> For people who seem to think this is what Kirk deserved because he said things from different view points, you need to reclaim yoursel
Kirk both personally and as part of his group advocated for using violence to achieve goals.
This doesn't make him particularly unique, but lets stop with this idea that speech exists in some kind of abstract realm with no bearing on "reality".
There was a guy in vietnam about 70 years ago who made a lot of speeches about what he wanted to achieve and then a few million people died.
This is an interesting phrase that pops up every so often. What exactly is "political violence" and how does it differ from, uh, regular "violence"?
If someone shoots at me because he wants to steal my wallet, is that different from someone shooting at me because I'm black? Or because I voted for something? What if I shoot someone shooting at someone else? Is political violence supposed to be more morally reprehensible? Or maybe it's less?
> This is an interesting phrase that pops up every so often. What exactly is "political violence" and how does it differ from, uh, regular "violence"?
I know your entire comment is rhetorical questions, but I'm going to answer them. The difference is intent. Political violence is violence against your political enemies to silence them and discourage their allies.
> If someone shoots at me because he wants to steal my wallet, is that different from someone shooting at me because I'm black? Or because I voted for something? What if I shoot someone shooting at someone else? Is political violence supposed to be more morally reprehensible?
IMO: Yes, yes, yes, no. But none of this has to do with him advocating for guns. He's thinking about defence. He lives in a country where everyone else is armed.
I don't own a gun. More gun owners does make the overall climate of violence worse. But I probably would own a gun if I lived in the US.
> I know your entire comment is rhetorical questions, but I'm going to answer them. The difference is intent. Political violence is violence against your political enemies to silence them and discourage their allies.
Sure, that's a good answer. I think that means I wasn't asking the right question though, so let me try again: does it matter if the violence is political? Is it worth using the phrase?
I'm not, this time, just trolling about semantics, but trying to reach some kind of actual point about how we use language to describe things. Every time someone is shot, at some level, it's one person, with a gun, shooting at another person, because they want that person to be dead.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of the shooter's intent being relevant during a trial, right, it seems reasonable that someone who is trying to terrify a nation/group/etc via the violence receives different consequences than someone who thought that shooting was the only way to save their own life, but does that mean we also have to then judge if they were correct about what they were thinking?
What I'm sort of groping towards is at what point is shooting someone like charlie kirk considered self defence?
Here is a hypothetical which, if you consider it, I believe isn't actually as extreme as it sounds:
If you were a person next to literal Adolf Hitler in 1945, would it be morally good to shoot him to death?
Assuming you're onboard with the idea that Hitler's crimes deserve death (either in the punishment or the prevent future crimes sense), what if we then change the year to 1944? Or 1940? Or 1935?
> “Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, 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, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks.” With a smirk, he added: “Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”
I can’t force you to see things you are unwilling to perceive. Consider how you might feel about a prominent liberal figure trying to pay bail for one of Trump’s attempted assassins.
You can't force me to see things that don't exist. In the sourced video, Kirk says "I'm not qualifying [the attack], I think it's awful." He and many others were making the claim that the attack wasn't political in nature, just a gay lovers quarrel.
Please provide a source where Kirk calls for violence.
Kirk both personally and as part of his group advocated for using violence to achieve goals.
This doesn't make him particularly unique, but lets stop with this idea that speech exists in some kind of abstract realm with no bearing on "reality".
There was a guy in vietnam about 70 years ago who made a lot of speeches about what he wanted to achieve and then a few million people died.
It turns out words matter.