News/Current Affairs thread

[LaGoosh]

7 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

The main thing that winds me up is the quick assumptions some people make about the perpetrators and assuming they must have mental health issues. I understand that it's probably more of a "well what sane person would ever do that?" view rather than blaming the mental health issues, but because of the way it's talked about it becomes the reason, when realistically you've got a ton of people out there with mental health issues who don't shoot people in the neck.

Also it's incredibly possible the perpetrator killed Kirk because they hate him and everything he stands for rather than mental health being any part of it.

Edited September 11, 2025 by LaGoosh

[Devon Malcolm]

27 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

If it's a student who's shot someone, it shouldn't be problematic to say they had mental health issues.

In this society, it isn't. But it 100% should be. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

4 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

In this society, it isn't. But it 100% should be. 

I think we just have to disagree.

If you are able to assassinate someone in cold blood, there is something not right. There is a switch not turned on, whether that's an absence of empathy, compassion, whether you're sociopathic or whatever.

I'm not trying to minimise other mental health issues, or say that it's comparable to other disorders (as I've discussed on here at length before, my dad's life has been completely derailed by bipolar disorder and I'm not in any way saying there's a connection or adjacency with violent crime) I'm just saying the very act of extinguishing someone's life in cold blood suggests something isn't right.

I don't understand how that's controversial, but equally I don't want to know as I suspect I've again walked into a conversation whistling what I thought was a fairly vanilla tune and ended up spooking the horses.

Apologies if I've pissed anyone off.

[Merzbow]

Killing a Nazi is never in cold blood, this man practically ran a Hitler Youth campaign with even others in the MAGA sphere using those exact words.

I think the influence of his Turning Point USA is kinda lost over here but fuck me it's bad.

Edited September 11, 2025 by Merzbow

[Carbomb]

I don't believe in the death penalty. I would never call for assassination.

But there isn't a single tear or feeling of sadness for that execrable little cretin. Yet another snide right-winger held up as an intellectual because of his use of sophistry, shallow logic, cheap gotchas, and trolling. Not only completely devoid of compassion for other humans, but actively espousing their deaths. A copy-and-paste Ben Shapiro.

I had hoped that his humbling little jaunt to Oxford Union and being made to look stupid might have blunted his rise, and that this would show a good, non-violent way to how these bastards might finally be defeated, but it wasn't to be.

[d-d-d-dAz]

17 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

If now is not the time for people who want to resist fascism in the USA to be taking up arms, then when will that be? Do you think it's reasonable for people to continue to only try to use the existing legal framework to affect change? 

It might be possible to fix, but I am not in the position to be judge those that have decided more drastic measures are required.

I don't believe in violence and killing people, no. Generally. I'm a big believer in not shooting people at events attended by students when they were literally just talking. However vile what is coming out of their mouth is, as despite it being morally unjustifiable and wrong - it's also packaging a massive win for people who weaponise free speech.

I believe in democracy, free speech, debate and... not killing people.

I think it's probably quite telling of the overall climate politically that my posts suggesting someone who murders someone at a political rally might be unstable has people raging, and yet a tacit endorsement of actual murder is fine.

Generally, I think the political temperature needs to be turned down. That's rarely achieved via assassination.

[Browser Brady]

Just now, d-d-d-dAz said:

 

I suspect I've again walked into a conversation whistling what I thought was a fairly vanilla tune and ended up spooking the horses.

 

First off, fantastic analogy ^
Secondly i know it’s just being courteous but i don’t think you need to apologise for your comments.

 

[BomberPat]

23 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

If now is not the time for people who want to resist fascism in the USA to be taking up arms, then when will that be? Do you think it's reasonable for people to continue to only try to use the existing legal framework to affect change? 

It might be possible to fix, but I am not in the position to be judge those that have decided more drastic measures are required.

My gut feeling is that the shooter won't turn out to be a left-wing opponent of Kirk, but a far-right accelerationist. Just a hunch, based on the general trends of American far-right movements. Obviously we just don't know yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if questions of motivation get quietly swept under the rug if and when they arrest the shooter.

