Are you happy with the state/province/country you live in?

[Rothman]

There seems to be a difference between a celebrity that performed well and everyone enjoyed and their personal moral failings, rather than a celebrity or pundit where one's stated positions and moral failings can be intermingled due to the nature of their work.

Actually, what I've heard the most from people (in person) about Kirk specifically is that he welcomed debate and treated the other side of the argument with a modicum of respect and open ears.  That is to say, not even getting into whether you agree with his positions or not, his format was a breath of fresh air in an environment where people seem less and less willing to even acknowledge that their opponent has as brain or an idea worth listening to.  In that regard, the praise I've been hearing for Kirk has been >50% about the manner in which he conducted his 'business' rather than the actual content of his message.  Unmingled, if you will.

Now, maybe you disagree with that assessment of his format and behavior, but the point remains that people are in fact talking about him in that way.  They're applauding his method of debate, even separate from the ideology of his arguments.

I agree that his format was indeed effective to provide a platform for positions and a sense of morality I find repugnant...(?)  There's always going to be a difference of perspective when one either agrees or disagrees with someone else's sense of morality.  Shoot, I'll point at G. Gordon Liddy as a less controversial figure than obvious other picks for that point...some make him out to be a hero, while others still consider him a traitor...

I mean, culturally, we do have this don't speak ill of the dead going on, where we try to focus on the positive after someone dies (Then again, Charles Kirk on George Floyd right after he was killed by police officers, one of which was convicted of murder, referring to Floyd as a scumbag and denying that the officers were responsible; complete recognition that I'm parroting this point from elsewhere on the Internet -- Kirk's own words make the whole contrasting here quite difficult).  Anyway, I find the attempt to divide between appreciating the format of his presentations and his content to be quite different than trying to divide his personal opinions/actions from his professional ones...

[Rothman]

There seems to be a difference between a celebrity that performed well and everyone enjoyed and their personal moral failings, rather than a celebrity or pundit where one's stated positions and moral failings can be intermingled due to the nature of their work.

Actually, what I've heard the most from people (in person) about Kirk specifically is that he welcomed debate and treated the other side of the argument with a modicum of respect and open ears.  That is to say, not even getting into whether you agree with his positions or not, his format was a breath of fresh air in an environment where people seem less and less willing to even acknowledge that their opponent has as brain or an idea worth listening to.  In that regard, the praise I've been hearing for Kirk has been >50% about the manner in which he conducted his 'business' rather than the actual content of his message.  Unmingled, if you will.

Now, maybe you disagree with that assessment of his format and behavior, but the point remains that people are in fact talking about him in that way.  They're applauding his method of debate, even separate from the ideology of his arguments.

Say what you want about Kirk but the possibility of someone like Nick Fuentes replacing him is terrifying.

Given most of us don't want people shooting each other to muffle disagreeable or even voices perceived to be outright harmful, I'll never understand why, after all the evidence compiled in all of human history, murderers still think assassination will be the end of whatever movement.  Yes, murder is intolerable and immoral...but it just isn't effective, either.

[Roadgeekteen]

There seems to be a difference between a celebrity that performed well and everyone enjoyed and their personal moral failings, rather than a celebrity or pundit where one's stated positions and moral failings can be intermingled due to the nature of their work.

Actually, what I've heard the most from people (in person) about Kirk specifically is that he welcomed debate and treated the other side of the argument with a modicum of respect and open ears.  That is to say, not even getting into whether you agree with his positions or not, his format was a breath of fresh air in an environment where people seem less and less willing to even acknowledge that their opponent has as brain or an idea worth listening to.  In that regard, the praise I've been hearing for Kirk has been >50% about the manner in which he conducted his 'business' rather than the actual content of his message.  Unmingled, if you will.

Now, maybe you disagree with that assessment of his format and behavior, but the point remains that people are in fact talking about him in that way.  They're applauding his method of debate, even separate from the ideology of his arguments.

Say what you want about Kirk but the possibility of someone like Nick Fuentes replacing him is terrifying.

Given most of us don't want people shooting each other to muffle disagreeable or even voices perceived to be outright harmful, I'll never understand why, after all the evidence compiled in all of human history, murderers still think assassination will be the end of whatever movement.  Yes, murder is intolerable and immoral...but it just isn't effective, either.

