Kirk consistently advocated for free speech, so I’m not sure how it helps to be happy that he was murdered for his beliefs. It sounds like you might actually support fascism, but you want it done to those you disagree with & don’t like. Whatever happened to dialogue & debate. Winning people over by example?
Wonder what your opinion is on people getting fired from government positions for expressing their dislike of Kirk (not celebrating his death, mind you). Or the doxing squads harassing others expressing the same. Or Trump saying peaceful protestors and professional journalists should be punished for daring to disagree with him. Doesn’t sound like free speech.
I personally think Kirk was only a free speech proponent to the extent it allowed him to express hateful, racist rhetoric.
I think plenty of dialogue and debate has been had. I don’t support murder. And I’m not mourning Kirk. Attempts to garner sympathy for Kirk’s causes will fall on deaf ears with me, because his causes included white supremacy, hate, and ignorance.
I’m against it & Kirk had made several statements that he was as well. You’re trying to argue that what Trump is doing after his death is what Kirk advocated for. That is simply not true. TPUSA was designed to capture a lot of young conservative men, many who were opposed to the genocide & the unconditional support of Israel. Kirk too would express doubts, especially about Netanyahu. While he may have supported Trump, he wasn’t Trump.
I’m not trying to garner sympathy here. What I’m trying to do is say… “Is this what the left really wants?” Do they want murdering people, maybe those they care about, to be celebrated by people on the right? Do they want their own form of fascism? Lead by example. If the left has better ideas, then show the moral character it creates.
We all appreciate your Charlie Kirk version of dialogue and debate by ignoring all nuance to the situation and using bad faith arguments. He would be proud of you.
No, he would disagree with me which is fine. I didn’t support his beliefs. I just don’t think his murder was something to celebrate. I think it is what weak people do. Those who don’t have strong ideas of their own. I think the more people that do it, the longer it will take the US to get more united & peaceful. I think it causes damage to the left as a whole. No Democrat that I know of would even claim people celebrating his death are a party member. They’d say it is despicable, which it is.
You have some wildly naive opinions, to the point of ignorance, if you think the left being publicly sad would have even the slightest effect of political unity. It is possible to condem political violence while acknowledging the deceased was a massive piece of shit who brought this upon himself.
Either you’re moral & ethical or you’re not. He didn’t bring it on himself, because no one deserves to die like that for their speech. It isn’t condemning violence to say it shouldn’t happen but they deserved it. What you’re saying instead is you’re not really opposed to it as long as you think they deserve it. That is the same thing people say about the genocide. Wouldn’t a better example be, that you value all human life… even those you disagree with? That you have empathy even for those you feel might not share the same for you?
The most success I’ve had changing people’s hearts & minds, is by having empathy to understand where they’re at. To not have hate for who they are, but almost sorrow. I was bullied growing up, I know the impact it causes & so I understand wanting revenge. I also know what it is like to hurt others and even when it feels justified, it isn’t something I celebrated or felt like I should.
Like, imagine all the parents with kids that have tremendous special needs & all they go through as well. Some of them can be terribly destructive, but there is still so much to cherish, love & get to know. What would the world be like if people stopped having empathy for them? Instead, everytime one unknowingly picked up a sharp object & went outside, terrifying neighbors, so they called the cops, who showed up demanding they drop it, but the kid was autistic so they couldn’t understand, and the cops shot them. Are you going to celebrate it?
Say, “they brought it on themselves” & “they deserved it.” Are you going to tell the parents, “well they were broken afterall?”
Are you going to argue how every time they went somewhere in public, how disturbing their challenges were to you & they deserved it? Or if someone else kills them, how you’re not surprised someone would get annoyed & murder them?
In a society with a strong commitment to democracy and honoring the social contract, tolerance, even of ideas you don’t approve of, is an excellent ideal
In a society with rapidly eroding civil liberties and authoritarian disregard for the social contract, tolerance of authoritarianism is a luxury ill afforded.
Given that Kirk was demonstrably intolerant, and happy to leverage authoritarianism to accomplish his goals, he egregiously violated the social contract.
Given the rapidly dawning realization that nothing will meaningfully improve for the lower and middle classes until the elites fear for their lives, a lurch towards violence is expected.
The great depression and the progressice policies that arise from ir were somewhat driven by violence and the resulting fear in the elites.
Please tell me what you’ve done yourself… how many campaigns have you ran to try to oppose the things you’re against? Do you have records that you tried & that there is just no other solution? Spare me your advocacy for violence until you can show me that you’re not just too lazy to try anything else.
I’m also guessing based on your level of not wanting to put work into the things you claim to care about, it isn’t going to bode so well during actual civil unrest & violence like frequent assassinations of politicians, leading to a potential civil war. It also sounds very anti-democratic.
