After Kirk shooting, Utah governor calls social media a “cancer.” Will we treat it like one?

We did not evolve to handle this, Utah governor says.

See full article...

 

[Tonkaman]

Killing someone for their words is peak fasicm. Look in the mirror.

Yes, which is why a conservative shot Kirk. And why a conservative shot Trump. Etc. Etc. There's a clear pattern, that the FBI has noted for decades. 90%+ of all extremist violence comes from the right, including Islamic terrorism that Americans fear so much. That's also conservatives, just not Christian ones.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Yes, which is why a conservative shot Kirk. And why a conservative shot Trump. Etc. Etc. There's a clear pattern, that the FBI has noted for decades. 90%+ of all extremist violence comes from the right, including Islamic terrorism that Americans fear so much. That's also conservatives, just not Christian ones.

Technically we don't know the shooter's ideology, if any. Everything so far is based on speculation rather than testimony, and we've already had false information injected into the narrative.

 

[Aurich]

They were found with the rifle. It had a nearly full magazine, even though he only fired one.

There was no nearly full magazine, or magazine at all.

Let's stick with the facts.

 

[jtwrenn]

(Oh, unless you meant "throwing away" as in not voting for Harris because reasons. In which case, yes, anyone who did that was either an idiot or got exactly what they voted for.)

Was talking about that to some degree but more about messaging on the side of going after the bigger blocks first and not getting tied up in culture war fights that are losers for elections. The trans rights fight, like it or not, is not a winner. It should still be fought, but this whole conversation started because someone was trying to defend Kirk with his transphobic rhetoric. Compared to his other rhetoric it is not as crazy and is more in line...like it or not...with the rest of America.

It sucks and the left needs to prioritize winning and looking at what the majority of people want....we need to be the sane populous party first, then work on trans rights. I know it sounds harsh but if we prioritize the 1% over the 99% no matter what...we will lose votes. We will appear to be detached from the people and reality, and more and more people won't show up. In short, it's the economy stupid still rings true. Focus on what effects the most people and you win.

I was just talking messaging and was called an apologist for mentioning there are tiers of psycho on anti trans rights, and to me Kirk was worse on things like racism and misogyny than on trans rights. Not like he was good on any of it he was a horrible human being, but there are tiers of horrible in there.

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

I think I might rephrase jtwrenn's argument this way: arguing in favor of trans rights will keep Democrats out of power. That doesn't mean to actually infringe on them, just don't push them as a central issue, because there's a lot of stuff going on that also needs to be fought, most of which is a lot more popular. The Republicans are using this, successfully, as a tactic of division, which is pretty obvious right here in this thread.

You're all way closer to one another than you would be to any Republican, but you're putting more effort into fighting each other than you are into fighting them. You can support trans rights without making it a huge issue. It's a loser to visibly back them, so deflect instead. Don't agree with Republicans, just talk about something else. Save the activism for your votes and when Democrats are in power.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, what matters is the opinions of everyone else. Adapt your message to suit the intended audience. It's disgusting that the Republicans are winning on this issue, but like it or not, they are.

 

[kyleo95]

And oddly, Mr Kirk believed that empathy was weakness stemming from new age morality... and not, you know, the key thing that makes us human.

Sir, you are the editor-in-chief for a news company, could you at least perform your due diligence to properly investigate things before you just spout off the BS that is this malformed regurgitation of a quote?

"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that – it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

 

[stk5]

Sir, you are the editor-in-chief for a news company, could you at least perform your due diligence to properly investigate things before you just spout off the BS that is this malformed regurgitation of a quote?

"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that – it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

If there's something about that quote that you think changes the overall meaning, you're gonna have to state what it is.

 

[L0neW0lf]

Considering that conservatives want to cut Medicare/Medicaid and research funding to hurt those with cancer, why are they going after social media?

This guy's metaphor doesn't stack up considering that conservatives give such short shrift to cancer itself.

 

[pagh]

[Governor Cox] said that, "we are not wired as human beings—biologically, historically—we have not evolved in a way that..."

