4 ms·

> Who exactly made comments that attempted to justify or rationalize her death as a consequence of things she had said in the past? Well, gee, it sorta seems l

> Who exactly made comments that attempted to justify or rationalize her death as a consequence of things she had said in the past? Well, gee, it sorta seems like that kind of behavior would be more prevalent when the person in question has actually said things in the past that support killing people. Did Melissa Hortman say such things? Did she found an entire organization dedicated to promoting bigotry, hate, and the inherent superiority of a particular "race"? Did she make explicit statements that we should all be happy to accept some innocent deaths every year as a cost of unlimited access to firearms? Because if she didn't say stuff like that, then it would be much, much less likely that anyone would even suggest that her words were in any way related to her death.

zahlman 1y ago
> when the person in question has actually said things in the past that support killing people. Charlie Kirk has said nothing of the sort, so none of this is relevant. > Did she found an entire organization dedicated to promoting bigotry, hate, and the inherent superiority of a particular "race"? Kirk's organization is not dedicated to anything of the sort. > Did she make explicit statements that we should all be happy to accept some innocent deaths every year as a cost of unlimited access to firearms? Kirk did not say anything about being happy about it; regardless this statement does not support killing people. > it would be much, much less likely that anyone would even suggest that her words were in any way related to her death. But anyway, this still doesn't matter. Suggesting that someone's words justified death is an absolute moral wrong no matter what those words were.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  In Mr. Kirk's own words, "The “Great Replacement” is not a theory, it’s a reality." https://www.instagram.com/p/C3swagnvfbN/ https://www.instagram.com/p/C3swagnvfbN/ "Great Replacement Theory" is an inherently racist ideology that ignores (in the context of the US) multiple centuries of history in favor of an idea that there's an "other" that is going to replace "real Americans." It is, perhaps, a stretch to claim that the organization he founded promoted bigotry, hate, or the superiority of a particular race... But it's not much of a stretch when the organization's founder and leader is making easily-verified racist statements such as this one. > Suggesting that someone's words justified death is an absolute moral wrong no matter what those words were. In general, I haven't seen people making the hard assertion online that his words justified his death and I would agree with you. But I have seen plenty of "I don't think Charlie Kirk should have died, but the philosophy Charlie Kirk espoused shouldn't care if Charlie Kirk died" and I don't think I can argue with that assessment of the legacy of his work.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > "Great Replacement Theory" is an inherently racist ideology No, it is neither racist (edit: as described by Kirk) nor an ideology. It's an accusation about the intentions of others, in a "the purpose of a system is what it does" kind of way (faulty logic — as I've argued on HN before — but not bigoted), based on observing demographic trends, the rate of immigration etc. It is deeply conspiratorial thinking, but it does not claim that the people being "replaced" are inherently superior. Thus it is not racist even if we establish that the ingroup-outgroup distinction is racial, which already requires a quite broad conception of "race". (And Americans really are strange about that, in my opinion. There have been multiple occasions where I have been told that Americans generally consider a specific person to be "black" and I have deeply struggled to understand how that could be.) It is perfectly legitimate to suppose that the existing population of a country has a greater right to continue to exist on that land, and for their offspring to live there, than those who are petitioning from abroad to live there. In fact, it's hard to argue that a legitimate nation exists, in a place that lacks a government trusted to determine questions of citizenship. Besides which, one individual's use of a term does not necessarily carry every other user's intent. In brief, Kirk never argued that someone should be extradited, or lose citizenship, on the basis of race. Nor does that argument follow from anything he said. And note that you have not at all addressed the point about "words that support killing people". > In general, I haven't seen people making the hard assertion online that his words justified his death I have been shown many people outright celebrating. This is not something that can be feasibly done by someone who has normal psychological aversion to death and doesn't consider the death justified. > But I have seen plenty of "I don't think Charlie Kirk should have died, but the philosophy Charlie Kirk espoused shouldn't care if Charlie Kirk died" I've seen plenty of messages that included the second part without the first part. But regardless, this reflects a plain misunderstanding of that philosophy. Again, no pro-killing ideology here, outside of e.g. support for potentially-lethal police force to apprehend criminals in the act.
    - foldr 1y ago
      GRT is racist because it's essential premise is that America belongs to white people, who are not the "existing population of [the] country" in any objective sense independent of racist ideology. GRTs do not care how long you have been in the US; they only care if you are white. (So people with indigenous ancestry and the great great grandchildren of slaves can go take a hike.) Murder and political assassination are deeply wrong, but are you sure you really want to go down the rabbit hole of GRT apologism to make your point about that?
benmmurphy 1y ago
presumably she implicitly believes in tradeoffs because she hasn't campaigned to remove all motor vehicles from the road. surely, anyone arguing that cars should be allowed on the road when they are one of the leading causes of deaths is irredeemably evil and deserves to be mocked if they have the misfortune of dying in a car accident. Also, if Minnesota executed people for traffic violations then Hortman would not have been killed by Boetler. Surely, this means she is a hypocrite because she would not support such a policy.

