The Line Between Free Speech And Glorified Depravity Just Got Erased!

[Kishkumen]

So first we’re told “amazing” means something like the devastation of a hurricane, now it’s a sterile remark about skill. Neither defense passes muster.

I don't see anything to defend. I was helping you understand because your emotions are clouding your thinking.

If “amazing” were neutral, we’d speak the same way about other tragedies. “An amazing cancer, the way it ate through his organs until his crap was coming out of his neck.” Or “An amazing car crash, the way it folded the driver against the wheel.” No one talks like that, because the connotation of “amazing” in plain English is not neutral — it’s evaluative, admiring, even celebratory.

You must not get out much. Amazing is definitely not neutral. It is an expression of wonderment. It is not, on its own, a statement of celebration or moral approval.

You're flailing here.

And the skill argument falls just as flat. With a scope at 150 yards, that’s not an “amazing” shot, it’s an amateur one. To elevate it with awe language only reinforces the compliment baked into the phrase.

Oh, so you assume that canpakes is a skilled marksman, then. I see. What other assumptions would you like to port into the discussion to try to spin poo into a convincing argument?

The assassin's apologists here may rally to defend this interpretation, but let’s be honest: no one would carry it outside this bubble. Nobody is going to stand up in a university commons, a staff lounge, or a council meeting and seriously insist that “amazing shot” by an assassin was just neutral technical commentary. They wouldn’t dare, because they know exactly how it would sound. If you really believed it was neutral, you’d have no problem saying it out loud in those settings. But you won’t, and we both know why.

Well, finally you say *something* that makes some kind of sense. Speech acts must be understood in the context in which they are uttered. Canpakes is on a small discussion board where he interacts with the same people day in, day out. None of us certainly would be anything but very cautious in how we spoke in public about sensitive matters. We are much less likely to be extra careful around people with whom we are familiar. Canpakes had no idea that you, for example, were lurking out there somewhere waiting to pounce on anyone who did not express the appropriate, in your view, horror in the most careful terms. Now you are here, at the slightest provocation, to waste all of our time with your sophistry.

[canpakes]

When you pretend to appreciate the technical execution of an act of violence that is illegal and morally questionable, such as the assassination of Kirk, you are participating in a form of aestheticized cruelty, and it is clear that your motivation is to defend your friend Canpake's interests. I would anticipate Canpake's to be devoid of morality, to view human suffering as a spectacle, to approach murder with a sense of voyeuristic sadism, but not you. You need to cease this behavior; you're embarrassing yourself!

Hound, your words fall flat. You’ve spent your entire DM board participation demonizing whole swaths of anonymous people that don’t think of things in quite the same way that you do. It’s pretty much your entire and only approach, thread after thread. Both of our post histories are available for anyone to review. Would you like to compare? ; )

Here, you’ve now stepped into a word trap designed to demonstrate your behavior, and you’re angry about it.

So, sure - clutch your dollar-store pearls and go all in with your faux rage, because that just keeps … proving my point.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, I am composing this with the understanding that you will likely support your friend Canpakes in an effort to shield him from the morally detached position he is adopting regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk. However, let's be honest; everything I express in this post is likely to resonate with you. Yet, you may not be able to openly concur on the board due to the need to uphold your reputation, which involves safeguarding the progressive members when they adopt an unethical position.

That's not very kind of you to say. You are suggesting that I shield wrongdoing, thereby committing my own evil. I disagree with your characterization of me and canpakes. To me, it looks like you assume that Progressives are simply immoral by nature. At least, this post, in the context of your posting habits on this board, indicates as much.

Considering our discussion, it is evident that our esteemed moderator Canpake admires the skill of an assassin, a murderer. What we are all addressing is the moral detachment that Canpake is exhibiting through that comment. What Canpake is doing is applauding violence because he perceives the shot as well executed, and when you align with him, you assist him in unraveling the threads of basic humanity.

I disagree. He expressed wonder at what happened. If you were familiar with the rules of paradoxography, you would understand that wonderment is marked speech, but it is not a statement of moral approval. If you are interested in learning about this, I can always recommend some interesting reading to you.

The assassination was not a contest for snipers, nor was it a scene from a film; it was a matter involving a human being.

By definition, things that humans do involve humans.

When you and Canpakes begin to commend the abilities of an assassin, you aren't examining the technique; you are celebrating a killer.

That's where you made the unwarranted leap and your argument collapsed.

There is a distinction between commentary and complicity, and you have certainly crossed that line in your effort to defend your friend Canpake's.

No, I did not. I consider it hostile for you to try to make me a target of people's anger.

Your actions, along with Canpake's, are stripping away the humanity of the victim, sending a message that violence is commendable when carried out with accuracy. That is not only harsh, but it also poses a significant risk!

I don't agree with the idea that we are stripping away the humanity of Charlie Kirk. I do agree that Charlie Kirk is so important to the MAGA cult that anyone who is not very circumspect in what they say about this awful event is going to catch grief. Certainly we see that here on this board. MAGA folk are looking to accuse, looking for retribution, looking for the opportunity to make their own hurt a burden for others to carry.

I know you share the same sentiment as me! However, you are unable to acknowledge it. Please provide us with an explanation for your support of Canpake's efforts to dehumanize the discussion surrounding this reprehensible act. Civil discourse comes to an end when we begin to evaluate assassinations as if they were Olympic performances. Consider what type of culture you aim to foster in this environment. A scenario in which violence is celebrated and glorified; this is not an act of resistance, but rather a decay of values.

I think it is important for people to be sensitive about an awful event. Your actions and Whiskey's actions show that MAGA people will vent their hurt on non-MAGA people given the slightest perceived provocation. At the same time, MAGA people view Progressives as sub-human, and they have no compunction about taking their hurt and hostility out on them. As Trump himself said, "they're vermin." Since you regularly demonize Progressives on this board, you don't have a high level of credibility when you undertake to lecture others on the dehumanization of political opponents.

If your 10-year-old daughter is participating in an archery competition after months of practice and she hits the bullseye with all three arrows from 25 yards, you would likely attribute her impressive shots to the skills she developed through her dedication and training, wouldn't you? You would be correct to define her skills as AMAZING! However, if your angry neighbor, after years of harboring resentment towards your wife due to her political views, finally lost control and approached your yard with his compound bow while your wife was gardening just 25 yards away, ultimately shooting her in the neck and causing her to bleed out in 60 seconds, would you ever consider the shot your neighbor killed your wife with an AMAZING shot?

So, in other words, you recognize that context matters a whole lot. And, you would undoubtedly agree that Charlie Kirk is not a beloved family member to canpakes. He is not even someone canpakes particularly admires. Instead, Charlie Kirk is a key figure in MAGA, a movement that canpakes sees as deleterious to the survival of our constitutional republic. He will likely react in ways that are not in line with the tender feelings of those who adore Charlie Kirk as a fellow traveler in MAGA.

I grew up listening to "conservatives" badmouth Martin Luther King, Jr. They called him a communist. They called him an adulterer. They joked about his assassination. They became enraged at the thought that a street in their town might bear his name or that there might be a holiday in his honor. In fact, they mobilized to oppose these things. I was born after the assassination of Rev. King. Decades later, "conservatives" were still frothing at the mouth with hatred for Dr. King. Now, some of the very same folk who savaged the memory of Dr. King are out of their minds over the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk. Why, this has even brought a new poster to the board to take his anger about the assassination out on us. "How dare you use X word when you mention this event!?!?!?!" Was Dr. King not a human being? Why is it that "conservatives" hated Dr. King so much that they would fight the celebration of his memory tooth and nail decades after his death?

So, you may be able to appreciate why I shake my head regretfully when I see MAGA people looking to police and punish people over their reactions to Charlie Kirk's tragic death when MAGA partly emerged from the demographic that showed such a profound lack of humanity in its reaction to the life and death of Dr. King.

[canpakes]

Canpakes had no idea that you, for example, were lurking out there somewhere waiting to pounce on anyone who did not express the appropriate, in your view, horror in the most careful terms. Now you are here, at the slightest provocation, to waste all of our time with your sophistry.

Actually, Kish, I specifically chose that term to induce Whiskey to show their nature and intent in deciding to join the fray out of the blue. It’s a much more efficient approach than having to wade through a dozen fabricated background surfer/senior/‘ex-liberal’/surprised new member posts before having the inevitable walls of dumb propaganda finally make their appearance.

The results were exactly as predicted.

viewtopic.php?p=2907402#p2907402

[Whiskey]

Kishkumen, I am composing this with the understanding that you will likely support your friend Canpakes in an effort to shield him from the morally detached position he is adopting regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk. However, let's be honest; everything I express in this post is likely to resonate with you. Yet, you may not be able to openly concur on the board due to the need to uphold your reputation, which involves safeguarding the progressive members when they adopt an unethical position.

That's not very kind of you to say. You are suggesting that I shield wrongdoing, thereby committing my own evil. I disagree with your characterization of me and canpakes. To me, it looks like you assume that Progressives are simply immoral by nature. At least, this post, in the context of your posting habits on this board, indicates as much.

