Can we not have another round if IOAG vs Ian Thumwood. It's a bit tiresome unless you actually debate him. I think he's very wrong on this (and in fairness, my first post on it was poor form too, and I need to moderate and give more thinking/research time to my responses), but I can't be arsed to get into it any more. I really miss the days where we weren't exposed to every single person's effluent and you could just have a good natter about things with your mates down the pub. The amount of conspiracy theories flying about online about this event now, it's no wonder we're in the **** state we're in.
No, he certainly didn't deserve to be murdered, but I would definitely disagree with your point re the right to bear arms (for a start, a motor vehicles primary use is to travel, a guns primary use is to kill). It's actually said far more eloquently by the black American radio host, Charlemagne, so I'll reproduce that here - "Everybody is just assuming this is political violence and it quite possibly it is, matter fact I'm sure it is, but you know what else it is? Gun violence," Charlamagne said on "The Breakfast Club." "Okay, these nutjobs who don't believe in freedom of speech clearly believe in their right to bear arms and because of the lax gun laws in America they are able to get firearms to carry out these violent acts," he continued. "Now, let the record show that when I heard what happened to Charlie Kirk yesterday, I immediately felt fear. Okay? I was afraid. I'm a Black man in America, I think about getting shot every day," he went on. "But guess what? Every American should think about getting shot every day when you're out and about in a public place simply because it's been zero days since a mass shooting happened in this country." Kirk, a hardcore pro-gun demagogue who made a living stoking racial and gender divisions, was shot and killed at a speaking even at Utah Valley University, seemingly with a high-powered long range rifle. The shooter is still at large. "But my personal fear was also because I'm a media personality," Charlamagne said. "I don’t want to live in a country where media personalities are being shot and killed for their opinions or what they believe, but I also know that as much as we like to point to the First Amendment and say we all have freedom of speech, we are not free from the consequences of said speech." “That’s why mindfulness of what we say is very important, because there is a cost to everything that comes out of our mouth. And unfortunately, we don’t get to set the price," he continued. "And I must say, Charlie Kirk understood the price of our freedoms more than most,” said Charlamagne before playing a clip of Kirk that has gone viral in the wake of the tragic killing. "You will never lived in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel," said Kirk. "But 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. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe." If Republicans did not habitually block every attempt at sane gun violence out of a need to pander to gun nut voters and firearm manufacturers, Kirk might still be alive. His ideology has created an America that is awash in guns. "I just wonder when people say things like that, do they think they may be one of those deaths?" said Charlamagne. "Is worth it when one of those casualties is you or someone you love to protect the rights given to us by the Constitution?” “If they believe they too could be one of those deaths, and they’re cool with that, I respect it so I guess you honor Charlie Kirk by buying more guns — based on that logic yeah — but I don't know about y'all but that sounds kind of ridiculous to me," he added. “See, even if Charlie Kirk had a gun yesterday, it wouldn’t have protected him,” he continued. "When somebody got the drop on you, they got you. Only thing that could have saved Charlie Kirk yesterday was keeping guns out of the hands of violent extremists like the person who killed him.” "And the only way to do that is with common sense gun reform," the host concluded.
Laces, after your own comments yesterday I really don't think you are the person to stand in judgement on how others post. Believe me, I have shown a lot of restrain in my response to Thumwood who seems to be showing a trend in thinking people deserve to be murdered if he doesn't agree with them. He regularly spouts ridiculous comments mixed in with something you would expect from the mouth of a psychopath. Yet he is tolerated on here, in the same way you would a harmless, outspoken, eccentric uncle. But he is not harmless, he's a malevolent extremist and any decent person would be taking him to task for his hateful comments.
I'm not standing in judgement at all - as you say, my response was wrong yesterday and with a bit of reflection and research I've been very open in admitting that. It's part of the problem right now, we all rush in with somewhat unformed and often ill-informed opinions in order to be part of the discussion. That's wrong. Or at least it is if we double down despite contrary evidence and discussion.
Let’s change it from “ He was Murdered “ to “ He was assassinated “ Looks better doesn’t it . And is factually accurate .
But cars are not designed to kill and, in fact, are designed to preserve life. Show me a gun with a seatbelt and airbag system.
