Unsure if this is serious but Schadenfreude is somewhat like the satisfaction you get when someone gets karma/gets what you think they deserve (in a negative way).

Nah I think if an American killed Putin (ex-Russian or not), all hell would probably break loose

1. Those are just more quotes without context
2. I still dont see how the would prove your point

(I would like to note that I don’t agree at all with Kirk’s opinions just so that doesn’t get mixed up)

Whats the strawman then in this case?

That is particularly unfitting in this case though. Because the people that voted Milei are still in favour and the people that didnt are still against him. The people protesting are not the ones who voted him.

“I do not imply that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion”. - Karl Popper, clarifying that statement you cited

One shouldn’t kill a communist that is simply voicing their opinion, one should however kill a second Stalin.

A strawman is an argument, not a question. You fit your description of being disingenuous pretty well though I must say. Is there anything constructive u wanna say too or just this?

Nobody (?) is expecting everyone to have empathy with him, but not empathizing with someone and enjoying their murder are two different things.

Celebrating his death is a disgrace to democracy and the human dignity. And that doesnt make a person much better than him.

That may be the case but whatever theocratic white-supremacist trump-supporter he was, I think advocating for the murder of a person because he advocated for the murder of a person (or at least implied that) doesn’t make one any better than him, if that makes sense.

People are talking about him having spread hatred (which he did) and are at the very same time spreading hatred about him. Quite ironic in a way…

Could you elaborate on that hatred for feminists? Couldn’t find much on him spreading hatred for feminists (apart from him disagreeing with them)

About his statements on trans people I was quite surprised (I acknowledge that is clearly hatred). I couldn’t stop noticing, however, that his statements about trans people (implying that they should be murdered on the street) are almost the exact same thing people are saying about him (he deserved to be murdered like that). Both are - in my opinion - inhumane radical extremist positions and holding the latter, imo, gives illegitimely gives a justification to the latter (as in - murder on the basis of ideology being acceptable).

As a “person of reasonable intelligence” would have noticed, provided they had taken the time to actually understand that statement, I was at no point asking for a difference to be pointed out. Rather, I asked for the ethical reasoning that leads to the conclusion that voicing one’s opinion is to be seen as worse than the murder of that person.

Conveniently left out the following two sentences where he states that he just prefers the term “sympathy” over “empathy” and dislikes the latter because of a miniscule detail in its origin

The issue is that if you think it’s justified to kill people on the basis of views that you (radically) disagree with, then that same justification could be used by them to justify killing you, right?

(Also, I think calling him a nazi doesn’t do the victims of actual nazis justice, the latter of whom certainly did more than verbally expressing a radical ideology; but this just on the side)

Being an asshole is enough to deserve being murdered now?

Karma is a nasty bitch and it comes for you with vengeance and not sorry he got it!!! You push that much hate in the world. You can only expect to get that much back!!!

… is what the Nazis would have said in 1942.

On a seperate note, how is voicing one’s opinions more “pushing hate” than celebrating the murder of a person?

All communist social-media addicts are always hsppy for the rest of their lives, of course! The addiction can’t be the issue, it has to be capitalism!

You need some wintee boots, thats why.

At leaat you can decline tho

I respect democratic decisions and find any form of terrorism against those decisions and thus the democratic system itself unjustifyable.

[About Nazi Germany:] would it be morally justified to fight against the government with terrorism if you are unable to leave?

The Nazis didn’t adhere to the democratic principles themselves, they were very much antidemocratic and were forcibly trying to change the system against the will of the majority (this I find unjustifyable). They were themselves a kind of minority

To answer your question, I think I would be justified to fight that (with force), HOWEVER, it is NOT justified that I push my own minority-opinion (e.g. by establishing a dictstorship with me as the dictator).

So a democracy has no value to you? Not everyone can be perfectly happy with the state of society at any point in time. What makes you feel like you are entitled to achieve your goals against the majority’s will?

If the policies that govern a society aren’t working for a group, […] what are they to do?

• Either you accept the constitution, in which case you could protest, say your opinion publicly or just accept what the majority wants, OR
• You don’t accept the constitution, in which case you can leave the country/society.