Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

plague311 said:
I've called you out for claiming you're an "independent" when all you do is carry Trump's water. For example, *gestures broadly at your recent posts*
Click to expand...
Sure, the totally trumpist sin of... checks notes... condemning violence and the reification of assassins, the veneration of politically-motivated killing, and the celebration of continuing divisiveness in the US.
 
Another free-speeching conservative.

I’m going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. If they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man who dedicated his whole life to delivering respectful conservative truth into the hearts of liberal enclave universities, armed only with a Bible and a microphone and a Constitution… those profiles must come down. So, I’m going to lean forward in this fight, demanding that big tech have zero tolerance for violent political hate content, the user to be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER. I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
Click to expand...

And here's what Higgins had to say about the attempt on Paul Pelosi's life.

1757712576888.png
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Sure, the totally trumpist sin of... checks notes... condemning violence and the reification of assassins, the veneration of politically-motivated killing, and the celebration of continuing divisiveness in the US.
Click to expand...

You're not alone, Emily's Cat. No one, NO ONE here is supporting or condoning political violence. There are those who have said they won't be empathetic, as Kirk has requested himself, there are those that have pointed out the way he insulted people of all ethnic backgrounds, and of course his rampant misogyny.

I know you and Thermal accused me of condoning the murder in the Unitedhealthcare CEO shooting thread because I said this, but I'll say it again. I don't condone this killing, but I understand it. Spin that however you want.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sure, the totally trumpist sin of... checks notes... condemning violence and the reification of assassins, the veneration of politically-motivated killing, and the celebration of continuing divisiveness in the US.
Click to expand...
Presumably that is Donald St not Jr and his jokes about the violence directed at Pelosi?

I got one feeling less sadness when someone who espoused violence ends up being a victim of violence (especially if, as seems likely, he was a victim of someone who thought he wasn't hateful enough) than when someone who rejected it is a victim
 
Olmstead said:
Where do you draw the line? If I were to create a movement that regards a certain class of people as subhumans, but don't directly call for violence, even though it's very obvious where this rhetoric will lead, is that still okay?
Click to expand...
We already have an example... we refer to Trump supporters as "MAGAChuds" - in effect calling them subhuman (if you know what the slur "chud" means, you'll understand why). I have even used the term myself - and I should be allowed to use that term as should anyone else.

I use the "sticks and stones" standard as well as the "Brandenburg v Ohio" standard (speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"). The imminent and the likely are the most important parts. Saying "grab your gun, and go shoot David B. Smith; Attorney at Law" satisfies the standard for incitement to violence, and is speech that shoud not be free, but holding up a placard that says "the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer" does not meet the criteria. Everyone should be free to make a statement like this.

There is currently have a ridiculous state of affairs in the UK where 30 people a day are being arrested for things they say either in public or online, most of which are completely innocuous.
- A man arrested for near the construction site of a proposed mosque. His Crime? He said "we love bacon"
- A man arrested near an abortion clinic. His crime? Praying in silence.
- An 11 year old by arrested in a school playground. His crime? Calling another child a "retard"
- Police descending upon a 75 year old woman living alone, arresting her and taking her away in a Police van for questioning. Her crime? She allegedly used a slur in a disagreement with her neighbour.
- A comedy writer arrested by five armed police officers at a london airport. His crime? A tweet enouraging women defending themselves from a transgender identified male in a toilet (as a last resort after yelling for help and calling the police) by punching him in the balls.
- A 71 year old retired Police officer has six police officer descend on his house. They handcuffed him, searched his house, and even went through his wife's underwear drawer. His crime? An innocuous post on X challenging a supporter of pro-Palestinian marches.
- A man was visited at work by Police who told him they want to "check his thinking". His crime? Posts on social media asserting that transwomen women are men who think they are women.

These are just a few examples... there are many, many more.