It's because these murderers aren't sane partisans. They are insane nuts with little coherent ideology except for mental illness.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not all murderers of political and quasi-political figures were insane.

[Roadgeekteen]

Not all murderers of political and quasi-political figures were insane.

Not all, but it seems like Tyler Robinson (the Kirk killer) certainly was based on all the meme crap he wrote on the bullet. The Trump shooter also wasn't coherent politically.

[Rothman]

Not all murderers of political and quasi-political figures were insane.

Not all, but it seems like Tyler Robinson (the Kirk killer) certainly was based on all the meme crap he wrote on the bullet. The Trump shooter also wasn't coherent politically.

I'm not sure that the bullet scrawlings were a marker of insanity in of themselves.  Frankly, they seemed like a lot of Gen Z stuff that's floating around out there on Instagram and TikTok.  Memes are an inherent means of communication to that generation.  I mean, the fact that he thought killing Charlie Kirk would actually do anything or that he'd be lauded for it or whatnot is probably insane in of itself...

Saw a TikTok about how things were easier to conclude intention-wise when it came to insane assassins before the advent of the Internet.  People used to just write a manifesto down on paper that laid out their intentions rather than incoherent bits and pieces on social media...

[Max Rockatansky]

Not all murderers of political and quasi-political figures were insane.

Not all, but it seems like Tyler Robinson (the Kirk killer) certainly was based on all the meme crap he wrote on the bullet. The Trump shooter also wasn't coherent politically.

I'm not sure that the bullet scrawlings were a marker of insanity in of themselves.  Frankly, they seemed like a lot of Gen Z stuff that's floating around out there on Instagram and TikTok.  Memes are an inherent means of communication to that generation.  I mean, the fact that he thought killing Charlie Kirk would actually do anything or that he'd be lauded for it or whatnot is probably insane in of itself...

Saw a TikTok about how things were easier to conclude intention-wise when it came to insane assassins before the advent of the Internet.  People used to just write a manifesto down on paper that laid out their intentions rather than incoherent bits and pieces on social media...

In the most recent event there was a seemingly substantial amount of coherent planning that went into the shooting.  Yeah sure, the assumptions about what the shooting would achieve are likely to be faulty.  None of this strikes me as being much akin to a nut job looking to shoot Reagan because it would somehow impress Jodie Foster.

Then again, maybe the kid is bat shit crazy?  If he is I'm sure that will come out in the months ahead.  Probably unwise to even be speculating at all.

[Roadgeekteen]

Honestly, I think the fact that he did shoot Charlie Kirk inherently makes him insane in and of itself.

[Rothman]

Honestly, I think the fact that he did shoot Charlie Kirk inherently makes him insane in and of itself.

I don't know if I'd go that far, since in the judicial system insanity is handled differently than those that are mentally accountable.

[Roadgeekteen]

Honestly, I think the fact that he did shoot Charlie Kirk inherently makes him insane in and of itself.

I don't know if I'd go that far, since in the judicial system insanity is handled differently than those that are mentally accountable.

Yeah I didn't think he was justice system insane, just a insane nut who knows what he is doing and a danger to the public.

[LilianaUwU]

Why did we end up talking about Charlie Kirk? I know he's the talk of the town, but this isn't even related to the question.

[Roadgeekteen]

Historically speaking, people have always been mean—throughout the centuries and across the world—to people who are different than them.  If anything, our society is way more tolerant of differences now than most any society to have existed in history.  But, for most of American history, it was very much out of the norm to believe that certain people just plain deserved to die.  As Scott said, thinking that way would certainly have made a person an outlier just a couple of generations ago.  But nowadays, even on this forum, whenever there's a RIP thread about a controversial figure, it seems a few forum members inevitably say something like "I can't say I'm sorry he's dead" or something similar.  We've gotten to the point that it's actually kind of common to dehumanize people and literally think they deserve to die.  We've gotten to the point that we really do think the other side of the proverbial aisle has nothing but evil people who don't even deserve to breathe the same air as we do.

