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

[Elaedith]

Why you guys feel the need to do so here, where the vast majority already agree with you and don’t need to be harassed into compliance, is beyond me.

Check out purity spirals. They happen on both the left and the right.

 

[theprestige]

Check out purity spirals. They happen on both the left and the right.

It's not the left and right bit that concerns me, it's the "people devoted to skepticism and rational debate" bit that concerns me. Purity spirals should be anathema here, not de rigeur.

 

[jimbob]

All of your rationalizations are irrelevant. No matter how you look at it, your approach frames the Nuremberg trials as wrong, and the nazis being tried and punished as victims.

There is a problem with communication.

And many other posters understand my point, so it's not me.

Kirk called for "Nuremberg trials" for doctors who have tried to do their best for their patients. At worst you can disagree with their medical opinion. That could be arguable - I suspect even that is generally not the case.

If I called for Nuremberg trials for planned parenthood workers, it would be clear that I was calling for kangaroo courts and lynchings of them. It's exactly the same.

You can disagree with Kirk’s views, absolutely. But this constant need to exaggerate everything to the Poe-est possible Poe-ism is absurd. It results in people like you resorting to casting fair trials as violence and the very worst criminals as victims of injustice.

Just argue against Kirk’s ideas and positions. If they’re so bad, it should be really easy to defeat them with basic reasoning and common sense, without needing to devolve to name-calling and verbal bullying to win people over to your viewpoint.

He was a fascist who usually tried to keep his dog whistles with a figleaf of deniability when taken out of context. But in the context of the alt right subculture, it was violent speech.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I called for Nuremberg trials for planned parenthood workers, it would be clear that I was calling for kangaroo courts and lynchings of them.

Do you think the actual Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court? Do you think the sentences carried out were lynchings?

That's a surprisingly Nazi-sympathetic view.

 

[jimbob]

Do you think the actual Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court? Do you think the sentences carried out were lynchings?

That's a surprisingly Nazi-sympathetic view.

Oh FFS. The Nuremberg trials were justified.

What would not be justified is calling for them for people who are innocent. The obvious insinuation (that Kirk wanted his audience to draw) is that Doctors helping trans kids are guilty of the something as odious as the Holocaust, and that, like senior Nazis they should be executed.

That is the message that Kirk wanted his supporters to take from his call for Nuremberg trials of those doctors.

I thought that the Planned parenthood analogy was pretty clear. Because many extreme right wing nutjobs do in fact believe that about those providers of birth control.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh FFS. The Nuremberg trials were justified.

That wasn't my question. Kangaroo courts are not defined by whether or not putting the person on trial is justified. Do you not actually understand what the term means?

 

[plague311]

That wasn't my question. Kangaroo courts are not defined by whether or not putting the person on trial is justified. Do you not actually understand what the term means?

How ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ much more you clear do you need this explained to you? I mean that seriously. Holy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ if it's not clear enough, at this point, what he's trying to say then just admit you're too ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid to understand it and we can move on.

It's pretty clear you either don't possess the intelligence to get his point or you're being purposefully obtuse in some dumb ass attempt at a "gotcha". Just get to the God damned point so we don't have to read pages of your asinine semantics just to arrive at the conclusion that it was perfectly clear the whole time. You do this all the time and it's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ annoying and it never results in anything worthwhile.

 

[jimbob]

That wasn't my question. Kangaroo courts are not defined by whether or not putting the person on trial is justified. Do you not actually understand what the term means?

Kirk obviously was insinuating that he considered it a crime against humanity to medically help trans people and thus that these uutterly innocent people should be executed. To find them guilty would require a mock trial.

He was advocating violence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Kirk obviously was insinuating that he considered it a crime against humanity to medically help trans people and thus that these uutterly innocent people should be executed. To find them guilty would require a mock trial.

Again, are you claiming that the Nuremberg trials were mock trials?

 

[jimbob]

Again, are you claiming that the Nuremberg trials were mock trials?

Were the Nuremberg trials trying senior Nazis for crimes against humanity, or were they trying medics for helping trans people?

The actual Nuremberg trials were justified. THAT IS THE POINT. That is why Kirk calling for them for something utterly benign means that he was calling for violence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Were the Nuremberg trials trying senior Nazis for crimes against humanity, or were they trying medics for helping trans people?

Answer my question.

The actual Nuremberg trials were justified. THAT IS THE POINT.

That's your point. But it doesn't answer my question. Answer my question.

 

[jimbob]

Answer my question.

That's your point. But it doesn't answer my question. Answer my question.

I thought I had. The Nuremberg trials were justified and genuine trials.

Why are you pretending that Kirk was in any way justified in equating doctors who help trans people with someone like Goering, and advocating a similar fate for them?

 

[jimbob]

When antivaxers call for Nuremberg 2 for people like Fauci, they are equating vaccination with the Nazi human experimentation program (often explicitly). And the antivaxers are calling for violence against innocent people.

Kirk was doing similar but for other innocent doctors.

It really isn't hard to understand.

