it's all i hear across the political spectrum: "nobody should be killed for their opinions"
sure, that's fair. you can hold that position, but what does that have to do with Charlie Kirk? if we are going to lend credence to the idea his killer did what he did to stop Kirk from further spreading fascism and bigotry then an opinion would have been the least of the killer's concerns. opinions don't do anything on their own. simply stating how you feel about something and maintaining your beliefs is not oppressive to anyone. it's when you commit action based on that belief and that is what Charlie Kirk had done very, very successfully the last ten or so years of his life.
Charlie Kirk took his beliefs and turned them into a movement. TPUSA, his political organization that he co-founded, has over one thousand chapters nationwide. Imagine if the KKK had that many locations in 2025. He was able to amass an insane amount of support for Trump/MAGA and Christian nationalism as a whole that it blows away anything he did prior to throwing himself in the Trump administration swamp.
people are still stuck on seeing him as some kind of internet guy or podcaster or talking head.. no lol. no, no, no, god i wish. Trump doesn't reach as far without Kirk, Trump doesn't appeal to young crowds without Kirk, Trump doesn't get older conservatives to see him as having longevity without Kirk.. he took the MAGA message and cemented it as an identity; he validated and perpetuated their whole brand.
Kirk is so instrumental in Trump's image and PR that MAGA wouldn't have organized itself as well without him. Jan 6? TPUSA bused folks to the capitol. They were actively participating in the overthrowing of a democratically elected leader.
this was not about opinions; this was not about beliefs. Kirk was shot because of what he did and was doing. acting like he was a victim of having too wrong of an opinion takes away all the real-world damage he contributed to; the literal deaths he was responsible for through stochastic terrorism and COVID denialism.
we have to face and accept the reality of righteous assassinations. this isn't to say to agree with or support them, but to merely acknowledge them as inevitable and not worthy of condemnation. lone assassinations are never helpful for the cause they intend to support, but when there are no peaceful, non-violent options left and you are being systematically killed by the state and its actors, a violent response in self-defense is understandable. don't avoid these actions, show the country what is at risk when we allow fascists to terrify and subjugate us. this is the ultimate fault of those keeping us oppressed, not the person pulling the trigger.
Oh right, so for you the limit is not opinions, it's just if you convince people too effectively of those opinions.
I'm sure when MAGA starts shutting down websites and locking people up because they were creating a movement (of leftist, antifa, trans propaganda, of course) you won't be crying from the rooftops that it is an unforgivable suppression of civil liberties.
fuck that.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that it is the freedom to convince people of your opinion. Both the left and right in America have been anti-free-speech for ages, and while the right continues to be the main source of political violence, the left has little to no recognition or shame of the role it has played in normalising the suppression of speech.
If you believe that it is wrong to make public statements that don't incite violence but which, due to their hostility, contribute to a small amount to an overall atmosphere in which violent acts are more likely, surely it is even worse to say it is not worth condemning murder - as long as the victim is someone sufficiently effective at convincing people of the views you disagree with. That contributes a small amount to an overall atmosphere in which political violence is more likely. How are you not being a stochastic terrorist with this post?
He didn't say the guy who shot him was innocent. He said the person that murdered Charlie Kirk wasn't just because the guy held an opinion, it was because he was trying to spread opinions that would hurt people. Maybe I missed it but no where did they say what was done was right.
Yet here you come labeling someone a form of terrorist... Jeez the next 15 years are going to be rough for all of us
it's because i don't have sympathy for Kirk or feel the need to condemn the shooter. i am unbothered by their misdirected anger because it stems from genuine ignorance.
In that dispute you spoke too contentiously: do not for the future argue with ignorant people: those who have never been taught are unwilling to learn. You reprimanded that man with more freedom than you ought, and consequently you have offended him instead of amending his ways: in dealing with other cases of the kind, you should look carefully, not only to the truth of what you say, but also whether the person to whom you speak can bear to be told the truth.” Seneca on anger book 3 36
He didn't go that far but he said he doesn't condemn the murder.
I don't think "stochastic terrorism" is a useful phrase. It was coined as a pseudo-intellectual way to accuse those who commit one wrong of something that sounds more serious.
So I wouldn't say this is any form of terrorism, but it's worse than hostile speech against minorities because it is directly about violence. Saying wrong and inflammatory shit about some group is not as bad as hemming and hawing about murder.
you deny the existence of stochastic terrorism lol you are not a serious person worth discussing with.
So you decided to tell me this elsewhere than in the thread we already have...
I deny that it's a useful phrase. The phenomenon whereby speech can lead to an increase in harm obviously exists but likening this to terrorism is so hyperbolic everyone apart from a tiny niche finds it absurd. As you hunt for "serious people" you have obviously declared everyone who falls outside your tiny bubble unserious.