[JLM]

I think that’s a part of why quickly tagging them  “mentally unstable” is almost too convenient for the ghouls who will decide the narrative. If they ARE a leftist it will be because of their politics and they’ll be a domestic terrorist. If not, they will be a crazy lone wolf with mental health issues, and any impact the rhetoric and advocacy of people like Kirk had on their world view and motivations will indeed be swept under the rug.

[Chest Rockwell]

4 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

 

I think it's probably quite telling of the overall climate politically that my posts suggesting someone who murders someone at a political rally might be unstable has people raging, and yet a tacit endorsement of actual murder is fine.

Generally, I think the political temperature needs to be turned down. That's rarely achieved via assassination.

No-one's raging. But your desperate desire to be the calm voice of reason comes from a position of privilege that you don't seem to recognise. 

What's your big idea and great solution for turning down the political temperature? When you can think of even one half feasible suggestion, then you can be in a position to judge others who are in a horrible and desperate situation. 

[Browser Brady]

1 minute ago, Chest Rockwell said:

No-one's raging. But your desperate desire to be the calm voice of reason comes from a position of privilege that you don't seem to recognise. 

 

You’ve taken quite a lot from his comments.

 

How do you know he is privileged exactly?

[SuperBacon]

25 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I don't understand how that's controversial, but equally I don't want to know as I suspect I've again walked into a conversation whistling what I thought was a fairly vanilla tune and ended up spooking the horses

I'll be very honest, and this may be a misreading, but the tone of some of your posts come off as incredibly patronising I'm afraid. And this is a repeat pattern IMO.

 

17 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I believe in democracy, free speech, debate and... not killing people.

Things like this make it sound like you're against killing people, and the rest of us are all for it.

 

[d-d-d-dAz]

8 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

then you can be in a position to judge others who are in a horrible and desperate situation. 

You definitely CAN judge people for committing murder. We have laws and actual judges for that very purpose.

I'm not desperate to be anything, I genuinely have these beliefs. I believe violence as a political tool is wrong. That shouldn't be controversial. It's a view that's been held on both sides of the political divide for a very long time.

And in terms of suggestions - not entirely sure it's within my remit - but today i'd have Donald Trump do a joint press conference/interview - alongside social collaboration for the kids - with someone like Hakeem Jefrees or Chuck Schumer, encouraging the country as a whole to come together and reject political violence. And then have the sane people from across the political divide share the key messages on their social channels. That'd probably be something resembling a start. Immediately everyone pointing figures at the other side and apportioning blame isn't helpful, I don't think.

Edited September 11, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[d-d-d-dAz]

2 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

I'll be very honest, and this may be a misreading, but the tone of some of your posts come off as incredibly patronising I'm afraid. And this is a repeat pattern IMO.

 

Things like this make it sound like you're against killing people, and the rest of us are all for it.

 

I was replying to a specific post, where someone said they didn't feel in a position to judge someone for killing someone. They are. We all are. We can judge someone for killing people. 

But also, cool, if i'm considered patronising. I apologise. It's an internet forum, I don't think I know anyone well enough to patronise them, but equally I have no interest wasting my time on here if that's what people think.

I'll leave you to it, and again, sorry if i've caused offence. Genuinely not my intention.

Edited September 11, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[BomberPat]

1 minute ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

And in terms of suggestions - not entirely sure it's within my remit - but today i'd have Donald Trump do a joint press conference/interview - alongside social collaboration for the kids - with someone like Hakeem Jefrees or Chuck Schumer, encouraging the country as a whole to come together and reject political violence. And then have the sane people from across the political divide share the key messages on their social channels. That'd probably be something resembling a start. Immediately everyone pointing figures at the other side and apportioning blame isn't helpful, I don't think.

Was this likely to happen, or was anyone even calling for it to happen, when an elected Democrat state representative was murdered, and another Democrat politician was shot, by a registered Republican, less than three months ago?