4 ms·

1. Drumming up hate and violence and 2. arming the population dramatically increases the likelihood of widespread shootings. The risk is particularly acute for

1. Drumming up hate and violence and 2. arming the population dramatically increases the likelihood of widespread shootings. The risk is particularly acute for those at the forefront of these efforts. Dismissing the first point and downplaying the second does not alter the reality of the situation. These points also are in no way an encouragement of violence, despite your mental gymnastics. > It is when you say it of someone who was pushed rather than jumping. That's some blatant attempt at derailing the discussion, but even then you're still wrong. Cause and effect is still not justification.

zahlman 1y ago
> Dismissing the first point and downplaying the second I have not done these things. I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. > These points also are in no way an encouragement of violence I did not say they were. "Encouragement" and "justification" do not mean the same thing. Yes, I proposed that this was approximately as bad as saying that it was a good thing. Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. > That's some blatant attempt at derailing the discussion, but even then you're still wrong. Cause and effect is still not justification. It is not a derailment. It is a characterization of what's wrong with your analogy. The entire point is that you are trying to say that someone (Dowd) pointed out logical cause and effect, but he did not. He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. It is nothing of the sort. Kirk's quote, on the other hand, is accepting a statistical consequence and making a statement about risk and moral tradeoff, in defense of what he considered a fundamental right (I disagree, btw).
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  > I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. You can easily look that up. I'm not going to rehash every hateful far right arguments here. In fact, you can read the article to find a clear example of his behavior, where he literally cheers and jokes about political violence directed at those he disagrees with. > The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. It's not about "magnitude." I'm addressing your use of euphemisms when discussing the arming of the population with deadly weapons. You refer to it as "supporting the right to bear arms," as if that's just a matter of opinion and something harmless. No, it has real consequences and costs lives. > Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. That's a straight up lie. Dowd didn't say or even suggest that the shooting was a good thing. And no amount of mental gymnastics about "approximation" is going to make this not a lie. > He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. Yes, needlessly antagonizing and arming people results in armed people turning against you. Again, this isn't hard to understand. Nor is it unethical to point this out. The mental gymnastics on display is astounding. You're falsely accusing people of justifying violence, while defending someone who actually did that.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    This is my last reply, because I do not tolerate being accused of "lying" for saying things that I sincerely believe to be true and which I actively attempt to evidence. > You can easily look that up. I'm not going to rehash every hateful far right arguments here. In fact, you can read the article to find a clear example of his behavior, where he literally cheers and jokes about political violence directed at those he disagrees with. I read the article. It does not show Kirk doing anything of the sort. In fact it does not show Kirk doing anything at all; it only gives Dowd's general opinion of Kirk's rhetoric, which doesn't include any such claim. Furthermore, it cites the memo from Dowd's former employer, which directly contradicts the claim. > Charlie Kirk believed that “when people stop talking, really bad stuff starts.” Regardless of whether you agreed with his political views, his words and actions underscore the urgency to maintain a respectful exchange of ideas – a principle we must champion. Kirk's views were not "far right", more or less definitionally. A very large percentage of Americans would agree with most of what he had to say — as demonstrated by crowd reactions at his debates, and by recent election results. I'm