This will likely be my last post on the issue since it's clear we disagree, and I don't feel like arguing forever.

What about the ones that don't have full rights?

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law#Status_of_Palestinian_Arabs

They were forced from their land and required to apply for citizenship with Israel and if they couldn't -- which most didn't -- they lost their property.

Technically speaking they're not citizens so it's not a "second class citizen" de jure -- but it is de facto. — Moliere

If you do a bit of research, you'll see that the vast majority of Palestinians don't want Israeli citizenship. To accept citizenship would be to effectively validate the notion of a Jewish, non-Muslim state, which they have opposed since the very beginning. It is a humiliation to many of them.

And that's a central issue imho—the persistent refusal of the Palestinians to accept an independent Jewish state in what ought to be Muslim land. Jews lived alongside Hindus in peace for many centuries since neither group felt the need to convert or conquer the other. When one side refuses to accept the presence of the other, wars are launched, which lead to greater loss of land, more humiliation, and more victimization. It's a vicious cycle of victimhood.

After 10/7, Hamas lost its seat at the table. They shattered any prospective hope for peace. They acted like Nazis - summarily executing Israelis/Jews civilians and keeping Israelis/Jews in concentration camp-like conditions in captivity - and they deserve annihilation just like the Third Reich. Like the deaths of German civilians are ultimately the responsibility of the Third Reich, the deaths of Gazan civilians are on Hamas, as Israel takes considerable precautions to avoid disproportionate civilian deaths.

Losing wars sucks, but you cannot pass down hate and resentment about it from generation to generation.

Jews lived alongside Hindus in peace for many centuries since neither group felt the need to convert or conquer the other — BitconnectCarlos

It would certainly be nice if those were the people we were talking about.

When one side refuses to accept the presence of the other, wars are launched, which lead to greater loss of land, more humiliation, and more victimization. It's a vicious cycle of victimhood.

After 10/7, Hamas lost its seat at the table. They shattered any prospective hope for peace. They acted like Nazis - summarily executing Israelis/Jews civilians and keeping Israelis/Jews in concentration camp-like conditions in captivity - and they deserve annihilation just like the Third Reich. Like the deaths of German civilians are ultimately the responsibility of the Third Reich, the deaths of Gazan civilians are on Hamas, as Israel takes considerable precautions to avoid disproportionate civilian deaths. — BitconnectCarlos

At least you aren't denying that it's a genocide -- you're just going about it saying that no matter what Israel does the presence of Hamas justifies everything that come.

I'm afraid that responsibility for death doesn't work that way, though. I'd welcome international trials once we disarm Israel -- but I'd put Israel on trial as the one responsible for the deaths of the people their army is killing, and not the dirty other that they must cleanse from the land.

As far as I'm concerned, it's Israel that has lost face in this exchange with their actions. It is they who have lost a seat at the table for free military aid: Look at what they do with it. They cry for people to remember Amulek, sow disinformation, speak duplicitously, and kill systematically such that they will destroy a people for voting for Hamas -- collective punishment -- and hopefully eliminate them from the land so they can take it for themselves.

But the United States isn't terribly concerned about the moral implications of all this -- they just want an airfield. So insofar that the elimination is contained to the Palestinians we'll continue sending military aid because almost no one in office opposes Israel, and people are punished for speaking up in favor of the Palestinian cause.

Which brings me back to my reflection on ballots and bullets: in the United States there is little the ballot will do regarding these matters. It is ineffective. What I see as peaceful means of opposition lies with BDS and the international community, though -- to use the bullet in the United States on this issue wouldn't be effective in spite of the lack of a ballot.

But for Hamas? Well, supposing you eliminate Hamas, given what's happened, were I to survive. . .

you cannot pass down hate and resentment about it from generation to generation. — BitconnectCarlos

This wouldn't be something you could shame me from. I'd be tempted to start Hamas 2.0 after seeing so many people slaughtered once you remove Hamas 1.0.