Considering our discussion, it is evident that our esteemed moderator Canpake admires the skill of an assassin, a murderer. What we are all addressing is the moral detachment that Canpake is exhibiting through that comment. What Canpake is doing is applauding violence because he perceives the shot as well executed, and when you align with him, you assist him in unraveling the threads of basic humanity.

I disagree. He expressed wonder at what happened. If you were familiar with the rules of paradoxography, you would understand that wonderment is marked speech, but it is not a statement of moral approval. If you are interested in learning about this, I can always recommend some interesting reading to you.

The assassination was not a contest for snipers, nor was it a scene from a film; it was a matter involving a human being.

By definition, things that humans do involve humans.

When you and Canpakes begin to commend the abilities of an assassin, you aren't examining the technique; you are celebrating a killer.

That's where you made the unwarranted leap and your argument collapsed.

There is a distinction between commentary and complicity, and you have certainly crossed that line in your effort to defend your friend Canpake's.

No, I did not. I consider it hostile for you to try to make me a target of people's anger.

Your actions, along with Canpake's, are stripping away the humanity of the victim, sending a message that violence is commendable when carried out with accuracy. That is not only harsh, but it also poses a significant risk!

I don't agree with the idea that we are stripping away the humanity of Charlie Kirk. I do agree that Charlie Kirk is so important to the MAGA cult that anyone who is not very circumspect in what they say about this awful event is going to catch grief. Certainly we see that here on this board. MAGA folk are looking to accuse, looking for retribution, looking for the opportunity to make their own hurt a burden for others to carry.

I know you share the same sentiment as me! However, you are unable to acknowledge it. Please provide us with an explanation for your support of Canpake's efforts to dehumanize the discussion surrounding this reprehensible act. Civil discourse comes to an end when we begin to evaluate assassinations as if they were Olympic performances. Consider what type of culture you aim to foster in this environment. A scenario in which violence is celebrated and glorified; this is not an act of resistance, but rather a decay of values.

I think it is important for people to be sensitive about an awful event. Your actions and Whiskey's actions show that MAGA people will vent their hurt on non-MAGA people given the slightest perceived provocation. At the same time, MAGA people view Progressives as sub-human, and they have no compunction about taking their hurt and hostility out on them. As Trump himself said, "they're vermin." Since you regularly demonize Progressives on this board, you don't have a high level of credibility when you undertake to lecture others on the dehumanization of political opponents.

If your 10-year-old daughter is participating in an archery competition after months of practice and she hits the bullseye with all three arrows from 25 yards, you would likely attribute her impressive shots to the skills she developed through her dedication and training, wouldn't you? You would be correct to define her skills as AMAZING! However, if your angry neighbor, after years of harboring resentment towards your wife due to her political views, finally lost control and approached your yard with his compound bow while your wife was gardening just 25 yards away, ultimately shooting her in the neck and causing her to bleed out in 60 seconds, would you ever consider the shot your neighbor killed your wife with an AMAZING shot?

So, in other words, you recognize that context matters a whole lot. And, you would undoubtedly agree that Charlie Kirk is not a beloved family member to canpakes. He is not even someone canpakes particularly admires. Instead, Charlie Kirk is a key figure in MAGA, a movement that canpakes sees as deleterious to the survival of our constitutional republic. He will likely react in ways that are not in line with the tender feelings of those who adore Charlie Kirk as a fellow traveler in MAGA.

I grew up listening to "conservatives" badmouth Martin Luther King, Jr. They called him a communist. They called him an adulterer. They joked about his assassination. They became enraged at the thought that a street in their town might bear his name or that there might be a holiday in his honor. In fact, they mobilized to oppose these things. I was born after the assassination of Rev. King. Decades later, "conservatives" were still frothing at the mouth with hatred for Dr. King. Now, some of the very same folk who savaged the memory of Dr. King are out of their minds over the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk. Why, this has even brought a new poster to the board to take his anger about the assassination out on us. "How dare you use X word when you mention this event!?!?!?!" Was Dr. King not a human being? Why is it that "conservatives" hated Dr. King so much that they would fight the celebration of his memory tooth and nail decades after his death?

So, you may be able to appreciate why I shake my head regretfully when I see MAGA people looking to police and punish people over their reactions to Charlie Kirk's tragic death when MAGA partly emerged from the demographic that showed such a profound lack of humanity in its reaction to the life and death of Dr. King.

