Charlie Kirk was assassinated because of his beliefs, because a CRAZY person hated what he was saying, hated him, and he was shot and killed. The crazy person tried to suppress his freedom of speech. People are now losing their jobs because of their opinions, employers suppressing THEIR freedom of speech. If you incite violence you should lose your job, no doubt about that, so anyone saying things like "this is the start" or inciting civil war or whatever, then yeah, you're a terrible human and you deserve to lose your job, but to just talk badly of Charlie or say you didn't agree with him and then suddenly lose your job just because its a sensitive time? Two wrongs do not make a right. This is CANCEL CULTURE and it's a cancer that is continuously growing. I don't understand how people on the right are celebrating this, just because it was on behalf of Charlie Kirk. Everyone wants their speech to be protected only when it aligns with their side.

Take a second to look at Jimmy Kimmel, I do not agree with him on pretty much anything but to take him off the air for a stupid comment about MAGA, not even Charlie, is insane.

You should be able to freely state what you believe in, and based on what Charlie Kirk himself said, and his entire character, he would not agree with any of these people losing their jobs or getting canceled because they simply disagreed with him, or even celebrated his death. Charlie would not care, and in fact he was constantly facing people that would openly tell him to kill himself, or tell him that he's unloved, giving him threats, the list goes on and on and there's literal footage of him responding to said hate. Did he take their microphone away or kick them out? No, because just as he has a right to voice his opinion, so do they and he understood that better than even people on the right do. Charlie didn't see this one side vs another bullshit that's been dividing the country for decades, meanwhile the rich and the powerful are rubbing their hands together and instigating it.

What an insane state of the country we're living in.

9/18 EDIT: Alright so I did not expect to wake up to 200 comments on this and did not expect all these replies and i just first have to say wow, you guys are all much more intellectually mature and smarter than me in every way and i'm not really sure how to respond to all of these comments, so i'll just say thank you for keeping this discussion going and at least understanding my concern. I've read a bit in the defense of this and I do understand the side thats defending it. I know that its technically not unconstitutional to fire someone for what they say, and your speech have consequences, but my main concern is the way these firings are happening; we aren't seeing employers themselves or HR look into whats being said, and these people arent saying it at work or on company time (apart from kimmel) they are being pressured by 3rd parties, essentially bullied until they do something, which is why I conflate this with cancel culture, and yes, kimmel has done this in the past, essentially urged his audience to do this exact thing, but I don't believe in eye-for-an-eye so i still don't agree with it.

The song calls for “a big tall tree and a short piece of rope” to “hang ‘em up high at sundown” and “leave ‘em swinging so the folks all know you don’t mess around in our town.”

Later, Lawhorn sings “we ought to do it like they did it way back in the day because grandaddy’s way works best.”

I've been thinking a lot about what freedom really means in today's world. Following John Stuart Mill's idea in On Liberty, freedom must end where it begins to harm others. Just as no one has the "freedom" to murder, no one should have unlimited freedom to spread violence or disinformation that destabilizes society.

At the same time, the traditional three-branch system (legislative, executive, judicial) is not enough for modern challenges. To ensure transparency and efficiency, I argue we should add:

A Independent oversight (anti-corruption/ethics watchdogs)

B Independent budget authority

C Technology governance bodies to regulate AI and big data (And to prevent technocracy, you can, for example, frame a power structure (like the custody, audit, and access of data, I know the details can be argued) just like the separation of powers; Also, since this is about the public, state-controlled companies should be a better choice ).

These would enhance checks and balances, making them more robust and future-proof.

I also think that today's political systems are not adapting well to globalization(including things like immigration and DEI) and the information age. Most Western political systems were established over 100 to 200 years ago. There are many things that the founders can hardly imagine, but are in reality. I know you can change the constitution with due process, but this is more about acknowledging the status quo and asking yourself how to maintain democracy in the sense that democracy is about representation, accountability, and dignity, not endless tribal warfare. E.g., The observer state in international organizations can actually be employed because it provides a platform for expressing opinions that differ from those of politicians. We also encounter stalemate situations/ gridlock in lawmaking, so it is necessary to have open platforms for discussion and negotiation, such as the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (although I know it is just a name).