If you want to see America devolve into a complete authoritarian & fascist nation, then by all means keep advocating for violence against the people you disagree with.
Sorry, I didn’t realize there was going to be an audit.
What you’re looking for doesn’t have much backing in the historical record:
After Francisco Franco’s death in 1975, Spain transitioned from a fascist-style dictatorship to a parliamentary democracy. Franco had to die (natural causes) before democracy returned.
Same for Tito, but that didn’t last, unfortunately.
Portugal’s Estado Novo dictatorship (1933–1974) ended with the Carnation Revolution, a nearly bloodless military coup. But still, a coup. Not exactly by writing strongly worded letters.
In Greece, he military junta (1967–1974) collapsed after the Cyprus crisis.
General Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship (1973–1990) ended after he lost a national plebiscite in 1988. However, ridiculous amounts of violence predated that on the course of his authoritarianism.
After decades of authoritarian military rule, mass protests in 1987 pressured the regime into accepting constitutional reforms. By my reading “mass protests”==elites fearing for their lives, or at least their standard of living.
How about the list of the opposite?
Nazi Germany
Fascist Italy
Nicolae Ceaușescu’s communist dictatorship collapsed in the Romanian Revolution:
Protests escalated into armed clashes; over 1,000 people were killed.
Ceaușescu and his wife were captured, tried in a show trial, and executed on Christmas Day.
Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule ended in the Libyan Civil War.
Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime in Syria faced mass protests in 2011.
The regime’s violent crackdown triggered a full-scale civil war.
Russia, 2017 The Tsarist autocracy collapsed in the Russian Revolution.
Aftermath of USSR:
Baltics (1991): Soviet troops tried to suppress independence movements in Lithuania and Latvia. In Vilnius, 14 civilians were killed when tanks stormed the TV tower.
Caucasus: Ethnic clashes in Georgia (1989) and Azerbaijan (1990) left dozens dead.
Post-Soviet conflicts: After independence, wars erupted in places like Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and later Chechnya, costing tens of thousands of lives.
Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge regime under Pol Pot (1975–1979) ended not by reform but by foreign invasion.
I’m not advocating violence. I’m observing that history suggests it’s not unlikely.
If you believe it is unlikely to stop it, then why do you sit so idly by? I think it is bizarre what the people did on Jan 6., but in a way you’re basically saying… well they had the right idea, but not the right reasons.
As much as I disagree with them, at least they actually had the audacity to do what they did… but you’re telling me, “No… I am not brave or bold enough to champion what I claim to support.”
I think you should spend more time studying the actual aftermath, the impact, what that would look like for Americans.
Dictatorships do collapse but we’re on a second term of Trump who was elected by the people & as much as I hate it that Kamala decided she wanted to be a neocon towards the end thinking it would help her win, nothing suggests that the 2028 election has been canceled at this point.
I don’t even think we’re facing a dictatorship of power by a single person, but a corpocracy. I think if you want to fight that system then you’re going to have to convince yourself & others to stop funding it. I don’t think you’re going to tear it down by replacing one corporate politician with another.
You’re looking for a moral and just solution against an opponent who respects neither morality nor justice.
Best case in my opinion is massive, prolonged national strikes. The Solidarity movement in Poland is a good model for this. But it’s going to require 3-5% of the population to be very desperate and some organizational leadership to arise.
The fascists know this, which is why they’re moving to criminalize opposition, starting with the designation of ‘antifa’ as a terrorist organization. I assume that the definition of who is a terrorist expands, probably quickly, so that participation in peaceful protest is criminalized.
Removing the right of peaceful change tends to lead towards violence, historically speaking.
He was not an advocate for free speech or debate, and misrepresenting the kind of bad faith bloviating Kirk used to manipulate a generation towards fascism .
Mistaking his bad faith tactic with free speech and debate devalues both of those things.
It sounds like you knew him well, were really close to him & he told you this personally? That you had some psychic connection & just knew he wanted to manipulate everything, and ultimately wanted everyone opposed to him in a concentration camp? That as Cenk Uygur was talking alongside him building bridges, that he was thinking to himself… “I just can’t wait until I can put Cenk in a concentration camp for what he is saying here, but I’ll let those ideas propagate to my followers first.”
Rather, maybe you should consider if that is what you want. Do you want people murdered that disagree with you? Do you think it somehow is good & shows your passion for free speech? Do you think it gives an impression that you are opposed to fascism?
It sounds like you knew him well, were really close to him & he told you this personally?
I don’t need to know him personally. He spent 8-12 hours daily expressing his ideas into a microphone and recording it.
He was utterly disingenous. To a guy like Charlie Kirk, Cenk is an easily manipulated rube. You’ll notice that TYT has effectively coopted the progressive movement to elevate rightwing voices. Like, if you are citing Cenk and their interactions with Kirk, you must be like, an actual idiot, because Cenk has proven to be one of the biggest frauds on the entire internet.
