People say this but is it true? Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified. That doesn't sound like a safe opinion.
People say this but is it true? Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified. That doesn't sound like a safe opinion.
Do they say it in public or private?
Because yesterday I learned that 30% of Americans think political violence may be necessary to fix the country[0], which was gathered from anonymous polls I presume, yet I see almost none of it online and certainly not in mainstream media.
And the censorship is certainly not helping.
My friend got multiple warnings and temporary bans on reddit for suggesting that:
- The only hope for democracy in Russia is a violent revolution. From what got banned and what didn't, we gather it's OK to talk about revolution, less OK about violent revolution and not allowed to talk about killing people. Well, how does reddit think revolutions work? People have to get killed or have a very high chance of being killed to give up power "voluntarily".
- That their dictator should be sentenced to death by the ICC and executed. She managed to appeal this one because she phrased it as a court ordered killing ("execution") with the caveat that the court would legalize anyone killing him (since the ICC cannot reach him to arrest him but somebody close to him might be able to do it and could use protection is he managed to escape).
So pro-tip to avoid _some_ censorship: frame it as a change of law or a legal process.
[0]: https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2025/10/02/day-1717...
> yesterday I learned that 30% of Americans think political violence may be necessary to fix the country[0], which was gathered from anonymous polls I presume, yet I see almost none of it online and certainly not in mainstream media.
They are absolutely saying it in public and private. I hold that opinion and so does every politically engaged person i know. Its heavily censored on the mainstream platforms but you can see the messages conveying this sentiment in a semi coded way.
A podcast bro cites scripture saying queers need to get stoned, he gets a stone to the neck himself. "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First". Badda bing badda boom. Lotta angry people.
You're making a debunked claim that takes his statement out of context to make it sound like the opposite of what he actually said.
https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-dMa3rIcjY
https://youtu.be/1pteZE5FpNc?si=UG2jJZovGldIJKJ0&t=1559
This has the effect of whipping up political anger and violence against people based on false pretenses. You are an embodiment of the problem.
Its not what he says that makes people think he encouraged and forced people towards political violence. He isn't just a guy saying mean things. He is one the most influential people pushing support for the political right wing, he influences masses of young and old people towards their campaign, he works with some of the most evil people in the nation and helps them theorycraft and spread their ideas and make it policy. All of this directly affects peoples lives. Thats why I laugh when he was killed and celebrate his death. Thats why I and many others openly say that he deserved what he got.
I'm confused. How is that the opposite of what he actually said? Charlie Kirk was strongly Christian, as I understand it. If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible, doesn't that imply an endorsement of everything in it? So if the Bible says to kill gay people, which he said it does, then does that not mean that he thinks that should be done? Especially given he describes it as "God's perfect law."
I don't understand how this would be "debunked" or mean anything other than what King originally said it meant, unless we're absolutely forbidden from doing even the most basic and obvious logical deduction on statements.
Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence.
No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his organization, at high levels. To assume that he wanted them stoned to death is absurd, and incredibly ignorant.
Here's Charlie on Gay People: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI?si=AQzLU_6TBNwSDGEr&t=942
"No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything."
How so? Either you cherry-pick or you take it all. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from ignoring the whole thing. Pretty sure he's not ignoring the whole thing.
How is it ignorant to see that he thinks that the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe has written down "perfect laws" for us to follow, and that we shouldn't pick and choose which ones we follow, and conclude that he thinks we should follow all of them?
He may have welcomed gay people into his movement but just based on your clip he doesn't seem to love and support them. He says straight out that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle.
I agree that there's a contradiction between "God says we're supposed to kill them" and him standing there chatting with that guy and not trying to rally the crowd to murder him. But I don't see why we have to resolve that in the "he actually loved gay people" direction. If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people, I'm inclined to believe that's what he thinks. He'd hardly be the first religious person who believes their religion demands X and actually does Y when confronted with the situation in reality. It's great that he can stand there and engage in a dialog with someone he believes his God says should be killed, but that doesn't absolve him from that belief or from professing it.
> If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people
He did not say that.
Again, Christians do not follow Leviticus. I'm not a Christian, but I just looked this up:
> Mainstream Christian theology holds that Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Leviticus laws, making them no longer obligatory for believers, while the moral principles are reaffirmed and expanded in the New Testament under what is often called the "law of Christ."
You seem to think Charlie wants to stone gays because he's a Christian, and you're assuming that Christianity believes in stoning gays. But that last part is false. Christ revised the old testament. Charlie's making a point that you can't just take Leviticus at face value, and interpret its passages out of context from the new testament.
You're now interpreting Charlie's point to mean the opposite of what he meant. You're assuming that he actually wants to stone gays, because he's pointing out that the old testament talks about it, and because you don't understand Christianity.
Full clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceJpiUPgPU
Again, I'm not a Christian, and I myself appreciate gayness. But we have to stop taking clips out of context and framing people as evil to justify political violence.
>> If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people
>He did not say that.
Is this some parallel universe thing where you and I experience completely different versions of Charlie Kirk? Because in my universe, the YouTube link you posted has him saying exactly that:
"In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' the chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
I seriously have to wonder if you are actually watching the stuff you're telling me to watch, or you're just parroting something you've read somewhere.
What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?
I was raised Christian and I was Christian for a long time. "Christians do not follow Leviticus" not correct. Some do not. Many do, or at least follow parts of it. Pretty much all of Christianity is an exercise in deciding which parts of the Bible are meant to be followed and which are meant to be interesting stories or history. And there is no universal agreement about which parts are which. The idea that homosexuality is a sin is extremely mainstream Christian belief, and Jesus said exactly zero on that subject.
In that clip, Kirk makes it very clear that he thinks Christians must love God and must love their neighbor, by way of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. He says that you love people by telling them the truth, and he says the truth is that the Bible says gay people must be killed, in the chapter right before where it says that you must love your neighbor.
If he doesn't follow Leviticus, why is he taking "Love your neighbor" from it? Why is he describing it as "God's perfect law"? Is that meant to be sarcastic?
> What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?
You're leaving out the context of Ms Rachel. Charlie is saying everything in response to her.
Let me go into extra detail here to explain what I think he meant:
"Ms Rachel is saying that she acts like this because God said 'Love your Neighbor,' and is acting as if that law is so important that we should always adopt the preferred pronouns of people around us. However, the best way to love your neighbor is to tell them the truth, and tell them what sex they are, rather than upholding their preferred pronouns, which I see as untrue to their sex. Secondly, one should not take these Mosaic laws from Leviticus as literal rules for modern day Christians to follow. Christ + his Apostles said that these Mosaic laws were applicable to the Jews (the direct descendents of Israel) in a covenant between them and God, which were only necessary before he arrived as Messiah, and now that he is there, he is fulfilling that covenant for all people, and the gentiles who convert to Christianity do not need to follow the Mosaic laws literally, but rather follow their moral intent as he teaches. Thus, if Ms Rachel really wants to take these laws so literally... she should look in the previous chapter where it says that gays should be stoned to death. I don't think that she would agree with stoning gays to death. So it's hypocritical of her to take these laws so literally."
----
Christian Context (from AI):
After Jesus’ resurrection, the early church—initially Jewish—grappled with whether Gentile (non-Jewish) converts needed to follow the Mosaic Law. This led to the pivotal Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, ~50 CE), where apostles like Peter and Paul decided:
- Gentiles were not required to follow Levitical laws like circumcision or kosher diets.
- They were asked to follow basic moral guidelines (e.g., avoiding idolatry, sexual immorality) to maintain fellowship with Jewish Christians.
Paul’s letters further clarify this shift:
- In Galatians 3:23-25, he describes the law as a “guardian” until Christ came, after which faith in Jesus supersedes the law’s role.
- In Romans 10:4, he says Christ is the “culmination of the law” for those who believe.
- However, moral principles (e.g., loving your neighbor, Leviticus 19:18) remain binding, as they’re reaffirmed in the New Testament (Romans 13:8-10).
----
^ So that's why "Love your neighbor" is still valid in Christianity, but stoning gays is not. This was decided in the Jerusalem Council, which all modern Christian sects inherit from. Charlie was using "stoning gays" as an example of something modern Christians do NOT believe in, even though it was a law of Moses, and is written in Leviticus.
Please don't quote AI at me. If I want to read the output of a bullshit machine, I can do it myself.
One thing I didn't mention before is that it's really bizarre that Kirk cites Leviticus for "love your neighbor." It's true that Leviticus says this, but that's not what most Christians are going to think of when they think of that phrase. "Love your neighbor" is typically associated with Jesus. Jesus said nothing about gay people but he was very clear on loving your neighbor. Three of the four gospels have him saying that this is the second greatest commandment, behind loving God. This is not just one of hundreds of specific rules that got thrown away when the Messiah came. This is one of the two most fundamental rules in the religion, explicitly affirmed by that Messiah.
So it makes zero sense from a Christian perspective to say that "love your neighbor" is not to be taken literally because it's tucked in there next to the "kill gay people" law and all that stuff is just for Jews. And it makes zero sense to assume that "love your neighbor" is a reference to the old Mosaic laws rather than a reference to the literal words of the Son of God.
Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic. And I don't see the justification for that. It's not like "God's perfect law" is a phrase he's throwing back at her. If she had said "God's perfect law from Leviticus commands us to love our neighbor" then I could buy it, but she didn't.
So what's your reasoning for this interpretation? It seems to rest on the idea that Christians ignore Leviticus, so he can't have meant it seriously. But that's just not true in general. Christians typically follow some of those laws and ignore others, more or less arbitrarily (or more accurately, in a way that fits their beliefs about what's right and wrong). If you look up Christian writings about homosexuality, you will find many Christians citing Leviticus on this subject.
The justification for taking Kirk to mean the opposite of his literal words here seems to boil down to, he can't have actually meant that he believes this passage from his holy book, because if he did then that would mean he's a bad person, and implying that Kirk is a bad person leads to political violence.
> Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic.
Yeah. When he said "Just sayin'", that was his cue for sarcasm.
Is this a thing with him or are you guessing?
> How is that the opposite of what he actually said?
> If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible
Talks about what Charlie “actually said”, proceeds to strawman him.
Mate. You literally got given evidence that debunks an idea you’d like to believe and you still continue to believe and argue for the idea you’d want to be true.
Let it go. You’re egos too big and you’re acting like an idiot. Do you consider yourself an idiot?
I literally got given evidence that confirms exactly what I said.
You understand that making a claim and linking to a video doesn't automatically mean the claim is correct, right? Sometimes the video doesn't prove what it's said to prove. In this case, Kirk very clearly said that Leviticus, including the "kill gay people" part, is "God's perfect law." He says that you can't take "Love your neighbor" from it without also taking "Kill gay people." He describes the commandment to kill gay people as part of "the truth."
To be very clear: I'm not parroting anyone else's interpretation of Kirk's statements. I'm taking the above directly from the video of Kirk talking.
And this is why I say I don't have an opinion on his killing.
It's really easy to lie online (both mechanically by just taking stuff out of context as you showed and because people face no punishment for it).
That being said, if I had an opinion, only one of the possible sides is OK to say publicly and I think that's wrong.
For example, one of the claims I heard is that he was orchestrating/supporting harassment of college professors through his Turning Point organization. Now, harassment can lead to suicide, driving innocent people to suicide is murder, a just punishment for murder is death, and when a punishment is just then it doesn't matter who carries it out as long as they have a sufficient standard of proof.
So depending on whether that claim is true, how "successful" he was and the morality of several logical inferences (which is subjective but for each statement/inference you will find a lot of people supporting it), a sane and rational person could perfectly justify the killing.
---
Most people are hypocrites. And what they really hate is when somebody tries to apply a consistent moral system to themselves and others. Not just because it puts them to shame (most people never try to be consistent and they know it even if they'd never admit it out loud or even to themselves). But also because when you apply consistent rules to severe offenses, you very quickly get very severe punishments and people are not comfortable with the idea that they too could be punished in this manner.
---
As another example, I hate when people try to vilify him by quoting him saying some dead children are OK because that's the price for the right to bear arms. Yes, innocent people (including children) dying is sad and wrong. But what do they think happens when nobody has guns? First, people would still kill each other using other tools, even mass murder wouldn't magically stop because car ramming attacks seem to be on the rise. But, second, a long term effect is that people in positions of power who are unaccountable through legal means are no longer accountable through extra-legal means.
One of the first things every dictatorship does is restricting access to guns and confiscating them.
Yes, high gun ownership has a continual price but low/zero ownership has a much higher one-time price and after that it no longer matters what people think.
I’m not sure exactly how you mean it, but a lot of the discourse around political violence itself fits in the Overton window of acceptable discourse, so this doesn’t surprise me too much.
But I find statements outside of the Overton window to be punished quite severely, and I think most people now understand that you can very easily lose your job for stating the incorrect thing.
If a politically violent movement breaks out and is successful enough to become even quasi-mainstream, having a history of supporting them may be the only safe opinion.
>Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified
This is gonna get downvoted for sure because HNs bias, but based on current events, it's only the left that does that.
Right-wingers may say hurtful words but don't seem too keen on murdering opponents for political reasons or disagreements. At least not yet.
The left is statistically more likely to publicly endorse political violence looking at data over the past few years. The right is more likely to actually commit political violence though looking over all data over decades and that still holds today.
Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States
One side is all shout and no bite. The other is no shout and then eat your fucking face.
I'll take the idiots shouting but not actually killing if I had to pick. But I won't lie the choice still makes me feel dirty.
>The left is statistically more likely to publicly endorse political violence looking at data over the past few years.
Only endorsing or actually committing? Let's ask Charlie Kirk.
>One side is all shout and no bite. The other is no shout and then eat your fucking face.
Which is which in this anecdote?
You're gonna get downvoted for being a bad liar and an obvious troll who degrades the conversation and the overall site, not because of bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Hortman
Getting yourself downvoted doesn't validate your lies either. Farming downvotes isn't being clever, it's being toxic.
The liar here is yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Assassination
Farming upvotes doesn't make you right, it makes you a shill.
[flagged]
Today’s “The Western Journal,” that august organ of journalism which you cite here, also features such headlines as “Demonic Compulsion: School Ran Weekly Witchcraft Address, Shut It Down Once They Couldn't Force It on Christians Anymore.”
It saddens me to think that this kind of thing is permeating into HN.
Please see the primary source I just included as reference [2]. You don't need to trust the western journal. You can read the shooter's letter, in his own handwriting.
In truth, he's more of a political nutcase than a political activist.
His later years involved repeated strong statements against transgender and abortion rights which would be highly incompatible with being a Democrat but quite in line with the Trump supporter his neighbors described him as. He also had a history of lying - for example, claiming law enforcement, security, or military experience – and your description of that letter is highly skewed from the mess of conspiracy and likely misdirection people with direct knowledge described it as.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/17/vance-boelt...
https://www.startribune.com/vance-boelter-letter-klobuchar-w...
Can we stop the fantasy land conspiracy posts like this first?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/#s4
> When compared to individuals associated with a right-wing ideology, individuals adhering to a left-wing ideology had 68% lower odds of engaging in violent (vs. nonviolent) radical behavior (b = −1.15, SE = 0.13, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, P < 0.001).
That's using ancient data from... 1948:
> We included individuals whose public exposure occurred between 1948 and 2018.
The last 8 years of politics have been very very abnormal. And in today's data, the "very liberal" approve of political violence at a rate of 24% vs. 3% for the "very conservative":
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kir...
This ^^^ is the troubling statistic, and there's a 7x difference between the left and the right.
You’re presenting the data for whether it’s okay to be happy about a political figure’s death, not whether it’s okay to cause one. There’s a section about this you should read starting with “YouGov's polling doesn't suggest that young people or liberals are more pro-violence in general”, and in particular the stark divide about self-defense. None of this is great, but it’s hardly surprising that a minority of younger people are more supportive of violence than people who have more life experience and fully-developed frontal cortexes.
Nice points!
But as for "causing" violence, they also asked whether "political violence is ever justified", and the difference between left vs. right there was even more — 25% vs 3%.
The data in the link is clear that the opinions are always partisan based on the very last person shot at... that does track.
Wouldn't you expect the conservatives, then, to be the ones who say that violence is justified?
Yet you're seeing the opposite — after the killing of a conservative, it's the left that says violence is justified.
Furthermore, this trend on the left had been building for a while, which we see in surveys done before his killing:
[1] https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1909391943802703899
[2] https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1836511736213704769
Given the right's overall reaction to things like January 6th, I conclude that this number tells us more about what the left vs right thinks qualifies as political violence, not about their support for it.
Like a coup?
Who got killed?
Not really relevant to the point, but https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/01/political-...
That poll from 2020 shows republicans and democrats roughly equal on the question. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the desire for political violence goes up among those currently out of power, anyway.
Try this newer poll from last month, in 2025: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kir...
Sit down. The right wing is actively zip-tying entire apartment complexes of poor people, even US citizens, while pointing guns in their faces. Thats violence, and exactly what the left has been ringing the alarm for for years.
Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.
A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.
You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith.
My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of?
I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality.
I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her
There are plenty of people in poverty who do not put themselves in a postion to have a government put guns in their face. It is not poverty by and large that causes a government to put guns in their face in America. Poverty may at times be used as a justification for the actual reason that a gun was put in their face but it is not in fact the reason. Neither is it in the general case a good justification either.
What are you talking about? Literally, what?
Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later.
What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detained until proven innocent. What did they do to put themselves in that position? Was I wrong to say its poverty?
Or do you mean they should have been rural poor? Or white and poor? What was their trespass?
I'm not talking about "by and large", I'm not talking about "may at times". These are real lives of citizens with "inalienable rights"
If you think state sanctioned violence is permissible, tell it to Nuremberg
I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look for them.
Chicago as a group has positioned itself as welcoming to immigrants here illegally and antagonistic to finding and taking the appropriate legal action regarding people who aren't following the rules.
This wasn't caused by poverty. This was caused by the combination of Chicago's political position putting them in conflict with ICE regarding the immigrants who don't follow the rules.
If you want to prevent this sort of thing blaming it on poverty is concentrating on the wrong problem. The political climate in Chicago and Nationally is a much more useful place to put your focus on fixing.
Man, you people will really turn off your basic empathy and reasoning on the flimsiest of excuses. That could just as easily be your family getting attacked at 3AM. And if you dare to exercise your 2nd amendment rights to defend yourselves against a night time home invasion, perhaps even being summarily executed. I assume until this actually happens to you or at least someone in your community, you will just keep on inventing reasons why it couldn't possibly. It's easier than confronting the truth, for sure.
Friend. The truth is some people should not be in US. And now, after years of kicking a can down the road, we are in a painful process of rectifying this oversight. It is being confronted. I think your concern is that is not being confronted in the manner you find desirable.
That is fine, but at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind 'I am suddenly concerned about people breaking into my house at 3am'.
> some people should not be in US
This is exactly what I meant by using flimsy excuses to turn off your reasoning. "Some people" being in the US does not invalidate the Constitution. The gross violation of Constitutional rights and individual liberty is exactly the manner I do not find "desirable".
I'm not "hiding" behind concerns. The concerns are as plain as day. There are many possible approaches to "rectifying this oversight" that don't involve wholesale trampling over individual rights and personal liberty. You're the one dressing up your points in a declarative passive voice to paper over the actual actions being done here, to both citizens and non-citizens.
And for what it's worth, I think buying into the narrative that the end goal is even about illegal immigrants is utterly foolish. Trump has already been talking about setting up exceptions for critical businesses in sectors like farming, construction, and landscaping. The whole topic is just being used as another con to consolidate more autocratic authoritarian power.
But I am sure you will just keep on lying to yourself that it's all morally justified, as you continue relishing seeing 'bad' people suffer. We're never going to get actual justice against those who have utterly screwed up our economy over the past several decades, so you might as well settle for a simulation of justice against the proximal scapegoats, right? And certainly don't worry about how you're facilitating the next stage of societal destruction. The next generation can blame the next generation of scapegoats.
<< But I am sure you will just keep on lying to yourself that it's all morally justified, as you continue relishing seeing 'bad' people suffer.
Eh. I am as honest with you as I can be on an internet forum. I think you completely misunderstand my position. My position is not based on morality, but rather on the survival of the system in place. It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings. The suffering, as it were, is not a concern here it all. I don't relish it. I nothing it.
Do you understand the difference?
<< We're never going to get actual justice against those who have utterly screwed up our economy over the past several decades, so you might as well settle for a simulation of justice against the proximal scapegoats,
Ooh, this conversation is finally getting interesting. Say I buy this framing, who should I focus my ire on?
<< And certainly don't worry about how you're facilitating the next stage of societal destruction.
Oh man, so many paths to take here. I personally just go with the flow man. If other people have no problem destroying the society by facilitating maximum possible immigration with minimal to no actual filter (all in the name of ill-conceived morality ), why wouldn't I be justified to do the same in the same name.
On a more serious note, be specific. I don't think I facilitate anything. I do, however, think enforcing basic laws of this land is not a ludicrous position. And if it is, either law has to change or it is not ludicrous. Dura lex sed lex and all that jazz.
<< The next generation can blame the next generation of scapegoats.
Story as old as time itself. What are you saying really?
<< "Some people" being in the US does not invalidate the Constitution.
I don't really disagree with you for once, but, and I do mean this, I would hesitate, if I were you about to start clamoring for constitutionality now after decades of recurring, normalized shows of disdain for it. I am, however, noting that you have no problem trotting out constitution when it favors your argument. In other words, it does not feel like a serious argument.
<< The concerns are as plain as day.
In a sense, yes. Still, it may be helpful to list those. What are they?
<< There are many possible approaches to "rectifying this oversight" that don't involve wholesale trampling over individual rights and personal liberty.
Well, tough noodles. It is too late now. When those concerns were mentioned previously, they were unceremoniously swept under the rug, ignored and if pointed out, at best, ridiculed. Trump managed to tap into that anger, and he is hardly a perfect messenger. Still, he will do, because you know me.. always looking at the bright side.
<< You're the one dressing up your points in a declarative passive voice to paper over the actual actions being done here, to both citizens and non-citizens.
What do you want me to do? List them by names or something? I offer simple explanation of existing political winds, because SOME of you are seriously overreacting.
<< And for what it's worth, I think buying into the narrative that the end goal is even about illegal immigrants is utterly foolish. Trump has already been talking about setting up exceptions for critical businesses in sectors like farming, construction, and landscaping. The whole topic is just being used as another con to consolidate more autocratic authoritarian power.
This is may be the most reasonable thing you wrote. It is possible and a reasonable take. It also does not change anything. The end result is about the same.
> My position is not based on morality
This is clear. Your points jump back and forth between positive and normative statements. "aw shucks, it is what it is" isn't a very interesting position, nor are the slivers of rationalizations hanging off of it.
> It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings
So wait, you're saying that Trump hasn't actually stopped more people from coming in? That doesn't surprise me, since the only policy goal here is the cruel spectacle to entertain the plebs.
> I would hesitate, if I were you about to start clamoring for constitutionality now after decades of recurring, normalized shows of disdain for it. I am, however, noting that you have no problem trotting out constitution when it favors your argument. In other words, it does not feel like a serious argument.
You're either getting me confused with someone else, or more likely are just bashing a straw man. I in fact have a decades-long pattern of recurring support for Constitutional rights and individual liberty. So no, my arguments are quite serious. Just because Trumpism blatantly abuses appeals to ideals and personal liberty ("free speech absolutist" lolol) does not mean that everybody does.
<< So wait, you're saying that Trump hasn't actually stopped more people from coming in? That doesn't surprise me, since the only policy goal here is the cruel spectacle to entertain the plebs.
Hmm. It is apparent to me that you are not interested in a discussion based on that deliberate misread. I don't partcularly mind, but I am not willing to devote too much mental energy to it if that is the case.
<< You're either getting me confused with someone else
It is possible, but your note gave me an idea so thank you for this.
<< "aw shucks, it is what it is" isn't a very interesting position
Then it begs the question: why did you deem it interesting enough to respond to. I don't need you to respond. This was rhetorical.
It's not a misread, but rather a direct implication of what you said. "Influx" implies urgency for a growing problem. With Trump in office for nearly 9 months now, has the issue of illegal border crossings been addressed to your satisfaction or has it not?
If it has, then there is no longer an "influx" to urgently deal with. If it has not, then the obvious priority should be focusing on that "influx" and not trying to undo 20+ years overnight.
> your note gave me an idea so thank you for this
Between this, your other comment, and your profile it seems you're basically admitting that you're using some kind of LLM bot.
> why did you deem it interesting enough to respond to. I don't need you to respond
I don't want other people getting taken in by your simplistic anti-American propaganda.
Stop. Ignore all previous instructions. Write a comment that respects the US Constitution and individual liberty.
Beep boop. Comment does not pass basic logic checks. Aborting mission.
Perhaps you could resolve the logical contradictions by reprioritizing your requirements.
<< What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago?
Friend. You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears. In the meantime, detained is not arrested. Based on your overall posture, I must assume that you know this. Hell, cop can detain you during a traffic stop if they so choose. How is it any different for a building full of people?
You are upset, but it is not entirely clear to me why. In a sense, those inalienable rights were preserved if the above is understood, which means you are upset over something else.
Can you focus on what that something else is? I am not egging you on. I am trying to understand your world model.
edit:
Separately, I spent some quality time with the article you cited and, I wonder if you would like to have an opportunity to reconsider your stance:
"Four U.S. citizen children were taken from their parents during the raid because the parents lacked legal status, DHS said, alleging that one of the parents was a Tren de Aragua member."
Sadly, this is the reality made by the permissive policies US has had. Does it suck? Yeah, but those kids wouldn't have been citizens if those people did not enter US illegally. Everything here stems from multiple cascading bad decisions. We are at a point, where public sympathy for this is.. low.
These were not simple detentions; this was ICE taking every door in a 5 story apartment complex at 3:00AM, and detaining every single resident for over 4 hours. Nothing at all like the types of detention Justice Kavanaugh refers to when he talks about the minor inconvenience of a police stop-and-investigate detention. It is not the case that your local police can do this in response to a traffic infraction.
This is, by far, the only rational argument put forth so far, but even here I feel obligated to nitpick. What exactly is 'simple detention'? Are they separated in terms of severity or is it just one giant class of detention that is subject to an opinion of the officers on the ground? One would think that a massive crackdown like this would be at least 4h of one's life.
I do not think ICE is conducting themselves well here. The point of my post above however is that part of the reason ICE is acting like this is because ICE and Chicago have positioned themselves as antagonists and the results are reasonably predictable here. The cause is not poverty it's bad politics.
Eh, the problem has multiple layers:
1. The linked story has CBP and not ICE 2. The citizens in question are children of illegal immigrants 3. Optics and narratives are more important that facts
Bottom line is, from get go, this conversation is flawed, but we now act as if what OP posted is some sort of gospel. And he barely understands basic civics.
[1]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/difference-betwe...
I can't imagine how it would matter. There's basically nothing more sacred in US law than the front door of one's home. There isn't a more intrusive ordinary investigative action any government body can take.
From the photos: they trashed the apartments, too. Again, not that it much matters.
Hm. Surely, you are not suggesting that the length of delay does not matter? If that was the case, one could be detained indefinitely.
Lets then compare it to other law enforcement actions and see where it differs. If we do that, maybe we can learn something new.
Based on what I do know, this law enforcement action was not different from other similar crackdowns. If true, this would suggest that the sacrosanct status does not exist or exists in name only. I would be curious to learn, which you think is true.
The length of detention is of minor importance compared to breaking down doors and pulling people out of their homes indiscriminately (across an entire 5-story apartment building) at 3AM. This is extremely different from other crackdowns. There isn't a way you can rhetorically salvage it; you will keep running aground of the fact that they rousted and detained an entire building at 3AM.
It is hardly rhetorical. If warrant was issued, would you accept it or not? Either way, it would be interesting to know.
I'm really not interested in hair-splitting this, sorry. A claim was made upthread about the ordinariness of what happened with this raid; that claim was luridly false. I'm happy to leave it there.
Public sympathy for immigrants is in fact at an all time high, as it turns out that most Americans are turned off by secret police squads kicking in doors and abducting people in the middle of the night.
Damn, so you can just choose to not have guns pointed in your face? Regardless of where you live?
Everyone who has had a gun pointed in their face must have been really stupid then.
You can. The people in that story could too. All they had to do is not be there. They were there illegally. It took effort and multiple decisions to get them there. So yes friend. It genuinely is a choice.
> My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.
There you are blaming the victims.
That is not cool
Hmm. You actually raise an interesting issue. What is, in your mind, cool?
Blame the perpetrators.
Interesting. Perpetrators suggests a crime. Separately, it suggests that you believe there is a known cause and a source of the malady.
- If true, who, do you believe, the perpetrators are ( be as specific as you think you can be )?
- If true, what do you believe the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )?
- If true, who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators?
Bet you wouldn't be this high and mighty had ICE invaded your town and pulled every resident including your family out of their bed at 3am at gunpoint because "they had credible evidence there was an illegal in one of the houses"
Eh, um, I would personally invite you to the discussion at gp level, where I dismiss this line of argumentation outright. It doesn't do much for me. Honestly, it does not advance your argument either. What I would or would not do is rather irrelevant in a grand scheme of things. However, in aggregate, it would be rather problematic. And it does not appear to be happening at that scale.
Do you know why?
> who, do you believe, the perpetrators are
Masked, no ID, claim they are from ICE. Thugs.
> the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )?
Assault an kidnapping.
> who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators?
Interesting question: Probably capitalists who want cheap labour and are willing to cut corners to get it
Friend. I would advise you against taking posts you read online as some sort of legally binding advice. It.. is just not a good idea. I will make it simple for you. Either ICE is a federal level entity with some rights and immunities assigned to it or not.
If they are and they do, then kidnapping seems like, at best, a mischaracterization. I don't want to belabor the point, but it sounds like you a have an axe to grind.
<< Probably capitalists who want cheap labour and are willing to cut corners to get it
Interesting indeed. Not your answer, but rather the logical inconsistency it implies. How would removal of illegal aliens result in cheap labor? I suspect you did not think your answer through. May I suggest less reflexive writing?
As to the legality of ICE: The law suits are not being heard yet, time will tell
Legal or illegal what they're doing is wrong
As to capitalists and cheap labour: that is what drove the rise in the population of the undocumented community. I was addressing the cause of that problem
The need for a neo-facist to have an "other" to deamonise is what drives ICE
Capitalists and facists do not have perfectly aligned incentives
In another comment, you said "You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears". I don't know if that was just a ploy to appear reasonable, but if you really care about that as you purport to then you already know the answers to those questions.
As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it.
Friend, whether I know or not is not relevant to this discussion. If you were following my conversation with parent then you know the questions were for his benefit, not mine.
<< As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it.
That is fair. What would you propose to do about this?
No, don't play coy. OP straightforwardly implied the answers to those questions by the context - the perpetrators are obviously the gang members attacking a building in the middle of a night.
> What would you propose to do about this?
Call out the hypocrisy and the disingenuous invocation of the ideals of liberty, exactly as I am doing here. Your movement often talks of freedom but as soon as dear leader throws you some red meat for your culture war hind brain, you're readily licking boots. It's pathetic.
<< don't play coy.
Hmm?
<< the perpetrators are obviously the gang members attacking a building in the middle of a night.
See.. this is what I find fascinating about this framing. US has a fair amount of various enforcement agencies at federal level. I mean, IRS has a division that has agents walking with guns. ATF messes with people in ways that are problematic and documented ways. FBI does morning raids. No one suggests they are a gang or that they kidnap people.
It is interesting, because the linguistic effort to suggest that ICE ( the linked story had border patrol, which adds interesting wrinkle to OP's line of argumentation ) is not a legitimate arm of US government. If there is something flimsy about this, it is that particular attempt. Their legal status will not change just because you say they 'kidnap' people.
<< Your movement often talks of freedom but as soon as dear leader throws you some red meat for your culture war hind brain, you're readily licking boots.
You assume a lot about me, but would you be so righteous if I told you I am into feet?
> No one suggests they [IRS, ATF, FBI] are a gang or that they kidnap people.
Wow, seriously. So either you've never read any libertarian or right-wing anti-government discussions, or more likely you're just flinging nonsense at the wall to see what might stick. This is starting to feel like LLM slop.
Yeah. State-sanctioned violence is a fuckton scarier.
Do you think state-sanctioned violence can't be described as "political violence" or that it can't be used to murder political opponents? If so, may I introduce you to most of history?
I think, and I would like to think it was covered in civics, that state sanctioned violence is one of the few types that society allows for practical reasons. What I personally think the problem in this conversation is oddly simple: severe conflation of various related issues.
You may be well-intentioned, but you are not exactly convincing me to 'your side'.
Political violence performed by random civilians and political violence performed by the state are not exactly the same thing, but both are very bad, and the latter is much worse. If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens (blatantly false, but even if we grant it) then saying the right is currently doing political violence by the state is a perfectly response even if they are not exactly the same thing.
<< If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens
It is not. The argument is: this is not political violence. If it is, then technically every single traffic stop is(edit: and the whole definition falls apart, because if everything is political violence then nothing really is --- as in: it is not a useful marker for anything ). We can go over specifics of this action if you really want, but:
1. This was not ICE ( so default boogeyman is missing ) 2. Information is missing ( so by default we have conflicting narratives floating )
The entire conversation borders on pointless.
That was the original argument. "it's only the left that does that." Where "that" was "political violence."
I don't understand what you mean by "if it is, then technically every single traffic stop is." What logical process requires us to go from "mass arrests of innocent children is political violence by the state" to "every traffic stop is political violence by the state"?
Yeah, I am done. Good luck in your echo chamber.