@RitchieTorres If I had a nickel for every sitting Vice-President of the United States that shot a guy, I’d have 2 nickels, but it’s still pretty weird that it’s happened twice.
@BriannaWu It didn’t start with MAGA, though. It started with the Tea Party, astroturfed the same way the antisemitic fringe is right now, and became MAGA once they had a cult leader. Mamdani is the closest the DSA has to that, and I don’t think he’s got the chops for it.
@aziz0nomics We could. The first step is to conclude that the social media experiment has failed. We aren’t better connected, better informed, or better people because of it; in fact, I would say it’s strongly the reverse of all three.
@emilykschrader Once someone says it’s ok to kill someone else based on what they say, it’s not a particularly great leap of logic for it to be ok to kill them for saying that. Either speech is free or it’s not.
@BriannaWu Once someone decides “it’s ok to kill this person for their speech,” it’s not that great a leap of logic to decide that it’s ok to kill them for theirs. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
@JustLuai It has also been a great year for far-right extremism. This is not a good combination. You don’t make nitroglycerine *less* explosive by adding more of both.
I am increasingly concerned that this is the beginning of a civil war between one side who believes in killing people for what they say, and another side who believes in killing people for what they say.
@gghamari If calling for political violence warrants assassination, I have some news that may be surprising to everybody chanting to “globalize the intifada.”
@CostelloWilliam I am increasingly concerned that this is the beginning of a civil war between one side who believes in killing people for what they say, and another side who believes in killing people for what they say.
@CostelloWilliam If you are going to claim Charlie Kirk earned it because he “advocated for political violence,” I will remind you that “globalize the intifada” is also advocacy for political violence. Q.E.D.
@BriannaWu Not for nothing, but if someone claims that political violence against Charlie Kirk was warranted because he called for political violence, you can remind them that “globalize the intifada” is also a call for political violence. Q.E.D.
Before you tell me that Charlie Kirk deserved to die to political violence because he encouraged political violence, I will remind you that “globalize the intifada” is also a call for political violence.
@aziz0nomics I never stood with Charlie Kirk. I hated nearly everything he ever said. That doesn’t mean he gets to be killed for it, and I hate that this is a controversial stance.
@BriannaWu Also in 2014, Fred Phelps died. At the time, it was universally understood that his speech was disgusting, but that his right to say it was sacrosanct. Today, I got called a fascist more times than I can count for not agreeing that Charlie Kirk deserved to die for his words.
@BriannaWu 100% this. It’s the social media environment. Moderation, nuance, and calm don’t generate clicks. We have a positive feedback loop where the more outrageous something is, the more lucrative it is, thereby incentivizing more outrage. Positive feedback cycles explode. Violently.