JD Vance on hot seat for defending young republican "Hitler" chat saying the 20 somethings were "just kids"

[acptulsa]

There's nothing about sociopathic power that demands that its power be applied in a principally consistent manner.

FTFY

People not being allowed to talk about Hitler is bad. People not being allowed to talk about people who talk about Hitler without judging is clown show garbage.

 

[TheTexan]

FTFY

People not being allowed to talk about Hitler is bad. People not being allowed to talk about people who talk about Hitler without judging is clown show garbage.

Yea, and? Most power is sociopathic power. It is what it is.

I'd prefer a culture where people simply don't try to control what people say and do but that's not human nature.

I'd have better luck expecting gravity to stop weighing things down.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, rage-baiting.

Your point is valid, but I'd say most of the people doing crazy anti-Kirk stuff don't really give a shit about Kirk. They just know it pisses off the other side. The left is just more aggressive in terms of publicizing their hate. The right prefers more private intimate "I love Hitler" virtue-signaling circle jerking when expressing disdain for the left. Chat rooms and forums are their preferred venue.

I see what you did there.

But it also highlights the disingenuousness of the article that started this fracas. Inside jokes among people who are familiar with other in an insular community can easily be taken out of context and blown into an outrage by the media and politicians. People won't know the context, and if they are sucked in by the rage, they won't even care about the intent or truth of the matter.

The absurdity of it being that this type of thing can be done to any community at any time. It's a case of glass houses, and pots and kettles. Blatant hypocrisy on display by Politico and friends.

 

[jmdrake]

But you can have it both ways. It's called a culture war. Whoever wins, gets to determine what people are allowed to say and do.

There's nothing about sociopolitical power that demands that it's power be applied in a principally consistent manner.

I seem to recall people on this forum used to talk about the NAP or Non Agression Principle. And our "culture war" was for people to adopt that. Based on the NAP if somebody says "I'm glad Charlie Kirk's dead" or even "I wish everybody who thought like Charlie Kirk was dead" doesn't take any active steps towards that and someone else say, private forum or out in the open "normalize the shower to crematorium pipeline" and no active step is taken then it doesn't matter. Fight the culture war by proving your ideas are better (ad rem) rather than demonizing your opponents (ad hominem).

For a short time in my teens I played Dungeons and Dragons. In the original game there were three alignments, lawful, chaotic and neutral. The neutral group didn't want either of the other sides to get too powerful. So I'm going to call out the BS on both sides like we used to do. At the same time that folks are pearl clutching over Soros money behind "No kings", MAGA money is trying to unseat the best congressman since Ron Paul (Thomas Massie). It's kind of like how king Henry II killed another Thomas (Beckett in this case) only without the blood and Gore.

 

[TheTexan]

I seem to recall people on this forum used to talk about the NAP or Non Agression Principle. And our "culture war" was for people to adopt that.

Still is for me, though I do tend to avoid that phrase because everyone's definition of "aggression" is different. I prefer voluntaryism or secessionism as those are both clearer concepts, at least to me.

Based on the NAP if somebody says "I'm glad Charlie Kirk's dead" or even "I wish everybody who thought like Charlie Kirk was dead" doesn't take any active steps towards that and someone else say, private forum or out in the open "normalize the shower to crematorium pipeline" and no active step is taken then it doesn't matter. Fight the culture war by proving your ideas are better (ad rem) rather than demonizing your opponents (ad hominem).

No, that's freedom of speech, which I generally do support but I do not recognize as a natural right. That has nothing to do with the NAP.

It is well within the bounds of NAP to say a certain kind of speech should not be tolerated, and it is well within the bounds of the NAP to exercise private property rights by limiting people's rights to say certain things on land that you own. (And yes, I am a partial owner of the US, and so are you.)

While I do agree with you, that kind of speech should be allowed in this country, I really only agree because (most of*) this private land called the US is still ostensibly bound by a covenant called the "Constitution", and I do not wish to further breach that contract which is already heavily breached.

(*With the notable exceptions of the Republic of TheTexan, and the Republic of PAF)

For a short time in my teens I played Dungeons and Dragons. In the original game there were three alignments, lawful, chaotic and neutral. The neutral group didn't want either of the other sides to get too powerful.

I want the opposite. I want one of the sides to get too powerful and I don't really care who. I'd prefer if my side won but that'd be a bonus.

It's the only way secession will happen.

 

[jmdrake]

Still is for me, though I do tend to avoid that phrase because everyone's definition of "aggression" is different. I prefer voluntaryism or secessionism as those are both clearer concepts, at least to me.

Okay.

No, that's freedom of speech, which I generally do support but I do not recognize as a natural right. That has nothing to do with the NAP.

It is well within the bounds of NAP to say a certain kind of speech should not be tolerated, and it is well within the bounds of the NAP to exercise private property rights by limiting people's rights to say certain things on land that you own. (And yes, I am a partial owner of the US, and so are you.)

I don't think your disagreement is as strong as you think it is. On this private message forum whoever was in charge (nobody?) had a property right to say what is or is not allowed. (I only say nobody because some things like group texts are harder to "own" and manage). Someone on the chat took screenshots on his/her phone and that was within that person's property rights. They've now been released to the public and everybody has a personal property right to decide how to react. By the same token, someon can go on TikTok right after CK was shot and sang "Ding-dong the Nazi's dead." From a legal standpoint (under our Constitution, federal and state laws) none of what I just described constitutes a crime. I get the war on public opinion. And from where my opinion on this is, JD Vance is being a hypocrite.

While I do agree with you, that kind of speech should be allowed in this country, I really only agree because (most of*) this private land called the US is still ostensibly bound by a covenant called the "Constitution", and I do not wish to further breach that contract which is already heavily breached.

If the Constitution didn't exist do you think you could go on someone else's private land and demand that do something about someone's "I hate Charlie Kirk" t-shirt? On your own private land you can throw the person with the "I hate Charlie Kirk" t-shirt off your land without violating the Consitution. If you wanted to go further and, I don't know, kill the person, then I would disagree with that, Constitution or no Consitution. While you may disagree, I think it would be within the rights of whoever loved that person, or didn't like Charlie Kirk, or just supported the right of someone to say what he/she wanted without being killed to come on your land and intervene. I'd stay out of it myself. But if you needed help just keeping people with "I hate CK" shirts off your property or throwing them off ALIVE I wouldn't mind helping with that. That's just how I see all of this.

(*With the notable exceptions of the Republic of TheTexan, and the Republic of PAF)

The Republic of @PAF sounds like a nice place.

I want the opposite. I want one of the sides to get too powerful and I don't really care who. I'd prefer if my side won but that'd be a bonus.

It's the only way secession will happen.

Usually when one side gets too powerful the result is at worst colonization, and at best the DEFEAT of secession. The South was hoping for a stalemate but the population of the North combined the North's industrial capacity made the South's defeat inevitable especially after the emancipation proclamation killed the support of the European powers and allowed for a large influx of colored troops.

And regardless, what "side" are we even talking about? Even if MAGA seceeded you have factions within factions. It's not George Soros funding the attacks on Thomas Massie.

 

[acptulsa]

At the same time that folks are pearl clutching over Soros money behind "No kings", MAGA money is trying to unseat the best congressman since Ron Paul (Thomas Massie).

It's the same club. For all we know MAGA money also comes from Soros. It's not like Soros believes in all the nonsense he pays to have spewed. It's just rage bait. Which means it's there to manipulate MAGA.

 

[TheTexan]

Usually when one side gets too powerful the result is at worst colonization, and at best the DEFEAT of secession. The South was hoping for a stalemate but the population of the North combined the North's industrial capacity made the South's defeat inevitable especially after the emancipation proclamation killed the support of the European powers and allowed for a large influx of colored troops.

Well, it's a double edged sword. People  wont secede until the other side gets too powerful. And they cant secede if they wait too long to do it.

The South fucked up the timing.

Otherwise I agree with the rest of what you said.

And regardless, what "side" are we even talking about?

Any side. Pick a circle in a venn diagram or pick several.

If we're unable to pick a side, whatever side that may be, we will lose by default.

 

[nikcers]

You know its sort of similar to the scenario in the Dark Knight when the Joker plants bombs on two ships.

Except its a little bit different.

One ship has Americans, and the other has non Americans.

One boat is the boat you are on. One boat has to explode.

The sanity test is simple.
The sane person is the one who wants to survive.

So if you have a choice which boat blows up you choose the one that you arent on.

Thats what America first means.

 

[acptulsa]

When you let an LLM "AI" do your thinking for you...

 

[nikcers]

When you let an LLM "AI" do your thinking for you...

My worldview is my own and based on the learning data of my life experience.

I wouldn't leave such a choice to a machine or a coin flip.

