So was George Floyd supposed to prevent riots from the afterlife?
Charlie Kirk actively profited from making divisions in this country worse. He didn't go onto campuses to pitch his ideas and to promote certain values. He went in there to debate kids with little life experience and provoke them into reacting emotionally on issues they cared deeply about, all for the sake of selectively edited social media content.
He wasn't just espousing his opinions, he was purposefully obfuscating and misrepresenting those of the opposing side. He was adding gasoline onto growing political tensions instead of trying to bridge the divide. He was using people as a stepping stone to promote his own talking points.
Being a father or a Christian doesn't automatically make him a saint. He chose to dedicate his life to antagonizing others, and now he gets to reap what he's sown
@TinyViolins Lol .. and there is the telltale liberal name calling and unfounded claims. Yeah right, I'm the radical saying murder is justified if someone disagrees with me. 🙄
Do I need to continue? Of course they try to get out of it later .. but in the midst of riots known to be trending to violence .. they all called for more .. several called to bail out those arrested so they could continue .. knowing the likely outcome. That's inciting the violence that came from it .. as much as January 6th was wrong.
@BrandNewMan I knew you were going to bring these up. Waters made that statement in 2021 - almost a full year after the BLM protests
Kamala Harris made a statement to chip into the MFF only once - on June 1st, 2020 - at a time when protestors were mostly getting arrested for non-violent offenses.
The tweet was posted during a period of mass arrests of protesters in Minnesota following George Floyd's murder, which included many people detained for non-violent offenses like curfew violations.
At the time, Harris and other supporters of bail reform argued that cash bail disproportionately harms low-income people, and the tweet was consistent with this position.
The Minnesota Freedom Fund has stated that Harris herself never donated to the organization and that her connection was only the single 2020 tweet.
Scale of arrests in Minnesota
Hundreds arrested: Within the first week of protests, hundreds of people were arrested in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). For instance, a Minnesota Department of Public Safety multi-agency command center reported 604 arrests in the Twin Cities between May 29 and June 2, 2020.
Common charges: The majority of early protest-related charges were for nonviolent offenses such as violating curfew and failure to disperse. However, some arrests involved weapons violations or more serious offenses, as authorities reported seizing rifles from some individuals.
Most charges dropped: An analysis in 2021 found that more than 90% of the protest-related cases in Minneapolis were ultimately dropped or dismissed by prosecutors. This supports the argument from bail funds and activists that many arrests were a form of crowd control rather than a response to substantive criminal acts
To be reasonable a dead man cannot start a riot . The people who hailed him as a hero may have started some riots, but he did not cause them. George Floyd should not have been killed the way he was. I know a lot of people disagree with me- that's okay ,it's America you can disagree with me. George Floyd did not get a trial or any sentencing. It was caused by a police officer who would not listen to his cries of distress.
Should he have been made into a hero? No, I really don't believe he should have . That still doesn't mean I think it's great he died or the person who disregarded his pleas for help should be exonerated. Every American citizen has a right to stand befor a court of law.
Mr Kirk didn't do anything that warranted death. Some of his rhetoric might have made people nervous or angry. He didn't commit crimes. He only advocated his right to speak freely about what he believed- I did not always agree with him or his rhetoric, but he should have not had any violence perpetrated against him and in that respect he was more innocent than George Floyd, but that doesn't mean George Floyd should have been denied his rights, because he's seen as a more despicable character. Because ,you see if we only uphold rights for one set of people and defend violence against other people we find more seedy then we like, then we go against the very laws we say we believe and that we should uphold. I do not see the correlation between the two whether a conservative or a liberal brings this up. Two different stories and two different outcomes,with only death being the common denominator. George Floyd may have been a criminal, but he was denied his rights, and accidental or not,his life was taken by someone who would not listen to his cries of help- I cannot celebrate that any more than I can celebrate what happened to Charlie Kirk, but I see them as two distinct incidents.
Just for fun,I asked ChatGPT to analyse this debate between @ElwoodBlues and [boudinman]
Here's what it had to say.
ElwoodBlues
Strengths:
Condemnation of violence: ElwoodBlues repeatedly condemns the murder of Charlie Kirk, which shows they are not justifying the violence, even though they are critical of Kirk’s views.
Focus on context: ElwoodBlues focuses on specific quotes from Kirk, presenting them in context to argue that Kirk’s rhetoric could be seen as justifying or minimizing harm (e.g., his statement that some gun deaths are "worth it" for the 2nd Amendment). This is an attempt to critically analyze Kirk's views rather than just dismiss them as "copy-pasted snippets."
Challenging hypocrisy: ElwoodBlues highlights what they perceive as hypocrisy in the right's response to political violence, drawing attention to how similar killings by right-wing extremists are often explained away as "mentally ill" individuals while Kirk’s death is blamed on the left. This is a valid critique of political inconsistency.
Weaknesses:
Potential bias in framing: At times, ElwoodBlues seems to focus heavily on presenting Charlie Kirk's views as evidence that his rhetoric played a part in his own death, which could be seen as an unfair framing. While it’s legitimate to critique Kirk’s views, the leap from his rhetoric to justifying his murder isn't logically strong, and the constant emphasis on his controversial quotes risks oversimplifying a complex issue.
