3 ms·

> That "the White House plans" this does not logically follow, is JD Vance not the second highest ranking member of the white house? > these supposedly "unsub

> That "the White House plans" this does not logically follow, is JD Vance not the second highest ranking member of the white house? > these supposedly "unsubstantiated claims" were or how they expressed "menace Investigators were still working to identify a motive in Mr. Kirk’s killing, but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone. They already came to their conclusion, while investigators haven't event started investigating. > This is included in order to reinforce the impression that they have established an intent on the part of Trump's government to "police thought". But they have not actually done so. "Call them out, and hell, call their employer," Vance said as he guest-hosted an episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. "We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility." -https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0r5y33pj5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0r5y33pj5o

zahlman 1y ago
> is JD Vance not the second highest ranking member of the white house? He is the Vice-President, yes. It wouldn't logically follow if they were quoting Trump, either. Talking about doing something doesn't mean you plan to do it. > but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone. Of course he acted alone. It was an assassination using a rifle from a distance. How could anyone else have possibly been involved, even in principle? "Leftist ideology" is Cox's entirely understandable interpretation of the available evidence, including the bullet markings. It's also the base assumption for the political assassination of a right-winger. And there cannot be any serious doubt that the murder of a prominent political advocate, at an event specifically about politics, during a political exchange, was political. This leaves open the question of supposed "menace". > while investigators haven't event started investigating. They have started investigating. I can't fathom thinking otherwise. > (Vance quote) This is not thought-policing. Granted, in most cases, people should not lose their jobs for saying vitriolic things on social media. However: * Calling people out is doing more speech, not restricting speech — as we were all constantly reminded when "call-out culture" was the meme. * People who call employers don't actually have power over those employers, never mind their employees. The employer gets to make the decision, and it's fair that employers should know if their employees are tarnishing the company's image. * NYT literally used the phrase "police thought". This is a stronger claim than "police speech". Nobody would ever have had a problem with any of these people privately approving of Kirk's death, if only because they would have no way to know. * When right-wingers previously objected to "cancel culture", I can guarantee that you could have talked to them and found that they would, in fact agree that there are lines that must not be crossed when it comes to things said on social media. The things I used to see people get fired for were not in the same ballpark, and the pressure to fire them was typically focused serially on individuals rather than being part of a broad search.
- dudefeliciano 1y ago
  > Talking about doing something doesn't mean you plan to do it. So you are saying the VPs words hold no meaning? I don't get it, of course the VP talking about it signals a plan to do it. What would be the point otherwise? "We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence" -Pence (not sure what NGO he was referring to, that sponsored this shooting) > It wouldn't logically follow if they were quoting Trump, either. we should just ignore what he says, right? > They have started investigating. I can't fathom thinking otherwise That was an obvious hyperbole. the FBI changed their narrative how many times before they got the shooter (not by their own skill btw)? Cox was talking out of his ass, they did not have any hard information at that point in time. > And there cannot be any serious doubt that the murder of a prominent political advocate, at an event specifically about politics, during a political exchange, was political. That is why there are investigations, and why it is important to establish a motive, in a state with real rule of law. > This is not thought-policing. That's correct, it's just the vice president directly telling people to dox and harrass people for what they post online.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > "We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence" -Pence Then they should have included this. > (not sure what NGO he was referring to, that sponsored this shooting) "Sponsored" means something else. > That's correct, it's just the vice president directly telling people to dox and harrass people "Calling people out" and "calling their employers" is not doxxing or harassment. Or at least, so I've been told for years by others doing the same to right-wingers.
- foldr 1y ago
  > Calling people out is doing more speech, not restricting speech — as we were all constantly reminded when "call-out culture" was the meme. You must be aware of JD Vance's stance on "call out culture": https://x.com/JDVance/status/1887900880143343633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1887929693258531316%7Ctwgr%5E9e05b737472e8229d3cc58beff71e8b3e00b0a5c%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournal.com%2Fdisgust-jd-vance-eviscerates-democrat-attempting-cancel-doge-employee-lengthy-takedown%2F%3Futm_source%3Dsiteutm_medium%3DMSNutm_campaign%3Dsyndicationutm_content%3D2025-02-11 https://x.com/JDVance/status/1887900880143343633?ref_src=tws... I wonder why he has suddenly changed his mind.