I haven't made any comment on what the possible motives of the killer might be. Nor have I defended Kirk's opinions, up until now I have kept quiet about his murder. But when I read Thumwood, spouting yet again his almost inhuman opinions, I feel compelled to tell him what I think of him as a person. You may find it tiresome, I think it is not only necessary but long overdue. It's just a shame no one else sees his comments as unacceptable.
That’s fair enough, and I take your point entirely. The ‘tiresome’ comment was about when it becomes about two people going at one another. TBH it’s why I think this thread is a hellscape here and should be confined to the bin. If people genuinely want to “discuss” politics, they can do so on the general threads that exist at the bottom of the PL board. It just feels divisive and toxic on here, and I’d personally rather just think kindly of my fellow Saints supporters. Bring back the food thread. Far more rewarding.
For me the problem is that both unpalatable and ridiculous opinions have begun to get traction over the last 10 to 15 years. The comments about gun law , Islam, vaccines and feel speech that this character spouted would never have had any credence before 2010. It feels like America is rowing back against all the achievements in Human Rights that have been earned since the 1960s. All of this is underpinned by hate. I have never stated that this assassination was legitimate either morally or legally. It was completely wrong. However , I am at a loss how someone with such disgusting and uneducated views can be permitted to be invited to speak at university. He was a vile individual who would have been better off being incarcerated as opposed to being lauded. It is a prime example of you reap what you sow.
A comment from face book . “ I don’t support what happened to Charlie . But Charlie supported what happened to Charlie “
LTL Without wishing yo come across as a pedant, 8 stopped engaging with IOAG on this thread months ago albeit I have endeavoured to communicate on the nature thread. I find this thread to be generally cordial when different views are expressed. I have no problem with being slapped down if I am wrong and try not to be personal.
That’s nonsense, Ian, sorry. Universities are not meant to be monocultural, intolerant single-voiced institutions. People going to university should always have their opinions challenged, and to debate with those whose opinions they disagree with. And also to have the opportunity to change their opinions based on debate. It sounds like you’ve been reading some of the snipped, context free quotes from Kirk (easy to do - it’s what I wrongly did too) and made a judgement. If you look a little bit deeper into him, you wouldn’t call him uneducated at all. He was clearly extremely bright, and with very old school conservative views. Now you can disagree with those views (and many, though not all of them, I do disagree with), but the fact he debated and was willing to debate these views with an often hostile audience is surely to his credit? And is surely what a rounded university education should be about. To say he should be incarcerated for those views is absurd and embarrassing.
I've calmed down a bit but one point raised above r.e. are there any cases for murder being OK have stated examples of despots ruling other countries. That is much different to killing your own political opponents! In the suggested examples you can argue that it is in defense of your countries or your allies. In the latter it is quite simply eliminating your own opposition! Something that goes on in tinpot countries where "faux" democracies maintain their dictate by illegal means! Do you think most of the US right wing celebrated JFK being killed? MLK? X? I know that plenty near or at the top were happy to paint these events (MLK and X) in a bad light and may even have had a hand in them directly or indirectly but really? Come on. What next? Beatles haters dancing with joy when Lennon got shot? Rappers fans celebrating the death of another rapper their hero had been in a spat with? Are London drill / gang / rap assassinations suddenly acceptable because "they spewed vile words?" As soon as you accept any of this it spreads out. More becomes acceptable and you become what you (still) say you are against! On the Mandelson front! Starmer banged on about Tory sleaze and Tory scandals. Painted a picture of things being different when they got in and then out of the blue appoints serial offender Mandelson to a top job! Was always gonna be (yet) another scandal hitting with Mandelson! Incredible politician and immeasurably intelligent the man just does not understand morals and gets caught out time after time! I suspect like internal folks leaked Raynor's little endeavour at a time that suited, this little nugget was ready and waiting for when needed and is Labour Left's payback to the Labour right. They are going tit for tat in party attacking each other. I was going to put last man standing, and I have put it there but as I typed it initially I thought....Ahh, not the right time. But I did think that not in terms of yesterday's events. As for the freedom of speech has responsibilities and he took that risk! Remember Tory majority in 2015? Remember Brexit? Remember the polls being clueless? That was because society had been setup to shame people for not voting for the chosen