Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

George Floydd.....Charlie Kirk...

Stop and notice the difference.
GF, a violent criminal and drug addict, was hailed a hero. His death caused riots, destruction and other violence.
CK, a political activist, family man, God fearing Christian, caused no deaths, crimes, or violence, but was killed for his opinions.
What's wrong with this picture and who is responsible?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
boudinMan · 61-69, M
@wishforthenight who GAF what chatGPT says? my point is no one should be murdered for their beliefs, while you, mr blueballs, and your ilk believe it's just fine... you just don't say it outright.
@boudinMan Neither me, nor @ElwoodBlues say any such thing. We said that it was not surprising his views got him murdered.

Should AOC, Mamdani or someone from your "radical left" get murdered, I will say the same thing.

no one should be murdered for their beliefs, while you, mr blueballs, and your ilk believe it's just fine
Also, ChatGPT cannot lie, unlike you.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@boudinMan Glee like this?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@boudinMan fine. I did condemn his murder. I even said that to you. I am so sorry for his two kids.


But you don’t believe me. I have no idea why not.

But I also know that free speech only goes one way for people like you. You loved the fact that Paul pelosi was attacked. You cheered when the Minnesota senator was murdered. But you cry foul when one of your own is held accountable. It’s breathtaking hypocrisy.

boudinMan · 61-69, M
@wishforthenight show me where i said anything about paul pelosi or the minnesota senator. and, btw, i was talking to elwoodblues.
@boudinMan I’m talking about you as in right wingers, not you personally. Just as I hope you truly don’t believe that I’m in some way pleased that Kirk was murdered.
boudinMan · 61-69, M
@wishforthenight if you say you aren't then i believe you.
@boudinMan Thank you. I condemn the murder of anyone, regardless of what I think of their views.
Aami1 · 26-30, F
@wishforthenight True to put "radical left" in those quote marks. The left is radical by definition, so no need for the determiner.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Aami1 · 26-30, F
@ElwoodBlues Point proven with these ^
@Aami1 Point proven with this ^