A science-based argument - specifically and evolution-based argument - coming from a Republican politician. Well. That's fun.

Governor Cox does make some reasonable arguments - anyone with a brain can observe that social media can be and often is unhealthy - but I'm not exactly going to trust his judgement about this subject. Or anything outside state government, and even that's questionable.

 

[crepuscularbrolly]

The White House is certainly making hay

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

President Trump and his allies are capitalizing on the assassination of Charlie Kirk to open up fresh attacks on liberal institutions, donors and foundations. They seek to portray many on the left as traitors.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I think I might rephrase jtwrenn's argument this way: arguing in favor of trans rights will keep Democrats out of power.

Yes, we all understand that. Nobody is misunderstanding this.
And it's bad.
Imagine making that argument in the 1950s and 60s, that politicians who wanted to promote civil rights protections for people of color should abandon that platform in order to win more elections. Indeed, Civil Rights era Republicans (back, still the "Party of Lincoln" before the implementation of the Southern Strategy) were the minority party in both houses of Congress most of the time. Would the Civil Rights legislative efforts of the era have passed? If the then-racially progressive Republicans had ceded the debate on civil rights and racism to the Southern Democrats, would they have gained more support and gotten elected in greater numbers?

This isn't theoretical. It's almost exactly what happened after the passage of those bills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

The phrase "Southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances to gain their support.[7] This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era. The scholarly consensus is that racial conservatism was critical in the post–Civil Rights Act realignment of the Republican and Democratic parties,[8][9] though several aspects of this view have been debated by historians and political scientists.[10][11][12][13][14]

The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and for ignoring the black vote.[15][16]

So no, I reject the idea that progressives should abandon the fight for equal rights across the board as some kind of virtuous political strategy. I am fully aware of what jtwrenn is asking for, perhaps more than they are. I'm not under any impression that they're advocating active trans-bashing, but they don't have to go that far for their position to be found morally reprehensible. Was the Republican party's abandonment of racial justice the right call to make fifty years ago, or the wrong one? I have strong words for anyone who thinks it was the right one. Did it get them electoral success? Yes, and look at how much shittier the world is today for it!

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, what matters is the opinions of everyone else. Adapt your message to suit the intended audience. It's disgusting that the Republicans are winning on this issue, but like it or not, they are.

Then we'll fight to change minds, not shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, I guess we should pipe down about the pervasive bigotry against trans people."
Contrary to the constant urge to re-explain the same position, nobody needs clarification here. We know where we each stand, which is why I was trying to drop the conversation.

 

[graylshaped]

Sir, you are the editor-in-chief for a news company, could you at least perform your due diligence to properly investigate things before you just spout off the BS that is this malformed regurgitation of a quote?

"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that – it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

I offer you my prayers and thoughts as you struggle with reconciling your failure in comprehension with your conviction of moral rectitude.

 

[Liam Ham]

I noticed you haven't rebutted any of this with the positive message of Charlie Kirk. Not the parts where he promotes white replacement theory, advocates against trans people existing the same way as non trans people, or that fun bit where he said he doesn't trust black airline pilots. When he got shot he was being cheeky about "trans violence".

I don't have to prove anything when you're the one so egregiously butchering his quotes based on what you heard on CNN just because you want to be angry for no reason. You probably saw the "Boy I hope he's qualified" quote and didn't do any background checking to see it was paraphrased. His quote on black pilots was this: "Before DEI, no one ever questioned a professionals' credentials. Before DEI, nobody ever thought or worried about those things because you could trust a person was hired because they were the best, not because a company was trying to avoid fines and sanctions by the government. Now I see a black pilot and think "Boy I hope he's qualified!" Which, like it or not, is a valid argument about 'earned' versus 'given' and it's impact on society.

 

[Aurich]

I'm amused by the people pulling out the Charlie Kirk quotes like his actual words somehow make him sound better.

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

Then we'll fight to change minds, not shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, I guess we should pipe down about the pervasive bigotry against trans people."

So you flail about, taking on the wrong fights, and lose, and then trans people end up even worse off.

