332
Minnesota House speaker, her husband shot and killed in 'assassination'
(www.thecentersquare.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
332 points (98.8% liked)
politics
24148 readers
3644 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I kind of hate the 'Violence is never the answer' rhetoric. Violence should not be the first course of action, nor is it a desirable one to have to resort to, but sometimes there's simply not another reasonable way to resolve a problem.
Which is probably the exact thought process this shooter had. And he followed through. Do you think that's a good thing? Look at the results. There is no winner here. If you're itching for a fight, have at it. Which side do you think is better trained?
You all will not win this with violence. The repub military machine wants you to try to rise against them. Also add in the fact that you don't have the numbers. You all sit here all day advocating for a violent uprising. But the numbers needed for that never show up.
Repubs want to stomp you into oblivion. They are legit foaming at the mouth hoping that the crazies here follow through with their threats. You can't win this with violence--you don't have the numbers or the training. How can you all not see that? But you are smarter than them. So start fucking using the smart part of your brain.
You're straw manning. Please don't.
Recognizing that violence has in fact "been the answer" to various circumstances in the past, and will be in the future, is different from saying everyone should pick up a gun today.
No, I'm not. I'm advocating non-violence and pointing out how senseless this is. What the shooter did is wrong. And it would be wrong if he shot republicans as well, and i hope no one wants to retaliate with targeting other politicians now.
Let's say, hypothetically, there's a mass shooting in progress. Literally a gunman shooting people in the street. How are you going to solve that situation with non-violence?
Another hypothetical. There's someone with the detonator to a bomb that's planted in a full stadium. You have a gun. If you don't shoot them, they will detonate the bomb. Are you still advocating for pacifism?
You can't make a statement like 'Violence is never the answer' if you're not willing to apply it to these situations, too, so is your position that it's better to let tens, hundreds or thousands of people die if the only way to prevent it is with violence?
The alternative, of course, is to acknowledge that sometimes, though regrettable, violence is the answer, and once we've established that, we can start examining where the line is where it becomes justified.
You live how you choose to, I'll live the way I choose to. Violence is never the answer. There is no scenario where that will change for me. Not Hitler. Not babies. Not family. etc. And definitely not because of silly downvotes by 26-year old pokemon collecting, gaming-chair warriors on Lemmy.
I gave my opinion. Many disagree. Ok, but I'm still of my same opinion. My life choice. You get to make yours.
Just so you know, I'm not the only pacifist in existence. There are many others like me in the world. Just not on Lemmy! lol
That's well and fine, but if your honest opinion is that violence isn't justified in even the above scenarios, I think you're living in a fantasy world of idealism. If violence is being done, and you have the power to stop it (even through violence) but choose not to, you're complicit in that violence.
I'll also point out that this wasn't a case where you were minding your own business and people started calling you out; you were the first one to reply in this comment chain. You opened the debate, and you seem very willing to criticize other peoples' views, but when yours start to be examined critically, you seem to shy away.
I get to live how I want to. You get to live how you want to. Good luck on your journey.
I've never inferred anything different. I gave my opinion. People disagree. I'm fine with that. They haven't changed my mind. I haven't changed their mind. According to the modlog, some people went a bit too far and had comments removed for advocating violence. That's how these things go. Lemmy crowdthink has never been subtle about their extremism. Makes no difference in my life whatsoever and doesn't upset me.
I also take comfort in the fact that most here aren't going to do anything violent anyway, regardless of what they say they are going to do or what they'd like to see be done.
Opinions have been made known. I'll stay on my same path. All good.
The real problem I have with this entire discussion is that (as you've been called out for here already), you're basing it on a straw man. You're taking statements like "Violence is sometimes the answer" and twisting that to mean "Violence is [often / always] the answer" or "Violence is the solution to the problem in this article", and trying to paint your view as the moral high ground based on that misrepresentation. In fact, that's the whole reason we're even having this discussion, now - you did that to [i]my[/i] first comment in this chain. You're trying to position other people as unreasonable and violent by misrepresenting their viewpoints.
No, I'm stating that my opinion is that it is never the answer. People have have had comments here removed by the mods for "advocating violence." So obviously some things about violence have been said that others have felt the need to remove.
No, I gave my opinion.
Let me wrap this up, so we can move on. I don't care if every single Lemmy poster on the planet earth replies that they think violence is the answer or it's sometimes the answer or it's rarely the answer, and then downvotes me to oblivion. I don't think violence is ever the answer.
No matter the hitler, knife, nuke bomb, dinosaur time machine, black hole travels to every bad time period etc scenario. I'm not going to change my mind. You aren't either. That's fine. You're free to your opinion, as I am to mine.
I'm not upset about this conversation at all and I don't think anyone should be. But it's getting boring because it's just going in circles now. It's Lemmy, it's not real life.
I've made my point very clear several times, so I won't be answering any more questions or replying to direct replies in this thread any longer. It's just going in circles now. Plenty of other things I wanna talk about. Good luck on your journey.
Fuck Donald Trump, fuck the current government, and they should all jump off a building together. Pacifism doesn’t work until everyone is enlightened and some people are the manifestation of evil. You cannot cure them, unfortunately.
K. So if people couldn't even be bothered to get out of their chairs to vote, do you think they are suddenly gonna jump up and down with excitement and join you in your adventures?
