RIP Charlie Kirk

[S_L_Y_G_U_Y]

such a horrible world we live in now

 

[Mariner]

It's their right to practice free speech, they can be celebratory all they want....why are you declaring it unacceptable, yet seemingly upset that a seeming advocate for free speech was killed?

It may be free speech, but celebrating the murder of anyone or supporting that celebration shows a rather disturbing aspect of an individual. Commenting on the murder factually and respectfully shows maturity and a capacity for empathy.

 

[konfab]

I don't understand that sentiment. We seem to live with permanent rose tinted glasses on. Violence is nothing new, public executions are nothing new and discrimination is nothing new......the western world is so soft comparative to the real world that this is shocking to their false indoctrinated minds.

Civility, empathy and compassion has always been subject to the recipient being agreeable with your world view. How many celebrated when Saddam Hussein was killed on camera? How many didn't bat an eye when ISIS beheaded people online?

Point is the faux outrage/sympathy pantomime is ridiculous.

This is a brain dead take. Saddam Hussein and Charlie Kirk are not comparable in their actions.

Kirk believed in using debate and reason to change people's minds. Hussein just killed people who disagreed with him.

Kirk's crime was to say peaceful things (he did not call to violence, nor was he ever rude to people who he talked to) that the left didn't like.

And you are right, violence is nothing new, and violence is the ultimate source of all authority. Which is why the US constitution uniquely empowers the people with that right. It is the process of not using violence to resolve differences that creates civilisation.

 

[Slckrck]

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying it's acceptable to kill someone who disagrees with you?

Sorry no, autocorrect had a field day lol

I was attempting to say We Should not let ourselves devolve into primitivity over disagreeable sentiment or opinion.

Thanks for the catch

 

[Mariner]

My point is that you should go read what else I post before you ask me dumbshît 'disavow purity tests'.

I have read all your posts in this thread.

 

[The Voice]

it seems they took note of what failed with Trumps assassination, probably cause of the media coverage,
and picked a better assassin/planned escape routes/contingencies,

also bit weird they carried Charlie Kirk off in a Private car, not an ambulance/Police vehicle,
sure the conspiracy Nerds like me will note that, similar sounding situation to the assassination of Rabin

where they drove around needlessly with the "principle" bleeding out.

Careful. Seen a theory today that it was Mossad who shot him.

 

[Conack]

Reading through the first few pages of this thread and seeing this reaction to a bunch of posts about the murder of Charlie Kirk just solidifies my opinion of this cretin.

 

[Slckrck]

It may be free speech, but celebrating the murder of anyone or supporting that celebration shows a rather disturbing aspect of an individual. Commenting on the murder factually and respectfully shows maturity and a capacity for empathy.

I don't know celebrating murder or death of someone you find disagreeable is normal....I'm sure the celebratory mood when Hitler was found dead wasn't showing disturbing traits in the individual. When Bin Laden was killed, a vast majority of the US populace celebrated, that didn't make them psychopaths or devoid of morals.

 

[Mariner]

And no they don't. They deserve maybe the death not vulgarly celebrated, but nobody deserves sympathy or empathy. That they receive from friends, family and others who are sincere about it.

Are you one of those people who refuse to wait for a funeral cortege to pass because your time is more important than a mark of respect for the dead?

At least those posting emojis and making fun of his death are honest and not faking sincerity which is far worse.

That honesty is a rather disturbing indicator of the norms of our society. Are you accusing me of faking sincerity?

 

[RaptorSA]

I don't understand that sentiment. We seem to live with permanent rose tinted glasses on. Violence is nothing new, public executions are nothing new and discrimination is nothing new......the western world is so soft comparative to the real world that this is shocking to their false indoctrinated minds.

Civility, empathy and compassion has always been subject to the recipient being agreeable with your world view. How many celebrated when Saddam Hussein was killed on camera? How many didn't bat an eye when ISIS beheaded people online?

Point is the faux outrage/sympathy pantomime is ridiculous.

That's true, but the thing is to a large extent the end goal is the type of "soft" mind you're criticising.
There are countless barbaric tendencies that have taken centuries to move beyond, it's all relative, and surely the goal is to at least attempt to be more civilised, especially in a world with nukes etc.

The people back in the day who advocated for and were used to this kind of thing would have called the guillotine advocates a bunch of pussies.
I get that it's human nature, but there's nothing wrong with trying to put the brakes on barbarism, no matter the form in which it's served.



Going against one's own instincts to celebrate the downfall of an ideological enemy is the bare minimum of what should be normalised, those not doing so should rightly be criticised for not being able to at least feign some form of sympathy publically.

 

[Unhappy1]

American politics has become so polarised that they're killing each other now over disagreements in political opinions. Madness.

The media and politicians have done an absolute number on their citizenry. Makes you think its almost part of the plan.