I think part of this is due to the fact that we live such separate lives nowadays.  We get into the car in the garage, pull out and drive to work, then get off work and do the same thing in reverse.  We don't spend time at our neighbor's house, we don't join bowling leagues or quilting groups, we don't go the mall with our friends, we don't have block parties, we don't attend church or civil organization meetings, we live a lot more of our lives behind glass than our parents and grandparents did.  And what this means is that we're not rubbing shoulders with people who are different from us.  We're no longer forced to respect or tolerate or even listen to anyone we don't agree with.  Our worldview is now filtered through talking heads on YouTube, and the algorithm makes sure that that worldview just keeps getting more and more warped as time goes on.

*sigh*

This is the first mention of him in this thread, but people complaining against the divisive nature of America as something they didn't like led to this.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why did we end up talking about Charlie Kirk? I know he's the talk of the town, but this isn't even related to the question.

I think it was pretty clear to a lot of us the undertone of this thread had a lot to do with recent events.  FWIW, my actual answer to the thread subject is amusingly vanilla.

[LilianaUwU]

Why did we end up talking about Charlie Kirk? I know he's the talk of the town, but this isn't even related to the question.

I think it was pretty clear to a lot of us the undertone of this thread had a lot to do with recent events.  FWIW, my actual answer to the thread subject is amusingly vanilla.

I did make a reference to the 51st state bullshit but otherwise felt I was rather vanilla.

[Roadgeekteen]

Why did we end up talking about Charlie Kirk? I know he's the talk of the town, but this isn't even related to the question.

I think it was pretty clear to a lot of us the undertone of this thread had a lot to do with recent events.  FWIW, my actual answer to the thread subject is amusingly vanilla.

Look, the OG thread was locked. When we want to talk about something on this forum, we will find a way to do it even if the OG thread is gone. Look at Alanland.

[Molandfreak]

I think most of us have it out of our system now. So if people want to say that Molandfreak is an immoral dickhead who doesn't care about human lives, they're more than welcome to use this thread as evidence to back up their case.

[Roadgeekteen]

I think most of us have it out of our system now. So if people want to say that Molandfreak is an immoral dickhead who doesn't care about human lives, they're more than welcome to use this thread as evidence to back up their case.

I don't agree with that viewpoint and know why you wouldn't like Kirk.

[NWI_Irish96]

If a person was actively promoting or condoning violence against others and/or government policies that lead to widespread deterioration in public health or economic conditions

That second clause seems pretty subjective to me. Who decides whether or not that's the case?

I spent a career working for an agency that collected objective data on the impacts of policy.

[kkt]

Besides murder being immoral, assassination is generally counterproductive.  The victim becomes a martyr and their causes are advanced.

[kphoger]

Why did we end up talking about Charlie Kirk? I know he's the talk of the town, but this isn't even related to the question.

[...]

This is the first mention of him in this thread, but people complaining against the divisive nature of America as something they didn't like led to this.

No, the first mention of Kirk in this thread was by |Rothman| here.  My post that you quoted didn't say anything about Kirk.

At any rate, the answer to the first question is that we got started in this line of conversation because |The HighwayMan3561| lamented that he has "no place in this life", that he has been "fully unloved at every stage" of life, and that he feels like someone who wasn't "meant to exist".  This prompted some of us to chime in and say how every person was meant to exist, and that the world would be worse off if he weren't here anymore.  I made the connection between such sentiments and the dehumanization of murder victims, but that's something I've been thinking about since long before Kirk's murder, and I specifically avoided mentioning his name in that post as an effort to avoid this thread's sinking into a quagmire of political arguing.

I think most of us have it out of our system now. So if people want to say that Molandfreak is an immoral dickhead who doesn't care about human lives[/i], they're more than welcome to use this thread as evidence to back up their case.

I know you had your tongue in your cheek when you wrote that, but...

This goes for anyone reading, not just one specific forum member.  You might stand for everything I'm against, and you might be against everything I stand for.  You might be an immoral dickhead, or you might be a holier-than-thou dickhead.  You might think and claim that people like me are what's wrong with society.  You might advocate for people like me to be silenced, marginalized.  You might call me names, slander my reputation, make false assumptions about me, and genuinely hate me with all that you are.  But, even then, I believe that you have intrinsic worth as a human being.  I believe that every person—including you—has innate value that does not depend on one's beliefs, words, or actions.  I might consider you to be the biggest enemy to everything I hold sacred, and yet it would sadden me if you were removed from this world.