From prior experience with white supremacist/fascists, they're going to end up in fucking gas chambers within the next few years if Democrats don't start winning soon. I would suggest that ideological purity is maybe not the best position, given the opposition and the stakes. I'm willing for my purity to be a little diminished if it keeps people alive that otherwise wouldn't be.

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

Wow, they're literally down to making up facts they like better.

 

[Aurich]

The shooter was using a bolt action rifle that somehow had a magazine, was a groyper right wing loonie, but also a liberal furry.

How about people just stop making shit up. If you want to post about the shooter's details then provide a link to a verified source.

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

The shooter was using a bolt action rifle that somehow had a magazine, was a groyper right wing loonie, but also a liberal furry.

My entire expertise comes from videogames, but I think you can have a bolt-action rifle that has a magazine. The M1 Garand was one of them, I believe; it had a 5-round magazine that you couldn't replace until you'd fired all five shots. But you still had to work the bolt for every round, even though it had a mag. At least I think you did, I haven't played a WW2 game in a great long while. I could easily be mixing my memories together.

Again, I am a keyboard warrior at best. If anyone claims otherwise and appears to have any actual expertise, pay attention to them, not to me.

 

[TVPaulD]

His own mother outed him as increasingly left leaning and focused on trans issues. Chat logs with his transitioning boyfriend state: "I had enough of his [Kirk's] hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out."

Even his Steam account hints to a gay furry alter ego. This individual is a typical leftie that religiously believes that speech is violence, which is a classic liberal campus slogan/chant.

Edit: I sourced this from the X account of journalist Andy Ngo. Very diligent man that has chronicled left wing agitators like Antifa and their methods for years now. Most recently he coined the term "Trantifa" as there is a disproportionately large number of trans identifying individuals within the group.

Andy Ngo is neither diligent or remotely reliable. He's a provocateur, has completely lost all credibility and is a known associate of various far right hate groups, including armed groups actively engaged in political violence.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

The shooter was using a bolt action rifle that somehow had a magazine, was a groyper right wing loonie, but also a liberal furry.

How about people just stop making shit up. If you want to post about the shooter's details then provide a link to a verified source.

I get your point, but nothing about having a bolt action means you can't have a detachable box magazine. And the bit that holds and feeds ammo, even if not detachable, is often still a "magazine", even when it doesn't even resemble a box magazine that otherwise just isn't detachable. E.g. the tube holding shotgun shells in many shotguns is a "magazine tube."

Excuse the "well actually" but if you're gonna play the pedantic word card, you're gonna get these idiots "well actually"ing you back and screaming "fallacy fallacy."

 

[ERIFNOMI]

My entire expertise comes from videogames, but I think you can have a bolt-action rifle that has a magazine. The M1 Garand was one of them, I believe; it had a 5-round magazine that you couldn't replace until you'd fired all five shots. But you still had to work the bolt for every round, even though it had a mag. At least I think you did, I haven't played a WW2 game in a great long while. I could easily be mixing my memories together.

Again, I am a keyboard warrior at best. If anyone claims otherwise and appears to have any actual expertise, pay attention to them, not to me.

The M1 Garand is neither a bolt action nor does it have a detachable magazine. It's long stroke gas operated and feeds from en-block clips.

It still has a "magazine", but that's why we should be specific. People are saying magazine here to mean a detachable magazine, where you reload the weapon by replacing the whole magazine with another. Clip fed magazines like the M1 Garand are fixed to the gun and you top them up without removing them from the gun. You don't carry extra magazines, you carry extra clips to quickly reload the fixed magazine.

 

[Andrei]

The shooter was using a bolt action rifle that somehow had a magazine, was a groyper right wing loonie, but also a liberal furry.

How about people just stop making shit up. If you want to post about the shooter's details then provide a link to a verified source.

I edited my previous comment and added legit sources from the investigation. We're still in the early stages but it's reasonable to infer for now that the man was a left wing sympathizer.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I don't have to prove anything when you're the one so egregiously butchering his quotes based on what you heard on CNN just because you want to be angry for no reason. You probably saw the "Boy I hope he's qualified" quote and didn't do any background checking to see it was paraphrased. His quote on black pilots was this: "Before DEI, no one ever questioned a professionals' credentials. Before DEI, nobody ever thought or worried about those things because you could trust a person was hired because they were the best, not because a company was trying to avoid fines and sanctions by the government. Now I see a black pilot and think "Boy I hope he's qualified!" Which, like it or not, is a valid argument about 'earned' versus 'given' and it's impact on society.

It's a racist statement. If you look at the color of someone's skin and think "Gosh, they might not be qualified!" then you're a racist. Making judgments about someone's abilities based on skin color is called racism.
The exact method of producing that racist statement is another matter. It's one that Charlie Kirk engaged in, lying about "DEI" and claiming it advances unqualified people to fill racial quotas. That's a racist lie, and it explicitly designed to inspire racism in people who hear it.
Happy to help.

I haven't been able to find out if it was a Gweher 98 or a Karabiner 98k, most coverage just calls it a "Mauser 98." Both have internal 5-round magazines. The pattern is super popular for modern derivative firearms, especially as hunting and target rifles.

 

[dobrien75]

I edited my previous comment and added legit sources from the investigation. We're still in the early stages but it's reasonable to infer for now that the man was a left wing sympathizer.

Andy Ngo is not a trusted source by any stretch and has a history of posting massively edited bullshit to promote far right bias. Try to hold your horses on making any sweeping statements about the shooter.

 

[mpfaff]

I don't have to prove anything when you're the one so egregiously butchering his quotes based on what you heard on CNN just because you want to be angry for no reason. You probably saw the "Boy I hope he's qualified" quote and didn't do any background checking to see it was paraphrased. His quote on black pilots was this: "Before DEI, no one ever questioned a professionals' credentials. Before DEI, nobody ever thought or worried about those things because you could trust a person was hired because they were the best, not because a company was trying to avoid fines and sanctions by the government. Now I see a black pilot and think "Boy I hope he's qualified!" Which, like it or not, is a valid argument about 'earned' versus 'given' and it's impact on society.

If you are boarding the plane, walk by the cockpit, see the pilot is black and think "Boy I hope he's qualified", then you're a racist.

His take on DEI is an incorrect one stemming from a racist worldview. He was also one of the racist dickheads spreading that nonsense to insecure people who want to blame something else for their lack of success.

 

[graylshaped]

I don't have to prove anything when you're the one so egregiously butchering his quotes based on what you heard on CNN just because you want to be angry for no reason. You probably saw the "Boy I hope he's qualified" quote and didn't do any background checking to see it was paraphrased. His quote on black pilots was this: "Before DEI, no one ever questioned a professionals' credentials. Before DEI, nobody ever thought or worried about those things because you could trust a person was hired because they were the best, not because a company was trying to avoid fines and sanctions by the government. Now I see a black pilot and think "Boy I hope he's qualified!" Which, like it or not, is a valid argument about 'earned' versus 'given' and it's impact on society.

Quite the reverse. It is a demonstration of an unconscious bias. What changed is that, thanks to diversity awareness efforts, he had no choice but to be aware that they exist, but--of course--was certain he had no such hidden assumptions.

Have you ever examined why you are so quick to grasp that straw to your own bosom?

 

[Tonkaman]

So you flail about, taking on the wrong fights, and lose, and then trans people end up even worse off.

From prior experience with white supremacist/fascists, they're going to end up in fucking gas chambers within the next few years if Democrats don't start winning soon. I would suggest that ideological purity is maybe not the best position, given the opposition and the stakes. I'm willing for my purity to be a little diminished if it keeps people alive that otherwise wouldn't be.

"Who cares about the Roma, or the LGBTQ people? We need to not take on the fight for them, and instead worry about the people who matter."

Don't worry. The fascists will get around to you too once they get rolling with the LGBTQ people first, like they always do.

 

[Jordan83]

My entire expertise comes from videogames, but I think you can have a bolt-action rifle that has a magazine. The M1 Garand was one of them, I believe; it had a 5-round magazine that you couldn't replace until you'd fired all five shots. But you still had to work the bolt for every round, even though it had a mag. At least I think you did, I haven't played a WW2 game in a great long while. I could easily be mixing my memories together.

Again, I am a keyboard warrior at best. If anyone claims otherwise and appears to have any actual expertise, pay attention to them, not to me.

They are not common, but there are bolt action rifles that take detachable magazines.

The M1 Garand was not such a gun, however. It was in fact the first American standard service rifle that was autoloading - meaning it would load its next round after each trigger pull without input from the user, such as working a bolt or a lever. It was semi-automatic, so it would fire one round for each squeeze of the trigger, but it would load the next one into the chamber for you.

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

"Who cares about the Roma, or the LGBTQ people? We need to not take on the fight for them, and instead worry about the people who matter."

Don't worry. The fascists will get around to you too once they get rolling with the LGBTQ people first, like they always do.

It's not all or nothing. Making it all or nothing means you get nothing. And you're probably putting lives on the line. It's not there yet, but I don't think it's that far off, either.

What is wrong with you people? You don't have to give anything up, you just don't focus there. At the moment, at least, if someone votes a Democrat into power, it doesn't fucking matter why, just that a position didn't go to the fascists. Stop the ship from sinking and then worry about the deck chairs.

Of course, the thought occurs that the Chinese and Russian disinformation campaigns will be doing their very best to sow dissent among the liberals....... Arguing in favor of purity and perfect coherence of message are fantastic ways to do that.

edit to add: let me rephrase this. The Democrat's butt in the seat is the only thing that will protect LGBTQ people. You have to get the butt in the seat. Pretty words that don't get you the seat are putting them at risk. A Democrat seated in government via not being super vociferous about trans rights is still protecting trans people anyway. The pure Democrat that doesn't have the seat has no power and means nothing, while the Republican that won proceeds with their agenda.

 

[graylshaped]

I edited my previous comment and added legit sources from the investigation. We're still in the early stages but it's reasonable to infer for now that the man was a left wing sympathizer.

This DoJ is something less than a credible source, regrettably. Calling an alt-right influencer a journalist is more of a comment on what you perceive journalism to have become than what a reasonable person would consider even to rise to the now-low standards of tendentious DoJ proclamations.

 

[Aurich]

I get your point, but nothing about having a bolt action means you can't have a detachable box magazine. And the bit that holds and feeds ammo, even if not detachable, is often still a "magazine", even when it doesn't even resemble a box magazine that otherwise just isn't detachable. E.g. the tube holding shotgun shells in many shotguns is a "magazine tube."

Excuse the "well actually" but if you're gonna play the pedantic word card, you're gonna get these idiots "well actually"ing you back and screaming "fallacy fallacy."

Just a thought, if you're worried about idiots bringing up some nonsensical point of zero relevance you don't win by ... bringing up the point for them and throwing more noise into the discussion. If said idiots did actually show up I would ignore them, by nature of them being idiots.

The rifle did not in fact have a magazine. Why does that matter? Because when people talk about a full magazine being left behind it demonstrates that they have not actually been paying attention to even the most basic facts. So don't listen to them.

The internet is full of people running their yap right now. Being able to filter is really important.

I don't think you're an idiot. Which is why I'm not ignoring you! But really, is anything being added to actual discussion by playing Let's Talk Random Guns? You managed to literally turn into the Clip vs Magazine Guy.

 

[Aurich]

I edited my previous comment and added legit sources from the investigation. We're still in the early stages but it's reasonable to infer for now that the man was a left wing sympathizer.

This is why linking sources is important. If Andy Ngo said the sky was blue I would go outside to check. The only thing legit about him is he's legitimately a moron who cannot be trusted with the most basic facts.

 

[Kaiser Sosei]

I don't have to prove anything when you're the one so egregiously butchering his quotes based on what you heard on CNN just because you want to be angry for no reason. You probably saw the "Boy I hope he's qualified" quote and didn't do any background checking to see it was paraphrased. His quote on black pilots was this: "Before DEI, no one ever questioned a professionals' credentials. Before DEI, nobody ever thought or worried about those things because you could trust a person was hired because they were the best, not because a company was trying to avoid fines and sanctions by the government. Now I see a black pilot and think "Boy I hope he's qualified!" Which, like it or not, is a valid argument about 'earned' versus 'given' and it's impact on society.

Since you seemed to have gotten your marching orders, still waiting on those dozens of posts about his "better" messages every day. If seeing a person of color doing something and your immediate response is "I sure hope he's qualified" you are a racist piece of shit.

The default before DEI implementations, the minority person wouldn't be there because the "Good ol' (white) boy network" would have made sure they never even got an interview. I can see if you are an underperforming white male, how this might make you "concerned". I suspect you have no clue what DEI is or what it is meant to address.

Men of quality are not afraid of equality.

 

[chaos215bar2]

We are desperate for someone, anyone, to look like they're standing up to Trump.

I'm not a fool, I'll take what I can get. Even if it's Gavin Newsom, who's response to the election was to find common ground with Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk and focus test throwing trans people under the bus.

But, I was asked specifically what I thought of the tactic, and I said what I thought, that it's stupid. I don't think it's "working".

What we need is someone who will appeal to the same kind of voters Trump swayed. The tactic isn't really directed at you or me, but I do find it's a refreshing approach vs. the resounding nothing we've been getting from most of the Democratic party. The fact it's getting positive coverage seems to be an indication the tactic is working for the moment, though obviously it will need to evolve in some way if it's going to have a major impact.

Honestly though, I'm not really following that closely. Perhaps Newsom did some things to alienate people I didn't hear about, but I'm not really hearing any major issues being raised places I do follow.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

Just a thought, if you're worried about idiots bringing up some nonsensical point of zero relevance you don't win by ... bringing up the point for them and throwing more noise into the discussion. If said idiots did actually show up I would ignore them, by nature of them being idiots.

The rifle did not in fact have a magazine. Why does that matter? Because when people talk about a full magazine being left behind it demonstrates that they have not actually been paying attention to even the most basic facts. So don't listen to them.

The internet is full of people running their yap right now. Being able to filter is really important.

I don't think you're an idiot. Which is why I'm not ignoring you! But really, is anything being added to actual discussion by playing Let's Talk Random Guns? You managed to literally turn into the Clip vs Magazine Guy.

Then say what you meant to say. He couldn't have left a magazine full of memes behind because his rifle didn't have detachable magazines. There were no magazines to leave behind. That's the relevant information and that was the point you were trying to make.

Saying something doesn't make sense because X means Y when X doesn't actually mean Y isn't a very strong argument. It's an unforced error. You don't have to justify why the rifle didn't have detachable mags, it's a perfectly normal thing for a rifle to not have detachable magazines independent of it's operating mechanism, just say it didn't have them.

 

[Aurich]

What we need is someone who will appeal to the same kind of voters Trump swayed. The tactic isn't really directed at you or me, but I do find it's a refreshing approach vs. the resounding nothing we've been getting from most of the Democratic party. The fact it's getting positive coverage seems to be an indication the tactic is working for the moment, though obviously it will need to evolve in some way if it's going to have a major impact.

Honestly though, I'm not really following that closely. Perhaps Newsom did some things to alienate people I didn't hear about, but I'm not really hearing any major issues being raised places I do follow.

I do not actually agree with that being something we need.

But let's say I did.

It's not going to be Gavin Newsom, liberal governor of Commifornia, who is managing to piss off actual liberals while never appealing to "the heartland" voters.

If he's all we've got obviously he's more desirable than the alternatives. But, speaking as a resident of California who voted for him for governor he does not have my vote in a primary, because I think he's he a losing candidate. And honestly a bit of a loser in general, but the first part is more important.

 

[One off]

Yes, we all understand that. Nobody is misunderstanding this.
And it's bad.
Imagine making that argument in the 1950s and 60s, that politicians who wanted to promote civil rights protections for people of color should abandon that platform in order to win more elections. Indeed, Civil Rights era Republicans (back, still the "Party of Lincoln" before the implementation of the Southern Strategy) were the minority party in both houses of Congress most of the time. Would the Civil Rights legislative efforts of the era have passed? If the then-racially progressive Republicans had ceded the debate on civil rights and racism to the Southern Democrats, would they have gained more support and gotten elected in greater numbers?

