| |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a really disingenuous and biased selection of sources. One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc. Ironically, assassinated Charlie Kirk was one of the most reserved US public figures in this regard. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics Show me one example of any of those figures you listed inciting violence. I'm waiting. "inflammatory rhetoric" is not the same as saying "the Left is a national security problem" | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Ok, since you are waiting, I'll spend a few minutes fetching you easily available quotes. Obama: - "If they bring a knife to the fight, we're going to bring a gun." [0] Biden: - "If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him" [1] - "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." [2] - the whole "Darth Biden" event speech was filled with statements framing political opponents as enemies of the country, kinda sinister from the head of the most powerful state in the world, no? ("Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.", etc) [3] Waltz: - "When it’s an adult like Donald Trump, you bully the shit out of him back." [4] - "I tell you that... because we need to whip his butt and put this guy behind us." [5] Newsome: - "But right now, with all due respect, we’re walking down a damn different path. We’re fighting fire with fire. And we’re gonna punch these sons of bitches in the mouth." [6] (apologies for the Twitter link, didn't find direct video elsewhere) Would that be enough? [0]: https://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/obama-guns-and-the-untouch... [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/politics/Joe-biden-donald... [2]: https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/biden-defends-bullseye... [3]: https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-joe-biden-said-his-... [4]: https://www.startribune.com/in-key-2028-state-tim-walz-says-... [5]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tim-walz-brea... [6]: https://x.com/amuse/status/1958827049348407350 | | |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Those comments are in poor taste. Biden himself apologized after the attempt on Trump's life. That said, these pale in comparison to Trump's many, many endorsements of or acceptance of violence. Even mocking an attack on Pelosi's husband. I've never heard Trump apologize for his words, actions, or inactions. He could not even be bothered to call the governor of a state whose elected representatives were attacked, saying even to speak would be a "waste of time". Only when one of his sycophants is harmed does he suddenly see a serious problem. In fact Trump pardoned those who violently attacked national police as the attackers sought to disrupt the transfer of power. (Some of whom went on to rape and murder others.) The very people he urged to "fight like hell", and he endorsed by waiting to see whether they would succeed before changing his tune. Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption. Trump acts like a mob boss. Doing and saying whatever he wants, and punishing those who oppose him with whatever means he thinks he can get away with. Even boasting that his supporters would stand by him if he shot someone on a famous public street. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, they are in poor taste. What is telling, however, is bias: Trump gets labelled as 'fascist' for saying 'fight like hell', but Waltz just gets a pass because for the exact same words, because that was just poor taste. It is also telling that you weren't content with just stopping after the words 'disrupt the transfer of power', but felt necessary to add smear about rape and murder. I am not willing to even verify the veracity of this claim, and will just ask you this: how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right? Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support? > Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption. No, they don't. They do, however, openly prosecute their political adversaries for fabricated crimes. It was quite characteristic that democrat-friendly talking heads spent months in late 2020-early 2021 how Trump is going to issue a presidential pardon for himself and his allies, and then Biden, four years later, did just that. I am not Trump supporter. I'm just telling you that you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil. That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all! | | |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Trump gets labelled as 'fascist' for saying 'fight like hell', but Waltz just gets a pass because for the exact same words, because that was just poor taste. Waltz should not speak that way. Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed. Waltz also doesn't express the desire to be a dictactor, plans to give police unlimited power, ask foreign governments to hack his opponents for his gain, shake down foreign leaders for dirt on his opponents and their families, or openly weaponize the DoJ / ICE / IRS to persecute anyone who opposed him. >> Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption. > No, they don't. I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count? > ...how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right? Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder? > Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support? If there is a discussion on political violence and how seriously leaders handle it, then I'd say the consequences of pardoning such actors is in scope. > ...you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil. If there is a disagreement, then thinking the other person may be wrong is common, no? I don't presume every disagreement is because of stupidity or evil. Though I do believe evil exists (not in any spiritual sense), and that evil is more manifest in some actions than others. Assassination is quite evil for example. I try not to hold any beliefs too strongly, since I've been very wrong in the past. > That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all! You know what inspired Kirk's killer? Perhaps you should inform the FBI. I'll wait for the facts because it's not clear to me what motivated this attacker. It's just as likely he played a lot of Helldivers, surfed 4chan, and thought Kirk wasn't far enough to the right. That said, rhetoric like mine is far less likely to inspire violence than say a "Professor Watchlist" which--in practice--functions something like a who-to-harrass-or-kill list. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yead, the bias immediately kicks in: > Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed. Yeah, tweeting non-stop urges for protesters to stay peaceful. It is a certain kind of delusion to think that this 'riot' was at attempt to overthrow the state. Of course, Democrat propaganda bent over themselves to present it that way, but anyone with critical thinking understands, that even if Capitol was taken over by the unarmed protesters, then what? Oh, Senate would capitulate and declare Trump God Emperor? Please. If we stop talking about fabricated mythology of a horribre horrible coup attempt, and look at reality, Jan 6 riot was a relatively peaceful affair, far more peaceful than BLM protests from the previous summer. I happened to watch it all live, on youtube, as it happened, it culminated in QAnon shaman strolling down the halls saying 'God bless you' to every security guard who were just standing there and doing nothing. It is no wonder that all these livestreams were promptly scrubbed off all social media afterwards, because if anyone would watch it, as it happened, the narrative of a coup would just fall apart. > I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count? I don't know who are the first two, but Eric Adams is a name I know, and from what I understand he mas prosecuted after he broke ranks with the Dems on the migration issue. So yeah, they prosecute insignificant pawns and those who broke rank, and they also fabricate criminal cases against their chief political opponents, trying to deny him the right to be a candidate in presidential elections. However, these attempts were found unconvincing by the supreme jury - people of the US, whe majority of whom voted to re-elect Trump as president. > Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder? Why would he need to pardon people who were neither prosecuted nor convicted? | | |
| ▲ | cade 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Jan 6 riot was a relatively peaceful affair Literally ignoring any and all recorded footage clearly demonstrating violence to the contrary, what kind of vocabulary judo do you have to perform to label a woman being shot to death[1] a "relatively peaceful affair." Calling anything "relatively peaceful" where someone dies by getting shot genuinely boggles my mind. By this standard, Charlie Kirk's debate was "relatively peaceful." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bertil 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You would struggle to find a single example for any of those. Find two inflammatory quotes for each. There hasn’t been a day in the last decade that Trump wasn’t making the news for a new insanely inflammatory remark—including in the last 48 hours. To help you remember when that was: that’s when he called for War on an American city, using the visual language of Apocalypse Now, a movie about war crimes. That was in the same breath as his new “Secretary of War” detailing that war would be violent, pro-active and excessive. This is true for almost everyone in his cabinet: daily dehumanizing remarks, threats, calls to attack. One vs. many thousands: There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is. You want to prove me wrong? Give me one date, a single date in the last ten years and if I can’t find Trump publicly insulting to someone that day, I’ll concede. The only examples of call to violence you can find are people quoting Trump and his enablers, or mocking their style. Those horrible things you read? Those insanely callous dismissal of Charlie Kirk, victim of gun violence? Those are quotes of Charlie Kirk, reacting to mass shootings. You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | See in another branch. However, regarding this: > There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is. Not really. One can only agree with this statement if he considers that calling Trump and his supporters Nazis, fascists, racists, etc, is not an inflammatory rhetoric, but a totally acceptable objective truth that just truthfully describes them. (Btw, do Nazis deserve to be shot on sight?) However, if one doesn't consider this an objective truth, but a violent dehumanizing rhetorics, then suddenly he finds that one side routinely smears the other in the worst ways possible, and that the total amount of such rhetoric vastly drowns the messaging from another side. > You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror. That's a nice straw man you made. Please, refrain from messaging me again, if you don't plan to argue in good faith. | | |
| ▲ | bertil 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Technically Trump had a book collecting Hitler's speeches, not "Mein Kampf". Though I think the underlying point stands, Trump is a fan of Hitler and has learned from him how to whip crowds into a populist frenzy. | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | bertil 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | From Wikipedia:
> In 1973, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Trump Management, Donald Trump and his father Fred, for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices.[3][31] > Testers from the New York City Human Rights Division had found that prospective black renters at Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while prospective White renters were offered apartments at the same buildings.[32] During the investigation, four of Trump's agents admitted to using a "C" (for "colored") or "9" code to label Black applicants and stated that they were told their company "discouraged rental to blacks" or that they were "not allowed to rent to black tenants," and that prospective Black renters should be sent to the central office while White renters could have their applications accepted on site. Three doormen testified to being told to discourage prospective Black renters by lying about the rental prices or claiming no vacancies were available.[33][34] A settlement was reached in 1975 where Trump agreed to familiarize himself with the Fair Housing Act, take out ads stating that Black renters were welcome, give a list of vacancies to the Urban League on a weekly basis, and allow the Urban League to present qualified candidates for 20% of vacancies in properties that were less than 10% non-White.