10 ms·
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
by bigstrat2003 1y ago
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.
- protocolture 1y ago[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoIt is better to peacefully respond to fascism with speech until far after the point where most of the loud voices say "we need violence to oppose this!" There comes a point where you have to oppose fascism with violence. There really does. But wow are people overeager to jump into it.
- protocolture 1y ago>There comes a point where you have to oppose fascism with violence. I am betting if you read a history of germany, you would probably pick roughly the same point that the US has long since passed as the time to resist openly. Most people do in abstract.
- LocalH 1y agoIf we wait as long as you are suggesting, then it's already too late
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 1y agoCould you use a historical example to articulate where you thought that point was?
- selfmodruntime 1y agoCharlie Kirk was many things, and I disagree with almost any of his positions, but man, Americans should really google the definitions of words like „fascist“ before using them.
- unethical_ban 1y agoStephen Miller, a senior White House official, is calling for anyone who doesn't love Kirk enough to lose their job, their money, and THEN if they broke the law, their freedom. What political ideology supports the government facilitating the loss of financial security due to speech?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 1y ago[flagged]
- NewJazz 1y agoCommenter is saying it doesn't matter if they are, we should just speak nicely about them because their life is our's to preserve.
- bilbo0s 1y agoWell, we don’t need to speak nicely about anything or anyone. We do have the First. But we should be civil. Which is different than being nice, but is far more important. Many generals in war are not terribly nice to their enemies. They are, however, civil. We lost more than ordered discourse in our abrogation of the societal pact with civility.
- NewJazz 1y agoWtf are you talking about? You want me to treat people like Charlie Kirk like an enemy in war? Do you know what happens in war? Do you know just how often even the minimal rules in the Geneva convention are violated?
- bilbo0s 1y ago> You want me to treat people like Charlie Kirk like an enemy in war? Maybe you haven't paying attention, but liberals and conservatives are already treating each other like they are enemies in a war. Tit for tat assassinations. Why do you think when liberals get killed, for instance, Melissa Hortman, the conservatives in power don't even lower the flag. None of that has anything to do with me or my views. I mean, if it makes you feel any better, my preference would be that we divest both liberals and conservatives of power. So it'd be better to direct your question/admonition at liberals and conservatives guy. I'm apolitical. > Do you know what happens in war? I first got off the bus in Quantico for PLC in 1991. Even then, I had no illusions about what happens in war. This is what makes civility important. I won't go too far into it, but civility and discipline, believe it or not, are the only things keeping officers on both sides alive. No one will admit it to you, but it's the only thing preventing soldiers from doing a whole lot more than just breaking a few trifling Geneva Conventions.
- NewJazz 1y agoWhat if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?
- mvdtnz 1y ago[flagged]
- tomrod 1y agoOverplayed the card should read "warned early and were proven correct", right?
- eYrKEC2 1y agoA guy who gathers large groups of people to talk with them and persuade them on political topics is the _essence_ of democracy. Someone who calls for violence or does violence against people wishing to have open debate is the essence of fascism.
- p_j_w 1y ago[flagged]
- sethammons 1y agoreal question: what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda, and the end result of following said goals is the loss of your way of life? What if lies are held as truth and money allows the lies to be repeated so often many don't even realize their axioms are baseless? What happens to the sheep when the wolves vote to eat the sheep?
- eYrKEC2 1y agoThen I guess you become a monarchist, like Curtis Yarvin. But of all things Charlie Kirk was not, first among them: He was not "a threat to democracy".
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Loughla 1y agoThe 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.
- kybernetikos 1y agoDo we know if this violence is politically motivated yet? (Other common motivations are mental health issues, paranoia, revenge, desire for fame etc). Of course it seems likely, but it also seems premature to jump to trying to use this as proof of a particular personal position. I definitely believe that people should be more understanding of each other, and less quick to jump to insults and othering, but we know so little about this situation, to be so confident that it was caused by speech seems extreme. I am also aware that a lot of the political violence of the last few years ended up not being motivated by the reasons one might naturally expect.
- mvdtnz 1y ago[flagged]
- OhMeadhbh 1y agoI mean... it could have been a jilted ex-lover.
- zamadatix 1y agoI guess that largely depends on how one qualifies "politically motivated". By some definitions it's easy to include any of what you listed as also part of a politically motivated attack, by a narrower definition one could just as easily choose to exclude them. E.g. whether an attacker is paranoid is orthogonal to whether the attack involved the victim's political views/activity in some way. At the root I agree in principal though. It's, for example, still possible he picked a bad fight with an unstable individual in a bar last night (over something not politically related) and they followed him to the event he was speaking at to shoot him. I'm not as convinced I've seen that kind of thing happen "a lot", but it's true we don't have post validation yet.
- sva_ 1y agoThe people who came up with the concept of "stochastic terrorism" seem to be pretty silent when it hits the other side.
- tomrod 1y agoI don't understand this comment. This happened a few hours ago while the decedent was commenting on 5/5700 mass shootings being performed by trans people being enough to take rights, which the decedent normally argues should not be abrogated, away, and that most shootings were gang violence. This is after a few years long history of promoting inaction on guns despite clear Constitutionality and clear need. Ironically it was at a school, making it a school shooting. Unironically, there was a school shooting in Colorado occurring at the same time. Guns are the problem. Everyone knows this. Some try to justify it anyway, Mr. Kirk among them. Like I said, I simply don't understand why someone's response mere hours after a deadly shooting is "I blame my political enemies who are wholly uninvolved and tried to help prevent these types of occurrences." --- Edit -- Here are two quotes from, as you said, your political enemies: > JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones." > BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy." Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us-right-wing-activist-charlie-kirk-2025-09-10/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us...
- tomrod 1y agoBecause the other comment was flagged by people acting in anger, I want to make sure you knew that several folks are speaking up from both sides of the aisle. Here are two quotes from people whom you consider your political enemies: > JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones." > BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy." Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us...
- ivape 1y agoTranslation: 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.
- chasd00 1y ago> Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that. Sort of, even South Park self censored when it came to drawing an animated Muhammad.
- trimethylpurine 1y agoI think you may have missed their message. That they self censored for fear of violent retaliation makes strong ridicule of the threatening group. It exemplifies its contrast with a free society. It essentially says, "They are so lacking of basic compassion that even jokes are not allowed." That's the joke.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- NickC25 1y agoIt also highlights to normal society that there are indeed people whose beliefs are so absurd that they get worked up and want to kill people over a stick figure.
- kybernetikos 1y agoYou 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.
- roenxi 1y agoI'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots. The view is nearly impossible to avoid in context. How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times? To the point where assassinating political opponents is justified? It would bring on the end of a society. It might well happen in the US case, they've been heading in a pretty dangerous direction rhetorically. If we take the Soviet Union as a benchmark they probably have a long way to go but that sort of journey seems unnecessary and stupid.
- tshaddox 1y ago> I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots. "You shouldn't do anything unjustified" is an uncontroversial and useless prescription.
- the_gastropod 1y ago[flagged]
- anthem2025 1y ago[flagged]
- pjc50 1y ago> 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.
- ponector 1y ago>> this person is a threat to democracy I would say it is true. Such killer is a threat to democracy.
- cryptonector 1y agoYes, assassinations (and the people who do them and/or pay for them) are in fact a threat to civil society.
- AndrewDucker 1y agoWhat should people say when someone is advocating against democracy?
- kbelder 1y agoThey should argue against them, and explain why democracy is better?
- afavour 1y ago[flagged]
- OCASMv2 1y ago> What if that person is a threat to democracy though? What does that even mean?
- afavour 1y ago[flagged]
- antonvs 1y agoWishes to remove it, and speaks or acts in ways that further that goal. There’s a false right-wing talking point that the US “is a republic, not a democracy”. The US is both a representative democracy and a republic, but the talking point equivocates on the meaning of “democracy”, conflating it with direct democracy, and this apparently fools far more people than it should. The goal of people who push such propaganda is to weaken support for, and understanding of, democracy. There isn’t any doubt that they, and the people who unthinkingly repeat the propaganda, are a threat to democracy.
- pembrook 1y agoIf people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic? If you actually believe in democracy, nobody can ever be a “danger to democracy” for expressing their opinions…since that is the point of a democracy. Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument devoid of meaning used by people who can’t rationally argue their positions with logic.
- afavour 1y ago> If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic? Sure. When did that vote happen?
- 1y ago
- siliconc0w 1y agoIt 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.
- fundad 1y agoIs it bad to be a threat to democracy? Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better. I don't agree but it's actually a popular point of view. Are we supposed to be so afraid to point that out that we censor ourselves?
- alxjrvs 1y ago> Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better. Well, since they don't believe in democracy, I suppose they won't be too concerned when their opinions are discarded. What do they want, representation?
- unethical_ban 1y agoYes
- 8note 1y agopoliticial violence in this case will be quite effective in terms of later voting results - kirk was a good story teller who could get people enthusiastic about ideas. attempts to make it such that a similar event dont happen again will be much more likely to succeed now that hes dead than they were while he was alive
- unethical_ban 1y ago
- communitymember 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- breadwinner 1y agoViolence 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.
- tomrod 1y agoAgree. It's unfortunate that violence often becomes the settlement when folks let norms dissolve.
- cryptonector 1y ago> But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion. All claims I see of a person being "a threat to democracy" are super exaggerated, and almost always of the "a thread to our democracy" (which makes one wonder: who is "us" in that phrase, and what about everyone else?). Exaggerating threats is itself an incitement to violence. Maybe tone it down?
- unethical_ban 1y ago[flagged]
- dgb23 1y agoI remember when the tone started to shift. The onslaught of lies, hate and hyperbole. It only got worse since then, and things that are acceptable politically today were unthinkable then. There have been no consequences, no corrections, no apologies for blatant lying and spreading hate. There’s not even a pretense of honesty anymore. “Tone it down!” That’s rich!
- cman1444 1y agoThis may be true for Kirk specifically, but in general I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say there are threats to "our" (meaning all Americans) democracy when there's frequent attempts to subvert and even overthrow election results. See: January 6th insurrection, trump's call to the GA secretary of state, increased gerrymandering, and attempts to throw out certain ballots. Are these not threats to democracy?
- yibg 1y agoI 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.
- cryptonector 1y ago> 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. The First Amendment is about stopping the government from stopping you from saying the things you want to say. The First Amendment says nothing about social norms. People in this thread are asking for people to tone down the rhetoric, something that seems eminently reasonable. Think of it this way: if you want to insist that so and so are "a threat to democracy", what's to stop them from similarly inciting violence towards you? Generalized violence would not be good for anyone, including those who might currently feel safe from it. The golden rule is always in effect.
- yibg 1y agoMy core objection is the claim that saying so and so is "a threat to democracy" is inciting violence. Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not? One doesn't seem any more extreme than the other to me.
- cryptonector 1y agoTo be fair, you can incite violence and that speech is protected under the First Amendment as long as there is no risk of imminent violence. So, yes, your speech saying so and so is a "threat to democracy" is protected speech, but it is in fact inciting violence. > Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not? The quote was: | We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society. Indeed that is very much not incitement to violence but actually incitement to de-escalation. The "or the cycle is going to..." part is not specifically a threat against any one person, unlike the "so and so is a threat to democracy". How can you not see this?
- wturner 1y agoI'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.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- like_any_other 1y agoThe 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.
- bertil 1y ago> 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.
- Quarrelsome 1y ago> 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.
- oceanplexian 1y agoI couldn't imagine celebrating the murder of another person, no matter how bad. And I consider that to be the hallmark of being a civilized person.
- Quarrelsome 1y agoPerhaps you are unclear on the devestation in Ukraine that Vladimir Putin is responsible for, and continues to be responsible for while he lives. Could you say the same if he murdered your friends, family, children? All for what? That man has no respect for human life, civilization or diplomacy. While within a civilization we can afford each other grace, it remains important for the very security of our civilization that we retain our malice and use it sparingly on those who seek to destroy it. Otherwise i fear that we only believe in it because its convenient or makes us feel morally superior. Do really believe in it if you're not willing to get your hands bloody to defend it? If you were capable of defending it, would you not celebrate the victory? Putin being murdered tomorrow would create a significant opportunity for peace in the region and spare many, many lives. Such an event would be worthy of cheer.
- pixl97 1y agoAnd yet huge portions of America celebrated Sadams and Osamas death. One must be cautious in believing that all people around them will maintain decorum and act civilized.
- cryptonector 1y agoNow do Gadaffi.
- creatonez 1y agoTelling 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.
- unethical_ban 1y agoHow 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.
- mynameyeff 1y agoMSNBC commentators today said some things today that were so horrendous.