American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

I never said I would hire Charlie. If you post after a tragic death of a young father that his kids are better off without him you’ll find the employment market frosty.

You say it is tragic, for others in society it's a relief he is no longer spreading hate towards them. You understand people can view things differently based on their own experiences, right? Are you saying there is not a person on Earth with young children who's death would not be tragic? Because a lot of kids grow up in homes where they'd be better off without a parent beating or sexually abusing them(lookup Fritzl if you want to muddy your moral waters). How do you know what the home life of these children would be with him around vs not? Maybe they would be better without him. You don't have the information to make that call one way or the other. Why do you get to decide how someone else's experiences shape how they feel about this event, and to judge them for it?

[devo22]

so we're putting people's names on lists now, huh? The speed at which that country is descending is mind-blowing.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

That is a punishment? Weird take.

Whoosh

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

It’s excellent to see a database where people will be held accountable for what they post. If you post crazy anti vax material you shouldn’t expect a job in healthcare. If you post material celebrating the murder of a guy who primary occupation is debating college students you aren’t going to be a good fit for most employers. Take the post above from Corsi, Charlie has been shot and killed on a stage in front of thousands of people, his 1 and 4 year old may never remember their father, when they google him when they get older they’ll find footage of him getting shot and bleeding out on stage. Corsi’s response to this tragedy is the kids are “probably better off.” Imagine that those kids are lucky this happened! How great is that. Anyways as an employer I would never hire someone who posted that and if there was a database I could check before hiring I would.

A person who spreads misinformation about vaccines while working in a public health care system should, at the very least, have their performance and credentials reviewed as their words and actions have direct consequences to their industry. They shouldn't automatically lose their job.

A person who shows no empathy or even celebrates the death of a fascist, hatemongering podcaster on Twitter (never X) while working for the local tire shop has no impact on their business or industry whatsoever. Unless, of course, they are doxxed, where job loss and overwhelming harrassment and death threats are the standard outcome.

When Hulk Hogan died I said "Good riddance". Are you really going to try and say the person that makes that kind of statement (Or Corsi's in this thread) should face the loss of their livelihood and the life sentence of harrassment that comes with it for saying something on the internet?

Some of you are getting way too comfortable with literal fascism.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

I never said I would hire Charlie. If you post after a tragic death of a young father that his kids are better off without him you’ll find the employment market frosty.

What other post-tragedy posts make your list?

Americans who are unbothered by military actions that include civilian casualties in the Middle Easy? Jews who are unbothered by women and children dying in Gaza? Ukrainians or, really anyone, who is unbothered by Russian deaths? Albertans who support the UCP’s limiting of healthcare and education to LGBTQ youth, despite the suicides that happen due to this lack of healthcare?

How big is your list? Who is on it?

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Fox News is now reporting that the shooter had a transitioning roommate and that's what made him do it.

If any network should have their license revoked……

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But you'd hire a person who mourns the loss of someone who preaches blacks are less than whites and spreads all sorts of society crippling bigotry? High standards.

Calling bigotry an opinion is like calling arsenic a flavour.

- Jack Cameron

[Mickey76]

Originally Posted by Yamer

A person who spreads misinformation about vaccines while working in a public health care system should, at the very least, have their performance and credentials reviewed as their words and actions have direct consequences to their industry. They shouldn't automatically lose their job.

A person who shows no empathy or even celebrates the death of a fascist, hatemongering podcaster on Twitter (never X) while working for the local tire shop has no impact on their business or industry whatsoever. Unless, of course, they are doxxed, where job loss and overwhelming harrassment and death threats are the standard outcome.

When Hulk Hogan died I said "Good riddance". Are you really going to try and say the person that makes that kind of statement (Or Corsi's in this thread) should face the loss of their livelihood and the life sentence of harrassment that comes with it for saying something on the internet?

Some of you are getting way too comfortable with literal fascism.

Corsi’s comment is beyond outrageous. Saying “Good riddance” when Hulk dies less so. You are right though it can be difficult to determine where the line is drawn. Ultimately I suppose the public decides where that is and it is subject to change.

Obviously a guy in the back changing tires is subject to less scrutiny than the head coach of the Calgay Flames. But when tire changing man applies for the managers position 4 years down the road and it involves dealing with the public, handing out kids soccer jerseys to the team that is sponsored by the shop, his social media history is going to be relevant.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

It’s excellent to see a database where people will be held accountable for what they post. If you post crazy anti vax material you shouldn’t expect a job in healthcare. If you post material celebrating the murder of a guy who primary occupation is debating college students you aren’t going to be a good fit for most employers. Take the post above from Corsi, Charlie has been shot and killed on a stage in front of thousands of people, his 1 and 4 year old may never remember their father, when they google him when they get older they’ll find footage of him getting shot and bleeding out on stage. Corsi’s response to this tragedy is the kids are “probably better off.” Imagine that those kids are lucky this happened! How great is that. Anyways as an employer I would never hire someone who posted that and if there was a database I could check before hiring I would.

Jesus Christ.

Using this "database" to determine if someone is hirable based solely on their internet posts is ####ing stupid. Why, you ask? Because of AI. You can create so much fake #### and make it seem like someone posted it. You can even use DeepFake to make someone say something they never said in a audio or video clip.

I had a colleague who was smeared by one of his students in just this fashion. They made a bunch of fake images of him posting neo-nazi things in an effort to ruin his career. He had to hire a private investigator and some good lawyers just to get his name cleared, but in the interim, he had to take a leave of absence from his job, mostly because parents wouldn't want him teaching with these accusations unresolved (not because our administration believed these things to be true). It nearly worked, but with some clever digital digging, they figured out how it was fabricated and also by whom. Still, it cost him a lot of his time, money, and mental well-being, and I'm betting this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Point is, someone can easily target somebody they don't like on the opposite side of the political spectrum with your "database" and a few AI tools, whether they did the thing or not.

And not to get into the thought police debate because it is always a grey area when it comes to employment and egregious statements, but being happy Kirk is dead should not be enough to get someone cancelled.

Oh, but wait...I thought the conservatives hated cancel culture? I thought that was just something the liberals did?

I can't believe we have to debate this. A database of people who said things we don't like so we can punish them is very much a Gestapo tactic. Reflect on that for a moment and see if you still think it's such a great idea.

[Mickey76]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You say it is tragic, for others in society it's a relief he is no longer spreading hate towards them. You understand people can view things differently based on their own experiences, right? Are you saying there is not a person on Earth with young children who's death would not be tragic? Because a lot of kids grow up in homes where they'd be better off without a parent beating or sexually abusing them(lookup Fritzl if you want to muddy your moral waters). How do you know what the home life of these children would be with him around vs not? Maybe they would be better without him. You don't have the information to make that call one way or the other. Why do you get to decide how someone else's experiences shape how they feel about this event, and to judge them for it?

This is such a bizarre take that I suppose a response is pointless. Did you read what you just posted? I suppose we could call a panel of experts and decide how common is it to have your father murdered when you are between the ages of 1 and 4 and have that be a positive experience. How much information do you think is necessary to make this extremely difficult judgment call. I guess 3 years from now Charlie could have been carelessly backing out of his yard and run over one of his children and left them paralyzd. We can all rejoice he was shot and killed because that could have happened.

[Mickey76]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Jesus Christ.

Using this "database" to determine if someone is hirable based solely on their internet posts is ####ing stupid. Why, you ask? Because of AI. You can create so much fake #### and make it seem like someone posted it. You can even use DeepFake to make someone say something they never said in a audio or video clip.