TYT didn’t coopt the entire progressive movement. They are a voice in the progressive movement, which anyone is capable of doing, including yourself. You claim Cenk is one of the biggest frauds on the entire internet but don’t provide any evidence to support that. Cenk has been consistent, honest & fair. He has shown strong moral character & that seems to make you mad.
Nazi sympathizer? Is that the new way to try to silence people? Oppose genocide & you’re an antisemite. Oppose fascism & murdering people for their beliefs, and you’re a Nazi sympathizer. What kind of upside down world do you live in?
Well your dumb ass ain’t the leader, or y’all woulda tried to snatch me. Like I said I’ve waited too long for this, for it to not happen, but it’s going exactly like I seen it. Morons like you will never understand that, don’t fuckin reply, all your maga ass does is make me wanna hack and get your IP address you cunt
Yes absolutely I do. If you want me to be specific I will, but in terms of my gender I don’t define myself as cis, nor do I define my sexuality as straight.
I disagreed with a lot of what Kirk had to say, but first that doesn’t mean he was opposed to people saying it even if he too disagreed with their beliefs.
I grew up in the the bible belt, so I had some empathy to understand components of how he got there & the power structures that would push people in that direction.
I’ve also seen many people, including myself, that can’t claim that we’ve never ignorantly or willingly taken a job, did something for money, or spent money on something, that ultimately helped support or fund things we opposed or came to oppose. So I try not be quick to fully judge someone, especially those that I don’t know personally or that well.
I did see some pieces of good in Kirk, but that doesn’t mean that I thought his ideas were great or that he didn’t have more bad than good. But I think we all, or most people, have some bad & good things about ourselves. I believe the best way to stand up against ideas I’m opposed to, that people like Kirk supported, is to be the best example of what you want.
Also, being able & willing to challenge your own beliefs, and ensuring they are centered around truth, morality & empathy. I believe fundamental truths in this way are not something that can be erased, or that it would take some sort of drug administered early on, or some drastic modification to humankind to wipe that away forever.
Now I’m confident in those beliefs which shows, but I also don’t have to convince everyone, because I believe they will resonate with enough people, being based in moral purity & actual truth, that they too will know them if being honest or remember them.
I also want to show others that I believe there is a future for honesty. I’m not afraid to admit my challenges, or my faults, like I used to be. I’m actually proud of them in a way, and they also show that we all have struggles or things we could do better. I can’t tell you how much that has done to build connections with others, simply by admitting what you struggle at… and then they too feel open to admit the same.
I think it’s admirable to live your life that way and probably the most effective at actually changing minds. But I think you need to extend that empathy to the people who are happy he’s dead as well. I would never sit here and lecture a person whose kid died in a school shooting that we need to feel bad Kirk is gone.
The main problem with that philosophy is locking yourself into a binary. I’m sure you can admit that Hitler’s death was pretty much all upside right?
The Hitler comparison actually proves my point - Hitler was a dictator who invaded countries and orchestrated genocide. Kirk was a campus activist who held debates. Who despite having ideas we opposed, still engaged in dialogue. If we can’t distinguish between those two things, if every political opponent becomes ‘literally Hitler,’ then we’ve lost the ability to have proportional responses to actual threats.
My concern isn’t about protecting Kirk’s memory - it’s about what celebrating political murder does to democratic discourse and how it hands ammunition to people who want to justify their own extremism. When the left cheers assassination, it makes every accusation about us being violent radicals seem credible.
I agree that a comparison of Kirk to Hitler is not apt but it highlights my problem with your philosophy. There absolutely are some instances of political violence that should be celebrated (Hitler’s death). I think to ask questions is the right approach, or at least more right than loudly uncritically declaring your joy but in my mind the world will be a better place without Kirk in it.
As far as the violent left claims are concerned, we’ve already lost that battle. They believed those things without evidence previously and they’ll continue to whether we give them ammunition or not. Kirk never came to argue in good faith, he was a propaganda/hate mouthpiece. Look at how he responded when backed into a corner, he would never change his mind and that’s why I take umbrage with the characterization that he engaged in dialogue. He was a monologist who used his words as weapons.
At the end of the day though I think you’re right. The world can always use more empathy and empathetic people and we should strive for that but we’re also imperfect and missteps should be met with that same energy.
A MAGA kid shot him but we don’t know why. It’s possible the MAGA kid just hated his wee little face and huge head. Maybe he met Kirk and Kirk was a fucking cunt to him? Maybe the MAGA kid didn’t like Kirk saying to release the Epstein files?
Long opinion piece, but the only words actually said by the murderer are these:
I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.
