domain:imgur.com
Charlie was definitely in the political game in a way that gramps wasn't
This is true, but the celebrators don't say he deserves it because he was in politics, but specifically because of his opinions.
Effectively grandpa is only safe because they don't know his name. You can't share a society with people who hold this belief system. Not one where you're free anyhow.
The left needed to purge people who believe this, or widespread violence becomes inevitable. And I've been saying this since before this forum existed. Too late now.
TheDemonRazgriz
46m ago
Huh. I think I remember that guy actually, but not the FLCL iconography. Thanks
Soteriologian
47m ago
This argument is the radical claim that one cannot store wealth
I think taking an economic view makes it easy to miss the forest for the trees. Always look to more fundamental aspects like thermodynamics and biology first, then bend your economic model around that.
With this perspective, what’s really happening is that the supply and demand of labor is changing over time: an aging population is a population where labor is increasing in value, since there are more old people needing care and fewer people available to do the caring.
If your economic system gives too much of a claim on young labor to old demographics, then your society will die. I’m not saying the allocation has to be zero—that there can be no long-term store of wealth—but it clearly has to be less than whatever it takes for the fertile to reproduce at replacement.
Call my model radical if you want, but the fertility data speaks for itself: you will adopt a radical solution, or you will be replaced by those who do.
Tretiak
48m ago
Cenk and some of TYT as of late have mellowed out. I always tried to keep my ear close to the ground and always tried to keep left-wing content somewhere in my media diet, lest I put myself at risk for living out the world in my own bubble. I think they've realized to some degree that it doesn't pay dividends to advancing your cause by being ham fisted and angry all the time at your political counterparts.
I first remember getting that impression when I saw a brief clip between Cenk and Patrick Bet David that seemed unusually civil, considering the gulf between their political views. You can still find Cenk occasionally raging on Piers Morgan and I can't really blame him for that. I wonder if Piers really is as dumb as he presents himself at times or if it's part of his overall act. Ana Kasparian's appearance on Tucker Carlson really surprised me and I always thought she was even more of a lunatic than Cenk was when she was having a moment. In either case it's good for them to broader their horizon and engage in active discussion with those they disagree with more than satirizing and sneering at them and conservatives should do the same as well.
WandererintheWilderness
50m ago
I agree, but again I see a great deal of difference between "deserves to be killed" and "fair dos if other people are relieved when they happen to die". For a trivial analogy, if someone buys the lot opposite mine, and builds a huge concrete eyesore that ruins the view from my patio, then my neighbor in no real sense deserves to have their home destroyed, but it would be perfectly fine for me to drink a toast the day the house collapses by happenstance. Those are very different things in my book.
SSCReader
52m ago
Bernie did a series of well received town halls in Trump Country, and he was literally just in Lenore, West Virgina, population 1300 that went 74% for Trump, I don't think you can rule him out so easily.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
55m ago
Yes, I misunderstood what you were asking for. The mods discussed it and we'd prefer you not start a new megathread since there is already a big thread on the topic right now.
KingOfTheBailey
56m ago
I disagree with the "Charlie was like your Republican Grandpa" argument. He may have had similar political positions, and he definitely should never have been shot, but Charlie was definitely in the political game in a way that gramps wasn't. He founded TPUSA, he organized events, he ran streams, debated people to change the public's mind, and judging by the heartfelt tributes that have come out he was an important node in the institutional right's network.
I think the following propositions are all true:
- Charlie should never have been shot
- Charlie was "in the game" in a way that normie (R)s weren't
- Dealing with potential political violence is a regrettable part of holding political office
- Assassination of people not holding office but in the game, with weapons that require at least some planning and skill to use, is a very worrying erosion of the norms around how the game is to be played
- There are enough people on the left made crazy by the memetic environment that normie (R)s are correct to worry when they see a relatively normal "in the game" guy get assassinated to plenty of cheers, excuses from MSNBC presenters, and milquetoast statements from many politicians. (Some thankfully bright anti-examples: Cenk, Newsom).
Pongalh
56m ago
We are in a culture war that was started most noticeably because the dominant left culture cancelled, censored, and doxxed nearly every dissenting opinion they could.
Yea, and that was awful. But are they awful because they're doing that or because they're on the left? If your opponents just are people that censor well then you're not even doing the same thing as a conservative at all.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
58m ago
I'm not sure this is a great argument given out current economic system is a literal conspiracy against storing wealth at basically every level.
Pongalh
1hr ago
"if we got through the beatifiction of St. Floyd, St.Kirk should be no skin off anyone's nose."
