Slashdot Mirror
Democrat Drops MN State House Run After Tweeting 'ISIS Isn't Necessarily Evil' (startribune.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Dan Kimmel, who works for U.S. Bank in its technology and operations section, dropped out of the race for a Minnesota House seat after unleashing a firestorm of criticism. The controversy erupted after Kimmel tweeted, "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though." The tweet rapidly led to harsh criticism on twitter and spread from there. The DFL Party Chair issued a statement saying that Kimmel's "views have no place in our party. On behalf of the Minnesota DFL, I strongly condemn his comments. ..." The House Minority Leader for the DFL called for Kimmel to end his campaign. Kimmel issued a written apology and withdrew from the race.
Well the 1A protects you from the law, not public opinion. He voluntarily resigned.
Another circumstance where the court of public opinion rules political correctness to be a greater virtue than the first amendment.
Because the first amendment is supposed to prevent people from judging political candidates based in part on what they say?
Chopping people's heads off to make a point and to recruit more crazies is not necessarily evil... uh huh. And Aristotle taught us that violence IS the answer. "We make war so that we may live in peace". This "violence is never the answer" is just a meaningless feel good politically correct statement to appease the liberal left. There is violence for the right reasons, and violence for the wrong reasons. We need more violence for the right reasons because war, after all, is a contest of violence. These crazy people must be rooted out and dealt with.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Well no. He was able to speak his mind. Now he's dealing with the consequences of not pandering to morons
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Huh? Did he get arrested over this? Or was this just a case of a politician saying something that caused the electorate to decide not to vote for him? I wasn't aware the first amendment was able to protect you from that.
Maybe you were modded down for false equivalency.
Another person who doesn't understand the first amendment. The first amendment says that the government can't mess with your free expression. They can't put you in jail because you say something they don't like, they can't shut down a news paper for reporting on things they don't want, and so on. It does NOT say that people have to listen to whatever you say, like it, and not respond in any way.
This guy didn't have his rights violated at all: He said something extremely stupid, and people then used their first amendment rights to express that he's a jackass. His political party decided that because he'd pissed off lots of voters, they weren't interested in supporting them. They aren't required to support anyone, the choose the candidates they like. He realized he'd fucked up, and had no chance of wining, and so withdrew.
Nothing improper here. You seem to think that the first amendment should mean speech without consequence. Of course that doesn't work without infringing on the rights of others. If you say something I don't like, I have to be free to say I don't like you for it, or my freedom of speech is being infringed upon. I have to be free to refuse to talk to you, do business with you, etc or my freedom of association is being infringed upon.
I think perhaps the real issue here is that he's grossly under educated on a subject and he opened his ignorance hole on the subject. Because (so far) murdering 10,000 non-combatant Men, Women and children for not following Islam is totally just trying to protect their community, right?
Disclaimer: There is an application of sarcasm here. Please read carefully.
It seems like he was actually trying to be PC. He reflexively put out a PC-type spin on a tense situation to try to look wise.
Except for the religion which says Death to the Infidels... then those who don't use violence are wrong. Those evil moderates.
There is a reason why there seems to be a common theme amoungst the daily occurrence of violence. Psychedelic drugs and Islam.
So I got down modded for pointing out religious righteousness. Fuck you, whoever you are; probably a evangelical Christian.
Yep, the evangelical Christians are deadly.
Look at how they went on multiple murderous rampages over Piss Christ. They're STILL tossing gay men off rooftops, stoning rape victims for besmirching their family honor, cutting the hands off thieves, hijacking airliners and killing thousands, taking an entire school of children hostage then massacring them, recruiting 12-year-olds to conduct suicide bombings, beheading entire groups of non-believers.
And then there are the morons who use the events of a thousand years ago to excuse the barbaric actions of today's Christians.
I tell you, Christians are evil.
Extremists of any dogma who use violence are wrong.
Fixed it for you, religion like any other dogma is what leads to the extremists views. When any authority lays down a set of principals that are believed to be true by a group of people. Then all others are wrong and if they dont accept it they must be punished in some way. It does not matter if the dogma is religious, (IE: Christian, Muslim, etc) or national pride (IE: Natzies, communism, socialism, or even Americanism)
I guess I've heard shit like that before. From my German-side Grandpa.
I think there is a distinct area in which people and their views can be placed that is undoubtedly evil. Holding abysmally absurd theo-fascist views, chopping peoples heads of whilst chanting praises to your utlitmate-dictator-in-the-heavens god, preaching and trying to practice genocide, believing in truth by revelation rather than insight and forcing that truth to others at gunpoint, etc. pretty much puts people smack center of the 'evil' designation in my book. And in most other peoples book aswell, I would presume.
Give us an effin' break - please.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
This first amendment gives him the right to tweet whatever he wants. It gives the rest of us the right to say we don't approve! The right to vote gives the rest of us the right to make it clear to him he might as well not bother standing for election.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
You know, sooner or later people might get it through their heads that using Twitter is a strategy for fools.
You have two choices with Twitter: either you tweet some meaningless groupthink post, guaranteed not to offend anyone, OR you post something that offends someone, somewhere. And if you offend enough people, suddenly your life and career are in tatters when the Internet mob turns on you.
