Why did Matthew Dowd actually got fired? I guess for rehashing an idea that some people would call "wise".

@Jackaloftheazuresand
🤨

@BohoBabe Don't talk to me prince of pine

@Jackaloftheazuresand Yeah... He was just casually asking for the dead penalty for Joe Biden. But hey... That's okay right, it's not really advocating for someones death by saying that I guess...

@Kwek00 You know the difference between innocents and someone he accused of crime. Skinheads for example just say people of color should die with no call to any wrongdoing

@Kwek00 Yes because it exists within a legally sanctioned use of death, in the US you are allowed to advocate for a criminal to get death. Do you want me to to change it? I can to clarify, are you then suddenly going to accept it?

It's speculative to determine what he meant there.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Do you understand, that when I say that someone deserves the dead penalty, that I'm not a judge? I didn't use any real legal framework here. I just tell you that someone I don't like deserves the dead penalty. Now, give me an audience of 6 million people that I influence on a daily basis, and I'm telling people that this person deserves the dead penalty ... In your brain this isn't the same as "advocating for someones death".

Yeah, sure... It's speculative. You know why people like you can get away with that idea? It's because these people don't want to get sued and want to attract people like you that are unable to read between the lines OR draw their statements to their logical conclussions. People like you listen to demagogues like Charlie that dogwhistle and sell you extreme ideas in fluffy sentences. But sometimes, they forget to do so... and even then people like you that are enthralled by wolf in sheeps' clothing can't admit themselves to say that this person is just a violent jerk. People like charlie are conmen, and you are the sucker.

@Kwek00 I asked you if you want me to change my response to better show what I meant. This isn't a point of contention for me so I will if that's what you want.

The words "death penalty" hold the implication that the person will be given a trial first. If Kirk had said we need to blow up Biden I'd be inclined to agree with your statement because our enshrined practices don't involve an explosive execution, but he didn't so I won't.

You will regret your characterization of me when I show you what I've said about Kirk. https://similarworlds.com/politics/5392268-Stricter-Gun-Laws-Now-That-Charlie-kirk-was-shot-can-we

And do trust me on this, you don't want me reading between the lines. There are many things I already wish for people that I do not allow myself to partake in because I can't prove them. It's why so many of my enemies still exist

@Jackaloftheazuresand No... He's not asking for a trial. He's saying that Biden deserves the death penalty. He automatically goes to the conclussion. The death penalty is not the trial, it's the judgement. And for Charlie, this judgement was already clear.

No... I won't regret the characterization because you literally said:


Except he was... he was judging people and he considered that some people (Joe Biden at the very least) should get the death penalty. He wasn't talking about fair trial, he just jumped to the judgement.

When it comes to these types of people, you should be reading between the lines. Their actions also reflect this. There are still a bunch of people out there (I'm not pointing at you know) that believe Charlie was aksing for "peacefull discourse" because he never advocated for violence. Altough, all of his ideas end up in a violent place AND when violence happened (as example on the 6th of januari 2021) he was fine with it. Because his team did nothing wrong. Same goes for when Pelosis' husband was brutalised with a hammer. On one side Charlie is saying that he doesn't condone violence, on the other hand he's urging "patriots" to bail out the suspect because you could get a really good story out of it. No death penalty needed in that case.

@Kwek00 Your ideas end up in violence. What should your sentence be?

@Kwek00 Your minimization of your part shows that you don't actually care so long as the violence is small enough for you to dismiss it. But small enough is not zero as well, therefore you are dangerous. You allow drops of violence.

You only want this game and these rules because you don't think they'll apply to you but they do. Now if you want me to read more into those lines, you actually know this but you're banking on being able to pick up the "gun" first.

@Jackaloftheazuresand I asked you for an example... I don't see any.

I'm honest with you, I'm not a pascifist on a personal level. However, if I don't like someone and they go to far, and all other avenues have been explored... yeah, you might run into my fist. But it will be my fist, not someone elses that did it because I manipulated them. I won't be bragging on my platform about the 80 busses I send someones' way to fight for some noble cause, even after the riot it caused.

I think the idea of pascifism is a noble one, but it's deluded. A segment poppulation is not open to reason, they don't want to compromise, they don't want to talk, they just want you to do what they want. And those people only understand violence. If you want examples of this, then dig in to the wonderfull world of neighbour disputes. Or just talk to young people that are getting bullied at school. The weird thing is, that a segment of the bullies that exploit pascifists and these ideas of: "violence never solves anything", stop bullying the moment you kick them in the nuts. You don't even need to win the fight, just the knowledge that you had enough and will defend yourself with your body is enough for some to not go through the hassle anymore.

I honestly think Donald Trump is such a character, however, he doesn't need to be stopped by someones individual fist, he should just get an honest trial. I'm pretty sure that if that occurs, the consequences will be as I suspect AND I don't expect the death penalty (which I'm against). The biggest reason why the US is in the spot that they are in now, is because there was no repercussion for bad behavior even when that bad behavior should have been trialed. Absolutely none. Neither the system through impeachment NOR the courts gave any relieve. Even when the leader of the republicans in the senate admitted that these were impeachable actions, he couldn't do it... officially because Trump wasn't in office anymore, but anyone that understands what's going on knows that this is just a partisan descision because there is no rule that says you can't impeach a person that isn't in office.