If you feel like you truly have no place in the world, then, please, do not believe that lie.  You matter.  You are not a mistake.  And if you ever get to thinking that you might as well not even exist, then please talk to someone.  If that means seeking professional help, then do that.  If that means sending a PM to someone on this forum—myself included—because you have no one else in your life to turn to, then do that.  Climbing out of that dark hole might require someone else's help, so don't be afraid to ask for help.

[JayhawkCO]

What I noticed in this thread is the lack of "Why?"

My whys for Denver

Weather (Having four seasons with none being extreme, lack of humidity, etc.)
Political climate
Education level of populace
Fitness of populace
Outdoor recreation activities
Non-stop flight options
Mountain Time Zone
You don't have to drive far to get to the middle of nowhere

Saw something in the dislike thread that made me want to add another:

Very few bugs.

[vdeane]

@Rothman already posted about NY, so here's some stuff specific to the Capital District.  It's a relatively scenic area, with hills around and a couple of state parks right here locally (and a scenic byway entirely within the metro).  It's also close to a ton of places to daytrip, like Lake George, the Adirondacks, or Catskills.  And the location where I-87, I-90, and I-88 all come together means that I can go five different directions easily on the interstate.  Drive just a couple hours, and you can be at NYC, Boston, or Montréal.

[Molandfreak]

I think most of us have it out of our system now. So if people want to say that Molandfreak is an immoral dickhead who doesn't care about human lives[/i], they're more than welcome to use this thread as evidence to back up their case.

I know you had your tongue in your cheek when you wrote that, but...

This goes for anyone reading, not just one specific forum member.  You might stand for everything I'm against, and you might be against everything I stand for.  You might be an immoral dickhead, or you might be a holier-than-thou dickhead.  You might think and claim that people like me are what's wrong with society.  You might advocate for people like me to be silenced, marginalized.  You might call me names, slander my reputation, make false assumptions about me, and genuinely hate me with all that you are.  But, even then, I believe that you have intrinsic worth as a human being.  I believe that every person—including you—has innate value that does not depend on one's beliefs, words, or actions.  I might consider you to be the biggest enemy to everything I hold sacred, and yet it would sadden me if you were removed from this world.

If you feel like you truly have no place in the world, then, please, do not believe that lie.  You matter.  You are not a mistake.  And if you ever get to thinking that you might as well not even exist, then please talk to someone.  If that means seeking professional help, then do that.  If that means sending a PM to someone on this forum—myself included—because you have no one else in your life to turn to, then do that.  Climbing out of that dark hole might require someone else's help, so don't be afraid to ask for help.

I can't speak for TheHighwayMan3561, but as for myself, feeling like I have no place in the world is a rather poor choice of words. Even though I feel frequently unwanted and like I am a burden on society during this period where I am actively searching for a job. I have plenty to live for.

I feel about the dead the same way as I feel about the living. We have to be honest about their impact on the world. If he had died in 2019, I might have said that conservatism had lost one of its most honest actors since at that point, he was actively campaigning for the first Trump administration to make Juneteenth a federal holiday, hadn't made the remarks about the Civil Rights Act that Rothman mentioned above, and hadn't personally slandered George Floyd for the high crime of substance addiction. As someone who is only two degrees of separation from Floyd himself, the man had faults, but he didn't deserve to die on that street. Neither did Kirk deserve a bullet to the neck.

The other thing that I hope political influencers start to realize is that their words are going to be taken the wrong way, even by those supporting them. I guarantee there were followers of Charlie Kirk who took his words about the Civil Rights Act and used them to follow through with hate crimes towards Black Americans, even though that may not have been his intention.

[1995hoo]

@Rothman already posted about NY, so here's some stuff specific to the Capital District.  It's a relatively scenic area, with hills around and a couple of state parks right here locally (and a scenic byway entirely within the metro).  It's also close to a ton of places to daytrip, like Lake George, the Adirondacks, or Catskills.  And the location where I-87, I-90, and I-88 all come together means that I can go five different directions easily on the interstate.  Drive just a couple hours, and you can be at NYC, Boston, or Montréal.

vdeane's comment prompts me to think of another thing I like about where I live, something I was thinking about yesterday when we went to visit a winery about 70 miles from home. Drive about an hour to the west of the DC area (assuming light traffic, anyway) and you're in the mountains. Drive about an hour to the east and you're at the Chesapeake. It's a nice range of scenery and terrain.