This supports that he killed Kirk for his ideas, but we still don’t know which ideas and if Kirk actually had those ideas or if the murderer imagined them. We still have very little information about a real motive.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to know more, but it was about his ideas. At someone point I think it becomes easier to recognize that those who claim to support Democrats, can be vicious too.
I had several people on Lemmy wishing me dead merely for calling out Biden’s support of genocide. Like, at what point do people speak up & say no we’re not okay with this, this isn’t who we are?
When people on the left pretend, like they did with Biden claiming he was young & dynamic, saying he actually firmly stood against the genocide in Israel, all it does is push people further away. It does damage to the party & helps people like Trump. It says, we’re also the party of hypocrites but we’re better liars about it. When people see others claiming to be Democrats celebrating someone’s death for their speech, do you think it is helping?
Like why am I like the only person here willing to say this now? Do you think that leaves me or others hopeful about the future of the Democrat party? Is everyone else here that called me the Russian bot for pointing out Biden’s flaws & advocating for a better option sooner than when he dropped out, the actual Russian bots? Are they trying to push for more violence & chaos in America? Or is this really just what the Democrat party has become now?
Gross dude, real gross. What goes around comes around, just remember that. This despicable stuff you’re saying, that you’re advocating for, will come back around to you. Just remember that. I can only hope you meet someone like me that just feels bad for how far you fell, rather than someone like yourself that has become the dehumanizing monster you’re acting like.
I never fell, I truly believe in live and let live, but unlike a Republican I blame no one for my problems other than myself. The joy in my heart grows daily with the horseshit mounting by the second as we grow closer to fuckin up some Republicans like yourself for the revolution they want to incite. I’m the true patriot.
Your dumbass doesn’t even realize how much illegals actually pay in taxes, so next year this time expect to be a poor like me you fuckin inbred fuck
I’m not a Republican nor do I support Trump. I just believe in putting out into the universe what you hope to get back. I believe in being the better person, and leading through example. If you hated Kirk & what he represents, even justifiably, then show everyone what a better person should be.
Yes, for what purpose. To advocate against free speech? To champion those that murder people for their speech? Is that what you want? Sounds awful fascist to me.
Listen here you little fuckin troll, I don’t care how many fuckin lists are on this is fate, I know mine. Shit stains like you need to do the honorable thing and swing, before we’re there to give you a push in the swing
I think you need to go look up the definition of a troll. You need to step away from the ledge friend, before you end up in a really bad situation.
I can tell you 100% right now what you’re espousing is gross, harmful, dehumanizing, and its going to come right back around & bite you in the ass. Probably not in the way you expect either, fate usually works like that. I can only hope it only has to give you a few gentle reminders before you get it, cause you don’t always get that many before something tragic happens. If you’re going to push anything, it should be pushing your keyboard away & actually going outside. If you’re legitimately planning on pushing things, it might help to get some exercise & sunlight first.
Bigots don’t debate in good faith. You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into. All debating them does is provide a platform for them to spew their filth.
The not arguing in good faith goes both ways, but people on the left & right can have good faith arguments while still disagreeing. Debates aren’t about making someone else agree with you at the end. It is about challenging each other’s ideas.
Sure. But when one side is basing there arguments on misrepresenting statistics and outright lies it’s no longer a good faith debate and they shouldn’t have a platform to continue. This goes for either side but Kirk was guilty of it and got what was coming to him
It isn’t an entire side. You can’t just see people in black & white. Many of these people are like past versions of ourselves, the ones that need people to guide them. You can’t force everyone to see things from your point of view. A lot of times they just need good examples. If they aren’t arguing in good faith, then try a different strategy or call them out. Or change the discussion to how you feel they’re not being honest, and ask them why they feel the need to lie. Just be genuine but violence doesn’t solve things. It will hurt the causes you care about more than anything else right now.
A fascist death will never be tragic
Kirk consistently advocated for free speech, so I’m not sure how it helps to be happy that he was murdered for his beliefs. It sounds like you might actually support fascism, but you want it done to those you disagree with & don’t like. Whatever happened to dialogue & debate. Winning people over by example?
Wonder what your opinion is on people getting fired from government positions for expressing their dislike of Kirk (not celebrating his death, mind you). Or the doxing squads harassing others expressing the same. Or Trump saying peaceful protestors and professional journalists should be punished for daring to disagree with him. Doesn’t sound like free speech.
I personally think Kirk was only a free speech proponent to the extent it allowed him to express hateful, racist rhetoric.
I think plenty of dialogue and debate has been had. I don’t support murder. And I’m not mourning Kirk. Attempts to garner sympathy for Kirk’s causes will fall on deaf ears with me, because his causes included white supremacy, hate, and ignorance.