Which is why BDS strikes me as a moral giant. I don't think I'd have that restraint given what's happening. Hate and resentment will spread further and longer the further and longer the genocide continues. And just because Hamas was voted in that does not mean everyone within a territory gets to be killed because "they lost their seat at the table" for daring to fight back against apartheid.

If you do a bit of research, you'll see that the vast majority of Palestinians don't want Israeli citizenship. To accept citizenship would be to effectively validate the notion of a Jewish, non-Muslim state, which they have opposed since the very beginning. It is a humiliation to many of them. — BitconnectCarlos

This is a non-secular, ignorant (don't take offense at definitions) view of the real situation. They don't view other people as having rights to declare "citizenship" or "borders". No mainstream religion propagated itself without allowing the believer to be "above" another human being for no actual reason other than use of the word "God" and defeating the "idea of Death."

It's like if you're a father with children and you opened the door into your kid's room one day and your kid randomly said "oh I'm a nation all of a sudden and you can be my citizen". You'd smack that little s**t into next week.

Unfortunately, everyone believes they're the "top guy". Because they have no value other than that which they can rob of others. It's the plague of false/corrupted religion. I mean shoot, I'm a Christian. I can acknowledge many churches are either fake or otherwise besieged by "worldly forces", mostly pedophiles. That doesn't matter. They're all going to the same place. And soon. But again, that's... kind of a non-starter for non-theists and those who are (un?)fortunate enough not to have witnessed indescribable miracles of God. Things that indisputably defy all worldly logic, science, and explanation.

By the same logic, everything Likud has done over the years justifies the actions of Hamas. As an evil organization, they’ve given up all rights to peace. Eventually, after decades of keeping people in open air prisons and murdering innocent people again and again, there’s bound to be reactions.

By their own logic, we shouldn’t condemn Hamas. They certainly don’t condemn Likud. They find a way to justify their atrocities. Well, so can Hamas. In fact, they have a better argument.

Bingo.

It's the sort of logic that can lock one into a fight -- a tit-for-tat that lands on whichever side you want to favor. And usually adopted by the bully to try and confuse people as to who is really at fault.

In such a case we might look for an arbiter of some kind -- but I don't trust the United States in this matter.

I'd prefer the United Nation's ICC.

What amazes me is how precise and rigorous many of us are when it comes to using terms like “knowledge” or “certainty” or “being” or “becoming” or “essence” or “modal collapse” or “concept” versus “idea”…. And the result of this precision is often how impossible it is to say anything solid about any of them. Page after page, deconstructing the grounds and effects of saying anything. Uncovering all of metaphysical, epistemological and ontological questions and assumptions…

But then, many of these same people are so quickly willing to say we know what Charlie Kirk meant, and understand his use of some of those same words clearly enough to convict him as a deplorable, hateful, harm causing son of bitch.

As far as I can tell, Charlie Kirk talked. He said things. (Like we do here.) Someone else shot him. Kirk is dead now. The other guy is arrested.

Who cares about what Kirk said? Unless he expressly said “please shoot me”, it’s all irrelevant to a more important question.

What do you think about setting up a tent, inviting a bunch of people, grabbing a microphone to speak to them, offering a microphone to others so they can speak, and getting shot dead?

How does that sound?

The rest of the facts and opinions and debatable content and observations and analysis don’t matter. At least they shouldn’t matter at all first.

Aside from the personal crap for his poor wife and kids, and aside from the fact that none of us should judge anyone else so harshly, who cares if Kirk was a good guy or not?

We can banish him to hell or congratulate ourselves on having a better world without Kirk in it later - what about assassination of anyone, ever, in a tent, giving out hats and tee shirts? What about political debate fora? What about our own tent TPF?

Shouldn’t all of us bigmouths care about someone being killed for having a big mouth?

We can’t start this discussion without agreement about killing anyone in tent like that. If instead we start off with “killing people in tents like that is bad, but…” we skipped what is important about the topic.

