6 ms·

> yesterday I learned that 30% of Americans think political violence may be necessary to fix the country[0], which was gathered from anonymous polls I presume,

> yesterday I learned that 30% of Americans think political violence may be necessary to fix the country[0], which was gathered from anonymous polls I presume, yet I see almost none of it online and certainly not in mainstream media. They are absolutely saying it in public and private. I hold that opinion and so does every politically engaged person i know. Its heavily censored on the mainstream platforms but you can see the messages conveying this sentiment in a semi coded way.

tuyosvawnt 1y ago
A podcast bro cites scripture saying queers need to get stoned, he gets a stone to the neck himself. "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First". Badda bing badda boom. Lotta angry people.
- toomim 1y ago
  You're making a debunked claim that takes his statement out of context to make it sound like the opposite of what he actually said. https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664 https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-dMa3rIcjY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-dMa3rIcjY https://youtu.be/1pteZE5FpNc?si=UG2jJZovGldIJKJ0&t=1559 https://youtu.be/1pteZE5FpNc?si=UG2jJZovGldIJKJ0&t=1559 This has the effect of whipping up political anger and violence against people based on false pretenses. You are an embodiment of the problem.
  - martin-t 1y ago
    And this is why I say I don't have an opinion on his killing. It's really easy to lie online (both mechanically by just taking stuff out of context as you showed and because people face no punishment for it). That being said, if I had an opinion, only one of the possible sides is OK to say publicly and I think that's wrong. For example, one of the claims I heard is that he was orchestrating/supporting harassment of college professors through his Turning Point organization. Now, harassment can lead to suicide, driving innocent people to suicide is murder, a just punishment for murder is death, and when a punishment is just then it doesn't matter who carries it out as long as they have a sufficient standard of proof. So depending on whether that claim is true, how "successful" he was and the morality of several logical inferences (which is subjective but for each statement/inference you will find a lot of people supporting it), a sane and rational person could perfectly justify the killing. --- Most people are hypocrites. And what they really hate is when somebody tries to apply a consistent moral system to themselves and others. Not just because it puts them to shame (most people never try to be consistent and they know it even if they'd never admit it out loud or even to themselves). But also because when you apply consistent rules to severe offenses, you very quickly get very severe punishments and people are not comfortable with the idea that they too could be punished in this manner. --- As another example, I hate when people try to vilify him by quoting him saying some dead children are OK because that's the price for the right to bear arms. Yes, innocent people (including children) dying is sad and wrong. But what do they think happens when nobody has guns? First, people would still kill each other using other tools, even mass murder wouldn't magically stop because car ramming attacks seem to be on the rise. But, second, a long term effect is that people in positions of power who are unaccountable through legal means are no longer accountable through extra-legal means. One of the first things every dictatorship does is restricting access to guns and confiscating them. Yes, high gun ownership has a continual price but low/zero ownership has a much higher one-time price and after that it no longer matters what people think.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    I'm confused. How is that the opposite of what he actually said? Charlie Kirk was strongly Christian, as I understand it. If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible, doesn't that imply an endorsement of everything in it? So if the Bible says to kill gay people, which he said it does, then does that not mean that he thinks that should be done? Especially given he describes it as "God's perfect law." I don't understand how this would be "debunked" or mean anything other than what King originally said it meant, unless we're absolutely forbidden from doing even the most basic and obvious logical deduction on statements.
    - toomim 1y ago
      Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence. No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his organization, at high levels. To assume that he wanted them stoned to death is absurd, and incredibly ignorant. Here's Charlie on Gay People: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI?si=AQzLU_6TBNwSDGEr&t=942 https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI?si=AQzLU_6TBNwSDGEr&t=942
      - wat10000 1y ago
        "No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything." How so? Either you cherry-pick or you take it all. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from ignoring the whole thing. Pretty sure he's not ignoring the whole thing. How is it ignorant to see that he thinks that the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe has written down "perfect laws" for us to follow, and that we shouldn't pick and choose which ones we follow, and conclude that he thinks we should follow all of them? He may have welcomed gay people into his movement but just based on your clip he doesn't seem to love and support them. He says straight out that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle. I agree that there's a contradiction between "God says we're supposed to kill them" and him standing there chatting with that guy and not trying to rally the crowd to murder him. But I don't see why we have to resolve that in the "he actually loved gay people" direction. If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people, I'm inclined to believe that's what he thinks. He'd hardly be the first religious person who believes their religion demands X and actually does Y when confronted with the situation in reality. It's great that he can stand there and engage in a dialog with someone he believes his God says should be killed, but that doesn't absolve him from that belief or from professing it.
  - AuthAuth 1y ago
    Its not what he says that makes people think he encouraged and forced people towards political violence. He isn't just a guy saying mean things. He is one the most influential people pushing support for the political right wing, he influences masses of young and old people towards their campaign, he works with some of the most evil people in the nation and helps them theorycraft and spread their ideas and make it policy. All of this directly affects peoples lives. Thats why I laugh when he was killed and celebrate his death. Thats why I and many others openly say that he deserved what he got.

