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

[plague311]

Nope - it is obscene to equate vaccination with crimes against humanity. It is obscene to equate medics trying their best to help trans people with crimes against humanity.

At worst one might disagree with their medical decisions but one cannot seriously claim that the intent behind the decisions wasn't to do the best for the patient.

And the dog whistle is for kangaroo courts with no due process, unlike Nuremberg.

If it helps I believe you all have been very clear as to what you mean, and it can't be more evident that you support the actual Nuremburg Trials and the conclusions they reached. While I can't see most of the rebuttals, I can't imagine any of them are being made in good faith. They just can't be.

 

[dirtywick]

Nope - it is obscene to equate vaccination with crimes against humanity. It is obscene to equate medics trying their best to help trans people with crimes against humanity.

At worst one might disagree with their medical decisions but one cannot seriously claim that the intent behind the decisions wasn't to do the best for the patient.

And the dog whistle is for kangaroo courts with no due process, unlike Nuremberg.

you’d have to remind me if this all came about after it was pointed out how dangerous it is to call a fascist a nazi. because a fascist can demand nuremberg trials for his opponents and we can’t seem to find a problem with that all the sudden

it’s so dishonest lol

 

[jimbob]

you’d have to remind me if this all came about after it was pointed out how dangerous it is to call a fascist a nazi. because a fascist can demand nuremberg trials for his opponents and we can’t seem to find a problem with that all the sudden

it’s so dishonest lol

The latter.

Kirk called for Nuremberg trials for doctors treating trans people.

He used a violent trope that antivaxers love and used it in the same way. And antivaxers make it clear that it's violent. Hell. Even Musk's X will ban the posts as violent speech, and he's not renowned for being overly sensitive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Kirk called for Nuremberg trials for doctors treating trans people.

Kirk called for Nuremberg trials for doctors engaging in an unsanctioned experiment on minors that involves the amputation of healthy body parts and chemical castration.

 

[EHocking]

You put that in scare quotes... and the implication of that is that you don't believe that the 12 nazi leaders sentenced to execution for their horrific actions, and the 7 sentenced to prison, were not actually criminals.

The “criminals” comment was clearly in response to Helen’s post regarding alt-right accusations towards doctors and politicians. You even acknowledged that in the very next post.

The implication is that those asking for them believe those doctors and politicians have engaged in crimes against humanity that merit a trial.

Honest to galaxies, the number of people here framing the Nuremburg trials as a bad thing is mind-boggling.

You're perfectly capable of disagreeing with the premise that any of those people has committed any crimes, let alone significant crimes against humanity... but objecting to a call for trials is borderline nuts.

To then pretend that my post was excusing Nazis condemned at Nuremberg is just a disingenuous attempt to declare anyone who disagrees with you as Nazi apologists. That was not the point of my post and you know perfectly well it was not.

FFS, how can youse guys not understand that your entire narrative approach is casting actual for-realsies nazi leadership as victims of an unjust and biased judicial proceeding?????

How can you disingenuously misrepresent posts that are clearly not what you claim they are defending?

ETA: ah, I see…

It's such fun to just make ◊◊◊◊ up about other posters, impugn them, and pat yourself on the back about it.

 

[Lithrael]

Kirk called for Nuremberg trials for doctors engaging in an unsanctioned experiment on minors that involves the amputation of healthy body parts and chemical castration.

Even if we take it as a given that your idea of what this is is accurate, surely you can see the difference between trying such stuff in the hopes of improving lives, and with the permission of legal guardians, however potentially misguided, versus experimenting on and/or wholesale starving and murdering people that have been yoinked off the streets?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Who thinks the ICC is a bad thing?

Donald Trump.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Kirk called for Nuremberg trials for doctors engaging in an unsanctioned experiment on minors that involves the amputation of healthy body parts

Is this why you hate Jews?

Transgender health care

In 1966 the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic opened; it was one of the first in the US to provide care for transgender individuals, including hormone replacement therapy, surgery, psychological counseling, and other gender affirmative healthcare...

This is healthcare, not 'unsanctioned experiment'.

Untreated transgender people experience high rates of depression, anxiety, addiction, and suicide compared to the general population. In systematic reviews, hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery were associated with improved mental health outcomes. In follow-up studies, most trans people experience improved psychological, social, and sexual functioning, improved global functioning, and significantly reduced suicidal ideation. Less than 1% of post-operative trans patients regret surgery.