zahlman 1y ago

> when the person in question has actually said things in the past that support killing people. Charlie Kirk has said nothing of the sort, so none of this is relevant. > Did she found an entire organization dedicated to promoting bigotry, hate, and the inherent superiority of a particular "race"? Kirk's organization is not dedicated to anything of the sort. > Did she make explicit statements that we should all be happy to accept some innocent deaths every year as a cost of unlimited access to firearms? Kirk did not say anything about being happy about it; regardless this statement does not support killing people. > it would be much, much less likely that anyone would even suggest that her words were in any way related to her death. But anyway, this still doesn't matter. Suggesting that someone's words justified death is an absolute moral wrong no matter what those words were.

shadowgovt 1y ago
In Mr. Kirk's own words, "The “Great Replacement” is not a theory, it’s a reality." https://www.instagram.com/p/C3swagnvfbN/ https://www.instagram.com/p/C3swagnvfbN/ "Great Replacement Theory" is an inherently racist ideology that ignores (in the context of the US) multiple centuries of history in favor of an idea that there's an "other" that is going to replace "real Americans." It is, perhaps, a stretch to claim that the organization he founded promoted bigotry, hate, or the superiority of a particular race... But it's not much of a stretch when the organization's founder and leader is making easily-verified racist statements such as this one. > Suggesting that someone's words justified death is an absolute moral wrong no matter what those words were. In general, I haven't seen people making the hard assertion online that his words justified his death and I would agree with you. But I have seen plenty of "I don't think Charlie Kirk should have died, but the philosophy Charlie Kirk espoused shouldn't care if Charlie Kirk died" and I don't think I can argue with that assessment of the legacy of his work.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > "Great Replacement Theory" is an inherently racist ideology No, it is neither racist (edit: as described by Kirk) nor an ideology. It's an accusation about the intentions of others, in a "the purpose of a system is what it does" kind of way (faulty logic — as I've argued on HN before — but not bigoted), based on observing demographic trends, the rate of immigration etc. It is deeply conspiratorial thinking, but it does not claim that the people being "replaced" are inherently superior. Thus it is not racist even if we establish that the ingroup-outgroup distinction is racial, which already requires a quite broad conception of "race". (And Americans really are strange about that, in my opinion. There have been multiple occasions where I have been told that Americans generally consider a specific person to be "black" and I have deeply struggled to understand how that could be.) It is perfectly legitimate to suppose that the existing population of a country has a greater right to continue to exist on that land, and for their offspring to live there, than those who are petitioning from abroad to live there. In fact, it's hard to argue that a legitimate nation exists, in a place that lacks a government trusted to determine questions of citizenship. Besides which, one individual's use of a term does not necessarily carry every other user's intent. In brief, Kirk never argued that someone should be extradited, or lose citizenship, on the basis of race. Nor does that argument follow from anything he said. And note that you have not at all addressed the point about "words that support killing people". > In general, I haven't seen people making the hard assertion online that his words justified his death I have been shown many people outright celebrating. This is not something that can be feasibly done by someone who has normal psychological aversion to death and doesn't consider the death justified. > But I have seen plenty of "I don't think Charlie Kirk should have died, but the philosophy Charlie Kirk espoused shouldn't care if Charlie Kirk died" I've seen plenty of messages that included the second part without the first part. But regardless, this reflects a plain misunderstanding of that philosophy. Again, no pro-killing ideology here, outside of e.g. support for potentially-lethal police force to apprehend criminals in the act.
  - foldr 1y ago
    GRT is racist because it's essential premise is that America belongs to white people, who are not the "existing population of [the] country" in any objective sense independent of racist ideology. GRTs do not care how long you have been in the US; they only care if you are white. (So people with indigenous ancestry and the great great grandchildren of slaves can go take a hike.) Murder and political assassination are deeply wrong, but are you sure you really want to go down the rabbit hole of GRT apologism to make your point about that?

benmmurphy 1y ago

presumably she implicitly believes in tradeoffs because she hasn't campaigned to remove all motor vehicles from the road. surely, anyone arguing that cars should be allowed on the road when they are one of the leading causes of deaths is irredeemably evil and deserves to be mocked if they have the misfortune of dying in a car accident. Also, if Minnesota executed people for traffic violations then Hortman would not have been killed by Boetler. Surely, this means she is a hypocrite because she would not support such a policy.