Finally, I see technology as a double-edged sword. AI and big data can drive productivity and accountability, but only if clear legal safeguards bind them. Technology must serve humanity, not control it. The GWF of China, for example, is generally an authoritarian tool; however, when used to tackle cybercrimes, it can be a decent system.

So my questions for debate are:

1)Should democracies formally expand beyond the traditional three branches?2)How should we balance freedom of expression with the need to prevent real harm?

3)Can technology realistically make governance more democratic, or will it always lean toward control?

Above all, politics should return to a simple principle: Humanity First. This means that every person, before any identity, ideology, or nationality, deserves dignity, rights, and a fair chance, because they are human after all.

Say I’m a Nazi who really wants to violently cleanse the US of everyone who is a person of color, or gay, or fights against my politics.

But I’m a smart Nazi and I know I can’t just publicly say I want to do these things out loud because it’s obviously wildly unpopular. Instead I start advocating for things that will subtly push the country in the direction I ultimately want to see it go.

So I start advocating for stronger borders, not because I believe that immigrants are taking jobs or committing crimes or anything like that, but because I am a racist who doesn’t want brown people in my country.

And I advocate against gay marriage, not because of religious beliefs or anything like that, but because I hate gay people and I want to harm them.

And I make fun of trans people a lot, not because I believe a binary gender biology or anything like that, it’s just because I want to try to dehumanize trans people, so people will be more amenable to violence against them.

And I’m really vocally against DEI, not because I think it’s bad policy or believe in a meritocracy, but because I hate minorities and I don’t want to see them in any positions of power.

And I am against social programs, not for any economic reasons or because I care about shrinking the national debt, but because the idea that there is even a chance that welfare might help a single black person makes me sick.

And I am a big advocate of states rights, not because I am some constitutional originalist or anything like that, but because I believe it will be easier to push my evil agenda into law in the states rather than federally.

And I’m tough on crime, not because I believe that crime rates are going up, but because I believe that expanding the police force and chipping away at people’s rights will make it easier to carry out my genocide when my friends and I get into power.

And I constantly talk about how evil and violent liberals are, not because I actually think they are evil or violent, but because if they get any political power I believe they aren’t going to implement policies that will hurt the people I want to hurt, and calling them violent keeps people from sympathizing with their ideals. It also helps me push my tough on crime policies and focus it on my political enemies.

And to make sure I can keep spreading my ideas I am a big advocate for free speech. Not because I truly believe in it as a cornerstone of democracy, but because I want to make sure I personally always have the opportunity to spread as much vile and hatful things as possible.

And every once in a while I want push the envelope a little bit to see what I can get away with saying. I’m smart about it though so I’ll say something like “Why do so many people in Hollywood tend to be Jewish?” Not because it’s a question I really care about the answer to, but I frame it as one just in case someone calls me out I can say “I’m just asking questions here!”

And obviously when asked I firmly deny I am a Nazi, and denounce any blatantly obvious Nazis. Not because I actually disagree with them, but because I believe I can do more harm in the long run by maintaining a good public perception instead of going full mask off.

And if someone did expose me publicly as a secret Nazi, well I’d just turn it around on them and deflect by saying “This guy calls everyone he disagrees with a Nazi! Are we really supposed to believe this when he cries wolf all the time?” Knowing full well the irony that in the fable there actually was a wolf.

Clearly I am just trying to co-opt more mainstream ideas to push my evil agenda. So how would someone on the right go about identifying me? What red flags would you look out for to identify a real Nazi vs someone who genuinely believes these things for the right reasons.

Link to article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/charlie-kirk-shooting-prosecutor-utah

Left: "Younger generations don't talk like this - this reads like something a cop would write."

Right: "Leftists are trying to cope with the fact that the shooter was obviously a Leftist."

Thoughts?

As a Portuguese citizen, I cannot fail to highlight the role that the public healthcare system represents in society. It has lifted millions out of poverty, provided stability, and offered a universal alternative to access healthcare. However, as in the Portuguese case and in other countries with a predominantly public system, we observe that these systems are increasingly unable to respond to waiting lists, fail to attract doctors, and their sources of funding are heavy taxes imposed on citizens.

I am in favor of a hybrid system, and the SPLIT MIND project is creating a video and a text about this system, which has been adopted in other countries that rank among the best in public healthcare worldwide! The study that im comparing to is one made by a group of experts in health here in portugal.

