LogFAQs > #986425093

darkknight109 posted...

It's not. You're misconstruing what I said. Here is is again:

"Again, those comments would get you fired from most jobs, regardless of who the victim was."

I didn't say that people shouldn't mock dead politicians; I said that they shouldn't mock anybody, regardless of who they are. And yes, right-wing extremists do fit in that group.

You're not wrong that Charlie Kirk's extremism has been normalized, but you're drawing the wrong conclusions from it. There's a frankly disturbing number of people on the right who admired him and liked what he said. Mocking his death without consequence is simply going to encourage those people to do the same, because all they're going to read from that is, "It's OK to mock the deaths of people I disagree with and doing so should not be a fireable offence."

Yeah, no thats not true and never was. Professionals have mocked the death of dictators, terrorists, rapists, murderers, dictators, child/domestic abusers and other sorts of criminals and people that harm society regularly and was no harm no foul. Mocking a KKK members death wouldnt have been seen as scandalous in the past. The fact that youre just treating Kirk as a standard politician rather than an activist of hate and domestic terrorism is part of the problem. Those people already think that and theyre already being shown its true. The only people being limited here are left wingers.

You say that he was not simply someone with noxious views, then go on to list all his noxious views. Do you not see the disconnect there?

Having noxious views would be a random low info voter or anonymous shitposter. Kirk was an active professional activist who built organizations, endorsed actions, and targeted children with them. The fact that you cant tell the difference between those is crazy.

I'm not acting like he's "equal" to victims of racial injustice, save in the idea that people who mock his death are probably going to lose their jobs, and understandably so. That he's a piece of shit doesn't really factor into that equation.

Again, listen to yourself. Your argument has shifted from "It was just a light joke" to, essentially, "We should be allowed to mock his death because he's a right-wing extremist." You know who uses both those arguments on the regular? Fucking Trump cultists. Is that really the road you want to go down? Using redcaps as a bellwether for acceptable behaviour?

As above, dictators, terrorists, abusers and other awful people do acceptably get their deaths mocked. You are treating him as equal when youre acting like hes just a normal activist instead of someone that pushed hate and violence himself.

Yes, these are just light mockings of his death. They arent outright saying he deserves it, or endorsing that it should happen more to other people like him. They arent cheering for it. Its jokes meant to show hes not something worth feeling sorry for. And your this is the logic of trumpers, dont be like trumpers! is Both Sides pearl clutching concern troll logic that applies to acting like left wingers shouldnt gerrymander because then theyd just be like right wingers.

Unlike gerrymandering, there is no political or strategic advantage that comes from mocking a man's death. There is no reason why the left should be involved in normalizing that sort of behaviour.

Showing its acceptable to treat nazi hate groups with the disdain they deserve rather than normalizing them as regular activists is something that society widely needs right now. Are you against the punch a Nazi belief? You seem to be from a country that has Nazis illegal in the first place so do you believe they should be legal because its just regular views that shouldnt be censored?

Yes - that's bad! That's my entire point, chief. Doing shit things because "the right did it first" is a crappy way to conduct yourself. We do not - and should not - use the right's bad behaviour to justify doing the exact same thing on the left.

People mocking, say, Paul Pelosi's attack wasn't vile because they were targeting Democrats; it was vile because they were mocking someone who was the victim of a violent attack. Well, guess what, Charlie Kirk was the victim of a violent attack. So you need to ask yourself at this juncture, are you against treating death and murder as a joke, the way the Republicans do? Or are you OK with it, as long as it's someone you don't like? Because if it's the latter, you're a lot closer to the Republicans in your line of thinking than you'd probably like to be.

Mocking the deaths of people that visibly actively harm society and spread hate has always been acceptable. Youre still trying to compare bog standard politicians who never advocated for violence with hate groups who died from their own rhetoric.

Equating "being against Republican-style bad behaviour on the left" with "being a right-winger" is a frankly ridiculous reach. It is perfectly possible to fight against the rise of fascism in the United States without behaving like a callous asshole, the way the Republicans do after any one of these events targeting someone on the left.

Being fine with the state of things simply because Dems at least have decorum and are going the high road while they dont do anything but watch as Republicans regress the world back to the 1910s would basically make you a Republican. Taking the high road and decorum isnt working for Democrats. All its doing is limiting left wingers while right wingers run amok doing whatever they like. Its time to fight fire with fire.

And I'll point out that if you consider Charlie Kirk's great sin to be inciting violence against those different from him, it's not a great look to be celebrating violence done to him.

This is peak enlightened centrist tolerate peoples intolerance. You against making fun of Herman Cain award deaths of covid deniers because making fun of regular people dying of covid is reprehensible?