4 ms·
Reichstag Fire Decree (1933)
- bvvgpc 1y agoInteresting, what triggered the post now?
- hackyhacky 1y agoI honestly cannot imagine why someone just now is posting an article about how a singular crime is used as a justification for a massive government power grab and an excuse to oppress the ruling party's political opponents, despite negligible evidence of any connection to the crime. [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/jd-vance-charlie-kirk-show.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/jd-vance-char...
- rokkamokka 1y ago[flagged]
- john-h-k 1y agoI don’t think there is yet enough evidence to show the political beliefs of the suspect in either direction. Seems X/Bluesky is awash with certainty that it’s “the other side” but I have not seen any good hard evidence of this
- hackyhacky 1y ago> I have not seen any good hard evidence of this True, but for the purposes of a government power grab, the details of the actual crime, who did what and why, are hardly relevant. It only matters that the government can generate enough propaganda to make people think there's a connection.
- aredox 1y agoThe Reichtag fire was caused by a Communist militant- at the time where "Communist" meant litterally "Stalinist". Even if the Charlie Kirk murderer was a crimson red trans gay pedophilic crypto scammer and card-carrying Democrat personally instructed and paid by Obama, the point here is "using him as a pretext to destroy all opposition under false pretense".
- john-h-k 1y agoYes, and it is bad if the government do that. It does not mean it is then correct to claim he has beliefs he doesn’t. We should be saying “we don’t know his beliefs and the government is making a power grab”
- nmeofthestate 1y ago>An extremist right-wing citizen murders another slightly less extremist right-wing politician, It's mind-boggling how successful this messaging has been, considering the facts.
- th0ma5 1y agoHow convenient that the facts haven't been verified by anyone not a Republican.
- throwaway250624 1y ago[dead]
- piva00 1y agoThe only facts we know are: Mormon Christian, terminally online, left some memes in casings. Considering the facts we can't know anything, the messaging is coming from both sides based on their own agendas. The remaining fact is: Trump's government is attempting a power grab based on this murder.
- cholantesh 1y agoMemes that are very specifically associated with a far-right subculture.
- bitlax 1y ago> The only facts we know Who's we? You seem to have missed a lot. Edit: The shooter is a deranged leftist. Absolutely none of the evidence contradicts this. Much of the evidence disproves the claim that he was a conservative.
- somedude895 1y agoHoly wow, where do you spend your time to arrive at that narrative? I read both right and left wing media to get a balanced view, but I haven't seen anyone that far off the deep end yet. The most reasonable actual fact from this whole thing that I've read is that the guy was terminally online and that's what drove him crazy. Some people could learn from that.
- cholantesh 1y agoSo your money is on the 18 hours of Helldivers a day and not the company he kept while doing so?
- andrewchambers 1y agoHoping for a polymarket bet so this can be resolved.
- bvvgpc 1y agohadn't seen that news yet, thanks for sharing.
- Fraterkes 1y agoThis is a point that's probably very obvious to many Americans, but something I hadn't really considered about the second amendment and the like is that freedom is kind of zero-sum: a consequence of the right to bear arms is that armed guards might have to be stationed at schools, and that cops treat everyone like a potential armed criminal. This last shooting will probably not lead to a meaningful change in gun-control, but it will create pretexts for this administration to crack down on certain political movements.
- padjo 1y agoIf your “freedom” requires walking around backwards waving a pistol is it really freedom?
- dudefeliciano 1y agothe idea of the right to bear arms was to overthrow a dictatorial government if need be, not to milsim in city centers or shoot up schools. The 2nd amendment is not really meaningful in the age of palantir and f35s.
- bruffen 1y ago[flagged]
- tomp 1y agoThis is what I return to every time when someone confuses morality and laws. 100% of Hitler's reign was legal. Everything he did was 100% legal. Morality is and must be above laws. (Edit: ChatGPT reminds me that Hitler's post-1933 actions were legal; the earlier (and failed) "Beer Hall Putsch" was illegal.)
- bruffen 1y ago[flagged]
- dudefeliciano 1y agowhich is also the excuse many nazis used at the nuremberg trials
- aredox 1y agoAlas, this is the same argument that can be used against the 1st amendment and the political opposition: "Rejoicing in Kirk's death is immoral, therefore the 1st amendment doesn't apply, and let's abusively prosecute anyone we can tie to him in any way".
- tomp 1y agoNo it can’t, you’re literally confusing immoral with illegal in your comment.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoYou said that morality must be above the laws. That means that one has priority over the other. aredox is arguing based on that, not confusing the two.
- orwin 1y agoNot really, the Nazis did manage to push a lot of pro-nazi judges everywhere, who judged that what their friends were doing was legal, but fair judges wouldn't have danced to the same tune. A Brown shirt killed by a communist/socialist was always illegal, but a communist/socialist killed by a brown shirt was always self defence and always legal. That's why the rule of law is so important, and that's why it shouldn't have exceptions for anyone, even policemen (arguments could be made for elected people as long as they are elected though).
- DicIfTEx 1y agoThere are still many details yet to come out, and the future is as ever unwritten, but I think a better historical analogue for the killing of Charlie Kirk is Horst Wessel, who Goebbels turned into a martyr for the NSDAP.
- ninalanyon 1y agoWhat does [flagged] mean on this post?
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoIt means that a number of users hit the "flag" button, but not yet enough to kill the thread. And what does that mean? Probably that several users considered this off-topic, and (under current circumstances) to be political, and more likely to result in a flamewar than in a useful discussion.