Charlie Kirk Assassinated

[tstorm823]

I can think of more than 3 off the top of my head. I don't particularly want to, because it could prompt further pointless argument, but I certainly could if pushed.

Can think of two.

"Non-communist lefties", "people who like each other's pubs"... come on, dude.

I do not mean this as a criticism, you are perfectly welcome to do what makes you happy, but you really only give attention to people you want to find disagreement with. (I personally give most of my attention here to the people I find useful and disagreeable.) If not for backing Russia over Ukraine, I don't know you'd have ever even started picking fights with Seanchaidh. I have spent dramatically more time than you interacting with the lefties here.

A fun anecdote, one of my siblings was looking for information on something political, I do not recall what specifically, over a holiday when we were at my parents house. They find an answer on reddit, to which I tell them that answer is probably from a communist. The room looked at me like I was going out of my mind, and then we looked back at the post and the username was something like communist420. The internet, especially the "I uncritically believe everything I read on Reddit" crowd (of which there are like 10 here, who are non-coincidentally the upvote machines), has a lot of people who think things like "there would be no more crime if the government managed everyone's needs" and "there is no moral consumption under capitalism". They don't all self-identify as communists, it's not always as easy as communist420, but that's what they are.

 

[Seanchaidh]

"there is no moral consumption under capitalism"

that shouldn't be very controversial if "under capitalism" is interpreted how it is supposed to be interpreted; insofar as the product consumed came from a capitalist mode of production. there are plenty of liberals who believe more or less that, and plenty more who should.

"there would be no more crime if the government managed everyone's needs"

there would be one less important motivation for crime, certainly... I don't think you understand what people are actually saying.

 

[tstorm823]

there would be one less important motivation for crime, certainly... I don't think you understand what people are actually saying.

There would not be, because if the government attempts to manage everyone's needs, it will fail, and the people will no longer even have the means to care for their own needs. The person who believes centralized government action would be capable and sufficient to fulfill the needs of all people and doesn't support doing so is both stupid and terrible.

there are plenty of liberals who believe more or less that, and plenty more who should.

Nobody is surprised that you think all liberals should be communists.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Don't forget, people. It's disgusting how the left wing is celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk! Sure, he said a few disagreeable things, but he was a good Christian man who was taken from his wife and daughter by a left wing who is out assassinating anyone on the right. They couldn't get Trump, so they are settling for Kirk.

If you think I'm exaggerating anything there, I'm actually paraphrasing/quoting my brother's rant from yesterday. He describes himself as being neither left nor right wing, saying that he'd rather leave politics out of anything affecting his daily life. I only do this to point out that the narrative is working on at least some of the general public.

Most people don't know anything about Kirk. To them he was a youtuber who owns libs on college campuses, who was just shot on a college campus. They're going to immediately assume it was a leftist. You have to build a case why it was the right because it's counter-intuitive, you don't with the left because guy who pisses of libs gets shot by one is pretty straight forward.

It's even more intuitive when it's leftists celebrating and justifying themselves to everyone on why he deserved to die. One screams the motive to everyone, the other is buried in internet rabbitholes about groypers and catboys.

As for why people think he was a moderate? It's because most Republicans hold one of those views. Some of them are views that a majority of Americans hold, like how minors shouldn't be transitioned, which is considered trans genocide by the left. Now try to imagine being a normie, seeing leftists say how Kirk deserved to die for being a fascist, and then try to guess what they think about you.

 

[Seanchaidh]

There would not be, because if the government attempts to manage everyone's needs, it will fail, and the people will no longer even have the means to care for their own needs. The person who believes centralized government action would be capable and sufficient to fulfill the needs of all people and doesn't support doing so is both stupid and terrible.

You don't even have to do it well, though. You could literally just give everyone money and let the market handle it if you're that unimaginative and incapable. Wouldn't need to even think about children's creches and cantinas and Brezhnevkas and so on. And the result would be vanishingly fewer (if any) crimes of desperation; but it would also mean fewer desperate people to employ and exploit, which is the real downside (more popularly phrased as "but then why would anyone work?")

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Which is weird, because like all Democrat presidents, Obama governed absolutely from the centre.

