Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah rally.

ZenMode said:
Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.
Click to expand...
rhetorically speaking, you simply can't compare "they should be killed" to "he's a danger to the country," "he's a racist/sexist/fascist."

it's like this new trend where conservatives insist that people simply quoting Charlie Kirk are besmirching his memory or celebrating his death.
 
akillesheel said:
rhetorically speaking, you simply can't compare "they should be killed" to "he's a danger to the country," "he's a racist/sexist/fascist."

it's like this new trend where conservatives insist that people simply quoting Charlie Kirk are besmirching his memory or celebrating his death.
Click to expand...
Again, there doesn't have to be equality to have culpability and, yes, it does matter when the rhetoric (fascist, racist, putting gays in cages, etc) is repeated day after day, week after week, year after year.

If Trump would have said "The 2020 election was stolen" one time, most likely nothing happens. It's repeating the claim over and over and over that eventually has an impact on peoples' behavior. That works both way.

If OAN or Fox News wanted to cover nothing but crimes committed by black people and/or people here illegally, 24 hours a day/7 days a week, they could. They could do it and be 100% accurate in their reporting, right?

Would that have an impact on peoples' views of black people and illegal immigrants over time? Of course it would. The same is true as it relates to Trump. He's the biggest POS ever to hold the Presidency, but the wall to wall coverage and rhetoric absolutely contributes to the violence.

But, hey, what do I know. I'm just a disingenuous sleaze. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.
Click to expand...
See, this is why we need to look at data.

You cannot point to a metric that says the left’s rhetoric has been the same, worse, or better than the rhetoric coming from the right. Neither can I. Calla gave some examples but they looked pretty tame compared to what I hear from the right, but I can’t prove that.

So we look at the results. I do, anyway.
 
ChileG said:
See, this is why we need to look at data.

You cannot point to a metric that says the left’s rhetoric has been the same, worse, or better than the rhetoric coming from the right. Neither can I. Calla gave some examples but they looked pretty tame compared to what I hear from the right, but I can’t prove that.

So we look at the results. I do, anyway.
Click to expand...
Neglecting audience size and how it's received would hopelessly skew any opinion.
 
ZenMode said:
Again, there doesn't have to be equality to have culpability and, yes, it does matter when the rhetoric (fascist, racist, putting gays in cages, etc) is repeated day after day, week after week, year after year.

If Trump would have said "The 2020 election was stolen" one time, most likely nothing happens. It's repeating the claim over and over and over that eventually has an impact on peoples' behavior. That works both way.

If OAN or Fox News wanted to cover nothing but crimes committed by black people and/or people here illegally, 24 hours a day/7 days a week, they could. They could do it and be 100% accurate in their reporting, right?

Would that have an impact on peoples' views of black people and illegal immigrants over time? Of course it would. The same is true as it relates to Trump. He's the biggest POS ever to hold the Presidency, but the wall to wall coverage and rhetoric absolutely contributes to the violence.

But, hey, what do I know. I'm just a disingenuous sleaze. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's telling that you had to pivot to Trump saying "the 2020 election was stolen" instead of the example I gave, which was a summation of right-wing politicians and other high-profile figures actually inciting violence.

There is a huge difference between rhetoric that is negatively polarizing and rhetoric that is explicitly violent. Politics have been full of the former since they were invented. Only one side does the latter.
 
dukeman92 said:
Zenmode? 💯
Click to expand...
Eh, I wouldn't say that. If I was forced to guess, his wife is just like most of us around here and he says the things to us that would get him divorced at home. This is his place to vent what he can't say there but desperately wants to. Again, just my guess.
 
akillesheel said:
It's telling that you had to pivot to Trump saying "the 2020 election was stolen" instead of the example I gave, which was a summation of right-wing politicians and other high-profile figures actually inciting violence.

There is a huge difference between rhetoric that is negatively polarizing and rhetoric that is explicitly violent. Politics have been full of the former since they were invented. Only one side does the latter.
Click to expand...
You're going to claim there is a big difference, but when Trump repeatedly says "They're stealing your country. Your vote doesn't count", etc, even without a single word that can be labeled as violent, it's still going to impact people's behavior over time. The same is true with the non-violent rhetoric from the Left. Van Jones set the tone when he called Trump's win a "white lash" and that same type of mostly non-violent rhetoric continued, unabated, for nearly a decade.
 
