quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
You can't change the FACT that the vast majority of this type of violence belongs to the right wing. Charlie Kirk was a stochastic terrorist. Wrap yourself in plausible deniability while stoking the fires by marginalizing groups as abnormal & abhorrent, knowing that a certain number of your followers will act upon it. He didn't outright tell them to, but he knew it would happen now & then.

And this. This is part of the cancer thats infecting the left.

Anything they dont like gets labeled into hate speech or terrorism.

Would this qualify as calling for violence? Genocide?

https://youtu.be/OFfsKHh0RQo?si=CxOoYzHz_Zyqj_zK

What kind of violence are you talking about?

Killing?

Making violent threats?

Rioting and looting?

“Hate speech”?

Or saying things that are legal, but distressing to some?

Frankly, for someone who denies the existence of ANTIFA, I’m not too sure about your ability to detect your fellow travelers issues.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
You can't change the FACT that the vast majority of this type of violence belongs to the right wing. Charlie Kirk was a stochastic terrorist. Wrap yourself in plausible deniability while stoking the fires by marginalizing groups as abnormal & abhorrent, knowing that a certain number of your followers will act upon it. He didn't outright tell them to, but he knew it would happen now & then.

Shankks: You keep crying about my "deceit"--okay, show me where I've been deceitful.

You were using code speak to blame the trans and gay communities. Now you backpedal, claiming you meant some vague, unspecified influence on the killer.

Let me say it straight then. No one is responsible but the killer. Efforts like yours are aimed at blaming somone else, which frankly is ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Would this qualify as calling for violence? Genocide?

https://youtu.be/OFfsKHh0RQo?si=CxOoYzHz_Zyqj_zK

I dont have to watch the thing to agree with you. Yes it does. Its appalling! But thats not Kirk is it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Shankks: You keep crying about my "deceit"--okay, show me where I've been deceitful.

You were using code speak to blame the trans and gay communities. Now you backpedal, claiming you meant some vague, unspecified influence on the killer.

Let me say it straight then. No one is responsible but the killer. Efforts like yours are aimed at blaming somone else, which frankly is ridiculous.

Right in this very post of yours.

I made a statement. You wrongly interpreted it. I clarified. repeatedly. and you label it back peddling and continue to present my statement incorrectly. Thats deceitful as you are totally capable of understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
What kind of violence are you talking about?

Killing?

Making violent threats?

Rioting and looting?

“Hate speech”?

Or saying things that are legal, but distressing to some?

Frankly, for someone who denies the existence of ANTIFA, I’m not too sure about your ability to detect your fellow travelers issues.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
You can't change the FACT that the vast majority of this type of violence belongs to the right wing. Charlie Kirk was a stochastic terrorist. Wrap yourself in plausible deniability while stoking the fires by marginalizing groups as abnormal & abhorrent, knowing that a certain number of your followers will act upon it. He didn't outright tell them to, but he knew it would happen now & then.

This is a few years old, but the picture is clear enough. Only a couple can be traced to Antifa connections. BTW, you have never found me to deny that Antifa exists, tho it's not a formal organization of any kind.

https://www.businessinsider.co...a-killed-none-2020-7

And it seems potentially, Im not far from correct.

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1967675279704485984

At a minimum, the idea is being looked at.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Shankks: You keep crying about my "deceit"--okay, show me where I've been deceitful.

You were using code speak to blame the trans and gay communities. Now you backpedal, claiming you meant some vague, unspecified influence on the killer.

Let me say it straight then. No one is responsible but the killer. Efforts like yours are aimed at blaming somone else, which frankly is ridiculous.

Right in this very post of yours.

I made a statement. You wrongly interpreted it. I clarified. repeatedly. and you label it back peddling and continue to present my statement incorrectly. Thats deceitful as you are totally capable of understanding.

My interpretation of your words, obfuscated and vague as they were, is not deceit--even if you say you meant something else. I suggest you interpret words according to their established plain meaning. "Deceit" does not mean wrong or different from your intent. I simply don't believe you when you deny implying that gays or trans people are to blame for influencing the killer. Disbelief is not deceit.

Now you're trying to blame me for a big fight you had the other day with someone else!

Are you still on pain pills or something?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Shankks: You keep crying about my "deceit"--okay, show me where I've been deceitful.

You were using code speak to blame the trans and gay communities. Now you backpedal, claiming you meant some vague, unspecified influence on the killer.

Let me say it straight then. No one is responsible but the killer. Efforts like yours are aimed at blaming somone else, which frankly is ridiculous.

Right in this very post of yours.

I made a statement. You wrongly interpreted it. I clarified. repeatedly. and you label it back peddling and continue to present my statement incorrectly. Thats deceitful as you are totally capable of understanding.

