On one hand, I agree with the point. Political assassinations should be condemned by the right, and it shouldn’t be acceptable to have people giving a pass on political grounds.
On the other hand, I was reading the comments on here after Kirk was shot, and almost without exception, people here were cheering. I saw one or two comments from people saying something like “political assassinations are bad”, and people heavily downvoting them.
Now, okay. I can’t prove that some of the users commenting and cheering on the assassination weren’t, say, bots aimed at trying to create political division and polarization, though I doubt that the Threadiverse is likely the juciest of targets for that sort of thing; not a huge userbase. But my strong suspicion is that we are failing to meet the bar being asked of the right here.
I certainly see where you’re coming from; there’s a difference though.
Charlie Kirk was fighting to overturn the social contract; he didn’t think the country has to accommodate LGB (and especially T) folks, atheists, Muslims, leftists, single women, et cetera. Hell, he loved political violence directed against Democrats.
People who break the social contract should not be surprised when they lose its protection.
Tolerance is not a paradox; it is a social construct. The difference between the assassination of the Minnesota state rep and the assassination of Charlie Kirk is that the Kirk was openly inciting violence against others. He rejected the social construct and was thus no longer protected by it.
Yeah, the problem I’m seeing now is that everyone on the right is seeing the left’s reaction. And now they don’t care if the shooter actually was someone from the left or not.
The response they see is all they need to justify any reaction. Of course they’re conveniently forgetting their own response (and Charlie Kirk’s response) to Pelosi’s attacker.
I’m of two minds about celebrating his death, in that I do, but I agree that people cheering vigilante killings is a sign of an unhealthy society. We definitely have an unhealthy society, and it seems like there’s not a functioning justice system for prosecuting people who foment hatred or commit societal murder, but this could lead to an American Reign of Terror, which would obviously be tragic.
That said, there’s a difference between being glad someone’s gone and declaring war on half of the political spectrum. I won’t say it definitely didn’t happen, but I didn’t see anyone suggesting that we take revenge for that senator, even on Lemmy. Certainly not in as widespread a manner as I’m now seeing it for Charlie Kirk.
Maybe, yeah. But I’m thinking more that it’s that they’re human, and maybe humans on both sides aren’t all that great at holding themselves to that bar. Like, maybe it’s not that Threadiverse users are particularly abnormal as people go, and more that the normal person isn’t very good at refraining from giving “their side” a pass.
But I’m thinking more that it’s that they’re human, and maybe humans on both sides aren’t all that great at holding themselves to that bar.
Oh, you’re absolutely right. Both sides absolutely think “I’m going God’s righteous work” and that the other side is simply “evil”. The hyper-partisanship has been crazy for some time on both sides. And then along comes a sociopath authoritarian (Trump) to just kick it all up to 11…
State level politicians are less likely to have impact outside their state. Nobody knew Hortman. Kirk was known by virtually everyone. Much bigger impact, much bigger reaction.
Given that the reaction from media on the left also shows a very different reaction Kirk vs. Hortman, I think your estimation of the difference between the two is not reflective of what’ll be the final reaction to these two events.
What about the assassination of a senator? Did that also upset the right, or where they all cheering?
It’s okay if they kill a demon-rat. The brain washing combined with stupidity dissolves them of any wrong doing.
What other time in history did people call other people rats and cockroaches?
Can’t recall. There’s nothing Tutsi here though.
On one hand, I agree with the point. Political assassinations should be condemned by the right, and it shouldn’t be acceptable to have people giving a pass on political grounds.
On the other hand, I was reading the comments on here after Kirk was shot, and almost without exception, people here were cheering. I saw one or two comments from people saying something like “political assassinations are bad”, and people heavily downvoting them.
Now, okay. I can’t prove that some of the users commenting and cheering on the assassination weren’t, say, bots aimed at trying to create political division and polarization, though I doubt that the Threadiverse is likely the juciest of targets for that sort of thing; not a huge userbase. But my strong suspicion is that we are failing to meet the bar being asked of the right here.
I certainly see where you’re coming from; there’s a difference though.
Charlie Kirk was fighting to overturn the social contract; he didn’t think the country has to accommodate LGB (and especially T) folks, atheists, Muslims, leftists, single women, et cetera. Hell, he loved political violence directed against Democrats.
People who break the social contract should not be surprised when they lose its protection.
Tolerance is not a paradox; it is a social construct. The difference between the assassination of the Minnesota state rep and the assassination of Charlie Kirk is that the Kirk was openly inciting violence against others. He rejected the social construct and was thus no longer protected by it.
You know Charlie Kirk repeatedly said dead children were a small price to pay for the second amendment?
Do you weep for dead Nazis? I don’t.
Yeah, the problem I’m seeing now is that everyone on the right is seeing the left’s reaction. And now they don’t care if the shooter actually was someone from the left or not.
The response they see is all they need to justify any reaction. Of course they’re conveniently forgetting their own response (and Charlie Kirk’s response) to Pelosi’s attacker.
I’m of two minds about celebrating his death, in that I do, but I agree that people cheering vigilante killings is a sign of an unhealthy society. We definitely have an unhealthy society, and it seems like there’s not a functioning justice system for prosecuting people who foment hatred or commit societal murder, but this could lead to an American Reign of Terror, which would obviously be tragic.
That said, there’s a difference between being glad someone’s gone and declaring war on half of the political spectrum. I won’t say it definitely didn’t happen, but I didn’t see anyone suggesting that we take revenge for that senator, even on Lemmy. Certainly not in as widespread a manner as I’m now seeing it for Charlie Kirk.
Lemmykins are incredibly hypocritical.
And of course the right winger regurgitates the old moronic “So much for the tolerant left”.
Read up on the paradox of tolerance.
Swing and a miss.
No right minded person is going to give empathy for a dead Nazi, but look at you go.
Stop feeding the troll. Block it and move on.
Strike two!
I hope you don’t fall off all the way up there bud
And he’s out. Never got close to being right, but he tried anyway.
Maybe, yeah. But I’m thinking more that it’s that they’re human, and maybe humans on both sides aren’t all that great at holding themselves to that bar. Like, maybe it’s not that Threadiverse users are particularly abnormal as people go, and more that the normal person isn’t very good at refraining from giving “their side” a pass.
Oh, you’re absolutely right. Both sides absolutely think “I’m going God’s righteous work” and that the other side is simply “evil”. The hyper-partisanship has been crazy for some time on both sides. And then along comes a sociopath authoritarian (Trump) to just kick it all up to 11…
deleted by creator
State level politicians are less likely to have impact outside their state. Nobody knew Hortman. Kirk was known by virtually everyone. Much bigger impact, much bigger reaction.
2/4 of the people I talked to yesterday had no idea who he was, so not as big to folks who don’t end up seeing the full stage.
I only knew of him as some right wing edgelord troll type until a month ago or so. Never saw him speak.
Given that the reaction from media on the left also shows a very different reaction Kirk vs. Hortman, I think your estimation of the difference between the two is not reflective of what’ll be the final reaction to these two events.
These are national talking heads. They know about all these events.