zlacker

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+(OP)
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".

>>setham+(OP)
Then you answer that with more discourse. This is basic.

>>setham+(OP)
> what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda

The answer to bad speech is more speech. If you refuse to do that then you are not convinced of being right -- you lose the argument when you resort to violence or justify resorting to violence over speech.

>>crypto+pF
That’s a strawman. They didn’t say the answer is violence, but that calling someone a threat to democracy can be justified.

>>eYrKEC+31
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/charlie-kirk-calls-full-...

idk, this doesn't sound very democratic to me

>>dgb23+rS
> They didn’t say the answer is violence, but that calling someone a threat to democracy can be justified.

It had better be. All claims so far do not stand up to scrutiny -- they are all exaggerations, therefore they incite unjustified violence.

>>crypto+b01
After evaluating the claims, I have concluded that they do, in fact stand up to scrutiny, and are not "all exaggerations".

>>setham+(OP)
The loss of your way of life has little if anything to do with „democracy“.