Honestly great article that summarizes my thoughts on this exactly. I live in the south and I am seeing a lot of people I really respect lose their fucking minds about this and start frothing at the mouth mourning this guy that they didn’t know existed two weeks ago because all they know was that he was a “Christian activist” shot for his beliefs, either not realizing or not caring that the dude was racist as fuck and spent his whole life being a right wing internet troll but in real life.
Several of my colleagues did the same thing and I told them I have zero sympathy because Josef Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler had children too.
Also didn’t Goebbels poison his own children before he and his wife commit suicide?
The added “correction” at the bottom is gold. Im glad someone, somewhere, didnt pull punches. The media response to this has been sickening.
And got paid lottery jackpot sums at age 31
The same insane bullshit is happening all over the UK. The amount of family I hessian these aren’t quite rich in the head is staggeringly sad.
I do not believe anyone should be murdered because of their views, but that is because I don’t believe people should be murdered generally, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. I am against the death penalty, pro–gun control, and believe war is a failure of humanity, not a necessary byproduct of it. Kirk was fine with murder as long the right people were dying.
Well said, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy a bit of schadenfreude at his passing.
specifically, pleasure from his death, or pleasure that he is no longer alive?
the angry right wingers on the internet seem unable to understand the difference between the two
More that I won’t have to hear any of his nonsense any more. Even the people eulogising him don’t seem to be actually quoting him because they can’t find anything he ever said that wasn’t stupid.
see that’s perfectly valid. how he died is irrelevant to that feeling.
Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children.
lol
Full sentence for anyone who is confused by the comment:
It’s a choice to write an obituary that begins “Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children.”
And like any loving father, when faced with defeat, he murdered them all
Who also killed all of them rather than let them live in postwar Germany…
Wait Joseph Goebbels killed all his children??
Jfc…
Thanks for the link
*rather than
I think so fast my fingers can’t keep up with my thoughts.
More to stop the soviets getting hold of them
then he had them all killed…because of shame. HA!
Heinrich Himmler too and his fucking Naz daughter believed in the asswipe until her death.
“It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth.” This is a really good quote actually
deleted by creator
Except that this generally applies to life and not just politics. Another thing is that a lot of times it is the left that imposes this on their own and not even the right.
The best thing about events like this is it helps me identify more or less trustworthy news sources by how they react to it. The Luigi case culled many
more articles like this should include the bit about how “[Biden should get the death penalty]”
the dude openly stated that a political figure he disagreed with should be killed. the right must acknowledge this statement while they whitewash his legacy of hate.
Every civilized country on earth has figured out that there needs to be acceptable limits to free speech and that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Freedom of speech in the US protects you from consequences from the government, not anyone or anything else. You can still get fired, or at, for your free speech.
s/at/shot ?
No because that would be murder.
Murder isn’t a violation of the US definition of free speech, unless the government does the murdering.
Still a crime, but not a constitutional free speech violation.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it’s nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it’s not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it’s ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Nowhere( in response to your post ) did anyone say murder was an acceptable response, just that if you murder someone , nobody is charging you with a violation of free speech because that would be nonsensical.
And the only reason they had to say that much is because your argument was incorrect.
If you want to argue proportional response, have at it, but you didn’t, you argued :
no because that would be murder
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech. Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response. It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech.
That’s a nice soundbite.
Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response.
So those are two different things you have right there.
“Op implied that murder was a response to speech” , indeed he got shot because someone thought he deserved it.
“Murder should not be allowed or considered as a response”
This is where is goes off the rails a bit.
OP wasn’t saying (or implying) he should have been shot for talking , just that it seems reasonable to assume he had.
“I don’t care that this person is dead” isn’t the same as “this person deserved to die”
If you can’t see how those two things are different i can see why you’re struggling.
It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
Subjective but you’re entitled to your opinion.
“He’s dead and the world is a better place overall” is also an opinion to which people are entitled (unless you’ve been arguing some other kind of free speech? )
And as it seems you are having a hard time with this i’ll add the explicit context:
" He’s dead and the world is a better place overall ( this doesn’t mean i wanted him dead, but i’m not sad that he is ) "
Reread that comment and not seeing how anything in it can be considered murder
The fired at part
Getting fired isn’t being murdered?
You can still get fired, or at
Oooh a joke… hehe… I get jokes.
Yes I meant the getting fired AT part
freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Exactly.
I’ve seen it summed it up thusly: “If your speech incites violence, don’t be surprised when people use violence in response.”
So I guess fights at professional sports games are justified violence, since someone probably incited it by insulting an opposing player.
You’re confusing incitement and provocation.
Incitement involves actively encouraging action.
“you’re bad at hockey and your mother is large” might be provocation
“It is time for us to take up arms against the enemy” is incitement
I think a lot of people are confused about what constitutes incitement.
Yeah would be clearer to say “advocating for violence”.
This is unironically true for hockey lol
The nation seems to be the only big paper with any rationality.