Aren’t Kirk’s views on the 2nd amendment secondary to his embodiment (not his views) of the first amendment?

Is it bad that some guy is dead like that or not? He wasn’t even an elected official. He, literally, was all talk. And someone shot him.

The killing of Malcom X was equally as heinous an affront to humanity. No matter what Malcom thought about bullets, or what Charlie thought about guns. Who really gives a shit what either man thought or said at a moment like this - what the fuck kind of people entertain in any level assassination of private citizens because of things they say in a political debate forum?

How hard is that not to make bedrock among us - on a debate forum?!!!

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

And that is pretty fucked up. — Moliere

Yeah, but “how much violence we are already responsible for” is also a diversion. More fog. This is an easy one if you have any principles at all.

Unless you really mean to ask: when should we be allowed to kill our political debate opponents?

Isn’t that the same as asking, when can we throw out the rules of any game we’ve all agreed to play for sake of some other new game? As if in such circumstances there is such a thing as a judge or ground to answer such question anymore.

We don’t get to bring a gun to a debate and have a debate. No one should celebrate what happened on any level. Charlie was as precious and loved as Malcom, and so many others.

We should be convicting ourselves - instead we build grounds for the next bullet.

———

What logical fallacy is involved here:
- p1: supporting private gun ownership
- p2: saying and recognizing that this will create a platform where private people can wrongfully kill each other
-p3: getting shot dead
Therefore: he asked for it and got what he wanted, or can’t complain.

Count pointed out how this is a stupid argument.
It’s like a trans man supporting DEI even if hiring that Asian woman means that Trans man won’t be hired - we don’t have to conclude the trans man asked not to be hired.

Yet I think our resident rigorously genius Banno basically made this argument.

You guys are willing to post page after page showing how we can’t know anything for certain, but ahhh, fuck Charlie, he was a dick about trans people, he said Jesus way too much, and wouldn’t shut up. So he’s dead, let’s move on and talk about Israel, and Trump clearly inciting an insurrection…

Weak. We must do better.

Kirk’s murder was bad all around for everyone.

Yeah, but “how much violence we are already responsible for” is also a diversion. More fog. This is an easy one if you have any principles at all. — Fire Ologist

I did say that I don't believe he deserved what happened to him.

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. — Moliere

Now, granted, if all we're talking about is Charlie Kirk's assassination then it's a diversion.

I had a particular feeling in relation to his death, what he said, and our continued support for Israel.

And, ultimately, still feel fear at my own numbness.

Unless you really mean to ask: when should we be allowed to kill our political debate opponents?

No, not at all. I tend to see one-off assassinations as ineffective to what I want to achieve.

I'm asking after the justifications for political violence in a world where we condemn this sniper while living as we do. I genuinely don't get how Trump, for instance, can support Israel and condemn the sniper**.

**EDIT: I get it politically, but I mean the whole reaction that Trump joined in with: we condemn this random assassination as if we aren't supporting death on a mass scale elsewhere. In an ethical sense it shouldn't matter the laws, so much, as the deaths and how much they can be prevented. Sending weapons en masse without sanction isn't exactly on par with the reaction against this sniper.

We don’t get to bring a gun to a debate and have a debate. No one should celebrate what happened on any level. Charlie was as precious and loved as Malcom, and so many others.

That's the true Christian*** spirit I'm aware of.

I agree that no one should celebrate death -- that's the path to more death. It's part of why I'm disturbed at my own indifference, even though I can tell you why.

I've felt an absurd feeling I don't know how to describe succinctly since seeing that assassination and trying to contextualize it within what first came to mind. The thing that comes to mind for me is not only should we not celebrate, but we should pay attention to the death we're more directly involved in rather than continue the sensation. At least in light of the deaths we can prevent if we choose to act.

***EDIT: Given the circumstances I ought say the true Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist spirit, and really all life and freedom loving people, but I succumbed to rhetorical devices.

