The murder of Charlie Kirk
Can we all admit that the majority of extremism is coming from the left over the last handful of years?
Apparently they j
A question for liberals (anyone can respond): What percentage of mainstream Republicans do you believe are Nazis and/or fascists?
(I'll have follow up questions after you respond to this.)
I haven't read the full thread. But I'm curious, are there people here who defend the celebration of Kirk's murder?I'm thinking back of historical examples I can remember:- After Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, huge numbers of Americans celebrated.- After the Oct 7 atrocities, huge numbers of Gazans celebrated.- After retributory atrocities against Palestinians, huge numbers
Re-humanized? That's just people respecting each other's common humanity. It's like with that "I love you but hate what you did" paradigm or how that concept is taught with parenting.
But do you acknowledge that mainstream Democrats (I would estimate 50-75%+ of all Democrats) believe that Trump and mainstream Republicans are fascists?
Btw, I think it's reasonable to have debates on what fascism means. The word has become hyper-stigmatized because of one fascist regime in the 20st century. But when modern Democrats use the term "fascist," it is a short-hand for "hate group that deserves no empathy and can justifiably be killed in order to preserve liberalism and democratic norms."
Re-humanized? That's just people respecting each other's common humanity. It's like with that "I love you but hate what you did" paradigm or how that concept is taught with parenting.
Literally millions of people openly cheered when Kirk was killed because they believed he was a racist Nazi. How does the process of rehumanizing mainstream Republicans begin?
We not counting Jan 6 anymore?
But do you acknowledge that mainstream Democrats (I would estimate 50-75%+ of all Democrats) believe that Trump and mainstream Republicans are fascists?Btw, I think it's reasonable to have debates on what fascism means. The word has become hyper-stigmatized because of one fascist regime in the 20st century. But when modern Democrats use the term "fascist," it is a short-hand fo
Who are you calling mainstream Democrats? Elected officials?
I think that the most common person to be called a fascist is Trump himself. But then Trump called Harris a fascist and a “further than socialist” and a “marxist”. And JD Vance endorsed a book called “Unhumans” which argued there are evil unhumans in every facet of American society. (Ironically he’s also one of the few elected officials to call Trump Hitler)
But do you acknowledge that mainstream Democrats (I would estimate 50-75%+ of all Democrats) believe that Trump and mainstream Republicans are fascists?Btw, I think it's reasonable to have debates on what fascism means. The word has become hyper-stigmatized because of one fascist regime in the 20st century. But when modern Democrats use the term "fascist," it is a short-hand fo
That reduces to:
Q: Mainstream Democrats, can anyone who identifies as Republican be "justifiably be killed in order to preserve liberalism and democratic norms?"
I'll go with 0% of mainstream Democrats would say yes.
That reduces to:
Q: Mainstream Democrats, can anyone who identifies as Republican be "justifiably be killed in order to preserve liberalism and democratic norms?"
I'll go with 0% of mainstream Democrats would say yes.
Do you acknowledge that when a society takes the position, "an innocent person was killed, but we do not care. In fact, we are happy." The results of this discourse will be to encourage more innocent people to be killed?
Innocent of what exactly?
Ok, so you meant “law abiding citizen”
That’s still a spectrum. Fred Phelps, the founder of Westboro Baptist Church is technically a law abiding citizen operating under the first amendment. But few would describe him as “innocent”.
Just clarifying what you’re asking here.
Ok, so you meant “law abiding citizen”
That’s still a spectrum. Fred Phelps, the founder of Westboro Baptist Church is technically a law abiding citizen operating under the first amendment. But few would describe him as “innocent”.
Just clarifying what you’re asking here.
Answer the second question. When millions of Democrats celebrate the killing of mainstream Republicans, do you acknowledge that more mainstream Republicans will probably be killed as a result?
If you want, you can answer a different question. When a society takes the position "a mainstream conservative was killed, and we are happy." Do you believe this discourse encourages more mainstream conservatives to be killed?
Society as a whole has not taken that position, and I don’t think there is any direct evidence that expressing happiness over a death produces a causal link to more violence.
You’re just posting in fallacies…
Do you acknowledge that when a society takes the position, "an innocent person was killed, but we do not care. In fact, we are happy." The results of this discourse will be to encourage more innocent people to be killed?
