TLHLIM
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
No, we both know our positions on these topics. I see no benefit in rehashing them here. That’s actually part of the problem. Both sides are so convinced of their own righteousness and what their media or leaders tell them that we live in two false realities.
Tapate50
Well-known member
It might shock you that most college students aren’t courageous by nature (YET, one of the things that made Charlie extremely special btw) and herd mentality can roll hard through a population lacking it.
ESPECIALLY when you are cancelled, beaten, and spit on for having that courage to buck the crowd. Or maybe your car lit on fire
So if someone assassinates George Soros, you think that’s materially different and less problematic?
A deeply held belief doesn’t become less so even if the cause were herd mentality. Again, you’re framing this like I am accepting the left’s behavior as noble and just, rather than simply noting the similarities in the rhetoric and behaviors between the left and the right.
I personally don’t feel that advocating for official political violence is materially different than advocating for illicit political violence. George Soros doesn’t deserve to die for his advocacy and beliefs any more than Kirk did. Using the state to do it is also horrifying to me.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Sickos all of them
“Republicans such as Charlie Kirk deserve to die because their ‘advocacy’ amounted to death and destruction of people around the world.
This is simply not a policy dispute. Allowing people to die of disease, hunger and violence due to USAID cuts, sending migrants to violent countries, unjust military action and withholding prescribed medical care for gender dysphoria is a deliberate strategy.”
Without assuming your own validity on these topics, please explain the difference in the rhetoric between what you’re saying and what I have written above. I don’t share the view above, but what is the difference beyond your insistence that you’re personally on the correct side?