Charlie Kirk Assassinated

[JoJo]

Again, I've received a number of reports of posts in this thread. I'm not going to infract anyone at this point as it's small potatoes really but I would kindly ask everyone to return to talking about the topic at hand rather than other user's past positions and forum moderation.

I would also ask people to consider before hitting the report button whether a post is definitely worthy of an infraction as cluttering up the report queue is not helpful for anyone. Thanks!

 

[Agema]

You referenced a thing. I provided the actual quote. Then you said the above sentence.

• Repeating someone else's reference is not providing your own.
• One "soundbyte" [sic] isn't accurate given I referenced quite a few things he's said

 

[tstorm823]

• Repeating someone else's reference is not providing your own.
• One "soundbyte" [sic] isn't accurate given I referenced quite a few things he's said

Correcting someone's reference is better than offering a separate one, as fewer correct data points is better than an average of true and false, especially on a topic where he could say the right thing 19,000 times, and one single misstep would be enough for you to draw your conclusion.

I don't care enough to fight every point indefinitely when you're being petty.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

I've read enough about how he thought black women whose accomplishments far outweigh his own lacked "processing power" and stole "a white man's slot". He openly argued the "Great Replacement" theory as a deliberate strategy to attack rural America. As noted elsewhere, his conception of family as expressed by his own wife clearly set women as inferior.

Fuck that shit.

People who aren't bigots just don't come out with this shit in the first place. And even worse, when he said a lot of this stuff, he was absolutely playing on and reinforcing other people's bigotry. Even if it was carelessness it doesn't really matter, and that grating Christian hypocrisy of trite platitudes about respect, love and stuff whilst he's demeaning others.

He was highly opinionated and didn’t really give a shit about political correctness or identity politics, which also made it easy for critics to misrepresent his statements. Like the thing about black women, which only referred to four specific individuals.

Other times, yeah. When people show total disregard for laws that are in place to keep people safe, prevent destruction of personal property, etc., then derogatory terms are par for the course regardless of who’s speaking out. No one’s saying the dude was another Gandhi, but it is still interesting to note the lack of violence, riots, looting, etc. following his assassination.

 

[Dreiko]

What do you mean "dismissing sound policy suggestions"? You blamed Obama for Biden. I explained, I think with fair reason that you never really objected to, that Biden is a natural product of the Democratic Party establishment, irrespective of Obama. If the Democratic Party hadn't picked Biden, it would have picked someone just like Biden - white, male, straight, moderate, etc.

When I think "sound policy suggestions", sometimes one of the most important things we need to do is stop thinking about individual people and instead start thinking about systems and institutions, because these tend to be far more powerful than individual people. When we say things like "It's Obama's fault" we end up missing the fact that the Democratic Party keeps serving up the same thing year after year and election after election. We've got to stop thinking that if we just get rid of person X then magically person Y is going to come in and do the right thing. No, they aren't. Person Y will be a product of the same system as person X, the system makes the person, and all we'll ever get is the system.

Focusing on Obama’s half-black genes when in the context of policy outcomes criticism is a sneaky way of dismissing the fundamental criticism by dishonestly pretending the issue being raised was his race. Like I explained prior; the intent or marketing of a policy isn’t how we judge these things, it’s the outcomes we look at. And criticizing racist outcomes that have been brought forth by a half black human isn’t racist, it’s antiracist.

 

[Bedinsis]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

So late in answering this that the conversation has moved on, but nonetheless:

I prefer to not even think in terms of whether there are benefits to orators being murdered that I shut out of the conversation. Freedom of speech is paramount, and in a working open society it is neither a reasonable or humanistic approach to meet speech you don't like with murder.

Intellectually I can however not deny the possibility that such actions can lead to a better society. True, heinous opinions only reach critical mass if there is enough of a movement behind it, so killing off an orator only leaves the underlying issue unaddressed for someone else to take the dead guy's lead. And true, that makes the person murdered a martyr for the cause and gives the signal that it is A-OK to murder political opponents, leaving the movement stronger and the democracy weakened. But it is possible that some of the things said came from that person alone or that my read on group psychology is incorrect.