Yes. And if you're on the right you've gotten so used to having a thick skin on this - being asked to worship people you find pretty repellant, and the favor never going the other way - it becomes more difficult to bemoan OR celebrate anyone. It can make cynical and indifferent as much as it can make you hate the left passionately enough to posture and discourse like they do.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
It's on a spectrum, right? Starts as Military, becomes try-hard, moves to normal, then to cosplay. I wore an m65 field jacket from the army navy store through most of boy scouts, and while it was military-coded no one thought I was pretending to have served in Vietnam. A modern camo version would look more like pretending; a WWI era military jacket more like cosplay. Then I suppose a tie has lost all association with Croatian mercenary light cavalry from the thirty years war.
Pongalh
1hr ago
But with that said, I have significantly more sympathy for people who celebrate his death than seems to be common among people who don't share that celebratory mood. It doesn't feel outrageous to me that people are enjoying this. Imagine that someone you really hated was randomly struck down by a freak bolt of lightning. Wouldn't you be pretty giddy?
That's the thing though. No, I only really hate people who do things like murder people. I hate the Charlottesville guy e.g.. Otherwise it's just words. Not that I can't see a breaking point even there, if he's going around advocating for pedophilia or instructing terrorists in bomb-making (which of course has a more material component).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr ago
Upper middle (civil engineer with salary just barely in six figures) → undefined? (early retiree)
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1hr ago
Political discourse is and always has been a dangerous activity, it's always been recognized as such, and the arguments you're deploying to deny this reality are ridiculous.
Even banks and insurance providers disagree with you explicitly as a matter of policy.
All this in the service of denying the courage of a man who actually died doing this dangerous but necessary thing. It all seems very futile.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1hr ago
This argument is the radical claim that one cannot store wealth; the old must personally provide people to care for them, merely offering items of value to other people for their care is still "parasitism". Maybe you could build an economic system around this idea, but just shoving it into our current economic system is special pleading.
jkf
1hr ago
Kind of the same way about half of men's fashion starts with elite units in the military, then regular infantry units adopt the look from the elite units, then veterans continue to wear it as a symbol of service, then it just runs into civilian use.
It is what it is, y'know?
KMC
1hr ago
Good and Evil aren't really useful concepts to me. They are fiction, and belong in fictional stories. For my part, "deserves to die," and, "doesn't deserve to die," pretty much covers it, and the former is reserved for people who victimize others through violence. Especially those who victimize strangers. It's one thing if you have beef with someone and therefore there is violence between you. It's completely different if you are minding your own business and then someone visits violence on you, or steals your property.
Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.
Soteriologian
1hr ago
I don’t necessarily disagree with your analysis, but the simple fact is it’s still parasitic in the most fundamental sense.
When you get old and live off pension money, it is younger people who must care for you. If you don’t have children, that means you are being sustained by someone else’s children—whom they invested enormous resources in and sacrificed much of their life (in the hedonistic sense) to rear.
When you let people who do not have children dictate policy, you are going to get policies that favor the parasite over the host. And parasites cannot ever win: they can simply destroy their host and die with them.
Control over policy must be in the hands of the fertile. There simply is no other option—Darwin will, given time, eliminate any group that doesn’t abide by this.
KingOfTheBailey
1hr ago
For the right, this is one of those "my rules > your rules, fairly > your rules, unfairly" situations. As much as I fear that you're correct, I still hope that once we spend enough time at the "your rules, fairly" stop, there can be a discussion about how these rules suck.
yofuckreddit
1hr ago
The difference I see in upper culturally is how much they dont do themselves. Cruise through their neighborhoods any weekday and they're packed with service workers.
KMC
1hr ago
Fair enough. I found a few other instances from 2022 and 2023, so clearly I'm not up on my lore.
She was in a school shirt which I would say is a big no no
Funny, I was just completing a mandatory training at work about the social media policy.
Reading it now (they actively make it so you can pass without ever reading these things which is really counterproductive), it explicitly says: all communication, "regardless of whether they are posting on personal devices or accounts", is subject. It goes even further "even private posts can violate the policy if they are seen by others...".
Like...maybe the rules in Canada are different for legal reasons. But even a message in a totally private chat gives them license to fire you and I don't think my workplace is particularly strange here . Which is understandable, given that nobody cares whatsoever come outrage time if it was on a Discord with three people.
If you are wearing a work shirt I don't even know why there'd be a debate. You're (rightly) fucked. What moral principle can spare you? Would it be acceptable to wear a Coca-Cola shirt as an employee and then start dropping slurs?
Even if we assume that the clergy member in question is a Catholic priest, the seal of confession only applies to things said during the sacrament. If you go up to a priest after mass and say "I just murdered someone", he could report you as that wasn't said during the sacrament of reconciliation.
More options
Context Copy link