[32][35] > Elyse Goldweber, the Justice Department lawyer tasked with taking Trump's deposition, has stated that during a coffee break Trump said to her directly, "You know, you don't want to live with them either."[36] > The Trump Organization was sued again in 1978 for violating terms of the 1975 settlement by continuing to refuse to rent to black tenants; Trump and his lawyer Roy Cohn denied the charges.[37][38][39] In 1983 the Metropolitan Action Institute noted that two Trump Village properties were still over 95% White.[40] In what world your argument is anything but clutching at straws?! Get a grip, he openly hates Black and Latino people and has never been shy about it. The fact he came to an out-of-court agreement, and immediately had to come back… It’s so beautiful that your richly referenced note forgot that point. > Like, anyone, who calls for unity is surely fascist. No, but people who threatens to napalm-bomb a major city in their own country because the mayor isn’t in their party; people who threaten to court-martial any soldier who express an opinion critical of an influencer outside of the chain of command; people who call law enforcement officers to throw political opponents in a jail without due process… Those might be fascist. And that’s just this week. Obama and Harris were not selling access to enrich themselves with the loincloth of crypto, for example. That’s a little different than century-old symbol about Unity between States… Yes, billions of people noticed in horror the entire Republican Party in congress applauding a Nazi salute, twice, and yes, a handful of people used the same word to describe it. Do you really think lessons on grammar is the point to make here?! Because for someone who talks so much about how much you don’t like that Hilter guy, you seem to raise no qualms in your very detailed note with having with so many people in your party applauding that gesture. If you worried about people not thinking for themselves, I’d start there. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm glad that you conceded that you blatantly lied about Trump having Mein Kampf on his night stand, thank you for this. > In what world your argument is anything but clutching at straws?! Get a grip, he openly hates Black and Latino people and has never been shy about it. The fact he came to an out-of-court agreement, and immediately had to come back… It’s so beautiful that your richly referenced note forgot that point. Yeah, right. You had to dig up a case from 50+ years ago, that concerned a policy likely was not directed from the top but was enacted by some middle managers, and which was corrected, and act like I'm grasping the straws and not you. Then you try to strengthen your argument with a blatant claim that Trump openly hates Black and Latino people, when in fact in his public speeches he frequently says that he loves them. You will, of course, fail to provide a single quote by Trump that would prove your outlandish claim. And also, I struggle to understand how could this horrible vile racist man significantly increase his support amond Black and Lation voters. [0] > No, but people who threatens to napalm-bomb a major city in their own country because the mayor isn’t in their party; people who threaten to court-martial any soldier who express an opinion critical of an influencer outside of the chain of command; people who call law enforcement officers to throw political opponents in a jail without due process… Those might be fascist. So, how many major cities were napalm-bombed? How many soldiers were court-martialled? How many political opponents were thrown in jail without due process? We did, however, see one political execution this week, but the murdered man was definitely not a Democrat. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/22/nx-s1-5199119/2024-election-e... | | |
| ▲ | bertil 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You think there’s a material difference between Mein Kampf and the guys speeches? That’s where you are going to draw the line? | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov a day ago | parent [-] | | I’m rather confident you’re not really familiar with Charlie Kirk’s speeches. Sounds like you’re attacking a caricature pieced together from carefully edited snippets you saw on social media. Next time you feel the urge to denounce someone, please take the time to study their actual views. I can’t claim to know Kirk’s entire body of work -- just watched a couple of debates and his RNC speech -- but since of us two I’m the one who’s actually read Mein Kampf, I can say with a significant degree of confidence their views could hardly be more different: Hitler pushed authoritarian control, racial hierarchies, and expansionist wars. Kirk was advocating for small-government conservatism and anti-woke culture fights. Even Barack Obama, with his big-government moves, like the ACA or his stimulus plans, had more in common with Hitler’s state-heavy policies, than Charlie! |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dmbche 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | bertil 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s kind of hilarious how he called Orwell to deny something as blatant as Trump’s racism and immediately copied some absurd talking points from the darkest echo chambers of the internet. Denying that Trump is fascist because The United States, dealing with a Civil War, used wreaths as a symbol of unity is a particularly sophomoric attempt at turning bad puns into arguments. You have to live in particularly deep dungeons to think that’s not laughable. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics Can you link some examples? | | | |
| ▲ | hellotheretoday 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you can find inflammatory rhetoric from any human being ever, that is obviously true, but it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. Look at how he responded to the murders of the Hortmans in Minnesota relative to how Biden responded to his assassination attempt or how most (if not all) democratic lawmakers are responding to this And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then [0] https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h... | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. I'm not from the US, and do not have a horse in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama. The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it. (btw, speaking from my non-US experience, when a leader is cuddled by the press, it is a bad sign, not a good one) | | |