You would rather see people suffering from gender dysphoria die than get the healthcare they need. The sad part is that many of them wouldn't even need surgery if it wasn't for the discrimination they face from people like Charlie Kirk and you.

But calling for a "Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor" (Charlie Kirk's exact words) takes it to a whole new level, equating it to the Nazi medical experiments done to prisoners in death camps. I shouldn't be surprised though, after all the Nazis got their inspiration from the US.

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing...

California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton.

 

[Helen]

The implication is that those asking for them believe those doctors and politicians have engaged in crimes against humanity that merit a trial.

Honest to galaxies, the number of people here framing the Nuremburg trials as a bad thing is mind-boggling.

You're perfectly capable of disagreeing with the premise that any of those people has committed any crimes, let alone significant crimes against humanity... but objecting to a call for trials is borderline nuts.

The implication is that you lack understanding of what calling for Nuremburg actually means. None of us are framing the actual Nuremburg trials as a bad thing. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what they were.

It's ridiculous to pretend that vaccines = genocide, but should someone actually think that, why not call for an ICC trial? And if you think a doctor committed a crime when giving gender affirming care, then you call for them to be tried by the existing justice system.

Asking for Nuremburg trials is asking for the death penalty. And asking for that, while being a neonazi, or an extreme right winger, is asking for summary execution.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Just to be clear, I don't hate Charlie Kirk for the things he believed. I do hate the culture he was a part of that put those ideas in his head. I understand because at one time I was similarly afflicted.

The sad part is that before his death Charlie was showing signs of coming around. He recognized the genocide in Gaza and how he was being manipulated. His empathy was starting to show. If only he had had some positive contact with transgendered people he might have changed his views on that too. But this is America, where guns are the answer. On one level it's ironic that he died defending that 'right', but that just makes it more of a tragedy.

 

[jimbob]

But calling for a "Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor" (Charlie Kirk's exact words) takes it to a whole new level, equating it to the Nazi medical experiments done to prisoners in death camps. I shouldn't be surprised though, after all the Nazis got their inspiration from the US.

This is the thing it's part of a long attempt to minimise the horrors of the Holocaust. A classic Nazi talking point

 

[jimbob]

It's ridiculous to pretend that vaccines = genocide, but should someone actually think that, why not call for an ICC trial? And if you think a doctor committed a crime when giving gender affirming care, then you call for them to be tried by the existing justice system.

Asking for Nuremburg trials is asking for the death penalty. And asking for that, while being a neonazi, or an extreme right winger, is asking for summary executio

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work this out.

In fact it takes wilful stupidity to fail to understand this

 

[Steve]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work this out.

In fact it takes wilful stupidity to fail to understand this

People do find it necessary to imply their fellow MAGArats have a modicum of intelligence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Donald Trump.

Who with a reasonably acceptable mind?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The implication is that you lack understanding of what calling for Nuremburg actually means. None of us are framing the actual Nuremburg trials as a bad thing. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what they were.

And yet you're all using language that implicitly frames the entire phrase "Nuremburg Trials" as being equivalent to kangaroo courts, star chamber, and any other pretense of justice that covers gross overreach.

Apparently you think that anyone other than you guys that uses the term is using it in a wrong and malicious way... and yet you simultaneously cede that meaning.

It's ridiculous to pretend that vaccines = genocide, but should someone actually think that, why not call for an ICC trial? And if you think a doctor committed a crime when giving gender affirming care, then you call for them to be tried by the existing justice system.

First off, the Nuremburg trials were not only for genocide - they were also for war crimes, and most appropriate for this context crimes against humanity.

There is no law in the existing justice system for crimes against humanity - things that are technically legal by existing standards by so reckless and clearly dangerous that they should be avoided by any rational person.

Calling for an international trial for actions that are technically legal within the nation of interest, but which one believes to constitute crimes against humanity, isn't something horrible.

Asking for Nuremburg trials is asking for the death penalty.

I don't care if it's asking for the death penalty as a possible outcome of a trial. The death penalty is a potential for many crimes in many parts of the US. You also seem to be glossing over the fact that several of the nazi leaders tried at Nuremburg were NOT given the death penalty.

