To believe the right and left have more in common than we think

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. It’s rational and logical.

I made the point about Tate as he was mentioned almost in a ‘if you’re not happy CK was shot then that must mean you agree with everything he said’ type of comment (although I don’t want to put words in that poster’s mouth if that’s not what they were getting at)
I think Tate is a despicable man who has done despicable things and I hope he falls foul of the law for doing so. I was more making a point that if the reason he was shot was for his words, then I would also disagree with that (hope that makes sense)

I also think that allowing free speech doesn’t only apply to opinions that are ‘worth discussing’ because we all have different ideas on what is worth discussing and what isn’t. Basically, if someone is espousing extreme views (on either side) and I know I’m not going to respect nor agree with anything they say, I am free to either not listen - or tell them I think their opinions are bullshit. But the point is, they are still free to say them and should be without fear of violence as a consequence.

Inciting violence is different, of course, and I don’t include that in the above - however, those individuals should be dealt with through a court of law and not through the barrel of a gun.

Andrew Tate is a different case because it appears that there’s very strong evidence that he’s done far more than “saying words”: human trafficking, physical abuse of women, sexual abuse etc.

What’s disturbing is that anybody would believe that the political opinions of someone engaging in such criminal activity are worthy of discussion at all.

Charlie Kirk as far as I know had not done any of these things. I disagree with his extremist views as I do with all extremists but that doesn’t mean he deserves to be murdered, as you note.

However, many attacks and threats to physical safety as well as intimidation have come from the so-called “left” in recent years, just as much as from the right.

In the UK both of our major parties are a disgrace and neither is capable of governing or acting in the national interest. God help us (we may have to start appealing to such imaginary beings in desperation) if Farage becomes our Prime Minister. Yes, things certainly can get even worse.

It appears that what used to be considered “left” and “right” in all civilised countries - within reasonable bounds of respect, freedom, fairness, rationality and realism - has been distorted beyond belief in recent years so that what were commonly and intuitively understood boundaries for these five qualities that are necessary for them to co-exist simultaneously as a basic guide to forming appropriate and sustainable public institutional structures have disintegrated with people arguing that their preferred one should be elevated above the others despite it being obvious that enabling an extreme prioritisation of one above the others will mean all of them vanish.

All extremists are a huge danger to our way of life and freedoms and are actively feeding this polarisation of views for their own purposes. None appear to be interested in consensus, temperance and balance, rationality and evidence-based policy that actually works.

It’s also interesting that those who spout such views seems to have no overview of history whatsoever, and both extremes both in the UK and in other countries take active steps to damage education and prevent a well-rounded education being available for all that covers the basics of economics, politics, history, rational thought and logic (i.e. philosophy) and a reasonable understanding of scientific method (not random facts) and statitistical analysis, to enable people to have the tools to be able to assess things adequately for themselves.

It’s difficult to conclude that this isn’t deliberate.

There was the longest period of peace and prosperity in Europe after WWII because the realities of extremes had become apparent to a significant enough proportion of the population through direct experience for them to conclude this wasn’t a good idea to repeat and therefore the Overton Window was narrowed significantly, to everyone’s benefit. The hope was that with adequate education available to all people wouldn’t have to learn these lessons the hard way again.

Nefarious actors are now pushing its boundaries to expand it again and this will have entirely predictable results. People refuse to learn these lessons of history or read books available in any public library and would rather pretend that the patterns staring them in the face don’t exist or are so wilfully ignorant that they are entirely oblivious and feel uncomfortable balancing conflicting viewpoints in a rational manner, preferring to subscribe to one of the (all equally incoherent and inconsistent) sets of extreme sets of views being touted to them, which due to the Overton Window being expanded become more extreme by the day with a feedback loop of validation available to them convincing them that such views are “normal” or rational.

I fear very much that the extremists at one sode or the other will have the critical mass to drag the rest of us down with them yet again having learned nothing from history at all. Just look at UK politics: there is no major party at all that a centrist wanting a rational, deliverable policy programme has available now to vote for. That is becoming the case in many western European countries and was unheard of a couple of decades ago. Then, when non-extremists feel forced to pick the least-worst option the extremists they are forced to vote for to avoid an even worse outcome declare that these people support what they are doing…

The cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias involved already when you try to have a rational discussion based on facts and data with these people entrenched in political views at either extreme i lamentable and demonstrates that they are not interested in what will work, what will be effective, only in “winning” and feeling they are “right”.

Fuck me, well done you for "doing the maths" to discover Andrew Tate was a wrong'un.