My interpretation of your words, obfuscated and vague as they were, is not deceit--even if you say you meant something else. I suggest you interpret words according to their established plain meaning. "Deceit" does not mean wrong or different from your intent. I simply don't believe you when you deny implying that gays or trans people are to blame for influencing the killer. Disbelief is not deceit.

Now you're trying to blame me for a big fight you had the other day with someone else!

Are you still on pain pills or something?

it was not a big fight ... but you are right for some the truth is hard to swallow ...

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Shankks: You keep crying about my "deceit"--okay, show me where I've been deceitful.

You were using code speak to blame the trans and gay communities. Now you backpedal, claiming you meant some vague, unspecified influence on the killer.

Let me say it straight then. No one is responsible but the killer. Efforts like yours are aimed at blaming somone else, which frankly is ridiculous.

Right in this very post of yours.

I made a statement. You wrongly interpreted it. I clarified. repeatedly. and you label it back peddling and continue to present my statement incorrectly. Thats deceitful as you are totally capable of understanding.

My interpretation of your words, obfuscated and vague as they were, is not deceit--even if you say you meant something else. I suggest you interpret words according to their established plain meaning. "Deceit" does not mean wrong or different from your intent. I simply don't believe you when you deny implying that gays or trans people are to blame for influencing the killer. Disbelief is not deceit.

Now you're trying to blame me for a big fight you had the other day with someone else!

Are you still on pain pills or something?

It is when you are deceiving yourself. And you can't help yourself with the passive aggression.

Why use some irrelevant past anecdote in such a negative way?

Its a pattern with you, just as the re-introduction of word salad too this debate is. There is absolutely no need for it if your intent is honest discourse.
You started with dishonest intent. and continue too misrepresent. Thats deceit in my books.

Like how you mention a big fight with someone else. Yet fail to mention you stepped into it without, by your own words, reading what had gone before. Without actually asking what I ment either. You just decided to take a negative approach from the start and dislike when you get called on it.

If you find any of these words obfuscatory or vague, then I have a dictionary here for you. Medved won't give me his address to send it too him. I thought you were a writer?

quote:

Why use some irrelevant past anecdote in such a negative way?

YOU brought up that fight with someone else, blaming me for offering an opinion that didn't suit you. YOU made it relevant. GO BACK AND READ WHAT YOU POSTED!

God! I'm really biting my tongue here!

I've noticed you take offense at everything. You should work on that. Along with the thin skin.

I brought it up? really. Ok here's the entire conversation too the point where it is referenced.

quote:

posted Sep 15, 6:29 PM Hide Post
I would like to ask forum conservatives if they believe the murder of Kirk was an act of a lone criminal or the action of a far left conspiracy?

Posts: 8000 | Location: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, USA | Registered: 08 March 2013 Reply With Quote


shankspony
One of Us
posted Sep 15, 6:38 PM Hide Post
As a conservative. possibly. Id answer with I dont know yet.

If you ask what my guess would be?

Id say it was the act of an individual with an unhealthy mindset, who was fuelled by a notion, thats come from a community, In Which the bubble of thought led him to believe this was a reasonable action to take.

Edit to add too that. Ive just watched a debate. On one side was Jordan Peterson and Stephen fry as teammates.

Jordan started direct to topic.

Stephen had to explain that his left wing community was very unhappy with him doing such an event with Jordan.

A question in return would be, name one event where the right expressed unhappiness or displeasure at one of its own participating in a speech event with a known left winger?



Posts: 5785 | Location: South Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008 Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Magine Enigam
One of Us
posted Sep 15, 7:20 PM Hide Post
Name a speech event where a right winger initiated participation with a left winger, other than a campaign event?

And what bubble of thought that comes from the left community leadership is clearly intended to influence those with unhealthy mindset to think murder is a reasonable action to take?

*************
“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.” George Orwell, 1984
https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Degenerate 1:1
1 Then Trump said, "Let Us re-make a Nation in MY Image, after My likeness, to rule over everything in the Nation, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it".

Degenerate 1:2
2 Then Trump said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay on your behalf."

Degenerate 1:3
3 "My Kingdom come, My will be done."

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

O.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr.

"Be careful. When a democracy is sick, fascism comes to its bedside, but it is not to inquire about its health." - Albert Camus



Posts: 24747 | Location: Rural | Registered: 17 February 2017 Reply With Quote


RolandtheHeadless
One of Us
posted Sep 15, 7:31 PM Hide Post
quote:
Id say it was the act of an individual with an unhealthy mindset, who was fuelled by a notion, thats come from a community, In Which the bubble of thought led him to believe this was a reasonable action to take.



