Too soon?
-
I agree with you in principle. It sucks a well-worded dissenting opinion is getting downvoted. I'm not an advocate for political killings. But I want to pose a counter question... When does it become acceptable to cross this line? When can an otherwise reasonable person give up on a broken system, and go from political resistance to violent resistance? Because for a lot of people, their rights, their lives, and their futures are under attack. Both politically AND with the full force of the government.
I take issue with your question because it conflates two completely separate things as the same. There's a very difference between a "system" and an "individual", especially when that person is a private citizen. Ideally, political violence should be a line that's never crossed, however, we don't live in an ideal world. If people are tired of the system they live under, and they have no meaningful way of getting change then violence might be inevitable. However, in these cases people go after the system itself. That means the actual institutions that keep the system in place. Want an example? Look at what's happening right now in Nepal.
What you don't do to fight a system is shoot a private citizen over their political views. That's not meaningful resistance, that's just violence. It doesn't do anything or change anything, all it does is help establish a dangerous precedent where violence becomes an acceptable part of political discourse. Don't like someone's political views? Shoot them, they probably deserved it anyway... at least that's what people here are saying to justify it, but what these don't understand is that it's a two way street. Just as you cheer and condone political violence, others can as well, including the people you don't like. You can't condemn people you don't like for doing it but then cheer for the same actions when the people you like do it, because you'll just be a hypocrite and your words will hold no weight. It's not a defensible position.
It should be noted that for any principle to mean anything, it is absolutely mandatory for it to be applied fairly and universally. If we want to remain a society that values civil liberties, then those have to extend to everyone, including those who you don't like don't or don't agree with, and this includes people with vile views. When a system becomes a dysfunctional mess, it means that it has deviated significantly from it's founding principles, and a new system needs to take it's place to embody them. However, if the people no longer believe in civil liberties for all, then we're looking at a very grim future because we would have tyranny's pandora's box.
-
Trump is a figurehead. Project 2025 was/is a massive plan that took years to lay out.
Do not delude yourself into thinking the Republican party is a cabal of idiots.I disagree, the Republicans ARE a cabal of idiots. The people who own them and run the party in the shadows, however, are not.
-
He debated college kids. Do better.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You could just Google his comments or listen to his podcasts he promoted violence.
Charles Kirk, the recently killed hard-right Christian nationalist, had been "repeatedly making references to physically assaulting and even lynching trans people on his podcast, the Charlie Kirk Show".
Sometimes he targeted his violence specifically against trans. Other times, he incited violence more broadly against LGBTQ along with other minority groups.
He was using Christianity as a shield, he was a fake Christian
-
So you can't cite a specific example? Nobody is disagreeing that Kirk had vile views, but you made a very specific claim that I want verification for. Give me something, anything that directly shows Kirk actually did this:
He was promoting actual, race-targeted violence domestically and internationally
This is called “sea-lioning.”
-
This is called “sea-lioning.”
Calling out people for making stuff up is not sea lioning
-
Wow, i heard Trump orchestrated this to distract from the Epstien files.
So you're saying we have to keep pressing for the Epstein Files, to make the fascists keep killing each other?
-
First I heard he was shot and assumed not bad, found the video and… he was dead before be hit the ground
I thought oh, maybe he might pull through (one of those things! Some kind of evil miracle!) since they haven't announced his death even a couple of hours later, but then someone said the hospital often won't publicly confirm death until all next of kin are notified, and then that made a lot more sense
-
This post did not contain any content.
Talk about self-prophecy. Get shot after saying it's necessary and nobody give a damn so he can get no empathy like he wanted too. Why are people upset? He got everything he asked for. I'm happy for him. If he only wished for hugs instead of guns maybe he could have received that instead? Who knows, maybe not?
Either way the Law of Attraction is some serious shit.
-
This is the full context of the quote for anyone curious like I was.
TLDW is that he follows saying he prefers sympathy over empathy
TLDW. what would the difference between sympathy and empathy be?
-
TLDW. what would the difference between sympathy and empathy be?
-
I would argue that the average person refers to a mix of both when they use the word "empathy":
- caring about the other person's pain
- being there for them
- trying to see things from their perspective
- wanting the other person to be better and wondering how one could help.
Classifying one as "a terrible problem" and the other as acceptable seems (at least) a bit pedantic. Specially when it comes to language, a dynamic phenomena in which words mean what (the majority of) people deem them to mean.
my two cents
-
I would argue that the average person refers to a mix of both when they use the word "empathy":
- caring about the other person's pain
- being there for them
- trying to see things from their perspective
- wanting the other person to be better and wondering how one could help.
Classifying one as "a terrible problem" and the other as acceptable seems (at least) a bit pedantic. Specially when it comes to language, a dynamic phenomena in which words mean what (the majority of) people deem them to mean.
my two cents
wrote last edited by [email protected]The train of thought he talked about right when he said that was that in the past politicians said they feel your pain, even if they are an opponent. Now politicians try to make the case that people aren't in pain.
In that comparison I linked one of the differences is sympathy is feeling pain as your own and another is acknowledging pain without feeling it at all.
I'm not saying I agree with his take, but context made the quote made me go from "this guy doesn't care about others at all" to "grammar police sidenote where he wants people to say sympathy more" in my head
Context is important and I never heard or watched him at all so I wanted to share for people who were interested like I was.
