Killing doesn't change anything. Not really. Not after a time. — Outlander

I think this is wrong. Killing thousands of British soldiers year after year certainly changed things in the 1770's. Same with Vietnamese killing Americans, Afghanistans killing Russians, etc.

In the case of cars, we're willing to accept a certain amount of deaths to drive at speeds that make cars economically viable. Nobody would drive a car at 5mph on the freeway. We sacrifice safety for efficiency.

How is that the same with guns? — RogueAI

It is the same in the “sacrifice” regard. The trade off of lives is analogous, not the reasons why or even what those lives are traded for. We are willing to trade lives, if it is a problem to trade lives (for anything… I think) then cars are a much better place to start than guns numbers wise.
Anyway, obviously I didnt state the analogy clearly enough and I hope that even if you disagree its at least more clear what I meant.

I think this is wrong. Killing thousands of British soldiers year after year certainly changed things in the 1770's. Same with Vietnamese killing Americans, Afghanistans killing Russians, etc. — RogueAI

No, that's not entirely inaccurate. It certainly changes things in the short term. But in reality, why did any group oppose any other group? It's the same thing as two kids in school who become rivals over what the other has or does not have.

I'm reminded of the old Adage: "You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him for very long."

Which means, human nature will always be what it is: a catalyst for forces both known and unknown, both sought and reviled, both useful and useless. Don't you get it? We are pitiful creatures who seek a plateau over those around us, one that ultimately contains nothing but our worst desires, fears, and impulses. Everything we sought to avoid... now confined to us in short, small space for all time we can never hope to escape from. What madness is this we call humanity? Will it ever end? Could it perhaps be salvaged? Saved from itself, somehow? No matter the cost if all peoples and nations are reduced to a few dozen living in huts and caves far away from one another. Perhaps, as others suggest, history does indeed repeat itself. Perhaps this is the destiny of man. Only time will tell. Only time will tell.

I'll go on record with what ought be an obvious sentiment, which is that the capital murderer who assassinated a young father of two from a rooftop with likely a hunting rifle was not an anti-hero who meted out any sort of just dessert, but a useless coward who is in desperate need of .justice from those hunting him down as he hides among innocent students.

His was an act of pure evil, worthy of nothing but unequivocal condemnation, unnuanced, with no hidden irony, intelligence or purpose that could possibly give us reason to think it had an ounce of good within it.

As noted, the problems of the world are complex and varied, but the most glaring problem is that every post in this thread doesn't read like mine.

The only oppressed victim in this case was Charlie Kirk. Do you believe his family deserves revenge? Perhaps.

I’m with you on voting, though. If one votes he acquiesces to the system, and his own serfdom.

I'll go on record with what ought be an obvious sentiment, which is that the capital murderer who assassinated a young father of two from a rooftop with likely a hunting rifle was not an anti-hero who meted out any sort of just dessert, but a useless coward who is in desperate need of .justice from those hunting him down as he hides among innocent students. — Hanover

What he was I don't know -- I don't want to cast him as an anti-hero at all, at least, and I want to assure you that this makes sense to me.

His was an act of pure evil, worthy of nothing but unequivocal condemnation, unnuanced, with no hidden irony, intelligence or purpose that could possibly give us reason to think it had an ounce of good within it. — Hanover

I can't go that far -- else I would not have posed the question. But the sentiment is appreciated because that's sort of the quandary, on the ethical side.

I don't care to go into his particulars in the sense of just desserts because that sounds like a good way to have a bad time while not addressing the question.

One thing about political violence, in the United States, is that we're a country founded on revolution. And not all those acts were exactly good -- these acts are part and parcel of how we do business, even civilly.

In such a world I don't want to set up heroes and anti-heroes. That'd lead to even more death -- as much of a cynic as I am I do think all life is important, even Mr Kirk's.

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." — RogueAI

You didn't say that, of course; Kirk did. And it's specious. Having a gun never protected "God-given rights", other than the holy sanctity of private property--and then only maybe. What best protects civil rights is a conscientious cooperative civil society.