I’m against it & Kirk had made several statements that he was as well. You’re trying to argue that what Trump is doing after his death is what Kirk advocated for. That is simply not true. TPUSA was designed to capture a lot of young conservative men, many who were opposed to the genocide & the unconditional support of Israel. Kirk too would express doubts, especially about Netanyahu. While he may have supported Trump, he wasn’t Trump.
I’m not trying to garner sympathy here. What I’m trying to do is say… “Is this what the left really wants?” Do they want murdering people, maybe those they care about, to be celebrated by people on the right? Do they want their own form of fascism? Lead by example. If the left has better ideas, then show the moral character it creates.
That already happens.
Not here on Lemmy apparently, or at least not in this community especially.
We all appreciate your Charlie Kirk version of dialogue and debate by ignoring all nuance to the situation and using bad faith arguments. He would be proud of you.
No, he would disagree with me which is fine. I didn’t support his beliefs. I just don’t think his murder was something to celebrate. I think it is what weak people do. Those who don’t have strong ideas of their own. I think the more people that do it, the longer it will take the US to get more united & peaceful. I think it causes damage to the left as a whole. No Democrat that I know of would even claim people celebrating his death are a party member. They’d say it is despicable, which it is.
You have some wildly naive opinions, to the point of ignorance, if you think the left being publicly sad would have even the slightest effect of political unity. It is possible to condem political violence while acknowledging the deceased was a massive piece of shit who brought this upon himself.
Either you’re moral & ethical or you’re not. He didn’t bring it on himself, because no one deserves to die like that for their speech. It isn’t condemning violence to say it shouldn’t happen but they deserved it. What you’re saying instead is you’re not really opposed to it as long as you think they deserve it. That is the same thing people say about the genocide. Wouldn’t a better example be, that you value all human life… even those you disagree with? That you have empathy even for those you feel might not share the same for you?
The most success I’ve had changing people’s hearts & minds, is by having empathy to understand where they’re at. To not have hate for who they are, but almost sorrow. I was bullied growing up, I know the impact it causes & so I understand wanting revenge. I also know what it is like to hurt others and even when it feels justified, it isn’t something I celebrated or felt like I should.
Like, imagine all the parents with kids that have tremendous special needs & all they go through as well. Some of them can be terribly destructive, but there is still so much to cherish, love & get to know. What would the world be like if people stopped having empathy for them? Instead, everytime one unknowingly picked up a sharp object & went outside, terrifying neighbors, so they called the cops, who showed up demanding they drop it, but the kid was autistic so they couldn’t understand, and the cops shot them. Are you going to celebrate it?
Say, “they brought it on themselves” & “they deserved it.” Are you going to tell the parents, “well they were broken afterall?”
Are you going to argue how every time they went somewhere in public, how disturbing their challenges were to you & they deserved it? Or if someone else kills them, how you’re not surprised someone would get annoyed & murder them?
If you advocate violence against people no one should be surprised when the response is violent.
I won’t even address the rest of your bad faith reply because it is completely irrelevant.
In a society with a strong commitment to democracy and honoring the social contract, tolerance, even of ideas you don’t approve of, is an excellent ideal
In a society with rapidly eroding civil liberties and authoritarian disregard for the social contract, tolerance of authoritarianism is a luxury ill afforded.
Given that Kirk was demonstrably intolerant, and happy to leverage authoritarianism to accomplish his goals, he egregiously violated the social contract.
Given the rapidly dawning realization that nothing will meaningfully improve for the lower and middle classes until the elites fear for their lives, a lurch towards violence is expected.
The great depression and the progressice policies that arise from ir were somewhat driven by violence and the resulting fear in the elites.
Examples:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_West_Coast_waterfront_strike Leasing to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_sit-down_strike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_Movement
Please tell me what you’ve done yourself… how many campaigns have you ran to try to oppose the things you’re against? Do you have records that you tried & that there is just no other solution? Spare me your advocacy for violence until you can show me that you’re not just too lazy to try anything else.
I’m also guessing based on your level of not wanting to put work into the things you claim to care about, it isn’t going to bode so well during actual civil unrest & violence like frequent assassinations of politicians, leading to a potential civil war. It also sounds very anti-democratic.
If you want to see America devolve into a complete authoritarian & fascist nation, then by all means keep advocating for violence against the people you disagree with.
Sorry, I didn’t realize there was going to be an audit.
What you’re looking for doesn’t have much backing in the historical record: After Francisco Franco’s death in 1975, Spain transitioned from a fascist-style dictatorship to a parliamentary democracy. Franco had to die (natural causes) before democracy returned.
Same for Tito, but that didn’t last, unfortunately.
Portugal’s Estado Novo dictatorship (1933–1974) ended with the Carnation Revolution, a nearly bloodless military coup. But still, a coup. Not exactly by writing strongly worded letters.
In Greece, he military junta (1967–1974) collapsed after the Cyprus crisis.
General Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship (1973–1990) ended after he lost a national plebiscite in 1988. However, ridiculous amounts of violence predated that on the course of his authoritarianism.
After decades of authoritarian military rule, mass protests in 1987 pressured the regime into accepting constitutional reforms. By my reading “mass protests”==elites fearing for their lives, or at least their standard of living.
How about the list of the opposite? Nazi Germany
Fascist Italy
Nicolae Ceaușescu’s communist dictatorship collapsed in the Romanian Revolution: Protests escalated into armed clashes; over 1,000 people were killed.
Ceaușescu and his wife were captured, tried in a show trial, and executed on Christmas Day.
Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule ended in the Libyan Civil War.
Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime in Syria faced mass protests in 2011. The regime’s violent crackdown triggered a full-scale civil war.
Russia, 2017 The Tsarist autocracy collapsed in the Russian Revolution.
Aftermath of USSR: Baltics (1991): Soviet troops tried to suppress independence movements in Lithuania and Latvia. In Vilnius, 14 civilians were killed when tanks stormed the TV tower.
Caucasus: Ethnic clashes in Georgia (1989) and Azerbaijan (1990) left dozens dead.
Post-Soviet conflicts: After independence, wars erupted in places like Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and later Chechnya, costing tens of thousands of lives.
Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge regime under Pol Pot (1975–1979) ended not by reform but by foreign invasion.
I’m not advocating violence. I’m observing that history suggests it’s not unlikely.
Woo lad, an absolute smack down with sources by a porn alt account. What a time to be alive!
If you believe it is unlikely to stop it, then why do you sit so idly by? I think it is bizarre what the people did on Jan 6., but in a way you’re basically saying… well they had the right idea, but not the right reasons.
As much as I disagree with them, at least they actually had the audacity to do what they did… but you’re telling me, “No… I am not brave or bold enough to champion what I claim to support.”
I think you should spend more time studying the actual aftermath, the impact, what that would look like for Americans.
Dictatorships do collapse but we’re on a second term of Trump who was elected by the people & as much as I hate it that Kamala decided she wanted to be a neocon towards the end thinking it would help her win, nothing suggests that the 2028 election has been canceled at this point.
I don’t even think we’re facing a dictatorship of power by a single person, but a corpocracy. I think if you want to fight that system then you’re going to have to convince yourself & others to stop funding it. I don’t think you’re going to tear it down by replacing one corporate politician with another.
You’re looking for a moral and just solution against an opponent who respects neither morality nor justice.
Best case in my opinion is massive, prolonged national strikes. The Solidarity movement in Poland is a good model for this. But it’s going to require 3-5% of the population to be very desperate and some organizational leadership to arise.
The fascists know this, which is why they’re moving to criminalize opposition, starting with the designation of ‘antifa’ as a terrorist organization. I assume that the definition of who is a terrorist expands, probably quickly, so that participation in peaceful protest is criminalized.
Removing the right of peaceful change tends to lead towards violence, historically speaking.
Jesus may love you, but the rest of the world thinks you’re a cunt
And you point is? You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.
He was not an advocate for free speech or debate, and misrepresenting the kind of bad faith bloviating Kirk used to manipulate a generation towards fascism .
Mistaking his bad faith tactic with free speech and debate devalues both of those things.
Her certainly was. He frequently engaged in debate in dialogue with people on the left. He even invited Cenk Ugyur to speak at TPUSA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wToisRztnMw
Just because you disagree with his opinions doesn’t mean he was against free speech.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/09/16/dont-shut-down-free-speech-in-charlie-kirks-name/
Again, not sure what you hope to accomplish here. Celebrating people getting murdered for their speech isn’t the win you think it is.
I’m fully aware, at orders of magnitude a higher degree, of what Charlie Kirk was about.
He was absolutely, 100%, against free speech other than for when it could be manipulated to his own ends
It sounds like you knew him well, were really close to him & he told you this personally? That you had some psychic connection & just knew he wanted to manipulate everything, and ultimately wanted everyone opposed to him in a concentration camp? That as Cenk Uygur was talking alongside him building bridges, that he was thinking to himself… “I just can’t wait until I can put Cenk in a concentration camp for what he is saying here, but I’ll let those ideas propagate to my followers first.”
Rather, maybe you should consider if that is what you want. Do you want people murdered that disagree with you? Do you think it somehow is good & shows your passion for free speech? Do you think it gives an impression that you are opposed to fascism?
I don’t need to know him personally. He spent 8-12 hours daily expressing his ideas into a microphone and recording it.
He was utterly disingenous. To a guy like Charlie Kirk, Cenk is an easily manipulated rube. You’ll notice that TYT has effectively coopted the progressive movement to elevate rightwing voices. Like, if you are citing Cenk and their interactions with Kirk, you must be like, an actual idiot, because Cenk has proven to be one of the biggest frauds on the entire internet.
