Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed In Utah

[GoblinCampFollower]

So, he makes some good points about how we NEED to be able to at least understand enemies. It is important to be able to understand where conservative beliefs come from and it's not as simple as them all being evil or dumb. I agree with him there.

I do think many well meaning people like him are frankly downplaying how evil certain beliefs are for the sake of persuasion and kind of trying to take an "enlightened centrist" approach. For example, I can't really meet someone who thinks the civil rights movement was a mistake in the middle. I think that position requires willful ignorance about how pre civil rights era was for people of color and/or just hatred for people of color. I think most conservatives who have this opinion are more ignorant than hateful, but quite a few actually are just hateful.

As others have said, I can't agree with the idea of being a person of prayer. Even if there is a god, I feel confident saying prayers don't alter physical reality. We have to take action.

 

[Willow Matthews]

Prayers do fuck all. They just make people shift from their side to concreting the fact that they are on the right side already.

There is no God. There are just fuckwits that can be corralled into doing what people with money want them to do.

 

[Soen Eber]

There were a few good points, but he’s looking through rose-colored glasses. In his fable, the wolf can be reasoned with. The wolf we’re facing now cannot. It lies constantly, twists every truth, and has an endless appetite no amount of placating will ever satisfy. Those who try only set others up to be devoured ahead of them.


Yes, there is empathy on the right — but it’s suffocated by opportunists ready to pounce on any hint of disloyalty. People who dare to stand on principle risk being shunned, blacklisted, excluded from wealth, fired, or worse. Fear silences the best voices, and so the loudest, most intolerant ones dominate.


The left doesn’t hate the right. The left hates the hatred the right has built its power on — punishing difference, enforcing conformity, turning “us vs. them” into a permanent weapon. All the left ever wanted was simple: stop punishing people for being who they are. That modest demand was twisted into “tyranny” and met with war.


This wolf can’t be reasoned with or placated. It thrives on power and corruption. The only real safeguard is breaking power into smaller pieces so no one faction can dominate. For a while, checks and balances held. But the wolf learned how to game the system. I don’t see a way forward until its destruction brings about the rise of a rival wolf strong enough to challenge it.


Anyway — thanks for sharing the video. Even if it triggered me a bit.

(disclaimer, my original reply was waaaay too long and messy, I did use chatgpt to whack it down to a more reasonable size without losing any of the points I was trying to make).

Thanks, I think I'll post this as a response, with proper accreditation. I won't mention VV.oine though, because "usual suspects" and all that.

 

[Free]

When somebody says "What would Jesus do?" remember that flipping over tables and driving the moneylenders out of the temple is an option.

Thanks, but so is ending up dead nailed to a couple fence posts. Which seems the more likely situation these days.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The Guardian The US right claimed free speech was sacred – until the Charlie Kirk killing

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

The Guardian The US right claimed free speech was sacred – until the Charlie Kirk killing

Mostly a good article, but let me fix their headline: "The US right claimed free speech was sacred - until they came to power."

Trump has made feeble efforts to sue critics into the ground on many occasions, but being able to leverage Kirk as a martyr made it easier for him politically.

And yes, the USA first amendment does protect actual hate speech, but it's also nonsense to suggest that hating ONE MAN is "hate speech." They are trying to use the left's terminology against it but they don't understand it.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Mostly a good article, but let me fix their headline: "The US right claimed free speech was sacred - until they came to power."

Trump has made feeble efforts to sue critics into the ground on many occasions, but being able to leverage Kirk as a martyr made it easier for him politically.

And yes, the USA first amendment does protect actual hate speech, but it's also nonsense to suggest that hating ONE MAN is "hate speech." They are trying to use the left's terminology against it but they don't understand it.

Part of the problem, I think, is that historically US courts have recognised that some restrictions to the apparently absolute right to freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment are necessary in a free society, but because of that amendment they, and politicians, have had to create somewhat nebulously defined legal exceptions such as "hate speech" rather than create a statutory definition of what is not allowed.

I'm not saying we in Europe, and the UK in particular, always get it right. Notoriously, the British police investigate (as they must) complaints about harassment -- a low-level public order offence that was intended to catch otherwise minor offences made more serious by the fact they're directed at particular individuals (e.g. repeatedly chalking "Blacks Out" on the wall of a house occupied by a Black family) -- in relation to, for example, householders displaying mildly contentious posters in their window to which someone who regularly uses a nearby bus stop has taken offence, or parents repeatedly criticising the new head teacher at their child's school in a Facebook group for what they see as over-vigorous enforcement of a new dress code for students.

The complaints never go anywhere, but the aggrieved householder has had an unwelcome visit by the police, about which they rightly complain on social media, and there's a good case for re-examining the detail of the statutes that lead to this kind of incident.

That aside, though, because legislatures are able to define what's acceptable and what isn't, they're able to craft tight definitions of (e.g.) incitement to racial hatred, and provide specific defences. Nebulous concepts like "hate speech" (or, it seems, "harassment") don't allow for that.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Part of the problem, I think, is that historically US courts have recognised that some restrictions to the apparently absolute right to freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment are necessary in a free society, but because of that amendment they, and politicians, have had to create somewhat nebulously defined legal exceptions such as "hate speech" rather than create a statutory definition of what is not allowed.

I'm not saying we in Europe, and the UK in particular, always get it right. Notoriously, the British police investigate (as they must) complaints about harassment -- a low-level public order offence that was intended to catch otherwise minor offences made more serious by the fact they're directed at particular individuals (e.g. repeatedly chalking "Blacks Out" on the wall of a house occupied by a Black family) -- in relation to, for example, householders displaying mildly contentious posters in their window to which someone who regularly uses a nearby bus stop has taken offence, or parents repeatedly criticising the new head teacher at their child's school in a Facebook group for what they see as over-vigorous enforcement of a new dress code for students.