But I wonder whether Kirk had any limits to this sort of justification. In 2023 44,000 people died of gunshots. That's quite a few. Year after year, 40,000 here, 38,000 there, it begins to add up to to a sizable city.

We get used to the statistics of excess deaths -- those above and beyond what are the result of natural causes, like heart attacks, cancer, and strokes.

Americans feel they are entitled to do what they want to do, carry a loaded gun into church, drive the way they want to drive, take whatever drugs are on offer, and so on. 39,000 people died in auto accidents last year--quite a bit less than used to be slaughtered on th highways. In 2023, 80,391 people died of drug overdoses -- down from 110,000 in 2023. Are these acceptable numbers to justify "freedom of the gun", "freedom of the road", "freedom of the drug"? Taken together, guns, cars, and drugs killed roughly 160,000 people last year. I consider that a monstrous cost for a policy of non-interference in lethal activities.

His was an act of pure evil, worthy of nothing but unequivocal condemnation, unnuanced, with no hidden irony, intelligence or purpose that could possibly give us reason to think it had an ounce of good within it. — Hanover

I mean, and you know I hate having to correct you, but you literally know nothing about the shooter. In all my years of judging you by your posts, yes I do that, I've never taken you to be the sort who grandstands. He could have been mentally ill and apparently some political parties are insensitive to the needs of those who don't happen to concern them. Kind of a "oh well, not my business" sentiment many people have in this harsh dog eat dog world, specifically to the mentally unwell or otherwise less efficient than you or I. You know that. Unless you have some information that has not been released to the public, I don't see how you could disagree to the possibility of my alternate suggestion.

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. — Matthew 26:52

Typical Jesus hyperbole. But when it is exemplified for once it seems an appropriate lament.

But I prefer this sentiment, from the American Jesus, addressed to the Masters of the 2nd amendment:

And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand o’er your grave
’Til I’m sure that you’re dead — Bob Dylan, Masters of War

But the last word must surely go to the great admiral, Nelson.

It's.. just a song, man. Just because I paint a picture of a war or scene with people deceased doesn't mean I want to go out and kill somebody. Jeez. I always painted you as wiser than that.

It's.. just a song, man. Just because I paint a picture of a war or scene with people deceased doesn't mean I want to go out and kill somebody. — Outlander

I don't think you did, Bob. And nor would I.

Well, anyway. I was watching this event unfold on a less than reputable site that showed the full gory video so, I feel I may as well post what I was intending to post in the heat of the moment. While the body was still warm.

What best protects civil rights is a conscientious cooperative civil society. — BC

Yeah, and can you force people to behave? Without violent indoctrination? Without capital punishment and constant fear of death? No, you cannot. So yes, as sad as it is, some people choose (or do they?) to be like animals. Animals are not welcome in society. At least not in the capacity as functional, moral human beings. So when an animal, who again, chooses to be such, acts like such, they are treated as such. I don't know about you, but I happen to feel my life may be just a tad more valuable than that of a rabid dog. So if a dog, or a so-called "human being" chooses to act like such, it's not even worth the possibility of risk of injury to me. Not even a little sprain. Not even a moment of inconvenience, to be quite frank. If you act like a rabid animal (threaten the life of a law-abiding citizen) that law-abiding citizen has a right to treat you like one. There are no excuses. Education is free. In fact, it's basically the law. No, it is the law. There's nothing to hide behind anymore.

Some of you might want to strap on your masks a little tighter.

It is the same in the “sacrifice” regard. The trade off of lives is analogous, not the reasons why or even what those lives are traded for. We are willing to trade lives, if it is a problem to trade lives (for anything… I think) then cars are a much better place to start than guns numbers wise.
Anyway, obviously I didnt state the analogy clearly enough and I hope that even if you disagree its at least more clear what I meant. — DingoJones

Could the analogy be to a prohibition era bootlegger who goes around touting the benefits of alcohol, says a certain number of alcohol-related deaths are "worth it" so we can freely drink, and then gets nailed by a drunk driver?

