It wasn’t strictly necessary since he was mainly a small fish in the pool of hatemongering fascists, a lot of whom are much more deserving of death than him. But his death was caused by right wing infighting, and any casualties from that are definitely worth celebrating, since it is basically a victimless crime.
Also, you should read up on the paradox of tolerance. At some point violence (intolerance) against the intolerant is necessary in order to uphold tolerance. The hatemongers spreads hate that is ultimately meant to eliminate what they consider undesireables in society, so for a tolerant society to be able to exist and protect vulnerable minorities, such hate must be met with intolerance.
Copying this from my reply downthread, because respectfully, I disagree that intolerant speech must by necessity be met with censorship or violence:
There’s a sentence in the paradox of tolerance that is universally fucking ignored.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
That’s from the original author, Karl Popper, in the piece in which he originally defined it.
I’ll openly accept that in many situations, we’re past the point where things can be reasonably kept in check by rational argument and public opinion. But that is what we should be reaching for, not the normalization of this constant state of rage we all seem to be heading towards.
The phrase “paradox of tolerance” is almost never used correctly; it’s usually used to justify the stifling of speech, rather than the prevention of violence.
Violent resistance to fascism is justified, but that doesn’t mean violence is ever anything but a tragedy. Are you happy that the allies killed loads of axis fighters in ww2, or sad that it was necessary? Bloodlust never brings peace even if it’s supposedly for a good cause.
Kirk’s killer’s political affiliations remain as ever a matter of speculation, so calling it “infighting” is at best wishful thinking.
There’s a sentence in the middle of the paradox of tolerance that is universally fucking ignored.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
That’s from the original author, Karl Popper, in the piece in which he originally defined it.
Yeah, we’re past that point when it comes to the state of the US federal government, but people consistently skip or ignore that part when it comes to shit that is in a less dire state.
Something to bear in mind as well, to your point about actions versus words is that at least this quoted portion is about “utterances”. Like you said, it’s not about telling people to stand down against shit like ICE, it’s about people saying intolerant things, like Kirk was.
Better ways to fight that than censorship and murder.
The authorities made definitive statements about it. The reason we don’t know is because you don’t trust the authorities. And fair enough, but it means there’s not actually anything reasonable you’d accept as 100% proof, so no this doesn’t tell you anything.
It wasn’t strictly necessary since he was mainly a small fish in the pool of hatemongering fascists, a lot of whom are much more deserving of death than him. But his death was caused by right wing infighting, and any casualties from that are definitely worth celebrating, since it is basically a victimless crime.
Also, you should read up on the paradox of tolerance. At some point violence (intolerance) against the intolerant is necessary in order to uphold tolerance. The hatemongers spreads hate that is ultimately meant to eliminate what they consider undesireables in society, so for a tolerant society to be able to exist and protect vulnerable minorities, such hate must be met with intolerance.
Copying this from my reply downthread, because respectfully, I disagree that intolerant speech must by necessity be met with censorship or violence:
There’s a sentence in the paradox of tolerance that is universally fucking ignored.
That’s from the original author, Karl Popper, in the piece in which he originally defined it.
I’ll openly accept that in many situations, we’re past the point where things can be reasonably kept in check by rational argument and public opinion. But that is what we should be reaching for, not the normalization of this constant state of rage we all seem to be heading towards.
The phrase “paradox of tolerance” is almost never used correctly; it’s usually used to justify the stifling of speech, rather than the prevention of violence.
Violent resistance to fascism is justified, but that doesn’t mean violence is ever anything but a tragedy. Are you happy that the allies killed loads of axis fighters in ww2, or sad that it was necessary? Bloodlust never brings peace even if it’s supposedly for a good cause.
Kirk’s killer’s political affiliations remain as ever a matter of speculation, so calling it “infighting” is at best wishful thinking.
There’s a sentence in the middle of the paradox of tolerance that is universally fucking ignored.
That’s from the original author, Karl Popper, in the piece in which he originally defined it.
Yeah, we’re past that point when it comes to the state of the US federal government, but people consistently skip or ignore that part when it comes to shit that is in a less dire state.
Exactly, thank you for finding that quote; I never have the patience to go and look it up when this comes up.
Something to bear in mind as well, to your point about actions versus words is that at least this quoted portion is about “utterances”. Like you said, it’s not about telling people to stand down against shit like ICE, it’s about people saying intolerant things, like Kirk was.
Better ways to fight that than censorship and murder.
If it was anything other than a conservative, we would 100% have known day 1. The fact that we still don’t know should tell you everything you need
The authorities made definitive statements about it. The reason we don’t know is because you don’t trust the authorities. And fair enough, but it means there’s not actually anything reasonable you’d accept as 100% proof, so no this doesn’t tell you anything.