. Zambrah used the classic example of Hitler who, as far as I know, never killed anyone. And the people who did the killing generally argued that it was all legal under German law at the time. On a playground words are just words. Someone can call you names and you shouldn't beat the shit out of them. The world outside the playground isn't so simple and G5's "it's just words" absolutism is inapplicable to the complexity of the real political environment. A populist demanding that we clean up the streets and clear the homeless camps is speech. The police showing up with dogs and forcing the homeless into a group at gunpoint while the sanitation department throws everything they own into bin lorries is violence. Especially when they’re subsequently locked up for not being able to produce documents that were forcibly taken from them by the state. Criminalizing the existence of out groups is violence.
I agree on a moral basis Kwark, but we live in constitutional republics where we have all agreed on some rules in order for things not to be resolved by repainting the walls with each others brains.
I think some of those rules, especially in the US need urgently to be revised. I think that free speech is a horrible idea and that, for the reasons you gave, one shouldn’t be allowed to say certain things. That’s how it is in France, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable.
Once society has lawfully deemed that Kirk has the right to say the horrible things he was saying, then he should have been protected from physical violence. The problem is solved by addressing whay is allowed, not by exploding the face of the guy who does horrible things when that frame is inadequate.
Or we can make a point that we don’t believe that the law can provide an adequate frame and that we have to shoot each other, and we have entered speaking of a civil war.
And all of that being said, good riddance. While i don’t approve the murder, fuck that guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
