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.
I’m agnostic, but good to know that Jesus loves me. I have enough love for myself that I don’t need admiration from everyone else. This sounds more like a confession or projection than anything. I hope you can find love for yourself.
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
I’m agnostic, but good to know that Jesus loves me. I have enough love for myself that I don’t need admiration from everyone else. This sounds more like a confession or projection than anything. I hope you can find love for yourself.
And you point is? You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.