We do not know what the killer had in mind. The label "fascist" has been pinned to too many donkeys to form a shared idea. We have had experience of the MAGA version of our circumstances. Maybe they have been hoisted by their own petard. Maybe we will find out about that. Maybe not.

What puzzles me about the MAGA message is to be told there is a war going on but also not a war. The absorption of 1/6 as a valid form of political expression versus preventing a hostile takeover by a particular cartel.

By contrast, I submit that John and Malcolm had a clear idea about the difference between war and peace.

We do not know what the killer had in mind. — Paine

Yes, and never will really -- I'm trying to make sense of things so posit various "motivations" that aren't really from evidence but an attempt to make sense of things.

The label "fascist" has been pinned to too many donkeys to form a shared idea.

I disagree in that I think it's a social phenomena worth identifying.

We have had experience of the MAGA version of our circumstances. Maybe they have been hoisted by their own petard. Maybe we will find out about that. Maybe not. — Paine

Yes, true.

What puzzles me about the MAGA message is to be told there is a war going on but also not a war. The absorption of 1/6 as a valid form of political expression versus preventing a hostile takeover by a particular cartel. — Paine

"Fascism" explains this, I'd say.

By contrast, I submit that John and Malcolm had a clear idea about the difference between war and peace. — Paine

John the Baptist? 4th book in the Bible?

The answer.

John Brown. Malcom X.

Heh. OK, thanks. Yes, then.

I got confused, obviously.

And yes -- I agree.

That seems part of the reflection, philosophically -- if you don't have a clear notion of both then how could you possibly choose?

I don't have a ready answer for all of this.

But there are some interesting gaps.

At least you aren't denying that it's a genocide — Moliere

I am, for several reasons. If Israel were committing genocide against the "Palestinians" why wouldn't it root out and presumably execute its own Israeli Arabs? Israeli Arabs and "Palestinians" are really the same people, and only differ due to location and citizenship. If anything, I'd expect Israel to start with its own Arabs. It would have been like Germany leaving its own Jews unharassed.

It's like if you're a father with children and you opened the door into your kid's room one day and your kid randomly said "oh I'm a nation all of a sudden and you can be my citizen". You'd smack that little s**t into next week. — Outlander

To make this example better, we need to imagine that that the kid is older than the adult because Judaism is older than Islam and has had a presence in Israel for longer. We also need to imagine that the "kid" had several houses (i.e. kingdoms) built in that location before the father was alive. Third, that the ancient child's religious/cultural identity was formed in those ancient kingdoms (houses), making him indigenous.

That's no normal child.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/exclusive-leaked-messages-from-charlie

A general note:

Analogies to family dynamics aren't good ways of understanding geo-politics if that's where we end. If that's what we have to work with then OK that's what we work with.

But political conflict is not a family dynamic. There are no "older siblings" or "Daddys". There is no such thing as an "immature" country from the political perspective such that another country can "guide" it. When a more developed country "guides" another there is always a realpolitik motive. The family analogies aren't helpful in understanding these sorts of relationships.

Analogies to family dynamics aren't good ways of understanding geo-politics if that's where we end. — Moliere

Agree; I was working within the framework I was given.

That report points to the problem of expecting a manifesto to explain actions. It also highlights how unconcerned the suspect was about killing someone as a matter of principle. That is something we do not know.

The effort to put this in a box is all that can be known for sure so far.

Yup. Including my own efforts.

Now we have Vance taking over as the host of the Kirk podcast while ABC is pulling the Kimmel show for saying the killer has MAGA roots. I don't think these attempts to control the message will succeed but it is about to get ugly.

I'm sure if we register to vote this will all go away.

It's been ugly and getting uglier. I've admitted I didn't expect Trump 2.0 to go full fascist.

So what to do?

Voting is good. Supporting institutions as well as we can in relation to our capacities and opportunities is good.

