Thread 2 Turn your son in knowing he’d get the death penalty

I agree. It’s one thing I am trying to be fair more mindful of since CK was killed. Respectful debate. It’s not always easy, especially if someone throws insults at you first, and quite often I will read over my post before I post it and remove as much emotional language as I can

I agree in principle but I think the problem is that some people who are invested in their own beliefs see any dissent at all not as a sincerely held difference of opinion, but as an attack. There is no way to speak to people who can only listen if you buy into their ideology.

This thread isn't really about trans but trans is a plain example of that. Unless you say transwomen are women, you will be shut down. Young people who are questioning their gender are explicitly told in online spaces that anyone not affirming them hates them and should be cut off as they're unsafe to be around - including their parents. So how do you discuss the issue if you don't believe transwomen are women? If people who believe that will only listen if you agree with them, and there's no way to word what you want to say that they don't dismiss as hate speech, how can there be a conversation?

I support a woman's right to choose, Charlie Kirk did not. But to be fair to him, he was willing to talk to people who had a different view to him, he didn't just shout at them that they are wrong, and hateful, and shouldn't be allowed to say what they think. I doubt he'd have ever changed his views, but he didn't try to stop people discussing them with him.

It's coming to something when a highly conservative pro gun American is better able to tolerate disagreement than those who might otherwise be termed progressive.

I think we'd all do well to mind our language tbh. Not our views but how we express them. That's not a mealy mouthed direction to 'be kind' either. Its just common sense. Because use words chosen to offend and they will be what's heard rather than your point.
The OP chose to use a sexist slur and as a result any validity of her point, which was whether it was helpful to use 'battle' rhetoric at this time, was lost in the outrage at the insult.
The same happens when we deliberately discuss the trans issue with words that we know will be poorly recieved. The discussion about the impact of ideology on unstable young men doesn't happen, because we are all caught up in whether someone's words have been hateful or not.

I didn't notice you leaping to shout about hate speech when PP were referring to a grieving woman as a 'MAGA barbie', as making a performance, or as spouting speeches written by MAGA grifters. It's only the male woman we're not allowed to criticise.

It is not rhetoric to say that transwomen are at least as violent as any other men, there's plenty of evidence on that. 60% of the transwomen in prison are sex offenders. These are facts, not 'extremist rhetoric'.

You trying are to shut down those who disagree with you. The discussion on this threat is not inciting violence, and it is an example of the kind of authoritarianism that is part of how we've got here to say that it is, in order to try to stop people posting things you don't like.

The killer in this case wasn't a transwoman but it seems he is a believer in that ideology, and we should be able to discuss that without being accused of hate speech, violence or endangering anyone. Not being able to disagree or to question is how we get to the point that some people think it's acceptable to kill someone who has a different belief to them.

I agree.

@5128gap @Tandora I hope you don’t mind me saying this, but with such little humanity around at the moment, I am heartened by your exchanges ❤️

❤️

Same.

you are right. I’ve really appreciated so many of your posts/ thoughts over the past few days x

@5128gap I find your posts to be very refreshing.
We need to take about 50 paces back from the left/right argument and any ideology either side encompasses and look at the bigger picture. That in a free society, we should be able to put our opinions across without fear of losing our jobs or our lives.

I have read your posts over the last week and admired your courage and tenacity in arguing your point. I have found we have far more areas on which we agree than which we don't. I do not agree with you on this particular issue but choose to focus on the respect I have for your other stances, rather than any disappointment I might feel we do not align on this one. Both of us are coming at this issue with the protection of others in mind. We disagree on who should be protected.

Both ideologies seek to impinge upon the rights of others, and if given free rein, threaten my safety.

So disappointing from a person who is seemingly intelligent and reasonable on other subjects.

Excuse me.

Evoking the language of “they”- “what they are capable of”- in reference to trans women as a group of people. Othering trans women as a category of person as “violent” and the “enemy” is hate speech.

And there is no excuse for it.

this isn’t a “discussion”, or question / critique of the issues.

it’s simple spouting/ promoting the same divisive, dangerous , extremist rhetoric that incites the very same violence you are condemning.

He was a gay furry with a trans identified male boyfriend who shot Kirk for supposedly spreading ‘hate’. I suggest deleting Discord and reading something like the New York Times.