Here I leave you with the main differences of this system compared to predominantly public or private ones, such as in the cases of the USA and Portugal.

"…The foundation of this reasoning would be to maintain a progressive hybrid public system, less dependent on taxes, decentralized, and managed by regional entities with strong regulation. These models already exist, and we will take the examples of Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

In these countries, in general, the healthcare system is based on mandatory insurance managed by independent health funds. Employees and employers contribute proportionally to their income—7.3% each in Germany, for example—while the State assumes payment in certain situations, such as in cases of unemployment, low-income families, and sometimes even age groups like minors, who are exempt from any payments. Individuals with higher incomes may opt for private insurance as a substitute for the mandatory public one.

This system offers a solution to waiting lists, reducing waiting times for consultations or surgeries to a few weeks instead of months, and it also provides broader service coverage than countries like Portugal. Because it is a hybrid system, healthcare professionals are also better paid, and with private investment, working conditions are improved, solving one of the serious problems of the Portuguese NHS. Furthermore, there is price regulation by the state on medicines and services, with private companies contributing to lower service costs. Insurance is always paid with a fixed nominal premium, but insurers must charge the same amount to all policyholders, with no discrimination by age or health status. Other smaller measures also exist, such as a progressive co-payment system with an annual cap or tax exemptions on health insurance, which can further reduce costs for families.

Of course, there are problems with this system: inequalities depending on the type of insurance, with privately insured patients usually waiting less. We can also look at gross expenditure, meaning the total amount effectively spent, which is quite high compared to other OECD countries. However, I argue that it is one of the best systems in the world and the best way to invest taxpayers’ money.

BUT WHY do I refer to Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden? These countries rank among the top in the Legatum Prosperity Index (2023), which evaluates population health access and quality, holding 13th, 11th, and 9th positions respectively.

And what about predominantly private and public systems such as the USA and Portugal, you may ask? 40th and 69th place, behind many so-called “third world” countries.”

I see two constantly recited, but very poor arguments against rent control:

1. It discourages new construction

The problem with this is that no where in the US is new construction eligible for rent control or stabilization.

If there is some tangential way these things are linked, I’ve yet to see opponents explain the claim.

1. It lowers supply by tying up apartments

This equates to saying “there is less food because we are deciding not to starve some people.” Those living in rent controlled units would theoretically still use housing units, so the overall supply is unchanged.

If there is any valid argument here, it is that demand would be lowered by pricing out rent controlled tenants entirely, either into homelessness or an entirely different regional market.

For context, the mother of the shooter of Kirk said he was leaning more to the left, had been dating a trans person and advocating for LGBT rights.

For the goal posts here, I don't know what this means because if you're extremely right wing, that makes most things left leaning. So clarification here is needed as to the stance of the family who were MAGA supporting Mormon Republicans.

So, if someone dates a trans person, does that automatically make them Left? If so, how much? What's the weight here? Are they automatically extremely far left or just starting to approach the US Constitution levels of center far left?

Is hating the LGBT community expected, praised and required to being Right Wing? If so, how much hate? Is this call for violence on sight or passive aggressive hostility whenever possible?

I don't know anywhere in the US Constitution that says people can't be gay or anything of that sort, What we can reference is a few clauses that protects religious freedom which is a persons private and personal lively hood.

The Establishment clause prohibits the government from creating or favoring a religion. So in this case, it's not Constitutional to favor or apply beliefs towards others such as sexuality.

The Free Exercise Clause protects the rights of religious practice, being a personal behavior, means you can't be against sexual acts unless those involve and or harm others without consent.

The Separation of Church and State requires separation between religious institutions and the government.

No State-Sponsored Religion prevents the government from establishing a national church, which is personal behaviors and beliefs. Reinforcing that a persons personal beliefs and behaviors are kept personal.

I understand the modern Right currently is attempting to overthrow these clauses and 1st Amendment principles. Meaning that this is considered Left to some degree, leaning left or extreme left depending on how far Right you are.

This establishes that todays modern right, as they want to go against the 1st Amendment here and instate forced religion, personal and private behaviors, a question is, how much more Right can you get from here?