Anyone should be allowed to call extreme right wing people "white supremacists", call Trump a "moron", call a transwoman a man, ignore pronouns, misgender anyone they like, call a religious person a deluded god botherer, call a woman a bitch, call a homosexual person a faggot, call a white person "white trash" or "honky", and call an Asian person a"slopehead". I would criticize people for calling them such things, but I will still defend their right to say it. Words do not cause harm, only actions do... if people are offended, they can block the poster and don't read their posts - if you are offended by something someone says on TV, or radio, change the bloody station.
 
johnny karate said:
I like how you go off about "free speech" in the first paragraph but then in the second paragraph complain about the dangers of people exercising free speech.

Charlie Kirk was just innocently free-speeching but the people who use their free speech to say mean things about him are pro-murder
Click to expand...
You need lessons in English comprehension
 
Emily's Cat said:
Many people on here, including you sometimes, have insisted that anyone who is a republican or even just an independent is just as bad as literal nazis. The assertion has been made that because some non-politician white supremacist ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pieces of crap support the republican party, then anyone who doesn't actively and persistently denounce the republicans in their entirety is tacitly supporting racism. It's gone beyond that even, to where failure to sign up as a true-blue democrat somehow implies acceptance of it. I've lost track of how many times I've been told that me being non-partisan and distrusting politicians of every ilk, having a variety of positions some of which are conservative-ish but most of which are liberal means that I'm just as bad as the head honcho of the KKK.

If every single conservative in the US is tarnished beyond redemption by some entirely different ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ supporting republicans... then the same thing holds true for liberals. If conservatives can be demonized as an entire group for the vile beliefs of a small group, then liberals should also be at risk based on the vile and quite freely and unabashedly expressed abhorrent views of a small group of "accounts on twitter".

And I'm just as aghast at that, and the entire situation causes me a significant amount of concern.
Click to expand...

As tiresome as it gets repeating this, apparently it needs to be repeated: You are comparing what leftwing randos on the internet do and say to what prominent rightwing figures in politics and media do and say.

It's profoundly dishonest, and at this point, obviously intentional.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sure. And I also have the right to say that I think they're vile and abhorrent people who completely lack the empathy that they claim to value. I have the right to express my concern that the normalization of such rhetoric it a significant danger to a democratic society.
Click to expand...
The rhethoric you are so concerned about has been normalized by mainstream Republican politicians, and by those who have dismissed concerns about such rhethoric to get what they want.

Why wouldn't young people get led down this road when the president himself is doing it? I do hope you weren't one of the people dismissing his worrying rhethoric because of his economic prowess* and the like.

*Yeah, I know.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sure. And I also have the right to say that I think they're vile and abhorrent people who completely lack the empathy that they claim to value. I have the right to express my concern that the normalization of such rhetoric it a significant danger to a democratic society.
Click to expand...
I am still not sure that it's the case, but if this most recent killing was one young guy from the MAGA movement (possibly a now somewhat disgruntled member of the MAGA movement) killing another (but much more prominent) young guy from the MAGA movement, what will your message be to Republicans?
 
smartcooky said:
We already have an example... we refer to Trump supporters as "MAGAChuds" - in effect calling them subhuman (if you know what the slur "chud" means, you'll understand why). I have even used the term myself - and I should be allowed to use that term as should anyone else.

I use the "sticks and stones" standard as well as the "Brandenburg v Ohio" standard (speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"). The imminent and the likely are the most important parts. Saying "grab your gun, and go shoot David B. Smith; Attorney at Law" satisfies the standard for incitement to violence, and is speech that shoud not be free, but holding up a placard that says "the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer" does not meet the criteria. Everyone should be free to make a statement like this.

