I was wrong

[Buddy Love]

Yeah, I'm aware of all of it, I just used ChatGPT to summarise it in an easily digestible format for those in here with "room temperature IQ".

I suppose you're trying to claim the "context" of each of these statements excuses them, yes?

What a guy Charlie Kirk was.

Why don't you pick one statement & explain how it was justified?

Chat gpt 🤣

He was a great man that's why millions are mourning and attending vigils in his honour. He was a brilliant guy who helped millions. What have you done? Ridicule a dead man based on chat gpt 🤣 probably didn't even know who he was before he was killed. I bet my left nut on it Camilla Harris boy.. free palesine right?

 

[lsz]

@SeaEagleRock8 I am sure Kimmel had nothing at all to do with the proposed Nexstar $6.2bn merger with Tegna (which they need FCC approval for).

To be fair at least he did not call for the death of homeless people

 

[47MVEagle]

Chat gpt 🤣

He was a great man that's why millions are mourning and attending vigils in his honour. He was a brilliant guy who helped millions. What have you done? Ridicule a dead man based on chat gpt 🤣 probably didn't even know who he was before he was killed. I bet my left nut on it Camilla Harris boy.. free palesine right?

So you've got nothing other than insults & assumptions about me instead of the subject of my post, then?

You were saying something about "room temperature IQ" 🤣

"hE WoZ a GrAte man dAT's Y muLLiONs R mOurNing..."

Do you deny he made those statements?

 

[lsz]

@SeaEagleRock8 I am sure Kimmel had nothing at all to do with the proposed Nexstar $6.2bn merger with Tegna (which they need FCC approval for).

To be fair at least he did not call for the death of homeless people

Sorry Jake Tapper runs through the timeline pretty well here

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968516125810995562

As I know it is a video some people do not have the time to watch it but worth it

 

[Brookie1973]

Because "terrorist killings" =/= "political murders"

From the Cato website;

“Because the 9/11 attacks dominate the data, it makes sense to exclude them because they obscure other trends..keeping all other Islamist attacks and excluding 9/11 reduces the number of murders to 620 from 3,599 and cuts the Islamist share from 87% to 23%. It similarly raises the right wing share from 11% to 63%.”

ie the 9/11 attacks were excluded because they killed too many people. Nothing to do with terrorism vs political killings. It also makes right wing extremism much larger as a %.

Must say it throws into question the validity of the entire analysis, as it indicates that the more successful a terrorist attack is, the more likely it is to be excluded from the analysis.

 

[Ohgeez]

Although I'm surprised if that's true, so feel free to clarify further if you like

Id like you to clarify a few things.

Sounds like you think Kimmel and all those sacked were fair game

Who are all those others you are referring too?

I guess that answers my question anyway! You do not support free speech.

What free speech was violated in regards to Kimmel?

it follows that you would have no complaint if your employer sacked you after finding out you support Trump policies.

This is a strawman argument. Insinuating people are being let go for being a democrat is disingenuous on your part. If this was the case 40-45% of the country would be without a job. Most democrats have enough class to not celebrate a political assassination & also call for more, those who don’t have to suffer the consequences of their own actions by employers which is completely legal. (No this part isn’t about Kimmel it’s about the thousands of videos on social media shared by mostly regular citizens)

 

[47MVEagle]

From the Cato website;

“Because the 9/11 attacks dominate the data, it makes sense to exclude them because they obscure other trends..keeping all other Islamist attacks and excluding 9/11 reduces the number of murders to 620 from 3,599 and cuts the Islamist share from 87% to 23%. It similarly raises the right wing share from 11% to 63%.”

ie the 9/11 attacks were excluded because they killed too many people. Nothing to do with terrorism vs political killings.

Okay, so add 9/11 to the number of Islamic political murders - takes the total to 3,120.

That still has the Right 326 murders ahead of the Left.

Does the total of Islamic political murders somehow erase or excuse the fact most other political murders are performed by the Right, not the Left?

 

[Brookie1973]

Yes it does clarify, thank you.

it follows that you would have no complaint if your employer sacked you after finding out you support Trump policies.

Although I'm surprised if that's true, so feel free to clarify further if you like

I see we are back into question and answer mode, and here I was thinking my stint in the witness chair was finished.

I must say it is gratifying that you are now so concerned with people being sacked/cancelled for their political views. It gives me renewed hope for a bipartisan future, where people are free to express their political beliefs without fear of being branded something they are not.

As for Kimmel, as I said, given the ratings of these late night so-called comedians, I’d say it’s more than likely his employer was just looking for an excuse to push the button. I understand his ratings were lower than Colbert (source: DJT).

Can I be excused now?

 

[Brookie1973]

Okay, so add 9/11 to the number of Islamic political murders - takes the total to 3,120.

That still has the Right 326 murders ahead of the Left.

Does the total of Islamic political murders somehow erase or excuse the fact most other political murders are performed by the Right, not the Left?

Thanks for admitting your error.

The rest of your post is a classic “whataboutism” which I know you are vehemently opposed to, so I won’t bother responding, other than to say I question the validity of the entire analysis given their quantification of terrorist attacks excludes the most successful terrorist attacks. Who knows what else they have included/excluded/assumed.

I would also add that political violence is much broader than murders, encompassing riots, property damage and injury. An analysis of right vs left wing damage from riots would be insightful.

 

[47MVEagle]

Thanks for admitting your error.

