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

[Emily's Cat]

Freedom of speech and such.


Greg Abbott
@GregAbbott_TX
This is what happened to the person who was mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Texas Tech.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967387427112395178

If the only reason for their arrest was mocking Kirk's assassination, then that's a grave overreach and completely unacceptable.

On the other hand... if the reason for the arrest was disorderly conduct, battery, resisting arrest, and assault... then Gov. Abbott should face some sort of civil penalty for such negligent and inflammatory posting.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Ummm, what?

Where exactly is your evidence that "liberals have a higher tolerance for political violence"? You'll have to show your work on that.

It was a YouGov poll that asked if political violence was ever justified. I commented earlier that the breadth of the question as posed would include the foundation of the United States. A question more focused, such as whether political violence is ever justified in a functioning democracy might give a more meaningful answer but a general 'is it ever justified' in a country where a significant number argue that an armed populace is necessary to prevent a tyrannical government and that celebrates it's history of armed revolt against the crown?

 

[Emily's Cat]

you seem to have missed that the shooter was a Mormon and from a Republican family, never registered as Democrat, never voted as far as we can tell. Unlikely that he had a lot of contact with Jewish Democrats in Utah.
But I am sure Patel will find them whether they exist or not.

You seem to have missed that I haven't expressed any opinion about the political leanings of Robinson.

I don't actually care what Robinson's views are. The response to the incident, however, has been to increase political divide. Those celebrating Kirk's political assassination are expressing the view that they deserved to be killed because of the political views Kirk held - and that's an absolutely reprehensible opinion. The response to the entire situation has been partisans of both stripes calling for increased violence and vilification of the other side.

Of all the possibly things that the paradox of tolerance could be applied to, political bloodlust ought to be high on the list. It should absolutely NOT be condoned, accepted, or excused by ANYONE.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ummm, what?

Where exactly is your evidence that "liberals have a higher tolerance for political violence"? You'll have to show your work on that.

What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov

Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.

today.yougov.com

Given the fact that the REPUBLICAN president of the united states talks about going to "war" with American cities, pardoned the January 6 terrorists, posted a video of himself "symbolically" beating up members of the media, and mocked an attack against the family of a democratic member of congress, and he STILL has overwhelming support within the republican party, I find it hard to believe that it is the Liberals who are most cool with political violence.

The majority of the negative rhetoric and "dehumanization" comes from the right wing. They use terms like "libtards" and "snowflakes". And unlike the political left (where such rhetoric seems to be centered on your average citizen/voter), in the case of the republicans such rhetoric goes through the entire core of the republican party, from the garden variety MAGAchud living in his mother's basement posting fan fiction about Trump, right to the party leaders.

Claiming that it is "both sides" that are "fanning the flames of civil unrest" is like saying both Charles Manson and your local jay walker were both "engaged in illegal behavior". While technically true, one side clearly has a greater amount of culpability.

Heck, just look at this shooting... a right-wing celebrity gets killed, and the MAGAchud initially go nuts, talking about a war with Liberals. When the truth comes out that the shooter may not have been the "left wing extremist" that they initially imagined him to be, significant numbers of Trump supporters are STILL trying to push their agenda... "he got radicalized at university" (despite the fact that he dropped out after a semester, from a university that was not known for being a hotbed of left wing thought), "his family said he was left wing" (despite no direct evidence what his exact politics were), etc.

Sure, sure. Calling someone a libtard and a snowflake is totally just as bad as calling someone a fascist and a nazi.

You're being very selective about what inflammatory rhetoric you think is just fine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So we behave like reasoned adults while the fascists take control of everything?

How about you behave like a reasoned adult and take political action, locally and nationally? How about you let the voters decide? How about you NOT ADVOCATE FOR A CIVIL WAR?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thank god no one was this concerned over political violence when it was just a couple of democratic lawmakers getting killed.

 

[stanfr]

"Oh, it wasn't good to say... but really they're super duper evil"

If you tell everyone, especially youth, for over a decade that those people are evil nazis who want to kill us all, and we need to stop it, what the ◊◊◊◊ do you think is going to happen?

Do we really have to walk you through the definition, point by point?

