Bernie Sanders Receives Praise From Left And Right For Charlie Kirk Message: ‘Best Take I’ve Seen’
Bernie Sanders Receives Praise From Left And Right For Charlie Kirk Message: ‘Best Take I’ve Seen’
Political violence, regardless of ideology, is not the answer and must be condemned.
Love ya Bernie, but I gotta disagree on this one. What he's saying is pretty much just more 'paradox of tolerance' that leads to the ratchet clicking further right.
People keep shunning what happened to Kirk as a crazy extreme response to a "difference of opinion" as though we're discussing a budget proposal for a new bridge or something. And yeah, with shit like that there's a justifiable argument to be made by both sides.
When the 'opinion' being advocated for is one that seeks to deny life or liberty because of their skin color or gender or w/e, it stops being a debate and instead becomes a fight for survival. That person is literally an enemy combatant spending their life trying to kill you. And when someone is trying to kill you, violence is absolutely a justifiable response.
...and I know that's not why the shooter killed Kirk, but even if it was a dark skinned /gay/trans/muslim/
<insert target of right wing bigotry here>
who shot Kirk in response to his vitriol toward them, that's still fucking justified because he spent his life promoting violence to those people.So no, if your ideology is that you hate people because of what's in their pants or the color of their skin or w/e, then you're a piece of shit; if you act on that ideology, then you're an existential threat to those people, and if that culminates with a bullet in your carotid artery then your death will mark a sudden reduction of evil and hatred - and that is worth celebrating.
Evil fuckers like Charlie Kirk should never be tolerated.
Paradox of tolerance is resolved when you view tolerance as a treaty. If one side breaks it, they no longer benefit from it.
If two factions are fighting and call a truce, and then one side starts fighting again, it's nonsense to tell the first side not to fight back because there's a treaty. The treaty has been broken.
Exactly. Nothing stops fascism except the death of the fascists.
Where did he state he was denying life of other races?
Yeah he didn't literally say "go kill black people," therefore he wasn't spewing violent racist rhetoric.
A two day old account who's first and only comment is questioning the extensive very well recorded history of a neonazi.
Tad sus m8.
On the off chance you aren't a right wing troll, look up "charlie kirk bigotry" on your preferred search engine, and scroll to your heart's content.
Why is every politician pretending this dude's entire platform wasn't just vitriolic hate?
Controlled opposition.
Because the moment they say that, the other side stops listening and dismisses them or worse, decide to target them.
Remember, politicians are people that go out in public spaces and speak to people and they themselves are terrified of the same event happening to them.
They want the other side to hear them denounce this unequivocally because otherwise, they become targets.
You can both denounce Charlie Kirk and everything he stood for and also denounce political violence.
Both can be valid stances.
I'm just frustrated that very very few people including Sanders are remarking on that first part. He spread hate speech and misinformation. He and Trump's rhetoric and actions are what led to this point.
Was so pissed off at Daily Show's coverage last night when Kosta attacked Warren and the guy from msnbc calling a spade a spade.
“A free and democratic society, which is what America is supposed to be about, depends upon the basic premise that people can speak out, organize, and take part in public life without fear, without worrying that they might be killed, injured, or humiliated for expressing their political views,”
You can't debate with "Black people are inferior genetically". Thats not a good faith argument. It drags the entire country down. Charlie Kirk was not debating or sharing valid views. Democracies do not survive with the populace is uneducated and fed hateful viewpoints. So, no, I cannot denounce his killing. No more than I can denounce the killing of Mussolini or the suicide of Hitler. He caused death and havoc in the exact same way.
Because they’re in on it.
"I have a point of view that is different than yours — that’s great. Let’s argue it out."
Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way with these people. They almost always argue in bad faith, don't shy away from lying and are happy to falsely smear people with shit just so that they can win political points. They know that even if their lies are discovered it won't have any consequences for them but the stink of the shit that they hurled at their opponents will remain for a long time.
There's a Sartre quote about that.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Were the British soldiers killed in the Revolutionary War, or the Rebels Killed in the Civil War, or the Nazis killed in WW2 victims of political violence?
