Slate: ”Own the Libs” Is Gradually Morphing Into “Kill the Libs”
Public rhetoric is making this explicit. But really this is what they’ve always wanted. That’s what fun tights are about. That’s what castle doctrine and stand your ground is about. That’s what blue lives matter is about.
They want the right to murder people who aren’t in their in-group.
That’s what this election is about, but it won’t end with the election.
They’ve let the beast out of its cage and it’s going to be hard to get it back in.
Gun rights. That’s what gun rights are about. You can see how often I write about that sort of thing that autocorrect thought it best to substitute “fun tights.”
I suppose a little levity helps when it turns out 40 percent of the country really just wants the right to live out their zombie apocalypse fantasies on the rest of us.
Really, this puts an end to any serious talk about American exceptionalism, or the unique virtues of the American Way. Bloodthirsty animals.
I suspect this thread is going to head to the Pit soon. Nevertheless…
This argument is a bit of a straw man. I’m not aware of a single conservative who has ever argued that he should be able to walk down the street, see a liberal minding their own business, and blow them away on the spot with an AR-15 with no legal repercussions.
Rather, in each of these instances mentioned in the article, the conservatives in questions felt they were doing so with justified circumstances (i.e., protesters blocking the car’s right of way, or Kyle feeling threatened, etc.) Whether that was justified action or not is another debate. But in no circumstance have conservatives said "We deserve a blank check when it comes to killing people simply for not being conservative."
That’s exactly what those “exceptions” amount to. They want to be able to murder without consequences based on their own whims, and they don’t want that to be subject to question.
There’s no morally defensible argument that protesters should be subject to being killed by counter-protesters or random bystanders.
The goalposts have been shifting for decades, ever since obvious lynchings were halted. Now they just want lynching to be legal under another name, whether it be protection of property of some generalized “fear.”
Castle doctrine has its roots in the 17th century if Wikipedia is to be believed so the concept didn’t exactly spring forth from modern conservative thought. The home is a refuge where occupants are sheltered from harm and enjoy a little privacy. I don’t know if you’ve ever had your home broken into while you were there but it is a frightening experience. You, and possibly your loved ones, are vulnerable in the one place that should be your sanctuary and you have ever right to use deadly force to repel the intruder.
Kyle Rittenhouse was nowhere near his home when he ‘felt threatened’. It’s also hard to see how ‘stand your ground’ laws apply when someone travels to a trouble spot, borrows a gun, and chases protesters down a public street, though I’m sure he did feel threatened by the protesters pointing him out to the police. He’s being hailed as a hero by conservatives, not because he protected his home, but because he shot, presumably liberal, protesters. Because they believe they have the right to kill anyone who disagrees with them or criticizes Trump.
Tell that to Breonna Taylor. Conservatives are also claiming her shooting was justified, so castle doctrine apparently only applies to select people (that would be conservatives).
Yes, a lot of conservative ideas that have to do with preserving the privilege of the status quo hierarchy are very old ideas–among the oldest really.
Not all these privileges have been available everywhere all the time, but the post-Civil Rights Movement conservative movement has pushed very hard for the rights of white men and cops to kill others with impunity.
And now you have your president who says all this stuff out loud. And you have organized networks of conservatives that seek to help each other defend such rights.
(As for the Castle Doctrine–yes, it may certainly be frightening, but the standards for self defense should be the same standard of deadly force being justified only in the face of a credible fear of imminent deadly force. One should not be able to kill just to protect things. Simple fear should not justify countenancing killing. And private justice should always be discouraged)
The counterargument is we have people who go out looking for the circumstances in which they can kill people. We have people like George Zimmerman, Gregory and Travis McMichael, and Kyle Rittenhouse who go out on a hunt.
IMHO add into this discussion the old R argument of “states rights”. I always ask, “State’s right to do what?” After a lot of verbal gyrations, it boils down to the right to go to war with your neighbor (If you have to! Because reasons.)
Well Republicans don’t want people going around killing unborn babies because they love life so much. But once that unborn baby grows up it’s OK to have them shot in their own homes without bothering to even knock on the door or shoot them in the back as they are entering a car full of children or stand on their neck until they die because they are a suspect of a petty crime. And it’s OK for republicans to walk around protest with rifles or to point them at people just walking by with law enforcement watching the whole thing.
Damn sometimes I wish I could be a republican and exercise all the rights and privileges that go along with membership. But I have to be able to look at my face in the mirror everyday.
I don’t think that’s Ziberian’s argument. He isn’t saying only conservatives support the Castle Doctrine. He’s saying conservatives support the Castle Doctrine selectively. Conservatives act as if white people have a right to defend themselves and black people do not.
Conservatives believe the “official” version of the Breonna Taylor case. In which they had a perfectly legal no knock warrant, knocked and announced themselves anyways, busted in after no response, a cop got shot by her boyfriend, the cops returned fire and accidentally struck Breonna, who was standing behind her boyfriend, killing her.
I’m not saying that’s what actually happened, or if it should have happened that way, but that’s what they believe.
You don’t understand their thinking or position so you assume they must be evil. This is a natural stage in coming to terms with someone you don’t agree with. Both those on the left and the right typically go through the following process when dealing with each other.
Stage 1: Lack of information
The assumption is the person doesn’t know the facts. You either explain the facts to them or find out they already know the facts and then move on to stage 2.
Stage 2: Stupidity
The assumption is only a stupid person could possibly have the correct information and hold a different position. Either you confirm they are indeed stupid and remain at stage 2 or find out they are actually smart (in their own way) and move on to stage 3.
Stage 3: Evil
The assumption is an intelligent person must be evil if they could possess the correct facts and hold a different position. This is where most people get stuck. Sometimes though, after getting to know an individual personally you find out they are actually a very kind person and move on to stage 4.
Stage 4: Acceptance
The other person is accepted as holding a position different than one’s own for their own reasons, not because of a lack of information, or stupidity, or evil intent. Understanding their reason why is not a requirement.
Acsenray, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you’re currently in stage 3 of the process. This is completely understandable, especially if you don’t know many conservatives personally. If you don’t know many it might be a good thing to try to get know some. Think of it as “getting to know the enemy to destroy them” if that helps.