A bit of gloating: There are moments where ElwoodBlues seems to almost take pleasure in pointing out the contradictions they see in the right, particularly when they accuse them of hypocrisy. This can come across as less empathetic and more focused on "winning" the argument rather than fostering understanding.
boudinMan:
Strengths:
Strong defense of free speech: boudinMan's central argument is that people have the right to express controversial or unpopular opinions, and this should not result in violence. This is a core tenet of liberal democracies, and they are unwavering in defending it. The argument about respecting free speech is a fair and important one to make.
Condemns the murder: Like ElwoodBlues, boudinMan also condemns the murder of Charlie Kirk, which shows they are not justifying the violence in any way.
Focus on freedom of expression: By bringing up how college campuses used to encourage open dialogue and debate between opposing viewpoints, boudinMan is reminding others of the value of engaging with different opinions without resorting to violence or censorship.
Weaknesses:
Downplaying consequences of rhetoric: boudinMan tends to dismiss the potential consequences of inflammatory rhetoric. While it’s true that free speech should be protected, some of Kirk's statements about gun violence and empathy may be seen as socially irresponsible. By avoiding any discussion of the impact of these views, boudinMan's arguments seem overly simplistic, and they might be perceived as ignoring the broader context.
Deflecting responsibility: At several points, boudinMan accuses the left of creating an environment where people like Kirk are "silenced" or "eliminated," which can come off as a deflection rather than addressing the nuance of why some people find Kirk’s views harmful. The focus on "the left" and their supposed "attack" on free speech might be viewed as overly polarized and not fully fair to the complexity of the situation.
Conclusion
ElwoodBlues provides a more balanced approach in terms of addressing the consequences of speech and engaging with specific quotes from Kirk. While their framing is clearly critical of Kirk, they try to provide context for his views and their potential implications for society. They also consistently condemn the murder, which keeps the argument from devolving into a justification for violence.
boudinMan, on the other hand, is very focused on defending Kirk’s right to express controversial views without consequence. While this is a valid point about freedom of speech, they tend to dismiss any responsibility or consequences of Kirk's rhetoric. This makes their argument less nuanced and more defensive.
Ultimately, ElwoodBlues appears to be the more fair in terms of acknowledging the complexity of the situation, even though their focus on Kirk’s views might be interpreted as biased. They engage with the arguments thoughtfully, while boudinMan’s argument, though strong on free speech, tends to deflect and oversimplify some of the social consequences of rhetoric.
George Floyd actually went to a decent church and even engaged in local missionary work, there is a lesson in this, Christians can still struggle with strong sins. Remember in my posts they may sometimes be misconcieved as condemning but like all posters, I am actually preaching to myself too.
Charlie Kirk on one of his last videos, promoted 'Voice of the Martyrs' a charity supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, sadly something lacking in many Christians.
George Floyd was killed by a police officer. In this country, police officers who kill unarmed people often receive no punishment. Whoever killed Kirk will likely be given the death penalty. There is no chance they get away with it.
The reaction to Floyd’s murder was about the police and the unfair treatment of certain people. It is a totally different context than a political assassination. There have been several political assassinations in recent American history (one earlier this summer even), none of which generated even a quarter of the attention that Kirk is receiving, because he is more famous and more beloved.
But frankly I don’t care how liked he was. Whenever someone like Floyd is killed, you have people coming out to say “he was no angel”, “he deserved it”, now you know what that’s like, I guess. Personally I think unnecessary violence, whether from police or from a sniper, reflects badly on this country. And it doesn’t matter if the person killed was a petty criminal or a popular figure on social media.
GF, a violent criminal and drug addict, was hailed a hero.
No. He was grieved for being lost in a completely preventable death.
The police don't have the luxury of judging you based upon past transgressions; they are supposed to "serve and protect" the ENTIRE public. Even persons who are currently suspects are to be afforded due process. The use of appropriate levels of force is part of respecting his primary "inalienable right", his Life.
2)
His death caused riots, destruction and other violence.
His death mostly caused peaceful protests.
You might diversify your news sources, or even listen to ppl here who live in places that the fringe Right loves to claim were "burned to the ground" but were not.
3)
CK, a...God fearing Christian
When did Jesus command His followers to be racists? When did Jesus command His followers to choose gun rights over the deaths of innocent people?
Jesus spoke of the Parable of the Good Samaritan--helping anyone who crosses your path and whom you CAN help.
4)
CK...caused no deaths, crimes, or violence
His rhetoric has made targeted researchers' lives living Hells.
Where did Jesus say to espouse hate?
5)
What's wrong with this picture and who is responsible?
What's wrong is that two people both lost their lives unnecessarily.
The police were responsible in the GF case; it seems they know the sole shooter in the CK case.
The methods were murdering GF by maliciously placing body weight on his neck so as to choke him to death; murdering CK by shooting him in a planned assassination.
I am unsure of the motives of the killers in these events, as I cannot see into their hearts and souls. However, their actions speak for themselves.
Who was responsible for those two politicians being killed in Minnesota last month? And the one who invaded Pelosi's home and almost killed her husband? Anyone remember Gabby Giffords?
@ididntknowTwo different autopsy reports were conducted on George Floyd: one by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner and a second, independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family. Both concluded that his death was a homicide.
They differed on some contributing factors but not the cause. He died because of the actions of another human.
