Using what definition of irony?

A situation is ironic if it defies expectation. Like how Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was killed by a stingray.

Kirk being killed by a leftist extremist, who thought he was a fascist, using a gun, is pretty much in line with how you’d expect him to die.

True. Most were against the violence, but many supported it.

Also, the country was founded using political violence.

He was reckless, no doubt. Being around a dangerous mob always is.

Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.

Very true.

Rittenhouse traveled all the way to some far off city he had no interest in. Sure, his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, and cousin live there. Sure, he stayed with his friend who lived there. And he used to work as a lifeguard there. But otherwise, he only went there because he’s racist. That’s why he shot a couple white people.

My personal feelings do not inform this argument. What I say is wrong or it isn’t, regardless of my feelings about people or topics. I routinely argue against pro-choice arguments, for example, not because I’m pro-life, but because so many pro-choice arguments are bad. I actually support unfettered abortion and even limited legalized infanticide similar to Peter Singer, but that’s quite irrelevant to arguments I make about abortion.

I guess people in the military aren’t willing to die for anything either. After all, they wear body armor and use weapons against their enemies.

You can’t be so stupid as to think a willingness to die is the same as trying to die.

Me liking women and non-white people isn’t even relevant. If you don’t want to discuss the issues, then don’t.

Nothing I’ve seen would suggest that he was not willing to die for gun rights. Seems more like you cannot even comprehend someone being principled and politically consistent. Seems like projection to me.

It only qualifies as ironic if Kirk would not support being a part of the “price worth paying” for gun rights. Do you actually believe he would’ve only accepted the deaths of others and not of himself?

Not being mad about a fascist who advocates for public shootings as a necessity for society getting popped

So you don’t think he deserved it? Aren’t celebrating it?

I’m not opposed to public executions in general. The only problem I see with Kirk’s logic (which was that it would deter children from crime), is that only extreme violent crimes like murder would be deserving of execution. And allowing children to see killers getting killed isn’t exactly going to deter them from typical crimes, just murder.

If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.

So they’re not racist for opposing DEI, they just don’t understand what it really is, right?

This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.

Rittenhouse defended himself against criminals trying to kill him, shooting one of them in the arm just as he was lowering a pistol to point it at him.

Nobody would be “celebrating” him if people didn’t try to vilify him and lock him in prison for the rest of his life.

you’re open to public executions in general.

You act like you’re not, in a thread of people celebrating a public killing. 🤔

I would actually be against public executions for political assassins like Vance Boelter, Tyler Robinson, and Luigi Mangione. It would radicalize more people, potentially making them more of a martyr for a cause.

That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.

And I joked about hiring women to pay them more in my other comment. It’s a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I’ve never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It’s one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It’s a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.

Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…

Around 58% of college students are women. Of black grad students, the vast majority of degrees go to women, 71.5% of masters and 65.9% of doctoral/medical. Tech companies are starved for female representation. And you think it’s somehow harder for women to make it?

I’m curious why you think men are under represented in college then. I’m sure it’s conveniently not because they think they’ll have a hard time succeeding and “don’t bother.”

I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified?

You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.

In what way am I biased? Use statistical probability and logic to answer the question, that’s all I’m doing. If I narrow my pool to a smaller subset, then are my chances of getting the most qualified people diminishes. Right?

Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.

You certainly see the problem with this. They’re not the only ones doing it, and even if they were, they’re still passing up more qualified people, assuming parity in the rates of qualified people in the 20/80% distribution.

Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.

Wrong. Out of the three I’ve gotten, I look for their specialization to the task I want first. Notice how you completely evaded the question?

Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.

If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.

Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law? (see how dumb these questions are?)

Only anecdotal.

So no.

Personal testimony is admissible evidence in court, so it’s not nothing. Just not useful evidence for this discussion.

Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was stayed pending binding arbitration proceedings, meaning they settled privately out of court. I think the employment contract he had forced him into private arbitration.

So you want to outlaw everything designed to kill, I take it? Fine.

What about police officers that use guns to kill people who are actively attempting to kill others? If they’re disarmed, more of these people will succeed in killing innocent people, right?

I see the real reason you guys hated Kirk so much. You seem very uncomfortable confronting differing opinions. That’s not politically healthy.

How is that a deflection? Excluding gang violence from mass shootings would change the number dramatically. So how could he give an accurate answer without knowing?

The definition of “mass shooting” varies and can potentially exclude gang violence. Excluding gang violence is often useful since most people don’t care about criminals killing each other (which is most of gang shootings), and prefer to talking about innocent people who are shot.

When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.

Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They’re picking from a smaller pool, yet I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified? That’s not reasonable.

Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified?

You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I’m not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically “qualify” as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.

She’s not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don’t think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.

I don’t think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I’ll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president’s cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don’t like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.

Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men?

Only anecdotal. They’re having similar problems as universities, where they have “too many” asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they’re actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.

I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they’re working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public “policy”. I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women engineers and programmers. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they’re trying to save money lol.

he was a blatant racist

I’m not seeing it. Most those quotes were about affirmative action logically causing him to question the qualifications of blacks (because their race got them there via affirmative action). The rest are simply not racist or just bashing specific black individuals.

I’ll say this is the only one even worth discussing, as it requires a lot of nuance. The other points below aren’t good.

little kids being killed in school shootings is “worth it”

If he could, I’m sure he would say his own death was “worth it” in the context of being able to live in a country with gun rights. There are like ~1200 children killed by cars every year. Would you say that’s not worth having cars? Would you outlaw them?

ridiculed disabled people in his circles

Making a joke about blind people is insensitive, but not even half the insensitivity of the meme in this post. I won’t defend him necessarily except to say this is a pretty mild offense, especially for someone everyone is calling a fascist who deserved public execution. I’d expect something a bit more dire.

said that children should witness public executions

Do you know why? And do you have a reason for being so strongly against that? I don’t have a reason. I don’t know any studies on how this affects kids, but it could very well be a good idea.