The “what about MLK” pivot just shows how far Team Nice Shot is willing to stretch to excuse a grotesque gibe. At this point you’re less a discussion group and more a cover band for Filter — the Nice Shot Apologists, always ready with the remix. Call it wonderment, paradoxography, or whatever academic garnish you like, but outside this silo it reads exactly as it is: applause for a killer.

And Professor, I hear your claim of being victimized by MAGA hostility. Perceived or not, I’ll acknowledge the sentiment. But let’s be clear: you tossed the responses of two posters into your victimizer basket and slapped the MAGA label on them, when nothing in this thread has been MAGA at all. Unless, of course, common sense and the plain English language are now proprietary to MAGA — in which case your real grievance isn’t with politics, it’s with reality itself.

That’s not moral clarity, it’s projection. And it doesn’t excuse stepping up as frontman for the Nice Shot Apologists, laundering applause for assassination under the cover of “context.”

[Molok]

So it's obvious this person has been waiting for a few days hoping "the progressives" would be giddy about Charlie Kirk's death, and when that didn't happen, just leaped onto the first thing they could twist into being sort of like that, right? Hey, since we're pearl clutching, maybe we should talk about cynically exploiting someone's murder to annoy people on a message board?

[Kishkumen]

The “what about MLK” pivot just shows how far Team Nice Shot is willing to stretch to excuse a grotesque gibe. At this point you’re less a discussion group and more a cover band for Filter — the Nice Shot Apologists, always ready with the remix. Call it wonderment, paradoxography, or whatever academic garnish you like, but outside this silo it reads exactly as it is: applause for a killer.

For the intellectually and literacy-challenged mind, could be. You aren't interested in understanding. You are interested in condemning. All I see is a bunch of huffing and puffing from some anonymous internet lurker who is looking to satisfy his lust for retribution.

And Professor, I hear your claim of being victimized by MAGA hostility. Perceived or not, I’ll acknowledge the sentiment. But let’s be clear: you tossed the responses of two posters into your victimizer basket and slapped the MAGA label on them, when nothing in this thread has been MAGA at all.

You would have to be especially dim not to see that MAGA is entirely implicated in this topic. If you are not going to be serious and say things that have some plausibility, don't bother writing. You aren't helping your case by saying transparently daft things like this.

[Kishkumen]

So it's obvious this person has been waiting for a few days hoping "the progressives" would be giddy about Charlie Kirk's death, and when that didn't happen, just leaped onto the first thing they could twist into being sort of like that, right? Hey, since we're pearl clutching, maybe we should talk about cynically exploiting someone's murder to annoy people on a message board?

Precisely. A lot of solemn mockery to quench a thirst for some sort of revenge against the infidel.

[canpakes]

The “what about MLK” pivot just shows how far Team Nice Shot is willing to stretch to excuse a grotesque gibe. At this point you’re less a discussion group and more a cover band for Filter — the Nice Shot Apologists, always ready with the remix. Call it wonderment, paradoxography, or whatever academic garnish you like, but outside this silo it reads exactly as it is: applause for a killer.

And Professor, I hear your claim of being victimized by MAGA hostility. Perceived or not, I’ll acknowledge the sentiment. But let’s be clear: you tossed the responses of two posters into your victimizer basket and slapped the MAGA label on them, when nothing in this thread has been MAGA at all. Unless, of course, common sense and the plain English language are now proprietary to MAGA — in which case your real grievance isn’t with politics, it’s with reality itself.

That’s not moral clarity, it’s projection. And it doesn’t excuse stepping up as frontman for the Nice Shot Apologists, laundering applause for assassination under the cover of “context.”

Your disingenuous word substitution in service of painting a dishonest narrative is noted, but get your names straight. It’s ’Team Amazing Shot’. ; )

Again, proving the point.

[Hound of Heaven]

Hound, your words fall flat

There are numerous instances of progressives expressing celebration over the death of Charlie Kirk at the hands of an assassin, and I have observed hundreds, if not more, who admire the assassin for the precision of the shot. I have come across 8 posts on various platforms that describe the accuracy of the shot that killed Charlie Kirk as "amazing," and all 8 express disdain for him. Canpakes cannot evade this or conceal it with Kishkumen's assistance.





It's clear that Canpakes thinks Charlie Kirk got what he deserved when he was murdered. He revealed this when he expressed, "HI CHARLIE, PRETTY AMAZING SHOT, WASN'T THAT?" One simply needs to examine the words and ponder, what was the intention behind what Canpakes actually typed out?

Let's examine them once more, but I will include one word to clarify what was truly intended.
"HI CHARLIE KIRK, PRETTY AMAZING SHOT, WASN'T THAT?"