I think that it's pretty obvious why this happened. Kirk was part of the rightwing fascists who argues in defense of the second amendment for the purpose of legitimizing hate speech, to move the goal posts of values in society towards hate of certain people in society. He was arguing for violence, literally, through his point of gun deaths necessary to defend the second amendment, but his and others rhetoric was never about defending everyone's speech, it was about defending THEIR speech.

Kirk and people ideologically similar to him are the very same responsible for banning books and silencing people who speak of things like trans rights. It was never about defending the second amendment, it was about transforming society into silencing certain groups of people in favor of the Maga based right.

If you argue for violence, for hate and for polarization, you will eventually get violence, hate and polarization. This isn't about the identity of the killer, it doesn't really matter who that is, because the killer is the symptom of the world that people like Kirk slowly push into reality. This is not literally that "he asked for it", but in some form he did.

I'm always amazed that society has such a bad ability to understand long term consequences. How the dominos fall. How is it so hard for society to grasp that the hateful rhetoric of the far right, spearheaded by Trump, Maga, Farage, Bannon etc. eventually leads to a world that honors that rhetoric?

If anything is to blame for the deaths of Kirk, as well as the deaths of all the unnamed people caused by radicalized right wingers, it's the general hateful rhetoric that dehumanizes and polarize society.

What we're seeing is just the consequence of all of this boiling over. The delusion that this rhetoric is just an expression of freedom of speech, when it's in fact the very definition of hate speech that cause actual consequences for people.

It's easy for the general public, far away form such violence, to just talk about the rhetoric being freedom of speech, but Kirk might be the most noticeable consequence of this dehumanizing, polarizing rhetoric that's been going on for years now.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of looking at this assassination as some isolated event. This is a symptom of our polarized times.

Fighting polarization is the way to mitigate the risks of political violence, and fighting polarization requires us to stop being so naive to the effects of hate speech; of its capacity to move the goal posts of the general public into slowly hating others more and more.

Stop the hateful rhetoric, stop the dehumanization of groups of people in society, stop the dehumanization of political sides. People need to stop being so fucking naive and stupid about these things that erodes society.

I'm not surprised whatsoever that someone like Kirk got killed. If anyone was surprised by it, they don't have a clear understanding of how our modern world behaves.

I don't see how you could disagree to the possibility of my alternate suggestion. — Outlander

Sure, we'll have to wait and see if a schizophrenic climbed a roof to take down someone who just happened to be politically divisive and who now hides himself away, or we'll have to see if maybe the shooter was just mistaken, thinking he was engaging in some sort of innocuous behavior that turned to look suspiciously like 1st degree murder, or whatever else we might concoct.

Your approach is to ignore the OP"s concerns (might the shooting be the "by and means necessary" of Malcolm X), but just to say "guys, let's not rush to judgment:." But I'll go out on a limb here and judge the video I saw of a guy shot in the neck while sitting in chair talking on a college campus answering questions and doing whatever social media people do.

But if you're right, and alien abduction or whatnot brought us here, I'll eat crow.

It's not unheard of. Hinkley shot Reagan to impress Jodi Foster. We still don't have a clear motive on why the Trump shooter did what he did. Charles Whitman had a brain tumor.

Yes, let's be very careful not to denigrate our murderous sniper too hastily at the risk of disrespecting his true nature.

I take great comfort in knowing the naval gazing opinions on our odd board carry no sway

If one votes he acquiesces to the system, and his own serfdom. — NOS4A2

My coworkers wanted to vote on what food to order, and I was like, I'm not a slave, damn you! They totally got my point.

Spare us the lecture, Hanover. The shooter is still at large. This is a philosophy forum. Of course we're going to navel gaze.

The average woke individual wouldn't know how to get a sniper rifle, much less use it. It was either a veteran or a rival rightist.

I can see how these themes are disparate. I went ahead and lounged the thread for that reason.

I still want to think through this, though.

The absurdity that I see is in the various shows of horror at political violence. Malcolm X is a person whose opinions on political violence I respect with a coherent cause that makes sense of political violence: the continued oppression against the black community by the powers that be. It makes sense for a person to question the ballot when they cannot vote.