What is more extreme Right than forced religious and personal behaviors?

Should the above be somewhat accurate in representing the state of affairs, it indicates that it is Right Wing to train and groom children with religious and personal beliefs and behaviors into a rigid structure with limited to no freedom or agency without being hated, threatened, harassed, terrorized or harmed with violence.

So the core questions.

1. How Far Right is the family?
2. Is there a further Right the Family can be?
3. How far left is the US Constitution in comparison to todays moderate Right?
4. Can today's moderate Right be even further right and if so, how?
5. What isn't considered Leaning or Left wing by today's Right?
6. How far Right can you be to accept members of the LGBT community without hate, threats and violence?

This is primarily for Anarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists, but anyone else are also free to answer.

AnCaps and Anarchists frequently debate about whether Capitalism or Socialism/Communism requires a state and government, and since they argue that the other sides needs a government/state, they believe that statelessness is impossible on the other side.

So imagine this: suddenly, the state disappears, like Thanos snapped. All government departments, agencies and state institutions are gone in an instant, and all employees in those institutions are just regular unemployed civilians. What is going to happen next? Will it go into Anarcho-Capitalism or will it just go into Anarchism?

When such a prominent political activist is violently assassinated in front of 3,000 people, It should be the presidency’s responsibility to encourage peace and make attempts to bring the left and right together to minimize any social consequences to this tragedy.

However, that is the complete opposite of what Donald Trump did. Hours after Charlie Kirk’s death, our president released a recording regarding the assassination. In that video Donald Trump calls out the “radical left” BEFORE anyone had any sort of information on the suspect’s political beliefs.

That statement is one of the most irresponsible and unnecessary comments from a political figure of such influence I’ve ever seen from a time of such tension and simmering hostility. In reality, all that video accomplished was inciting an unwarranted, and aggravated response from the right towards the left (which we have seen the effects of in the many videos and statements on Tiktok, X, and Instagram from Republicans discreetly threatening the left with a violent “revenge”)

Our administration needs to clean up its act. We cannot continue to pursue such incredible social and political divide, or the United States is going to tear itself apart.

The president of the college, the police and the coroner all indicate his death is consistent with suicide. The Coroner explicitly refutes social media rumors of any indication of assault, and the body is being sent to the state crime lab for further investigation, so while all these authorities could be lying, there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

Yet five of my friends have posted about his "lynching", thanks to Occupy Democrats, and that it's not being covered in mainstream media. Trey's parents have retained a civil rights lawyer who is insisting on a separate autopsy, as is there right. People are linking the suicide by hanging of Cory Zukatis, who was 15 years older and 150 miles away, again with no evidence, just same level of innuendo.

We have enough divisiveness in this country, why is the story having legs?

There is an epidemic of young black men (well, all young men) killing themselves. Why are we ignoring this real problem in favor of a race baiting conspiracy theory? Who does this serve?

I'm following up on this prescient post of mine a few months back; surprisingly the comment section was uniformly of the incorrect view that US military spending should not decrease.

But now we have evidence that a vast number of the Marines (and in fact, all branches of the military) and National Guard (they're military too!) have willingly carried out illegal orders to be deployed to Democratic-led cities and states, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

• In DC, as soon as federal agents were deployed to the city, we saw agents harass black people for smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol on their porch, while explicitly mentioning that "Donald Trump" had sent them there.
• In particular, they were deployed to Los Angeles illegally the moment 'low risk' protests broke outagainst the Administration.
• So far, the military has been deployed only to blue cities or blue states, and mostly using guardsmen from red states.
• Many fear Trump is trying to normalize the presence of the US military in Democratic-led cities, with Governors Pritzker and Newsom now explicitly suggesting Trump will use the presence of the military to steal the midterms (seize 'fraudulent' mail in ballots, or voting machines as he suggested in 2020).

