nzmaanet positive
paraphrandI don’t think comparing him to hitler is good rhetoric. Other nazi’s, sure.
Yes, but mostly because of how unimportant he is in the whole of things. Like, maybe a Hitler bootlicker but not even a general. More like a guy who rats out people hiding in attics.
SternKirk was more of a Goebbels, what with the propaganda and manipulating opinion, but that’s just nitpicking.
you’re giving him too much credit. Goebbels was at least a leader.
Charlie was expendable, and that’s why he died.
To distract from the Epstein files.
TPUSA deffo was/is an influence, to wit: folks on the professor watchlist got plenty of threats from anonymous shitters. Anyhow, the intent behind the hypothetical is pretty clear, nitpicking it because there wasn’t a hypothetical Charleston Kirkenschmitt who went to German colleges and told people to debate him is a waste of everyones time.
It’s not comparing him to Hitler. It’s pointing out that everyone has a line where killing them is better than not, and Hitler is the extreme example that everyone should agree that killing him is better. It isn’t making the case Kirk is past that line for everyone, but pointing out the idea it’s never allowed is stupid.
People can debate whether it is worth it in this case if they want. However, the thought terminating cliche that it’s never acceptable should be ignored. Pointing to Hitler is a good way to dispel that idea for people.
This is exactly what someone would have said about Hitler if he had been murdered before he took before power.