*is* the whitewashing. That, in fact, the only ethical thing to do in response to the murder is underline that Kirk was a malign hate preacher.

I guess I skew too liberal and consequentialist to agree with you there. Sorry if you think this weak sauce defence causes more harm.

The argument is the familiar, frankly trite, claim that we should encourage speech not violence, with the idea that to do that is better for everybody.

There's no actual "whitewashing" of Kirk's views in the piece. So I think you are saying that choosing to emphasise the non-violence at this moment

Neither you, nor Klein has said anything for anyone to disagree with. So far, we are three people agreeing with each other.

I'd say the opposite, really. If we're only concerned with consequences, we definitely decry this sort of political assassination. This is going to make *everything* worse.

Gotcha

I don't know if you've visited the "Peace Museum" at Hiroshima? It's very moving, and makes the case that a nuclear bomb is something that can never be justified, whatever the cause.

Unfortunately, it undermines itself in exactly that way, by sugarcoating some of Japan's actions in WW2.

Do read beyond the headline.

If there was a tiny, errant part of me who thought it would be exciting (or even, you know, better) if the Trump shooters had been successful last year, that's definitely been excised now.

Yes, this. Even if you think we should have open borders, our lack of open borders is a problem. Before you even get started on, I dunno, last summer's riots?

Just caught up on that episode. I'm a bit late.

Billie Piper, you say?

It's fun that the world's shortest story also has a plot hole.

I watch Dr Who with one of mine but I think she's just humouring me.

I thought maybe she'd like looking at Ncuti at least.

My kids don't like any of my old music and I'm sort of proud of that (some of their friends do though).

Baby shoes? You mean in relation to the Hemingway, or generally? Yes, probably was me.

Read his message before that though

So, on the face of it, I'd much rather be talking to you.
But what would we say?

My friend's son has the poster from the Republic CD up in his bedroom. It's all foldy, of course, but that only makes it look more vintage.

So that's quite nice, I think.

I learned something unpleasant about myself, which is that I'm less interested in this place, which is nicer in every way — even the look of feel — than that other place that's run by a bastard and full of cunts.

The funny thing is I even get more engagement here.

Yes, but it especially didn't happen when it didn't happen 50 years ago. That's the most a thing didn't happen.

Politics aside, people who say "Enoch was right" because they think it's coming true in 2025:

That still means he was wrong. The country didn't collapse under migration in the 1970s, so he was wrong. It's that simple. Unless they think the country did collapse in the 1970s,in which case,have at it.

I call this the Laurence Fox question. He broke through on QT by saying what appeared to be coded racist stuff. Over the years, he's shown his true colours. So case closed, right? Except I still think it's possible we were overreacting.Otherwise we're ignoring the way polarisation works on ppl.
2/2