Anonymous #1 1w

Source

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes. Just because someone doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean they don’t have opinions

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Looks like someone in the post did some digging, but I was referring to something I saw here a while ago where it was some kind of article talking about how he was known to argue with his parents over politics, and was not registered.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

All that quote says is he didn’t talk politics. Which is very different from disagreeing.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Kind of odd that the kid who in 2017 wore a trump costume on Halloween and has a full hard republican family doesn’t talk about politics, yknow?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It means the grandma is not a credible source to answer the question “What were his political beliefs?”

1

Anonymous #2 1w

And I was a Trump supporter in HS. People change

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Yea this guy might have taken a hard turn left

3

Anonymous #1 1w

I get that. I’m just pointing and laughing at people who made theories about a suspect that wasn’t arrested yet in the past few days. That’s also kinda odd don’t you think. (I’m open to the fact I’m wrong but I want more evidence than old friends, etc to prove it)

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Well I mean the internet is a place. That’ll change you. Plus, you can register and still take a drastic change. I don’t want to point fingers at one party, but if this guy ends up being left-leaning, you know people will be pointing those fingers, and it will become evident that the general politics, not just either party, has a hate problem.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Well statistics tend to say otherwise but ok 👍🏻

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Possible, but seems unlikely given the bullet engravings.

8

Anonymous OP 1w

Statistics? Those are negligible. Tens of millions of people are registered for parties, there’s always nutjobs.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Crime statistics are negligible? How?

0

Anonymous OP 1w

If you’re referring to shooters and what their political registries are. It’s an extremely small number compared to the entire populations for each political party registration that to say it’s a party issue would be like saying your neighbor’s overgrown yard is a county problem. Shouldn’t be hard to agree that there are just crazy fringe people.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Don’t change the subject to just shooters we are talking about all political violence.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

That was the original subject I was speaking of. All political violence is still the same thing. You really want to compare hundreds to tens of millions?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I feel like you aren’t realizing one side is far more likely to use their beliefs to commit a crime but I guess we have to agree to disagree.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

One side? Again, it’s negligible in comparison to assign fringe group to those people.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I mean when these “fringe groups” have the same beliefs as the president, groups that funded him, and political pundits that’s a bit of a stretch

0

Anonymous OP 1w

So if they have the same beliefs why isn’t everyone with the same beliefs doing it then? There’s a factor that is there are people with terrible mental health.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You can’t keep changing the reason, which is it are they batshit or radicals. And if they are batshit, hold the same beliefs as our president and admin, what does that say about him.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re not getting it. If this was the expectancy of the belief, everyone on that side would be doing it. You can hold any belief but if you’re batshit crazy you’re going to do something stupid. Clearly this isn’t a problem with the belief system; there are just crazy people.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Yeah because people who believe Civil Rights were a mistake, gays should be stoned, shooting victims are sacrifice to keep the 2A, mass shooting victims shouldn’t be allowed to “hijack the emotional narrative”, etc have a great grip on reality.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Haven’t heard the Civil Rights one but all those other ones never heard, some of them look like someone twisted Kirk’s words. You cant quantify the people who believe that either, nor can you say that they are the crazies. So then again I ask you, why haven’t they all committed acts of political violence?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Believing gays should be stoned… isn’t an act of political violence to you…

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Violence is physical action. If you think words are violence you’re leading into the suppression of free speech. That can and will be used against you just as much as it can and will be used against the people you deem as crazy. Again, never heard someone say they believe gays should be stoned, but if someone out there does as long as they’re not physically doing it, I think I’ll try to talk them out of it.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

If believing or thinking something becomes equivalent violence, we are all headed for calamity

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I get where you are coming from but when what you believe in is a violent act in itself. And don’t say “I never heard” entire nations have this as the punishment for homosexuality

1

Anonymous OP 1w

No it isn’t. Who decides what’s violent and what isn’t? You? See the problem with that line of thinking. If you’re stopping the flow at the very thoughts one has, there will be more political violence, but this time it won’t be a neuron connection, it’ll be real and physical and actually violent.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

And I know countries do that stuff and it sucks, but you sound like you’re attributing all that to everyone in a population in the worst way possible and it’s that kind of thinking that polarizes.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

Here are some dictionary definitions for you on violence. From The American Heritage Dictionary. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury. Extreme or powerful EMOTION or expression Distortion of meaning or INTENT.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Then that’s a shit definition in my honest opinion.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Here is the definition as a transitive verb To assault; to injure; also, to bring by violence; to COMPEL.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

First part is good, not sure what the third part means but the second one is calling powerful expression as violence? Doesn’t that make any powerful expression like in protests or in speeches violent?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Compel physically yes. You can’t compel someone with words, that becomes a threat.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

By definition yes violence isn’t just physical… there’s different types of violence, there are levels of violence. Yelling at someone and hitting someone are both violent acts but not in the same ways.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Right but you made thought out to be violence. Yelling isn’t violence, that’s just loudly spoken word. That’s as if football fans yelling in their stadiums for their teams are violent.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I mean you can disagree with dictionary definitions with zero to back it up all you want that won’t change anything. And I mean if you want to go to things like that yes by definition it is violent.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I think we disagree fundamentally here then. Words cannot be violent. We can easily tell the difference between tapping someone, punching someone, using weapons. Any word can be violent to someone, which is where the problem lies. It will be abused such that the truth becomes violence, that verbal dissent against a majority becomes punishable. I don’t care that it’s on a dictionary that you chose. The populace isn’t always correct, nor is the authority always correct. We can agree to disagree.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

Miriam Webster- the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. an instance of violent treatment or procedure. vehement feeling or expression, an instance of such action or feeling. Dictionary.com- swift and intense force. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws. I didn’t choose a specific dictionary that’s just the one that the search results gave me first.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Most agree that violence is not just physical acts. And I don’t think a majority of people believe in the bullshit bigotry Kirk peddled.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Violence is only physical. If we start defining violence in speech, we will lose speech altogether, and includes everyone.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

No you just want to be able to say crazy shit like gays should be stoned, and civil rights was a mistake and call it the 1st amendment. Then you complain when someone calls them fighting words and calls you tf out.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

?? No I don’t lol. You don’t know me you just want to assume whatever caricature you’ve got in your mind and try to force it on me lol. But keep fighting ghosts, you look delusional. If you wanna justify Kirk’s death you should accept that it can and will be justified against you if this is the precedent that is set.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I’m not the one fighting the dictionary

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Do you want to go back to the 1800s dictionaries and tell me I can’t fight that?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

If you have to go back to the 1800s maybe you’ve lost the plot

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Don’t pretend to not understand. There were some extremely racist stuff in there, and you should be able to disagree with it if it is. In the same way, I think that definition of violence will lead to tyranny

1