He passed a healthcare bill that ensured money kept going to corporations. He sold out the poor to save the banks after the financial crash, and bailed out the car industry. He extended controversial government powers (e.g. Patriot Act), bombed foreign countries. He did little or nothing to reduce monopolistic corporate power that enabled the economic exploitation of Americans.

He did of course allow homosexuals to marry and serve openly in the military. I presume that's what you have a problem with?

The point of the “bigot” left/right cartoon starting at 2008 was that race relations worsened under Obama, even according to a CNN poll, and he arguably did less for the black population than Trump did.

 

[Agema]

The point of the “bigot” left/right cartoon starting at 2008 was that race relations worsened under Obama, even according to a CNN poll

Uh-huh. But why did race relations worsen under Obama, and was any of it Obama's fault?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Uh-huh. But why did race relations worsen under Obama, and was any of it Obama's fault?

Obviously it was Obama's fault for being black in a country of racists.

 

[Agema]

I'm reasonably certain that if your post was by me instead, you would be coming in to condemn me for running cover for Trump and downplaying his actions.

But you wouldn't write that post!

You might write something expressing some elements of that post, but the tone and overall direction would be very different.

 

[Agema]

Obviously it was Obama's fault for being black in a country of racists.

It could be: racists could easily have been inflamed by a black man winning election.

But it could also be issues outside the president's reasonable control, such as a string of killings of black men by the police, some ending in major protests. Anyone watching that on the media might be inclined to perceive race relations are breaking down. But perceptions can be funny: at the same time the news paints a picture of decay, black and white people in the USA might be treating each other much the same, or even getting better.

As an analogy, you could consider perceptions of crime. It's well know that public perceptions of crime don't necessarily fit the crime rate.

 

[Agema]

They couldn't get Trump, so they are settling for Kirk.

Which is an interesting point, because as far as I am aware there is no compelling evidence that the guy who tried to assassinate Trump was left-wing. From released information, there are elements of left-leaning sympathies, elements of right-leaning sympathies, but mostly he was probably just mentally disturbed. It is likely the same is true here, that Kirk's murderer is a mish-mash of beliefs that don't fit as clear a political profile as talking heads might like to present, and potentially more about personal (and possibly mental health related) issues.

Underlying a lot of this is that "left" and "right" wing can be very imprecise terms, and in practice, there are all manner of political views that transcend or cross the boundary of such a simplistic political dichotomy. You can think, for instance, of all those Trump supporters who had also voiced support for Bernie Sanders in elcetoral cycles. They were attracted by common factors shared by Sanders and Trump, even though Sanders and Trump represent radically different visions of America.

We conventionally have an idea of the middle ground as milquetoast moderates, but there are also volatile people with radical views. Particularly in the case of younger people (as some of these shooters are), they may have very dynamic and changeable political beliefs as they are still in a more developmental period. They don't fit typical notions of left or right, and they might vote Democratic or Republican depending on what's stimulating them at the time.

Within this we can also think about how left and right might coincide. For instance, a shooter might, at face value, be motivated by left-wing political values. But what if he was brought up in a right-wing community that lionised firearms, with violent, siege-mentality rhetoric etc.? He might have opposed bigotry as left-winger, but he did so violently because of a right-wing background.

* * *

And herein lies what I think is the most important thing, which is how important and influential people talk about these things. People are making inflammatory claims about political motivations that are not established, or sufficiently established to believe these claims are untrue. That's really where a responsible society should be looking, but I fear there are too few responsible adults left. The ramifications for our society could be serious: very violently so.

 

[Silvanus]

I do not mean this as a criticism, you are perfectly welcome to do what makes you happy, but you really only give attention to people you want to find disagreement with. (I personally give most of my attention here to the people I find useful and disagreeable.) If not for backing Russia over Ukraine, I don't know you'd have ever even started picking fights with Seanchaidh. I have spent dramatically more time than you interacting with the lefties here.

It's true that I usually interact with people I disagree and argue with (outside of video game threads). But I read much more than I respond to & think I'm generally quite aware of where a lot of people stand.

