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
Violence should not be how we settle our disagreements. But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion. Fear that someone may act violently should not cause us to suppress our genuine fears about the future of our democracy.

>>breadw+vJ
> But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion.

All claims I see of a person being "a threat to democracy" are super exaggerated, and almost always of the "a thread to our democracy" (which makes one wonder: who is "us" in that phrase, and what about everyone else?).

Exaggerating threats is itself an incitement to violence. Maybe tone it down?

>>crypto+Mr1
This may be true for Kirk specifically, but in general I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say there are threats to "our" (meaning all Americans) democracy when there's frequent attempts to subvert and even overthrow election results.

See: January 6th insurrection, trump's call to the GA secretary of state, increased gerrymandering, and attempts to throw out certain ballots.

Are these not threats to democracy?

>>cman14+ap2
Wild exaggerations don't help. No one at J6 had a weapon -- if they haad, we'd know. Don't mention the pipe bomber, because that's been looking a lot like a false flag. Blah blah blah. Oh, and gerrymandering is rich: the blue states are more gerrymandered than the red states. These are not threats to democracy considering that:

- J6 was not in fact an insurrection (no weapons, no plan, just a crowd acting like a mob)

- all attempts to challenge the 2020 election results were through legal means (even the call to the GA SoS was not a crime)

- gerrymandering is absolutely standard in American politics and has been almost from the start

- "attempts to throw out certain ballots" has "attempts to stuff ballot boxes" on the flip side, which you ignore.

You are not even-handed.

>>crypto+TW2
- There were many weapons in fact, and there were vague plans, but not detailed ones. An insurrection is according to Webster's "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government".

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-capitol-attack-rioters...

Even if there were no weapons, the events of the day still satisfy that.

- Just because something was deemed to be legal, does not mean it's okay and therefore not a threat to democracy.

- I never stated that gerrymandering was exclusive to Republicans. I know it happens on both sides, but it is a threat to democracy either way. My point about it being "increased" is because it is now being done mid-decade by Republicans rather than just when the census occurs.

- You frame this as if the second negates the first. Let me be clear, they are both threats to democracy. Thank you for providing me with another point of evidence towards my argument.