One way I look at it is that MAGA has to reproduce to become a force in the next generation. If they completely "own the libs" the environment of the first generations will lose their meaning. Becoming a victim of one's own success does happen to people.

, well, the better cooperation, the better the chances. Argue the case for all to see, gather the voters, point out inconsistencies and faults, keep it concise or otherwise accurate, broadcast, ... (As an aside, I have a feeling that Rubio has rehearsed "I did so because of so-and-so".)

Anybody else notice that Charlie Kirk's face was too small for his head?

See what I mean?

Anybody else notice that Charlie Kirk's face was too small for his head? — frank

This is a genocidal statement that would result in systemic discrimination, incarceration, enslavement, and eventual killing off of all those with relatively small face-to-head ratios. You are the next Hitler and must be stopped. Nothing short of your immediate arrest will suffice. I would relocate somewhere else if I were you.

Also, what are you trying to do? Get us all cancelled and have Jamal named #1 international fugitive by INTERPOL? Have some tact, mate.

Voting is good. Supporting institutions as well as we can in relation to our capacities and opportunities is good. — Paine

I have to admit I was mocking voting in this retort. Mostly at the individual level -- i.e. if you're organized then voting can make a difference in some circumstances, but we don't live in a country where voting has much influence if you're just an individual voting in practical terms. That it exists influences conversations, but it's also well managed so that it doesn't influence policy.

One way I look at it is that MAGA has to reproduce to become a force in the next generation. If they completely "own the libs" the environment of the first generations will lose their meaning. Becoming a victim of one's own success does happen to people.

I'd say that's already there. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse -- the fascists have a multi-generational movement willing to utilize violence to purge the state of those unclean. That connections from the young to the old is part of why I say Trump has bloomed into full on fascism rather than the proto-fascism of yesteryears. They have enough people thinking like them that purifying the state with state powers are seen as legitimate uses of state power.

The illegals, the drug addicts, the unemployed, the disabled, the "antifa", the progressives, the atheists, the Muslims, the Jews, the anti-anythingTrumpsays-ers -- time to finally get rid of these dirty individuals so we can make ourselves great again.

This is a genocidal statement that would result in systemic discrimination, incarceration, enslavement, and eventual killing off of all those with relative small face-to-head ratios. You are the next Hitler and must be stopped. Nothing short of your immediate arrest will suffice. I would relocate somewhere else if I were you. — Outlander

None of that is true.

None of that is true. — Moliere

Says the boy who tosses a snowball off a winter-kissed hill overlooking a remote village that is warned: "You shouldn't do that. It could cause an avalanche."

Also, to be technical. The last sentence is completely true. I would in fact relocate if I were him. Just to see what else is around, if nothing else. You're smart, but not very thorough.

Says the boy who tosses a snowball off a winter-kissed hill overlooking a remote village that is warned: "You shouldn't do that. It could cause an avalanche." — Outlander

But how would I know which way it'd go unless I toss? This is a relatively safe environment for exploring thoughts.

Also, to be technical. The last sentence is completely true. I would in fact relocate if I were him. Just to see what else is around, if nothing else. You're smart, but not very thorough. — Outlander

What I thought is untrue is that @frank didn't make "a genocidal statement" -- whatever the motive or result that's not what the statement does or is intended for.

It's important to me that "genocide" is understood in a fairly technical manner -- as well as "fascist"

Else it runs the risk of trivializing horrors I want to talk about and understand.

Glad to at least be "smart" ;)

I agree that I'm not thorough -- that's where things get hard. I like to pursue it but that's the hard part. And ultimately it's why I post threads like this: I don't know where I'll land at the end and that's why I wanted to talk about it.

This recent assassination compared to the ongoing genocide is what inspired the thought. There's certainly a contrast there in terms of exposure (the assassination) and impact (the genocide).

I don't think @frank was making a comment towards genocide or even something that'd result in genocide, but attempting to make light of a heavy situation.