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. 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
“I was only giving orders!”
Pol Pot killed 30% of the nation using words.
“I am not violent. I simply said that all those people should be exterminated.”
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.
Yes. Himself.
So you’re saying he wasn’t all bad
ooof
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.