3 ms·

It's funny, because government officials, journalist, healthcare workers, and educators are exactly the kind of people Kirk attacked as a podcaster, and general

It's funny, because government officials, journalist, healthcare workers, and educators are exactly the kind of people Kirk attacked as a podcaster, and generally have been the primary targets of the MAGA right. Podcasters are apparently not high enough on the trust ladder to be held to a higher standard for what they say. We are at a place where the president of the united states gets to mount an insurrection and pardon people who beat cops with the American flag then claim the opposition is "fostering violence"; gets to claim that educators are "grooming and indoctrinating kids", that journalists are the "enemy of the people", that government officials are the "enemy within". While those people on the left are expected to summarily disarm their rhetoric because they are in positions of trust. Sure but what about: gestures toward the president of the united states. Or what about, I don't know, the world's richest man, Elon Musk? He has so much power and therefore responsibility. Why isn't he expected to speak with prudence and responsibility? He's on Twitter spouting off about how the left is "the party of murder" before anyone even knew anything. AOC, Bernie, and Zohran are often labeled "radical left socialists", but they offered nothing but calls for peace and calm from them. Meanwhile Musk was calling them murderers! No one is going to fire him for that rhetoric! So if you're going to demand accountability for words from people in positions of trust -- which to be clear I agree with -- let's be honest about the fact that some people are put in higher positions of trust, and some people should be, but for some reason (money/power) are not ever, never, not once held to account for what they say. So maybe if we want to actually change something as a society, we should stop doing the same thing, and instead hold people at the highest echelons of power responsible for the things they say and do.

zahlman 1y ago
[flagged]
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Summarily dismissing someone's opinion as "political" and out of bounds for discussion is pretty much the height of trampling curiosity.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    I have not "summarily dismissed your opinion as political". I have observed that you are presenting a bunch of mostly unrelated political talking points and not engaging honestly with the comment you replied to.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      I engaged with your post in several ways, the primary way being 1) I agreed with the substance of your post and 2) I extended your list of "people held in positions of high trust who should be more careful with their words" to include the president and the world's richest man, who are in fact engaged in divisive rhetoric at the moment, far worse and more impactful than any teacher or doctor. That's very related. If you didn't want to engage with me that's fine, but saying people are engaging in political ideological battles and therefore out of bounds, when the discussion is about politicis and ideologies, is lame. Saying you didn't summarily dismiss my opinion as political is straight up false when your last reply was a one line quote from the rule page
      - zahlman 1y ago
        > I agreed with the substance of your post No, you didn't. You used it as a jumping-off point to attack the entire universe of people you disagree with. > but saying people are engaging in political ideological battles and therefore out of bounds, when the discussion is about politicis and ideologies This is entirely disingenuous. The scope of the discussion is much narrower than that, and does not give you cause to bring in the actions of Trump, Musk, "MAGA" as a group, etc. etc. etc. > Saying you didn't summarily dismiss my opinion as political is straight up false when your last reply was a one line quote from the rule page It is true, because I did not "summarily dismiss your opinion"; I carefully read and assessed your entire post, and considered its form entirely inappropriate. Your opinion is not actually relevant to that judgment. I would be saying the same thing if you were speaking out against whatever other groups in the same fashion. I am stopping here because > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. and it's abundantly clear that this is no longer possible.

zahlman 1y ago

[flagged]

ModernMech 1y ago
Summarily dismissing someone's opinion as "political" and out of bounds for discussion is pretty much the height of trampling curiosity.
- zahlman 1y ago
  I have not "summarily dismissed your opinion as political". I have observed that you are presenting a bunch of mostly unrelated political talking points and not engaging honestly with the comment you replied to.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    I engaged with your post in several ways, the primary way being 1) I agreed with the substance of your post and 2) I extended your list of "people held in positions of high trust who should be more careful with their words" to include the president and the world's richest man, who are in fact engaged in divisive rhetoric at the moment, far worse and more impactful than any teacher or doctor. That's very related. If you didn't want to engage with me that's fine, but saying people are engaging in political ideological battles and therefore out of bounds, when the discussion is about politicis and ideologies, is lame. Saying you didn't summarily dismiss my opinion as political is straight up false when your last reply was a one line quote from the rule page
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > I agreed with the substance of your post No, you didn't. You used it as a jumping-off point to attack the entire universe of people you disagree with. > but saying people are engaging in political ideological battles and therefore out of bounds, when the discussion is about politicis and ideologies This is entirely disingenuous. The scope of the discussion is much narrower than that, and does not give you cause to bring in the actions of Trump, Musk, "MAGA" as a group, etc. etc. etc. > Saying you didn't summarily dismiss my opinion as political is straight up false when your last reply was a one line quote from the rule page It is true, because I did not "summarily dismiss your opinion"; I carefully read and assessed your entire post, and considered its form entirely inappropriate. Your opinion is not actually relevant to that judgment. I would be saying the same thing if you were speaking out against whatever other groups in the same fashion. I am stopping here because > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. and it's abundantly clear that this is no longer possible.