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
One of the likely consequences imo of the murder of CK will be no more outdoor venues for political events involving controversial speakers.
Everyone grieves in their own way and sometimes that grief isn't pretty. I myself took a picture after my dad died that I cringe to think about now but was just happy to take a picture with a life long friend in the moment.
That said, Candace Owens has just about the only heartfelt tribute to the guy that I have seen. Most of the right wing reactions have just been something along the lines of "you will regret these actions while you burn alive under the fire and fury of our retribution liberal ****s", including his wife
https://x.com/topheronx/status/196702953...
Him on Civil right act
Laws that start with good intention end up creating bad incentive.
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
Except he’s not actually shown any evidence that supports the claim. He’s going by his intuition and feelings, which is the same thing people went by when they claimed for years that violent video games increases real world violence, which we know now is not true in any consistent or proven way.
This is the same scenario as someone coming in here and demanding everyone admit violent video games cause real world violence when the evidence shows that crime rates have been dropping over the same period of time violent gaming has skyrocketed. Feelings aren’t facts and intuition does not solve complex issues. Claims demand evidence.
I need you guys to stay with me here in the land of logic…
Everyone grieves in their own way and sometimes that grief isn't pretty. I myself took a picture after my dad died that I cringe to think about now but was just happy to take a picture with a life long friend in the moment. That said, Candace Owens has just about the only heartfelt tribute to the guy that I have seen. Most of the right wing reactions have just been something
I am guessing you don't go on twitter much? everyone posting great memory and story of honor him. and spending time debunking the biases that the left talking point. it might be very awkward though to scroll through this stuff though if your mindset is already set that he a terrible person so maybe that why you are avoiding it.
since you guys are so good why don't put money where your mouth is. there a huge market for his https://polymarket.com/event/fact-check-...
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
There are lots of things that can make a democratic society impossible. I’m not convinced that the current wave of indifference towards Charlie Kirk’s death is such a big one in the grand scheme of things. The role of a political party is partially to control the worst tendencies of the party’s coalition.
When you compare how the two parties are handling it, they both have had some success and failures in that. The Democratic party, despite having this vocal minority, only has people in its leadership that had the right reaction.
Compare that to the Republican party, where 70% of their base believes the 2020 election was stolen.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/...
How much more disastrous for democracy must that be? And what was Charlie’s role in fomenting this? And what is Trump’s role?
How can Democrats be expected to be perfect angels of democracy while the president foments lies about elections which gets widespread acceptance in his party? But if the democrats point out that this attempt to steal the election is authoritarian and fascistic, that means we are being divisive and causing a potential for political violence. Well I would say if you want to stop this, you cast out Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Trump, Bannon, Patel, and anyone else who spreads election lies. Then we will kick out everyone from party leadership who did not condemn Charlie Kirk’s murder. We’ll see who is forced to kick out or chastize more people.
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?
Notice how it’s “both sides will rehumanize the other”, but it’s only Democrats that are doing it. It’s the same gaslighting from the election. “Democrats need to let Republicans govern because they lost”. But it’s always Republicans preventing Democrats from governing when they are out of power, and they only have congress by razor thin margins.
We don’t have to accept this reality where Democrats are always at fault for everything and have to ignore how crazy the Republicans are.
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 b
I skimmed his Kirk assassination speech, and he went very hard on telling young people to get into the game and to ditch the free market pro Israel republican talk. I didn't know who he was wither but I am a lot more familiar with his kind in the real world than what I've seen from Kirk who acted like a scripted republican shill. Fuentes is far more dangerous but is also going to be far more lauded than that other guy.
Meanwhile, while normal people are debating the ideology of the assassination, many in the far right are saying this is a conspiracy and still blaming it on Joos and Israel. This person was literally Kirk's friend who toured with him for 2 years, and she hasn't addressed the killer or his motives at all; all she can talk about is Netanyahu, Israel and Jews and insinuate they a
Yeah guys her first reaction was really truly heartfelt one.
I am guessing you don't go on twitter much? everyone posting great memory and story of honor him. and spending time debunking the biases that the left talking point. it might be very awkward though to scroll through this stuff though if your mindset is already set that he a terrible person so maybe that why you are avoiding it.
I think Coordi has enough good sense to avoid X (formerly known as Twitter).
I don't think it's smart to avoid twitter, a lot of stuff these days starts there and then gets discussed on "normal" media, being on twitter is like being closer to the original sources.
Besides on twitter you also get all the normal media takes anyway if you care about them
I don't think it's smart to avoid twitter, a lot of stuff these days starts there and then gets discussed on "normal" media, being on twitter is like being closer to the original sources.
Besides on twitter you also get all the normal media takes anyway if you care about them
To each their own.
Reading this forum is about all the ridiculousness I myself can handle.
People seem to think that as soon as they log onto Twitter they're automatically inundated with extremism, as if they can't curate their own feed and have no choice but to click on every trending topic.
If you have it fully open it's a cesspit of course but no one's forced into doing that.
People seem to think that as soon as they log onto Twitter they're automatically inundated with extremism, as if they can't curate their own feed and have no choice but to click on every trending topic.
If you have it fully open it's a cesspit of course but no one's forced into doing that.
Only if they select "for you" which is the algo, you don't even need to curate anything in the sense that you just check "following" and you get only tweets by accounts you follow.
Then ofc you can curate who to follow but you can start as a democrat with main democrat names only and move from there with 0 exposure to "extremism".
You can also go in the "for you" algo and then start blocking any prominent account which you consider filthy and that won't appear anymore (including musk)
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 b
"Israel did it" is where we veer into Nuttysville.
People seem to think that as soon as they log onto Twitter they're automatically inundated with extremism, as if they can't curate their own feed and have no choice but to click on every trending topic.
If you have it fully open it's a cesspit of course but no one's forced into doing that.
Maybe Twitter has changed since I gave up on it but as recently as about a year ago no amount of blocking **** on your feed prevented you from being overwhelmed with far right propaganda
And the only accounts I followed were sports related
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.
I don't know what your ultimate point is, but I'll accept the premise that violent rhetoric and celebration of violence incrementally increases the likelihood of future violence.
I don't know by how much. It isn't really possible to quantify that sort of thing. I personally am much more concerned about violent rhetoric coming from the White House than i am about idiots on social media with no influence.
But I'll accept the basic premise for the purpose of whatever argument you want to make. Now what? What is the argument?
Genius on the right side of history, untapped poker talent
Kirk was such an extremist on homosexuality!