That strikes me as pretty sketchy, and if you'll forgive me (or even if you won't), sounds like gobbledegook, i.e., word salad. I don't know what you mean by "community" or "bubble of thought.

You knew what you were doing. now you try to be deceitful agin and lay the blame my way.

You "forgot" to repost a few key lines:

"Stop trying to manufacture conflict.

"its easy to understand, and so your motives are just nothing more than needles after yesterdays go."

"The fact you keep returning the other day tells me its your anger/ passive aggression thats an issue."

My advice is to taper off the drugs.

Rolland, learn to read. Im addressing your comment where you say 'Forgive me, or dont" for reintroducing the word salad phrase from the previous thread.
By saying that you know what you were doing.
And you really dont help yourself by continuing with the drugs reference too my broken ribs.

how can you be so self un aware? and petty?

I'm having trouble interpreting that, but if I understand correctly, you're alleging that I brought up your last, recent fight with someone else just by using the common phrase "word salad"?

I have no memory of that word being used in your last fight. Recalling it was not my intention.

But now that you're mentioned that last fight of yours, I do recall that you showed uncommon sensitivity to remarks made there too. You jumped on me just for commenting.

Now given that you told me in that thread that I was using the term word salad wrong. And just a day later profess too not remembering it. I dont think you are deceitful.


It's my opinion that I think you are a straight out liar!

quote:

It's my opinion that I think you are a straight out liar!

That's a redundant sentence.

So you think I'm lying about word salad, and I think you're lying about the meaning of your prior sentences.

We do have something in common after all! We each think the other is a liar.

One of us is right and not claiming they "forgot" though.

The assassination of those who disagree with us is acceptable and should be legal?
Murber is a 1st Amendment right and should be legal?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

(This is a partial quote, leaving out clutter that IMO is aside the point of this post.)

and on the wider issue, this from Bill Maher saying the republicans come on his show where the democrats won't.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dCM1U7PwTc4

Any bubble of hate- the internet is full of them. We just have to wait and find out rather than pronouncing our pet radical group we dislike.

That's a rather decent answer, and I appreciate that.

Of course what I was getting at was laying blame on a group rather than an individual. A group, BTW, that represents a core institution(s) in the country. One that provides the balance, which is exactly why the Right wants domination and dominion, to run amuck. That's really what's behind this fabricated blaming the left, and above all - the demonization. And the head-waters is at the top, Dear Leader. Sewage flows down hill.

And I think Maher is a fake liberal. Obama had a lot of gumption to accept his invite. Maher likes to lay traps, for ratings.

Maher isn't fake, the left just moved and he stayed where he was. I dont agree with a lot he says, but it's uncharitable to call him fake. And even so, the republicans still show up and discuss their ideas, knowing it's a hostile audience.

No, let me be very clear, I totally blame the individual. But it's foolish not to address the level of hate that people think it's acceptable to spew nowadays. It happened on here the other day. crossed the line. We all recognise the impact of dehumanisation. Put a sick mind in amongst that and what happens?

I'm going to have to agree with what you said about Maher.

Here's something from today's news:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...yYv?ocid=socialshare

Pam Bondi sparks MAGA fury over free speech remarks
Story by Marni Rose McFall • 57m •
4 min read

Excerpts:

Attorney General Pam Bondi has sparked backlash from MAGA over her remarks on free speech following the death of Charlie Kirk. Bondi appeared on The Katie Miller Podcast, where she said: "There's free speech and then there's hate speech."

There has been an outpouring of grief for Kirk from his supporters, as well as President Donald Trump and his administration, plus high-profile Democrats and celebrities.

However, there have been some social media posts and videos celebrating his killing, while others have criticized Kirk and his beliefs, which has in turn triggered a backlash. This is something that the Trump administration has responded to swiftly...

What To Know:

Bondi spoke about the assassination of Kirk with Miller, who served as communications director for former Vice President Mike Pence. Miller is married to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and launched her eponymous podcast in August.

...

Bondi then says: "There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."

Her remarks have seen swift backlash online, from MAGA and conservatives who disagree with her comments on free speech and said Kirk had also disagreed with this view.

Author Hans Mahncke responded to the clip on X and shared a post of Kirk's from May of 2024, where he wrote: "Hate speech does not exist in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."

...

To this, Bondi replied: "We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle."

...

Her remarks come after comments from the president regarding the far-left anti-fascism group, Antifa. Trump said that he would consider naming them domestic terrorists, and said, "I'm not so sure about that," after a reporter said: "They still have a First Amendment right, though, they're still out there protesting."

What People Are Saying:

Hans Mahncke, the author of Swiftboating America, in a post on X viewed over 120,000 times: "Charlie Kirk literally died defending the principle that Pam Bondi is trashing. Just unreal."