People tend to get activated once they feel they're personally being threatened. Voter suppression notwithstanding, I'm sure there are plenty of people who couldn't be bothered to vote but could definitely be bothered to physically defend themselves and their neighbors.
I disagree. Guess we'll find out.
What would you do to hitler before the genocide if you knew what would happen?
While we all like to imagine that a time-traveling assassin could prevent WWII genocide and atrocities, the reality is that nazis didn’t appear in a vacuum. Do you believe that eliminating trump would end what’s happening in the US?
EDIT because I misread your comment: No.
Maybe not the answer ya want but sometimes the answer that is deserved.
Looks like the shooter(s?) of these Democratic politicians agreed with you in thinking that violence is the answer. You approve? He was just as strong in his beliefs as you. Think that's a good thing? He followed through with his beliefs and convictions. I hope you don't follow the same path.
I'm a lifelong pacifist and activist. You can come up with all the scenarios you want, but I will never advocate violence.
The fact that any post that says violence is bad, gets so many downvotes on Lemmy, shows me why this platform will never grow much beyond where it is now. You all are becoming the very extremists that you used to rage against. You all seem to want war just as much as the other side does.
I won't advocate for violence. I will always wish the perpetrator had found a better solution. But there are definitely politicians whose death I will not mourn, whatever the cause.
I agree with your sentiment.
The comment in question pulled a "both sides" on an issue that is beyond overwhelmingly coming from the right side of the spectrum.
Two Democratic state Senators were just brutally attacked, and at least one killed. That's not the time for Democrats to introspect, it's a time to be outraged.
Drawing some kind of similarity between internet commenters wishing a conservative assassin had succeeded in killing Trump, and a (almost certainly) right wing chud actually assassinating two Democratic Senators is bullshit. Political violence in this country comes almost entirely one direction. Pretending otherwise just blunts that reality and makes future attacks all the more likely.
I agree with outrage. I don't agree with violence as a reaction though. My point being that the whole narrative of "violence is right to fight back" is the exact same mindset this shooter had. In his mind, he thought violence is right to fight back, and he used it. Do you think this is a good thing?
I'm saying it's wrong. But hey, you keep advocating for violence. Let me know how what works for you. I'm not going to join in your bloodlust and I don't care what side you are on. Be sure let us know how your FBI interview goes after they read this thread.
Who called for violence as a reaction? Anyways, it doesn't seem like this guy is likely to come quietly when the cops find him, so I do have to wonder what you think the cops should do if he is armed and refuses to negotiate or surrender? Some level of violence may just end up being the correct reaction. We shall see.
Uh, OK. I'll stay by the phone.
Read the thread. You don't see anyone in this thread that things violence is warrented?
So, nobody.
Ahhh, I guess i just read most of the comments here wrong. My bad.
So you're saying that you and everyone in this thread agree that violence is not the answer then? No one in this thread advocates violence against the republicans. Correct?
So everyone agrees that violence is no the answer? Good, glad I was so wrong. Because I definitely think violence against any politician is wrong. Glad I am in good company and cooler heads prevail.
What does "violence is not the answer" exactly mean? I see several people pointing out that it sometimes is the answer. I don't see anyone calling for violence as a reaction to this incident, which is what you claimed.
That means that I hope no one retaliates with violence, for the awful thing that happened with the democrats shooting. And that I don't think violence against an politician for anything is called for. What else do you think I would mean?
Ok, then I am glad this thread agrees that no one believes that violence is warranted. So people here agree that this no politician should have violence inflicted upon them? Correct? Good, I think that's a sensible way to approach it. And I'm glad cooler heads are prevailing.
I'm unsure why some people seem to be annoyed that I an calling for non-violence. Especially since everyone agrees. I'm glad no one is calling for violence against politicians.
Wait, so I am confused. I said that some people seemed to be for violence, and you said I was wrong. Now you are saying that a lot in this thread disagree with my statement that violence isn't the answer.
Please disengage from this conversation. You and I are not going to agree on the violence thing. I don't advocate violence against any politician regardless of party. I hope this shooter gets caught, stands trial, and goes to prison for rest of his life. Good day to you.
What is this, an Abbott and Costello bit? The words in a sentence are important - all of them. There are differences between people being for violence (as if that's a thing), people recognizing that violence is sometimes necessary, people thinking that violence is appropriate in response to this issue, and people calling for violence. Those all mean different things. Maybe you throw them all in the same mental bucket, but they are not the same. This is a symptom of thinking in thought terminating cliches. That used to be a Republican thing, but its sad how often I'm seeing it now on the left.
Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with us disagreeing on that. The problem is when you mix that in with accusations that I (and others) support violence in cases where we don't, or claim we are calling for violence in response to this incident when we have done no such thing.
Sure, I have no doubt that you can keep it going all by yourself. You really don't need me for it.
disengage
You don't get to decide when others disengage, only yourself. If you don't want more replies, just stop commenting.
You just had a comment in this thread removed for advocating violence. You trying to get your comments removed for slapfighting too or what? Just move on. wth?! you made your point. I made my point. let it go
Mods will mod. I don't think that comment should have been removed, but I'm not going to protest it.
I'll go with "what". I'm not sure the mods will penalize me for not following your commands.
It may go whenever it wants.
Well, based on your the history of you getting stuff removed, our conversation here is done. I'm now blocking you, so I won't see your reply. Good luck! Looks like you are gonna need it in your life.