TYT didn’t coopt the entire progressive movement. They are a voice in the progressive movement, which anyone is capable of doing, including yourself. You claim Cenk is one of the biggest frauds on the entire internet but don’t provide any evidence to support that. Cenk has been consistent, honest & fair. He has shown strong moral character & that seems to make you mad.
You’ve made it incredibly clear you have no idea who or what TYT is
Fuck outta here you Nazi fascist sympathizer
Nazi sympathizer? Is that the new way to try to silence people? Oppose genocide & you’re an antisemite. Oppose fascism & murdering people for their beliefs, and you’re a Nazi sympathizer. What kind of upside down world do you live in?
Well your dumb ass ain’t the leader, or y’all woulda tried to snatch me. Like I said I’ve waited too long for this, for it to not happen, but it’s going exactly like I seen it. Morons like you will never understand that, don’t fuckin reply, all your maga ass does is make me wanna hack and get your IP address you cunt
Just out of curiosity, do you identify as anything that Kirk has historically directed his vitriol at?
Yes absolutely I do. If you want me to be specific I will, but in terms of my gender I don’t define myself as cis, nor do I define my sexuality as straight.
I disagreed with a lot of what Kirk had to say, but first that doesn’t mean he was opposed to people saying it even if he too disagreed with their beliefs.
I grew up in the the bible belt, so I had some empathy to understand components of how he got there & the power structures that would push people in that direction.
I’ve also seen many people, including myself, that can’t claim that we’ve never ignorantly or willingly taken a job, did something for money, or spent money on something, that ultimately helped support or fund things we opposed or came to oppose. So I try not be quick to fully judge someone, especially those that I don’t know personally or that well.
I did see some pieces of good in Kirk, but that doesn’t mean that I thought his ideas were great or that he didn’t have more bad than good. But I think we all, or most people, have some bad & good things about ourselves. I believe the best way to stand up against ideas I’m opposed to, that people like Kirk supported, is to be the best example of what you want.
Also, being able & willing to challenge your own beliefs, and ensuring they are centered around truth, morality & empathy. I believe fundamental truths in this way are not something that can be erased, or that it would take some sort of drug administered early on, or some drastic modification to humankind to wipe that away forever.
Now I’m confident in those beliefs which shows, but I also don’t have to convince everyone, because I believe they will resonate with enough people, being based in moral purity & actual truth, that they too will know them if being honest or remember them.
I also want to show others that I believe there is a future for honesty. I’m not afraid to admit my challenges, or my faults, like I used to be. I’m actually proud of them in a way, and they also show that we all have struggles or things we could do better. I can’t tell you how much that has done to build connections with others, simply by admitting what you struggle at… and then they too feel open to admit the same.
I think it’s admirable to live your life that way and probably the most effective at actually changing minds. But I think you need to extend that empathy to the people who are happy he’s dead as well. I would never sit here and lecture a person whose kid died in a school shooting that we need to feel bad Kirk is gone.
The main problem with that philosophy is locking yourself into a binary. I’m sure you can admit that Hitler’s death was pretty much all upside right?
The Hitler comparison actually proves my point - Hitler was a dictator who invaded countries and orchestrated genocide. Kirk was a campus activist who held debates. Who despite having ideas we opposed, still engaged in dialogue. If we can’t distinguish between those two things, if every political opponent becomes ‘literally Hitler,’ then we’ve lost the ability to have proportional responses to actual threats.
My concern isn’t about protecting Kirk’s memory - it’s about what celebrating political murder does to democratic discourse and how it hands ammunition to people who want to justify their own extremism. When the left cheers assassination, it makes every accusation about us being violent radicals seem credible.
I agree that a comparison of Kirk to Hitler is not apt but it highlights my problem with your philosophy. There absolutely are some instances of political violence that should be celebrated (Hitler’s death). I think to ask questions is the right approach, or at least more right than loudly uncritically declaring your joy but in my mind the world will be a better place without Kirk in it.
As far as the violent left claims are concerned, we’ve already lost that battle. They believed those things without evidence previously and they’ll continue to whether we give them ammunition or not. Kirk never came to argue in good faith, he was a propaganda/hate mouthpiece. Look at how he responded when backed into a corner, he would never change his mind and that’s why I take umbrage with the characterization that he engaged in dialogue. He was a monologist who used his words as weapons.
At the end of the day though I think you’re right. The world can always use more empathy and empathetic people and we should strive for that but we’re also imperfect and missteps should be met with that same energy.
Ps you appose genocide like I hate smoking weed
We don’t fucking know that.
