politics
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
view the rest of the comments
thats the crux of the issue. Words can be weapons. And kirk wielded them as such.
Did Hitler ever kill anyone directly, with his own hands? Or was it his words?
edit. Im not comparing kirk to hitler; i am not suggesting kirk was becoming hitler or anything like that. It is solely an example of when “you use nothing but words”, and many people die. WORDS ARE WEAPONS. Rhetoric kills people
This is why they're so desperate to destroy the school system. These "I'm not touching you" types of defenses don't work against anyone with a HS diploma or a basic understanding of history
Exactly. Its standard bully behavior and way too many people fall for it.
Exactly. Hitler never killed anyone himself, but his rhetoric is directly responsible for the murder of tens of millions.
If you take a gas tanker and spray down the lawn and outside of the white house, and something else causes a spark that turns the entire place into an inferno, you didn't start the fire. That doesn't mean the fire would have still happened without your actions.
Yes. Himself.
So you're saying he wasn't all bad
ooof
To my knowledge Manson never murdered anyone with his own hands either. (Though I'm prepared to be corrected.) Same thing 100%.
Edit - arguing against myself a little - maybe not, I'm sure Manson coerced his followers with more than words at times.
https://people.com/crime/charles-manson-book-claims-dennis-wilson-witnessed-unreported-murder/
"I am not violent. I simply said that all those people should be exterminated."
Pol Pot killed 30% of the nation using words.
A righty will just say it was action, directives, legislative action.
But the point is that modern right-wing mouthpieces can effectively toe the line of hate speech versus incitement. Dog-whistles and stochastic rhetoric that indirectly radicalizes others.
When this is all said and done, we're going to need to overhaul our education for critical-thinking to spot this and perhaps broaden the definition of inciting violence or clamp down on hate speech. Though I look at Germany that has stricter laws and we see AfD neo-nazis rising there too albeit to a lesser extent?
We’re gonna need to overhaul a lot of stuff including education.
To the point where I don’t think repairing this piece of shit country is worth it.
"I was only giving orders!"
Agreed. Kirk balanced along a very fine line of "just debating" or "expressing opinions" but anyone with half a brain engaged could hear the dog whistles all through his arguments and neither side is as dumb as the media and memes make them out to be. Those whistles are heard loud and clear, it's why some loved him, and others hated him.
Likewise and with much less nuance, a Fox presenter comments that the mentally ill and/or homeless should euthanized. Then days later a homeless camp is attacked. Wow, what an unlucky coincident?
I wouldn't want to lose the right to free speech but when it appears to incite violence, I struggle to see how - particularly the Fox presenter scenario - is any different to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"? Words causing others to take action that lead to the death of innocent people.
HOWEVER, one person's violence-inspiring words are another person's Rage Against the Machine or genuine call to action against oppression. Innocent people can and do get caught up in these struggles too.
I don't have a solution. I have no idea how we fix this without trampling existing freedoms and ruining everything good. All I know is that it's not an easy solution that some halfwit media personality or politician is going to solve with one easy action.
Hitler ordered killings under his authority, absolutely. That healthcare CEO is a much better comparison to when people immediately die as a result of your direct actions and authority to order people to follow through.
It's not the same. Claiming every racist, bigot, homophobe that opens their mouth is akin to Hitler and therefore can be summarily executed is not an argument that is going to win anyone over outside of lemmy and by the time Stephen Miller is ACTUALLY ordering killings and the public might actually support violent push back you'll all already be in jail for terrorism and mass murdering YouTubers and even then nobody will feel bad about it.
I was ready to upvote this but you kinda went off the rails at the end lol
How else to respond to justifying murdering someone based on "words can be weapons" and the genuine support for that sentiment here? I'm only addressing the inevitable outcome of those who'd actually take that line of thinking to its inevitable conclusion, and if it seems absurd then put a bit more thought into who you think deserves to die because that's where this path leads.
At no point did I ever justify murder.
We can discuss how words can be used to inflict violence. And draw upon historical figures as examples of when that has literally happened.
I never said he deserved to die. I am arguing with the articles wording of “he only ever used words”, which glosses over what those words were
test cause cant edit
At no point did I ever justify murder.
We can discuss how words can be used to inflict violence. And draw upon historical figures as examples of when that has literally happened. Without literally calling someone a nazi, or calling for their death.
We should be able to have a conversation about how his “free speech” (which I support), literally condoned violence. Here is a highlight of his comments. Please mark the ones which condone violence, and those that dont.
I never said he deserved to die. I am arguing with the articles wording of “he only ever used words”, which glosses over what those words were
That's good, but most here feel the murder was justified and their rationale is the same. I hope they'll also consider your clarification with due regard.
I don't necessarily disagree, I just think it needs to be explained in a more grounded way.