Elements of fascism:
1) Extreme nationalism. I suppose MAGA and the cult draping themselves in flags and trying to deport millions of non white christians isn't extreme enough for you??
2) Authoritarian. I suppose Trump being indicted (rightfully so) for attempting to overturn a free election, floating the idea of a third term, seeking to consolidate all power with the executive, etc etc, is not authoritarian enough for you??
3) Militaristic: I suppose sending federal troops to the states, and indiscriminately bombing perceived enemies illegally, while increasing the military budget exponentially, is not enough military for you??
4)Suppression of opposition. Do I even have to mention all the lawsuits, firings, purging and threats that have been made recently???
5) Scapegoating. Do I have to get you to remember the immigrants, the blood poisoners, the "vermin"? Not to mention the radical left lunatics who Trump points out in literally every speech??
6) State directed economy. This one is debatable, but it is clear Trump has given over control to the Oligarchs (starting with Musk) and recent examples such as Intel hint at what is to come.

Do you still think it is unfair to point out the fascist inclinations of the Party of Trump, Emily?? No one I know is calling 'Republicans" fascists. We are claiming that the GOP has been coopted and controlled by an authoritarian "despicable human" who has fascist inclinations. Do you disagree?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How about you behave like a reasoned adult and take political action, locally and nationally? How about you let the voters decide? How about you NOT ADVOCATE FOR A CIVIL WAR?

Where was all this outrage when it was democratic lawmakers getting killed?

 

[AmyStrange]

Is the following right or left-wing violence?

Man threatened ‘mass murder' of minorities after Charlie Kirk killing, feds say

A 19-year-old was tracked down by the FBI and arrested after federal prosecutors said he threatened "mass murder" against Jews and minorities following the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Jace Allen of Jamestown, New Mexico, promised to "shoot up unspecified locations" in the series of public threats he posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, while using the alias "Jebron Lames," on Sept. 11, according to prosecutors.

Personally, I don't care which because murdering someone is the most extreme thing anyone can to do to someone else, be it left or right, and anyone who uses, condones, or encourages murder is also an extremist.

I also personally think those types of extremists should be considered their own party, apart from the other two, and their hate should never be used to represent everyone in either of the other two parties, but all of that is just my opinion, and as always, your mileage may vary of course.

 

[smartcooky]

I know that nothing will disturb your fantasy, not even the FBI director:


They're all lying too! And how do people tell something collectively? And who knows, the family might be so right wing that the shooter's right-wing beliefs seemed left-wing from their vantage point.

Wait! Youre using MAGA Trump Lackey Kash Patel as a source? Really?

 

[stanfr]

Is the following right or left-wing violence?

Man threatened ‘mass murder' of minorities after Charlie Kirk killing, feds say




Personally, I don't care which because murdering someone is the most extreme thing anyone can to do to someone else, be it left or right, and anyone who uses, condones, or encourages murder is also an extremist.

I also personally think those types of extremists are their own party (all by themselves) and should never be used to represent everyone in either party, but all of that is just me opinion, and as always, your mileage may vary of course.

I tend to agree with your conclusion. I doubt we will find out any time soon, maybe never, but I suspect that the killer in this case could not really be pinned into a left or right wing ideology. Maybe he was gay and hated Kirk's take on him. Maybe he wanted to provoke a civil war. Who knows for sure. But we can be pretty sure he despised his life and had no one to turn to other than like minded losers online.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, I guess you get some internet points for advocating political violence and civil war. Congratulations, you.

The post you quoted did not advocate for political violence or civil war. Seems like you might be lying

 

[johnny karate]

Hooray you, fanning the flames of civil war and blocking every opportunity to behave like reasoned adults.

The post you quoted did not fan the flames of civil war. Seems like you might be lying.

 

[johnny karate]

You seem to have missed that I haven't expressed any opinion about the political leanings of Robinson.

I don't actually care what Robinson's views are. The response to the incident, however, has been to increase political divide. Those celebrating Kirk's political assassination are expressing the view that they deserved to be killed because of the political views Kirk held - and that's an absolutely reprehensible opinion. The response to the entire situation has been partisans of both stripes calling for increased violence and vilification of the other side.