Guess what, Charlie Kirk was a wrong'un too. Probably a bit less hands on than Tate, but still spouting obscene racist, misogynistic views.

Did he actually mock those things? Because I am seeing an awful lot being said about him that doesn’t appear to be fact. Or at least, it twists the facts.

If Andrew Tate was shot dead in the neck whilst spouting his views, I would feel the same. Nobody deserves to die for saying words.

The only time I would be glad for someone to be shot is if it actively stopped physical harm happening to others. I.e. crazed person is about to run in to a school and kill a load of kids, someone shot him before he entered the building.

👏 This is spot on.

and if you agree - then best get a chair because they will love nothing more than giving you a lecture on exactly everything that is wrong with the other side.

😂I’ve definitely experienced this!

And it was a career - those clicks in his videos made him a rich man.

Op, in general - yes of course but in the case of this extreme right wing religious man, no. Almost zero cross over in my views and his.

Ok, so I’d not heard of him before he died. But I see his social media posts in the past few days included one saying, “Islam is the sword the left are using to slit the throat of America”, another saying there has been a relentless assault by black people on white people, and another lumping homosexuality in with trans issues as ‘garbage’.
So while we may not approve of murder, it’s fair to note that a significant part of his career was stirring up hate.

To your point, OP - I agree.

I posted this on another thread this morning:

Id probably class myself as centrist. Although even your place on the political spectrum is skewed by how far people are on either side. To a far left, I’d be right wing and to a far right, I’m too much on the left. So here is the thing, if (for example) a militant far left TRA was speaking at a University and spouting rubbish about TERFs or whatever and they got shot in the neck for it, I still would be just as shocked and disgusted by it. Because nobody deserves to die for words. Whether or not those words are classed as hate speech - investigate them and use the law if needs be but they don’t deserve to be fucking shot for just speaking.
I watched a video online of someone walking around the streets of an American uni town asking students their opinion on his death and they all said they were glad and he deserved it. Is that what we have become now?

The thing is, these tribal politics seem to mostly be rife in western democracy. When compared to global politics - especially in more oppressive countries - or if you use historical context, the left and right in the west are barely a few paces from each other. The political spectrum in the west is pretty narrow (on the most part, save for pockets of extremism that I wouldn’t class as main stream) so what the hell are both sides fighting over? We have more in common than not. You could have people debating trans rights, for example, with one side screaming TWAW and the other saying “we don’t want men in our spaces” but if both sides were shown footage of what happens to gay people in extremist countries where it is illegal to be gay, both sides would be totally against it.

I completely agree with all of this. You sound like my kind of person.
I watched CKs Oxford address this morning - I had heard of him before and seen some of his clips but I wanted to watch an unedited long-form version of it.
When people decry others as racist or bigoted I like to find out for myself if that’s actually true. The more hysterical someone seems about a public figure, the more suspicious I am.

Ive already seen half of a quote he has made being dropped to prove people’s point. The one about empathy - the full quote basically said that sympathy is a better word as nobody can ever know what someone else feels like. That’s not a radical statement to make.

He didn’t believe in empathy, so that’s all good.

We don"t actually know why he was assassinated.
Trump's shooter was a Republican.
I'd wait.

I applaud your efforts to bring people together OP but I think you can see from the responses that some people are so entrenched in their views they are not interested in finding common ground. In some people's minds anyone who has different ideas to them is irredeemably evil and that's all there is to it. I wouldn't mind quite so much but they are oblivious to the division they are causing; division which I think will lead to more violence.

All extremes have an immense amount in common, @TheKhakiQuail

Read some Aristotle. Temperance, rationality and virtue lies in the middle, between the extremes.

We’ve known this for 2500 years now yet still a significant proportion of people listen to the braindead people at either extreme because it’s far easier than engaging their brain (if it exists) and working for solutions to complex problems rather than trying to find some group to “other” and blame for their own inadequacies.

Politicians capitalise on the weakness of those susceptible to such obvious nonsense whose capacity for rational thought is minimal and make decisions based on emotion, soundbites and slogans rather than data and facts.

It does not bode well.

ANyway, to answer OP's question. I once watched a conversation between Candace Owens ( black conservative) and a black professor from the left. They were debating the issues in the black community. From watching it, what they both had in common was that they both cared deeply about the black community in America. They had a different analysis of the cause of the problems and different solutions, but their starting point was the same.

After the assassination of CK I think things will get much more divided. If he had been assassinated and left and right united in condemnation, it may have brought the country together. But instead the dreadful responses from the left, attempts to blame CK for his own murder, open celebration, democrats in congress heckling a one minute silence. I don't think there is any hope of reconciliation. People on the right are open that they have seen now how much the left really hates them and genuinely wants them dead. They now know they could be murdered and their children left Fatherless or Motherless. And that there are their fellow citizens who would celebrate that.

