I do not believe anyone should be murdered because of their views, but that is because I don’t believe people should be murdered generally, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. I am against the death penalty, pro–gun control, and believe war is a failure of humanity, not a necessary byproduct of it. Kirk was fine with murder as long the right people were dying.
Well said, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy a bit of schadenfreude at his passing.
specifically, pleasure from his death, or pleasure that he is no longer alive?
the angry right wingers on the internet seem unable to understand the difference between the two
More that I won’t have to hear any of his nonsense any more. Even the people eulogising him don’t seem to be actually quoting him because they can’t find anything he ever said that wasn’t stupid.
see that’s perfectly valid. how he died is irrelevant to that feeling.
The people going “fuck yeah I love that he died from gun violence” are showing their hands. Just liberals with no real moral compass. The same ones that cheer for genocide Joe. Those are apparently the “extreme leftist” right now that the media is eating up.
Meanwhile, the real leftist are just responding, to people saying how “great” he was, by asking one simple question.
Oh? What views of his did you like?
Because for every “free speech” answer there are 20 quotes from him to the contrary.
I feel like liberals get too excited when something like this happens and just turn into blue maga.
It’s really simple. All you have to do is ask simple non-aggressive questions. You don’t need to do anything more than that. Your coworker or normie friend is just repeating what they heard from the media. You can dismantle that calmly without saying he “got what he deserved!”.
We all know he got what he deserved. But you don’t start with the conclusion when you’re talking to normies. You let them come to that conclusion on their own.
Damn, the libs really didnt like getting a correct analysis lmao blue maga is dead on. A lot of yall just want your team to get away with the same stuff republicans do with no structural analysis of the reason things are so shit for everyone.
I wonder, was it blue maga that triggered them or genocide joe? They are still salty they threw away their last chance to win an election over a genocide.
It’s really gotta be those parts of my comment I guess. It’s less about what I said and more about HOW I said it. But I can’t be shocked liberals are all in the aesthetics anyway.
The people going “fuck yeah I love that he died from gun violence” are showing their hands.
I mean, there’s also the hilarious irony of someone who argued there shouldn’t be any gun regulations because of school shootings and the cost that is “some deaths” being killed by a school shooting while under a giant banner saying “prove me wrong” while in the middle of blaming minorities for most killings.
It’d be like a huge homophobe dying because he choked on a huge dildo.
There’s inherent schnaudenfreude in someone hateful dying in such incredibly ironic way, and certainly different than a person cheering on the death of someone else who didn’t harm others, didn’t advocate the harm of others, and simply existed, as the right wing usually does.
Damn, troll. Daddy really upped your word quota for the day, eh?
Yeah. Trying to explain to people how to counter the narrative the right wingers are actively using to manufacture concent for state violence against anyone to the left of Reagan.
It shows me that the liberal idiots saying “I’m glad he’s dead. Woohoo! Let’s go!” Aren’t actually in the crosshairs of this fascist administration. The people actually out in the street with risk of getting arrested aren’t putting targets on our backs anymore than they already are.
Like, what is the troll? Saying that it’s better to literally just point to Kirk’s literal racist garbage instead of feeling “powerful” because he’s dead? What good is that doing beyond making you feel good?
deleted by creator
even more to the point, he got what he wanted.
Wanted it for others, got it for himself. Poetry.
So I guess he wasn’t proven wrong, good for him, right all the way to the grave
Of course he was proven wrong. He shouldn’t’ve been afraid of the left, when the far right are the extremist terrorists responsible for almost all domestic terror the over 20 years.
He was a nazi shouting about you should kill a peaceful gay hippie because they’re so dangerous, when a nazi killed him.
That’s called being very fucking wrong
Exceptionally so. It may even qualify as some of the most divine irony I’ve probably witnessed
You were there? 😱
we all were. i got the feed of his uncensored murder basically live, and from all media all at once.
The nation seems to be the only big paper with any rationality.
Promoting hate just to get rich. Conservatives are ugly on the inside & the outside.
it’s not to just get rich. They hate you, and want you to die. Things like that make them happy. Your suffering, pain, and those of your family. You’re either them, or you deserve to die for not being them. That’s how nazis work. The religion doesn’t matter, but we’ve all seen how catholic nazis work in nazi Italy, and how christian nazis work in nazi Germany. All nazis fully supported by their hate churches, of course.
Except that one guy, who was fine with the hate against communists, labor unions, romani, jews, and disabled people. Until they came for him, and then he was really upset that nobody stood up for him. He was a church person too, but eventually became the wrong type of church person. Many such cases.
deleted by creator
The Newspaper the Country Needs.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But still…
more articles like this should include the bit about how “[Biden should get the death penalty]”
the dude openly stated that a political figure he disagreed with should be killed. the right must acknowledge this statement while they whitewash his legacy of hate.