Worse, you don't use it to mean that, because if you did you'd call yourself a stochastic terrorist. Or do you deny that apologism for political assassination ("I can't condemn it") increases the likelihood of further violence?
it isn't "speech leading to an increase in harm" you goddamn motherfucker, i am sick of you foreign pieces of shit acting like you know everything. let me educate your dumb fucking ass:
STOCHASTIC TERRORISM IS WHEN YOU PURPOSELY AVOID DIRECTLY CALLING FOR VIOLENCE AND INSTEAD YOU KNOWINGLY USE DOG WHISTLES, CODE WORDS, ESTABLISHED PHRASES, HYPERBOLIC LANGUAGE, AND OUTRIGHT LIES IN THE HOPES SOMEBODY DOES VIOLENCE ON BEHALF OF THE CAUSE YOU SUPPORT.
do you see how that is different from just talking shit and being a bigot and saying a lot of bad things about people? yeah? do you see how maybe i'm not talking about people being mean? and people saying things like "we gotta fight the enemy!!!" because that's not what the problem is here in my country! the problem is WHITE SUPREMACIST FASCISTS encouraging their followers to be violent without saying those words so that people like YOU can downplay what they're doing
good job assface
You used a lot of capital letters to just say you believe Kirk's speech was intended to cause harm rather than merely causing it by chance. I don't think that's a relevant distinction because you can't prove it and I'm sure you hope that more people in MAGA are shot as well.
Other than that non-difference you just use more emotive words to describe the same thing.
yes, i can lol. you just wouldn't accept the evidence as proof because you think life is black and white and apparently fascism only acts one type of way. you are an idiot. you think these people are incidentally inciting violence without any coordination or effort on their part against MOUNTAINS of data showing the opposite is true. i am saddened by your ignorance and encourage you to break free from the manipulation. you are being lied to and being fed comfortable falsehoods.
correct. for example, if you convince enough people that black people are inferior and deserving of murder, and a bunch of racists go out and kill black people, that would make you responsible and worthy of a response against.
..yes, when fascists do fascist things, i'd be right to point it out and criticize it.
i am not a free speech absolutist and do not believe in the American concept of freedom of speech so.. this doesn't bother me.
you are severely downplaying the role of stochastic terrorism in this country and i am not interested in your assessment of my opinions based on that. "small amount?" lol please.
what are those views? go ahead and tell me. you see, the difference here is that i am right and people like Charlie Kirk are wrong. you shouldn't have the right to spread fascism in public nor have a platform dedicated to it. you are the antithesis of human progress and must be stopped, because your ideology is inherently violent and destroys people and ideas. this isn't mere opinion, this is a despicable and immoral ideology infecting the world.
edit: omfg you're not even American. please don't have such strong opinions on the culture of the people i live with 24/7 and then act like you have more knowledge than me on what is and isn't impacting us socially. your view of stochastic terrorism as being a small contributing factor is laughable. you clearly know nothing about the people here.
Essentially my political arguments since the election. Tell me again what “liberal” means. No it doesn’t.
I disagree with you here. The American dominance on media means your bullshit is exported everywhere. I know people who are Indian MAGA.
As in people who never ever left the India but still think Trump is a great president fighting against wokeness and communism etc.
i'm not saying not to have an opinion on the culture exporting, sure that's fine: my point is to avoid making statements about what is and isn't happening here as if you are living it or have better knowledge than me, an American being forced to experience it 24/7 up close.
I think you should reconsider how important freedom of speech is. You say expressing fascist views shouldn’t be allowed - but that denial of speech is itself fascistic.
If the government can limit any speech they deem dangerous, they’ll change the goalposts and suddenly all your liberal speak is made illegal and we’re repressed.
denial of speech itself is not fascism. i would not say that at all, sorry.
Yeah, the slogan of everyone who thinks restricting speech is ok.
I'm not absolutist either, but without objective standards for censorship you are left with a shouting match and a society in which there is no proscription against suppressing speech whether through the law, intimidation or violence. This directly contributes to fascism.
You can't argue honestly that trump's censorship of criticism is wrong because it breaks fundamental liberal principles. You're left arguing that it's wrong because it suppresses what you agree with, while MAGA argues it's right for the same reasons. Great job.
You imply that non-Americans are incapable of understanding what Kirk caused. I'm not going to accept your experience as the arbiter if truth any more than I'd claim mine is. Your experience of a tiny sliver of America doesn't give you a meaningfully more objective understanding of what's going on, because you're not capable of directly experience what happens to the vast majority of people. We're both able to read articles and talk with other people though. Over-privileging your own experience is a good way to make sure you never risk changing your mind though.
In short, come up with some facts about so-called stochastic terrorism.
You can read all you like, but as with many things when you study a place not your own, you will miss all or most of the nuance of the lived experience.
Is there un-lived experience?
I don't know but charlie experienced un-aliving.
Sure.
Whats the difference in this context?
No. The left have almost always been fans of free speech. Perhaps you meant to talk about the liberals or the centrists, the corporate lackeys.
There was a free speech consensus among western liberal democracies for over a century. The extremes - communist and fascist governments - did not.
Lately the left and right in Western countries has been getting far less liberal, which is what I'm getting at.