ZenMode said:
You're going to claim there is a big difference, but when Trump repeatedly says "They're stealing your country. Your vote doesn't count", etc, even without a single word that can be labeled as violent, it's still going to impact people's behavior over time. The same is true with the non-violent rhetoric from the Left. Van Jones set the tone when he called Trump's win a "white lash" and that same type of mostly non-violent rhetoric continued, unabated, for nearly a decade.
Click to expand...
well attacking the Capitol is 1-0 and not bosideable.

There we can specifically point tough words to action.

see I’m not one of you woke people who thinks that a politician can’t say we need to fight for our rights. We need to stand up and stand strong as Americans.

Is completely different than Trump at a rally telling the cops to beat someone up or refusing to tone down the rhetoric on jan six while this is happening… or applaud the dude that smashed Nancy Pelosi’s husband in the head with a hammer.

Honestly, even though we know that this kid was in that groryper group…it doesn’t matter. We have a crazy gun issue… but the lengths that Maga has gone to try to blame this on the liberals from Day 1 is completely disgusting you must admit. Why are we even jumping into conclusions when we don’t know anything… it’s clearly a political play on the right who pretend that they cared about this dude.

Also, whoever put his grieving wife up to that incendiary speech is also a piece of shit.

Trump has somehow convinced you guys to include this into political discourse…it’s not at all.
 
Ddseddse said:
I think Kirk meant exactly what he said, and that is the problem. The fundamental divide between conservatives and liberal is whether they feel the need to treat members of out-groups as equal (in rights, in status, even in humanity) with their own preferred in-group. Empathy (by putting yourself in others shoes and experiencing the world as they experience it) demands that you you treat out groups as equal status to your in group. Sympathy is a cheat code where you get to still feel good about yourself while taking a dump on members of out-groups.

There's a ton of utility in this in group vs. out group frame, because it cuts the "identity politics" cord. There are many conservatives who do not use race as an in-group/out-group classifier (preferring political affiliation, for example) and that tends to stymie liberals who throw our blanket racism charges (making them easily refutable).

This doesn't change the fact that Kirk was clearly a racist. Nor does it change the fact that the racist conservatives outnumber the non-racist conservatives, and once they take full power they will purge their ranks and force their racist agenda universally (as any student of history will tell you is 100% inevitable).
Click to expand...
I think you are right on all accounts here. To touch on your second paragraph, sometimes those of us on the left stick to a stereotype of MAGA that isn't correct, especially around race.

The racial views among MAGA I know vary widely. I would say the most common are people who do not know that they subconsciously hold some biases which honestly most of us have. The way to combat it is to acknowledge the presence of it and they fail to do that. That is where having honest conversations without finger pointing is so important. I think some conservative recoil so hard about possibly having some bias (understandable if they are called racist for simply supporting one political party) that they can't have any introspection on the issue.

I think we need to be able to have more open conversations about things like affirmative action. Being against it does not make one a racist. IMO it just means that they don't have the understanding of the topic that I have. If you have never confronted your own instinctual biases, then you won't understand how those small biases and things like institutional racism affect minorities.

We do have a right to call out people like Kirk who discuss these topics in such provocative ways. People say Kirk is taken out of context. No, I got the full context of what he was saying about the black pilot. I can give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he wasn't saying black < white. I understand his intent was to say that affirmative action has made it more likely for unqualified minorities to reach unjustified levels. I get that. The racism wasn't the message but the way it was delivered. (I believe the crowded space of right wing influencers push people to be more and more provocative to stand out.)

Kirk liked to view himself as someone who has a dialog with those who disagree with him but the language he uses intentionally cuts off real meaningful dialog. If I had to guess the college students he debates fall into that trap and become offended and emotional.

I'm rambling so I'll stop.
 
