domain:sotonye.substack.com
Garfielf
2m ago
What an utterly fascinating worldview. If that's the case, perhaps you should use your eminently correct modern values to triangulate when the first good person in the world was born, so we can know the first funeral it was moral to shed tears at.
vorpa-glavo
2m ago
But Kash says he'll see him there, implying that Kash is going to Valhalla as well. Really, I don't think Kash meant it literally at all. It was just a fancy way of saying, 'I see you as a fallen warrior for our side, and I will keep up the good fight, and metaphorically warrant a place by your side in Valhalla.'
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4m ago
Sure. People in the past often had pretty values, I think. I reserve judgement about whether any of their deaths was "sad" but I think lionizing them as moral paragons would be bad.
NullHypothesis
7m ago
I don't think Kash Patel literally believes in Valhalla so much as he's trying to create the image of Charlie Kirk being a warrior.
But also when a Hindu (Kash Patel) tells a Protestant (Charlie Kirk) "I’ll see you in Valhalla" it is somehow even more incoherent.
I mean, that would have still made sense coming from a protestant. Kash Patel is trying to say Charlie Kirk was a warrior for his side, who died a warrior's death. Whether it landed or not is a separate issue.
How can/should Hindus appeal to the divine and the afterlife in public pleasantries like this? Should they invoke their own religious mythos? Or should they just appeal to "God" even though they are not talking about the same literary figure(s) as everyone else? Should/are they all going to convert to Christianity? Seems unlikely. They should probably just avoid this trap altogether although that's difficult to do for a Conservative constituency.
I feel like this issue already played out in the Greater Indian sphere, with the end result being that Muslims in that sphere grudgingly accepted Hindus as People of the Book. You can see this today in the weird Islamicized version of Hinduism supposedly practiced in Bali.
Granted, that's a slightly easier posture to adopt in Islam, where the Quran says God has sent prophets to every nation. If you already accept that Judaism and Christianity are corrupted forms of Islam (with mainstream Christianity even having polytheism/shirk from an Islamic perspective), why not accept that Hinduism is a super corrupted form of a true revelation sent from God?
From an orthodox Christian perspective, Hinduism is demon worship writ large. And while the British were practical enough to not actually convert the Indian subcontinent to Christianity, it sits uneasily in the Christian sphere.
I think a compromise invocation of "God" probably works okay (since there are monotheistic sects of Hinduism, and the nature of logical identity is that if there is a God, they're all the same god), but things get dicier when you start to get to the exact specifics of what state Charlie Kirk's soul is in from a Hindu perspective. (He presumably hasn't achieved Moksha or some other higher spiritual state, so he's still part of Samsara, and thus reincarnated based on his karma.) I think referring to secular legacy elements might be the safest compromise. Something like, "You'll live on in our hearts and minds, and in the amazing legacy you've left behind for all of us, but especially for your wife and two kids."
Browser
11m ago
Honestly I'm curious if that guy on Twitter who got flagged for posting that something big might happen but was cleared as the shooter might have been in a discord with him or sometimg
Garfielf
12m ago
So then you believe that, in round terms, 100% of Christians and Jews (and Europeans more generally) who lived before the 1860s, when buggery started being bumped down from being a capital crime, were bad people, and none of the deaths of anyone who fought in any European war, or was murdered in Christendom before then, was sad?
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
12m ago
I can't think of any non-fringe right-wing group that celebrates political violence on the right.
You would be correct.
Quantumfreakonomics
13m ago
when a Hindu (Kash Patel) tells a Protestant (Charlie Kirk) "I’ll see you in Valhalla" it is somehow even more incoherent.
Is modern Hinduism syncretic? It would not be out of place in pagan Europe to think that different ethnicities have different gods. It might be coherent in Hinduism to think, "well obviously this Jesus stuff doesn't make any sense, but maybe white people were right about Thor and Odin?"
07mk
16m ago
But we don't want to say "the US shouldn't have invaded Nazi Germany in the 1940s. After all, if you make it permissible to hurt Nazis, you'll end up calling everyone you hate Nazis".
The justification for US invading Nazi Germany wasn't because US hated Nazis, though. US invaded them because their allies attacked US and also they declared war on US, IIRC. Rejecting "punching Nazis" doesn't mean rejecting "punching anyone who is a Nazi," it's rejecting "merely being a Nazi means that that person deserves to be punched." If Hitler in the 30s hung out at home jerking it all day to fantasies of his Nazi ideology dominating the Earth or whatever and took no steps to make it happen through violence, I don't think it would be justified to go and kill him or drive him to suicide just because he happens to have Nazi opinions. It's that he and other Nazis decided to commit violence and commit to future violence against US that justified US attacking the Nazis.
With Nazis, one can also make a humanitarian case for attacking them so that the minorities they oppress don't get oppressed. But that, too, would be in reaction to the act of oppressing minorities, not their opinion that "minorities ought to be oppressed" or whatever. Again with the Hitler jerking it at home example, except fantasizing about murdering Jews or something. Of course, this also does mean that the label "oppresses minorities" becomes a useful one to stick on to people one dislikes, which is why we'd also need an extremely high bar for what counts as "oppresses minorities" to the point of justifying violence.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
17m ago
Do you think anyone unwilling to say that God made a mistake in the Book of Leviticus is a bad person, undeserving of sympathy if they are murdered?