And if you think that I'm going to the judgement right away, then you are wrong too, but considering everything that is known the judgement should at least be in the realm of the expectations UNLESS something actually comes up that changes everyones mind. Which not even Trumps' defence was able to do up until now, they just delayed proceedings with the help of loyalists in the judicial branch and quackery from lawyers who's goal it was to stall this out by invoking procedures no other person ever asked for. Like the immunity case that got stalled in the supreme court, only to get a result that baffled most people that still remember the Nixon case. No one ever asked for immunity like that, but I guess Trump needed it to sneak out of the mess he created. At the end of the day, the bully went free and he's doing what he has always done because no one did their job.

@Kwek00 I asked you for a couple things too which you didn't provide so spare me that line. The example was the first part of my last response by the way. You are further admitting to indulging in it now also.

It doesn't bode well for you to be against killing. Other people are fine killing you if the law of the land is just going to be what we assume of a person. You may get the upper hand and lock them up first but there will always be a chance they get out and if they get the upper hand you would be eliminated right there. That's why you will likely lose your game. I am urging you against that misstep. You don't want the smoke, you have no idea how much you don't want it. Everyone is much safer without your challenge to the system.

@Jackaloftheazuresand If you can't point out what ideas of mine end up in violence... then maybe you should just keep the entire idea for yourself.

Are you defending the death penalty now? Because people that go to prison might hold a grudge? I'm okay with life in prison, and if society is ready for it, I even believe people that are sentenced for life can ask to be euthanised after a certain term has been furfilled. That term, being a concensus amongst society. For punishment isn't only applicable to the subject that did the crime, it also serves a purpose to the victims and in much lesser extend the nation. However, people that are so problematic, that you can't let them out (like for instance serial killers), I'm okay with them having the option to end their life after a set date has been reached and I'm also okay with them being in prison for the rest of their lifes. I do think that society should better the prison system... the conditions in my own country are despicable but sadly people that can't vote don't have much weight in the political debate. And those that are free, show little empathy to those that are locked up. Because a lot of these people will eventually have served their term, and part of the prison system should be to allow these people to reintegrate into society. Once their punishment is over, it shouldn't be a cross to bear until their death. And society will also be better for it, when people become productive instead of thrown away goods that have little options left then to fall back into old vices.

@Kwek00 I did point it out. You just for some reason aren't acknowledging it.

If you read the link I gave you you'd know that I defend the death penalty but it's not because of grudges. When I told you that they can get out I wasn't showing you that such people would hold a grudge. I was telling you that you are giving them theoretically infinite chances to destroy you. That's the problem with what you want, you are dooming the weak and innocent to a world where the villainous are more powerful, not less

@Jackaloftheazuresand Instead of this:


You could have just clarified yourself. But you didn't 🤷‍♂ I'll wait on that one. But I'm not going to acknowledge it anymore unless I get an answer.


No I'm not... In my world, if the case turned out like I think it would, at least one of those people would be barred from holding civic office. And in certain cases, if the courts do their job, people will be weakened by loss of money and status.

What I won't do, is create a framework where permanent sollutions are being used on persons that have a chance of redemption. I believe we should give people that opportunity, because everyone can do really stupid and sometimes evil deeds. That doesn't mean that over time, they won't recognise this and change their mind about it. If they fall back into old habbits, the system should penalise them again.

Since your stance is equal for everyone, I can at least respect that. And then it becomes a moral argument, where not much objectivety can point to a "right" or a "wrong" here. So I can only tell you that I personally disagree.

@Kwek00 Permitting violence in small drops. You think because the other people who get influenced by you aren't taking your targets that your rhetoric about punching bullies is now not responsible for still being the reason they decide to hit someone.

You're so focused on Trump and Kirk that you're not paying attention to everyone who might be called evil, those other evil people will use your logic to strike and kill first as soon as you open that can of worms. You are already building that framework, every thing you say effects other people and you are telling me that yes, we should expect to be killed even when we play by the agreed upon rules that you don't die for Kirk's sort of speech. That expectation did not have much ground here. It was created by people who wanted that expectation to exist and you are reinforcing it. The US speech laws allow people to speak as he did and Dowd's words are antithetical to that and he retracted them. Perhaps he is only saving face but even in that he shows you that he prefers to go back to how things were intended rather than his first statement. As for the evil people, they don't care what your determinations and standards are beyond if you think somebody is bad then that bad person should expect bad things to happen to them. They'll say, "Yeah kwek is bad, let's kill him. He should expect it so he should have been quiet if he didn't want to die. And I did it with my own hands rather than rousing a mob so it's not wrong. I was only meeting someone with violence who would not listen to reason." And it will be because you planted that idea in the public conscious that it happens, not every time but some times.