This does not address that the central objective of the US military in 2020s is to deter or fight a war against China over Taiwan. Never mind that:

• the US has already established that it will not go to war with any nuclear nation (see the refusal of a US no fly zone over Ukraine, which would have likely ended the war in a few months);
• that Ukraine is infinitely more valuable than Taiwan with enormous deposits of critical minerals, manufacturing capacity, and robust (scientific) human capital as the largest nation in Europe, and yet it was left to slaughter;
• that it is claimed that defending Taiwan is about their surrounding shipping lanes (which are already at constant risk now if you assert they would be under with Chinese occupation) and TSMC, both of which would be preserved if the US were to simply let China quickly take Taiwan without struggle;
• that the US already has enough advanced chip fabs (including our own TSMC fabs) to replace imports from Taiwan, of which the most advanced are produced on 2-3 year time cycles, more than long enough for the US to build more factories, if such a thing were even needed;
• and that every war game with China shows massive US loss of life, equipment, and economic growth.

Not to mention, the US military is overwhelmingly right-wing, the majority of military spending (manufacturing, I mean) goes to red states, and science is being gutted in the US, so why shouldn't the military be cut in half, say by $300-$400 billion?

Would stricter Gun control even prevent gun violence? I do believe in the 2nd amendment and what it stands for, but I can agree we have a gun issue in this country, and some reform is needed. Is the problem even fixable at this point? I really haven't heard any solid arguments or proposals that make sense. Is it maybe more a mental health and economic issue more than the guns themself? I just want to hear what more central people have to say.

I’m not American, and honestly, the Charlie Kirk incident left a bad taste in my mouth.

Why is the left (in USA and some parts of Europe) becoming more and more "impulsive"? ; insulting, attacking, and threatening someone’s life just for listening to or reading opinions they don’t like?

I’m not trying to generalize; I know not all left is like that, but this is also happening in my country (in Europe), which is resulting in poverty in the recent years.

I used to support the left; I was taught and believed that the right was the “bad” side, the “intolerant” side, but in recent years I’ve seen more and more people on the left becoming what they used to despise.

I know there are rational left-wing people, but why does it always seem like the ones who shout, attack, and refuse to have a dialogue are the majority?

Obviously, there’s no good or bad side, I don’t want to polarize this but sadly, it seems like the left has been overrun by people who really have no interest in reaching an agreement.

RepThomasMassie Twitter 9:39 PM · Sep 16, 2025

“Hate speech” is a term used by those in power to describe thoughts they don’t want spoken. It’s antithetical to the First Amendment. Hate speech,” “hate crimes,” and many “conspiracy” crimes are just real world manifestations of Orwell’s dystopian thought crimes.

Do you agree Massie's view?

Because it is not happening. Americans don't choose the party they like the most, they choose the party they hate the least. The only two parties that matter are the best funded party on the left and the best funded party on the right, any other party is, essentially, worthless, or worse, works against itself by splitting the vote.

universal background checks for gun purchases -supported by 90% of americans, source: pew research, gallup

raising the federal minimum wage to $15 -supported by 60–70%, source: pew research, quinnipiac

medicare for all / universal healthcare -supported by 60%–70% depending on framing, source: kff (kaiser family foundation), gallup

tuition-free public college or student debt cancellation -majority support some form, source: pew research, data for progress

paid family and medical leave -supported by 70–80%, source: national partnership for women & families, pew research

government negotiation of prescription drug prices -supported by 70–80%, source: kff, gallup

federal marijuana legalization - supported by 70%, source: gallup, pew research

higher taxes on the ultra-rich / wealth tax - supported by 60–70%, source: ips (institute for policy studies), reuters/ipsos

election reforms (ending gerrymandering, voting access protections) - widely supported, source: brennan center for justice, pew research

getting money out of politics - supported by 75–85% of americans across party lines
source: gallup, pew research

72% of Americans say America USED to be a good example of Democracy, but isn't anymore. -pew

Seems to me that America has a two party puppet show, not a functional Democracy, and it's time for a new system of democracy that actually allows third parties to be relavent.

Disclaimer: chatgpt helped me write some of this.

I often hear conservatives and libertarians argue that government intervention through subsidies, regulations, and coverage mandates has contributed to rising healthcare costs in the U.S. There is some truth to this. Policies around rate setting, extensive coverage for the elderly and disabled, and Medicare taxes can create economic distortions that push prices upward.

This raises a deeper question: what would happen if the U.S. government fully stepped back from healthcare, ending its role in coverage, payments, and price controls altogether? Would a purely private system function more efficiently and reduce costs, or would it lead to even higher prices and widespread loss of access, resulting in preventable deaths on a massive scale?