You perhaps interact in an adversarial way with a lot of people that I do not. You also however have a tendency to ascribe beliefs and stances to your opponents that are not accurate, and to presume to know their minds and positions better than they know their own. I don't credit that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Which is an interesting point, because as far as I am aware there is no compelling evidence that the guy who tried to assassinate Trump was left-wing. From released information, there are elements of left-leaning sympathies, elements of right-leaning sympathies, but mostly he was probably just mentally disturbed. It is likely the same is true here, that Kirk's murderer is a mish-mash of beliefs that don't fit as clear a political profile as talking heads might like to present, and potentially more about personal (and possibly mental health related) issues.

Underlying a lot of this is that "left" and "right" wing can be very imprecise terms, and in practice, there are all manner of political views that transcend or cross the boundary of such a simplistic political dichotomy. You can think, for instance, of all those Trump supporters who had also voiced support for Bernie Sanders in elcetoral cycles. They were attracted by common factors shared by Sanders and Trump, even though Sanders and Trump represent radically different visions of America.

We conventionally have an idea of the middle ground as milquetoast moderates, but there are also volatile people with radical views. Particularly in the case of younger people (as some of these shooters are), they may have very dynamic and changeable political beliefs as they are still in a more developmental period. They don't fit typical notions of left or right, and they might vote Democratic or Republican depending on what's stimulating them at the time.

Within this we can also think about how left and right might coincide. For instance, a shooter might, at face value, be motivated by left-wing political values. But what if he was brought up in a right-wing community that lionised firearms, with violent, siege-mentality rhetoric etc.? He might have opposed bigotry as left-winger, but he did so violently because of a right-wing background.

* * *

And herein lies what I think is the most important thing, which is how important and influential people talk about these things. People are making inflammatory claims about political motivations that are not established, or sufficiently established to believe these claims are untrue. That's really where a responsible society should be looking, but I fear there are too few responsible adults left. The ramifications for our society could be serious: very violently so.

Flippantly, we could dismiss it as just another school shooting. Less flippantly, school shooters aren't big news anymore, you want to get headlines (and some school shooters do) you have to kill someone famous.

 

[tstorm823]

You also however have a tendency to ascribe beliefs and stances to your opponents that are not accurate, and to presume to know their minds and positions better than they know their own. I don't credit that.

I often do know their positions better than they do (or rather, better than they are willing to say, because they are so often lying). I really do look forward to the day when you finally understand what other people here believe, consequently realizing I was right about them, then ultimately also realizing I was right about you. I do not know what ridiculous thing the people here will latch onto that will finally break your image of them, but it's gonna happen, it's not gonna be from anything I say, and you're going to understand.

 

[Agema]

I often do know their positions better than they do (or rather, better than they are willing to say, because they are so often lying).

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I often do know their positions better than they do (or rather, better than they are willing to say, because they are so often lying).

"Because I'm just so much smarter than everyone else here, so I can see into their hearts and minds, and I know they all secretly agree with me (because I'm just always so very right) but just can't admit it because of reasons."

Clown.

 

[Casual Shinji]

"Because I'm just so much smarter than everyone else here, so I can see into their hearts and minds, and I know they all secretly agree with me (because I'm just always so very right) but just can't admit it because of reasons."

Clown.

Dude, don't insult clowns - Clowns at least have humility.

Tstorm is just a cult member.

 

[Agema]

"Because I'm just so much smarter than everyone else here, so I can see into their hearts and minds, and I know they all secretly agree with me (because I'm just always so very right) but just can't admit it because of reasons."

When it comes to interpreting reality, there is certainly a glaring risk for someone who thinks that any information that contradicts their belief must be false.

 

[Silvanus]

I often do know their positions better than they do (or rather, better than they are willing to say, because they are so often lying). I really do look forward to the day when you finally understand what other people here believe, consequently realizing I was right about them, then ultimately also realizing I was right about you. I do not know what ridiculous thing the people here will latch onto that will finally break your image of them, but it's gonna happen, it's not gonna be from anything I say, and you're going to understand.

I, for my part, hope that one day you'll realise how monumentally self-absorbed and myopic all of this is. You have turned the unwillingness to engage or understand into a badge of pride. It is not; it speaks only about you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Sure, if we're following the Republican definition of "left wing", which is "not entirely comfortable with calling for killing the homeless on live television".

Several posters use the words dictator and fascist to describe Trump/his administration...