“I can say that he has been very cooperative,” Cox continued, possibly misgendering the roommate. “This partner has been incredibly cooperative, had no idea that this was happening and is working with investigators right now.”
This has to be intentional. Shitting in one hand calling it “civility” then in the other lobbing a grenade of transphobia. Love it.
Not trans, so let me know if I’m off base, but my thoughts:
A major difference is that this is adventurist. Being a snitch about something that was useless and possibly actually working against a greater strategy can be the correct choice for a broader movement. Killing Nazis was basically always part of at least a broader movement, even if not every event was planned/known to others in the movement. Killing Kirk was in no plan for improvements or part of any meaningful strategy. If nobody knew, nobody wanted it, then it’s qualitatively very distinct from resistance movements and should be treated very differently. ‘Sacrificing’ the person who was no part of your movement by collaborating can be the correct choice in those cases.
Idk the real relationships that existed in these cases, but I’m willing to bet that this roommate was in no part knowledgeable about the killing beforehand. And that there were 0 organized attempts/movements behind this killing. In which case it should be treated like anarchistic noise which harms a movement.
To be extremely clear: there is currently no broader movement in the US materially impeding fascism. What’s being rounding up to a “movement” is disconnected anonymous people posting online about how they’d prefer something different, waiting and hoping for spontaneous internal reform while repeatedly disclaiming any violence or lawbreaking. What’s being done here is indistinguishable from the liberals insisting that Hamas is harming Palestinians by giving the IOF an “excuse” to continue their genocide, undermining the “movement for a two-state solution”, and that Palestinians should work with the IOF to identify targets in the interest of keeping themselves safe.
So you’re suggesting that what makes killing the Nazi bad is that the shooter didn’t implicate more people in a criminal conspiracy before accomplishing the same objective?
I don’t think we disagree much (maybe you do support anarchic actions, in which case I’d suggest you to read more about failures of adventurism), but I do think there’s miscommunication one where or another based on your response.
There is no movement in the US, yes. That fact makes separate, disparate, anarchic actions dangerous.
Hamas does organized (even if decentralized) actions, which are justifiable strategically for that reason (among others). The killing of Kirk was not part of any strategy, which means that there is no organization prepared to defend against retaliation.
Hamas calculated their risks, and does constantly. Kirk’s killer almost definitely did not, and I would guess has little empathy for those retaliated against, maybe even hoping for the retaliation.
Hamas does actions as part of a larger strategy which is prepared and for which next steps are developed with people ready to support. Kirk’s killer did not, and if he did it was for a right-wing strategy.
Your last paragraph doesn’t make much sense to me, sorry. I’m not sure how it connects to what I said at all. Doing something as part of a movement doesn’t always implicate the whole movement? But it does allow a movement to act instead of being blindsided.
My point was, because this is so different from things like Hamas actions, and because there is no group asking for such actions, it’s only dangerous. And so a trans person protecting themselves from it by being a snitch is qualitatively different from snitching on any resistance act that is part of a larger strategy
We don’t know who the shooter is or what their motivations are. This is all pure speculation based on like fifth hand hearsay originating from alleged leaks from law enforcement.
Again, we don’t even know if this informant is trans. We don’t know if they’re roommates or lovers with the suspect, and we don’t know that the suspect had anything to do with the shooting. What’s happening in this thread is people running with unsubstantiated speculation sourced from the most unhinged bigots online, then inventing scenarios to justify rhetorically aligning themselves with imperial law enforcement and against killing Nazis.
I don’t actually have to justify the tactical or strategic merit of somebody sacrificing their life to take out Charlie Kirk. It’s something that somebody did. They didn’t need my permission, twitter’s permission, reddit’s permission, or DSA’s permission to do it. If this person were a member of a demcent party that I was a part of, then I’d be right there insisting that this is adventurism: undermining the collectively determined party strategy with unilateral individual action would be bad party discipline. Given that there’s no evidence this person was part of an ML party outside the delusions of imperial law enforcement, it seems pointless to retroactively scold an anonymous person for not holding to the hypothetical standards of a nonexistent party of which they’re not a member based on an ideology they don’t believe. Whatever they believed, whyever they did it, the world is better off with one fewer Nazi. They’re responsible for that action, and one way or another they’ll definitely pay for it with their life. What they’re not responsible for is the US doing the exact same shit it’s already been doing for the last 250 years.