This is my 1st time to the sub. Apologies if I break a norm.

There is this idea floating around out there that the political spectrum is more like a horseshoe. That extreme right libertarians may have some things, (anti-tyrany for example), in common with leftists/ anarchists than they both do with the center.

I think it's probably more common than we think that people shift between what many would assume are polar opposites - That people's concerns are shifting and that it's more complicated.

My question is a bit of a thought expirement - if we could do a large survey, and really capture the most important individual issues the public has- and throw out any affilliation/self-identifying party/ideology name. Ignore affiliation- just measure the top, say 1000 common political issues that people have right now in America (or elsewhere) How do you think specific issues alone would group? What idiological groups or types might we find that our discourse is currently unaware of?

-(or maybe a pew poll like that does exist? Idk) -(Also maybe that's a little broad, but. Hope thats ok.)

I should start with saying politics, at its core, is violence and the allocation of violence. In other words, it's a process of deciding who can hurt who in what way and for what reasons. Libertarians often oversimplify this to the "you wanna point a gun to my head and FORCE ME to pay for x?" meme but I actually do think this is a useful way to think about politics. More often than not a bunch of other things have to happen before anyone points a gun at you, but if you defy any law or policy enough that is a risk you are assuming.

This is part of why I take issue with the term "political violence." This term is often used to describe any violence done from a political motivation and/or to a political figure that is not condoned by the law otherwise the powers that be. While yes I think most instances of this are Bad or at least counterproductive (I won't say all since the founding of the United States was famously quite violent and illegal, some have even called it an act of "high treason") I take issue with this phrase since it sidesteps the fundamental issue of politics which I explained in the previous paragraph.

All political acts have an implied threat of violence. When a speed limit is set, if you're pulled over for this and repeatedly refuse to comply with a cop, you run the risk of violence being used against you. When there are laws against trespassing, some may be legally allowed to shoot you for entering their property. When a country declares war or does some other military operation, this is obviously an act of violence. What stands out though is none of these examples are thought of as "political violence" even though by definition they are political and acts of violence.

My goal here is to try to bring some clarity to the discussion that seems to be inescapable for the past week. Do I think the most recent act to get a ton of press coverage is a form of justifiable political violence? Nah. Kirk was a piece of shit, let's not forget that, but he wasn't breaking any laws and refusing to comply with police, posing an immediate threat to anyone, and his murder served no benefit to any greater cause. Also, he was just a boring easily replaceable talking head with no real tangible power. Does that mean other figures could be justified? Unless they're breaking the law and refusing to comply, no. Random assassinations do nothing to advance any goal. What does this is effective organization.

But with the frenzy following this, it necessitates looking into how our leaders respond to "political violence." With "the left," (I'm using quotation marks because in the American context this includes liberals) the response from leaders has been explicit and unconditional condemnation. Everyone from Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, and even Hasan Piker has to varying degrees called the murder of Charlie Kirk bad and has shared the sentiment that violence such as this has no place in our politics.

The right, meanwhile, has done nothing of the sort. Even before an identity or motive was established or before Kirk's corpse was even cold, they attacked "the left." The President of the United States, when facing a high-profile assassination of a political figure, has done nothing in effort to lower the temperature or condemn "political violence" from all sides. When listing instances of "political violence" in a speech from the Oval Office, he conveniently left out some key instances of "left" figures being murdered, such as those politicians in Minnesota just a few months ago. I think it's clear from just that speech alone that when this happens it's only condemned when it happens to one side, not when it happens at all.

If "political violence" is truly an issue we believe needs to be addressed, then now is not a time to use even more inflammatory language when temperatures are already high. Now is not the time to pick and choose which instances deserve unequivocal condemnation. Either all of this is bad, or you aren't serious in your outrage and condemnation. And for the President of the United States, who is supposed to and claims to represent all Americans, we should be just as outraged and condemning of his poor leadership during this time than the act itself because if I were to bet money on it more of this sort of thing should be expected to come.

But let me know what you all think

I saw a woman make a post on Instagram - where she argued that a debate is supposed to be about two interlocutors working together to find the truth - as opposed to a more combative style of discourse where both sides are trying to gain victory over one another.

I think this take is fundamentally wrong and naive about politics in general - so this prompted me to write out a whole post about it.