zahlman 1y ago

> is JD Vance not the second highest ranking member of the white house? He is the Vice-President, yes. It wouldn't logically follow if they were quoting Trump, either. Talking about doing something doesn't mean you plan to do it. > but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone. Of course he acted alone. It was an assassination using a rifle from a distance. How could anyone else have possibly been involved, even in principle? "Leftist ideology" is Cox's entirely understandable interpretation of the available evidence, including the bullet markings. It's also the base assumption for the political assassination of a right-winger. And there cannot be any serious doubt that the murder of a prominent political advocate, at an event specifically about politics, during a political exchange, was political. This leaves open the question of supposed "menace". > while investigators haven't event started investigating. They have started investigating. I can't fathom thinking otherwise. > (Vance quote) This is not thought-policing. Granted, in most cases, people should not lose their jobs for saying vitriolic things on social media. However: * Calling people out is doing more speech, not restricting speech — as we were all constantly reminded when "call-out culture" was the meme. * People who call employers don't actually have power over those employers, never mind their employees. The employer gets to make the decision, and it's fair that employers should know if their employees are tarnishing the company's image. * NYT literally used the phrase "police thought". This is a stronger claim than "police speech". Nobody would ever have had a problem with any of these people privately approving of Kirk's death, if only because they would have no way to know. * When right-wingers previously objected to "cancel culture", I can guarantee that you could have talked to them and found that they would, in fact agree that there are lines that must not be crossed when it comes to things said on social media. The things I used to see people get fired for were not in the same ballpark, and the pressure to fire them was typically focused serially on individuals rather than being part of a broad search.

dudefeliciano 1y ago
> Talking about doing something doesn't mean you plan to do it. So you are saying the VPs words hold no meaning? I don't get it, of course the VP talking about it signals a plan to do it. What would be the point otherwise? "We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence" -Pence (not sure what NGO he was referring to, that sponsored this shooting) > It wouldn't logically follow if they were quoting Trump, either. we should just ignore what he says, right? > They have started investigating. I can't fathom thinking otherwise That was an obvious hyperbole. the FBI changed their narrative how many times before they got the shooter (not by their own skill btw)? Cox was talking out of his ass, they did not have any hard information at that point in time. > And there cannot be any serious doubt that the murder of a prominent political advocate, at an event specifically about politics, during a political exchange, was political. That is why there are investigations, and why it is important to establish a motive, in a state with real rule of law. > This is not thought-policing. That's correct, it's just the vice president directly telling people to dox and harrass people for what they post online.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > "We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence" -Pence Then they should have included this. > (not sure what NGO he was referring to, that sponsored this shooting) "Sponsored" means something else. > That's correct, it's just the vice president directly telling people to dox and harrass people "Calling people out" and "calling their employers" is not doxxing or harassment. Or at least, so I've been told for years by others doing the same to right-wingers.
foldr 1y ago
> Calling people out is doing more speech, not restricting speech — as we were all constantly reminded when "call-out culture" was the meme. You must be aware of JD Vance's stance on "call out culture": https://x.com/JDVance/status/1887900880143343633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1887929693258531316%7Ctwgr%5E9e05b737472e8229d3cc58beff71e8b3e00b0a5c%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournal.com%2Fdisgust-jd-vance-eviscerates-democrat-attempting-cancel-doge-employee-lengthy-takedown%2F%3Futm_source%3Dsiteutm_medium%3DMSNutm_campaign%3Dsyndicationutm_content%3D2025-02-11 https://x.com/JDVance/status/1887900880143343633?ref_src=tws... I wonder why he has suddenly changed his mind.