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

Some more examples of the violent rhetoric of the right for those that like to pretend both sides are the same.


Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, wrote on the social media site X that U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., was calling for the government to be overthrown and should be hanged.

“Until people like this, that advocate for the overthrow of the American government are tried convicted and hanged.. it will continue,” Gillette said in response to a video of Jayapal.
Click to expand...

And no, Jayapal's video did not call for the violent overthrow of the government but was actually about protests and other non violent actions.


And then this from our fascist in chief.
 

Attachments

  • Trump-Dems-Satan.png
    Trump-Dems-Satan.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 3
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
Some more examples of the violent rhetoric of the right for those that like to pretend both sides are the same.


And no, Jayapal's video did not call for the violent overthrow of the government but was actually about protests and other non violent actions.

And then this from our fascist in chief.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but did you see what random_account_01 on bluesky said last week? It's totally the same. They're both the same. WHY WON'T YOU AGREE THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME?!?!?!
 
The_Animus said:
Some more examples of the violent rhetoric of the right for those that like to pretend both sides are the same.




And no, Jayapal's video did not call for the violent overthrow of the government but was actually about protests and other non violent actions.


And then this from our fascist in chief.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it’s okay to advocate for someone else’s death as long as you pretend it will be done as part of a legal process.

Very smart people in this thread have made this argument.
 
LiteBright said:
How on earth do you consider this logical.

There was no credible evidence that Biden did anything even remotely close to being worthy of prison time let alone execution.

On the other hand, Trump has done multiple things which are quite obviously illegal, many of which could result in prison time if the US had a functioning justice system and courts.

Same with your earlier example of al-assad. There is no shortage of credible evidence of his crimes against humanity and violations of international law. Comparing him to Biden to make a point is laughable.

Comparing Biden to either Trump or al-assad is completely ridiculous. Its pure desperation mode.
Click to expand...
Is it your position that people should only be legally allowed to state their opinions if they can support their views with facts?
 
johnny karate said:
My understanding is that it’s okay to advocate for someone else’s death as long as you pretend it will be done as part of a legal process.

Very smart people in this thread have made this argument.
Click to expand...
To be fair, also if it's an extra legal/judicial process as well. Just don't call it fascism lest you be subject to that process.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It is quintessential fake Free Speech Advocate to either focus on or completely ignore the reach one person has compared to another, when that is more useful than the content

no, absolutely not is it comparable what a poster here, or some random person on X says to Kirk saying the same thing in an interview, a recorded debate, on his podcast. With Celebrity cones responsibility - because Trump and Musk are doing the opposite, people who want to forget that do.
Click to expand...
Do you think that a thousand people repeating a falsehood to a thousand other people has less influence than one person repeating a falsehood to two thousand people, half of whom believe the falsehood and half of whom disbelieve?

Let me offer an alternative, but synonymous, question based around the influence of belief.
Assume the objective is the abolition of organized religion. Which approach do you think is more likely to deconvert more people and cause them to become atheists?
1) One highly influential person advocating against organized religion and extolling the benefits of atheism
2) Hundreds of thousands of everyday fairly normal people advocating against religion and arguing for atheism?
 
Resume said:
I just hear it as youse guys.
Click to expand...
Half of my close family is from the south, so I grew up hearing 'y'all' all the time. But I've spent around 35 years hanging out with people from Philadelphia, Minnesota, and Canada so I've been hearing 'youse' for most of my life.

A recent binge watch of Letterkenny has me currently leaning toward 'youse'.
 
plague311 said:
I won't argue, it's the way we've always spelled it and, at 44, I don't see myself remembering to change it now, but I'll take your word for it. Not a hill I'm really willing to die on.

If I'm being honest, it doesn't really make sense to me either way. "Don't" is using all of the first word 'do' and shortening the second word 'not'. "Y'all" is shortening the first word and using all of the second word. That's why I don't teach English. I'm just an old dummy getting by.
Click to expand...
It's Do Not --> donot --> don*t. The apostrophe goes where the contraction occurs, it is a placeholder for missing letters that are more or less diphthonged out.
 
Resume said:
Biden was bumbling, dementia-filled, yet should be put to death (or imprisoned) for a crime for which Kirk could not possibly prove.
Click to expand...
You're right - but it's also irrelevant.

Kirk is not a lawyer to bring charges against Biden, nor are they a jury to determine guilt, nor are they a judge to sentence punishment. At the very worst, a reasonable person would conclude that Kirk was trying to encourage some lawyer to take up the case.

It is entirely unreasonable to jump from what Kirk ACTUALLY SAID to the conclusion that they want someone to murder Biden.
 
Resume said:
The problem was his influence with a generation that hasn't yet shown an ability to critically think. Maybe that's too big a brush, but maybe not.
Click to expand...
Okay, I hear you - but you don't seem to be at all bothered by that same gullible generation being influenced by ideologies and beliefs with which you agree.

Perhaps we ought to put some effort into teaching children and youth to think critically and be skeptical of emotionally laden rhetoric rather than trying to condition them to believe whatever the "good guys" tell them?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Do you think that a thousand people repeating a falsehood to a thousand other people has less influence than one person repeating a falsehood to two thousand people, half of whom believe the falsehood and half of whom disbelieve?

Let me offer an alternative, but synonymous, question based around the influence of belief.
Assume the objective is the abolition of organized religion. Which approach do you think is more likely to deconvert more people and cause them to become atheists?
1) One highly influential person advocating against organized religion and extolling the benefits of atheism
2) Hundreds of thousands of everyday fairly normal people advocating against religion and arguing for atheism?
Click to expand...

A hypothetical that suggests hundreds of thousands of everyday people all spontaneously decided on their own to advocate against religion is a hypothetical not worth taking seriously.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're right - but it's also irrelevant.

Kirk is not a lawyer to bring charges against Biden, nor are they a jury to determine guilt, nor are they a judge to sentence punishment. At the very worst, a reasonable person would conclude that Kirk was trying to encourage some lawyer to take up the case.

It is entirely unreasonable to jump from what Kirk ACTUALLY SAID to the conclusion that they want someone to murder Biden.
Click to expand...

Rationalize it all you want, but Kirk unambiguously advocated for Bidens' death, something you seem to think it just fine.
 
Disbelief said:
Kirk skipped over the process, not me. His words say that Biden should be imprisoned for life or put to death because of his crimes. He does not say that he should be tried for his crimes.
Click to expand...
Normal people who've been exposed to middle-school-level understanding of how the justice system works would understand that it's necessarily implied by the phrases "put in prison" and "given the death penalty" and "for his crimes".
 
Resume said:
No, your claims are that Kirk's murder was a direct result of dems calling certain repubs fascist while ignoring the rhetoric from the right.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear... it's the result of democrats and dem supporters and progressive activists and several posters on ISF calling certain republicans and all republicans in general and conservatives as a whole and sometimes people who are neutral fascists while ignoring the rhetoric from the left.
 
Resume said:
To be fair, also if it's an extra legal/judicial process as well. Just don't call it fascism lest you be subject to that process.
Click to expand...

I like how we're joking about this and then along comes one of the usual suspects to once again argue that advocating for Biden's death is is just fine.

It's like saying "Beetlejuice" three times if Beetlejuice was the dumbest bad faith argument imaginable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom