You start your comment saying we should avoid making apocalyptic statements and end it by saying "the cycle is going to destroy our society".
My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots. The view is nearly impossible to avoid in context. How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times? To the point where assassinating political opponents is justified?
It would bring on the end of a society. It might well happen in the US case, they've been heading in a pretty dangerous direction rhetorically. If we take the Soviet Union as a benchmark they probably have a long way to go but that sort of journey seems unnecessary and stupid.
Well, yes. We expect most religious people to put up with society at large damning souls to an eternity of torment and whatever. And people are forever pushing economic schemes that result in needless mass suffering. Not to mention that for reasons mysterious warmongers are usually treated with respect and tolerance in the public discourse.
An idea being "harmful" isn't a very high bar, we have lots of those and by and large people are expected to put up with them. Society is so good at overlooking them it is easy to lose track of just how many terrible beliefs are on the move at any moment. Someone being a threat to democracy isn't actually all that close to the top of the list, although moving away from democracy is generally pretty stupid and a harbinger of really big problems.
> How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times?
The point I was trying to make is: this is not what’s happening. It’s not “anyone with a different belief”. But some people, Kirk included, literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people. That’s not a reasonable position we can just compromise on. That’s reprehensible dehumanization.
Here he is citing the bible quote about stoning gay people, referring to it as "God's perfect law". I guess some people are bending over backwards to interpret this in a non-horrific way. That's fine, I guess. We've got plenty of other reprehensible things he's said.
https://xcancel.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
Of the man who brutally assaulted Paul Pelosi with a hammer in 2022, he said: "If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out" https://rumble.com/v1qs7n2-a-naked-smear-of-maga-don-buldoc-...
He's not advocating stoning the gays in that clip. If anything he seems to be pointing out that quoting Leviticus as the final interpretation of God's law is a mistake. it is hard to tell what he's actually saying because the clip cuts off half way through whatever point he is making.
If you're going to start complaining about "beliefs that ... spread lies" like you were a bit earlier, you might want to not make things up trying to smear a bloke who just got assassinated. It isn't even scoring political points because you just look like a hypocrite if people ask for sources.
I'm not going to check your random list, if you're making things up about your primary claim I'm just going to assume it is the usual internet dross.
Not sure quoting the guy’s literal words is “smearing”. You’re insisting his literal words mean something other than the plain reading. Again, that’s fine, and your prerogative. As is choosing to avoid virtually anything this guy ever spoke or wrote, while continuing to insist he just, like, had slightly different opinions, man.
He was a hateful, ignorant man. And it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
> Not sure quoting the guy’s literal words is “smearing”
A literal quote involves, at some point, quoting what he said literally. Something you haven't and can't do to support your claim. Lying harder isn't going to get you out of that one - you tried your best and are unable to find a literal quote. You now know you can't. It appears he did not, in fact, "literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people".
I don't know why you think doubling down on baseless smears is helping you, but a tip on politics - when you look foolish because your claims are that easy to disprove, just to stop and slink away. And maybe as a more general rule don't try to smear the dead with things they didn't say, they aren't around to defend themselves. You'd be able to get away with it before videos existed but these days it just looks like you're being slimy.
Calling the rule in the bible that calls for the stoning of gay people, and I quote, from the video: “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” is absolutely advocating for the stoning of gay people. You are the one extending grace to defend a monster just because he is dead. https://fair.org/home/action-alert-snopes-thinks-kirk-was-ki...
I also think you seem to be unfamiliar with his work, and are giving him the benefit of the doubt in this isolated example you’ve familiarized yourself with. Please. Familiarize yourself with more. You’ll uncover a pattern of unserious and hateful nonsense.
Since this has devolved into accusations that I’m lying, being slimy, and calling my very-obviously-not baseless claims “baseless smears”, I think it’s time I pull the plug on this little exchange. Take care.
> I’m lying, being slimy, and [...] I think it’s time I pull the plug on this little exchange. Take care.
Well I'm glad we're ending this on common ground, but I note that you can make anyone say nearly anything when you start taking literal quotes at the start and end of their speech and ignore what they're actually saying. Phrases are only meaningful quotes when taken in context.
You claimed Kirk advocated stoning gays. You were (are) lying, he didn't. You're best follow up is quoting him "literally" saying something different, out of context and doubling down despite the fact you've been called out. Which is a pretty sure tell that you know you aren't actually representing what he meant. Particularly since the clip is long enough to make it clear that he wasn't advocating stoning anyone. He was making a logical point.
The dude just got assassinated. Don't baselessly smear the man while the dust is settling.
I think they're politely asking for the far left to stop with the language inflation. Use words with appropriate and proportionate meanings. Do not try to gradually be more and more dramatic and impactful.
It's not clear that "existential" threat and "destruction of society" are the same. A society can be "destroyed" via a lapse in the social contract, turning it into a "society" or a different nature, or a non social population.
> My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
This is a nonsense argument. It is possible that constantly making apocalyptic statements can result in an apocalypse, and saying that people should stop doing that is not contradictory.
The words you use matter. If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated. If you're not advocating for murderous escalation, then stop using those words (for example).
> If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated.
Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat, who/what maintains the list of words which can replace "democracy" in that section, and what happens when someone disagrees with the maintainer of that list?
Those are all great questions, and why the point under discussion is whether or not we should choose our words more carefully and stop making apocalyptic predictions.
I wholeheartedly disagree - we need to be less concerned with who might say something and more concerned with how we teach society to react to it. Whether or not someone is making apocalyptic predictions should not define our ability to hold back from assassinating.
I'd agree there are aspects of how we say things which can reinforce how to react about it, but I don't think that's a good primary way to teach how to engage with polarizing content and certainly not via the way of avoidance of the types of statements bigstrat2003 laid out. I.e. there are very reasonable, particularly historical, examples of belief of potential threats to democracy which turned out to be true, so I don't inherently have a problem with that kind of discussion. I actually think calling that kind of statement as the problem would actually drive more extremism.
At the same time, I do believe there are ways to share such statements while also reinforcing healthy ways to react at the same time. kryogen1c's example ending in "he should be assassinated" crosses the line from bigstrat2003's talk of apocalyptic claims to direct calls to violence about them - the latter of which I agree is bad teaching (but I'd still rather people be encouraged to openly talk about those kinds of statements too, rather than be directly pressured to internalize or echo chamber them).
This is why the first question posed about the statement from kryogen1c was "Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat". The follow on questions were only added to help highlight there is no reasonable answer to that question because it's the call to assassination which is inherently problematic, not the claim someone is a threat to the democracy here. The latter (talking about perceived threats) is good, if not best, to talk about directly and openly. It's the former (calling for assassination about it) which is inherently incompatible with a stable society.
I agree with this, and, as a result, I don't believe there is any possible approach which results in 0 people assassinating political figures for what other people say. I think the same conclusion can even be reached if people were supposed to be expected to be perfectly rational beings.
I do believe education on how to effectively engage against an idea which feels threatening is better equipped to handle this apparent fact than bigstrat2003's approach of teaching people to not say certain beliefs because they'd be worth killing about. That doesn't mean it results in a perfect world though. Some may perhaps even agree with both approaches at the same time, but I think the implication from teaching the silencing of certain beliefs from being said for fear they are worth assassinating over if believed true ends up driving the very problem it sets out against. Especially once you add in malicious actors (internal or external).
My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.