I had a colleague who was smeared by one of his students in just this fashion. They made a bunch of fake images of him posting neo-nazi things in an effort to ruin his career. He had to hire a private investigator and some good lawyers just to get his name cleared, but in the interim, he had to take a leave of absence from his job, mostly because parents wouldn't want him teaching with these accusations unresolved (not because our administration believed these things to be true). It nearly worked, but with some clever digital digging, they figured out how it was fabricated and also by whom. Still, it cost him a lot of his time, money, and mental well-being, and I'm betting this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Point is, someone can easily target somebody they don't like on the opposite side of the political spectrum with your "database" and a few AI tools, whether they did the thing or not.

And not to get into the thought police debate because it is always a grey area when it comes to employment and egregious statements, but being happy Kirk is dead should not be enough to get someone cancelled.

Oh, but wait...I thought the conservatives hated cancel culture? I thought that was just something the liberals did?

I can't believe we have to debate this. A database of people who said things we don't like so we can punish them is very much a Gestapo tactic. Reflect on that for a moment and see if you still think it's such a great idea.

That is an AI problem though, not a posting horrible things have consequences thing. I agree AI is going to make determining what’s true or not a nightmare. We are not going to be able to tell truth from a lie whether it’s video, audio, or something you saw with your own 2 eyes. What this means for society is horrifying. If Corsi tells me an AI bot hacked his account and made that horribly offensive post then I would apologize.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

This is such a bizarre take that I suppose a response is pointless. Did you read what you just posted? I suppose we could call a panel of experts and decide how common is it to have your father murdered when you are between the ages of 1 and 4 and have that be a positive experience. How much information do you think is necessary to make this extremely difficult judgment call. I guess 3 years from now Charlie could have been carelessly backing out of his yard and run over one of his children and left them paralyzd. We can all rejoice he was shot and killed because that could have happened.

Way to miss all the points. Five stars.


Isn't this just the cancel culture people on the right were so determined to stamp out?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

It’s excellent to see a database where people will be held accountable for what they post. If you post crazy anti vax material you shouldn’t expect a job in healthcare. If you post material celebrating the murder of a guy who primary occupation is debating college students you aren’t going to be a good fit for most employers. Take the post above from Corsi, Charlie has been shot and killed on a stage in front of thousands of people, his 1 and 4 year old may never remember their father, when they google him when they get older they’ll find footage of him getting shot and bleeding out on stage. Corsi’s response to this tragedy is the kids are “probably better off.” Imagine that those kids are lucky this happened! How great is that. Anyways as an employer I would never hire someone who posted that and if there was a database I could check before hiring I would.

Is this the DIE that the Republicans are always so mad at?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

It's 2025 and some Americans are potentially in trouble for not celebrating a racist.

We are the dumbest species.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

That is an AI problem though, not a posting horrible things have consequences thing. I agree AI is going to make determining what’s true or not a nightmare. We are not going to be able to tell truth from a lie whether it’s video, audio, or something you saw with your own 2 eyes. What this means for society is horrifying. If Corsi tells me an AI bot hacked his account and made that horribly offensive post then I would apologize.

Hey I noticed you ignored my question over who else is on your list. Care to go back and give it a try?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

It’s excellent to see a database where people will be held accountable for what they post. If you post crazy anti vax material you shouldn’t expect a job in healthcare. If you post material celebrating the murder of a guy who primary occupation is debating college students you aren’t going to be a good fit for most employers. Take the post above from Corsi, Charlie has been shot and killed on a stage in front of thousands of people, his 1 and 4 year old may never remember their father, when they google him when they get older they’ll find footage of him getting shot and bleeding out on stage. Corsi’s response to this tragedy is the kids are “probably better off.” Imagine that those kids are lucky this happened! How great is that. Anyways as an employer I would never hire someone who posted that and if there was a database I could check before hiring I would.

And Hitler was just "a guy whose primary occupation was public speaking."

Jesus christ, this is getting stupid.



