Conservative activist, Charlie Kirk, has been shot and killed at University

[Joshe]

For anyone struggling with the morality:

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Joshe

[Princess Arabia]

31 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

 

Yes, I can respect this more than must showing some belief systems of a man that was already poisoned by the system along with his killer. It's a cycle and will never end by just pointing the finger at one man and blaming him for his own death. This the point I'm trying to make here. This is more than just Kirk's belief systems. 

[Elliott]

22 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Who would profit from a civil war kind of scenario in the US?

Or an authoritarian Trump regime?

 

For example Russia.

And a few others.

Certainly not Europe. Especially vulnerable countries like the Baltics and Poland. Also not Europe in general Japan, Taiwan etc.  who kind of depend on a stable US.

There's no such possibility of civil war in the u.s.. it's just more right wing idiocy. Not that this would ever lead to civil war anyway.

Edited 16 hours ago by Elliott

[PurpleTree]

10 minutes ago, Elliott said:

There's no such possibility of civil war in the u.s.. it's just more right wing idiocy. Not that this would ever lead to civil war anyway.

Who knows but what’s very possible.

Is that Trump regime will become more authoritarian and violent.

Who’d profit from that? Same.

Russia, Israel yay

Europe, Japan nay

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

 

Is that Trump regime will become more authoritarian and violent.

How?

[Recursoinominado]

21 minutes ago, Elliott said:

There's no such possibility of civil war in the u.s.. it's just more right wing idiocy. Not that this would ever lead to civil war anyway.

Well, that's very unimaginative of you.

WWI started with one shot. 

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Recursoinominado said:

Well, that's very unimaginative of you.

WWI started with one shot. 

And WW1 used horseback cavalry.

You're going to fight a tomahawk cruise missile?

[Terell Kirby]

Have you ever mourned the destruction / death of your enemy?

Contemplate what that would take - they would have to cease being your enemy.

What would that process entail?

[Sugarcoat]

Rip : ( People have the right to have radical opinions, not worth a life

[Terell Kirby]

Just now, Sugarcoat said:

Rip : ( People have the right to have radical opinions, not worth a life

rights are inventions- but nonetheless-we can't deny how shitty it feels to see someone die on camera. 

Thats a first person experience, nothing invented about it for sure

[Sugarcoat]

6 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

rights are inventions- but nonetheless-we can't deny how shitty it feels to see someone die on camera. 

Thats a first person experience, nothing invented about it for sure

Yes it’s my ~opinion ~ that people should have that right

I don’t get your last sentence

[Terell Kirby]

14 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I don’t get your last sentence

what do feel about Charlie Kirk getting murdered? Not necessarily what you think about it.

People being entitled to the right to live is a thought, construct (which we create many beliefs behind).

Point is-feelings and thoughts are two distinct things.

On the level of thought-people think many things about what happened, and its a distraction from paying attention to how they feel- about themselves, about others and the world at large. Those feelings are important to process while all the monkey business is going on social media.

People are losing their minds

Edited 15 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[Recursoinominado]

27 minutes ago, Elliott said:

And WW1 used horseback cavalry.

You're going to fight a tomahawk cruise missile?

The ones who are trying to start a civil war are the ones with the missiles (and most guns).

[Elliott]

8 minutes ago, Recursoinominado said:

The ones who are trying to start a civil war are the ones with the missiles (and most guns).

They're going to civil war against themselves? Awesome.

[Jodistrict]

It’s interesting to study the dynamics of how an event like this reverberates through the social media producing an unbounded avalanche of noise feeding into unproven assumptions of a toxic narrative.   The evidence so far suggests a lone gunman, but it is automatically assumed that this is an action taken by one side of the culture wars.   The morons who are producing media content celebrating the killing are useful idiots who are providing content to support the right-wing narrative and are helping create a martyr who will be used against them.  I use to be a free speech absolutist, but I have changed my mind.  The rules of free speech were written in the 18th century when there was no Internet or social media.       

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:

rThe morons who are producing media content celebrating the killing are useful idiots who are providing content to support the right-wing narrative and are helping create a martyr who will be used against them.  

How will this be used against them?

The single thing violent biggots respect is violence, this will tone down the most vocal biggots. They're terrified, literally crying all over my feeds, grown men balling calling for an end to violence.

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Elliott

[zazen]

Can’t have a marketplace of ideas if having those ideas gets you killed. The rights of speech and arms ultimately cancel each other out in a broken society lacking social cohesion and civic sense to exercise those rights wisely.

They were intended to check the tyranny of the state - but what happens when the “other” is viewed as the tyranny? These were tools of liberation and democracy designed for a cohesive society that all agreed on some basic fundamentals - including what they considered a threat.

The misuse of the first right (free speech) creates the conditions for the misuse of the second right (to bear arms). The fear of the “other” to use arms, has a chilling effect on the “other” to exercise their right to speak freely.

The macro blindspot in all this is in enlightenment values and liberalism itself: that assumes wisdom and responsibility scales to the masses by default. Liberalism conflates equality of dignity with equality of discernment and responsibility.

Don’t mistake the tools of civilization (rights, democracy, liberty) for civilization itself. Don’t believe that simply possessing free speech, guns, and a ballot makes a society “civilized”. The tools don’t automatically confer the maturity to use them. Civilization is having the civic sense to use them.

 

[Recursoinominado]

18 minutes ago, Elliott said:

They're going to civil war against themselves? Awesome.

You are too sarcastic for someone so clueless...

[Elliott]

Just now, Recursoinominado said:

You are too sarcastic for someone so clueless...

It wouldn't be a civil war, would it, Mr.Clue?

[carterfelder]

What is one good thing or more that Charlie did, putting aside his personal life?