There is currently have a ridiculous state of affairs in the UK where 30 people a day are being arrested for things they say either in public or online, most of which are completely innocuous.
- A man arrested for near the construction site of a proposed mosque. His Crime? He said "we love bacon"
- A man arrested near an abortion clinic. His crime? Praying in silence.
- An 11 year old by arrested in a school playground. His crime? Calling another child a "retard"
- Police descending upon a 75 year old woman living alone, arresting her and taking her away in a Police van for questioning. Her crime? She allegedly used a slur in a disagreement with her neighbour.
- A comedy writer arrested by five armed police officers at a london airport. His crime? A tweet enouraging women defending themselves from a transgender identified male in a toilet (as a last resort after yelling for help and calling the police) by punching him in the balls.
- A 71 year old retired Police officer has six police officer descend on his house. They handcuffed him, searched his house, and even went through his wife's underwear drawer. His crime? An innocuous post on X challenging a supporter of pro-Palestinian marches.
- A man was visited at work by Police who told him they want to "check his thinking". His crime? Posts on social media asserting that transwomen women are men who think they are women.

These are just a few examples... there are many, many more.

Anyone should be allowed to call extreme right wing people "white supremacists", call Trump a "moron", call a transwoman a man, ignore pronouns, misgender anyone they like, call a religious person a deluded god botherer, call a woman a bitch, call a homosexual person a faggot, call a white person "white trash" or "honky", and call an Asian person a"slopehead". I would criticize people for calling them such things, but I will still defend their right to say it. Words do not cause harm, only actions do... if people are offended, they can block the poster and don't read their posts - if you are offended by something someone says on TV, or radio, change the bloody station.
Click to expand...

God ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dammit with this trans ◊◊◊◊ in every ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thread. Does it never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ die? Can't it be contained to that one bull ◊◊◊◊, never ending thread. Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Christ.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You can say whatever you want. You can advocate for whatever you want, no matter how odious I find it to be. But I have the equal right to speak against your view, and to advocate in opposition to you.

You cannot, however, enact violence against people.
Click to expand...

Unless you're rightwing, in which case, I'll completely ignore it!
 
johnny karate said:
As tiresome as it gets repeating this, apparently it needs to be repeated: You are comparing what leftwing randos on the internet do and say to what prominent rightwing figures in politics and media do and say.

It's profoundly dishonest, and at this point, obviously intentional.
Click to expand...
This is so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ annoying. Day after ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ day Trump engages in violent rhetoric about occupying cities and beating leftists; his lapdogs in the administration and the legislature repeat it and the yeahbutters quote some nose-picking liberal incel.

These aren't the same.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Are you seriously defending this?

Young people also were much more supportive of Mangione assassinating Thompson.

Liberals were more supportive of Mangione assassinating Thompson

In First Poll Released Since Killing, Young Americans Favor Luigi Mangione over UnitedHealthcare & Slain CEO Brian Thompson – Center for Strategic Politics

stratpolitics.org stratpolitics.org
Click to expand...

Post all the dubious polls about what people think or feel that you want.

Political violence in reality is overwhelming performed by the right.
 
Resume said:
This is so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ annoying. Day after ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ day Trump engages in violent rhetoric about occupying cities and beating leftists; his lapdogs in the administration and the legislature repeat it and the yeahbutters quote some nose-picking liberal incel.

These aren't the same.
Click to expand...

Well stated, that's pretty much what was going through my head too.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sure. And I also have the right to say that I think they're vile and abhorrent people who completely lack the empathy that they claim to value. I have the right to express my concern that the normalization of such rhetoric it a significant danger to a democratic society.
Click to expand...

Unless it's coming from the right, in which case, I'll ignore it!
 
johnny karate said:
Post all the dubious polls about what people think or feel that you want.

Political violence in reality is overwhelming performed by the right.
Click to expand...
Source ? I have a feeling ideology of these people is mostly incoherent, and they are mentally ill in the first place.
Now the fact that polarizing rhetoric can trigger such people is another thing. But it's not usually as simple as "Trump declared war on DC, so some loonie killed homeless in DC" .. I can't recall a single case where you could clearly categorize the perpetrator, much less where you could blame a political party for the act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom