4 ms·

You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by el

You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.

antifa 1y ago
[flagged]
- shlant 1y ago
  [flagged]
- alickz 1y ago
  [flagged]
blks 1y ago
Would an attack on Goebbels be seen as fighting the tyranny?
- mrsopa 1y ago
  Everyone invoking Godwin's law. This is exactly what Charlie was about, having an open discussion with someone, listening to each other, even those you disagree with. Free speech was attacked today and for that we all lost something important. Any comparison to Goebbels is absurd.
  - cman1444 1y ago
    Why is the comparison absurd?
    - skinkestek 1y ago
      Can we at least start with the facts about Goebbels? He was: - Pro–killing “undesirable” children (look up T4 or Tiergartenstraße 14) - Virulently anti-Jewish For starters, Charlie Kirk, for all his flaws, is the opposite on those two points. I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
      - cman1444 1y ago
        I think there are many differences and I certainly wouldn't say that the two are perfectly analogous at all, but I think the comparison mainly refers to their similarities as propagandists for their respective leaders which has some validity to it. I'm curious though: In what way do Democrats (or "the left") share far more political DNA with Nazis?
        throwaway091025 1y ago
        [flagged]
        cman1444 1y ago
        First of all, it is important to not generalize an entire side of the spectrum based on the actions of an individual. Secondly, if you are going to do that you should apply the same logic to both sides, and we know that there have been assassinations as well as other forms of political violence from the right as well.
        mrsopa 1y ago
        Propagandist for their respective leaders. Was Chester Cheetah the Goebbels of Frito-Lay? Or any other spokesperson for their respective beliefs or organization. Like the other poster stated, one stark difference is that Charlie was strongly in favor of Israel something that diametrically opposes him to Nazi ideology. Secondly, Goebbels and the Nazis were in favor of total control of information. Charlie again was the opposite of that. Anyone could come and challenge him, and actually that did not always go well for Charlie, but he welcomed the open dialogue up until the moment someone murdered him for that.
- jennyholzer 1y ago
  [flagged]
nobody9999 1y ago
>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions. You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk? They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions. This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC. If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable. And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you. Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.
orsenthil 1y ago
> You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. Why did Donald Trump order flags to be lowered to half-mast for 5 days for this media personality ?
lynndotpy 1y ago
I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy. The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them. I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism. As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill. That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.
- throwaway091025 1y ago
  [flagged]
- judahmeek 1y ago
  There is irony in an authoritarian majority supporting an oppressed minorities' ability to commit political violence. While the cost of the second amendment is high, it might prove to be a better political stress release valve than I thought. If anything, I wonder if the increased political violence will eventually cause conservatives to reconsider their lack of support for Red Flag laws.
- Rapzid 1y ago
  > The Second Amendment fantasy Straw man. Maybe that's your fantasy?
- Whoppertime 1y ago
  https://youtu.be/0r_xc09q9vo https://youtu.be/0r_xc09q9vo

antifa 1y ago

[flagged]

shlant 1y ago
[flagged]
alickz 1y ago
[flagged]

blks 1y ago

Would an attack on Goebbels be seen as fighting the tyranny?

mrsopa 1y ago
Everyone invoking Godwin's law. This is exactly what Charlie was about, having an open discussion with someone, listening to each other, even those you disagree with. Free speech was attacked today and for that we all lost something important. Any comparison to Goebbels is absurd.
- cman1444 1y ago
  Why is the comparison absurd?
  - skinkestek 1y ago
    Can we at least start with the facts about Goebbels? He was: - Pro–killing “undesirable” children (look up T4 or Tiergartenstraße 14) - Virulently anti-Jewish For starters, Charlie Kirk, for all his flaws, is the opposite on those two points. I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
    - cman1444 1y ago
      I think there are many differences and I certainly wouldn't say that the two are perfectly analogous at all, but I think the comparison mainly refers to their similarities as propagandists for their respective leaders which has some validity to it. I'm curious though: In what way do Democrats (or "the left") share far more political DNA with Nazis?
      - throwaway091025 1y ago
        [flagged]
        cman1444 1y ago
        First of all, it is important to not generalize an entire side of the spectrum based on the actions of an individual. Secondly, if you are going to do that you should apply the same logic to both sides, and we know that there have been assassinations as well as other forms of political violence from the right as well.
      - mrsopa 1y ago
        Propagandist for their respective leaders. Was Chester Cheetah the Goebbels of Frito-Lay? Or any other spokesperson for their respective beliefs or organization. Like the other poster stated, one stark difference is that Charlie was strongly in favor of Israel something that diametrically opposes him to Nazi ideology. Secondly, Goebbels and the Nazis were in favor of total control of information. Charlie again was the opposite of that. Anyone could come and challenge him, and actually that did not always go well for Charlie, but he welcomed the open dialogue up until the moment someone murdered him for that.
jennyholzer 1y ago
[flagged]

nobody9999 1y ago

>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions. You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk? They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions. This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC. If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable. And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you. Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.

orsenthil 1y ago

> You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. Why did Donald Trump order flags to be lowered to half-mast for 5 days for this media personality ?

lynndotpy 1y ago

I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy. The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them. I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism. As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill. That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.

throwaway091025 1y ago
[flagged]
judahmeek 1y ago
There is irony in an authoritarian majority supporting an oppressed minorities' ability to commit political violence. While the cost of the second amendment is high, it might prove to be a better political stress release valve than I thought. If anything, I wonder if the increased political violence will eventually cause conservatives to reconsider their lack of support for Red Flag laws.
Rapzid 1y ago
> The Second Amendment fantasy Straw man. Maybe that's your fantasy?
Whoppertime 1y ago
https://youtu.be/0r_xc09q9vo https://youtu.be/0r_xc09q9vo