High profile commentators on the the right in America have long needed huge security - it should not be like this, and now they know they were not being over cautious.

Its because he was assassinated for having conservative views and mainsteam views including the right to single sex spaces for women and to not transition children.

Those of us who shared some of his views (I'm GC) also get called Nazis and fascists and get death threats and violent threats.

His assassination and those celebrating it, or blaming him for his own murder, has shown everyone who shares some of his views, that those calling us nazis and fascists and evil were not being hyperbolic - they really mean it and they really want us dead.

That is why is is news here too.

@Petrolitis

Is a perfect example of the extremist lying rhetoric that leads to people getting shot.

Charlie Kirk was happy for other people's kids to get shot and other people's daughters to get raped

What an utter, utter lie.

And I haven't seen anyone celebrating his death

Then you really have not been paying attention. There was jeering and heckling in congress from demorcrats during a minutes silence for CK. SM is awash with people celebrating. MSM awash with articles and opinionists slamming CK so hard, including lies like you have lied, they may have well just saved space and simply typed ' He had it coming.' Some have been pretty blatant in their message that he brought his murder on himself.

A man is assassinated by a sniper and people like you have still not learnt the lesson to stop telling vicious lies about people and racheting up the hate and rhetoric.

That is what depresses me. There will never be a wake up moment for people like @Petrolitis - so how will we ever get out of this cycle?

So you don't hear or understand him, but you know he had no compassion and you didn't share his values.

Smart.

Also, you say he had no compassion yet you are the one appearing to show no compassion for a young man who was assassinated for his political views and success in speaking to those with different views from him, and who leaves behind two young Fatherless children and a widow.

You seriously need to look if the problem is located in you, not in someone else.

As a dyed in the wool floating voter with absolutely centrist views, i can tell you as I watch on in horror that MAGA and the right are not the same as the Democratic party or those with more socialist ideals. They're worlds apart.

They're really not. The Democrats were happy for women to be erased as a sex class in law, and for children to be sterilised on no medical evidence. They're not The Good Guys any more than the Republicans are, and their choice to try to impose top down ideological policies on the US electorate without widespread public support is part of why they now have Trump in power there. The US Democrats sit to the right of UK Labour.

No one's The Good Guys. Plenty of democrats 'spout divisive propaganda', and 'profited from making society more hateful'. Do you think the left aren't authoritarian? They are.

The simplistic good versus evil narrative, coupled what seems to be a growing tendency for people to outsource their thinking and get their 'correct' opinions in a job lot, gives opportunity to those with extreme views. Charlie Kirk didn't come to prominence by accident , people like him are gaining a platform because so many of the electorate feel unheard and unrepresented. Shouting about evil and spewing hate and all that tribalist hyperbole contributes to the problem, it doesn't help solve it.

Ask, Why did some people listen to Kirk? The answer isn't because they're all evil or stupid.

Extremists from both sides always have certain things in common. Highly motivated by self interest, and happy for other people to be sacrificed to protect and extend their own rights. Big advocates of social control and silencing, neutralising and oppressing people they see as a threat to their own interests. Extremists who want to gain power are called the hard left. Extremists who want to gatekeep their own power are called the hard right.

horrendous and unacceptable that he was killed.

he should be remembered for exactly who he was.

Your first part is a bit manipulative.

Accepting a price for a position is not the same as being happy for it to happen or about it.

E.g.

I accept that to secure the security of a country, young soilders will die. That does not mean that I am happy for young soilders to die. Just that I view it as the lesser of two evils

E.g.

I accept that to secure the safety of the vulnerable, reducing educational quality for children during covid was required. That does not mean I am happy for children to receive a worse education.

This carries through to pro-gun Americans (which I am 100% in disagreement with). Accepting that owning guns will lead to more gun deaths, doesn't mean you are happy for children to be shot.

I’ve seen a lot of people alluding to messages suggesting he deserved to die on social media unfortunately. Many of them from people I would have considered myself to be politically aligned to.

The man held some beliefs which I consider to be odious, my sadness that he has died is the impact on change.

I think this is fair.

But i am still concerned about the wider implications of just shooting people you disagree with.

I think op was possibly trying to have a wider debate than just Charlie Kirk and the best way to deal with extremist views.

Maybe it is to not give them space but I did think at least ensuring I understood thier motivation and actual stance might be useful in countering the movement.