Yea. I think if you believe it is a moral imperative to stone gay people to death you are a bad person.
And as I asked above, do you think such Jews and Christians therefore and necessarily want to go out and stone homosexuals?
I am sure there are practical reasons (they will go to jail) they don't want to.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17m ago
Because imageboard slang is incomprehensible to normies, and they're not going to follow you along as you try to explain it to them, while they will immediately understand "leftist shot right-winger". Trying to redirect the ire at gamers is going to come off as utter desperation. Like I said, I'm taking bets.
Tretiak
18m ago
All I know now is that I want Kash Patel giving my eulogy. That’s hilarious.
A general appeal to God is good enough. Conservatives should appreciate where K.P. was trying to come from. Just like in serious court cases you’re called to swear before God or make an affirmation, it’s a gesture or sorts that for better or worse people don’t take too seriously. If K.P. was giving this statement in some theocracy, he’d have reason to worry.
Garfielf
18m ago
I can't speak for Jews, but for observant Christians (such as Charlie Kirk), they believe Jesus Christ deliberately gave requirements for carrying out stoning that are impossible (anyone throwing a stone must be without sin) and therefore they are not supposed to stone anyone, homosexual or otherwise - though men having sex with men remains sexually immoral.
Skulldrinker
19m ago
A personal perspective: Elected Democratic politicians are not quite the same thing as Leftist Influencers, but I don't run into very many Democrat politicians in my day-to-day, but I DO encounter Leftists repeating leftist-influencer lines, in real life, and I've been in real interpersonal conflicts where the other party being Leftist puts me in jeopardy as a straight white male who refuses to do leftist call->response.
For example, when a Black "Queer" Marxist tried to harass and terrorize his roommates into giving him the lease to their living space, and then attacked me with an axe when he failed, all the local leftists were strangely silent, when they're usually very judgemental of any incident of misbehavior. Almost like I was an acceptable target, regardless of what elected Democrat politicians would say on the subject.
Ioper
19m ago
Culturally middle class, economically upper middle class.
My wife is solidly, multigenerationally, UMC and I can feel the difference.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
20m ago
If they believe something is the unmistaken Word of God yet do not follow it, I think they are not observant.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
21m ago
What? How is that a "vs"? That was a national manhunt, the EU Parliament almost had a minute of silence for said father of 2. If the killer can be traced to 4chan, and with OwO shit he almost certainly will be, the blood in the visceral video is also on their hands. I am not proposing some far-fetched guilt by association here, this is imageboard slang, and people were getting ready to obliterate trans rights when it was suggested that casings have some "trans" stuff, why do you think another guilty group would suffer less ire?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22m ago
You are not even proving that it's appropriate, just that it's understandable. Even then, since you made the claim that's it's a generally dumb rule, you have to show it's applicable to the average person. An extreme case does nothing to prove your position. If you said it's occasionally a dumb, then your argument would make some sense.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
23m ago
The first upgrade barely changes anything. You still take the same amount of hits to kill most enemies. Kind of a let down compared to hollow knight.
Idk about the second upgrade, you have to finish act 1 to get it and im still working on the last boss.
Garfielf
24m ago
For the purposes of this argument, let's define observant as being, at minimum, people who believe the Old Testament is the revealed word of God, and that God, being perfect, has not made mistakes. Do you think anyone unwilling to say that God made a mistake in the Book of Leviticus is a bad person, undeserving of sympathy if they are murdered? And as I asked above, do you think such Jews and Christians therefore and necessarily want to go out and stone homosexuals?
Bartender_Venator
24m ago
This post appears to have been removed without a modhat comment explaining?
Supah_Schmendrick
24m ago
NullHypothesis
26m ago
That's a maximally uncharitable take. I find the interpretation that Kirk is criticizing the selective usage of bible verses to be more plausible. I don't think Kirk believed gays should be stoned to death.
Why do I think Kirk doesn't believe gays should be stoned to death?
Quoting the bible often comes with interpretation of what said bible verse means, especially Old Testament bible verses. His quote is preceded by him talking about "telling them the truth".
Kirk has previously said "Also gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement. As Christians we are called to love everyone,". https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966484038648021264
Kirk has platformed gay people.
Kirk doesn't make a call to action to stone gay people.
Kirk hasn't stoned any gay people.
Also, is there a source that shows what he says after where it's cut off? In all the previous quotes I looked at, there was stuff said afterward that clarifies or provides more information. Why is the clip cut off where it is? The best sourcing is to provide the full video and when no such source is given one should be suspicious of any editing and cutting that is done. Something tells me he probably said something along the lines of and no I don't actually believe you should stone people to death.
Kirk recognized the political expediencies necessary to have the reach he does. No one doubted he was a savvy operator.
More options
Context Copy link