this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
893 points (96.3% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
2227 readers
546 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree with this take. The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren't killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions. They actually carried out a genocide, that's what they were guilty of.
I actually disagree with this relatively new movement that pushes for hate speech laws because they're something that's inherently arbitrary and subjective, and they can and will be weaponized to serve nefarious agendas. Principles like freedom of speech MUST be applied universally and fairly in order for them to mean anything. Freedom of speech exists to protect offensive, controversial, and unpopular opinions against censorship because what can be considered any of those things can change at any time.
For example, 60 years ago being racial equality was viewed as seemed very controversial and unpopular, but today? The opposite. However, in 60 years, public opinion on these views could flip again. If we pass laws that outlaw racist views as hateful, then it's very possible that these laws could be changed at any point in the future to outlaw anti-racist views as hateful. I don't want to ever live in a society where I'm being legally punished for arguing against segregation. Establishing such precedents is very dangerous and history has shown us that the consequences of these laws aren't always what they were intended.
I think the US freedom of speech laws as they are federally defined are the golden standard. They take into account all the reasonable exceptions, while maintaining a universally applied standard for everyone. If any individual turned their words into actions or clearly had the intent to take action then they'll be persecuted for their actions. That's the way it should be.
You should look into The Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem)
You are simply wrong in this case. We hanged Nazi propagandists, as we recognized that they were committing conspiracy to commit genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher
But these are two different things though. In this case Streicher was taking action. He was directly working for the Nazi party, and his job was to convince people that the Nazi crimes were not only okay, but they should be celebrated and expanded. His actions actively aided the genocide, he was a part of the Nazi machine. That's not a private citizen with personal opinions and beliefs.
That's very a big difference between him and some modern neo nazi who spends all day picking his nose, scratching his ass, and posting on 8chan about the world is controlled by the "joos". As long dickheads like this keep their vile views to themselves, then I don't think they should be legally persecuted simply for holding vile opinions. However, the moment their words turn into actions or the clear intention to implement neo nazi bullshit, then that's when they should get persecuted by the law.
Charlie Kirk gave material support (a significant amount, to the point where Trump himself admitted he wouldn't have won without him) to fascists. I think he himself would have balked at you suggesting that he wasn't active in getting the current regime to where it is.
And if the Trump administration were exterminating people in death camps and had been convicted in international criminal court then you would have a point.
As it is the administration is obviously ignoring its own laws and being disgusting with racial profiling when deporting immigrants in the country illegally, and grabbing legal immigrants and citizens through this overzealousness and rule/law breaking.
The US is not committing a holocaust against Hispanics. It is not committing one against the LGBTQ community either. Even if you believe that the US is capable of committing one here and that it is coming, it is not happening yet and so Charlie Kirk cannot be an execution for propaganda supporting mass murder/genocide that has already taken place.
Execution for crimes that will be committed in the future is execution for thought crime or execution for free speech.
Ah OK, so we have to let them systematically murder countless people before we can do anything. Got it.
It's not like we should ever learn from history, and try to do things differently this time.
And by the way, I'm not talking about extrajudicial killing. We were talking about Nazi trials.
That is not what I am saying at all, we have many other options before getting to killing as the solution. Learning from history is the point, but you do not jump the gun on death being the penalty for things. The ammo box is the last box to be used for a reason.
If you are not talking obliquely about extrajudicial killings, why are you saying opposing it means we can do nothing until the genocide happens? You were talking about the execution of a propagandist that supported the Holocaust as a direct comparison with Kirk. This comparison can really only be used as an explanation for why it was somehow acceptable for him to be killed. The up thread was about justifying Kirk's death as a Nazi propagandist.
What you're saying here directly contradicts your previous comment.
Kirk was directly tied into the Trump administration. He himself sent busloads of followers to help storm the capital. Kirk's jobs was to convince people that the genocidal plans of the Christian Nationalists are OK and should be celebrated and expanded. By the time you get to the level of power and influence of Kirk, you're not really a private citizen anymore. He was instrumental in getting Trump elected. Yes, he doesn't have a formal position in the government, but most of the charges against Streicher were for things that had nothing to do with the little bit of power he briefly had.
And the Trump administration has not yet committed any Holocausts or genocide yet. At this point in time it is still "future crime". The Trump admin hasn't been convicted in the Hague of genocide.
Once Trump opens death camps and starts exterminating LGBTQ people, only then does Kirk rises to the level of Streicher. Until that point, it is execution for political disagreement and free speech. You don't have to like the guy in any way for that to be wrong.
We don't want to set a precedent that the best way to change someone's political ideology is to kill them to eliminate that ideology.
I feel like you're reading to me a yugioh trap card that only activates when our opponent summons a big monster. God, the waiting must be agony.
I think death just makes you feel icky. Like, in general.
I don't care that Kirk died. I'm not saying it's a good omen for things to come, exactly, but I can't even pretend to give a shit. The world does not need him.
I really don't know how I should reply to this. Like yes, murder in general is something I am not fond of, and I am pretty sure that is a normal response?
Politically motivated murder is also something I find a specific version of repugnant, no matter the politics of the victims. I think the same about the Minnesota legislators. I feel the same way about the attack on Paul Pelosi, and I think Nancy should be a criminal. Neither deserve to be killed. Killing political opponents is the ultimate breakdown of society.
I am not squeamish about death in general however, be it war or accidents or suicide. Death happens, it's part of life. I can look as Russian soldiers dieing in Ukraine as both a senseless waste of life and totally necessary and warranted at the same time as they are an invading army. I may even experience some schadenfreude, but know intellectually that it's not something that should be celebrated.
If someone does something stupid like try to pet the Bison in Yellowstone, I think it's tragic for their family while being the obvious outcome of their jack of judgement. Before you make the comparison, one side of that obvious outcome of stupidity is a literal wild animal without the ability to reason.
It's the murder part that makes me "feel icky", not the death part.
Why are you describing this to me like you're getting a secret snack from the kitchen.
It is, but it's strongest among people who were taught that wishing ill on the ones cracking their whip is impolite.
Kirk's final words on this great green earth were "tranny tranny tranny, black gang violence, 13:50." Is this really worth ruining your mood over? Like, it's Sunday, you should take your son to the park or something.
It's strongest among those that were taught that everyone is human.
Charlie Kirk's death may or may not be worth ruining anyone's mood over, but sectarian violence that threatens to snowball is. Even if the shooter turns out to be an even further right white Christian nationalist doing this to cause a further erosion of the divide, it works if people on the left are celebrating.
Oh well, you know what they say, and eye for an eye will blind my enemies more and then everything will be just fine.
No, it doesn't. You are castrating yourself before the enemy.
What public mandate allows conservatives the crackdown on liberal cities if nobody cares about the excuse they give?