That it would have to be addressed with a vigilante murderer would in that case then be a failure of democracy, that we've failed at reaching an understanding or consensus via public discourse, so that the only viable option is murder. Which brings me to my point:

Either Charlie Kirk's murder was unnecessary, in which case we have an instance where a man is dead, leaving his loved ones to grieve and his followers with reasons to dig in their position.

Or it wasn't, in which case political violence is a viable option instead of discourse.

I don't like either of those options.

 

[Silvanus]

He was highly opinionated and didn’t really give a shit about political correctness or identity politics, which also made it easy for critics to misrepresent his statements. Like the thing about black women, which only referred to four specific individuals.

Of course, what someone says about specific people can show their attitude towards a wider group of people. As is the case here.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You know what's really funny? There hasn't been any moderation in this forum for like 2 years. I legitimately thought that all the mods had been laid off/left. No one here has actually been following any rules.

The fact that you showed up after having been gone for a year and immediately said something heinous enough to become the first person with a strike against them in the last 2 years just really denotes how unpleasant you are.

Yeh weird isn't it, by your admission no-one has apparently been following the rules but I show up and bam. Almost like there might be an issue or something.

Then again hasn't Brawlman been topic banned recently too so maybe there has been moderation going on people just didn't realise it.

Also my heinous actions was a facetious and deliberately silly claim that some-one was a warmonger as a way to point out the flaws in their own argument and how by their logic they were that. How terrible of me to wreck said argument.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

But its ok in the end, because you're clearly totally over it.

You guys brought it up I'm just pointing it out.

There is a good point in here that there are plenty of strong differences in opinion here and some harsh words, but by and large the regular users appear to be okay with how we treat each other. In a way, we have formed a sort of stable, successful community with shared standards. Although the pruning of users in years past by mods has likely contributed.

There is certainly some rough and tumble, so we are no shrinking violets. If there are a rash of reports suddenly pouring in along with new contributors, it suggests the problem lies with the new contributors - whether they are excessively aggravating everyone else, or of course being the ones trying to get everyone else in trouble.

So you're saying you object to new people coming to your "lands" and causing trouble and want authority figures to get rid of them or prune them based on if you subjectively like them or not?

Because that really sounds like what you're saying and you know what they say about people who fight monsters lol

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So late in answering this that the conversation has moved on, but nonetheless:

I prefer to not even think in terms of whether there are benefits to orators being murdered that I shut out of the conversation. Freedom of speech is paramount, and in a working open society it is neither a reasonable or humanistic approach to meet speech you don't like with murder.

Intellectually I can however not deny the possibility that such actions can lead to a better society. True, heinous opinions only reach critical mass if there is enough of a movement behind it, so killing off an orator only leaves the underlying issue unaddressed for someone else to take the dead guy's lead. And true, that makes the person murdered a martyr for the cause and gives the signal that it is A-OK to murder political opponents, leaving the movement stronger and the democracy weakened. But it is possible that some of the things said came from that person alone or that my read on group psychology is incorrect.

That it would have to be addressed with a vigilante murderer would in that case then be a failure of democracy, that we've failed at reaching an understanding or consensus via public discourse, so that the only viable option is murder. Which brings me to my point:

Either Charlie Kirk's murder was unnecessary, in which case we have an instance where a man is dead, leaving his loved ones to grieve and his followers with reasons to dig in their position.

Or it wasn't, in which case political violence is a viable option instead of discourse.

I don't like either of those options.

I think some people are just hoping they win and get the re-write the history books when they're done.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Of course, what someone says about specific people can show their attitude towards a wider group of people. As is the case here.

So if you object to Dave Chapelle you're racist then?

 

[Silvanus]

So if you object to Dave Chapelle you're racist then?

Depends what the objection is.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So you're saying you object to new people coming to your "lands" and causing trouble and want authority figures to get rid of them or prune them based on if you subjectively like them or not?

You aren't "new people" you're a well known asshole.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the moderation that occurred was because you started reporting everyone who disagreed with you, and then you got slapped down by the mods after bringing attention to the thread.

Like I said, I don't think there's been any actual moderation here for like 2 years, I really doubt any of the people left here have been bothering to hit the report button.

