I want to complain that people are excusing and encouraging violence.
Yet you never do when Trump literally does exactly that. So, no, you don't want to complain that people are excusing and encouraging violence. You want to complain when people you don't like say pretty much anything you don't agree with, but for the record, who? Who is excusing and encouraging violence? Feel free to quote it for me, and if there's anything you're good at it's definitely cherry picking individual lines and responding to them. I submit for evidence...pretty much every post you make, ever.
Do you really think it can only happen to people on the right?
Do I really think what can only happen to people on the right?
Do you really think that, even from the left, it will only stop at the people that you think are actually fascists?
I don't do slippery slope arguments. I have no want or desire to entertain your fallacies. Political violence has been a right-wing problem and your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ party leader is calling for more of it by intimidating people at the polls, among other things.
Your political party is led by someone that danced on the grave of a military veteran, a purple heart recipient, and a man that served his nation with dignity. Your political party celebrated and made memes out of Pelosi's husband getting beat with a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hammer. Save your self righteous ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ for someone else.
If you actually paid attention to Kirk (and I don't think you did, but I promise you, a lot of people on the right did), you would know that one of his central points was that dialogue was the alternative to violence.
I've watched plenty of Kirk over my time, and that isn't "one of his central points". I think I've read one statement of him discussing debate where he said that when we stop talking that's when violence happens, which is neat. That's a neat quote, but the problem is when he never shuts the ◊◊◊◊ up and all he does is insults PoC, trans, etc. then he isn't really calling for more conversation, is he? When he says he's questioning if a black pilot is qualified, that's not initiating a conversation, is it? That's the difference between you and I. I have the ability to judge a person by their actions, not by some dumb ass throw away line they've said a few times. You act like because Kirk said a few times that dialogue stops violence that his words didn't incite hate against people he doesn't like, which is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb, even for you.
And so that's what he did: he engaged in dialogue with people he disagreed with.
Lol no he ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ didn't. He berated college students for clicks on the internet. He mocked them and when he finally found someone that would kick his ass in debate he just edited that person out. Once he started losing he would retreat to asinine questions that he would then use to shut the conversation down, "What is a woman?" was one of his favorite fall backs.
What message do you think it sends when someone on the right who tries to engage in dialogue is killed for engaging in dialogue?
Let me know when that happens and I'll comment.
Do you think the message sent is that we should keep engaging in dialogue?
"We had to turn to violence. The left just wouldn't let us perpetually insult, degrade, and demonize them." That's outstanding, very "Why do you make me hit you?"esque.
Do you really want to send the message that Kirk was wrong about that, that it's too late for dialogue?
"Do you really want to argue against this strawman I've constructed? Do you really want to answer this question I've attempted to pigeon hole you into?" Who falls for this ◊◊◊◊, Zigg? Do you think this isn't transparent?
All we do here is dialogue. So how completely and entirely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb is it to ask me, a person constantly engaging on an internet discussion forum, if it's too late for dialogue? I'm literally engaging with you, one of the most bias Republicans on this forum, without any form of violence.
Don't ask me stupid ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ questions.