not going to rehash every explanation here of why the things he said that are claimed to be hateful are in fact not actually hateful. Regardless, people saying hateful things does not justify a violent response. I firmly believe that Kirk agreed with me on that. > I'm addressing your use of euphemisms I am not "using a euphemism". I am simply rejecting your framing of the issue. You have no right to compel me to adopt your framing of the issue. And as a matter of fact, the American population objective is not "being armed". American gun owners by and large acquire guns by choosing to do so, not by having it forced upon them (for example by military conscription). In doing so, they are exercising a right that is, and has been, guaranteed to them and their forebears for nearly two hundred and fifty years, by the highest legal document in the land (and following on from a pre-existing common law tradition). A right which is consistently endorsed by a large majority of the American population, including Democrats (e.g. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/one-in-five-americans-wants-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/one-in-five-americ...). Again, I say this as someone who opposes gun ownership, living in a country with fairly strict gun laws and no similar recognition of a "right to bear arms". I respect law, and I respect national constitutions, and I respect societies. > That's a straight up lie. Dowd didn't say or even suggest that the shooting was a good thing. No, it's how words work. When you say that something is a good thing, you are not thereby encouraging similar things to happen. You are the one who misrepresented me. I said that Dowd appeared to consider the action justified; you falsely claimed that I said he encouraged such actions. I did not say that he further encouraged such actions. I also very explicitly said that he didn't say the shooting was good, so it is entirely off base to accuse me of "lying" and then point out that Dowd didn't say the specific thing that I agreed he didn't say. But I did have cause to view Dowd as seeing the shooting as justified. This was a subjective personal judgement, not a claim of fact; hence the phrase "did seem to agree". To "justify" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify) is "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable". Therefore, someone who thinks that something "is justified" is someone who believes that this has been shown. Where Dowd said: > 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. it came across to me that this reflected a belief on Dowd's part that the shooting was reasonable. This is a plain reading of Dowd's words, which use a common idiom to express the idea that the "awful actions" are a natural response to "saying these awful words". Therefore, Dowd "seemed to agree that it was justified". > And no amount of mental gymnastics about "approximation" is going to make this not a lie. I did not engage in any kind of mental gymnastics. I pointed out that different things were different; and I pointed out that you made an objective claim about what I was claiming that was objectively incorrect — what I actually claimed was different. Again, I gave a personal moral judgment that it's bad to justify political violence, specifically, about as bad as approving of that violence. You don't have to share my morals or values. But you are expected to abide by basic rules of civility. > Yes, needlessly antagonizing and arming people Kirk did not "needlessly antagonize" anyone; he spoke his mind. None of his expression of opinion was ever about a desire to make people angry. People did get angry, because they didn't like the fact that he had the opinions that he had. But he was absolutely entitled to have those opinions, and to express them. He also did not distribute weapons to people, certainly not to the shooter. > You're falsely accusing people of justifying violence, while defending someone who actually did that. I did not accuse anyone of justifying violence. I theorized that someone appeared to consider that violence justified — and gave clear reason why I thought so, which is easy to understand and follows from a plain reading of the words. Kirk did not, at any point I have been shown, claim any kind of extrajudicial violence to be justified. I can understand why other people believe he may have thought it justified, but I have already clearly explained why I think they are incorrect.

