As a moderator, you should know that embedding videos is against forum guidelines. You guys made a big deal about it a month or so ago. Or did I miss some change in the policy?

The only part that I see in the guidelines is:

Social media

We want to encourage thoughtful posts, not just share quote-tweet or viral clips with little to no substance. As a result, posts containing links and embeds to social media are deleted, shorts as well

Unless I'm missing something, at least. I could be.

The reason I post this is because of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk. It's also a classic speech for political philosophy and worth visiting on its own right, but that event is why I thought of this.

I added a link to my OP to give context for the thought.

If people aren't familiar with Malcolm X then the question I'm posing is with respect to political violence and its justifications.

The bread-and-butter interpretation I'd give is: if the ballot works then sure.

But if it doesn't, then there's only one unfortunate answer.

There is, in addition, a certain irony that Charlie Kirk advocated for the 2nd amendment on the basis that random murder is the price to pay for freedom.

So you are arguing or asking if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified?
Youre a mod?
Thats pretty fucked up.

The part that makes me wonder is how much violence we're already responsible for.

And that is pretty fucked up.

6 days ago PBS said over 60,000

Charlie Kirk didn't deserve what happened to him in the sense that all he did made him worthy of punishment: But we're in a time when speakers of movements are legitimate targets for the propaganda by the deed.

And -- c'mon, he really was in favor of the 2nd amendment even if it results in gun violence.

I don't celebrate political violence, and I don't condemn it -- it's like condemning physics -- this is how we still do things.

Which is the political question: The Ballot or the Bullet?

How do we, in a philosophical sense, tackle this question?

Neither, in my opinion. People should just try to avoid having their sentiments outraged when others have thoughts and words that differ from their own.

So you are arguing or asking if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified?
Youre a mod?
Thats pretty fucked up. — DingoJones

:up:

Suppose you encounter a government official who as ejected you from some grounds on the basis that the municipality claims those grounds and your people don't meet code.

Is that the same? Would you avoid having your sentiments outraged? Let them speak their words, even though those words result in your collective being ousted?

My collective? I’m just one guy. But yes, I would would leave rather than resort to violence.

I remember you talking about the group of anarchists you housed with.

I figured you'd prefer if they could stay rather than be pushed out.

I mean, do we even know this is politically motivated yet? Could be a jealous ex-lover or maybe he owed money to someone or crossed or pissed off "the wrong people", etc. It could be a multitude of things, really. Even if the shooter was found to be a registered Democrat that doesn't necessarily mean jack. Hundreds of people are shot daily in the U.S. Because this guy happens to be a little famous (I never heard of him until this thread, frankly) it has to be some major turning point we have to look inward and question our deepest ideals? Come on. That's a bit melodramatic, wouldn't you say. All things considered.

There are widespread fears that we're heading into dictatorship, so it's normal to think about violent conflict. I think if Malcolm X's threat had become reality it would have been devastating.

I think all we can do is give a thought to the grief that guy's family must be going through and carry on.

We don't know.

Also, the motivation doesn't matter to the question: I am inspired by the current event, but am broaching a larger question about political philosophy.

Here the bullet was used, whatever the motivation.

Oddly the ballot could not be used against a speaker that seems to have influence -- was there a politician who said, "Defund Charlie Kirk"?

Probably somewhere if we dig deep enough but you know that voting for that politician wouldn't do anything to his private career that happened to be political.

We must carry on, yes.

I'm using Malcolm X as a philosopher. He has a point -- I guess the question is, philosophically, "How do we carry on?"

Is it bad that I don't feel sympathy that a 2nd amendment nut who said the following has been shot dead?

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

It just seems so...karmic.

I feel like it's bad of me, but it is how I feel -- making your own bed and all.

I think all we can do is give a thought to the grief that guy's family must be going through and carry on. — frank

Perhaps we should honour him by treating his murder in his own terms. Any empathy expressed for his family is a made up New Age notion that does a lot of damage. Gun violence is a natural consequence of the freedom to own guns, and should be treated as much the same as the inevitable deaths resulting from cars.

We might best honour him with a gun ownership rally on the site of his death.

:roll:

It's like someone in a thunderstorm begging the lightning to hit them, and it does.

Not your finest moment there, dude.

Yeah...

Even so I think this way, or try to:

31
Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Hey, that's what he wanted...

Charlie Kirk is a complete unknown to me. Every day anonymous strangers are killed whom I cannot mourn.

As for The Malcolm X issue of ballots vs. bullets, I am strongly in favor of 'the people' organizing themselves to engage in effective politics for the best interests of the country. "Best interests" will be contested, of course. What's in the best interests for small farmers might not be what is in the interests of urban dwellers. It seems quite clear that the legal framework in which gun manufacturers operate (very weak product liability, for example) is not in the best interest of anyone except gun manufacturers. (Gun manufacturers contribute much less to GDP than pet food manufacturers. The economy can flourish without gun makers!)

The 2nd Amendment / gun fetishists have grossly distorted what the constitution claims, and have in the process created a major menace. Sure, someone's decision to shoot up a school or kill some notable person may be highly irrational, but the more significant fact is that an irrational person someone contemplating mayhem will have no difficulty finding a well-stocked gun shop.

So, no sympathy from me for 2nd amendment victims of gun violence.

Perhaps we will reach a sufficient level of national disunity that we will be faced with a civil war. When and if that day arrives, we can get a gun, join a local militia, and blast away at the designated enemy. But we are not at that day now, and we do not seem to be on the verge of that day.

Vigorous, focused, competent political activism is still a better bet for a civil society, good government, honest business, and a free citizenry.

This thread reminds me just how little I know the lot of you. Which is fine.

Can we not turn this into a discussion about firearms? Is that remotely possible here? There are so many cheap and easy ways to kill a person. A knife, a baseball bat, a hammer, a screwdriver, messing with the gas tank, following him home and running him off the road, tampering with food, running him over on a morning jog, the list goes on.

We should honor the OP by sticking to the topic and not letting this turn into some weird, morbid anti-obituary.

Pretend he was killed by a banana by a deranged, politically motivated assassin and let's get back on track please. Sheesh. No shame.

This thread reminds me just how little I know the lot of you. — Outlander

Of course! The lot of us actually disclose very little pertinent information about our drab wretched lives. Some people here seem to feel they might be giving away private information if they acknowledge which continent they live on.

Can we not turn this into a discussion about firearms? Is that remotely possibly here? — Outlander

I have no desire to turn this discussion towards the 2nd amendment and all that -- I've stated my case that I'm in favor of the Australian buy-back program, in some capacity.

I'm asking about what a group ought do when they realize voting not only didn't work this one time, but won't work because it's set up that way.

Consider the Electoral College that still exists in thinking about this.

Charlie Kirk is a complete unknown to me. Every day anonymous strangers are killed whom I cannot mourn. — BC

I envy your position lol.

I think organizing is the only way out, which I take to be the same as what you say here, with anarchist modifications:

we are not at that day now, and we do not seem to be on the verge of that day.

Vigorous, focused, competent political activism is still a better bet for a civil society, good government, — BC