The murder of Charlie Kirk
Can we all admit that the majority of extremism is coming from the left over the last handful of years?
Apparently they j
Here's a logic question for you.
When shootings are widely condemned on social media, there are still dozens of people willing to be copycats.
When shootings receive substantial praise on social media, do you think the substantial praise will be more or less likely to inspire copycats?
This is just begging the question. You’re implying that praise automatically must lead to more copycats, assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove without evidence.
Are you hearing me in there? Knock knock?
See, it’s your job when you make a claim to back it up with evidence. You are claiming that social media reactions and celebrations directly lead to more violence and killings.
Prove it with evidence, not logical fallacies
I must remember to bookmark this for when someone claims that social media is responsible for violence or killings against [insert minority].
While there are certainly "copy cat" criminals, including murderers, I'm unaware of any that involved killing a celebrity.
The murder of John Lennon didn't cause random psychos to go after Ringo Starr.
I recall in 2017 when "Auntie Maxine" (Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)) urged a crowd to harass Trump's cabinet members.
Other than press secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders being refused service at a restaurant, I don't remember hearing of any other incidence.
addendum: Of course, that could be because nobody with brain-one cares what Rep. Waters has to say about anything anyway.
While there are certainly "copy cat" criminals, including murderers, I'm unaware of any that involved killing a celebrity.
The murder of John Lennon didn't cause random psychos to go after Ringo Starr.
Yeah, good point. The reason? Probably because there weren't millions of people on social media celebrating and proclaiming that "John Lennon deserves no empathy because he was a hater."
I don't think these 3 points are particularly controversial. Can a liberal admit these are true? I will have follow up questions.
(1) Mainstream, average democrats believe that Kirk was "hateful."
(2) Mainstream, average democrats do not have empathy when "hateful" people are killed, and will celebrate on social media.
(3) As a result, some radical democrats, with nothing to lose in life, will be inspired as copycats and kill more mainstream Republicans.
This is exactly my point.(1) Mainstream, average democrats believe that Kirk was "hateful."(2) Mainstream, average democrats do not have empathy when "hateful" people are killed, and will celebrate on social media.(3) As a result, some radical democrats, with nothing to lose in life, will be inspired as copycats and kill more mainstream Republicans.Do you acknowledge these 3 po
I don't think (3) follows straight away because if the lack of empathy is mutual, the rising temperature doesn't really make it less likely that someone on the right will kill a prominent figure on the left. In fact if I had to bet, due to the circumstances, I'd bet on the next act of this type will come from the right as a sort of revenge.
Yeah, good point. The reason? Probably because there weren't millions of people on social media celebrating and proclaiming that "John Lennon deserves no empathy because he was a hater."I don't think these 3 points are particularly controversial. Can a liberal admit these are true? I will have follow up questions.(1) Mainstream, average democrats believe that Kirk was "hateful.
So does this supposition also apply when pubs cheer about violence against dem leaders, or nah?
Yeah, good point. The reason? Probably because there weren't millions of people on social media celebrating and proclaiming that "John Lennon deserves no empathy because he was a hater."I don't think these 3 points are particularly controversial. Can a liberal admit these are true? I will have follow up questions.(1) Mainstream, average democrats believe that Kirk was "hateful.
Maybe a better example would be the shooting of George Wallace during the 1972 democrat primaries. (He wasn't killed ofc, but he was paralyzed for life.)
And that was of course national news for days when everyone watched tee-vee.
He was even more of a proverbial lightening-rod than Charlie Kirk.
I don't recall a spate of attacks on other prominent segregationists like Joe Biden's buddy Strom Thurmond.
(Sorry for the gratuitous Joe Biden reference)
I don't think (3) follows straight away because if the lack of empathy is mutual, the rising temperature doesn't really make it less likely that someone on the right will kill a prominent figure on the left. In fact if I had to bet, due to the circumstances, I'd bet on the next act of this type will come from the right as a sort of revenge.
You're jumping ahead! I'm really asking a straight forward question. We will get to the retaliatory violence from the right-wing later.
But first I want you to admit or deny original point: Millions of people celebrating his death will encourage copycats.
(I know you're excited to get to the right-wing violence, and we'll get there soon. First I just want to establish this basic point).
when was the last time there was a new poster 'round here who didn't mostly simultaneously suck and blow?
Maybe a better example would be the shooting of George Wallace during the 1972 democrat primaries. (He wasn't killed ofc, but he was paralyzed for life.)And that was of course national news for days when everyone watched tee-vee.He was even more of a proverbial lightening-rod than Charlie Kirk.I don't recall a spate of attacks on other prominent segregationists like Joe Biden'
Buddy, I know admitting something that makes your side look "bad" is hard. But imo, this is sort of a litmus test in terms of IQ and psychology. We don't know for a fact that there will be copycats. But in an environment where millions of people are indifferent or celebratory to Kirk's death, will you at least admit that the widespread celebration has a contagion effect that increases the likelihood of more violence?
If you can't admit this, I'll have to stop responding to you because I think you lack the ability to debate in good faith.
I'm nonpartisan, so you're barking up the wrong tree. Let's just cut to the chase because you're boring the fukk out of everyone.
First I need to find a liberal who will admit the basic premise that "celebrating violence on social media encourages copycats." If you can't admit this, then I think you lack the ability to debate in good faith, and I would rather talk to someone else.
They’re not sending their best, you guys…
First I need to find a liberal who will admit the basic premise that "celebrating violence on social media encourages copycats." If you can't admit this, then I think you lack the ability to debate in good faith, and I would rather talk to someone else.
You don't need that; you just need to state your case or piss off.
Buddy, I know admitting something that makes your side look "bad" is hard. But imo, this is sort of a litmus test in terms of IQ and psychology. We don't know for a fact that there will be copycats. But in an environment where millions of people are indifferent or celebratory to Kirk's death, will you at least admit that the widespread celebration has a contagion effect that in
I honestly don't know if it will increase the likelihood of more violence or not.
And what "side" do you think I'm on?
(Hint: I voted for Trump three times.)
You're jumping ahead! I'm really asking a straight forward question. We will get to the retaliatory violence from the right-wing later.But first I want you to admit or deny original point: Millions of people celebrating his death will encourage copycats.(I know you're excited to get to the right-wing violence, and we'll get there soon. First I just want to establish this basic
I already did:
