Charlie Kirk shot in the neck during Utah debate and has now passed.

[ToTTenTranz]

I don't think he should have been shot. But holy shit, you're totally sane washing the guy. He was generally a preacher of hate. Do you not get that?

As a mostly centrist agnostic, I disagreed with most of his social, political and theological positions. He also did have some positions I found abhorrent (e.g. public executions, Ukraine).


Still thought the guy had balls to go expose himself on overwhelmingly liberal college campuses to just talk to people. And I really think his method of simply debating everyone who came up to him was formidable and should be replicated by all sides because discourse is the best way for us to empathize with each other, and at least understand the other side.


Unfortunately, too many people who were always going to be too incompetent, ignorant or dumb to ever win him at the fair game of public debate thought it was a good idea to choose violence (as we're seeing in this ghastly thread). And one of those people went through with it, with all the other cowards cheering on this.

Problem is them thinking this level of political violence is only one way, and they're probably about to find out it isn't.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965990042679079401

 

[Pens1566]

People here who are normalizing and celebrating the death of a 31 year old father of a 1 and 3 year old whose occupation was to do open debates with college students, all for the crime of disagreeing with them on social and political issues are the current scourge of society and the reason this has happened.


You may think this was a victory now, but the consequence for this violence will be violence from the opposite side.
You guys are really stupid if you think your dear left wing journalists, news editors, politicians and influencers haven't just become targets of an army of nut jobs from the other side of the aisle.

Until a suspect/motive is even identified, the content of this post isn't worth the dog shit that I almost stepped in this morning.

And I'll add ... suggesting "opposition" figures as targets without said info about the perpetrator is EXACTLY the problem with the right.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Praying for his loved ones right now.

If he had really loved his loved ones, he wouldn't have chosen the wrong side in the first place.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965899170579202144

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965889275330994393

 

[igor_kavinski]

Quick glance at the right wing media sphere seems to be that they want a civil war on Democrats

If they had the brains to figure out the chances of winning that war...

 

[igor_kavinski]

We don't need violence. It solves nothing.

True but when the other side is using all sorts of underhanded tactics to subdue everyone with a brain, what choice is left?

 

[brycejones]

As a mostly centrist agnostic, I disagreed with most of his social, political and theological positions. He also did have some positions I found abhorrent (e.g. public executions, Ukraine).


Still thought the guy had balls to go expose himself on overwhelmingly liberal college campuses to just talk to people. And I really think his method of simply debating everyone who came up to him was formidable and should be replicated by all sides because discourse is the best way for us to empathize with each other, and at least understand the other side.


Unfortunately, too many people who were always going to be too incompetent, ignorant or dumb to ever win him at the fair game of public debate thought it was a good idea to choose violence (as we're seeing in this ghastly thread). And one of those people went through with it, with all the other cowards cheering on this.

Problem is them thinking this level of political violence is only one way, and they're probably about to find out it isn't.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965990042679079401

Yeah, no his "debating" style was basically to lie. Fuck that.

 

[igor_kavinski]

True, and that's a good thing. The problem is the masses gang up on someone with a different opinion, which is no fun, and they leave.

You are still here and that's a good thing. It means you are not as rotten as the long gone people who couldn't accept even the possibility of being wrong.

 

[K1052]

Still thought the guy had balls to go expose himself on overwhelmingly liberal college campuses to just talk to people. And I really think his method of simply debating everyone who came up to him was formidable and should be replicated by all sides because discourse is the best way for us to empathize with each other, and at least understand the other side.

His "debate me" style was a means of demanding attention and helped mainstream his reprehensible opinions and beliefs as legitimate points of view. It's not admirable and the only people who do admire it are marks who it took in, much of our media establishment falls into this category.

Unfortunately, too many people who were always going to be too incompetent, ignorant or dumb to ever win him at the fair game of public debate thought it was a good idea to choose violence (as we're seeing in this ghastly thread). And one of those people went through with it, with all the other cowards cheering on this.

This is a total failure to comprehend who he was and what he was doing. The motivations of the shooter are also totally unknown as is even their identity as Patel's FBI stands around with their dicks in their hands. But here you are deciding what they are just like the right wing rage machine wants you to. The very machine that Kirk, more than most, helped to build.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965864889651704135

True but when the other side is using all sorts of underhanded tactics to subdue everyone with a brain, what choice is left?

If that's what they think, what's stopping them from using similar sorts of underhanded tactics?

Surely it's better than shooting people in front of their kids and an audience of thousands of people, right?

This is a total failure to comprehend who he was and what he was doing. The motivations of the shooter are also totally unknown as is even their identity as Patel's FBI stands around with their dicks in their hands. But here you are deciding what they are just like the right wing rage machine wants you to. The very machine that Kirk, more than most, helped to build.

I get that you really want his assassination to be somehow his fault, like "a fan shooting his gun in celebration" or "he was banging someone's wife".
Occam's Razor says he was most probably murdered by the crowd that called for his assassination every day and/or would send him death threats.

Let's see if you have the same leeway if/when you start seeing public executions of people you agree with, before the killer's motives are made public.

 

[igor_kavinski]

If that's what they think, what's stopping them from using similar sorts of underhanded tactics?

Because they don't want to go that low. That's the difference between normal people and radicalized brainwashed people.

 

[fskimospy]

As a mostly centrist agnostic, I disagreed with most of his social, political and theological positions. He also did have some positions I found abhorrent (e.g. public executions, Ukraine).