zahlman 1y ago

> Dismissing the first point and downplaying the second I have not done these things. I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. > These points also are in no way an encouragement of violence I did not say they were. "Encouragement" and "justification" do not mean the same thing. Yes, I proposed that this was approximately as bad as saying that it was a good thing. Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. > That's some blatant attempt at derailing the discussion, but even then you're still wrong. Cause and effect is still not justification. It is not a derailment. It is a characterization of what's wrong with your analogy. The entire point is that you are trying to say that someone (Dowd) pointed out logical cause and effect, but he did not. He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. It is nothing of the sort. Kirk's quote, on the other hand, is accepting a statistical consequence and making a statement about risk and moral tradeoff, in defense of what he considered a fundamental right (I disagree, btw).

soraminazuki 1y ago
> I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. You can easily look that up. I'm not going to rehash every hateful far right arguments here. In fact, you can read the article to find a clear example of his behavior, where he literally cheers and jokes about political violence directed at those he disagrees with. > The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. It's not about "magnitude." I'm addressing your use of euphemisms when discussing the arming of the population with deadly weapons. You refer to it as "supporting the right to bear arms," as if that's just a matter of opinion and something harmless. No, it has real consequences and costs lives. > Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. That's a straight up lie. Dowd didn't say or even suggest that the shooting was a good thing. And no amount of mental gymnastics about "approximation" is going to make this not a lie. > He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. Yes, needlessly antagonizing and arming people results in armed people turning against you. Again, this isn't hard to understand. Nor is it unethical to point this out. The mental gymnastics on display is astounding. You're falsely accusing people of justifying violence, while defending someone who actually did that.
- zahlman 1y ago
  This is my last reply, because I do not tolerate being accused of "lying" for saying things that I sincerely believe to be true and which I actively attempt to evidence. > You can easily look that up. I'm not going to rehash every hateful far right arguments here. In fact, you can read the article to find a clear example of his behavior, where he literally cheers and jokes about political violence directed at those he disagrees with. I read the article. It does not show Kirk doing anything of the sort. In fact it does not show Kirk doing anything at all; it only gives Dowd's general opinion of Kirk's rhetoric, which doesn't include any such claim. Furthermore, it cites the memo from Dowd's former employer, which directly contradicts the claim. > Charlie Kirk believed that “when people stop talking, really bad stuff starts.” Regardless of whether you agreed with his political views, his words and actions underscore the urgency to maintain a respectful exchange of ideas – a principle we must champion. Kirk's views were not "far right", more or less definitionally. A very large percentage of Americans would agree with most of what he had to say — as demonstrated by crowd reactions at his debates, and by recent election results. I'm not going to rehash every explanation here of why the things he said that are claimed to be hateful are in fact not actually hateful. Regardless, people saying hateful things does not justify a violent response. I firmly believe that Kirk agreed with me on that. > I'm addressing your use of euphemisms I am not "using a euphemism". I am simply rejecting your framing of the issue. You have no right to compel me to adopt your framing of the issue. And as a matter of fact, the American population objective is not "being armed". American gun owners by and large acquire guns by choosing to do so, not by having it forced upon them (for example by military conscription). In doing so, they are exercising a right that is, and has been, guaranteed to them and their forebears for nearly two hundred and fifty years, by the highest legal document in the land (and following on from a pre-existing common law tradition). A right which is consistently endorsed by a large majority of the American population, including Democrats (e.g. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/one-in-five-americans-wants-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/one-in-five-americ...). Again, I say this as someone who opposes gun ownership, living in a country with fairly strict gun laws and no similar recognition of a "right to bear arms". I respect law, and I respect national constitutions, and I respect societies. > That's a straight up lie. Dowd didn't say or even suggest that the shooting was a good thing. No, it's how words work. When you say that something is a good thing, you are not thereby encouraging similar things to happen. You are the one who misrepresented me. I said that Dowd appeared to consider the action justified; you falsely claimed that I said he encouraged such actions. I did not say that he further encouraged such actions. I also very explicitly said that he didn't say the shooting was good, so it is entirely off base to accuse me of "lying" and then point out that Dowd didn't say the specific thing that I agreed he didn't say. But I did have cause to view Dowd as seeing the shooting as justified. This was a subjective personal judgement, not a claim of fact; hence the phrase "did seem to agree". To "justify" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify) is "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable". Therefore, someone who thinks that something "is justified" is someone who believes that this has been shown. Where Dowd said: > 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. it came across to me that this reflected a belief on Dowd's part that the shooting was reasonable. This is a plain reading of Dowd's words, which use a common idiom to express the idea that the "awful actions" are a natural response to "saying these awful words". Therefore, Dowd "seemed to agree that it was justified". > And no amount of mental gymnastics about "approximation" is going to make this not a lie. I did not engage in any kind of mental gymnastics. I pointed out that different things were different; and I pointed out that you made an objective claim about what I was claiming that was objectively incorrect — what I actually claimed was different. Again, I gave a personal moral judgment that it's bad to justify political violence, specifically, about as bad as approving of that violence. You don't have to share my morals or values. But you are expected to abide by basic rules of civility. > Yes, needlessly antagonizing and arming people Kirk did not "needlessly antagonize" anyone; he spoke his mind. None of his expression of opinion was ever about a desire to make people angry. People did get angry, because they didn't like the fact that he had the opinions that he had. But he was absolutely entitled to have those opinions, and to express them. He also did not distribute weapons to people, certainly not to the shooter. > You're falsely accusing people of justifying violence, while defending someone who actually did that. I did not accuse anyone of justifying violence. I theorized that someone appeared to consider that violence justified — and gave clear reason why I thought so, which is easy to understand and follows from a plain reading of the words. Kirk did not, at any point I have been shown, claim any kind of extrajudicial violence to be justified. I can understand why other people believe he may have thought it justified, but I have already clearly explained why I think they are incorrect.