The Charlie Kirk Thread

superrific said:
You can be convicted of domestic violence from words alone. But regardless, law is just that -- law. It is not truth. That the law distinguishes between certain types of actions doesn't mean that distinction is philosophically defensible.

You are relying on a narrow definition of violence that makes your argument more or less circular. Here's how the World Health Organization defines violence: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." This definition has been widely adopted, including in American statutes.

Again, what is the meaningful distinction between punching someone in the face and calling him or her a slur, if you know they will be equally harmful? Why would you call one "violence" and other "not violence" unless you were establishing some sort of technicality.
Click to expand...
I did not know that you could be convicted of domestic violence from words alone.

Maybe my perception of this is colored by the fact that the administration is currently trying to frame all opposing political speech as "violent" to justify repressing it. But personally I think hitting someone in the face (which is a crime) and calling them a slur (which is not) are two different bad things that cause harm in different ways and we should not try to group them under the same umbrella of "violence." What if a conservative person says that calling them a "racist" is violence? Who's to say they aren't right? It's all just too subjective on behalf of the listener, which the speaker doesn't necessarily have control of. Obviously sometimes people are saying things in an attempt to assert dominance or inflict pain, but that isn't always going to be an easy thing to determine.
 
rodoheel said:
I did not know that you could be convicted of domestic violence from words alone.

Maybe my perception of this is colored by the fact that the administration is currently trying to frame all opposing political speech as "violent" to justify repressing it. But personally I think hitting someone in the face (which is a crime) and calling them a slur (which is not) are two different bad things that cause harm in different ways and we should not try to group them under the same umbrella of "violence." What if a conservative person says that calling them a "racist" is violence? Who's to say they aren't right? It's all just too subjective on behalf of the listener, which the speaker doesn't necessarily have control of. Obviously sometimes people are saying things in an attempt to assert dominance or inflict pain, but that isn't always going to be an easy thing to determine.
Click to expand...
That was what I meant by social epistemology. It's of course ridiculous to think "racist" could be violent; you're suggesting that we wouldn't be able to come to an agreement because they will just insist on their position and we couldn't prove them wrong.

Causing pain isn't sufficient to meet the definition. There has to be "power" involved. And I think most of us -- at least the reasonable ones of us -- can intuitively understand that requirement. What the president says has way more effect, both in quantity and quality than some random tweeter.

I'm 100% sure that Michel Foucault would consider "trans people are mentally ill" a form of violence. He could write a whole book on the subject. He sort of did, lol. That's because it is the same type of power relationship that has characterized physically violent societies and not physically violent ones.
 
I thought there might be a guilty/not guilty plea, but I guess that comes later.

The Judge “invited” Tyler Robinson to attend the next virtual hearing September 29th.
 
Last edited:
Icky Mettle said:
This may sound very tinfoil hattish, but holy shit that text exchange looks totally made up; like a poorly written script. First of all, how did he know that law enforcement first got an old man and then interrogated someone wearing similar clothes?

Second, that’s A LOT of detailed information to be putting into that text exchange. Having such detailed texts seems weird to begin with (people don’t typically provide that kind of serial in text exchanges), but also seems weird considering it appears that for much of that text exchange he’s talking about how he is trying not to get caught. If he’s trying not to get caught, why he is so detailed with everything he did?

Third, it seems very unnatural and contrived and does not have the appearance of a “normal” text exchange. There’s a lot more detail and complete sentences and context than what goes into “normal” text exchanges. For example: Roommate: “Why?” Robinson: “Why did I do it?” [Then goes into detailed explanation]. And it’s even more odd considering the circumstances. That is, Robinson is essentially on the run/hiding out. And he’s not just providing details about what he did; he’s going into his family history.

Fourth, the use of the term “my old man.” Who actually talks like that anymore? Referring to one’s dad as “my old man” is pretty much something that’s just done in the movies these days; not out in the real world, and certainly not a thing among the younger generations.

Fifth, referring to the roommate as “my love” and “love” at the end of sentences. Sounds very unnatural to begin with, but even more so in texts and among 20-somethings.

It all just comes across as a very weird, inauthentic-looking read.
Click to expand...
That’s the note that existed, didn’t exist, now exists again…lol.

So this kid who just gave his life away had a clear coherent calm conversation that game motive, confirmed how the weapon was found, a 22 year old called this dude “dear” in this situation and his dad “old man” , is concerned about the gun with everything else and his lover just has calm txt back gathering the story…doesn’t try to help or plead with him to turn himself in.

LOL Kash is a hilarious
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
That’s the note that existed, didn’t exist, now exists again…lol.

So this kid who just gave his life away had a clear coherent calm conversation that game motive, confirmed how the weapon was found, a 22 year old called this dude “dear” in this situation and his dad “old man” , is concerned about the gun with everything else and his lover just has calm txt back gathering the story…doesn’t try to help or plead with him to turn himself in.

LOL Kash is a hilarious
Click to expand...
Tyler definitely comes across as a throwback to a bygone era. Maybe that’s how the characters communicate in Helldriver 2?
 
My dearest Lance,

I hope this text message finds you well. My own circumstances have taken a turn. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write a few lines, that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top