 

[RedViking]

It's not super gory, a bit more brutal than a John Wick scene to be honest, seeing a familiar face being hit full on in the neck, then start keeling over and collapse backwards as a river of dark blood starts to pump out of his neck is upsetting.

This isn't going to be a story that gets buried under the usual news time cycles. This imagery sticks.

Dammit. That's bad. The shooter and his clan is probably proud of themselves.

 

[Slckrck]

This is a brain dead take. Saddam Hussein and Charlie Kirk are not comparable in their actions.

And you are right, violence is nothing new, and violence is the ultimate source of all authority. Which is why the US constitution uniquely empowers the people with that right. It is the process of not using violence to resolve differences that creates civilisation.

You're missing the point. Kirk and his utterances enviked the same feeling to his enemies as Hussein did to his. You just agreed more with Kirk than Saddam.

I disagree that Kirk didn't practice violence, violence comes in all forms, and othering people on a subjective bases is a form of violence, not physical but psychological. In the same way can condemn the radio DJ who dehuminized and incited the mob to kill in the Rwandan genocide as violent even though he "only used words".

We can't absolve people from any action after they died, it does them a disservice.....what we Should be debating is that having disagreeable opinions should not be fatal. That's what this situation calls for.

 

[Mariner]

Who in the media has condoned his death?

Post #146:

 

[Cray]

Are you one of those people who refuse to wait for a funeral cortege to pass because your time is more important than a mark of respect for the dead?

Honestly, unless you personally knew the guy, the idea of waiting a few hours or days before discussing his views seems a bit odd.

 

[wbot]

I don't understand that sentiment. We seem to live with permanent rose tinted glasses on. Violence is nothing new, public executions are nothing new and discrimination is nothing new......the western world is so soft comparative to the real world that this is shocking to their false indoctrinated minds.

Civility, empathy and compassion has always been subject to the recipient being agreeable with your world view. How many celebrated when Saddam Hussein was killed on camera? How many didn't bat an eye when ISIS beheaded people online?

Point is the faux outrage/sympathy pantomime is ridiculous.

Are you seriously comparing Saddam (who ordered genocides and mass executions of hundreds of thousands of people) and ISIS terrorists chopping people's heads off..... with master debater Charlie Kirk?

People celebrating the deaths of terrorists and mass murderers is not the same as people celebrating the murder of a guy whose only crime was talking.

 

[Unhappy1]

I don't know celebrating murder or death of someone you find disagreeable is normal....I'm sure the celebratory mood when Hitler was found dead wasn't showing disturbing traits in the individual. When Bin Laden was killed, a vast majority of the US populace celebrated, that didn't make them psychopaths or devoid of morals.

Lol wtf? Those people were legitimate genocidal maniacs, there is quite a difference.

 

[Vorastra]

@rietrot

 

[Slckrck]

That's true, but the thing is to a large extent the end goal is the type of "soft" mind you're criticising.
There are countless barbaric tendencies that have taken centuries to move beyond, it's all relative, and surely the goal is to at least attempt to be more civilised, especially in a world with nukes etc.

The people back in the day who advocated for and were used to this kind of thing would have called the guillotine advocates a bunch of pussies.
I get that it's human nature, but there's nothing wrong with trying to put the brakes on barbarism, no matter the form in which it's served.

View attachment 1847231

Going against one's own instincts to celebrate the downfall of an ideological enemy is the bare minimum of what should be normalised, those not doing so should rightly be criticised for not being able to at least feign some form of sympathy publically.

Agree that it's a laudable goal. We should be striving to be better, more civil in a civilised world.....however we shouldn't in that pursuit lose sight of the fact that we are just hairless apes at the end of the day, and our base instinct is still to be uncivilised.

Every form of discrimination stems from our fight or flight survival instinct, from racism and bigotry to our eating habits and religious beliefs. Base humanity is and forever will be controlled by our primitive brain. Evolution is hard.

 

[konfab]

You're missing the point. Kirk and his utterances enviked the same feeling to his enemies as Hussein did to his. You just agreed more with Kirk than Saddam.

I disagree that Kirk didn't practice violence, violence comes in all forms, and othering people on a subjective bases is a form of violence, not physical but psychological. In the same way can condemn the radio DJ who dehuminized and incited the mob to kill in the Rwandan genocide as violent even though he "only used words".

We can't absolve people from any action after they died, it does them a disservice.....what we Should be debating is that having disagreeable opinions should not be fatal. That's what this situation calls for.

Absolutely not. And making statements like "words are violence" without some very strong caveats are why someone eventually shot Charlie, because it legitimises violence against it.

Malema for example, singing Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer, is committing hate speech and is a call to action to kill people. Offending a feminist for saying that a man cannot be a woman is not.

Making up terms like psychological violence is a one way street to barbarism. Your post is giving me psychological violence. Can I kill you now?