Charlie Kirk on the Paul Pelosi’s would be assassin, who beat Pelosi’s brains in with a hammer:
“Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out”
Charlie wasn't a nazi. Some of these posts are ####ing ######ed. Shame.
What interpretation of "we need armed militias to prevent the diminishing and decreasing of white demographics" do you see as not similar to what a Nazi would say?
Perhaps a helper quote for that might be "Black women do not have the processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." Presumably that's not blatant racism because you think that's a fact?
Look, folks, if you are going to empathize and defend this POS, maybe step up and defend what he says instead of trying to paint us as bad people. And if you can't do that, you either agree with him(and all that means for your humanity), or now would be the time to admit that "oh ya, ok. My bad. He is a piece of ####."
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
People trying to somehow defend the death of someone in cold blood is sure using some mental gymnastics to justify their position.
I assume then that everyone who is OK with Kirk being murdered is then also supportive of things like 1) the death penalty 2) murdering those on one side of a war who they don't agree with....maybe all Israelis who are getting killed by Palestinians??
It's an incredibly slippery slope when all of a sudden we're OK with somebody being killed because of their beliefs, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.
The Following User Says Thank You to simmer2 For This Useful Post:
Kirk called those kids collateral damage for his right to bear arms, but we’re supposed to feel bad that he died, and by his own beliefs. Kirk was an extremely vile, evil man.
The Following User Says Thank You to Drak For This Useful Post:
People trying to somehow defend the death of someone in cold blood is sure using some mental gymnastics to justify their position.
I assume then that everyone who is OK with Kirk being murdered is then also supportive of things like 1) the death penalty 2) murdering those on one side of a war who they don't agree with....maybe all Israelis who are getting killed by Palestinians??
It's an incredibly slippery slope when all of a sudden we're OK with somebody being killed because of their beliefs, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.
We are not advocating for it, we are just saying this is what happens when you practice hate and intolerance while championing the right to own a gun to protect yourself. Speculation time here, but it's possible that Kirk threatened the very freedoms he claims guns are there to defend, and someone decided they would do what Kirk has preached about. Using your guns to protect your rights. This isn't ironic, it's just the logical outcome of his messaging. The lesson here is freedom of speech has the consequences you demand that it has, and the rights you say must be defended by guns were defended by guns. And maybe, just maybe, that isn't an ideal system for the world or the US to follow.
These violent delights have violent ends.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I assume then that everyone who is OK with Kirk being murdered is then also supportive of things like 1) the death penalty 2) murdering those on one side of a war who they don't agree with....maybe all Israelis who are getting killed by Palestinians??
What is hard for you to understand here? No one has said they're okay with Kirk being murdered. No one is saying "well, given that this guy is such a bad person, the killer should go free, and it shouldn't be treated as a murder". All people are saying is that they are glad that a bad person who made the world a worse place is not here anymore. Two things can be true at once: you can be happy a bad person is dead but not support that person's murder - i.e. it is perfectly logical to say, "well I wish it had been a brain aneurysm because political violence is always bad but I'm not going to shed a tear for that #######".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
What is hard for you to understand here? No one has said they're okay with Kirk being murdered. No one is saying "well, given that this guy is such a bad person, the killer should go free, and it shouldn't be treated as a murder". All people are saying is that they are glad that a bad person who made the world a worse place is not here anymore. Two things can be true at once: you can be happy a bad person is dead but not support that person's murder - i.e. it is perfectly logical to say, "well I wish it had been a brain aneurysm because political violence is always bad but I'm not going to shed a tear for that #######".
Lol. Happy someone is dead from being murdered but not supporting that he got murdered. OK. Totally cleared that one up for me
The Following User Says Thank You to simmer2 For This Useful Post:
Lol. Happy someone is dead from being murdered but not supporting that he got murdered. OK. Totally cleared that one up for me
If you don't have the mental bandwidth to separate those concepts that's pretty much a you problem, but I'll help anyway - the below are four morally distinct positions.
1. Political violence is a perfectly acceptable method to achieve goals I see as beneficial. Charlie Kirk was bad, he made the world worse, he's now dead and that's good, so I support him being shot.
2. Political violence causes bad outcomes and so, as a general rule, I don't support its use. However, it is sometimes acceptable depending on who it's being used against, and in this case, Charlie Kirk was such a source of ill for the world that it was justified.
3. Political violence causes bad outcomes and so, as a general rule, I don't support its use. Maybe sometimes it's justified depending on how dagerous the person in question is - for example I am in favour of the assassination of a political leader who is either in the process of or about to engage in ethnic cleansing - but Charlie Kirk was just a political commentator and even if his commentary was a net negative for the world it doesn't justify the use of political violence in this case.
4. Political violence is never okay, no matter what the outcome - we simply must have a hard and fast universal rule against that political violence regardless of who the target is, because the world will overall be a worse place if we justify exceptions on a case by case basis.
The first person is a pure utilitarian. The last person is a pure Kantian. Almost no one is actually either of these things, almost everyone falls somewhere in between. This is no more complicated than saying "I don't support what you say but I support your right to say it".
Hopefully that's cleared up enough for you.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I feel like the primary emotion around Kirk's death in this forum is indifference. One guy getting shot in America isn't news. That this one guy espoused the necessity of death to keep the second amendment, a guy who thought empathy isn't something worth having, who, had this been someone on the opposite side of the political isle getting killed, would attempt to minimize it....mildly amusing, very draped in irony.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