Sometimes a political spectrum becomes stretched so wide that there can be no middle ground. No amount of "spirited debate" is going to reach a compromise about who is due their life and freedom. The wolf and the sheep are never going to agree on what is for dinner.
Charlie Kirk absolutely leaves a legacy of misery and death. He shares blame for Jan 6, mass shootings, and numerous hate crimes. He may have never pulled a trigger himself, but the right wing terrorism he encouraged leaves the blood on his hands just the same.
Well said.
"Cmon guys, talk it out! Now is not the time to enact political violence against Nazis who are continually stripping you of your rights and freedoms! Actually the fact you haven't talked to them enough and changed their minds means you're weak!"
🤨 OK Bernie.
Well, yeah, if you reframe what he actually said into something totally different, obviously it's not going to make a lot of sense.
American people at the local, state, and federal levels, and we hold free elections in which the people decide what they want
Sorry Bernie, you’re out of touch. We don’t have elections anymore, we have gerrymandering, and tampering, and intimidation.
Nah, fuck Bernie for this.
A free and democratic society, which is what America is supposed to be about, depends upon the basic premise that people can speak out, organize, and take part in public life without fear, without worrying that they might be killed, injured, or humiliated for expressing their political views,
And who was it that was undermining that? Charlie Kirk.
Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice. It means that you cannot convince people of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force.
And what if you can't convince people of the correctness of your ideas because they don't care about correctness, they only care about hating you? What then, Bernie? What if they keep pressing forward in complete denial of all logic and facts? I suppose that punching a Klan member is cowardice? I suppose when people rise up against oppressors it is because they are cowards? He's right that it MAY be cowardice that leads to violence. It may also be absolute obstinate stubbornness of the other side. What do we call that?
this chilling rise in violence has targeted public officials across the political spectrum
Ah, I guess that's why you, as an official on the political spectrum, are so convinced that it is evil. What a charming coincidence. What about the chilling rise in violence targeting thousands of normal people, perpetuated by Charlie Kirk? If I order my lackeys to execute someone, do we say I'm not a murderer? Do we say I was merely exercising my free speech? What if I constantly depict John Doe down the street as the root of all evil? When someone else kills John Doe, am I truly blameless? Stoking hate to get other people to kill on your behalf, now that's political cowardice, Bernie.
The more Bernie talks the less I respect him. I agree with your points.
Meanwhile, the president says he "couldn't care less" about uniting America
Unfortunately I don't believe a single politician would be willing to tell it how it actually is when it comes to Charlie Kirk and shitheads like him.
The leftist politicians have to play it safe to not hurt the fragile fee fees of the liberal voters.
Liberal politicians historically and currently vastly prefer Nazism over basic common sense pro-labor policies of any kind.
And the Nazis are Nazis.
Words have repercussions, always have and always will.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. Freedoms come with responsibilities, and the freedom of speech comes with the responsibility - the obligation - to use your words wisely.
its not a democracy and you can't debate these guys. next.
No! You're the puppet. Wrong! Our president's debate prowess.
It's certainly better than some statements I have seen, but it ignores the commonplace violence inflicted on non-elites every day.
The murder of Charlie Kirk is part of a disturbing rise in political violence that threatens to hollow out public life and make people afraid of participating. From the January 6th, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, to the attack on Paul Pelosi, to the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Whitmer, to the murder of Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, to the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, to the shooting of United Health Executive Brian Thompson, and the shooting several years ago of Representative Steve Scalise, this chilling rise in violence has targeted public officials across the political spectrum.
Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. We all remember the assassinations of President Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy, John Lennon, and Medgar Evers, and the attempted assassinations of President Ronald Reagan and Alabama Governor George Wallace.
Kinda sounds like this has been a problem in the US for decades. Maybe the government should look into that.
But bottom line, if we honestly believe in democracy, if we believe in freedom, all of us must be loud and clear: Political violence, regardless of ideology, is not the answer and must be condemned. Thank you very much.