Of all the possibly things that the paradox of tolerance could be applied to, political bloodlust ought to be high on the list. It should absolutely NOT be condoned, accepted, or excused by ANYONE.

Unless they're Republicans, in which case I will ignore it!

 

[johnny karate]

How about you behave like a reasoned adult and take political action, locally and nationally? How about you let the voters decide? How about you NOT ADVOCATE FOR A CIVIL WAR?

The post you quoted did not advocate for civil war. Seems like you might be lying.

 

[Segnosaur]

Where exactly is your evidence that "liberals have a higher tolerance for political violence"? You'll have to show your work on that.

What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov

Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.

today.yougov.com

I think that poll is more a measure of how hypocritical people are, as opposed to how they feel about political violence.

conserivatives in that poll may claim "oh no! violence is not acceptable", but they they support a politician who pardons violent terrorists responsible for the Jan 6 attack. That support means more than what they might claim in some hypothetical scenario.

The majority of the negative rhetoric and "dehumanization" comes from the right wing. They use terms like "libtards" and "snowflakes". And unlike the political left (where such rhetoric seems to be centered on your average citizen/voter), in the case of the republicans such rhetoric goes through the entire core of the republican party, from the garden variety MAGAchud living in his mother's basement posting fan fiction about Trump, right to the party leaders.

Sure, sure. Calling someone a libtard and a snowflake is totally just as bad as calling someone a fascist and a nazi.

You're being very selective about what inflammatory rhetoric you think is just fine.

Ummm... I gave that as only 2 examples. Trump (you know, the REPUBLICAN LEADER THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS SUPPORT) as well as his minions like discount Nosferatu regularly use terms like 'fascists', 'radical communist', and 'nazi' to refer to democrats and other opponents.

The difference is, when Trump uses the term to to refer to Democrats, it has no relation to what the party has actually done. On the other hand, when those on the left use it to refer to Trump, they actually have evidence that yes, indeed, Trump and his administration ARE fascists.

Neither Biden Nor Obama had billions of dollars spent to hire masked police agents to deploy on american streets. Neither biden nor Obama asked any democratic states to "just find us more seats" in congress. Neither Biden no Obama regularly ignored court orders.

But Trump did.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How about you behave like a reasoned adult and take political action, locally and nationally? How about you let the voters decide? How about you NOT ADVOCATE FOR A CIVIL WAR?

So just say thank you when they put you in a camp?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Well, I guess you get some internet points for advocating political violence and civil war. Congratulations, you.

I'll give you a million dollars if you can show where I advocated violence of any kind in the post you quoted.

Or you could admit that your knee-jerk bothsidesism has led you to fabricate words that aren't really there.

I think I'm being extremely fair.

 

[Segnosaur]

How about you behave like a reasoned adult and take political action, locally and nationally? How about you let the voters decide? How about you NOT ADVOCATE FOR A CIVIL WAR?

Great if we could let the voters decide.

Lets see... in the 2016 election, Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton. Despite that, Trump was able to nominate 3 supreme court justices. In 2024, Trump may have won a plurality, but he failed to win a majority of the vote. Yet despite the fact that more Americans voted against him than voted for him, has usurped some of the powers granted to congress, ignored court orders, and wrecked much of the government.

Seems like 'the voters' aren't getting what they want.

 

[Segnosaur]

Is the following right or left-wing violence?

Man threatened ‘mass murder' of minorities after Charlie Kirk killing, feds say
...
I also personally think those types of extremists should be considered their own party, apart from the other two, and their hate should never be used to represent everyone in either of the other two parties, but all of that is just my opinion, and as always, your mileage may vary of course.

Here is the problem...

It is easy to dismiss an extremist as "not representative" of a party as a whole. But in the case of the republicans, Trump (you know, the LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WHO STILL HAS OVERWHEMING SUPPORT AMONG REPUBLICANS) regularly uses negative rhetoric. He pardoned the Jan 6 terrorists (a signal that violence that he supports will be protected), implies "illegal immigrants from mexico are rapists" and claims that Haitians are eating dogs.

If a Trump supporter goes overboard and starts threatening minorities (or worse) it is easier to draw a direct line between the rhetoric of Trump and the actions of his supporters.