"Innocent" is a legal term, not an emphatic or mental state like not caring. So to people who were really opposed to what Kirk was saying or doing, for want of better words I would expect them to feel glad he wasn't around any more saying and doing the stuff they were opposed to. I don't think that directly translates into more people getting killed but as a sort of secondary cause, the attention all that brings will encourage more people to be killed.
Society as a whole has not taken that position, and I don’t think there is any direct evidence that expressing happiness over a death produces a causal link to more violence.
You’re just posting in fallacies…
There are tens of thousands of social media posts of people celebrating his death. In fact, there was a video of a man at the Utah rally cheering his death seconds after he was killed. So yes, mainstream, average Democrats are cheering his death.
And the inference that "an activity that is widely celebrated and praised on social media will inspire copycats" requires a baseline level of intelligence and understanding of human psychology to accept as true. If you don't accept this basic inference, then I would rather continue this discussion with a different liberal because you might lack the capability to give honest and accurate answers.
but as a sort of secondary cause, the attention all that brings will encourage more people to be killed.
This is exactly my point.
(1) Mainstream, average democrats believe that Kirk was "hateful."
(2) Mainstream, average democrats do not have empathy when "hateful" people are killed, and will celebrate on social media.
(3) As a result, some radical democrats, with nothing to lose in life, will be inspired as copycats and kill more mainstream Republicans.
Do you acknowledge these 3 points?
There are tens of thousands of social media posts of people celebrating his death. In fact, there was a video of a man at the Utah rally cheering his death seconds after he was killed. So yes, mainstream, average Democrats are cheering his death.And the inference that "an activity that is widely celebrated and praised on social media will inspire copycats" requires a baseline l
Millions of democrats does not equal “society”, it equals a small portion of society. But you’ve also created a false dichotomy in that one is either happy over the death or condemns it fully, when the most common response is likely more nuanced than that.
As to your claim that celebrating a death encourages violence, you have still failed to produce evidence to support it. School shooters inspire copycats, and nobody is cheering for them, so clearly there is more than one element involved in inspiring further violence that happiness alone does not produce and can also be produced in the absence of happiness. So the whole thing falls apart logically.
And I’m perfectly capable of giving honest accurate answers; you may not have the minimum required processing ability to receive them.
This is exactly my point.(1) Mainstream, average democrats believe that Kirk was "hateful."(2) Mainstream, average democrats do not have empathy when "hateful" people are killed, and will celebrate on social media.(3) As a result, some radical democrats, with nothing to lose in life, will be inspired as copycats and kill more mainstream Republicans.Do you acknowledge these 3 po
I don’t think you’re understanding.
The above assumes that because some Democrats might celebrate, then radical Democrats will be inspired to kill, but you haven’t established any evidence for that claim, it just restates the conclusion as a premise.
You’re not very good at this…
As to your claim that celebrating a death encourages violence, you have still failed to produce evidence to support it. School shooters inspire copycats, and nobody is cheering for them, so clearly there is more than one element involved in inspiring further violence that happiness alone does not produce and can also be produced in the absence of happiness.
Here's a logic question for you.
When shootings are widely condemned on social media, there are still dozens of people willing to be copycats.
When shootings receive substantial praise on social media, do you think the substantial praise will be more or less likely to inspire copycats?
See, it’s your job when you make a claim to back it up with evidence. You are claiming that social media reactions and celebrations directly lead to more violence and killings.
Prove it with evidence, not logical fallacies
Ok, so you meant “law abiding citizen”
That’s still a spectrum. Fred Phelps, the founder of Westboro Baptist Church is technically a law abiding citizen operating under the first amendment. But few would describe him as “innocent”.
Just clarifying what you’re asking here.
Fact Check: Fred Phelps died in 2014.
I don’t think you’re understanding.
The above assumes that because some Democrats might celebrate, then radical Democrats will be inspired to kill, but you haven’t established any evidence for that claim, it just restates the conclusion as a premise.
You’re not very good at this…
This comes back to the basic intuition that "activities that are widely praised will be encouraged."
Debates *can* be useful when both participants have baseline levels of intelligence and understanding of social phenomena. Unfortunately, I think debate with you has proven useless.
I want to finish with a different liberal.