@MattWalshBlog, in a post on X viewed 100,000 times: "This is really outrageous and infuriating. We're already having a lot of success fighting back against the leftists celebrating Charlie's death. We don't need Pam Bondi swooping in to throw the entire conversation off the rails by completely missing our point. And having a 'hate speech' crackdown in the name of Charlie Kirk — a man who absolutely rejected 'hate speech' laws — is especially grotesque."

Actor Rob Schneider on X: "Pam Bondi is WRONG on this one. If FREE SPEECH means anything it's the freedom to say things that OTHER people may LOATHE! Outside of the incitement to violence, FREE SPEECH IS ALL SPEECH! You are either for ALL of it or NONE of it!"

Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, in a post on X: "The murder of Charlie Kirk could have united Americans to confront political violence. Instead, Trump and his anti-democratic radicals look to be readying a campaign to destroy dissent."

What does the law say about hate speech?

AI answer:

In the United States, there is no single law banning "hate speech," which is a term without a legal definition under U.S. law. While hateful or offensive speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, it can lose that protection if it falls into specific, narrow categories of speech not covered by the First Amendment. These include incitement, true threats, and harassment.

The law treats hateful speech differently from a hate crime, where a criminal act like assault or vandalism is motivated by bias.

Hate speech under U.S. law:

In the U.S., restrictions on speech are generally unconstitutional if they are based on the speech's content or the speaker's viewpoint.

The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that the government cannot ban speech simply because it is hateful or offensive to some.

However, the First Amendment does not provide absolute protection for hateful speech when it crosses into other illegal actions.

Unprotected categories of speech that can be punished include:

Incitement to imminent lawless action: Speech intended and likely to provoke immediate illegal acts.

True threats:

Statements that communicate a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a specific individual or group.

Harassment:

Severe, persistent, and pervasive discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment and denies a person equal access to an institution's resources or opportunities.

The difference between hate speech and hate crimes:

A key distinction in U.S. law is that a person's hateful ideas or words are not illegal on their own. They become legally punishable only when they cross the line into unlawful action.

Hate speech:

Considered offensive but is generally protected expression.

Hate crime:

A criminal act, such as assault or arson, motivated by bias against a victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristic. In such cases, hateful speech can serve as evidence of the offender's motivation, leading to enhanced penalties for the crime itself.

Hate speech laws internationally:

Compared to the United States, many other democracies have more restrictive laws against hate speech. In many countries, laws criminalize speech that incites violence or promotes discrimination based on identity factors.

United Nations:

While having no formal definition of hate speech, U.N. human rights law prohibits "incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence". The U.N. also distinguishes between merely offensive speech and hate speech that violates human rights.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): This treaty requires member states to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.

The role of private companies and social media:

The First Amendment restricts government action, not private entities. As a result, social media companies and other private platforms are free to regulate hate speech on their services by creating their own terms of use and content moderation policies. These company policies can be much more restrictive than the law regarding what is permissible on their platforms.

And here a young person places a scar upon her reputation for life.

Completely unnecessary.

Woman who sang 'F*&K ya'll homie dead' while assaulting people at Charlie Kirk Vigil was arrested and is getting expelled from college.
A peaceful vigil honoring the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk turned violent when a woman identified as Camryn Giselle allegedly assaulted multiple attendees, leading to her immediate arrest by local police.

Giselle was singing F**K ya'll homie dead, he got shot in the head' multiple times, while aggressively approaching vigil goers who asked her to leave - to which she called them racist for attacking a black woman.

After which, Giselle allegedly started shouting profanities at mourners holding candles and American flags.

"She started yelling slurs and accusing everyone of being 'fascists' for honoring Kirk," said one attendee.

The confrontation escalated when Giselle reportedly shoved several people, including an elderly veteran and a young mother with her child, prompting a physical altercation that spilled into the street.

Police Department officers stepped in and arrested her.

She was charged with three counts of assault and battery, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

Christina Aguayo News

She was booked and will stay behind bars until her court appearance which is set for September 15th.

BOOKER, CAMRYN GISELLE
09/12/2025
Age: 18
Charges: ASSAULT (CITATION)
Arrest Location: 2625 15TH ST
Arresting Agency: TTPD

I figure a person like that was already scared. She has no one to blame but herself.

And

quote:

She was charged with three counts of assault and battery, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

That "news" post serves as a good example of the distinction between protected hate speech and inciting and/or breaking other laws that are well defined. She could even be charged with a hate crime. See the above definitions.

Here's a thought that's been bothering me about all this recip hate:

"Look what you made me do".

That's usually associated with DV, control, gaslighting and such. But I think it's applicable to this recip political hate and threats.

Nobody made another's hate. Yes, I know the saying "hate begets hate".

Just sayin'.