tuyosvawnt 1y ago

A podcast bro cites scripture saying queers need to get stoned, he gets a stone to the neck himself. "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First". Badda bing badda boom. Lotta angry people.

toomim 1y ago
You're making a debunked claim that takes his statement out of context to make it sound like the opposite of what he actually said. https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664 https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-dMa3rIcjY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-dMa3rIcjY https://youtu.be/1pteZE5FpNc?si=UG2jJZovGldIJKJ0&t=1559 https://youtu.be/1pteZE5FpNc?si=UG2jJZovGldIJKJ0&t=1559 This has the effect of whipping up political anger and violence against people based on false pretenses. You are an embodiment of the problem.
- martin-t 1y ago
  And this is why I say I don't have an opinion on his killing. It's really easy to lie online (both mechanically by just taking stuff out of context as you showed and because people face no punishment for it). That being said, if I had an opinion, only one of the possible sides is OK to say publicly and I think that's wrong. For example, one of the claims I heard is that he was orchestrating/supporting harassment of college professors through his Turning Point organization. Now, harassment can lead to suicide, driving innocent people to suicide is murder, a just punishment for murder is death, and when a punishment is just then it doesn't matter who carries it out as long as they have a sufficient standard of proof. So depending on whether that claim is true, how "successful" he was and the morality of several logical inferences (which is subjective but for each statement/inference you will find a lot of people supporting it), a sane and rational person could perfectly justify the killing. --- Most people are hypocrites. And what they really hate is when somebody tries to apply a consistent moral system to themselves and others. Not just because it puts them to shame (most people never try to be consistent and they know it even if they'd never admit it out loud or even to themselves). But also because when you apply consistent rules to severe offenses, you very quickly get very severe punishments and people are not comfortable with the idea that they too could be punished in this manner. --- As another example, I hate when people try to vilify him by quoting him saying some dead children are OK because that's the price for the right to bear arms. Yes, innocent people (including children) dying is sad and wrong. But what do they think happens when nobody has guns? First, people would still kill each other using other tools, even mass murder wouldn't magically stop because car ramming attacks seem to be on the rise. But, second, a long term effect is that people in positions of power who are unaccountable through legal means are no longer accountable through extra-legal means. One of the first things every dictatorship does is restricting access to guns and confiscating them. Yes, high gun ownership has a continual price but low/zero ownership has a much higher one-time price and after that it no longer matters what people think.
- wat10000 1y ago
  I'm confused. How is that the opposite of what he actually said? Charlie Kirk was strongly Christian, as I understand it. If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible, doesn't that imply an endorsement of everything in it? So if the Bible says to kill gay people, which he said it does, then does that not mean that he thinks that should be done? Especially given he describes it as "God's perfect law." I don't understand how this would be "debunked" or mean anything other than what King originally said it meant, unless we're absolutely forbidden from doing even the most basic and obvious logical deduction on statements.
  - toomim 1y ago
    Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence. No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his organization, at high levels. To assume that he wanted them stoned to death is absurd, and incredibly ignorant. Here's Charlie on Gay People: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI?si=AQzLU_6TBNwSDGEr&t=942 https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI?si=AQzLU_6TBNwSDGEr&t=942
    - wat10000 1y ago
      "No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything." How so? Either you cherry-pick or you take it all. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from ignoring the whole thing. Pretty sure he's not ignoring the whole thing. How is it ignorant to see that he thinks that the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe has written down "perfect laws" for us to follow, and that we shouldn't pick and choose which ones we follow, and conclude that he thinks we should follow all of them? He may have welcomed gay people into his movement but just based on your clip he doesn't seem to love and support them. He says straight out that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle. I agree that there's a contradiction between "God says we're supposed to kill them" and him standing there chatting with that guy and not trying to rally the crowd to murder him. But I don't see why we have to resolve that in the "he actually loved gay people" direction. If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people, I'm inclined to believe that's what he thinks. He'd hardly be the first religious person who believes their religion demands X and actually does Y when confronted with the situation in reality. It's great that he can stand there and engage in a dialog with someone he believes his God says should be killed, but that doesn't absolve him from that belief or from professing it.
- AuthAuth 1y ago
  Its not what he says that makes people think he encouraged and forced people towards political violence. He isn't just a guy saying mean things. He is one the most influential people pushing support for the political right wing, he influences masses of young and old people towards their campaign, he works with some of the most evil people in the nation and helps them theorycraft and spread their ideas and make it policy. All of this directly affects peoples lives. Thats why I laugh when he was killed and celebrate his death. Thats why I and many others openly say that he deserved what he got.