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought I had.

You didn't.

The Nuremberg trials were justified and genuine trials.

These are two different claims. You made the first one before, you didn't make the second one before. The second one is the one I was asking for.

Here's the thing about genuine trials: they don't always produce the results you want or expect. Sometimes, people get declared innocent even though you thought they were guilty. The Nuremberg trials did exactly that: they declared several people to be innocent, even though prosecutors obviously thought they were guilty.

If we were to put gender medicine providers on trial, would they be convicted? Kirk probably thought they would be, because he thought they were actually guilty of serious wrongdoing. You don't think they're guilty of any serious wrongdoing. But what verdict would a genuine trial actually produce? Well, if you're right, then it would produce verdicts of innocent.

So no, calling for a trial is not equivalent to simply calling for violence. Not even close.

Why are you pretending that Kirk was in any way justified in equating doctors who help trans people with someone like Goering, and advocating a similar fate for them?

Most of the people convicted at Nuremberg (which again wasn't all of them) were not executed. Most were simply imprisoned.

And if Kirk is right that gender transition surgery for minors is unjustified, then isn't performing surgery on them pretty horrific? Isn't it mutilation? Isn't that a serious crime? I understand that you think he's not right, but if you want to examine someone's position fairly, you have to consider their position from their perspective. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to consider it. And is the position that gender surgery for minors is unjustified really that outlandish? No, actually it isn't. Again, you don't have to agree with him. But you should at least be honest about what his position is, and what it entails, and so far I don't think you are.

 

[jimbob]

You didn't.

These are two different claims. You made the first one before, you didn't make the second one before. The second one is the one I was asking for.

Here's the thing about genuine trials: they don't always produce the results you want or expect. Sometimes, people get declared innocent even though you thought they were guilty. The Nuremberg trials did exactly that: they declared several people to be innocent, even though prosecutors obviously thought they were guilty.

And there has to be a case to answer, something to at least suspect a person is guilty. And it is clear that Kirk was equating "medically helping trans people" with crimes against humanity (more specifically the Nazi human experimentation program) otherwise he wouldn't have called for Nuremberg, but something else.

If we were to put gender medicine providers on trial, would they be convicted? Kirk probably thought they would be, because he thought they were actually guilty of serious wrongdoing. You don't think they're guilty of any serious wrongdoing. But what verdict would a genuine trial actually produce? Well, if you're right, then it would produce verdicts of innocent.

So no, calling for a trial is not equivalent to simply calling for violence. Not even close.

Don't be ridiculous. Kirk was NOT asking for a fair trial. Because there was no case to answer. Kirk was advocating a trial that would find them guilty.

Most of the people convicted at Nuremberg (which again wasn't all of them) were not executed. Most were simply imprisoned.

I find it hard to believe you haven't seen the many antivaxers and COVID conspiracy theorists calling for "Nuremberg 2" for people like Fauci, and helpfully showing pictures of the execution equipment. In case anyone felt in any doubt. That was to whom Kirk was appealing. Violet nutjobs who took those as instructions to dispense their own idea of justice (lynching).

And if Kirk is right that gender transition surgery for minors is unjustified, then isn't performing surgery on them pretty horrific? Isn't it mutilation? Isn't that a serious crime? I understand that you think he's not right, but if you want to examine someone's position fairly, you have to consider their position from their perspective. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to consider it. And is the position that gender surgery for minors is unjustified really that outlandish? No, actually it isn't. Again, you don't have to agree with him. But you should at least be honest about what his position is, and what it entails, and so far I don't think you are.

You seem to think that that there is a case to answer for doctors treating trans people to be considered to have been committing crimes against humanity. Not that at worst, they might have made a poor medical decision from the best of motives.

That is a laughably stupid and dangerous position to take

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't be ridiculous. Kirk was NOT asking for a fair trial.

What do you base this on? You don't base it on Nuremberg not being fair. You're begging the question.

I find it hard to believe you haven't seen the many antivaxers and COVID conspiracy theorists calling for "Nuremberg 2" for people like Fauci,

The guy who funded the creation of the virus and then tried to hide its release from a lab?

Yeah, I wonder why anyone might want him held accountable.

 

[Steve]

What do you base this on? You don't base it on Nuremberg not being fair. You're begging the question.

The guy who funded the creation of the virus and then tried to hide its release from a lab?

Yeah, I wonder why anyone might want him held accountable.

Never til now had you pegged as a conspiracy fantasist. You need to get involved in the Vixen threads. You would love it there supporting her lunacy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Never til now had you pegged as a conspiracy fantasist.

Are you not aware of the CIA's own assessment?

 

[plague311]

That is a laughably stupid and dangerous position to take

That's how trolling works. This went exactly the way I said it would. It took a dozen posts to get to the fact that Zigg was playing some stupid semantic game and the result of it all was nothing. Just a ridiculous implication at the end that makes no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sense and isn't at all relevant to anything.

 

[Steve]

Are you not aware of the CIA's own assessment?