 

[jmdrake]

I see what you did there.

But it also highlights the disingenuousness of the article that started this fracas. Inside jokes among people who are familiar with other in an insular community can easily be taken out of context and blown into an outrage by the media and politicians. People won't know the context, and if they are sucked in by the rage, they won't even care about the intent or truth of the matter.

The absurdity of it being that this type of thing can be done to any community at any time. It's a case of glass houses, and pots and kettles. Blatant hypocrisy on display by Politico and friends.

So no blatant hypocrisy on the part of JD Vance and friends? Seriously? If the roles were reversed and there was some secret "antifa" chat where they talked about putting MAGA in ovens the right would be all over that just like they're all over random people on TikTok being happy that Charlie Kirk is dead. There is no difference whatsoever except for in the realm of pretension.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[jmdrake]

Okay. So nobody should be defending that either. Now did he say anything about putting anybody in ovens? My issue is JD Vance pearl clutching over people making light of CKs death on TikTok while saying "Kids will be kids" about the oven talk. Consistency. Is it that much to ask for?

 

[69360]

That guy is so full of shit. Claims to be a blue collar oyster farmer in Maine, but spent something like 10 years in DC, went to GWU oh and even better worked for Blackwater.

I'm no big fan of Collins but she is going to wipe the floor with this guy.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Okay. So nobody should be defending that either. Now did he say anything about putting anybody in ovens? My issue is JD Vance pearl clutching over people making light of CKs death on TikTok while saying "Kids will be kids" about the oven talk. Consistency. Is it that much to ask for?

TBH I think JD Vance should have just kept quiet on the whole thing.

There's no "winning" something like that.

 

[Voluntarist]

Okay. So nobody should be defending that either. Now did he say anything about putting anybody in ovens? My issue is JD Vance pearl clutching over people making light of CKs death on TikTok while saying "Kids will be kids" about the oven talk. Consistency. Is it that much to ask for?

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website

On “Pod Save America,” Platner said he had gotten the tattoo in Croatia in 2007, while on shore leave from a tour of duty in Iraq, without knowing what it stood for.

“We went ashore in Split, Croatia, myself and a few of the other machine gun squad leaders. And we got very inebriated, and we did what Marines on liberty do, and we decided to go get a tattoo,” Platner told the show’s host Tommy Vietor.

He said he and his companions “chose a terrifying-looking skull and crossbones off the wall because we were Marines, and skull-and-crossbones are a pretty standard military thing. And we got those tattoos and then we actually all moved on with our lives.”

“I am not a secret Nazi,” Platner said elsewhere in the interview, adding that he had passed a full security clearance in 2018 to work as a State Department contractor. “If you read through my Reddit comments, I think you can pretty much figure out where I stand on Nazism and antisemitism and racism in general. I would say a lifelong opponent.”

Platner did not address why he still has the tattoo. He has said he intends to stay in the race. He also claimed not to have known the symbol had Nazi connotations until getting wind of opposition research against him during his current Senate campaign.

However, quoting an anonymous former acquaintance of his, Jewish Insider reported on Tuesday that Platner had referred to the ink as “my Totenkopf” more than a decade ago and would frequently take his shirt off at the Washington, D.C., bar where he worked at the time. “He said it in a cutesy little way,” the source said. Jewish Insider additionally reported that Platner had met with other men with Nazi links, including one neo-Nazi who is running for a seat on Bangor City Council.

Platner’s political director, former state Senator Genevieve McDonald, resigned from his campaign last week following the reveal of his Reddit posts. On Facebook days after her resignation, McDonald also took Platner to task for his tattoo.

“Graham has an anti-Semitic tattoo on his chest,” McDonald wrote, according to screenshots of the post on social media. “He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff. Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and he should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means. His campaign released it themselves to some podcast bros, along with a video of him shirtless and drunk at a wedding to try to get ahead of it.”

 

[TheTexan]

Consistency. Is it that much to ask for?

Consistency is overrated, when has that ever worked out well for anyone

 

[PAF]

Consistency is overrated, when has that ever worked out well for anyone

Stacking silver, gold, bbq every week, sticking with hot chicks not ugly ones.

 

[otherone]

I prefer voluntaryism or secessionism as those are both clearer concepts, at least to me.

Unfortunately, freedom of association is now xenophobic and racist. But only if you're a have, and not a have-not. I don't see any third-worlders busting down the doors of an amish community.