also this quote from an actual principled anti-slavery person:
I am quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.
john brown quote goes incredibly hard
This “political violence is never justified” narrative just lacks so much nuance.
I mean, ok, don’t jump for joy when Charlie Kirk was murdered for saying heinous shit, because in the United States we do value freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I get that.
But never justified?!
So, it wasn’t justified to kill Hitler?
I think a more accurate thing to say might be something like “it’s not justified to murder people for what they say politically, in a society that values freedom of speech.” That’s better. Then we can start having a discussion about where the line might actually be, then.
John Brown didn’t hack people to bits for things they said, but for things they did. And I’d say his political violence was pretty easily justified, from our POV.
Charlie Kirk is a gray area. He didn’t do anything politically violent himself. But he did arguably help incite others to political violence by means of his words. Does that mean he should have been shot for it? No. But it does raise interesting questions that we need to answer, about free speech and personal responsibility. Somewhere along the “college debate edgelord” to “slaver” spectrum is a line past which we can justify political violence, and on the other side of which we cannot. Where is that line, exactly?
Charlie kirk has been one of the most prominent stochastic terrorism promoters on the US for the last years, it's very ironic he got whacked by a product of that. I personally believe in accountability in rhetoric, if your rhetoric has intent to damage other people, you better be ready for the heat. This wasn't a guy saying edgy shit to his group of friends, this guy had a platform that reached hundreds of millions of people, the heinous stuff he advocated for wasn't said in a vacuum.
Kirk was an insufferable, hateful prick but yeah to be honest I’m frustrated he was murdered. And/or didn’t survive his wounds.
My naive pipe dream was, if we ever got them, Nuremberg trials where he was put on the stand then got the wall. Or at least in the meantime that he lived and could suffer, and maybe think on his actions and words.
Arguably, while his words did have impact, he was in no position to actually enact any of the heinous policy he wanted like elected officials. He also didn’t buy an entire social media platform, or (to my knowledge) openly bribe politicians and voters.
If someone were to go that extreme (as a hypothetical, for legal purposes), the bullet could have been much better spent on any number of other top-level MAGAts.
TL;DR: I agree with you.
This is a guy from the 18th century speaking his thoughts about his time, which was quite violent. There is no reason to believe he was a prophet seeing 250 years into the future of the nation he helped create, or even that he was some kind of ultra-insightful historian who understood all the cycles of the world better than all the historians before or since his time.
He was just a guy in a time. A smart one, but just a guy.
There is no reason to believe he was a prophet seeing 250 years into the future of the nation he helped create ...
its seems more like he was responding to a nation that was already created and the black panthers would prove that he was right about 100+ years later.