The murder of Charlie Kirk

Leaving aside for a moment that countries have a commitment to provide asylum, how many people do you estimate you need to shoot on sight first before others stop trying to cross a border?

Spicy margs suck, opinion discarded

less than 20 every several years, even less if you can film that very well and distribute that . If it's bipartisan and a change in administration doesn't touch the policy of course it's fewer deaths.

(that's for the USA).

The UK probably only needs to sink a single boat in the channel on video, without judges disrupting the thing, and with the prime minister saying very clearly *you are not wanted* and if every party commits credibly to that that's done, you don't get any more boat.

Maybe a single other one like hiroshima-nagasaki, then they stop.

People do react to incentives.

Yes the political democrats and the left are very violent .

Take all the interventions from all the previous democrats presidents and compare it to trump ; especially this week , and tell me again who’s violent …

Yup , you are not violent at all .

I think civil society cannot work if we allow people to treat members of a very normal political party as terrorists/enemies and want them dead no.

I don't have an answer about what to do if 30% of the population wants to kill another 30% though. I mean practically. Divorce might be the only option if possible.

some people there cite democrats explicitly. But libs of tiktok saying "this is war" isn't the same at all. "war on radical leftism" is a just sentiment (even if it happens not to be related to Kirk assassination) as i explained. I didn't check every nick (and i don't recognize a good portion of the authors) but surely there are several people incompatible with civil society there.

A bunch might be russians/paki though

Edit: i see Rufo coming in with a perfectly correct take on radical leftism as well for example

I spend most of my political energy to oppose fascism. I don't support Islamists. I do oppose killing or oppressing innocent people who happen to practice Islam.

Do I want to see civilization destroyed? The current state of civilization is going to lead to it's self destruction and I want that to be avoided. So I am up for some pretty drastic changes, but that in no way implies I want civilization destroyed. I want our civilization adapted so it can continue.

I do recognize the Aesthetica handle which is a recent follow for me which i followed explicitly because i consider it a very nazi account but who tends to also use complex language so i wanted to monitor what he said and why. That's a very clear example of something incompatible with civil society on the right yes

You guys have been saying that 160 years straight (if not more).

Sure SooN(TM) it will happen

Are you not doing the same thing about Marxism
?
Which presently been reigning for decades it seem in the western world since all leftist are radical and Marxist in your opinion ?

The most likely mechanisms by which the self-destruction will happen, environmental collapse and nuclear war, weren't even on the horizon that long ago. And while those threats persist we have accelerating severe inequality which can lead to devastating outcomes less than total destruction but worse than any sane person would want to endure.

If you just go with the science and the common sense, Charlie Kirk was doing more than his share to move the human race towards self-destruction.

I’m still laughing at the thought of Martin Luther Kirk day!

Yer a spicy marg 😡

So jokes about this Charlie Kirk guy getting shot are out of bounds, but earnest appeals for the mass murder of immigrants are a-okay, I guess.

I bet all of these can be proven false or misquoted or taken out of context. Liberals are always in such a hurry for the "gotcha" moments.

The whole praying for/forgiving the perp thing is nonsense. I can't agree with your assessment that Nancy is ugly though.

You will recall I conceded your point about Trump jumping to conclusions. I also conceded the other commenter's point that the use of the term "Bayesian" was unnecessary there. But it was a trivial semantic quibble on that commenter's part that had nothing whatever to do with the points being discussed, a distraction. Did that poster really not understand what I intended to say?

The fact that you're now bringing both of these already conceded points back up, one of which is trivia meant to distract, is walking right up to the line of bad faith. Also, nowhere, save below, did I ever write anything that could be remotely characterized as a "lecture" on Bayesian inference. I was responding to a derail with due brevity.

But since you wrote the above,

We hypothesize that the conservative speaker's attacker is a leftist given that he was attacked at a university (the university test).

1) Conservative speaker is attacked. We'll stipulate for example's sake the probability it's a leftist is .8, call this the prevalence of leftism among attackers.

2) We'll now apply the "university test" (positive result is it was at a university, negative result is it was not)

3) The university test has a sensitivity of .9 and a specificity of .05, meaning when the attack of the conservative speaker did not take place at a university, the test gives very little information.

4) Bayes' Theorem in long denominator form: P(H|E) = (P(E|H)*P(H))/(P((E|H)*P(H))+(P(E|!H)*P(!H))

5) That should equal .79.

The fact that it took place at a university barely confers any additional information because of the test's extremely low specificity. That is, the fact that a conservative speaker was not attacked at a university says almost nothing about whether the attacker was or wasn't a leftist because the attacker almost always turns out to be a leftist regardless of location. This is despite the test's extremely high sensitivity, which is significantly higher than the prevalence of leftists attackers for the specified population.

The reason I conceded that the commenter who took issue with the word Bayesian was correct is because E = positive university test — or any other evidence — was not an actual update in the context of the discussion. We had that information all along.

incredibly, it would shock you, legal use of violence is not comparable to illegal use of violence.

I understand that for people who have a criminal mind and don't accept the basic fabric of the rule of law the distinction might not apply.

Ideally, how many immigrants would you say Border Patrol should be executing per year?

ideally 0, ideally the threat is so credible no one attempts to illegally cross (which is fairly close to where we are today it looks like, it was so easy to achieve even trump managed to do it right)

And that my friends is the libertarian vote 😀

this was a mistake, irony is the best disinfectant and the episode already existed before he got killed!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2500...

A South Park episode making fun of right-wing activist and Donald Trump ally Charlie Kirk, who was shot dead on Wednesday while speaking at a US event, has been pulled from Comedy Central but remains on Paramount+.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone's long-running animated sitcom regularly lampoons leading figures including Trump.

The episode, titled Got a Nut, premiered on 6 August and finds the character Clyde Donovan espousing offensive views on a podcast. He then sets up a table at South Park Elementary school in order to "destroy woke liberal students", inviting his classmates to grab the microphone and prove him wrong

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/196651821...

Here's a reasonable take. Not left, not right, but wrong.

The Reasons We Shouldn’t Jump to Conclusions About Tyler Robinson:

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url...