And asking for that, while being a neonazi, or an extreme right winger, is asking for summary execution.

Assuming that anyone asking for Nuremburg trials must be an extreme right winger is fallacious reasoning of the highest order.

 

[jimbob]

And yet you're all using language that implicitly frames the entire phrase "Nuremburg Trials" as being equivalent to kangaroo courts, star chamber, and any other pretense of justice that covers gross overreach.

Apparently you think that anyone other than you guys that uses the term is using it in a wrong and malicious way... and yet you simultaneously cede that meaning.

First off, the Nuremburg trials were not only for genocide - they were also for war crimes, and most appropriate for this context crimes against humanity.

There is no law in the existing justice system for crimes against humanity - things that are technically legal by existing standards by so reckless and clearly dangerous that they should be avoided by any rational person.

Calling for an international trial for actions that are technically legal within the nation of interest, but which one believes to constitute crimes against humanity, isn't something horrible.

I don't care if it's asking for the death penalty as a possible outcome of a trial. The death penalty is a potential for many crimes in many parts of the US. You also seem to be glossing over the fact that several of the nazi leaders tried at Nuremburg were NOT given the death penalty.

Assuming that anyone asking for Nuremburg trials must be an extreme right winger is fallacious reasoning of the highest order.

Again you are missing the point. Those calling for "Nuremberg trials" are not calling for the ICC. They are calling for them to be prosecution, judge and jury, as well as executioners.

They are the ones deliberately misusing the legacy of the Nuremberg trials. Because many of them are actually Nazis and also like pretending that the Nazi crimes were pretty minor if at all bad. "The Holocaust didn't happen and anyway the victims would have deserved it"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again you are missing the point. Those calling for "Nuremberg trials" are not calling for the ICC. They are calling for them to be prosecution, judge and jury, as well as executioners.

Who are they calling for to be the prosecutor? Who is "them" in your sentence?

They are the ones deliberately misusing the legacy of the Nuremberg trials. Because many of them are actually Nazis and also like pretending that the Nazi crimes were pretty minor if at all bad. "The Holocaust didn't happen and anyway the victims would have deserved it"

Which people do this, and does it extend to everyone that is being criticised for this behavior, or are you using a very broad brush?

 

[jimbob]

Who are they calling for to be the prosecutor? Who is "them" in your sentence?

Antivaxers who call for Nuremberg trials, which was a subculture that Kirk moved in. His intended audience knew that it was not a call for due process and proper determination whether any crime has been committed. He knew that because it is very clear in the context of that subculture.

Which people do this, and does it extend to everyone that is being criticised for this behavior, or are you using a very broad brush?

Holocaust deniers. That is a paraphrase, but there is plenty of evidence that the antivax movement is full of neonazis. There is a reason why they like to refer to themselves as pure bloods.

 

[jimbob]

Again, it's not difficult.

Kirk spread conspiracy theories about Covid. He was a part of the subculture that invoked the Nuremberg trials as an incitement to violence. He knew it and his audience knew it. When he invoked the Nuremberg trials, he knew a lot of his audience would take it as a call for violence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Antivaxers who call for Nuremberg trials, which was a subculture that Kirk moved in. His intended audience knew that it was not a call for due process and proper determination whether any crime has been committed. He knew that because it is very clear in the context of that subculture.

I don't think this answers my question...

You said "Those calling for "Nuremberg trials" are not calling for the ICC. They are calling for them to be prosecution, judge and jury, as well as executioners."

What group of people constitutes "them" in your sentence? Who is being called upon to be prosecution, judge, jury, and executioner? And do you have any solid evidentiary support for your view, or are you assuming that this is what they secretly mean in the secret code they're using, which you have special mystical access to understand?

Holocaust deniers. That is a paraphrase, but there is plenty of evidence that the antivax movement is full of neonazis. There is a reason why they like to refer to themselves as pure bloods.

So guilt by Kevin Bacon then? Some holocaust deniers misuse the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, therefore anyone who calls for Nuremberg Trials is a nazi.

Extra points because you've now managed to put nazis in charge of the Nuremberg Trials in the first place, while simultaneously adopting narrative framing that makes the Nuremberg Trials a travesty of justice that unfairly victimized nazis.