Maybe stop making yourself out to be a victim.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Maybe stop making yourself out to be a victim.

Have you seen conservative politics?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Have you seen conservative politics?

You mean the people who are at once "we are the majority who must be obeyed" and "we are a fragile minority beset on all sides by malefactors"?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You aren't "new people" you're a well known asshole.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the moderation that occurred was because you started reporting everyone who disagreed with you, and then you got slapped down by the mods after bringing attention to the thread.

Sure, you got any evidence for that wild claim or are you still just butthurt the other thread got locked for whatever reason?

Like I said, I don't think there's been any actual moderation here for like 2 years, I really doubt any of the people left here have been bothering to hit the report button.

Maybe stop making yourself out to be a victim.

So if that's true how'd Brawlman get banned?

Oh and before you make some more wild claims about it being my doing me, I've got him on ignore so rarely bother to unhide and look at any of his posts.

As for me playing the victim? I literally was the one hit here lol.


Now are we going to try and to get back on topic of are you going to carrying on their veiled whining that a thread got locked and people you side with couldn't carry on their antics?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Have you seen conservative politics?

Have you seen 10+ years of left wing politics?

Hell even now they're claiming they're the victims of fake news and conspiracy theories over the shooter being left wing.
Same with the ICE shooter too.

Hell I shocked people when I posted this individual


and here's the think. That's the more extreme online left right now.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Depends what the objection is.

So not

Of course, what someone says about specific people can show their attitude towards a wider group of people. As is the case here.

but that applies to Dreiko despite him pointing out specific objections to certain people?

Because (not to bring up past history but you do have a tendency to not fully be following the conversation sometimes) that's how this tangent started.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Have you seen 10+ years of left wing politics?

Hell even now they're claiming they're the victims of fake news and conspiracy theories over the shooter being left wing.
Same with the ICE shooter too.

Hell I shocked people when I posted this individual


and here's the think. That's the more extreme online left right now.

Hell hell think. My lad you're downright shook. Failed the vibe check. But in any case the faces of conservatism in the world are ones of whining petulance. Arguably Trump is the biggest face of conservatism right now and the dude's a giant baby about everything.

 

[Xprimentyl]

So late in answering this that the conversation has moved on, but nonetheless:

I prefer to not even think in terms of whether there are benefits to orators being murdered that I shut out of the conversation. Freedom of speech is paramount, and in a working open society it is neither a reasonable or humanistic approach to meet speech you don't like with murder.

Intellectually I can however not deny the possibility that such actions can lead to a better society. True, heinous opinions only reach critical mass if there is enough of a movement behind it, so killing off an orator only leaves the underlying issue unaddressed for someone else to take the dead guy's lead. And true, that makes the person murdered a martyr for the cause and gives the signal that it is A-OK to murder political opponents, leaving the movement stronger and the democracy weakened. But it is possible that some of the things said came from that person alone or that my read on group psychology is incorrect.

That it would have to be addressed with a vigilante murderer would in that case then be a failure of democracy, that we've failed at reaching an understanding or consensus via public discourse, so that the only viable option is murder. Which brings me to my point:

Either Charlie Kirk's murder was unnecessary, in which case we have an instance where a man is dead, leaving his loved ones to grieve and his followers with reasons to dig in their position.

Or it wasn't, in which case political violence is a viable option instead of discourse.

I don't like either of those options.

It's all well and good to romanticize democracy, but the reality we share is a democratic farce. If the death of Kirk was taken with the solemnity and austerity it "ideally" deserves, the system and processes of government and ideologies on both side would not change. I'll paraphrase a fellow forum member: "I don't wish death on anyone, but I've read several obituaries with a smile on my face." I don't celebrate Kirk's killing, but I also don't believe someone addressing his brand of bullshit being promoted and propagated by the current administration by virtue of free speech rights is a loss of any kind. I won't say I celebrate Kirk's death, but at the same time, I will accept that if SOMEONE had to die, I appreciate it was someone who felt random acts of gun violence were worth the protections of an antiquated "right." He called it; it was a necessary consequence; who better than him to be an example of that consequence?