I'm not the one trying to rationalize clear calls to violence under the guise of oh gosh we can't possibly know what he meant in any one of hundreds of examples, but your continued gaslighting attempts have been noted.

You can't claim that things are being taken out of context when you can't possibly come up with context where his statements mean anything other than a call to violence when context is added.

There are HUNDREDS of these statements, but your idea of a debate seems to be declaring complete ignorance over the unambiguous meaning of most of these statements and declaring victory when the other person realizes what stripes you're really wearing and backs out.

Just to make a point, I think people like him should do what Hitler did in the end. What do I mean by this? I guess you'll never know.

I am not a product of US school system, so, perhaps you know more than I am.

However, calling for violence is not what I've heard there. You, of course, are entitled to your own interpretation. Just do not expect others to agree.

Neither am I, but you don't have to be American to know that 1950s and 60s were a terrible time to be "different" in any way.

If you were trans in the 1950s and 60s you were persecuted, criminalized, physically brutalized by society who viewed you as a freak, pathologized and involuntarily institutionalized in places where they tortured you with hormonal drugs, chemical castration, electroshock "therapy", and lobotomies that permanently harmed people beyond recognition and killed them. I'll repeat - against their will.

To say that trans people need to be treated like they were in the 1950s and 60s is a coded, but unambiguous call to violence. There's no interpretation that you can possibly come up with that's favorable or peaceful for that group.

I don't expect you to agree because I know that you're not engaging honestly, nor is anyone else who's painting Kirk as a peaceful figure.

>I'm not the one trying to rationalize clear calls to violence under the guise of oh gosh we can't possibly know what he meant in any one of hundreds of examples, but your continued gaslighting attempts have been noted.

>You can't claim that things are being taken out of context when you can't possibly come up with context where his statements mean anything other than a call to violence when context is added.

It's all from the bigot's playbook, as Sartre observed:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre

Keep that in mind. Your blood pressure will thank you.

Yeah I understand. It's mostly for posterity.

We live in a time where accusing someone of engaging in bad faith is against the guidelines, expressing an opinion that the world is better off with a hateful figure being dead is inhumane and shameful, and such opinions are to be forcibly repressed if one is to be allowed to participate in discussion.

My blood pressure isn't affected by individual bad actors, but our bizarre society where it's acceptable to sow hatred and incite violence as long as you dress up nice and speak in a polite, coded language. If Hitler was simply a top-level advisor and never issued a direct order he would be hailed as a peaceful debate person by the same people who now smugly use "humanity" as a stick to beat those who actually have it.

I would upvote you, but my ability to do so has been taken away without an explanation.