Absolutely. Personally I think that those who believe that people can change sex are wrong. Equally I think that those who believe that the opinions of CK are 'God's truth' and try to ban abortion and reintroduce traditional sex based roles are wrong. Both ideologies seek to impinge upon the rights of others, and if given free rein, threaten my safety.
However, I strongly believe that both sides are entitled to their say, to try to persuade others to their stance if they wish and to campaign for policies to further their ideology if they want to. And it's up to the rest of us to decide whether we support them or not and to argue and persuade in our turn.
What is never right is to use force to strengthen ourselves. Be that of violence or misuse of political power to silence others in a democracy that's supposed to allow free speech.

I think we're agreeing really. The US government is dictatorial and tries to shut down dissent. So did the last US government, they just tried to shut down dissent about different stuff. Whoever's doing it it's dangerous.

The tribalism and over simplification of politics is a danger - people getting their opinions in a job lot and outsourcing their thinking is a really bad idea, whichever job lot they pick.

This isn't a left/right issue, its an intolerance issue.

I'd also add that I completely agree, we must be able to question and discuss. Unfortunately when the president calls for journalists who oppose his government to be taken off air and a chat show is cancelled because the host expressed an opinion, our ability to discuss is under grave threat. Loss of free speech does not come from a lunatic committing a murder. State sanctioned silencing of anything but the views that administration supports poses a huge risk.

There has been rhetoric from both sides that has been extreme, emotionally incontinent and dangerous.
I have been on this site for years, and have never seen such a determined effort to push people into boxes marked left and right based on their expressed opinions on a specific topic.
Then once in their box they are force teamed with a whole host of views and behaviour that they may or may not agree with or exhibit. When in fact in a historically politically centrist country like the UK, the majority of people are moderate and tolerant.
Keep up this left/right rhetoric, and it fuels the idea that other people who don't agree with us on a topic are our enemies. Because if they believe this thing we don't agree with, then they must believe that more extreme thing also, and so are therefore 'bad' people.
This is not an idea we want to encourage amongst young men with guns, looking for a cause.

I agree with much of what you say. In some ways it doesn't matter what the extreme ideology this killer follows is, it's what he's ended up doing because of his extremism.

But look at the rhetoric that was being chucked around when it was assumed that he was a right wing gun nut, and then look at what changed as soon as it became clear what he actually believes in. Look at Tandora's attempt to shut down discussion by shouting 'hate speech'.

It's dangerous for society for there to be extreme ideology that you're not allowed to question or criticise.

Sadly there will always be unstable individuals who will develop extreme views, and in some cases this escalates to murderous intent. Add in easy access to a deadly weapon and this is the tragedy that results. This case is unique only in as much as the victim was a public figure. All other elements are tragically familiar and some real reflection needs to be done to identify how they can be prevented.
I think pinning that all on one particular ideology is a mistake. If it does emerge the murderers motive was connected to having a trans partner, and so our response is to try to stamp out the ideology, then that doesn't help us with all the other young men, before and after Robinson who have and will kill because they've latched onto something else. Or they see themselves as victims, or they hate women, or school, or Mondays.
The website you posted is beyond disgusting. I've seen it before and find the hard evidence of such mysogyny deeply disturbing. It makes me fearful of what young males radicalised on line, egging each other on to violence are capable of.
But I think we make a mistake in focusing too much on the issue they have chosen as their focus rather than the state of mind that turns them into rapists and killers, in thought if not in deed.
There's a community of young men who are losing their hunanity, becoming brutalised and highly dangerous using an issue as an excuse. We need to understand why and how this is happening.

This is simply more divisive, hate speech. There’s no excuse for it whatsoever.

Did you look at the terf is a slur website I posted? Lots of transwomen making death threats on it. I don't need ifs buts or excuses when the evidence of their own words is there for anyone to read. It's not 'hate speech', it's literal fact that lots of transwomen have made death threats and threats of physical and sexual violence towards women. You know this.

It's futile to try to pretend that the killer was just a random who killed someone randomly. He killed Charlie Kirk because Charlie Kirk believed in a different ideology than he does. That's the issue, people who believe that others ought to be killed for wrong think.

It’s absolutely 100% hate speech to say this:

”We always knew what these people were capable of, they proudly made death threats against their perceived enemies.”

whereby “they” means trans women.

No ifs, no buts, no excuses. Hate speech.

There is no “these people” . There is no “they”. There are no “enemies”. There is a man called Tyler Robinson who shot CK.