righteous ones but at the poll box, People voted the way they wanted in anonymity. Do we want to return to that? A lot of people are still like that yet for some reason people want to believe the polls still when it suits their way of voting / thinking. Events like this will mean people who disagree with the "only accepted way of thinking" will stay silent or lie and we will again see a left that has no idea how to win anything unless the right is so bad they get 1 term in because the left are under the impression everybody is on their side and just can't understand why the votes don't go their way. And eventually you see an over correction like we see at the moment in the UK where things have gone so far against a silent public opinion that you get more and more explosions of "F*** this" which pulls Normies into the throws of extremists. Granted Normies are unlikely to be the ones torching hotels or actually being racist or violent but they end up inadvertently adding support for those that might giving a credence for something that they do not accept as right yet are now part of. I've mentioned Operation Mindcrime on here before. The Queensryche album about how the opposition to the government / state utilise people and convince them they are part of something, that they are doing something for the good and how they are manipulated by the leader(s) of this "rebellion" to take actions because they are on the right side of history! We are at that stage now in many countries across the world. People on the left and right cajoled into "people's armies" by the powerful (social media followings etc.) and we end up with a left army and a right army fighting each other for what? Operation Mindcrime is about the rebellion with an intent to take the power off the "bad state" but is the replacement any better? Are they just being brainwashed into installing a different power that is just as bad as the one they ousted? This whole situation of far right / far left is worrying. The whole social media driven thing of "everybody to X place" buses provided stinks of a higher power with an agenda! Using minions to fight civil battles in their own country without getting their fingers dirty. We might not have guns in this country but we do have an increasingly angry far left and far right ready and willing to provoke each other into action and they provoke by going after the normie first whether that be the far right going after Islam or foreigners or the left going after peaceful local protestors. They are both like rabid dogs and things are scaling up fast. It is not a far right wing problem. It is equally a far left problem yet is always seemingly presented as Far right nasty, Far Left=anti fascism <-----good causes nothing to see here. This free speech talk means nothing if people fear talking. All you get then is liars nodding their heads to stuff they don't believe in.
Not sure I agree. We imprisoned the woman who tweeted that immigrants should be burned alive. Kirk's views were pretty odious.
Politics is such a wide ranging subject that somewhere along the line someone will say something that strikes a nerve. Even the most placid of people have a trigger point. That is why a politics board will never run in harmony. That was one of the reasons I never used to post on here but one day someone's comment drew me in and I've been here ever since. It's a shame because it's a good discussion subject but it's too emotive to stay civil all the time. I'm in two minds about whether we would be better off without it though.
The car debate is an interesting one imo. There's obviously no direct comparison between a car and gun but I find the principle of are people willing to accept bad things will happen to keep a good thing/something important to them an interesting thing to ponder. Now I personally don't believe the benefit from the right to bear arms is worth the pitfalls associated but then I'm not American. It's a vastly different culture and hard for us Brits to understand and if they believe the supposed freedoms which come with that right is worth that risk then that's up to them. So instead of cars let's make a comparison to something that's important in our culture - alcohol. Now I'm sure a large majority of people on here quite enjoy a drink or ten but it undoubtedly causes immense harm to hundreds of thousands of people every single year. From the people who suffer crippling addiction and even death, to the partners who suffer domestic abuse at the hands of a drunk partner, to the kids who suffer neglect or worse at the hands of drunk parents. Which imo raises an intriguing question - Does that mean that anybody who doesn't believe alcohol should be banned, and would baulk at the idea of not being allowed a pint at the footy or be able to pick up a bottle of wine at Tesco for dinner, is happy to accept all those people suffering to keep something they enjoy? Personally I would say so. You could make similar arguments for the internet, we could ban the internet entirely and protect huge numbers of children from CSE but you don't often hear people call for it. In that context I would say that view around the supposed benefits of the second amendment being worth the deaths it causes is a reasonable one to hold. Even if I massively disagree with it myself, I just think as Brits the concept is so alien to us we struggle to understand it.