The rest of your post is a classic “whataboutism” which I know you are vehemently opposed to, so I won’t bother responding, other than to say I question the validity of the entire analysis given their quantification of terrorist attacks excludes the most successful terrorist attacks. Who knows what else they have included/excluded/assumed.

I would also add that political violence is much broader than murders, encompassing riots, property damage and injury. An analysis of right vs left wing damage from riots would be insightful.

It's not a quantification of terrorist attacks though, it's a quantification of political murders.

So you place more stock in collateral damage than actual deaths?

You're trying to move the goalposts & undermine that data source because you can't argue against the fact that the right has committed more political murders than the left

 

[Brookie1973]

It's not a quantification of terrorist attacks though, it's a quantification of political murders.

So you place more stock in collateral damage than actual deaths?

You're trying to move the goalposts & undermine that data source because you can't argue against the fact that the right has committed more political murders than the left

1. It includes terrorist attacks as being politically motivated.
2. Where did I “place more stock” in anything? I simply suggested political violence does not just encompass murders. If we are arguing which side commits more political violence, I can almost guarantee the results would be very different.
3. Maybe that is true if you take the data on face value. Even Cato suggested not to do so “the motivated reader can slice and dice these numbers different ways.. (and) assign different ideological motivations to the individual attacker.” All they were able to conclude was that politically motivated murders regardless of motivation are very small.

 

[lsz]

There is an amazing example of how broken some people are in this thread

A post is made on what appears to be consensus regarding politically motivated violence which shows it is far more attributable to the “right”.

How to deal with this if it goes against your beliefs?

What about Islam? Why is 9/11 not included? Trans people are bad or my favourite “it does not include property damage” (which is a different discussion l)

 

[The '47ers]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/leftwing-streamer-hasan-piker-defends-murder-them-comments-in-abc-interview/news-story/329925e5657c85eb1dbfa6bcf8b030c2

 

[Brookie1973]

There is an amazing example of how broken some people are in this thread

A post is made on what appears to be consensus regarding politically motivated violence which shows it is far more attributable to the “right”.

How to deal with this if it goes against your beliefs?

What about Islam? Why is 9/11 not included? Trans people are bad or my favourite “it does not include property damage” (which is a different discussion l)

There is no consensus regarding politically motivated violence, which was the point I was making about violence being much broader than murders.

The discussion on Islam was relevant as the data included Islamic terrorist attacks. The omission of 9/11 deaths from those statistics would be considered a rather glaring omission by most people.

Not sure who said trans people are bad.

This study was being quoted as proof that the assertion by conservatives that leftist violence is on the rise was false. If we agree that violence includes rioting, injuries, property damage etc, then that is far from proven.

In so far as the research itself, even the author himself acknowledged that categorisations were far from objective and different ideological motivations could be assigned to attackers. The only conclusion they were willing to make is that total politically motivated murders were relatively small.

Finally, this is one study. I’m not sure how a consensus can be agreed based on a single study, particularly one with apparent self-highlighted flaws that specifically warn against just that type of over-interpretation.

Nobody is broken, just unwilling to jump to conclusions unquestioningly.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

There is an amazing example of how broken some people are in this thread

A post is made on what appears to be consensus regarding politically motivated violence which shows it is far more attributable to the “right”.

How to deal with this if it goes against your beliefs?

What about Islam? Why is 9/11 not included? Trans people are bad or my favourite “it does not include property damage” (which is a different discussion l)

Yep.
And its ok, turns out Kimmel was probably sacked for low ratings, so we're told.
Any idea why a few ostensibly good bloke Aussie footy fans here in Australia ... are showing fanatical support for Trump as US president? The only explanation I can think of for this is morbid fear of immigrants. Could that be it?? Gotta be more to it,surely

 

[Brookie1973]

Yep.
And its ok, turns out Kimmel was probably sacked for low ratings, so we're told.
Any idea why a few ostensibly good bloke Aussie footy fans here in Australia ... are showing fanatical support for Trump as US president? The only explanation I can think of for this is morbid fear of immigrants. Could that be it?? Gotta be more to it,surely

If I didn’t know better, I would say that is a classic **** stirring post. But I know you are better than that.

 

[Brookie1973]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/leftwing-streamer-hasan-piker-defends-murder-them-comments-in-abc-interview/news-story/329925e5657c85eb1dbfa6bcf8b030c2

It’s ok. He said it’s not really a policy. Just something he told his 3 million followers to do. Nothing to see here.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

No, I'm not better than that. I know when I'm beaten. Somewhat ironically, I actually support the idea of political debate and discussion. But it doesn't work if only one side is listening.

 

[Brookie1973]

No, I'm not better than that. I know when I'm beaten. Somewhat ironically, I actually support the idea of political debate and discussion. But it doesn't work if only one side is listening.

Might I suggest that your style of “debate and discussion” whereby you interrogate others about their views, making them feel like they are in a witness box, is not really conducive to effective dialogue.

If I’m not listening, why do I waste so much time responding to what others have posted. I must say I wonder sometimes. Perhaps you are confusing not listening with not agreeing.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

Yeah, I'm aware of all of it, I just used ChatGPT to summarise it in an easily digestible format for those in here with "room temperature IQ".

I suppose you're trying to claim the "context" of each of these statements excuses them, yes?

What a guy Charlie Kirk was.

Why don't you pick one statement & explain how it was justified?

Do you believe fundamental Muslims want to live side by side with non Muslims in peace? What do you think of Muslims in Australia celebrating the October 7th attacks?