Man, it’s almost like allowing the criminalization speech or association is a bad idea, and puts tools directly into the hands of fascists.

If only somebody had foreseen this when the UK started jailing people for state disapproved speech years ago.

Thanks. It’s always a good reminder that 80% of the people on here are children.

It’s not, but congrats on finding a way to dismiss what I said without having to engage with it or do any self reflection at all.

If Harris has won and took the exact same actions as Trump as it relates to Israel, which doesn’t seem too unlikely given the way all of Washington on both sides kowtows to Israel, would you be taking the same stance that “she didn’t do anything to help bring this about?”

Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but I find it unlikely people would be coming out of the woodwork to slam Harris, even if she did the exact same things.

Just because someone is a villain, it doesn’t mean that literally every single thing they do is villainous. I’m not gonna stop drinking Coke, just because Donald Trump drinks Coke. And I can recognize the the US was positively involved in this ceasefire negotiation, even if I hate the guy heading the US.

Trump can still be evil, even if he’s right sometimes, and even if he does the right thing sometimes. He’s not a comic book character. He’s a very real, human kind of evil. And just because he’s not stomping on puppies every day doesn’t mean he’s not bad.

And if you’re not willing to admit when he does a good thing, your hatred isn’t founded in reality, it’s founded on purest tribalism.

I mean, I think it’s pretty tightly bounded by when airports shut down. If all planes are grounded for any length of time, that’s an economic collapse kinda no matter what you do.

Plus with the holidays coming up? No, I think they are gonna panic when the air traffic controllers start walking out en masse cause they’re not getting paid.

Encouraging to see that the Palestinian people rejecting Hamas.

While certainly not the villain in this whole conflict, Hamas is definitely a villain.

Both these groups are Palestinian.

No worries. I don’t put an immense stock in the karma system or whatever. It all kinda balances out in the end. :)

But I do think saying the only difference is authority, while true, misses the point a bit. If I give a baby a sword and he wants to murder someone but can’t because he’s too weak to swing it, is he less culpable than the man who murders someone with a sword, even though they have the same intent? Absolutely. If Hitler had been a street urchin with no influence and never risen to power, he probably would still have been a loathsome person, but he wouldn’t have been deserving of being out to death, as he would never have taken any actions deserving of that, even if he really wanted to. The fact Kirk didn’t have authority does in fact matter.

I do see your point about soft power and don’t wholly disagree. He did advocate for a lot of extremely harmful policies, and likely pushed a few people over the edge into extremist action. I certainly am not defending that. Again, I can’t say it enough, I did not care for or support Charlie Kirk or anything he stood for.

But I do still believe that the freedom of speech is important if for no other reason than if it wasn’t, this current administration would make talking about LGBT issues or immigration a felony and start throwing people in jail for it. It seems they’re trying anyway, and things like the first amendment are one of the only remaining bulwarks against that.

The correct way to deal with rhetoric like Kirks (imo) is through community driven things like lobbying companies to deplatform him. His rhetoric should be heinous enough that places refuse to amplify him, and the fact it’s not is a black mark on where the nation is at as a whole. But that doesn’t mean that having the government limit his speech or murdering him outright is the correct call.

It may be harder to do things the right way and win things in the public sphere of ideas, but it’s important to do things in the right way, even when they’re hard. Which doesn’t mean “do nothing” to be clear. I’m advocating for an MLKj version of civil disobedience and protest. Change can and will happen without banning speech or murdering people.

I mean, in this exact thread, lol: https://lemmy.world/comment/19339137

Plenty of people are saying it was correct and good to shoot him.

And I’m not whitewashing his history. He was the worst kind of asshole. I’m not sad he’s dead. But there are in fact a lot of people on this site arguing that it was the absolutely correct thing to do to extrajudicially murder him, and that’s where I disagree.

He wasn’t a member of “the state” any more than you or I.

I mean, perhaps you’re right, but I bet if we took a poll here we’d get a majority of people sounding off that it was a good thing he was murdered.

But maybe you’re right and everyone agrees it was bad he was murdered. I wouldn’t bet on it though.

Look, Hitler and Goebbels both directly ordered the deaths of civilians. It’s intellectually dishonest to say Charlie Kirk was doing anything equivalent. There’s a difference between hateful and violent rhetoric generally and actively managing and overseeing death camps.

I agree theres a limit, but I would put it at when you’re rhetoric becomes action. Both Hitler and Goebbels took active actions that lead to peoples deaths. Actions that were more than simple rhetoric in the public sphere.

Look, I fully agree Kirk was trash. You’re preaching to the choir here.

But I shy away from saying “any extrajudicial killing is fine when it’s against someone I think is trash.”

If he’d died a natural death the world would be a better place for it, but that doesn’t make it okay that he was murdered.

It’s a dangerous game when we just start saying it’s okay to murder bad people without due process.

I don’t have a problem with the comic in the sense that I think the author should be shot, in the same way that I can have a problem with Charlie Kirk and not believe he should be shot.

I can disagree with people without wanting them dead, shockingly.

Kirk was trash, but that doesn’t justify an extrajudicial killing.

A general call for someone’s death has never been ruled as fighting words in the history of US Law. But I don’t think that was really your point.

The thing is, I see people calling for the death of Donald Trump all the time. I don’t think that means he’s morally justified in killing those people.

That’s effectively what this comic is arguing, but in reverse.

Look, I hate Charlie Kirk as much as the next guy, but that doesn’t mean we need to say that assassinating him was a good and just call.

He can be a loathsome PoS, and shooting him to death extrajudicially can be a bad thing. Both those can be true at the same time.

I don’t know that I love equating rhetorical violence with physical violence. Seems like a bad road to go down.

“That guy advocated that I should be killed, so I was justified in shooting him in the face,” isn’t my favorite take.

In 1997? From Arkansas? That seems… exceptionally unlikely. Or, at least far far less likely than that he was just cheating.

Combine that with the fact that someone commiting adultery should be disqualifying for them becoming president.

Look, I get that all the social norms have been completely ground to dust, but character does in fact matter. We should want a good person who refuses to cheat on their wife as a leader.

Reducing this to just a fun fling because you like the guy is the same thing the hypocrites who support Trump and all of his scandals do.

If he’s willing to betray his wife for a quicky from an intern, why would I trust him with anything else? For the person who’s leading the entire nation the bar should be higher.

Also not to mention that he was 49 and she was 22. If this was anyone less “likeable” than Bill we’d all be calling him an absolute creep. He was pushing 50, and she could barely drink. And he was her boss.

It really really isn’t.

One county in a deep red part of New York had 0 votes for Kamala. That same county had 0 votes for Biden last election. In a state that Kamala won.

This has very, “how come there were 30 points swings in the polls in under an hour” energy that MAGA had when mail-in ballots got processed in Pennsylvania and Arizona in 2020.

But this doesn’t even pass the smell test. Even if it was fraud, why? They just decided to do it in a suspicious way in a state they were never gonna win in the first place? What’s the end game? Why make it zero votes at all? Why do it in New York?

Depends on how you define AI to some degree, but yeah. Protein folding has basically been solved in the past few years with neural-network based AI systems.