Every civilized country on earth has figured out that there needs to be acceptable limits to free speech and that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Exactly.
I’ve seen it summed it up thusly: “If your speech incites violence, don’t be surprised when people use violence in response.”
So I guess fights at professional sports games are justified violence, since someone probably incited it by insulting an opposing player.
You’re confusing incitement and provocation.
Incitement involves actively encouraging action.
“you’re bad at hockey and your mother is large” might be provocation
“It is time for us to take up arms against the enemy” is incitement
I think a lot of people are confused about what constitutes incitement.
Yeah would be clearer to say “advocating for violence”.
This is unironically true for hockey lol
freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Freedom of speech in the US protects you from consequences from the government, not anyone or anything else. You can still get fired, or at, for your free speech.
No because that would be murder.
Reread that comment and not seeing how anything in it can be considered murder
The fired at part
Getting fired isn’t being murdered?
Yes I meant the getting fired AT part
You can still get fired, or at
Oooh a joke… hehe… I get jokes.
Murder isn’t a violation of the US definition of free speech, unless the government does the murdering.
Still a crime, but not a constitutional free speech violation.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it’s nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it’s not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it’s ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Nowhere( in response to your post ) did anyone say murder was an acceptable response, just that if you murder someone , nobody is charging you with a violation of free speech because that would be nonsensical.
And the only reason they had to say that much is because your argument was incorrect.
If you want to argue proportional response, have at it, but you didn’t, you argued :
no because that would be murder
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech. Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response. It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech.
That’s a nice soundbite.
Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response.
So those are two different things you have right there.
“Op implied that murder was a response to speech” , indeed he got shot because someone thought he deserved it.
“Murder should not be allowed or considered as a response”
This is where is goes off the rails a bit.
OP wasn’t saying (or implying) he should have been shot for talking , just that it seems reasonable to assume he had.
“I don’t care that this person is dead” isn’t the same as “this person deserved to die”
If you can’t see how those two things are different i can see why you’re struggling.
It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
Subjective but you’re entitled to your opinion.
“He’s dead and the world is a better place overall” is also an opinion to which people are entitled (unless you’ve been arguing some other kind of free speech? )
And as it seems you are having a hard time with this i’ll add the explicit context:
" He’s dead and the world is a better place overall ( this doesn’t mean i wanted him dead, but i’m not sad that he is ) "
s/at/shot ?
Just one of thousands of hate preachers indoctrinating the local population (and children) with the exact same extremist religious propaganda. Only religious extremists do this, and there are only religious extremists of religions that exist. Stop supporting religions. ALL of them.
Not really sure what you are trying to say, but it sounds like you are way too focused on religion being a source for extremism in the world. Yeah there are religious extremists, but every movement has them, or at least has potential for extremists who indoctrinate kids or even advocate for violence against the detractors or enemies of the movement. Always has been and always will be.
I think the reason it looks like religion motivates violent extremism is because the demography of the people most vulnerable to extremist propaganda are also more likely (statistically) to be more religious.
What about the demography makes them more vulnerable? I assume you are referring to a study of some kind.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071840308446849
There are numerous analyses which show the same link between economic vulnerability, high birth rate, and extremism. Which is why the right wing are always chopping away at support programs, economic development, and birth control.
I was only allowed to read the first page, but it was really focused on poor Islamic countries. But hold on, are you suggesting that the right wing policies are intentional, with the goal of making extremists? Seems really simplistic and narrow in scope.
Oftentimes the simplest answer is the right one
“Too focused” on the original Us vs. Them indoctrination machine? Are you high, naive, or just that stupid? (“All of the above” is also an option, of course.)
Well op said all of the extremists were religious. Since that isn’t true and there are many examples to the contrary throughout history, I think it’s safe to say that he was too focused on religion.
Honestly great article that summarizes my thoughts on this exactly. I live in the south and I am seeing a lot of people I really respect lose their fucking minds about this and start frothing at the mouth mourning this guy that they didn’t know existed two weeks ago because all they know was that he was a “Christian activist” shot for his beliefs, either not realizing or not caring that the dude was racist as fuck and spent his whole life being a right wing internet troll but in real life.
The added “correction” at the bottom is gold. Im glad someone, somewhere, didnt pull punches. The media response to this has been sickening.
And got paid lottery jackpot sums at age 31
The same insane bullshit is happening all over the UK. The amount of family I hessian these aren’t quite rich in the head is staggeringly sad.
Several of my colleagues did the same thing and I told them I have zero sympathy because Josef Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler had children too.
Also didn’t Goebbels poison his own children before he and his wife commit suicide?