Ah, that should solve it! Well done, Bernie!
Political violence, regardless of ideology, is not the answer and must be condemned.
Apparently Bernie makes an exception for institutionalized political violence, since he did not mention capital punishment, abortion bans, the targeting and murder of queer people, school shootings by right wing radicalized youths, or more… only politicians. Political violence is more than targeting someone for political speech, it is villainizing minorities, depriving them of opportunities and needs, suppressing/oppressing/excluding them from normal public life, or even implying they are “other” by roundabout means. Violence is more than a bullet, knife, or bomb. Violence can be indirect. Violence can take the form of hateful, fearful words and ideas. It can foment and spread.
None of it can be tolerated, but when the victims are out of options what are they to do? Talk? Bullies don’t communicate with words but with fists. Are we to submit? To lie down and die? To give up?
I reject this blind idealism that includes no constructive action to back it up. It’s little more than a plea to voluntarily lie down while the steamroller runs us over.
The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.
Since when has America been about a free and democratic society?
Or are we just taking platitudes as fact now?
Basically all us do not shoot people we disagree with. 300,000,000 million citizens and a glut of weaponry, doesn't he get what Charlie Kirk meant by this is the price we pay? You will never plug all the holes, and we massively increase the chance a gun slips through along with the killer, and this is what will happen for as long as our culture and laws stay the same.
Take all the people Charlie Kirk has debated. Consider the surface area. All the people who must have had guns. And yet essentially every single person didn't kill him.
There were more people debating him peacefully that day than trying to assassinate him. He was having his ideas dismantled by simple logic, as always, and ignoring it, as always. He just happened to be shot that day. They act like life is a simulation that's meant to bend the rules for them rather than subjecting them to the same roll of the die as everyone else.
Yeah there's a ton of main character syndrome from the lot of them. None of them feared gun violence. The women seemed to never care that their side was pushing for the Christian version of Iran and that they personally would suffer in that situation.
Trump is a pedophile
They are just all worried.
Whenever the US makes a mistake of any kind, Sanders is there pointing to morality like a compass.
Bernie has been on the right side of history for half a century. And while he's technically right here as well, it assumes both sides play using the same rules. We all know one side only likes rules that don't apply to them.
Yea, I agree with you... But sadly the likely way out of that line of escalatory path is a civil war.
I watched this yesterday, and I agree that it was a very good speech.
lol no.
About 60% of this comments section is a big Lemmy Reading Comprehension tragedy
I too like to observe and post a comment that does not contribute anything of value to the conversation.
Love Bernie, but this:
They don't believe in democracy. That's it. That's the core of the problem.
"A government is an institution that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence."
Politics and violence cannot be separated. The only relevant factor is "legitimacy", which is determined politically.
At what point, during the incremental rise of the Nazis, would it have become "legitimate" to take action against them, and how would this legitimacy be determined? Too early, and it would have been seen as illegitimate murder or "political violence" - too late and... Well, we know what happened.
Yep, same people on the right who are pissed and talking shit....talked shit when the 3 dems in Minnesota were attacked and one killed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/minnesota-lawmaker-killings-misinformation-rightwing
Shit isn't even 6 months old.
Meanwhile, the Confederates are targeting anyone that they say celebrated Kirk's death. Some people have already lost their jobs, the Confederates may be planning even darker things.
https://www.wired.com/story/right-wing-activists-are-targeting-people-for-allegedly-celebrating-charlie-kirks-death/
Yeah, while I agree with the sentiment, the fact that he didn't call out that Republicans are explicitly calling for political violence extremely loudly and not condemning Republican leadership for not tamping that shit down right now is disappointing.
Dude's always been too weak to call out evil when he sees it. He's still peddling that "Israel has a right to defend itself" bullshit when no it never has and never will.
But we do, and we must insist upon democratic ideals until the very last. Even when our boots hit the streets and the lines are drawn. If we sink to their level, we'll lose. They've been there a long time, they are seasoned pros. The problem is they use that against us, so we need to play a smarter game. Not dumb ourselves down to their level.
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance.