zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I bang on a lot about not saying things like "this person is a threat to democracy" and other such apocalyptic statements. This right here is a perfect example of why: when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.

If you find this horrifying (and I hope you do, because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder), then I encourage you to really think about whether we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds. We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.

>>bigstr+XD
What if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?

>>NewJaz+bG
A guy who gathers large groups of people to talk with them and persuade them on political topics is the _essence_ of democracy.

Someone who calls for violence or does violence against people wishing to have open debate is the essence of fascism.

>>eYrKEC+dK
real question:

what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda, and the end result of following said goals is the loss of your way of life? What if lies are held as truth and money allows the lies to be repeated so often many don't even realize their axioms are baseless? What happens to the sheep when the wolves vote to eat the sheep?

>>setham+8N
Then I guess you become a monarchist, like Curtis Yarvin.

But of all things Charlie Kirk was not, first among them: He was not "a threat to democracy".