I bang on a lot about not saying things like "this person is a threat to democracy" and other such apocalyptic statements. This right here is a perfect example of why: when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.

If you find this horrifying (and I hope you do, because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder), then I encourage you to really think about whether we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds. We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.

You start your comment saying we should avoid making apocalyptic statements and end it by saying "the cycle is going to destroy our society".

My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.

It can be both simultaneously true that the current administration and its supporters are genuinely dangerous to our democracy and that political violence is not an acceptable way to effect social change.

Yes, it's true that lunatics on both sides may use their side's rhetoric as a call to action but often this isn't even the case and they're just hopelessly confused and mentally ill people. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where those people couldn't get guns or could get mental health treatment and it'd be nice if one side of this debate didn't weaponize these common sense ideas into identity politics but here we are.

The othering that is so very common in online discussion is genuinely dangerous. It's incredibly common and almost benign at this point because it's just everywhere.

It is historically proven as the first step to violence. People seem to think that words don't matter.

They matter very much. Just because you can read millions of words a day, doesn't mean they're not powerful.

Support him or no, he didn't deserve to die for his political beliefs.

Violence should not be how we settle our disagreements. But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion. Fear that someone may act violently should not cause us to suppress our genuine fears about the future of our democracy.

> when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.

Well, yes. People point this out regularly with mass shootings. Sometimes the shooters helpfully leave a list of all the violent rhetoric that inspired them. Anders Breivik claimed to be acting against an "existential threat". Those words get used a lot.

The problem is, existential threats are more common than not in politics. Nearly every decision can kill, or change who gets killed, on a scope that varies from individual, to global, to more abstract, e.g. values that are just as important as life (freedom, language, culture, family, nature, take your pick - many have given their lives for each of these).

Deport an illegal immigrant? They may get killed back in their more dangerous home country (or die slowly due to less access to medicine), or grow their home economy instead of yours. Let them stay? Maybe they're a dangerous criminal and will kill someone here. Don't deport any? Your culture and nation get diluted into nothing - some value those things highly, others don't, but to the former, that's an existential threat.

Tax fossil fuels? The economy slows, there's less money for hospitals, more crime due to poverty, this can easily kill people, or maybe it's harder to keep up with China. Don't tax them, and now you're taking your chances with global warming.

Spy on everyone's communication? You've just made it much easier for a tyrannical government to arise, and those have killed millions, and trampled values many hold as dear as life itself. Don't spy? Well maybe you miss a few terrorist attacks, but you also have a harder time identifying hostile foreign propaganda, which could have devastating but hard to isolate effects.

Simply put, death, existential threats, threats to democracy, etc., are common in politics, and one cannot talk honestly about it while avoiding their mention. I would say that, unless you cannot keep a cool head in those circumstances, you shouldn't get into politics in any capacity. But of course, those that need this advice won't heed it.

How can we not call a spade a spade? The United States government is being destroyed from within, openly and proudly. A handbook was written saying it would be done this way.

If someone or something is a threat to democracy and rule of law, then they are. Period. I think pretending the ruling political party in the US is not intentionally destroying the government is not a valid strategy.

This is not an endorsement of what happened today. I worry this will have a big chilling effect on political speech in the country.

What should people say when someone is advocating against democracy?

> because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder

As someone of Eastern European origins I would celebrate Vladimir Putin's murder, especially since he's responsible for the murder for so many in Ukraine today (both Russians and Ukrainians). I think the reality is a touch more nuanced than the absolutist ethical stance.

> we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds

I genuinely can’t tell if you realize that this is a description of the victim, and your comment could easily be construed as a justification for what happened, or if you condemn the action so heartily you missed that.

Which leads to my point: there are discourses around this that completely miss each other. That’s a huge problem because so many people will loudly express strongly held emotions and two people will read completely opposite view points. US public discourse is at a point where language, without copying context, is failing.

Saying “both sides miss each other” isn’t true either: I’m convinced one side is perfectly capable of quoting leaders of the other, even if they find it absurd, but the reciprocal isn’t true. Many people can’t today say what was the point of one of the largest presidential campaign. They’ll mention points that were never raised by any surrogate or leaders. But they can’t tell that because the relationship is complete severed.

I don’t think there’s a balanced argument around violence, either: one side has leaders who vocally and daily argue for illegal acts violence, demand widespread gun possession vs. another where some commentators occasionally mention that violent revolution is an option, but leaders are always respectful. The vast majority of people who commit gun violence support one particular political movement, even the violence against the leaders of that same movement. If that’s not obvious to you, I can assure you that you are out off from a large part of the political discourse about the US, not just around you, but internationally.

I understand the thrust of your comment, but why is "this person is a threat to democracy" an apocalyptic statement, but "... or the cycle is going to destroy our society" not? Seems like you're being rather selective in what's considered apocalyptic statements and what's not.

There is no inherent threat of violence in saying "this person is a threat to democracy". This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.

What if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?

MSNBC commentators today said some things today that were so horrendous.

>> this person is a threat to democracy

I would say it is true. Such killer is a threat to democracy.

I'm more concerned with the fact that billionaires have a monopoly on the incentives that create policy and can afford to fund large scale social engineering operations to get whatever they want. Charlie Kirk doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peter Thiel funded him and Thiel has said openly he wants a dictatorship. That is why Kirk was in the propagandist role he was in, and why he is now dead.

Translation: If you keep drawing the prophet at some point someone who really believes will act on it, right?

Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that.

Telling the truth did not cause this. The Nazi regime, a machine that is systematically crushing the working class and minorities & driving large swaths of the population to despair - is what caused this. The idea that we can just adjust the way we speak to avoid the inevitable outcome of worsening material conditions under fascism is patently absurd.

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

The people who came up with the concept of "stochastic terrorism" seem to be pretty silent when it hits the other side.