The complaints never go anywhere, but the aggrieved householder has had an unwelcome visit by the police, about which they rightly complain on social media, and there's a good case for re-examining the detail of the statutes that lead to this kind of incident.

That aside, though, because legislatures are able to define what's acceptable and what isn't, they're able to craft tight definitions of (e.g.) incitement to racial hatred, and provide specific defences. Nebulous concepts like "hate speech" (or, it seems, "harassment") don't allow for that.

I agree. Some restrictions on speech are just necessary by pragmatic necessity, but we run into trouble since the wording of the first amendment is pretty absolute... We often have issues where we need to do something by pragmatic necessity but our 238 year old constitution technically forbids it or at least doesn't grant the federal government any such power. Rewriting this ancient thing isn't politically feasible right now, so we're stuck doing lots of legal gymnastics to do anything pragmatic.

Another example is how I REALLY wish we could implement universal healthcare but definitely agree it would be unconstitutional as is.

 

[Noodles]

The real irony is that many can agree in some restrictions of free speech etc in the interest of overall societal well being, because of the nebulous nature of the first ammendment.

But god forbid we do anything with the second amendment.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

But god forbid we do anything with the second amendment.

What, in practical terms, can be done about the Second Amendment? Repealing or amending it isn't really practicable at the moment, and the Supreme Court (at least with its current membership) is likely to strike down any attempts to regulate gun ownership while it remains.

Furthermore, it seems to me the sort of issue that can only be dealt with at the federal level, since there's little point in regulating gun ownership, at least in the contiguous US, when people can circumvent such restrictions by obtaining their guns in another state.

As I understand it, there's strong support even amongst gun owners for some degree of regulation of gun ownership, but it just can't be done.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

The 2nd was interpreted somewhat differently in the 50s than it is now.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The 2nd was interpreted somewhat differently in the 50s than it is now.

Indeed so. What, though, are the chances of the Supreme Court returning to that interpretation in the foreseeable future?

 

[Soen Eber]

Simple solution: We can ask our local NDN communities to start taking scalps again. It will give our MAGA folks that feeling of living on the frontier, which is what many of them are secretly longing for anyways.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Indeed so. What, though, are the chances of the Supreme Court returning to that interpretation in the foreseeable future?

Obviously zero. We elected tons of loons who will pick more loons for the courts. Hypothetically, if like 70% of the public was demanding change, it would happen, but right now we have just a loud minority trying to regulate guns and a large number of people who just passively accept the way things are even if they will say on surveys that they wish we'd do a bit more restrictions. ...and we'll always have a loud minority who worships guns as their religion.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

Mostly a good article, but let me fix their headline: "The US right claimed free speech was sacred - until they came to power."

Trump has made feeble efforts to sue critics into the ground on many occasions, but being able to leverage Kirk as a martyr made it easier for him politically.

And yes, the USA first amendment does protect actual hate speech, but it's also nonsense to suggest that hating ONE MAN is "hate speech." They are trying to use the left's terminology against it but they don't understand it.

The right believed in their own speech, whether it was the majority voice or the voice of opposition/dissent. I can't think of an example where they've ever stood up for anyone else's speech.

Attacks on pornography, attacks on the gaming community, on hollywod 'elites', attacks on LGBTQ+ expression, attacks on the native languages of ESL people, attacks on those that express feminism, attacks on women who speak up against rapist / sexual abuse/harassment, attacks on those that express outrage at fascism (the Occupy movement), attacks on fair labor / union speech, attacks against the expression of scientific facts, attacks against non-Christian religious expression ... They -all- come from The Right and have for decades.

They never saw free speech as anything but a revolting byproduct of their own ability to express bigotry, sexism, homophobia, classism, ableism, and their own b.s. "God talks to ME!" 'truth'.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

The right believed in their own speech, whether it was the majority voice or the voice of opposition/dissent. I can't think of an example where they've ever stood up for anyone else's speech.

Attacks on pornography, attacks on the gaming community, on hollywod 'elites', attacks on LGBTQ+ expression, attacks on the native languages of ESL people, attacks on those that express feminism, attacks on women who speak up against rapist / sexual abuse/harassment, attacks on those that express outrage at fascism (the Occupy movement), attacks on fair labor / union speech, attacks against the expression of scientific facts, attacks against non-Christian religious expression ... They -all- come from The Right and have for decades.

They never saw free speech as anything but a revolting byproduct of their own ability to express bigotry, sexism, homophobia, classism, ableism, and their own b.s. "God talks to ME!" 'truth'.

I can think of many individual republicans who've been more principled but I think you're strong statements are true for the Christian Nationalist movement as a whole. W. Bush for example fired back at Trump trying to trash the press but he's now seen as a traitor by them for not being seen as crazy enough.

 

[Beebo Brink]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I see Charlie Kirk is getting quite a send-off.

Here are two famous historical funerals

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

You mean twitter still has propaganda bots??? I thought papa Musk got rid of them all and it was pure coincidence that I encountered accounts with profile pictures of rural Americans and tankies who were spouting the same Russian propaganda verbatim....

But seriously, that seems to be a popular propaganda tactic "I am a lifelong X and I am agreeing with a position that directly contradicts that..."

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Indeed so. What, though, are the chances of the Supreme Court returning to that interpretation in the foreseeable future?

Oh, I don't know. Charlie Kirk's assassination shook a lot of conservatives to their core. As much as I abhor political violence, I'd say a few more of those would have conservatives begging for meaningful gun control.