ZenMode said:
You're going to claim there is a big difference, but when Trump repeatedly says "They're stealing your country. Your vote doesn't count", etc, even without a single word that can be labeled as violent, it's still going to impact people's behavior over time. The same is true with the non-violent rhetoric from the Left. Van Jones set the tone when he called Trump's win a "white lash" and that same type of mostly non-violent rhetoric continued, unabated, for nearly a decade.
Click to expand...
even though I think there's a rhetorical difference between "they're stealing your country" and "he's a racist," (excusing the fact that one is true and one is false) that's still not what I'm talking about.

do you remember when Trump told the Proud Boys on national television to "stand down and stand by" and it was immediately understood as not a condemnation but as marching orders? can you imagine any Dem leader saying that, if you're somehow capable of imagining a group they could say it to? (because it's only organized groups on the right that openly commit themselves to violence)

do you remember when he heard a protestor at one of his own rallies and told the crowd to "take him out on a stretcher?"

or back in 2016, when he encouraged his 2A-loving supporters to assassinate Hillary and/or her selected SC justices if she won the election?

that's just trump. it's not even getting into all the things his sycophants have said over the years. and there's absolutely no dem equivalent.
 
nycfan said:


Click to expand...

I think this points to a problem that I don't know how it can be solved.

The mainstream media (for lack of better term) operates in a wait and see mode. They don't want to report things until they have firm validation on it. Other media sources jump to push a narrative which the MSM can't counter other than saying we don't yet know all of the facts. By the time the facts start coming in, the narrative has already solidified.

Not sure it would make any difference as people keep to their own echo chambers but the traditional wait for confirmation approach to journalism ironically makes it harder for the truth to get out.

Not suggesting journalism standards should change. Just an observation.
 
ChileG said:
Surely you agree that when the violence is so heavily tilted to one side that it should be acknowledged.
And look at the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the democrats compared to the republicans since CK died.
All the calls for violence and retribution are coming from the right. It’s crazy to not acknowledge the vast discrepancy.
Click to expand...
I think that isn't exactly a fair comparison because it was one of them who was killed. Obviously the left isn't going to react to this event with calls of violence and retribution.

The more fair comparison is to compare the response to this versus the response to the Minnesota killings. Your point would still be valid. People with influence on the left didn't call for civil war, republican groups to be labeled as terrorist organizations, or anything like that after those assassinations. And instead of expressing dismay many leaders on the right simply ignored that incident.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I think that isn't exactly a fair comparison because it was one of them who was killed. Obviously the left isn't going to react to this event with calls of violence and retribution.

The more fair comparison is to compare the response to this versus the response to the Minnesota killings. Your point would still be valid. People with influence on the left didn't call for civil war, republican groups to be labeled as terrorist organizations, or anything like that after those assassinations. And instead of expressing dismay many leaders on the right simply ignored that incident.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
The groyper thing doesn't really make sense, assuming the trans roommate/significant other thing is true. CNN reported it this morning, so I assume it is. I believe groyphers are anti-trans/oppose LGBT rights/etc.

That doesn't mean he was liberal. The simplest explanation is that he was likely apolitical/anarchist. And perhaps self-hating, due to his very conservative, anti-gay culture and upbringing and his attraction to someone that was trans.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Eh, I wouldn't say that. If I was forced to guess, his wife is just like most of us around here and he says the things to us that would get him divorced at home. This is his place to vent what he can't say there but desperately wants to. Again, just my guess.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. When I express opprobrium towards posters it’s towards the persona, not the human. There is one exception and that is not Zen. I respect I can’t control how it’s taken, but just as I’m a sliver of myself here (in fact a sliver I rarely allow the light IRL) I assume the same for others. This is an info sharing and processing space. With that in mind, ZenMode is a sleazy persona infected thoroughly with flimsy and unethical bosiding, and I suspect a healthy dose of troll, hidden beneath a veneer of educated and informed.
 
lightbluenc said:
What kind of method?
Click to expand...
I think you have mistaken OGtruthhurts for someone who care about fixing anything. He will be happy to tell you how everyone but him is wrong, but asking him to contribute anything constructive about what his own beliefs are or how we should go about fixing any problems is a bridge too far. Much easier to just saying that everyone else is a fool and a sheep than to offer any opinions of his own and risk being exposed as both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top