| ▲ | bluecheese452 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The press does not “cuddle”. Did the Kremlim cut the budget for English classes? | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Of course, the press does cuddle its darlings. Compare any first-term Trump's press conference with Biden's press conference: a pack of wolves that screamed and shouted suddenly morphed into cute fawning puppies: "what kind of ice cream do you like, mr president?" Regarding your accusation that I work for Kremlin, you should be ashamed of yourself to say such things to a person who was literally beaten by Putin's polizai for protesting his policies. In your simplistic mindset, anyone who has a differing opinion from you surely must be a paid troll working for evil people. It is very fitting that you exhibit this attitude in a discussion about a person who was killed for his views. Should I be shot, too? I surely have it coming, right? | | |
| ▲ | bluecheese452 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The word you are looking for is coddle, not cuddle. You cuddle a pet or a spouse. You coddle your favorite politician with preferential coverage. Good on you for protesting his policies. But maybe don’t spread his propaganda for free? I never celebrated, excused or wished death on anyone. Shame on you for implying that. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, thank you, but the word I needed was something that would describe a warm, loving embrace, like when you take a pet in your arms and caress it (I even pushed this metaphor further in the next comment, about loving puppies), and I believe that "cuddle" is the exact word for that. | | |
| ▲ | bluecheese452 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I guarantee you no native speaker would ever use the word cuddle like you did. That is why it was so jarring to read. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, it is indeed jarring when supposedly objectively and truth seeking journalists suddenly turn into adoring fans, so maybe my metaphor works on more than one level. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | NickC25 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama. You want to know why a lot of those people, who are reactionary by nature, thought Obama was so divisive? It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white. >The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it. You'll notice that Obama was roundly (and rightfully) criticized by the left for his actual policies, and was criticized by the right for his skin color. For those who focus on policy ramifications, Obama was repeatedly critiqued. The problem is the right wing media machine couldn't outright drop a hard -er or call him "boy", so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally. Forget about actual policy, especially because his signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, was copied verbatim from enacted GOP legislation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | etblg 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc. Damn, sounds like more terrible people who encourage violence then, wish they didn't encourage it either, kinda sounds like a problem America and its politics has in general. |
| |
| ▲ | nandomrumber 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Throwing tomatoes. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tacitusarc 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a pretty inflammatory claim to make, especially without evidence. When did he praise the use of violence? | | |
| ▲ | miltonlost 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He supported Jan 6. That’s was a violent mob attempting a coup. He loved violence | | |
| ▲ | j-krieger 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What a crock of BS. You can support a protest without „loving“ violence. Americans have no idea what a coup looks like and it shows. |
| |
| ▲ | zug_zug 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In March 2023, around the time of Donald Trump’s indictment, Kirk said conservatives are being provoked into violence, and said “we must make them pay a price and a penalty” by indicting Democrats. There are claims from media/reporters that Kirk made statements about “dealing with” transgender people “like in the ’50s & ’60s,” Also the famous and now ironic comment that "Some gun deaths are worth it to protect the second amendment." Who's inflammatory now? | | |
| ▲ | tacitusarc 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | None of those statements advocate violence, much less extol it. | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Absolutely did not advocate for lynching and killing trans people like 50s and 60s. Wink wink, nudge nudge. Trans people must be stopped, for the children! We all know what his words mean, the veil is thin enough that even a moron would understand it, and thick enough that the law protects him. if you can’t correlate the exposure of the public to such comments with the rise in violence against LGBT people, I’d recommend some self-reflection and asking yourself what the consequences are if you are wrong. Hopefully you are capable of feeling empathy towards others. | | |
| ▲ | qcnguy 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He did not in fact advocate for lynching or killing trans people. In the 50s and 60s they would have been treated as mental health cases, not executed on the spot by sharpshooters. | | |
| ▲ | licebmi__at__ 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I guess that makes it better, mental health was great at the time and they probably would not be subject to torture. I would advocate someone with a similar view or belief to be treated like JFK's sister. | | |
| ▲ | qcnguy 5 days ago | parent [-] | | They probably would not have been subjected to torture, no. If you're thinking of lobotomy, I believe that was phased out around 1951 or so, and it wasn't intended as a form of torture. |
|
| |
