Don’t feel any empathy when Nazis get hunted
When I hear Nazi I think of concentration camps and killing Jews. Kirk was a big supporter of Israel. Does Nazi just mean conservative fascist now? And if so is B. Netanyahu a Nazi? That seems weird.
Yes Netanyahu is a Nazi
So when does he start exterminating the Jews?
Edit: he literally cant be a nazi. He’s a sionist.
Like the Germans they are starting with the homeless and disabled. In this case the Latino community is being targeted in the same way as the Jewish community was in Germany.
So he’s a sionist then. Not a nazi. Stop throwing words around if you don’t know what they mean.
I don’t know what “sionisom” is but to answer your question. Nazi, is a good way to describe a genocidal facist. The Nazis do appear to have aligned with Zionist in modern times. Nazism and Zionism are very similar because they both have goals to create a white ethnostate. The brand of nazism we are seeing in the United States is targeting and scapegoating (hallmark of Nazism) the homeless, and Latino communities. People are being disappeared off the streets without due process or accountability. In Germany the worst concentration camps were on foreign soil during the holocaust so the United States shipping people to Africa and El Salvador should worry even the most skeptical critic. RFK has talked openly about sending people with mental illness to camps. He also has openly made blanket statements about autistic people not having a life worth living.
Except the word nazi denotes and is defined by the hate of Jews.
You might say that sionists and nazis are similar, but they are categorically different. Or it would be slightly self-destructive as a Jewish state to want to exterminate all Jews, dont you think?
Fight fire with fire. Apparently it’s the only thing conservatives will pay attention to
So many of them are convinced all gun violence is coming from the left, and at this point I’m ready to just let them have their delusions. What are they going to do about it? Implement gun control? Please do
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
No really, if he was a nicer guy this probably wouldn’t have happened.
I’m not convinced it did happen. His last words were literally making light of gun violence. If I read this in a book, I’d say it was too on-the-nose
We have no clue how long the shooter was zeroed in. It’s entirely possible they chose the funniest moments to pull the trigger.
It was all set up. The person who asked the question, before the universe just throw a bullet at Charlie Kirk.
The universe didn’t do it. The universe and I were doing a LOTR directors cut marathon all day today.
His last words
He was asked how many shooters were trans in the last 10 years and replied “Too many”
He was corrected, the number is 5.
He was then asked how many shootings happened in these years (there were 5700)
He asked back: “Counting or not counting gang violence?” and got shot
“Gang violence” = racist dog whistle. The assassin couldn’t have picked a more perfect time to fire. 😂
I mean, most gang activity comes from young black men, but that does not mean it’s racist to talk about it. I think talking about whether to include or exclude “gang violence” from a conversation about mass shootings is appropriate and not offensive in the slightest.
a dog whistle has nothing to do with the facts but a shared agreement between people in the know as to its hidden meaning.
I understand that. I’m saying that there is no hidden meaning. Gang violence is understood on its face by everyone.
unless you use it as a overgeneral brush, and fill it with only minorities, and use it as a short hand for black people like it’s used in this context. are you a native english speaker?
dog whistles specifically use words with a cover meaning and the group agrees to internally change its meaning.
He didn’t use “gang violence” as short hand for “black violence.” That wouldn’t make sense in the context of mass shootings. He said “Counting or not counting gang violence?” more as a shorthand for “Are we counting criminals killing each other?” Whether it’s hispanic, white, or black gangs isn’t very relevant.
Gangs contribute to the majority of designated “mass shootings,” and are often excluded from conversations that want to focus on innocent victims of mass shooting as opposed to cases of criminals killing each other. After all, if all mass shootings were just gangsters shooting each other, people wouldn’t care nearly as much as they do now. They care about the mass shootings that don’t involve gangs.
EDIT: Seems like many sources explicitly exclude gang violence in their stats. So my statement may be incorrect that gangs contribute to “designated” mass shootings as they are not designation such by many sources.
His last word was “violence”.
This is the best use of this meme I’ve ever seen, bar none.
Make Fascists Afraid Again.
the problem is that he was wrong; Empathy is a good thing. You are embodying his shitty ideology by not having empathy. That doesn’t mean you gotta suddenly like the guy or not call out his shitty ideology, but don’t let yourself get dragged down into the septic tank and get covered in the shit.
I’ll gladly die on this hill, get at me nerds
Some people say empathy, tolerance, & inclusion are strictly moral values. However this misses that they are also a social contract lest we end up in the paradox of tolerance.
Kirk had none for those outside his in-group. Those outside his in-group owe him none in return.
You’re arguing for parochial empathy over real empathy.
Exactly the opposite. We should have empathy, tolerance, and inclusiveness for all, unless people choose to exclude themselves from that collective. I’m saying those who only have parochial empathy shouldn’t expect to receive empathy from others they’ve already cut themselves off from, and it’s not something those they shut out to be shamed for that they experienced the repercussions of their actions.
You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.
You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.
No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.
The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.
Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.
Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.
This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.
or a group of people break the social contract
That’s what most here are doing. Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal? You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?