I really don’t think it is. It’s understandable, for sure. It doesn’t take an enormous leap to see why people sacrifice others thinking it will gain them some favor in the eyes of an abuser. We only know this person exists because they chose to contact the police. The entire internet is wildly speculating about their gender only because they chose to contact the police. I recognize the odds aren’t exactly zero that the cops would eventually consider them a person of interest in the investigation, but I don’t understand the argument that they’re more “protected” now by inviting the attention of the people harassing them than they would be if they’d just done nothing. If anything, this person is infinitely more fucked now. No amount of collaboration will ever be enough to avoid tabloid scrutiny for the rest of their life. Even assuming they’d never broken a law, I’d expect there’s a considerably greater chance now of them facing threats of prison time (or worse) if they fail to produce the testimony that Trump wants. The consequences are dire for ignoring the first rule of the US criminal legal system.
I agree that we don’t know and I’m speculating on the hypothetical where the informant is trans. But that’s the convo above? I was just replying to that.
We don’t know the shooter’s motives, but there is no way that this is part of any trans-supportive organization strategy, that would be a ridiculous claim. It has zero characteristics of any organized actions, and reactions until now have been perfectly in line with it being unorganized. I don’t think we’re better off with Kirk dead, genuinely. His impact is bigger now, and his fascism spread is only accelerated. I hadn’t seen a single video of him for years and now the US is gonna move quicker to kill trans people than ever before, and to crack down and kill leftists too. With no propaganda push prepared, no defenses set up, this was an opening salvo across the battle lines at a fort without even digging a trench.
You are arguing everywhere about the specifics of the situation, but like Awoo, I am trying to get to the bottom of when snitching is acceptable, but I don’t think it’s NEVER a justifiable action. In this case, we should be thinking about whether talking had any positive impact on the way media reported on trans people generally (again, assuming the informant is trans). I think I agree that in this case, seeing how the media reacted, it helped nothing and was likely a mistake
That’s certainly a take that you’re entitled to, but not one that I can relate to. I don’t think Hitler’s ideas would be less popular today if he were still alive to act on them. America has been killing and criminalizing marginalized people for more than two centuries. Even the people who are nominally fans of Kirk couldn’t make it more clear that they truly could not give less of a shit about him. They hated trans people and leftists yesterday, they hate them today, they’ll hate them tomorrow. The sun rose the day before Kirk died, and it rose again the day after. This is the long, continuous, and inevitable result of imperial decay, not a consequence of one rando tripping over his dick and landing on the button turns America into a genocidal settler colony.
There’s no way this isn’t going to sound accusatory, but I don’t mean it as an accusation: If someone on this site accepts the premise that we are ruled by fascists who hate them unconditionally and want to see them dead, and believes that they can secure favorable treatment for themselves by proactively reaching out to the fascists to mark their friends, neighbors and family for death, why should anyone on this site believe that such a person wouldn’t dox everyone here at the first opportunity?
None of this is a reply to what I said, really.
I agree with everything you just said in the first paragraph. I’m talking about making any sort of organized preparations before taking action to resist or anything. That didn’t happen, so the acceleration of the hate and violence was worsened with no viable way to see any benefit. Kirk was a fascist and I’m glad he’s dead so we don’t have to hear him anymore with his fascist bullshit. But that doesn’t make it any less dangerous that he was killed without any way for the vulnerable in the US to defend themselves. The killer would’ve done at least some benefit by doing disorganized mutual aid.
The second paragraph also has nothing to do with what I said. This person didn’t “reach out to fascists to mark their friend for death,” that he would be killed for it was set in stone pretty early on. And I’m not speaking about doing something for ones own benefit, Im talking about being willing to throw away someone working against a greater goal (who knows if that’s this case? Above we were already talking in hypotheticals, so I’m still doing that).