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.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Which people am I enciting to do the same with Jack? What platform am I using... the only reason why I told you that, is because I want to make MY position clear to YOU. So you can understand it within the framework of this conversation. You won't find me endorsing this idea, unless the conversation calls for it. And if we go deeper into it, I'll always add that this is a last resort... which I also did in this conversation. I don't agree with Girards' answer, I just mentioned him in my post because he's a conservative that has written alot about violence.

I think living in a society, also means that there are risks involves. I actually use your first part of your 2nd paragraph against people that believe: if everyone is armed in society, there will be less shootings. Or this idea that if you are armed, a lot of it can be prevented. But the person that is going to commit the murder, will pull their gun first, and most likely get a shot off before the reaction happens. When it comes to gun deaths, I would like to reduce that amount. However, I'm not against the idea that people sometimes get into a fist fight. Each individual case needs to be looked at at it's individual merrits. The only thing I don't want, is the state to condone violence, the state has a different roll to play and the individual that uses his fist should be aware of it when they use violence.


Yes, the 1st amendment allows it... and Dowd's says that people that use violent rhetoric will eventually create violence. This isn't anthitetical, because the 1st amendment only protects you from consequences by the governement, they don't protect you from other ones. You can't be a public agitator, and expect no one to be agitated. 🤷‍♂ The more brutal the agitation the higher chance of a brutal pushback. And if you don't think Charlie hasn't been brutal, then you just haven't been paying attention. I'm pretty sure me and Dowd, both want the perpetrator to be trialed according to the law. None of us have any issues with that... but I guess we aren't naive enough to pretend that humans as a whole, won't have figures that are going to respond in emotional ways to demagogues that make a job of triggering as much people as they can.



Well, that's on them then. At least I'm not pushing them to do anything, neither do I prescribe my ideas as some law to them. Nor do I seek foundation in religious texts for any bigotry I might have.
tJust for the record, I don't expect bad things to happen to evil people. But I'm not naive enough to believe that if you push enough people no one will react to it. How they react is on them, and if that reaction isn't withing in the limits of what is allowed, it should be condemned and trialed and I'll support. Just like I'm sure Dowd supports it too. But this madness that you can just be a bully on stage and pretend everyone will justt walk away and be super rational about stuff, I leave that to liberals that believe in the liberal myth that every person should act like a "rational actor". Even though there is an entire body of work within liberalism that recognises that people have emotions... but granted, they rather don't like to concern themselves with that to much. It's just easier to have frameworks where human beings are always responsible for their own actions and emotions and insanity are just myths that can never take over the rational actor people like to put in the center of their ideas. It makes things a lot easier for them.

@Kwek00 Anyone who repeats what you say because they saw you say it and anyone who agrees with you who also hold other views you would disagree with but who now feel stronger because they think you're an ally. Don't you understand, you are Charlie to others. They'll say that you are the bully, that you know that you can just get away with being a bully because you say you are so small and that you don't have meaningful follower counts and that it's only a last resort for you. I won't be the only person that sees your message, simply speaking it into the world at all means you lose control of how it gets used.

It is antithetical and here's why. The state isn't allowed to act upon people for their speech because American values say that you shouldn't address speech with anything but speech and that we have a right to our words. To suggest that you should expect to die is saying that we don't value that right as a people which just isn't true, otherwise we would not have codified it. And it's false to say it doesn't protect you from other ones. You can can get an assault charge for hitting someone who calls you a name, that is the state saying that nobody else is allowed to take your speech from you either.

Your "at least" is somebody else's too far and I'd say the myth you refer to is only a myth because of the pushback. If we left the idea behind that somebody will do something crazy then craziness falters in prevalence.

@Jackaloftheazuresand I'm sorry, but I can't control what they think... but that's the outcome of your way of thinking. In the end, you"ll end up in a really restrictive society. I might be a rollmodel to some people, even if I don't want to be, but that doesn't make me Charlie. I'm not advocating for the state to put restrictions on segments of the population, I'm not even saying that Charlie should have been shut up by the state. I like the state to stay away from censorship, as much as possible. And what is "possible", is a debate that can be had, but it's a subjective and difficult one and I'm open for any argument. But I'll always argue from a position where the state should be restrained from censoring or going against people for what they say, but I'm not dumb enough to believe that antagonistic speech will not have a cost.

Bully people for what? What do I force people to do? In what kind of way do I opress or advocate for opression of the weak? It's a bit to easy to flip the script on someone, when that person doesn't even fit the description of the word that you want to apply to them. There needs to be a bit more work there, for me to take that idea serious.


That's the ideal, where the rational actor works in a rational way. The state doesn't need to actively promote the non ideal... HOWEVER, even the state isn't naive. That's why during judicial trials, the sanity of a person can be put into question. We have murders that are a result of passion and/or temporal insanity. Even the state recognises that people can be weak, vunerable and emotional and/or do stupid things in a fit of rage that they later regret. But ideally, yes, speech should be countered by speech.