Killing Kirk sure did put that Epstein shit way over to the side. Hmm…
This is the only sane reaction to the situation by any media outlet I have seen so far
The Newspaper the Country Needs.
Well-written and surprisingly thoughtful commentary given the heat so far
Not as strong as it should be. Some speech should be exterminated. Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide makes democracy dysfunctional. Trump having been jailed during last Presidency was both deserved and more democratic. Reaction to the shooting that is criticism of Kirk has an extermination movement ranging from cancel/firings to calls for civil war and genocide of everyone threatened by Kirk. There will be no political retributions for Americans cheering Putin’s death, and establishment would get ultra aggressive if in Hitler’s death someone pointed out his love of dogs. Discussion of a person’s political views should never be exterminated.
2 specific areas of speech that need extermination:
-
Replacement theory. If you have/are allowed to have children, then you will challenge the “ultimate deserved ethnic supremacist” power to control democracy. Structural or individual violent repression of undesirables is validated. GOP establishment must go along with this, as voter suppression has always been a requirement of their corruption.
-
Christofascist justification of ZIonazi first rule over America. Zionazi supremacist speech is establishment speech. DNC (Zionazi) “donor pressure” is against criticizing Christofascism because it is subservient ally to Zionism. Kirk was always granted establishment cred because Israel supremacy was the actual centeral purpose of his platform. Just as Chuck Schumer views his job as to “gaslight the left into being pro Israel” Kirk was gaslighting the right into doing the same. Nick Fuentes, whose speech is said to have inspired the murder, gaslights the right into thinking “Trump is not the most Zionazi supporting US demon in history”. Christofascism’s demonization of Islam, and “godless abomination freedom”, in addition to bribing pastors to emphasize bible passages/revelations, both support genocide, and demonize those most likely to dislike genocide.
Opposing Zionist supremacist rule over America is the actual speech that establishment exterminates from America. It is fundamentally treasonous and inhuman to protect and normalize genocide, and supremacy of another nation. Another 9/11 would only strenghten our loyalty/committment to Israel’s blame for the next 9/11. They will once again “only hate us for our freedom”.
When establishment speech is the one that should be exterminated, it obviously complicates exterminating anti-constitutional and demonic evil speech.
Some speech should be exterminated. Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide makes democracy dysfunctional.
Ok, but who defines what these divisive lies are? Allowing for any sort of speech to be systematically exterminated is allowing every sort of speech to be systematically exterminated.
This is crazy. It’s like when people say “let’s eliminate a whole swath of the population because they are impure” and “please don’t murder us” are phrases that carry equal weight.
Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide
who defines what these divisive lies are?
its one of those “I don’t know where the line is but I know it when I see it” things, but with some easy math. Given our rights should stop only when it can risk someone else’s life or liberty, does the speech in question go past that?
How do we adjust our thinking for hundreds of million people; for resources and concerns that go beyond personal obligations under the social contract; for protecting things we need 3 generations from now?
It falls apart without handoff to some kind of ethical framework and a team of elders to review cases against it and evolve that framework – and look how easy it was to subvert America’s legal elders in just a decade.
But will even that decide whether there’s a difference between a zygote and a tumour? Will it prioritize the person or what may one day become one? Will it take responsibility for dying in a controlled fashion when there is no future due to terminal illness, a non-viable body or an unredeemable crime?
It can’t be establishment that decides. Current establishment requires disinformation to be protected speech. We have always had to say Eurasia is evil.
There needs to be a layer independent of establishment, and/or a much stronger constitution that protects truth/values from supremacist lies and direct abuses of constitution.
The 2 absolute evil examples I gave are absolute. OP spent too much energy on speech that is similar to “blacks can’t swim and whites can’t jump.” As long as it doesn’t lead to establishment policy that restricts sports team enlistment by race, it is just “relatively innocent” racism that may or may not have a grain of truth in stereotypes, and doesn’t matter. Speech that doesn’t matter is the only type that is allowed by establishment, but it would be overly broad to interfere with it. Speech/disinformation for antihuman establishment demonism shift is the critical speech, and whether establishment welcomes it or not, has no basis in whether it be permitted.
More on Christofascism… religious organizations will typically purpose themselves for demonism. Using idealist principles to capture souls in order to sell them to the most demonic evil powers/establishment. The commonality between Christofascism and (Christo)Humanism is classifying production (children, work) as good. The humanist approach instead of punishing women for failing their 28 baby quota, is positive family planning decisions made easier by easier access to prosperity, which unfortunately for the christofascists, means much freer alternatives to the requirement of listening to demons’ sermon for salvation before getting soup.
By embracing both Zionaziism and Replacement theory, Christofacsist “ambassadors” are also serving White fascism above Christianity. When Black Christians making positive family planning decisions are “acts of war” against US establishment, then the white part is necessarily more important to the fascists than the Christian demonism.
-
Charlie Kirk is dead. Oh well.
