There has been an intentional consistent dehumanization campaign against liberals. It is becoming very very dangerous. Saying that the thousands of protesters are paid agitators, or whatever else they have spewed is setting the tone for a violent response and who cares about the rights of those liberals.
Although I don't follow The Young Turks as much as I once did, I share the sentiments of Cenk Uygur in this short clip where he has just learned Kirk died from the gunshot wound to his neck: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RMrZQ-p-gco
I believe in regards to mass murder and an ongoing genocide, it is appropriate to use violent means against the perpetrators to stop the slaughter. But the targeted assassination of a political pundit, whether from the Left or Right, speaking peacefully toward a crowd, is an outright act of murder and there is no reasonable justification for it. And it can easily lead to more unreasonable violence and the further extinguishment of any free speech in the US or abroad.
The murder of a political figure could be the time to address the level of political polarization that reduces individuals to their worst political views, or even perceived political views, to the point that their deaths can be celebrated by some or deemed to be their own fault. When someone's death is seen as happening because they were 'a Liberal' or a 'Fascist' this is reductionist. And a call to arms perpetuates the polarization. It's the polarization that needs to stop first before anything can improve. Talk to your conservative neighbours. Stop labelling people with different views and try finding out one to one what they think and why. The answers may help change things.
It appalling, albeit expected, how the liberal corporate media talk about Kirk as if he was a legitimate political figure, rather than a rabid fascist extremist.
The Democrats and the centre-right media have laid the groundwork for fascism, and continue to enable it by failing to call it what it is and offering mild, superficial critiques that only serve to make it seem like a legitimate different viewpoint.
There's a double standard at work here where Charlie Kirk is held responsible for the consequences of policies he advocated for, while those one the left are not. To use a topical example, the stabbing of Iryna is a failure of the justice system to protect the public from individuals with dangerous forms of mental illness. This is a consequence of legal doctrines that hold such folks to a lower standard of behavior and policies like "no cash bail".
Are these kinds of incidents "worth it" as a price of these policies? It seems like democratic lawmakers believe that's the case, but I don't see similar pushback that I see to Charlie Kirk's thoughts on gun control from (what I used to consider) my side of the aisle.
So feel free to mount your high horse and ride off into the sunset believing you have a monopoly on morality. But the main person you're fooling is yourself.
It will be interesting to see if any news outlets/commentators on the left have the guts to take your approach. So far it seems that commentators on the US "left" have been keen to take a stance that is sympathetic to Kirk (e.g. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton), while "neutral" news outlets like the BBC seem silent on the points you've raised.
There has been an intentional consistent dehumanization campaign against liberals. It is becoming very very dangerous. Saying that the thousands of protesters are paid agitators, or whatever else they have spewed is setting the tone for a violent response and who cares about the rights of those liberals.
Look at Elon Musks comments. Democrats are murderers? Its intentional
Although I don't follow The Young Turks as much as I once did, I share the sentiments of Cenk Uygur in this short clip where he has just learned Kirk died from the gunshot wound to his neck: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RMrZQ-p-gco
I believe in regards to mass murder and an ongoing genocide, it is appropriate to use violent means against the perpetrators to stop the slaughter. But the targeted assassination of a political pundit, whether from the Left or Right, speaking peacefully toward a crowd, is an outright act of murder and there is no reasonable justification for it. And it can easily lead to more unreasonable violence and the further extinguishment of any free speech in the US or abroad.
The murder of a political figure could be the time to address the level of political polarization that reduces individuals to their worst political views, or even perceived political views, to the point that their deaths can be celebrated by some or deemed to be their own fault. When someone's death is seen as happening because they were 'a Liberal' or a 'Fascist' this is reductionist. And a call to arms perpetuates the polarization. It's the polarization that needs to stop first before anything can improve. Talk to your conservative neighbours. Stop labelling people with different views and try finding out one to one what they think and why. The answers may help change things.
No... Divided Mind caused it. Outsiders caused it. Echo Chambers caused it.. Inner Chaos caused it. Those that wish to rule your mind caused it.
Insurrectionist, fascist, and hater deserved a lifetime of repentance not murder. Thoughts and prayers to Kirk family.
Here comes the liberal pearl clutching in the comments….
Kirk was a long tall drink of Hitler.
It appalling, albeit expected, how the liberal corporate media talk about Kirk as if he was a legitimate political figure, rather than a rabid fascist extremist.
The Democrats and the centre-right media have laid the groundwork for fascism, and continue to enable it by failing to call it what it is and offering mild, superficial critiques that only serve to make it seem like a legitimate different viewpoint.
There's a double standard at work here where Charlie Kirk is held responsible for the consequences of policies he advocated for, while those one the left are not. To use a topical example, the stabbing of Iryna is a failure of the justice system to protect the public from individuals with dangerous forms of mental illness. This is a consequence of legal doctrines that hold such folks to a lower standard of behavior and policies like "no cash bail".
Are these kinds of incidents "worth it" as a price of these policies? It seems like democratic lawmakers believe that's the case, but I don't see similar pushback that I see to Charlie Kirk's thoughts on gun control from (what I used to consider) my side of the aisle.
So feel free to mount your high horse and ride off into the sunset believing you have a monopoly on morality. But the main person you're fooling is yourself.
Bye BYE Charlie… hahahahhah 🤣🤣🤣
It will be interesting to see if any news outlets/commentators on the left have the guts to take your approach. So far it seems that commentators on the US "left" have been keen to take a stance that is sympathetic to Kirk (e.g. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton), while "neutral" news outlets like the BBC seem silent on the points you've raised.