Edit: I'm not saying the guy is another Hitler. I'm just using someone everyone knows as an extreme example to illustrate a point.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

That is an AI problem though, not a posting horrible things have consequences thing. I agree AI is going to make determining what’s true or not a nightmare. We are not going to be able to tell truth from a lie whether it’s video, audio, or something you saw with your own 2 eyes. What this means for society is horrifying. If Corsi tells me an AI bot hacked his account and made that horribly offensive post then I would apologize.

Tell me you don't know how AI works by literally telling me you don't know how AI works.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Yet the same people crying 'he was a father!' don't care about all the other kids his message damaged.

It's a sentiment that's been beat to death but I'll repeat it anyway. Kirk didn't care about people getting shot, why the demand to care that he got shot? Another bad person has left this earth, life moves one.

That's okay, I didn't need you to hire me.

And they sure as hell don’t care that Abrego-Garcia is a father.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Itse

I don't agree.

As long as Charlie Kirk had a platform, someone somewhere was going to die because of far-right violence. The only real question was "who?"

"Charlie Kirk himself" is by far the best answer that question.

There is no reality where someone like him has a platform and no one is attacked by the far-right lunatics inspired by him and people like him being allowed a platform, which is why free-speech absolutism is a fundamentally amoral position.

Sure, in a perfect world he would have been de-platformed and/or put in jail, but that's not the world we live in, and in this world him dying at the hands of another far-right wacko is a good thing.

There was always the opportunity for literally anyone to debunk his BS. I have yet to see one of his talking points that I agree with, it sounds to me like you didn’t agree with many of his views either, and neither did a lot of people if not an overwhelming majority of people on this site.

To me that suggests that his words weren’t an unstoppable juggernaut that necessitated him being assassinated to stop.

If we start normalizing people getting shot over their words you’re going to dissuade the people capable of countering his message from doing so while giving those with power who agreed with his message an opportunity to exploit his death for their own gain.

(It also will likely spread fear and suspicion inside the far-right, which is good.)

Yeah assuming of course they don’t convince themselves and their supporters that his assassination made him a martyr and try to get some retribution instead. But maybe you’re right and wingnuts are actually highly sophisticated people who don’t fall for BS like that or overreact when their emotions are running high.

In a 2 party democracy wingnuts aren’t the ones you need to be concerned about when trying to change course. You focus on the moderates to win elections to effect the change you want to see. A moderate voter who didn’t know who he was but sees a bunch of people celebrating a family man getting shot dead in public because of the morality of his political messaging are in most cases probably going to initially question the morality of your own messaging. Don’t know how you consider that to be a good thing or net benefit.

(Edited for brevity and clarity.)

It was brief, I’ll give you that much. But I’m still not clear on where you draw the line on this sort of thing. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for people to feel relieved that his messaging may be slowed down as a result of his death(even if I think it will have the opposite effect, at least in the short term) but celebrating the way it happened in my opinion is completely counter productive. Even if he was a jackass.

Justifying violence to silence politcal opponents generally leads to more violence and induces fear in those who otherwise might have through nonviolent means been able to stop his messaging and the future messaging of the people who followed him.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I dont agree with a lot of your views Iggy. And that's OK.

On this post, I agree completely, and I've gained a lot more respect for you with this post.

We will likely continue to have different viewpoints, but I will view those opinions with more an attempt to understand now.

Thanks for not opting to shoot me over my views.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Narrator: “It was then that iggy_oi got that sinking feeling, that realization… that moment when the worst person agrees with you, the moment you start to re-evaluate your position on a subject.”

I really don’t know much about that poster but just because he doesn’t agree with me on a lot of things doesn’t automatically mean I’m wrong because he agrees with me this time.

You and I for example seem to disagree on a lot of things but we also agree on some things. So by your logic we’re both wrong by default when we agree on something. Kind of a silly position to take in my opinion but since we clearly don’t agree I guess you’ll just have to concede that I’m right by default.