7 ms·

Dowd didn't say that it was good, but did seem to agree that it was justified: > Dowd responded by saying about about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive

Dowd didn't say that it was good, but did seem to agree that it was justified: > Dowd responded by saying about about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.” (via https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/comcast-execs-criticize-msnbc-matthew-132552519.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/comcast-execs-criticize-...) To me, that's approximately as bad.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
itsdrewmiller 1y ago
That? That reads like “if you put a lot of hateful words out in the world you should expect it to lead to hateful action”. If anything this would be more relevant if Kirk inspired someone to kill any of the various groups he encouraged violence against. It doesn’t read at all like a justifying for killing him.
soraminazuki 1y ago
If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. That's just explaining cause and effect. You're bending over backwards to come up with an excuse for shutting down speech for purely ideological reasons. Justify policies enabling gun violence, and you make the world a more dangerous place, including for yourself. Sow hate and violence, and you end up creating people who hate you back. Why is that so hard to understand for some people? Why on earth do some people interpret that as a call for violence? None of it makes any sense.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. It is when you say it of someone who was pushed rather than jumping. There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. Hundreds of millions of Americans support the right to bear arms on at least some level.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    > There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. I come from a New Zealand, and we have fairly strict gun laws. That having loose laws and lots of guns comes with more deaths doesn’t seem at all surprising.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      I come from (have lived in my entire life) Canada, which also has fairly strict gun laws. It is indeed not surprising that a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths. That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths > That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. > I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. > Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified".
        zahlman 1y ago
        > This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. No, it isn't. The disingenuous framing is the one supposing that his model of "some gun deaths" included political assassinations. It clearly did not. > That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified". It is "of course there will be deaths". Just as it would be if the subject were cars, or kitchen knives, or poisonous household cleaners, or pesticides, or any other potentially lethal thing that ordinary Americans have access to. If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough to include this, then it is too weak to conclude that there is any harm or moral wrong in saying it. To pick on this is to miss the point completely: > This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted. I've explained this in many other comments already. And I'm doing this as a Canadian who doesn't share Kirk's view.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

itsdrewmiller 1y ago

That? That reads like “if you put a lot of hateful words out in the world you should expect it to lead to hateful action”. If anything this would be more relevant if Kirk inspired someone to kill any of the various groups he encouraged violence against. It doesn’t read at all like a justifying for killing him.

soraminazuki 1y ago

If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. That's just explaining cause and effect. You're bending over backwards to come up with an excuse for shutting down speech for purely ideological reasons. Justify policies enabling gun violence, and you make the world a more dangerous place, including for yourself. Sow hate and violence, and you end up creating people who hate you back. Why is that so hard to understand for some people? Why on earth do some people interpret that as a call for violence? None of it makes any sense.

zahlman 1y ago
> If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. It is when you say it of someone who was pushed rather than jumping. There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. Hundreds of millions of Americans support the right to bear arms on at least some level.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. I come from a New Zealand, and we have fairly strict gun laws. That having loose laws and lots of guns comes with more deaths doesn’t seem at all surprising.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    I come from (have lived in my entire life) Canada, which also has fairly strict gun laws. It is indeed not surprising that a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths. That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths > That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. > I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. > Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified".
      - zahlman 1y ago
        > This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. No, it isn't. The disingenuous framing is the one supposing that his model of "some gun deaths" included political assassinations. It clearly did not. > That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified". It is "of course there will be deaths". Just as it would be if the subject were cars, or kitchen knives, or poisonous household cleaners, or pesticides, or any other potentially lethal thing that ordinary Americans have access to. If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough to include this, then it is too weak to conclude that there is any harm or moral wrong in saying it. To pick on this is to miss the point completely: > This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted. I've explained this in many other comments already. And I'm doing this as a Canadian who doesn't share Kirk's view.