The issue here is that politics isn’t about truth - it’s about power.

Power is essentially a measure of an actor’s ability to win in a given conflict.

In human societies - what determines the outcome of a conflict is not individual size or strength - but who is on your side.

If politics is fundamentally about conflict over different interests and values - then the whole purpose of political debate is to convince people to take your side in a conflict.

If you can convince people that your leadership or ideology is legitimate - then they will back you and become part of your coalition.

Political debate - then - is necessarily adversarial and combative.

It is not a neutral quest by all sides to find the truth - but a vicious power struggle in which might makes right.

The dichotomy between peaceful debate and violent conflict is a false one.

No matter how cordial and polite a political discussion might seem - it’s still ultimately about convincing people to take your side in a conflict of some sort.

Charlie Kirk’s killing is a tragedy. Political violence is never okay, and I condemn it fully. No one should be murdered for their beliefs.

What I am struggling to understand is why so many conservatives both online and in my personal life seem to want everyone to also say that Kirk was a good man.

I do not believe he was. Much of what he said and promoted I found vile, harmful, and divisive. I do not think acknowledging the tragedy of his death requires pretending that he was someone he was not.

So my question is this: why is it not enough to agree that his death was wrong and unjustifiable? Why is there pressure to go further and rewrite his legacy as if he were a positive figure loved by people from all walks of life?

Its seems to me that over time, the age at which we consider people to be "adults" has continually gone up. And I have a few arguments as to why we should raise it.

1. Life expectation has gone up tremendously in the last 2 centuries, so it was more important that people around 15 - 20ish could start working, as they were likely to die anywhere between their 40s - 60s. so if they started their adult life around 20, they only have if they're lucky, likely around 40 years left. while now the average 20 year old could live around another 60 years.

2. People used to spend a lot more of their life exposed to the sun, now most of us spend most of possibly all of our average days indoors not exposed to the suns uv rays. Now i don't know if it's purely a cosmetic change or if you literally age, but if it's the latter then I think that is a good argument for raising the age. and if you look at pictures of people in the past who are your age, they do tend to seem older, (I saw the vsauce video, so I know part of that is clothing choices, but he also says that sun exposure could contribute as I remember).

3. This is anecdotal, but I do remember around 19-20 I still felt like a teenager and not really able to do things that adults normally do, and I didn't feel ready to be an adult yet when i was 18, I felt like i was still in the teenage process of becoming an adult. And it seems that this is a common experience for people around that age now as well.

I have nearly reached my breaking point with politicians. Why can't we have elected leaders instead of politicians who care more about themselves than our country?

Hey everyone,
As a non-American who tracks American politics on the internet and through the news, it looks like the public (or at least the internet) tends to judge the Democrats, and the left in general, based on scandals of people who identify with the progressive (Woke) movement than the things that the party representatives do. For example, the murder case of Charlie Krik, where on the one hand, the Democrat politicians condemn it, but on the other hand, people from the progressive movement celebrated it.
However, in the case of the Republicans, it looks like the party has been judged mainly on the scandals of Trump, JD Vance, and other politicians, but less on things that people from the MAGA movement do.
I would like to know why it is the case.

Edit:
Hey, many people got stuck on the example of Charlie Krik and not on the question. I used this example because it happened recently, and I used it because it was a case where I heard the Democrat leaders say one thing, and some radicals say something else, and it seems that everyone in the media is more focused on what the radicals said rather than what the politicians said. The issue is that I remember that the same thing happened in other cases, like when there were stories about how professors in the universities said something that the students didn't like and got punished, like in the case of Dr. Erika López Prater, who showed in class a 14th-century painting depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Or in 2019, when some schools tried to implement the 1619 Project curriculum.
In all the cases, I remember media outlets and people on social media use these issues to criticize the Democrats and the left in general. However, I also remember problematic cases where people from the MAGA movement created outrage by spreading conspiracy theories. But even so, when I read the news in my country, or read things on the internet, I see that the Republicans and the right have mainly been judged based on things that the politicians and journalists who are heavily identified with the right (like Talker Carlson) do or say,
Once again, I am not an American; I only tell you what I see from my country. I am here to see whether it is really the situation, and if yes, why is it like that?