I am gravely concerned about the way celebrations of assassinating and activist and a CEO and the attempted assassinations of Trump could lead to harsh "reprisals" from the more unhinged on the right, leading to open civil war. We also have the looming problem of military occupation of our cities under the excuse of "immigration enforcement." We have a naked police state, and the only reason our "opposition party" seems upset is because they're enforcing deportation orders instead of COVID lockdowns. Libido Dominandi is rampant.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It is almost as though life would be far more peaceful if people with similar values lived together geographically and put a little bit of space between themselves and those those do not believe something completely different...
I'm not even sure that's necessary. People used to think you couldn't even have Catholics and Protestants in the same community in parts of the world, to say nothing of other religions, but remove political entanglements and the conflicts fade.
Indeed. But I have heard of a philosophy of "Good fences make for good neighbours."
And that is to say that there should exist a fundamental concept of boundaries and rights. I have my home, my zone, my life. I should be allowed to live it a certain way... my way... When people believe that they can trespass into that, I should be able to say NO.
So... I should have "fences" and if I respect your fences and you respect mine, then we can believe in completely different things and still get along.
It gets easier when the values are very different, so the space between is wider.
Catholics and Protestants of a certain culture and upbringing may learn to set their weapons down and learn to debate and live and let live. But some would destroy both. Should this be tolerated?
I am usually on both sides of a debate. For example, I am both an LGBTQ ally and an LGBTQ homophobe, depending on who you speak to and what we are speaking about. I just neither accept nor reject the whole thing, wholesale or follow one directive. I need to weigh up and use my brain for each interaction or situation.
Another example is the abortion debate. I disagree and agree with certain things from both sides of that argument.
So yeah... I would agree and disagree with certain things that Charlie Kirk has to say. Some things I agree on, Leftists would lable me as a Right-wing conservative. But other things I believe in, then Charlie would have rejected me based on his own beliefs and ideologies.
Bottom line... as long as our fences were well established, we continue to debate without fear... because there is respect.
This assassination has no respect, it has no honour. Those who celebrate it have no honour and have no SELF-respect. They are celebrating the death of a person willing to talk with anyone... would they rather have mobs of people killing their kind in the street?
Anyway... sorry for the ramble... I am sure this had all bee said a million times already and none of it is particularly new.
It's the classic sphere of authority defined by life, liberty, and property. Fences, and other physical or metaphorical barriers, define where we cannot rightfully trespass against others and where they cannot rughtfully trespass against us.
The American left says silence is violence, and speech they dislike is hate speech, and therefore also violence, and many celebrate the assassination of a man who was arguing against their ideology. The left as we know it here is dead to me. So is the right, for innumerable other reasons.
Indeed. That is a logic that cannot be argued with or debated with: Silence is violence and what I do not want to hear is violence so I can do violence to anyone who does not listen to me?
Even though their beliefs and rhetoric needs to be defined properly to make it safe... and is young and has too many grey areas. So debate and formulating better moral codes would be the way to go about it...
DeBaTe? ThAt SoUnDs LiKe WhAt A fAsCiSt WoUlD sAy!
Wait a minute!
I know the left keep spewing that word, I wanted to look at the proper definition of it and holy crap its all turned upside down.
They don't know the meaning of the word and its not even a hundred years cold.
Fascism... coming from the Fascistica - Fascisti of Benito Mussolini, and thus the Fasces of the Roman empire, the badge of office... but literally it advocates taking control politically with violent means. Regardless of what the leader said, it caused violence and people turning on each other if they had different world views...
Anyway... FASCISTS employ political violence. They do NOT employ debate. They did not give a shit about debate and used violence, fear and indoctrination to get what they wanted.
Mousilini's Blackshirts... the start of Fascism... paved the way for the Brownshirts of Germany, who eventually because the Nazis. So... now we have the Rainbowshirts... This is not liberty or liberal at all. If you kill or hurt to make your arguement win... you did not win the arguement...
🤣🤣🤣🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Indeed.
But what is their alternative?