briar patch

[Bootstrap]

Unfortunately, being a leftist at this point generally is associated with justifying assassinations of people they really don’t like. That’s simply what’s happened.

No, that's nonsense. That's your campaign, and you are a loyal soldier in that campaign, but it is not based on truth, and it is not based on the Gospel. It's also not Christlike.

[JohnH]

Unfortunately, being a leftist at this point generally is associated with justifying assassinations of people they really don’t like. That’s simply what’s happened.

No, that's nonsense. That's your campaign, and you are a loyal soldier in that campaign, but it is not based on truth, and it is not based on the Gospel. It's also not Christlike.

It’s not my “campaign”. It was based on direct observation after Kirk was assassinated.

Plenty of voices proclaimed it as something Kirk brought on himself. Are you denying that happened?

[ken_sylvania]

Unfortunately, being a leftist at this point generally is associated with justifying assassinations of people they really don’t like. That’s simply what’s happened.

No, that's nonsense. That's your campaign, and you are a loyal soldier in that campaign, but it is not based on truth, and it is not based on the Gospel. It's also not Christlike.

How would you feel if JohnH used language like that to describe your honest beliefs?

[Bootstrap]

No, that's nonsense. That's your campaign, and you are a loyal soldier in that campaign, but it is not based on truth, and it is not based on the Gospel. It's also not Christlike.

How would you feel if JohnH used language like that to describe your honest beliefs?

What are you calling my honest beliefs?

If my "honest beliefs" are about what you think and all people like you, then we are really talking about your beliefs, and the right approach is to actually discuss those beliefs, one at a time, not to slap some label on you and insist this is what you believe, whether you believe it or not. And that means you should be talking more than me, if that's what we are doing. I should be making room for that.

Some people put a lot more energy into what they insist the other person believes or suspect the other person might be believing than telling us what they themselves believe. More energy into branding other people than discussing with them to find out what they actually do believe.

When I say it's hard to have a discussion on MN, that's one big thing I am talking about. Discussion really requires people to express their own beliefs, listen to other people's beliefs, and remember who gets to represent which set of beliefs.

[Bootstrap]

Unfortunately, being a leftist at this point generally is associated with justifying assassinations of people they really don’t like. That’s simply what’s happened.

No, that's nonsense. That's your campaign, and you are a loyal soldier in that campaign, but it is not based on truth, and it is not based on the Gospel. It's also not Christlike.

It’s not my “campaign”. It was based on direct observation after Kirk was assassinated.

Here's what I saw: every prominent Democratic politician I can think of condemned the killing and condemned political violence in general. So did publications like the New York Times.

So did every single person on MN that you like to call a leftist.

There were certainly some people who said they were glad Charlie Kirk went online in some social media posts, which went viral, and people who promote political hatred used them to characterize everyone on the left, claiming that''s how they all think. Some of that happened right here on MN.

I've never seen anything that suggests that most people to the left of the political center were happy that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. If you have any kind of real evidence on that, please produce it.

Plenty of voices proclaimed it as something Kirk brought on himself. Are you denying that happened?

That depends a great deal on what you mean.

There was definitely debate about whether inflammatory political rhetoric on both sides contributes to violence, and whether Charlie Kirk contributed to that. He definitely didn't in his debates, which are Charlie Kirk at his best. There are other places, with very different audiences, where he comes across differently.

But you claimed most leftists believed Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed. I saw some individuals saying that. I did not see prominent Democratic politicians saying it. I did not see major center-left newspapers saying it. I did not see the leftists on this forum saying it - and really, we have few people who would really qualify as leftists here, I don't think I am one of them.

[JohnH]

Here's what I saw: every prominent Democratic politician I can think of condemned the killing and condemned political violence in general. So did publications like the New York Times.

So did every single person on MN that you like to call a leftist.

Lots of Democratic politicians are not part of the radical left, although their influence is growing and spreading. Many Democrats are moderates.

There were certainly some people who said they were glad Charlie Kirk went online in some social media posts, which went viral, and people who promote political hatred used them to characterize everyone on the left, claiming that''s how they all think. Some of that happened right here on MN.

There were also people who held elected office who made remarks about how it was Kirk's fault he got killed.

But you claimed most leftists believed Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed. I saw some individuals saying that. I did not see prominent Democratic politicians saying it. I did not see major center-left newspapers saying it. I did not see the leftists on this forum saying it - and really, we have few people who would really qualify as leftists here, I don't think I am one of them.

You know, Boot, what I originally said was the left now has a major problem with that, and I see it growing into a problem on the right as well.

The answer to that is not to stomp your feet and insist the left doesn't actually have a problem that it obviously has.

[Szdfan]

Unfortunately, being a leftist at this point generally is associated with justifying assassinations of people they really don’t like. That’s simply what’s happened.

No, that's nonsense. That's your campaign, and you are a loyal soldier in that campaign, but it is not based on truth, and it is not based on the Gospel. It's also not Christlike.

How would you feel if JohnH used language like that to describe your honest beliefs?

Considering that JohnH calls my honest beliefs “evil,” I can tell you it’s not pleasant.

[temporal1]

JohnH:
Lots of Democratic politicians are not part of the radical left, although their influence is growing and spreading.
Many Democrats are moderates.

From what i gather, this is of great concern to Dems who want to win elections, that radical influence is growing.

It was hard to ignore when biden was in office, promoting child mutilation and other unwanted policies from the White House. Later, Abigail S, running for Virginia governor as a moderate, immediately turning hard-left after election. The idea of running as a moderate, then veering hard left in office. obama did some of this. NYC’s and Seattle’s mayors are .. ??

Sports teaches: “Anything for the W” i’ve seen a lot of it sittng in big state university ball games.
i see it in business and politics. Graduates carry it into real life with them. It’s noisy, but empty.

There is need for moral responsbility to be more important than winning.
Human schools of law are no place to seek out Christian morality.

[Bootstrap]

You know, Boot, what I originally said was the left now has a major problem with that, and I see it growing into a problem on the right as well.

The answer to that is not to stomp your feet and insist the left doesn't actually have a problem that it obviously has.

I don't think that's what you said, and I would have responded differently if you had said that. And I certainly did not claim either side does not have a problem with political violence - with or without foot stomping.

So perhaps it would be helpful to start with what each of us actually said?

Here's what you actually said:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p308157

That's what I was responding to. We may be able to agree on things like the following:

I think both the left and the right have fringes that are spreading hatred and promoting violence. On both sides, only a small minority believes that political violence is a valid solution, but that number is significantly larger than it used to be on both sides.

There are real acts of political violence coming from both sides. And many more plots that have been disrupted. This is not a new problem, but it has been growing significantly in recent years.

A lot of people who do not believe in political violence do spread hate and ugly stereotypes of those they disagree with. On both sides of the fence. This is not something Christians should be doing.

Do we agree with all of that?

[JohnH]

I agree, except that the problem of overt political violence is (currently) significantly worse on the left than on the right. Until we can fairly acknowledge that, we won’t get anywhere.

You used to make claims here that right wing terrorism was the most significant domestic terror threat. Despite that, assassinations or attempts and other forms of terrorism seem to have predominantly not been from the fringe right wing, but instead from the fringe left.

In addition, much of the fringe right wing was being bankrolled by the SPLC. Funding terrorism is a big problem.

There’s no harm in acknowledging any of this.