LogFAQs > #986432510

darkknight109 posted...

You answered your own question with that second sentence - "the law" is how society dictates what is and isn't acceptable conduct.

Moreover, all of the people named in those examples are violent felons. Kirk was not. And, as above, even if you want to remove the role of government in this discussion, all of the examples listed are ones that used violence, rape, and murder to further their aims; by contrast, all Kirk did was talk. However, vile his speech, and it was *very* vile, it was not a justification for his murder.

What you say would be correct if society was who decided those laws. That is simply not the case in America. Many gun controls enjoy majority bipartisan support, yet America cannot pass any real gun control. People support taxing billionaires more, but the government does not. People support all sorts of healthcare reforms that even the Dems cannot pass when they had a supermajority.

Yes, you explained why Gretchen said what she did. You didn't explain what part of it was supposed to be funny or joking.

In this case, irony. He died due to the very thing he supported.

But you're not answering the question here - what is the gain? What is the advantage you're looking for in being able to mock murder victims, as long as they fit whatever definition of "acceptable target" you want to offer? How does this lead back to sanity in American politics and not just further into the quagmire of political polarization?

The gain is a hearty chuckle at the expense of people who also had a hearty chuckle at people dying from preventable issues. The gain is schadenfreude. To be clear, I personally do see everyone as an acceptable target for mockery.

How does being nice and polite to the point we don't even accurately call these people out bring sanity back to American politics?

No, I wouldn't - I've already explained my views several times in this topic.

But I notice you didn't answer this question either - Do you support violence against people like Charlie Kirk? Do you think it's OK to physically harm people like him if he isn't doing anything other than talking and is obeying all relevant laws?

I did back in post 52. "To be clear, I do not want more terrorism and violence". You didn't notice because you did not look.

No, I want some backing for the argument that was posted. Alts said "Mocking the deaths of people that visibly actively harm society and spread hate has always been acceptable", with the implication that Kirk is one of those people. So find me another Charlie Kirk - someone who did not break any laws, was murdered for political speech, and whose murder was uncontroversially mocked.

You don't have to convince me that Kirk and others like him were and are pieces of shit - I'm fully aware of that. You also don't have to convince me that right-wingers have a long, disgusting history of mocking the dead, including murder victims. None of that is being disputed.

But that's not what Alts claimed. They said it has "always" been acceptable to mock the murder of someone like Charlie Kirk. So prove it.

Melissa Hortman. Barely 3 months ago. Didn't break any laws, murdered for political gain and relentlessly mocked by conservatives.

By showing that there's an alternative to MAGA's loud, obnoxious, braindead brand. By showing that governance and politics doesn't have to look like people screaming epithets at one another while smearing their shit on the walls. By showing that there's a side in this fight that actually stands for common fucking decency instead of irreverent hatred for anyone they don't like.

I've heard many explanations for why MAGA has won the hearts of the disaffected in the US - some I find feasible, some not. You are not going to get me to ever believe that they're winning because they're assholes. As such, you definitely should not be emulating that part of their conduct.

How well did that work for Harris? She was the return to normalcy candidate, someone to take the positives of the Biden admin and build on them. She got wrecked, despite the fact that Trump could barely speak properly.

People know that there are polite candidates. They keep emphatically voting against them. They don't want normal candidates, they want Trump like figures.

Sure... but they weren't preventable by Charlie Kirk.

If the US ever moves towards sanity in gun legislation - and I'm doubtful I'll live long enough to see it, if it ever happens at all - it won't be one dude doing it. Either the US rises up as a whole and demands change or this continues. Given how comfortable the body politic in the US has gotten with schoolchildren getting shot at their desks - something the largely-unnoticed Colorado shooting you're referencing is striking evidence of - I know which one of those I think is more likely to happen.

My brother in Zodiark, who do you believe is running interference against gun control?