The murder of Charlie Kirk

ok well if we take this as true, why are you here if ~everyone sucks?

you must think your "burns" through, frand. otherwise you run the risk of self-burns (those are rare)

My intuition is that most people will refuse to admit basic points if they fear that it will reflect poorly on their "side."

If a liberal is willing to admit that "celebrating violence on social media will inspire copycats," I'll continue with them... But otherwise, the discussion would be pointless.

Does this intuition apply to yourself, too, or nah?

If you want to argue about what the consequences of celebrating murder are, knock yourself out. Then they can counter that with all the harm that they think that he caused and people can go through the utilitarian calculus of one over the other.

Personally I just reframe from it because I think it’s a bad thing for people to do, and it means I have to come up with these thresholds of when I think it’s ok and when I think it’s not ok, working my way back from Hitler to Charlie Kirk.

I’d rather just say that people should think twice about celebrating murder because one day people might celebrate the murder of someone that you like and consider to be a good person. It’s not a good rule for a society to have that people celebrate when their political opponents die, and people can disagree with that if they want to and I can’t stop them.

But when things are said and done, Charlie’s legacy is going to be the ideas that he had during his life, and you will not stop people from disagreeing with them. So when people come concern troll about that is where I draw the line in condemning people celebrating his death. If your approach is to say that Charlie was a normal conservative I think we have disagreements on what that looks like. He had normal conservative views and he had far right views. But for sure he shouldn’t have been murdered.

I'm as bad a poster as anyone else. Unlike everyone else, however, I have enough self-awareness to acknowledge my failings.

Okay, so we are clear. John21 admits:

(1) Mainstream democrats believe Kirk (and mainstream Republicans) are "hateful."

(2) Mainstream democrats believe "hateful" do not deserve empathy. They are either indifferent, or will celebrate when they are killed.

(3) As a result, fringe Democrats with nothing to lose will be inspired and justify the murder of more mainstream Republicans.

Now here's my next question:

Given that there is a connection between dehumanizing mainstream Republicans as "Nazis" and "fascists," and celebratory rhetoric inspiring future copycats, do you believe that Democratic leaders (politicians, influencers, etc) have a moral responsibility to "rehumanize" mainstream Republicans?

In other words... the status quo in which millions of Democrats believe millions of Republicans are hateful and don't deserve empathy is intolerable. Besides just "condemning political violence," do you believe Democratic leaders should actually take action and make it a priority to rehumanize Republicans?

hmm, yes. same

I suspect most mainstream Democrats thought that it was a bad thing that Charlie Kirk got murdered and that they did not approve of the folks who were celebrating his murder.

You were jumping way ahead. Here's my tl;dr:

The status quo is pretty intolerable. A democratic society requires the ability to discuss, debate, and vote. If millions of people on one "side" are indifferent and/or celebratory of the murder of the other "side," we are no longer a society. We are two societies at war.

I see two possible routes the country will take. Both sides will rehumanize the other. Democrats will say Republicans are legitimate members of society, their views are legitimate, and their murders should not be celebrated... Or it will escalate. I feel like 9/10 was a turning point. Do you agree?

is a hotdog a sandwich?

Yeah, I was very supportive of Sinema and her approach to this issue.

Unfortunately, I think it will continue to escalate.

Especially with a 'flame-thrower' like Trump in the WH.

(Friendly reminder: I voted for Trump three times.)

It's not even a dog, let alone a sandwich!

It can't easily be a motive by itself. It's circumstance, no different than if his roommate was black and Tyler murdered Jared Taylor.

I mean, would there be motive if some guy killed some famous gun grabber (I honestly don't know or pay attention to who they are) and then found out that his roommate or lover had an NRA membership so ...motive!

From where I come from, that sounds like the exact ingredients of an overbearing government shithole

Lol, you take quite the tone with these posts. Do you estimate yourself to be pretty intelligent, PTG?

If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike!

That's one side "rehumanising" the other. What do Republicans do to reciprocate?

Technically, if your grandmother had two wheels she would have been a bike.

One wheel would have made her a unicycle. Three wheels a tricycle.

(I'm a pedant, what can I say?)

College football on Saturday and NASCAR or NFL on Sunday obv.

According to what I've read the roommate wasn't involved, didn't have prior knowledge and has been fully cooperative. There's a big gap between him confessing to his dad and turning himself in and going on the run with the roommate. I mean he accomplished his goal of killing Kirk, got away with it.... and two days later he's in jail because he turned himself in. So it looks like something went drastically wrong with his plan fairly early on.

We’ve been saying this every time you guys glorify gun violence for 15-20 years.

Weird how the “department of war” idiot was glorifying illegal executions a few days before someone get illegally executed.

Or the guy who said children being executed in schools was worth the squeeze for 2a getting shot down on a school campus

Probably made up

We are like 4 narratives deep after the previous 3 were fake

I don't know. Ive skimmed it for a few days and I've just now had my first nutty thought: this **** was just too perfect for the culture war.

I've had no reason to entertain any conspiracy talk. I think a young man feeling his conviction and not understanding how the world works could easily come to the conclusion that some racist demagogue needs to die. But now he has a trans boyfriend?

No. It's too perfect. It's all just lining up as if by some kind of script. And now Nick Fuentes is suddenly socially acceptable? No. We're not that unlucky, are we? Did they brainwash this kid or something? And then stuff is written on the shell casings a la Mangione?

Nobody gets everything they want like this. Then again, some people do.

messages are in reverse order