A MAGA kid shot him but we don’t know why. It’s possible the MAGA kid just hated his wee little face and huge head. Maybe he met Kirk and Kirk was a fucking cunt to him? Maybe the MAGA kid didn’t like Kirk saying to release the Epstein files?
We don’t know.
we don’t even know if that maga kid is actually the guy
That is also true - although I guess he’s admitted it to friends and family. But, he has not been found guilty of the crime.
do we know that he actually admitted it to anyone? like, has anyone outside the government talked about him?
Are you just out of the loop? We do know that because that is what he’s said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/comforting-fiction-charlie-kirk-killer-110000416.html
Your thought pattern reminds me a lot of QAnon people.
Long opinion piece, but the only words actually said by the murderer are these:
This supports that he killed Kirk for his ideas, but we still don’t know which ideas and if Kirk actually had those ideas or if the murderer imagined them. We still have very little information about a real motive.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to know more, but it was about his ideas. At someone point I think it becomes easier to recognize that those who claim to support Democrats, can be vicious too.
I had several people on Lemmy wishing me dead merely for calling out Biden’s support of genocide. Like, at what point do people speak up & say no we’re not okay with this, this isn’t who we are?
When people on the left pretend, like they did with Biden claiming he was young & dynamic, saying he actually firmly stood against the genocide in Israel, all it does is push people further away. It does damage to the party & helps people like Trump. It says, we’re also the party of hypocrites but we’re better liars about it. When people see others claiming to be Democrats celebrating someone’s death for their speech, do you think it is helping?
Like why am I like the only person here willing to say this now? Do you think that leaves me or others hopeful about the future of the Democrat party? Is everyone else here that called me the Russian bot for pointing out Biden’s flaws & advocating for a better option sooner than when he dropped out, the actual Russian bots? Are they trying to push for more violence & chaos in America? Or is this really just what the Democrat party has become now?
You’re the only qnon boot licker here, go test bite the curb for me
Gross dude, real gross. What goes around comes around, just remember that. This despicable stuff you’re saying, that you’re advocating for, will come back around to you. Just remember that. I can only hope you meet someone like me that just feels bad for how far you fell, rather than someone like yourself that has become the dehumanizing monster you’re acting like.
I never fell, I truly believe in live and let live, but unlike a Republican I blame no one for my problems other than myself. The joy in my heart grows daily with the horseshit mounting by the second as we grow closer to fuckin up some Republicans like yourself for the revolution they want to incite. I’m the true patriot. Your dumbass doesn’t even realize how much illegals actually pay in taxes, so next year this time expect to be a poor like me you fuckin inbred fuck
I’m not a Republican nor do I support Trump. I just believe in putting out into the universe what you hope to get back. I believe in being the better person, and leading through example. If you hated Kirk & what he represents, even justifiably, then show everyone what a better person should be.
im using my free speech right now, goofus
Yes, for what purpose. To advocate against free speech? To champion those that murder people for their speech? Is that what you want? Sounds awful fascist to me.
whatever you say, dingus
Listen here you little fuckin troll, I don’t care how many fuckin lists are on this is fate, I know mine. Shit stains like you need to do the honorable thing and swing, before we’re there to give you a push in the swing
I think you need to go look up the definition of a troll. You need to step away from the ledge friend, before you end up in a really bad situation.
I can tell you 100% right now what you’re espousing is gross, harmful, dehumanizing, and its going to come right back around & bite you in the ass. Probably not in the way you expect either, fate usually works like that. I can only hope it only has to give you a few gentle reminders before you get it, cause you don’t always get that many before something tragic happens. If you’re going to push anything, it should be pushing your keyboard away & actually going outside. If you’re legitimately planning on pushing things, it might help to get some exercise & sunlight first.
His beliefs were based in bigotry. So yea, fuck him.
So then debate & oppose people’s ideas with better ideas, not violence.
Bigots don’t debate in good faith. You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into. All debating them does is provide a platform for them to spew their filth.
The not arguing in good faith goes both ways, but people on the left & right can have good faith arguments while still disagreeing. Debates aren’t about making someone else agree with you at the end. It is about challenging each other’s ideas.
Sure. But when one side is basing there arguments on misrepresenting statistics and outright lies it’s no longer a good faith debate and they shouldn’t have a platform to continue. This goes for either side but Kirk was guilty of it and got what was coming to him
It isn’t an entire side. You can’t just see people in black & white. Many of these people are like past versions of ourselves, the ones that need people to guide them. You can’t force everyone to see things from your point of view. A lot of times they just need good examples. If they aren’t arguing in good faith, then try a different strategy or call them out. Or change the discussion to how you feel they’re not being honest, and ask them why they feel the need to lie. Just be genuine but violence doesn’t solve things. It will hurt the causes you care about more than anything else right now.
You honestly believe people didn’t try all those things with Charlie Kirk?