This isn't theoretical. It's almost exactly what happened after the passage of those bills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

So no, I reject the idea that progressives should abandon the fight for equal rights across the board as some kind of virtuous political strategy. I am fully aware of what jtwrenn is asking for, perhaps more than they are. I'm not under any impression that they're advocating active trans-bashing, but they don't have to go that far for their position to be found morally reprehensible. Was the Republican party's abandonment of racial justice the right call to make fifty years ago, or the wrong one? I have strong words for anyone who thinks it was the right one. Did it get them electoral success? Yes, and look at how much shittier the world is today for it!


Then we'll fight to change minds, not shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, I guess we should pipe down about the pervasive bigotry against trans people."
Contrary to the constant urge to re-explain the same position, nobody needs clarification here. We know where we each stand, which is why I was trying to drop the conversation.

Wow! There is a vast difference between winning the hearts and minds of the majority and demanding obedience.

The reality is your last election wasn't even close. America's ideological battle is equality of rights and opportunity, mutual respect, freedom of speech and thought, liberty and self determination vs authoritarianism and exploitation. Can you see how that framing might attract more support?

From what little I see online, the US 'left` has fuzzy core values. Fringe in-egalitarians and authoritarians are accepted and defended. Add those insisting that any who dare to question an article of faith be excluded and destroyed and the view ain't pretty. It drives away general support and gives those with essentially the same views on the 'right' all the rhetorical ammunition they need.

 

[Aurich]

Then say what you meant to say. He couldn't have left a magazine full of memes behind because his rifle didn't have detachable magazines. There were no magazines to leave behind. That's the relevant information and that was the point you were trying to make.

Saying something doesn't make sense because X means Y when X doesn't actually mean Y isn't a very strong argument. It's an unforced error. You don't have to justify why the rifle didn't have detachable mags, it's a perfectly normal thing for a rifle to not have detachable magazines independent of it's operating mechanism, just say it didn't have them.

I did say what I meant to say. You apparently understood it fine even.

You then decided pushing up your glasses was a good move, for some reason, because ... some idiot might show up and do it instead? Okay.

The gun was found with one spent cartridge in the chamber, and three loose bullets. There was no magazine, the gun did not take a magazine, and you playing Gun Nerd breathlessly explaining that there are guns the shooter did not use that could be called a bolt action rifle but also have a magazine adds ... what?

The point being made was that people were spreading misinformation and conflicting facts without any sourcing. Not that I need to give a shit about unrelated guns. I really and truly don't care.

I do not get off on guns. I don't own any guns. I find Americans being endlessly fascinated with them to the point of fetishizing them infantile. They can't go to sleep without sucking on their gun, cool.

But I especially find people who think that they need to explain the inner workings of guns when it's not relevant to the conversation super tedious. The clip vs magazine people are this guy.

Don't be that guy.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

I did say what I meant to say. You apparently understood it fine even.

You then decided pushing up your glasses was a good move, for some reason, because ... some idiot might show up and do it instead? Okay.

The gun was found with one spent cartridge in the chamber, and three loose bullets. There was no magazine, the gun did not take a magazine, and you playing Gun Nerd breathlessly explaining that there are guns the shooter did not use that could be called a bolt action rifle but also have a magazine adds ... what?

The point being made was that people were spreading misinformation and conflicting facts without any sourcing. Not that I need to give a shit about unrelated guns. I really and truly don't care.

I do not get off on guns. I don't own any guns. I find Americans being endlessly fascinated with them to the point of fetishizing them infantile. They can't go to sleep without sucking on their gun, cool.

But I especially find people who think that they need to explain the inner workings of guns when it's not relevant to the conversation super tedious. The clip vs magazine people are this guy.

View attachment 118180

Don't be that guy.

Alright, I struck a nerve. Sorry for correcting your inaccurate statement.