If you believe this to be true... then you haven't learned anything from history. How many speakers were brutally beaten and murdered through the years? Activists are ussually aware of that, that if you push against things, you might become a target from those that you push against. Codifying the ideal situation, doesn't save you from the non-ideal real world. But be glad someone sometimes put themselves in the crosshairs, because those that stick out their necks for a good cause might actually push the needle on the toppic that they want reform to take place. But that doesn't mean people need to be dumb about it, and pretend that violence as a reaction is something out of the ordinairy.


I stand corrected to a a degree, because I'm pretty sure you get assault charges because you hit someone. And the state has the monopoly on violence. It's not the state telling you speech is protected, it's the state telling you that assault will not be tollerated. And you know what, I'm okay with that. But I'm also aware that that kind of mentality allows a lot of bad behavior to continue. What is the right answer? I don't know... but I can tell you I'll gladly pay the price in certain cases, and I won't be angry at the state for enforcing their laws.

@Kwek00 I'd argue Charlie would say the same about how you see him. You don't have to be a 1 to 1 match when the antagonism is felt by those opposite to you. Charlie didn't force anyone to do anything either, he did things by the book of our legal system. You malign people as you have done with him which sets an example that it's okay. You told me I was a sucker who was susceptible to his deception and then you said you didn't regret it when I showed you I didn't like him because you had maligned me too from a single sentence. These are negative traits and those of a bully.

Most of those non ideal outcomes are self fulfilling prophesies and are out of the ordinary. Only someone who believes that violence is to be expected can do so. The humble do not lash out reflexively. The less you spread the idea of it just being prudent and the less you will see.

If it were just about hitting someone there wouldn't be self defense cases that tell us what assault is and isn't, you'd never be able to defend yourself really. Which funnily enough is how some of these left leaning places operate by telling the victim that they have a duty to flee even though they were the one transgressed upon. Perhaps thinking the state has a monopoly on it is just how the left sees it and that's why they make such rules.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Jack... again. Am I advocating for someone to receive the death penalty? Do I want transsexuals and gays to be treated like in the 50s? What are my antagonisms? That I call someone a racist when he says that they wouldn't trust a black person if he would be flying a plane? Or that I call someone an authoritarian, when they cheer and clap for an executive branch that occupies cities with the national guard to "clean them up" and "save them from socialists" while the person that they are talking about won a legit election and is letting the system do it's thing without making any decree then the ones they are legally allow to make.

Yeah, you are a sucker... just look at yourself right here. You are still twisting yourself in all kinds of ways to pretend wasn't advocating for death. And now you are comparing me with Charlie Kirk on some abstract level, and even that makes no sense. The best you can do is say that we are both human beings... at least I can agree with that.

How is a self furfilling prophecy ... aka, something that logically follows also "out of the ordinary"? Violence is part of life, wake the fuck up.
This quote made me sick for 2 days... maybe it's time you struggle with it too:



I agree, because that's the part from Girard I do agree with. It's mimetic, people do violence because violence is part of the data set. That's one of the reasons the state needs to try and keep it out of society and get a monopoly of violence. However, I don't endorse that the state is going to mass censor every form of violence in society. It doesn't need to get out of our literature, our movies, ... etc. Because violence is part of human beings, it comes with emotions. We don't need to reduce every human being to a rational actor, it's going to end up in psychological tragedy not to mention, that those that have mastered the way of bullying will just run over anyone in that society, we'll just be ruled by absolute dicks.


That's because rhetoric AND physical violence aren't put on the same height in our law and most of the time also not in brain. Weird and awkward behavior that is only there to pester an other individual, is also not put on the same height as physical violence. It's physical violence that the state rules over, all the other things are moot for them. But the person undergoing the harrasement, is pretty much a victim if the state sees it that way or not. It's not because the state doesn't have a toolkid to deal with a certain issue, that that issue doesn't excist. But once the victim results to the last resort option, the bully will cry foul and go to the courts and win. What the convicted person does after wards, is for them to decide.


The idea that the state has a monopoly on violence, is really not a "left wing" idea... Did you ever read a basic introduction to political science? Because there is a good reason why the state doesn't allow other groups to enact violence UNLESS those groups are under the protection of the state. Modern day examples of that can be found in fascistic like regimes where militias function as a state enforcer so that the state can rid itself of responsibilities but can also opress other groups violently without getting directly involved. For a good introduction, I advice you to watch the documentary: "The Act of Killing", which handles about an example of just that in Indonesia. But since the old days, the state has claimed a monopoly on violence.

Also... How would the state even deal with other forms of violence then physical one? How will cases be made, where is the evidence? Once you start legeslating these types of things, you also start walking a weird path... and so far, I've never heared a good argument from anyone when it comes to this particulair thing. If people give proposals, they enter the terrain of a weird an authoritarian model really quickly, where people are reduced to ideal forms of themselves and some autocrat makes sure that they behave that way. A bit like person playing with dolls in a dollhouse. Dolls that are naughty, just get removed, and the prescripted scenario just plays out as the autocrat wishes it to be. But I don't want to be a fellow traveller to that model.

@Kwek00 If you won't listen to me then listen to how your own call you out.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/31/us/r-word-slur-comeback-cec

@Jackaloftheazuresand Why do you even think, that these are "my own people"?