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

Emily's Cat said:
I believe that the majority of violent rhetoric is coming from millions of advocates and supporters and gormless youth on the left side of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
This is an empirical question, surely there must be some studies on point.
 
Emily's Cat said:
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".
Click to expand...
Normal people who have been paying attention to the Trump administration lately aren't going to buy the argument that due process was implied.
 
Emily's Cat said:
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".
Click to expand...
Normal people who've been exposed, etc. understand that the whole point of due process is to determine what, if anything, should be done with the accused, and that it is not supposed to be a mere formality preliminary to a forgone conclusion. The moment one contends for as yet unproven guilt, "and/or" starts prescribing the punishment, one is no longer talking about due process.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I listed the major ideological features of fascism at #2,162 and don't recall anyone making any counterargument regarding its applicability to the movement of which Kirk was a leading light. That said, I'm not at all confident that you understand what sets Nazis apart from fascists. Hannah Arendt wrote that nowhere did the differences between German Nazism and Italian Fascism "come more conspicuously into the open than in the treatment of the Jewish question." She goes on to explain how the OG fascists preserved a strong supermajority of Italian Jewry throughout the war despite Nazi disapproval and occupation; it only takes up a couple of pages if you are interested. Calling someone fascist isn't the same as saying they are the kind of person who would happily build and operate a system of death camps, and that difference really should matter when talking about the ethics of violent resistance to a political movement.
Click to expand...

This isn’t about the definitional differences between Nazism and fascism. It’s about whether or not the terms are inflammatory and incitements to violence.

I see a lot of special pleading from you to rationalize why the words you use are okay but the words everyone else uses are wrong.

I don’t see any arguments that explain why calling someone a “fascist” isn’t inflammatory and an incitement to violence.

d4m10n said:
When we label someone a "Nazi" these days we are not thinking of the NSDAP at the beginning; we are deliberately invoking the specter of the death camps among various other horrors. One of the major problems with unifying a political movement around a single all-powerful leader is that whatever goals he has become those of the party even if that wasn't part of the original charter. For a contemporary example, the GOP used to be strongly in favor of international free trade.
Click to expand...

Oh look, suddenly strict definitions don’t mean anything and a truckload more of special pleading.
 
d4m10n said:
Did I say incitement? My apologies, that is a legal term of art and I should have avoided it.
Click to expand...

Not specifically using the word doesn’t mean you aren’t making that argument.

Here’s you doing exactly that just twelve hours ago:
d4m10n said:
Go ahead and call everyone on the right a Nazi if that makes you feel good.

Worst thing that could happen is someone takes it seriously and puts a bullet in them.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to explain why using the term “fascist” instead couldn’t inspire the same reaction.
 
johnny karate said:
Still waiting for you to explain why using the term “fascist” instead couldn’t inspire the same reaction.
Click to expand...
I literally gave you a PDF of an historian and philosopher explaining the key differences between German Nazism and Italian Fascism at length.

What more is there to explain?
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Why calling someone “Nazi” is inflammatory and an incitement to violence but calling someone “fascist” isn’t.
Click to expand...
There is a nuance, a bit like between communists in general and the Khmer Rouge … that said, I tend to agree that a great part of the reactions are manufactured outrage.
 
Flo said:
There is a nuance, a bit like between communists in general and the Khmer Rouge … that said, I tend to agree that a great part of the reactions [is] manufactured outrage.
Click to expand...

No, it isnt. The parallels between Trumpism and the fascism of the late 1920s and early 1930s
are too close to be minimized -- and remember, the USA had its colored-shirtists back then too,
just as Europe did and still does. The outrage is real. It flared up immediately after the first wave of
fear at what the Magatists announced as their intentions.

An apropos Churchill quote: "It is much easier to infuriate Americans than it is to cow them."
There's a rising tide of fury in the USA, directed accurately at the Trumpists' crudely destructive
assault on the decencies civilization tries to maintain.

It's not a cold fury.
 
sackett said:
No, it isnt. The parallels between Trumpism and the fascism of the late 1920s and early 1930s
are too close to be minimized -- and remember, the USA had its colored-shirtists back then too,
just as Europe did and still does. The outrage is real. It flared up immediately after the first wave of
fear at what the Magatists announced as their intentions.

An apropos Churchill quote: "It is much easier to infuriate Americans than it is to cow them."
There's a rising tide of fury in the USA, directed accurately at the Trumpists' crudely destructive
assault on the decencies civilization tries to maintain.

It's not a cold fury.
Click to expand...
Don't mistake me: I do agree there are parallels and similarities between the two periods, but there are differences too, at least for now. And I also agree that there's a very slippery slope ahead.

We're apparently not speaking of the same outrage: you're referencing the welcome outrage of the citizenry upon watching their country's institutions being destructed. I was speaking of the outrage, often manufactured, of the perpetrators upon being compared to fascists and/or nazis.
 
Flo said:
There is a nuance, a bit like between communists in general and the Khmer Rouge … that said, I tend to agree that a great part of the reactions are manufactured outrage.
Click to expand...

Again, we're not talking about the definitional differences between "Nazi" and "fascist", we're talking about why the former is considered dangerously inflammatory and the latter isn't. Pointing out that they're different does not address that question.
 
charlie kirk said a lot of dangerously inflammatory things too. i don’t really buy the underlying assumption that it was his opponents dangerously inflammatory, and to a point accurate, commentary about the movement he propagandized for that inspired his demise. rather to me it seems his own equally dangerously inflammatory rhetoric seems to have inspired someone to put a bullet in him.

i also think that perhaps the people who have been saying calling everyone a nazi waters down the term were correct. being called a nazi is hardly inflammatory at all as you’ve heard it 1000 times. lost its sting a long time ago.
 
JayUtah said:
Normal people who have been paying attention to the Trump administration lately aren't going to buy the argument that due process was implied.
Click to expand...
Trump has stated in the past that he wanted to confiscate firearms without due process. I have yet to find a single MAGA that said it was a deal breaker for them.
 
The problem is that the Republican party have let loyalty to Lord Dampnut override loyalty to the people, to the country, or even to their ideology. They have no ideology. They will flip instantly if Big Brother tells them that they have always been at war with Oceania.

Remember when the Republicans were the party of free trade? Whoops, nope. Dear Leader says tariffs so tariffs it is.
 
Flo said:
Don't mistake me: I do agree there are parallels and similarities between the two periods, but there are differences too, at least for now. And I also agree that there's a very slippery slope ahead.

We're apparently not speaking of the same outrage: you're referencing the welcome outrage of the citizenry upon watching their country's institutions being destructed. I was speaking of the outrage, often manufactured, of the perpetrators upon being compared to fascists and/or nazis.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Flo. My abiding fault is to misunderstand through hasty reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom