"I was only giving orders!"

Pol Pot killed 30% of the nation using words.

"I am not violent. I simply said that all those people should be exterminated."

This is why they're so desperate to destroy the school system. These "I'm not touching you" types of defenses don't work against anyone with a HS diploma or a basic understanding of history

Yes. Himself.

Exactly. Hitler never killed anyone himself, but his rhetoric is directly responsible for the murder of tens of millions.

If you take a gas tanker and spray down the lawn and outside of the white house, and something else causes a spark that turns the entire place into an inferno, you didn't start the fire. That doesn't mean the fire would have still happened without your actions.

To my knowledge Manson never murdered anyone with his own hands either. (Though I'm prepared to be corrected.) Same thing 100%.

Edit - arguing against myself a little - maybe not, I'm sure Manson coerced his followers with more than words at times.

Agreed. Kirk balanced along a very fine line of "just debating" or "expressing opinions" but anyone with half a brain engaged could hear the dog whistles all through his arguments and neither side is as dumb as the media and memes make them out to be. Those whistles are heard loud and clear, it's why some loved him, and others hated him.

Likewise and with much less nuance, a Fox presenter comments that the mentally ill and/or homeless should euthanized. Then days later a homeless camp is attacked. Wow, what an unlucky coincident?

I wouldn't want to lose the right to free speech but when it appears to incite violence, I struggle to see how - particularly the Fox presenter scenario - is any different to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"? Words causing others to take action that lead to the death of innocent people.

HOWEVER, one person's violence-inspiring words are another person's Rage Against the Machine or genuine call to action against oppression. Innocent people can and do get caught up in these struggles too.

I don't have a solution. I have no idea how we fix this without trampling existing freedoms and ruining everything good. All I know is that it's not an easy solution that some halfwit media personality or politician is going to solve with one easy action.

A righty will just say it was action, directives, legislative action.

But the point is that modern right-wing mouthpieces can effectively toe the line of hate speech versus incitement. Dog-whistles and stochastic rhetoric that indirectly radicalizes others.

When this is all said and done, we're going to need to overhaul our education for critical-thinking to spot this and perhaps broaden the definition of inciting violence or clamp down on hate speech. Though I look at Germany that has stricter laws and we see AfD neo-nazis rising there too albeit to a lesser extent?

Cunt got shot. Shit happens. Kids in america get shot daily and no one gives a fuck.

Right wing nutjobs don't give a fuck when kids get shot because it's not their kid. Just some anonymous nobody(s) that are probably forgotten before they're done typing "Thoughts and prayers." Charlie Kirk was a person. He was approved of. He had ideas. They knew his name, if not any of his actual ideas. You can't just go around insulting, much less shooting, actual people.

Empathy. The missing ingredient is empathy.

Every single time I see the right wing and the compliant "moderates" fawning all over Kirk, as contrasted with all the people shot nearly daily in this country that don't get all these memorials and apologies and days of remembrance, I think of Chomsky's discussion of "worthy victims" vs. "unworthy victims".

Chomsky is one that just keeps on coming back when it comes to various things he has said/written. When it comes to the shout shows on places like CNN, the notion of "concision" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision_(media_studies) ) is one I think about all the time.

The beauty of concision, you know, saying a couple of sentences between two commercials, the beauty of that is you can only repeat conventional thoughts. Suppose I go on Nightline, whatever it is, two minutes, and I say Gaddafi is a terrorist, Khomeini is a murderer etcetera etcetera... I don't need any evidence, everyone just nods. On the other hand, suppose you're saying something that isn't just regurgitating conventional pieties, suppose you say something that's the least bit unexpected or controversial, people will quite reasonably expect to know what you mean. If you said that you'd better have a reason, better have some evidence. You can't give evidence if you're stuck with concision. That's the genius of this structural constraint.[2]

The other thing he said was something that I've been thinking a lot about when it comes to any discussions done on "liberal media" regarding Kirk:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....

It's interesting because what Kimmel said was in no way outside of that limited spectrum.

Yeah, Kirk simply viewed the author of the article as more content for his show. Nothing more. Kirk didn't debate based on some morality or desire to exchange ideas. He used debate as a tool for entertainment and shutting down the exchange of ideas. He turned debate into a grotesque hollow shell of itself and profited from it.

Still important to see what the other side of attempting to do with this BS though. That's why it's posted.