Politics

10854 readers

329 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Political Violence Is Wrong. Charlie Kirk Didn’t Think So. (jacobin.com)

submitted 5 days ago by Novocirab@feddit.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In 2021, an audience member asked Kirk at what point conservatives had the green light to use guns on their political opponents, and while Kirk took care to at first “denounce” the question, he went into a longer answer that suggested he didn’t really disagree that much with its premise. Kirk’s sole objection to the idea, he explained, was that it was strategically foolish because it would create a pretext for a Democratic crackdown on the Right. He went on to suggest that the line for when it would be okay to take up arms and hurt people would be “when we exhaust every single one of our state[’s] ability to push back against what’s happening” — in other words, if his movement didn’t succeed through the normal political process. Two years later, he reiterated this, warning listeners that “you have a government that hates you, you have a traitor as the president,” so they should “buy weapons” and carry them around all the time in public in case they have to fight back.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago

Is it, though? Nepal just politically-violenced their way out of fascism. It wasn't the protests that got the fascists scared. It was the violent protests that scared them into fleeing.

Rodney King, nobody gave a shit until the LA riots burned shit to the ground. French Revolution, nobody gave a shit until the rich started getting beheaded. America, nobody gave a shit until shots were fired and we declared war on the king.

Change isn't started by convincing fascist assholes into following empathy. It's started by getting rid of those fascist assholes. Let's stop pushing the wrong message.

[–] WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Use reverse psychology, call Kirk the n word.

Edit: in all sobriety I don't know much about this guy or care, but the social drama about him is so pathetic and sad and shows an ill side of the human race regardless of political side. And that's not an admission of saying he was a good or bad guy, I don't know him or care to know his story.

You're all being used for marketed media profits.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 4 points 5 days ago

ill side of ~~the human race~~ Americans

Please don't lump the rest of us in the Great American Dumpster Fire.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Jacobin: Political Violence Is Wrong.

Jacobin: America’s Last Violent Strike Has Been Wrongly Forgotten

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 10 points 5 days ago

That's a bit disingenuous. The cops started the violence in the Little Steel strike

[–] ranandtoldthat@beehaw.org 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What are you suggesting? I really do not think Jacobin is endorsing the massacre of civilians by cops with that title. The article is about how despite the setbacks the strike should not be forgotten.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I’m not suggesting anything.
I just think it's ahistorical to be antiviolent, when free press was won through blood, sweat, and tears.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You know I actually agree with him on that one.

Or country was founded on political violence (as most are). It was born or if government distrust.