| ▲ | akimbostrawman 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >for the children I think it's only natural to not want children to be part of a group with very high suicide rates or otherwise be ideologically compelled to take life changing medication based on short term emotions and group pressure. Hopefully you are capable of not only empathy but understanding for the opinion of others even if they fall outside of your beliefs. | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | akimbostrawman 4 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 4 days ago | parent [-] | | https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2510/Repo... What Charlie has advocated for. | | |
| ▲ | akimbostrawman 4 days ago | parent [-] | | He advocated for treating mentally ill. How truly evil. | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 4 days ago | parent [-] | | He advocated for killing, incarcerating, and conversion “therapies”. You should familiarise yourself with what’s happening there. The more you try to sane-wash the more you show what kind of person you are. How about we listen to the actual doctors and not a political opportunist whose legacy is advocating for guns right after kids have died? | | |
| ▲ | akimbostrawman 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >How about we listen to the actual doctors and not a political opportunist Ah yeah the totally not politically captured science that made the problem worse in the first place. Not having a authoritarian knee jerk reaction after a tragedy is indeed the right and level headed response. Or do you also think there should be no privacy online because bad people misuse it? | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 4 days ago | parent [-] | | All you’ve done is live up to your handle. The good thing about science is that it doesn’t need a “trust me bro”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | slumpt_ 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | it’s wild seeing this forum both-sides-same itself into overlooking the hate this dude put into the world |
| |
| ▲ | gamblor956 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Charlie deliberately targeted blacks, Latinos, and the transgender. He wasn't just going with the tide on that animus, he created the tide. He was one of the initial proponents of the "Great Replacement theory" and the call to action to "fight" it. He called for genocide against Muslims in 2023 and earlier this year. He blamed the Jewish community for "pushing hatred" against Christians. He was close friends with a number of white nationalists with ties to domestic terrorism groups.He called the man who tried to kill Mr. Pelosi a hero and argued that he should have been set free instead of receiving prison time. After a Democratic legislator was murdered a few months ago, he tried to blame the "left" for assassination culture, ignoring the entirety of American history in which nearly all political assassins have been right-wing extremists. Literally seconds before he died, he tried to shift the blame for all of the recent mass shootings (most of them carried about by extreme right incels) to the transgender community. Charlie was most famous for saying that the deaths at Sandy Hook were the price we pay to keep our Second Amendments rights. I wonder if he would have felt the same way knowing that he would be part of that price? On a further note, unlike most of the people on HN, I've met and spoken with Charlie in real life (I met him through an ex and her admiration of him is why she's an ex.). He was even more extreme in real life, but he was media-savvy enough not to let that other stuff be filmed. What you see on camera was the filtered version of who Charlie was. I was, at one point in my life, a member of the Federalist Society. Charlie and his ilk are the reason I'm an independent now. | | |
| ▲ | j-krieger 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Where did he „target“ those people? Every single debate I‘ve seen him say stuff I disagree with with, but he always said that while he does not agree with some things, people should live as free as they please. | | |
| ▲ | gamblor956 3 days ago | parent [-] | | He literally blamed the transgendered community for all of the recent mass shootings seconds before he was shot... Yes, 1 of them was a transgendered individual. The other 99% were all right wing extremists, including shooter in the other shooting (in Denver) the day Charlie was killed. (And based on reporting as of Friday, so was Charlie's killer.) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dinkumthinkum 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cite one case in which he "extolled political violence." You are no different than those people on TikTok. You provide no evidence other than an appeal to mutual agreement. | |
| ▲ | _rm 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 5 days ago | parent [-] | | A trans person is not a political opponent any more than a white male is a political opponent. Stop pretending Charlie wasn’t pushing a harmful narrative that lead to an increase in hate crime. | | |
| ▲ | _rm 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Well I mean he got shot, presumably out of hate, so yes, I concede he participated in an increase of hate crime. | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Charlie was pushing the narrative that trans people are over represented in shootings and terrorist attacks. Charlie was not targeted over a characteristic like sexuality, race, and whatnot that would make it a hate crime. Charlie could have very well chosen not to push a narrative that strips 2A from a minority. | | |
| ▲ | _rm 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Classic victim blaming, "well you could've chosen not to say mean things...". Kind of the leftist equivalent of the chauvinistic "well if you didn't want to get raped would you have worn that...". | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 5 days ago | parent [-] | | No victim blaming, he is not a victim of anything other than his own actions. He has been fanning the flames for years. He has exploited political conflict for personal gain. What you clearly missed is that Charlie could have had a life that was different had his behaviour been different. He was not attacked over an immutable or protected characteristic. He was not murdered because he is white/straight/gay/black/trans. His murder was independent of his characteristics and entirely dependent on his character. There is no “hate crime” here as far as the definition is concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