In some sense this is a similar condition to our own revolution: that there was a court and King with say over us as a colony is the justification for founding a state.

Kirk's assassination is the sort of thing that's so small, though, in comparison to what our government is doing -- which, in turn, if we are Americans, that is what we are at least responsible for.

Further, no matter who we vote for our government will continue down this path.

So while I don't know this assassin's motivation I can't help but wonder at the absurdity of condemning it with so much blood on our hands.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of looking at this assassination as some isolated event. This is a symptom of our polarized times.

Fighting polarization is the way to mitigate the risks of political violence, and fighting polarization requires us to stop being so naive to the effects of hate speech; of its capacity to move the goal posts of the general public into slowly hating others more and more.

Stop the hateful rhetoric, stop the dehumanization of groups of people in society, stop the dehumanization of political sides. People need to stop being so fucking naive and stupid about these things that erodes society. — Christoffer

I don't see it as an isolated event. That's why I'm bringing Malcolm X and the genocide in Gaza as points of reflection, though I see that also caused confusion: I still don't have this thought, well, fully thought out. That's why I posted on it.

In general the question is the justification of political violence: whether we choose the ballot or the bullet as a political and ethical question, and the various justifications about that.

Would that I could wave a magic wand and restore such trust -- but there's more to it than rhetoric, I think. There are material reasons for the rhetoric.

Spare us the lecture, Hanover. — RogueAI

It's not a lecture. All I've said is screamingly obvious.

Typical Jesus hyperbole. But when it is exemplified for once it seems an appropriate lament.

But I prefer this sentiment, from the American Jesus, addressed to the Masters of the 2nd amendment:

And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand o’er your grave
’Til I’m sure that you’re dead
— Bob Dylan, Masters of War — unenlightened

Makes sense to me.

****

One of the things I'm noticing is that we are a country constantly at war.

And it's not like soldiers disappear after the war.

In a way what we're seeing is bringing the ethics of the front to the political sphere: the rhetoric for violence doesn't even register as violent. And the actual daily violence isn't spoken about -- people are actually persecuted for being too outspoken about -- until it's a talking head.

In a way this is me expressing my fear at my own numbness at murder. It shouldn't be this way, but here we are.

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. — Outlander

Yes. When any event is ubiquitous, and everyone is supposed to have an opinion or reaction about it (see the cringey editorials and twitter posts), I ask myself a few questions: 1), why this story and not some other, 2) who decides, and 3) should I really waste much time with it?

Plenty of more important stories happened yesterday. But nonetheless I offer my reaction too, because it’s everywhere. Still, it really does all ring false to me. Kids are getting shot every day— nothing but crickets. No ridiculous and hysterical calls for “war” or races to out-humane everyone.

As for the OP question: sometimes violence is necessary, yeah. When all else fails. Should have been more violence against the Nazis as they were coming to power.

You have to have a license to drive a car.

No license to carry a machine literally designed to kill many people.

Your NRA-like analogy is stupid.

As for the OP question: sometimes violence is necessary, yeah. When all else fails. Should have been more violence against the Nazis as they were coming to power. — Mikie

But when and why?

If we can only say it in retrospect -- i.e. the Nazis -- then that's not exactly a guide to when and why.

Two days ago The Guardian published The Gaza family torn apart by IDF snipers from Chicago and Munich.

The quote that pops to mind:

Raab, a former varsity basketball player from a Chicago suburb who became an Israeli sniper, concedes he knew that. He says he shot Salem simply because he tried to retrieve the body of his beloved older brother Mohammed.

“It’s hard for me to understand why he [did that] and it also doesn’t really interest me,” Raab says in a video interview posted on X. “I mean, what was so important about that corpse?”

Right. Let's stick to that, then, please. As the OP, it would be more effective if you correct those who deviate from your purported line of discussion. — Outlander

Admittedly it's not an easy thing to broach -- hence the discussion.

I'm still wrapping my mind around this absurd world we live in.