3 ms·

> 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

> 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
  > You must be aware I don't know why, considering I'm not even American and don't have a Twitter account. But I looked into this since you mentioned it. > I wonder why he has suddenly changed his mind. I don't think that "people should not be fired for previously having expressed bigotry" and "people should be fired for endorsing political violence" are inconsistent. Especially if the bigotry occurred prior to being hired, on a non-work account. Should such a person never work again? Should such a person receive welfare? Is such a person beyond reform? And the same for the political violence advocates, honestly. They should have an opportunity to repent, apologize and return to a normal life.
  - foldr 1y ago
    The question isn’t whether people should be fired (that’s up to their employers, within the law) but whether there should be a concerted popular campaign to get people fired who said dumb things on Twitter. That’s the “call out culture” part. I’d thought that JD Vance was opposed to it, but apparently his views have evolved.
  - mdhb 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - zahlman 1y ago
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
While I generally agree with you, I have two specific issues with what you say here: > 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. Who do you think is doing the calling? If Vance is saying this, is it going to be the government doing the calling? Well, I work for a government contractor. That might be a bit more than just "more speech". > 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? Someone could have supplied him the rifle, the position, and/or the idea/motivation. More than one finger could not pull the trigger, but that doesn't mean he was alone in planning it. It doesn't even mean that he was alone at the place where he fired the shot. But I agree with you in general. If there was a conspiracy, it was a small one. It wasn't the Democratic Party, or the DNC, or the Utah Democratic Party, or anything of that scale. All the more reason why a broad crackdown is inappropriate. To the degree that Vance is serious, he's barking up the wrong tree.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Who do you think is doing the calling? Vance proposing "Call them out, and hell, call their employer" stands completely separate from anything that he may or may not have the government do. This is a call to action to ordinary people. > All the more reason why a broad crackdown is inappropriate. To the degree that Vance is serious, he's barking up the wrong tree. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy here. Clearly the belief of Trump, Vance etc. is that there are agitators out there (someone else showed me a source implying that this is specifically about "antifa", which isn't exactly an NGO with a contact address, but black bloc tactics are a thing) who would like for more such incidents to occur, and that by "cracking down" in whatever vague unspecified form they could prevent this. And it certainly doesn't appear that the groups they have in mind are anything like "the DNC".

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
> You must be aware I don't know why, considering I'm not even American and don't have a Twitter account. But I looked into this since you mentioned it. > I wonder why he has suddenly changed his mind. I don't think that "people should not be fired for previously having expressed bigotry" and "people should be fired for endorsing political violence" are inconsistent. Especially if the bigotry occurred prior to being hired, on a non-work account. Should such a person never work again? Should such a person receive welfare? Is such a person beyond reform? And the same for the political violence advocates, honestly. They should have an opportunity to repent, apologize and return to a normal life.
- foldr 1y ago
  The question isn’t whether people should be fired (that’s up to their employers, within the law) but whether there should be a concerted popular campaign to get people fired who said dumb things on Twitter. That’s the “call out culture” part. I’d thought that JD Vance was opposed to it, but apparently his views have evolved.
- mdhb 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zahlman 1y ago

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

While I generally agree with you, I have two specific issues with what you say here: > 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. Who do you think is doing the calling? If Vance is saying this, is it going to be the government doing the calling? Well, I work for a government contractor. That might be a bit more than just "more speech". > 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? Someone could have supplied him the rifle, the position, and/or the idea/motivation. More than one finger could not pull the trigger, but that doesn't mean he was alone in planning it. It doesn't even mean that he was alone at the place where he fired the shot. But I agree with you in general. If there was a conspiracy, it was a small one. It wasn't the Democratic Party, or the DNC, or the Utah Democratic Party, or anything of that scale. All the more reason why a broad crackdown is inappropriate. To the degree that Vance is serious, he's barking up the wrong tree.

zahlman 1y ago
> Who do you think is doing the calling? Vance proposing "Call them out, and hell, call their employer" stands completely separate from anything that he may or may not have the government do. This is a call to action to ordinary people. > All the more reason why a broad crackdown is inappropriate. To the degree that Vance is serious, he's barking up the wrong tree. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy here. Clearly the belief of Trump, Vance etc. is that there are agitators out there (someone else showed me a source implying that this is specifically about "antifa", which isn't exactly an NGO with a contact address, but black bloc tactics are a thing) who would like for more such incidents to occur, and that by "cracking down" in whatever vague unspecified form they could prevent this. And it certainly doesn't appear that the groups they have in mind are anything like "the DNC".