You'd think that enough peoples' lives have been ruined by thoughtless tweets that the lesson would have been learned. But it seems there's always another fool just waiting to make an example of him/herself.
Thank you for defending us against that straw man. Delightful of you to drag your personal conflicts into this discussion. No one is claiming that ISIS are not bad people, the point is that we should not become bad people ourselves in response. Our brains are wired to be irrational towards people we perceive as enemies (as your post demonstrates ably). We dehumanize them, we exaggerate their bad qualities, ignore the good, and so justify any malicious act against them.
In terms of human suffering, Paris was a drop in the ocean, and probably outweighed by deaths in Syria both in recent history and as a result of these retaliatory airstrikes. Interventionist policies are increasingly difficult to justify, and bombing hasn't seemed to do anything except provide welfare for munitions manufacturers.
To a rational person, this is a complicated situation. For the hawkish politician it's a great time for a power grab -- for some reason there's a tendency to want to fight fascism with fascism. By surrendering your reason to violent instinct you aid those who wish to control you, and work to spread suffering -- no matter who the villains-of-the-day happen to be. It's also not particularly Christ-like.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Well duh, you're only supposed to judge them by how much money they can scrounge together.
If we judged politicians by their words or actions, both Trump and Hillary would be in jail (and poor Bernie would be sedated in a looneybin somewhere).
I'm glad you know all 1-2 some billion Christians on earth and countless billions throughout history are all assholes because your ex-wife was an asshole.
I guess all the Christian missionaries and religious throughout the world that are feeding and clothing the poorest of the poor should pick up their bags, go home, and be much better people as secular atheists, so they can contribute something meaningful to the world like your shitpost Slashdot comments.
But virtually every Christian condemns abortion clinic bombings, where a terrifying number of global Muslims support terror, Sharia theocracy, death for apostates, punishment for homosexual activity, the abolition of freedom of expression in the name of suppressing images they find offensive, etc.
See: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... , http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0... , and virtually any other similar survey.
Some Christians certainly are evil
KAMPALA, Uganda — Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.
The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.
For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”
Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.
This was just business as usual, nothing new.
Uganda is set to pass new anti-gay legislation with provisions calling for the execution of gay people under some circumstances. The rumor of the death penalty clause being removed seems grossly exaggerated. Dr. Warren Throckmorton, who has followed the legislation closely, indicates that some Western media are erroneously reporting that the death penalty clause has been removed. He writes that "the bill is the same bill it has always been. It cannot be amended until the committee report is presented to the floor of the Parliament." Even with the amendment the legislation remains a gross travesty of justice.
The "intellectual" fuel for this grotesque law came from Christian fundamentalists in the United States. According to The New York Times:
Much of Africa's anti-homosexuality movement is supported by American evangelicals, the Rev. Kapya Kaoma of Zambia wrote in 2009, who are keen to export the American "culture war" to new ground. Indeed, American evangelical Christians played a role in stirring the anti-homosexual sentiment that culminated in the initial legislation in Uganda.
Of course, it's also right at home in the US as well. Earlier this yesr:
California proposal to legalize killing gays hard to stop
A California initiative proposal is testing the limits of free speech. Lawyer Matt McLaughlin wants to authorize the killing of gays and lesbians. Yet legal experts say the state’s attorney general can’t block it.
McLaughlin’s plan refers to “buggery” or “sodomy” as “a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.” Under the proposal, “... any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification (would) be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”
Anyone transmitting “sodomistic propaganda” to a minor would be fined $1 million per offense, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from California for up to life. It would ban lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, or those who espouse sodomistic propaganda, or who belong to any group that does, from serving in publ
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Of the hundreds of abortion clinic bombings, I've only been able to find one which resulted in a fatality. It's almost as if the bombers were carefully trying to avoid human fatalities. Which makes sense since their whole rationale for doing it was to stop what they perceive as widespread murder of unborn children. i.e. They did it because they value life; their definition of life just happens to be a superset of yours. They only resorted to bombings and arson to in their view stop a greater violence (buildings and equipment being less valuable than lives), the opposite of your implication.
The lone exception was the bombing carried out by Eric Rudolph. You may know him better as the Centennial Olympic Park bomber, so clearly he had no qualms about using indiscriminate violence in support of his beliefs. (There have been several shootings of abortion clinic workers. But shootings are targeted, not indiscriminate like bombings.)
There are many reasons for targetting Paris. It's a world-class city, it's streets are alive with locals and tourists, giving gunmen lots of easy targets. The French are very proud of their history as standard-bearers of liberty and freedom, ideals detested by fanatics that treat women like dirt and anyone that does agree with them as candidates for death. And France itself does not have clean hands. Its colonialist past, most recently in Algeria, resulted in a lot of carnage back home.
"Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
California proposal to legalize killing gays hard to stop
Actually, this is a good example of the strength of a true democracy and even a civil society. The title of the article is quite misleading. The California attorney general cannot prevent the proposal writer from proceeding to the signature gathering stage. That's good, i.e., that ideas, even the crazy ones, can be stomped out by a single person. At that point, no one (including those that are anti-gay) will sign his petition, and it will die. This is exactly how the system should work.
We can only dream that such a scenario would be possible in ISIS or even most moderate Muslim countries.