Political violence

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

Good morning. I’ve avoided posting in the Charlie Kirk thread out of respect and because I remembered the reaction to the first attempt to assassinate Donald Trump- I knew that emotions would run high and I had no desire to contribute to what would inevitably be a very ugly back and forth. I would however, like to engage in a larger discussion about political violence in this country. There are three essential points I would like to make, keeping in mind that these are my opinions only: 

First, we are kidding ourselves by trying to pretend that political violence and assassinations are not normal in this country. Unfortunately the opposite is true: from Alexander Hamilton to Abraham Lincoln to JFK to the present day, this is who we are as a nation. We are a violent country and we more often than not settle our differences with violence. All those of goodwill would like it to be otherwise, but that’s not who we’ve been. What happened to Charlie Kirk is exactly who we’ve been. 

Second, political violence is not mostly caused by conservatives and is not mostly caused by liberals. Nor is it necessarily caused by extremists from either side (though this might be more often than not.) It is caused by people from all sides who are passionate about their beliefs and have decided that violence is the best means to achieve their goals. I would argue further that most of these people are not mentally ill; they made conscious, rational decisions to get to this point, even if (hopefully) most of us would disagree with that decision. 
 

Third: reading the Charlie Kirk thread, if one is able to put aside the threats and insults, the main argument being made by conservatives is that those of us on the left are culpable because our rhetoric against conservatives has, in recent times, been extremist, which invites violence against prominent conservatives. There is merit to this argument. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. Nor am I going to engage in whataboutisms though I could, because they’re irrelevant to the charge. (If I do something wrong my guilt is not lessened by the fact that others committed the same wrong, even if those others are the ones charging me with the crime.) What I WILL say is that, while I can’t speak for others, whenever I have used extremist language to describe aspects of the MAGA movement it was not done out of provocation but because I believe it to be true. My defense, therefore, is essentially integrity in my arguments. No doubt this will either not be believed or will not be acceptable to many here. But there it is. 
 

 

[Strike 5,822]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

 

Third: reading the Charlie Kirk thread, if one is able to put aside the threats and insults, the main argument being made by conservatives is that those of us on the left are culpable because our rhetoric against conservatives has, in recent times, been extremist, which invites violence against prominent conservatives. There is merit to this argument. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. Nor am I going to engage in whataboutisms though I could, because they’re irrelevant to the charge. (If I do something wrong my guilt is not lessened by the fact that others committed the same wrong, even if those others are the ones charging me with the crime.) What I WILL say is that, while I can’t speak for others, whenever I have used extremist language to describe aspects of the MAGA movement it was not done out of provocation but because I believe it to be true. My defense, therefore, is essentially integrity in my arguments. No doubt this will either not be believed or will not be acceptable to many here. But there it is. 
 

 

I'm only going to address this paragraph:

1)  It's not just your rhetoric but your refusal to condemn your side when they do bad things.  For example, for the last two months activists have been destroying Portland on a nightly basis in the name of illegal immigrants, but not a peep from you.  If anything, you say it's ok because it's for a cause you believe in.  When you allow the lunatics to run the asylum you shouldn't be surprised when one of the lunatics goes off the deep end.

2)  Your rhetoric has absolutely contributed to the lowering of the discourse that has led to this type of event.  When you throw around words like Fascism and Nazi like candy you give the marginal elements of society license to act to combat the "fascism" and "Nazis" that you are identifying for them.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,681]

 Nah. Recent history has it predominantly from the left. It’s undeniable. 

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

I'm only going to address this paragraph:

1)  It's not just your rhetoric but your refusal to condemn your side when they do bad things.  For example, for the last two months activists have been destroying Portland on a nightly basis in the name of illegal immigrants, but not a peep from you.  If anything, you say it's ok because it's for a cause you believe in.  When you allow the lunatics to run the asylum you shouldn't be surprised when one of the lunatics goes off the deep end.

2)  Your rhetoric has absolutely contributed to the lowering of the discourse that has led to this type of event.  When you throw around words like Fascism and Nazi like candy you give the marginal elements of society license to act to combat the "fascism" and "Nazis" that you are identifying for them.

Thank you. In response: 

1. There is a tendency among both conservatives and liberals to point out problems with the other team and avoid pointing out problems with their own team. I don’t think I’m particularly guilty of this but I’m sure you can find instances where I am. 

2. During Trump’s first term, I was quick to criticize the use of “Nazi” rhetoric. If you recall I was really bothered by AOC calling detention camps “concentration camps” and said so at the time. I still bridle at anyone who calls Trump evil or Hitler. But I personally have compared ICE to the Gestapo. And I have accused Trump of authoritarianism and consider him a threat to our democracy. Again this is because I honestly believe it to be so. Should I hide these beliefs because saying them out loud might lead to an act of political violence? I don’t think so. If I was being dishonest, and simply out to provoke, then your argument would have more merit IMO. But I am not. 

[squistion 2,361]

15 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Good morning. I’ve avoided posting in the Charlie Kirk thread out of respect and because I remembered the reaction to the first attempt to assassinate Donald Trump- I knew that emotions would run high and I had no desire to contribute to what would inevitably be a very ugly back and forth. I would however, like to engage in a larger discussion about political violence in this country. There are three essential points I would like to make, keeping in mind that these are my opinions only: 

Probably a good idea. I waited until it was announced that he had died, then I posted condolences from Trump and Kamala Harris and was attacked immediately by Hell Toupee for doing that. 

[Strike 5,822]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thank you. In response: 

1. There is a tendency among both conservatives and liberals to point out problems with the other team and avoid pointing out problems with their own team. I don’t think I’m particularly guilty of this but I’m sure you can find instances where I am. 

2. During Trump’s first term, I was quick to criticize the use of “Nazi” rhetoric. If you recall I was really bothered by AOC calling detention camps “concentration camps” and said so at the time. I still bridle at anyone who calls Trump evil or Hitler. But I personally have compared ICE to the Gestapo. And I have accused Trump of authoritarianism and consider him a threat to our democracy. Again this is because I honestly believe it to be so. Should I hide these beliefs because saying them out loud might lead to an act of political violence? I don’t think so. If I was being dishonest, and simply out to provoke, then your argument would have more merit IMO. But I am not. 

This is just a bunch of crap, and why we will never agree and why I shouldn't have bothered trying to engage with you on this topic.  

[Hawkeye21 2,427]

If anyone becomes so passionate about something that they get to the point they feel the need to kill those who disagree with them, they are mentally ill.  There are some exceptions to this though, like fighting for our country in the military.

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

This is just a bunch of crap, and why we will never agree and why I shouldn't have bothered trying to engage with you on this topic.  

Nonetheless I appreciate that you did. 

[posty 2,779]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If anyone becomes so passionate about something that they get to the point they feel the need to kill those who disagree with them, they are mentally ill.  

I was thinking the same thing...  As I have said in the past, smartphones and social media will be the downfall of society...

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If anyone becomes so passionate about something that they get to the point they feel the need to kill those who disagree with them, they are mentally ill.  There are some exceptions to this though, like fighting for our country in the military.

I guess this depends on your definition. It seems to me that someone who is able to plan an assassination involving killing someone with a rifle at long range and then escaping afterwards is performing a series of rational acts that a mentally ill person would likely be incapable of. 

[Hawkeye21 2,427]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I guess this depends on your definition. It seems to me that someone who is able to plan an assassination involving killing someone with a rifle at long range and then escaping afterwards is performing a series of rational acts that a mentally ill person would likely be incapable of. 

Do you consider serial killers to be mentally ill?

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

Do you consider serial killers to be mentally ill?

Good question. I don’t know. Probably. I certainly think they’re evil. 
 

I should probably bow out of commenting further on this as I am not educated enough on this issue to comment intelligently. 

[Hawkeye21 2,427]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Good question. I don’t know. Probably. I certainly think they’re evil. 
 

I should probably bow out of commenting further on this as I am not educated enough on this issue to comment intelligently. 

Mentally ill people are fully capable of carrying out well planned acts.  Their illness is one of the reasons why they are able to carrying out their evil actions as well as they do.

[Sandy Loam 281]

No doubt this will lead to thoughtful, intelligent and respectful discussion.

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

I guess I was trying to make the point earlier that we should define political violence as morally wrong behavior, always unacceptable in a civil society. By chalking it up to mental illness the concern is that we move away from the “wrongness” of the act. But I don’t understand enough about mental illness to properly make that argument. 

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

1 minute ago, Sandy Loam said:

No doubt this will lead to thoughtful, intelligent and respectful discussion.

Lol. I know. We can always hope though. It’s already led to some, right? 

[Cdub100 3,976]

TLDR

[Strike 5,822]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I guess I was trying to make the point earlier that we should define political violence as morally wrong behavior, always unacceptable in a civil society. By chalking it up to mental illness the concern is that we move away from the “wrongness” of the act. But I don’t understand enough about mental illness to properly make that argument. 

The "anyone who could do X must be mentally  ill" is a simplistic and poor argument IMO.  It makes excuses for people and ignores a simple truth - evil actually exists and can do evil things.  That doesn't make that person mentally ill.  It means their morals differ from mine in such a way that they believe it's acceptable to do things I do not.  That doesn't make them mentally ill.  

[TheNewGirl 1,557]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I guess this depends on your definition. It seems to me that someone who is able to plan an assassination involving killing someone with a rifle at long range and then escaping afterwards is performing a series of rational acts that a mentally ill person would likely be incapable of. 

So....mentally ill people do not fire rifles at long range and then run? Because that's "rational?" 

Are mentally ill people more likely to be blithering idiots that just lay there and wait to be caught? Or they cannot figure out how to load, aim, and fire? 

People who plan, and then actually kill and then run aren't mentally ill? Then what are they? 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,681]

I guess we are supposed to forget what happened in 2020 with violent political riots all over the country and the democrats cheering it on. I choose not to. 

[Sandy Loam 281]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Lol. I know. We can always hope though. It’s already led to some, right? 

Yes. I have never before gazed so hard at not only my navel but Cdub's hairy, Jew-hating, dead-sexy Yooper navel. 

[TheNewGirl 1,557]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I guess I was trying to make the point earlier that we should define political violence as morally wrong behavior, always unacceptable in a civil society. By chalking it up to mental illness the concern is that we move away from the “wrongness” of the act. But I don’t understand enough about mental illness to properly make that argument. 

This is so incredibly obvious. 

 

[Strike 5,822]

Just now, TheNewGirl said:

People who plan, and then actually kill and then run aren't mentally ill? Then what are they? 

 

Say a wife kills her husband for his million dollar insurance policy.  Is she mentally ill or just evil?

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

11 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

So....mentally ill people do not fire rifles at long range and then run? Because that's "rational?" 

Are mentally ill people more likely to be blithering idiots that just lay there and wait to be caught? Or they cannot figure out how to load, aim, and fire? 

People who plan, and then actually kill and then run aren't mentally ill? Then what are they? 

 

Between your point of view and @Strike I tend to lean towards his. But again, not sure. 

[BrahmaBulls 823]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Loam said:

No doubt this will lead to thoughtful, intelligent and respectful discussion.

Great point, Rusty

16 minutes ago, Sandy Loam said:

Yes. I have never before gazed so hard at not only my navel but Cdub's hairy, Jew-hating, dead-sexy Yooper navel. 

 

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

14 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I guess we are supposed to forget what happened in 2020 with violent political riots all over the country and the democrats cheering it on. I choose not to. 

You seem to be taking issue with my statement that political violence is not particularly the work of conservatives or liberals. You are a partisan conservative and believe that it is mostly the work of liberals. I don’t think I’m going to convince you otherwise. But I will simply point out that your beliefs on this are largely based on emotion and selective memory rather than on a really objective analysis. IMO. 

[TheNewGirl 1,557]

20 minutes ago, Strike said:

Say a wife kills her husband for his million dollar insurance policy.  Is she mentally ill or just evil?

Both. 

Anyone that thinks it's' okay to kill another for some kind of gain is mentally ill...and evil. 

Would it be nice to have a million dollars? Sure. Would I kill my husband or even someone else for it? No.  Because I am not mentally ill and/or evil. 

[Strike 5,822]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

You seem to be taking issue with my statement that political violence is not particularly the work of conservatives or liberals. You are a partisan conservative and believe that it is mostly the work of liberals. I don’t think I’m going to convince you otherwise. But I will simply point out that your beliefs on this are largely based on emotion and selective memory rather than on a really objective analysis. IMO. 

No, he's right.  Lefties "protest" and RIOT just about every weekend for some cause or another.  When there's something like a George Floyd they destroy cities and you post on websites saying they are correct for doing so.  You don't see conservatives doing that.  You just don't.  This outcome was 100% foreseeable.  You can try to avoid any culpability all you want but you and people like you absolutely share in it.

[Strike 5,822]

Just now, TheNewGirl said:

Both. 

Anyone that thinks it's' okay to kill another for some kind of gain is mentally ill...and evil. 

Would it be nice to have a million dollars? Sure. Would I kill my husband or even someone else for it? No. 

Fair enough.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  My stance is that there is absolutely evil in the world that has nothing to do with mental illness.  But as always I respect your opinion.

[SaintsInDome2006 465]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Good morning. I’ve avoided posting in the Charlie Kirk thread out of respect and because I remembered the reaction to the first attempt to assassinate Donald Trump- I knew that emotions would run high and I had no desire to contribute to what would inevitably be a very ugly back and forth. I would however, like to engage in a larger discussion about political violence in this country. There are three essential points I would like to make, keeping in mind that these are my opinions only: 

First, we are kidding ourselves by trying to pretend that political violence and assassinations are not normal in this country. Unfortunately the opposite is true: from Alexander Hamilton to Abraham Lincoln to JFK to the present day, this is who we are as a nation. We are a violent country and we more often than not settle our differences with violence. All those of goodwill would like it to be otherwise, but that’s not who we’ve been. What happened to Charlie Kirk is exactly who we’ve been. 

Second, political violence is not mostly caused by conservatives and is not mostly caused by liberals. Nor is it necessarily caused by extremists from either side (though this might be more often than not.) It is caused by people from all sides who are passionate about their beliefs and have decided that violence is the best means to achieve their goals. I would argue further that most of these people are not mentally ill; they made conscious, rational decisions to get to this point, even if (hopefully) most of us would disagree with that decision. 
 

Third: reading the Charlie Kirk thread, if one is able to put aside the threats and insults, the main argument being made by conservatives is that those of us on the left are culpable because our rhetoric against conservatives has, in recent times, been extremist, which invites violence against prominent conservatives. There is merit to this argument. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. Nor am I going to engage in whataboutisms though I could, because they’re irrelevant to the charge. (If I do something wrong my guilt is not lessened by the fact that others committed the same wrong, even if those others are the ones charging me with the crime.) What I WILL say is that, while I can’t speak for others, whenever I have used extremist language to describe aspects of the MAGA movement it was not done out of provocation but because I believe it to be true. My defense, therefore, is essentially integrity in my arguments. No doubt this will either not be believed or will not be acceptable to many here. But there it is. 
 

 

FWIW I’ve read your posts for a long time & I don’t think you’re of ‘the left.’

But also I’ve turned a corner on this since yesterday, I think it’s very possible that the reaction in our nation will be one of unity. It seems like the main takeaway for some on the right (correctly or not) was that Kirk was about respectful debate & openly discussing faith.

The main difference in this situation of course from other past events like this is the different tone in leadership.

[TheNewGirl 1,557]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Fair enough.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  My stance is that there is absolutely evil in the world that has nothing to do with mental illness.  But as always I respect your opinion.

How so? 

I mean, it's possible to be mentally ill without evil, and it's possible to be evil without mental illness. I am willing to learn more about this. 

In the case of murdering someone for money, that seems mentally ill and evil to me. But, if we are talking about someone who is mentally ill and say...self harms like cuts themselves or goes into fits or something, they aren't evil. 

What's an example of evil without mental illness? 

[Fnord 2,363]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, he's right.  Lefties "protest" and RIOT just about every weekend for some cause or another.  When there's something like a George Floyd they destroy cities and you post on websites saying they are correct for doing so.  You don't see conservatives doing that.  You just don't.  This outcome was 100% foreseeable.  You can try to avoid any culpability all you want but you and people like you absolutely share in it.

Don't be casting stones here, mate. You're not wrong about Tim (and me) sharing in some responsibility for the rhetoric. But let's not pretend you are not equally culpable. You say as much, (or probably more) degrading, mean-spirited things about libs/dems than either of us do about conservatives. 

We're owning our roles in this. You should do the same.

[Meglamaniac 696]

44 minutes ago, squistion said:

Probably a good idea. I waited until it was announced that he had died, then I posted condolences from Trump and Kamala Harris and was attacked immediately by Hell Toupee for doing that. 

This is an attack?

 

Squissy going to post condolences tweets forgetting we know what he’s posted

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, he's right.  Lefties "protest" and RIOT just about every weekend for some cause or another.  When there's something like a George Floyd they destroy cities and you post on websites saying they are correct for doing so.  You don't see conservatives doing that.  You just don't.  This outcome was 100% foreseeable.  You can try to avoid any culpability all you want but you and people like you absolutely share in it.

First off please don’t personalize. I never once posted that it is correct to destroy cities. Nor do I know anyone here who has done so. Nor do I know any prominent Democrat, liberal, or leftist who has done so. I challenge you to show me otherwise. 
 

I haven’t seen conservatives do it either. I HAVE seen jerks on both sides sometimes cheer for bad results (like when @Horseman responded to the Los Angeles fires with “Fock yeah! Fock California! Burn it all down!”) but that’s hardly representative. I have also seen both liberals and conservatives attempt to minimize political violence (Jan 6 being the most obvious example) but that’s not the same as cheering it on. So I reject your entire premise here. 

[Hawkeye21 2,427]

3 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

How so? 

I mean, it's possible to be mentally ill without evil, and it's possible to be evil without mental illness. I am willing to learn more about this. 

In the case of murdering someone for money, that seems mentally ill and evil to me. But, if we are talking about someone who is mentally ill and say...self harms like cuts themselves or goes into fits or something, they aren't evil. 

What's an example of evil without mental illness? 

That's a pretty tough discussion.  I've always thought that it's the mental illness that makes a person evil.  I'm not sure I've really separated the two.

[zsasz 376]

Beautiful statements, Tim.  It's nice to have a calming and clear voice of reason in these times of apprehension.  This board is better for you being here.  

[HellToupee 1,977]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

I'm only going to address this paragraph:

1)  It's not just your rhetoric but your refusal to condemn your side when they do bad things.  For example, for the last two months activists have been destroying Portland on a nightly basis in the name of illegal immigrants, but not a peep from you.  If anything, you say it's ok because it's for a cause you believe in.  When you allow the lunatics to run the asylum you shouldn't be surprised when one of the lunatics goes off the deep end.

2)  Your rhetoric has absolutely contributed to the lowering of the discourse that has led to this type of event.  When you throw around words like Fascism and Nazi like candy you give the marginal elements of society license to act to combat the "fascism" and "Nazis" that you are identifying for them.

Agree

[TheNewGirl 1,557]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's a pretty tough discussion.  I've always thought that it's the mental illness that makes a person evil.  I'm not sure I've really separated the two.

That's why I am curious. 

Mental illness doesn't need to exist WITH evil; plenty of people have a mental illness (depression, anxiety, BPD, bi-polar), but where does the evil come from? 

[The Real timschochet 7,085]

6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

FWIW I’ve read your posts for a long time & I don’t think you’re of ‘the left.’

But also I’ve turned a corner on this since yesterday, I think it’s very possible that the reaction in our nation will be one of unity. It seems like the main takeaway for some on the right (correctly or not) was that Kirk was about respectful debate & openly discussing faith.

The main difference in this situation of course from other past events like this is the different tone in leadership.

With regard to Charlie Kirk: I’m very sorry he’s dead. I respect the fact that he engaged in peaceful discussion with his opponents. I really admire that about him. And I hope that you’re right about his death uniting us. 
 

On the other hand, I reject this attempt I am seeing on the right to paint Charlie Kirk as a martyr or saint. Personally I found many of his views to be not only wrong but morally abhorrent. I won’t comment any more because I have no desire to speak ill of the dead but I don’t and will not regard this man as some sort of hero. 

[Hawkeye21 2,427]

1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said:

but where does the evil come from?

Hate.  Where does hate come from?  Usually from some sort of terrible experience or trauma.  Terrible experiences or trauma usually cause mental health issues.  To me, evil and mental health go together.