Well-written and surprisingly thoughtful commentary given the heat so far
There is no requirement to take part in this whitewashing campaign, and refusing to join in doesn’t make anyone a bad person. It’s a choice to write an obituary that begins “Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children.”
Not as strong as it should be. Some speech should be exterminated. Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide makes democracy dysfunctional. Trump having been jailed during last Presidency was both deserved and more democratic. Reaction to the shooting that is criticism of Kirk has an extermination movement ranging from cancel/firings to calls for civil war and genocide of everyone threatened by Kirk. There will be no political retributions for Americans cheering Putin’s death, and establishment would get ultra aggressive if in Hitler’s death someone pointed out his love of dogs. Discussion of a person’s political views should never be exterminated.
2 specific areas of speech that need extermination:
-
Replacement theory. If you have/are allowed to have children, then you will challenge the “ultimate deserved ethnic supremacist” power to control democracy. Structural or individual violent repression of undesirables is validated. GOP establishment must go along with this, as voter suppression has always been a requirement of their corruption.
-
Christofascist justification of ZIonazi first rule over America. Zionazi supremacist speech is establishment speech. DNC (Zionazi) “donor pressure” is against criticizing Christofascism because it is subservient ally to Zionism. Kirk was always granted establishment cred because Israel supremacy was the actual centeral purpose of his platform. Just as Chuck Schumer views his job as to “gaslight the left into being pro Israel” Kirk was gaslighting the right into doing the same. Nick Fuentes, whose speech is said to have inspired the murder, gaslights the right into thinking “Trump is not the most Zionazi supporting US demon in history”. Christofascism’s demonization of Islam, and “godless abomination freedom”, in addition to bribing pastors to emphasize bible passages/revelations, both support genocide, and demonize those most likely to dislike genocide.
Opposing Zionist supremacist rule over America is the actual speech that establishment exterminates from America. It is fundamentally treasonous and inhuman to protect and normalize genocide, and supremacy of another nation. Another 9/11 would only strenghten our loyalty/committment to Israel’s blame for the next 9/11. They will once again “only hate us for our freedom”.
When establishment speech is the one that should be exterminated, it obviously complicates exterminating anti-constitutional and demonic evil speech.
Some speech should be exterminated. Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide makes democracy dysfunctional.
Ok, but who defines what these divisive lies are? Allowing for any sort of speech to be systematically exterminated is allowing every sort of speech to be systematically exterminated.
This is crazy. It’s like when people say “let’s eliminate a whole swath of the population because they are impure” and “please don’t murder us” are phrases that carry equal weight.
Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide
who defines what these divisive lies are?
its one of those “I don’t know where the line is but I know it when I see it” things, but with some easy math. Given our rights should stop only when it can risk someone else’s life or liberty, does the speech in question go past that?
How do we adjust our thinking for hundreds of million people; for resources and concerns that go beyond personal obligations under the social contract; for protecting things we need 3 generations from now?
It falls apart without handoff to some kind of ethical framework and a team of elders to review cases against it and evolve that framework – and look how easy it was to subvert America’s legal elders in just a decade.
But will even that decide whether there’s a difference between a zygote and a tumour? Will it prioritize the person or what may one day become one? Will it take responsibility for dying in a controlled fashion when there is no future due to terminal illness, a non-viable body or an unredeemable crime?
It can’t be establishment that decides. Current establishment requires disinformation to be protected speech. We have always had to say Eurasia is evil.
There needs to be a layer independent of establishment, and/or a much stronger constitution that protects truth/values from supremacist lies and direct abuses of constitution.
The 2 absolute evil examples I gave are absolute. OP spent too much energy on speech that is similar to “blacks can’t swim and whites can’t jump.” As long as it doesn’t lead to establishment policy that restricts sports team enlistment by race, it is just “relatively innocent” racism that may or may not have a grain of truth in stereotypes, and doesn’t matter. Speech that doesn’t matter is the only type that is allowed by establishment, but it would be overly broad to interfere with it. Speech/disinformation for antihuman establishment demonism shift is the critical speech, and whether establishment welcomes it or not, has no basis in whether it be permitted.
More on Christofascism… religious organizations will typically purpose themselves for demonism. Using idealist principles to capture souls in order to sell them to the most demonic evil powers/establishment. The commonality between Christofascism and (Christo)Humanism is classifying production (children, work) as good. The humanist approach instead of punishing women for failing their 28 baby quota, is positive family planning decisions made easier by easier access to prosperity, which unfortunately for the christofascists, means much freer alternatives to the requirement of listening to demons’ sermon for salvation before getting soup.
By embracing both Zionaziism and Replacement theory, Christofacsist “ambassadors” are also serving White fascism above Christianity. When Black Christians making positive family planning decisions are “acts of war” against US establishment, then the white part is necessarily more important to the fascists than the Christian demonism.
-