Still thought the guy had balls to go expose himself on overwhelmingly liberal college campuses to just talk to people. And I really think his method of simply debating everyone who came up to him was formidable and should be replicated by all sides because discourse is the best way for us to empathize with each other, and at least understand the other side.


Unfortunately, too many people who were always going to be too incompetent, ignorant or dumb to ever win him at the fair game of public debate thought it was a good idea to choose violence (as we're seeing in this ghastly thread). And one of those people went through with it, with all the other cowards cheering on this.

Problem is them thinking this level of political violence is only one way, and they're probably about to find out it isn't.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965990042679079401

When you say ‘political violence is only one way’ what do you mean? Have you forgotten that the head of Minnesota’s House Democrats was assassinated like three months ago?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Surely it's better than shooting people in front of their kids and an audience of thousands of people, right?

It's probably just someone acting alone. Because if it isn't, nothing can stop a civil war then.

 

[K1052]

When you say ‘political violence is only one way’ what do you mean? Have you forgotten that the head of Minnesota’s House Democrats was assassinated like three months ago?

You may have forgotten that the right has no agency and that the left has all the agency so any violence perpetrated by the right is not their fault.

 

[Greenman]

If he had really loved his loved ones, he wouldn't have chosen the wrong side in the first place.

Seriously deranged thinking.

 

[sandorski]

Seriously deranged thinking.

Nah.

 

[mikeymikec]

Lovely fella:

MSN

"Charlie Kirk once said empathy was 'made-up, new age term'"

 

[SteveGrabowski]

The southern Democrats are angry that they lost a war 150 years ago and can't own slaves anymore, so they shot a Republican yesterday?

d1D U kN0w tEH coNf3deR@cY Wuz wE@lLY d3M0cR@pS 165 yEaRZ aG0?

 

[UNCjigga]

Lotta folks in this thread are blaming “leftists” in here for cheering his death. That can’t be farther from the truth. Political violence always begets more political violence. Sure, some of us won’t miss seeing his clips go viral or whatever controversy of the day he gets himself mired in for the clicks—but that doesn’t mean we have zero sympathy for his family.

Whatever his political aspirations may have been, I do not consider Charlie Kirk a public servant. He was a celebrity, one with a highly engaged audience that respected his courage to speak out and say unpopular things, and an audience he built a PAC around and profited from. That community is hurting right now, and I think most of us can even empathize with that, even those of us who won’t miss his divisive rhetoric.

 

[mikeymikec]

Charlie Kirk *destroying* someone on the topic of Palestine:

Checkmate, liberals!

obviously /s

 

[K1052]

I get that you really want his assassination to be somehow his fault, like "a fan shooting his gun in celebration" or "he was banging someone's wife".
Occam's Razor says he was most probably murdered by the crowd that called for his assassination every day and/or would send him death threats.

Let's see if you have the same leeway if/when you start seeing public executions of people you agree with, before the killer's motives are made public.

You are making an assumption that fits your own beliefs. We don't know the shooter or their motivations. The fact is that more often than not assassins have motives and beliefs that are almost totally incoherent anyway if they are not legitimately mentally ill.

You know who repeatedly called for public executions of political opponents? Charlie Kirk. He even argued the state should make children watch them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You are making an assumption that fits your own beliefs. We don't know the shooter or their motivations. The fact is that more often than not assassins have motives and beliefs that are almost totally incoherent anyway if they are not legitimately mentally ill.

You know who repeatedly called for public executions of political opponents? Charlie Kirk. He even argued the state should make children watch them.

Watch we end up finding out he just like, raped someone, and it was entirely personal.

 

[K1052]

Lotta folks in this thread are blaming “leftists” in here for cheering his death. That can’t be farther from the truth. Political violence always begets more political violence. Sure, some of us won’t miss seeing his clips go viral or whatever controversy of the day he gets himself mired in for the clicks—but that doesn’t mean we have zero sympathy for his family.

Whatever his political aspirations may have been, I do not consider Charlie Kirk a public servant. He was a celebrity, one with a highly engaged audience that respected his courage to speak out and say unpopular things, and an audience he built a PAC around and profited from. That community is hurting right now, and I think most of us can even empathize with that, even those of us who won’t miss his divisive rhetoric.

I really think that before people break out the hagiography for him that they should throughly review what he stood for. Turning disapproval of the crime in to legitimacy for his actions, opinions, and words is a huge mistake.

 

[Paratus]

As a mostly centrist agnostic, I disagreed with most of his social, political and theological positions. He also did have some positions I found abhorrent (e.g. public executions, Ukraine).


Still thought the guy had balls to go expose himself on overwhelmingly liberal college campuses to just talk to people. And I really think his method of simply debating everyone who came up to him was formidable and should be replicated by all sides because discourse is the best way for us to empathize with each other, and at least understand the other side.


Unfortunately, too many people who were always going to be too incompetent, ignorant or dumb to ever win him at the fair game of public debate thought it was a good idea to choose violence (as we're seeing in this ghastly thread). And one of those people went through with it, with all the other cowards cheering on this.

Problem is them thinking this level of political violence is only one way, and they're probably about to find out it isn't.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965990042679079401

That first sentence has strong “as a gay black man” vibes like that one white conservative politician got busted for posting a few years ago.

Charlie Kirk was neither a centrist nor an agnostic. He was a rabble rousing far right pro evangelical bomb thrower.

You are here strenuously defending him. Maybe you think you are defending a principle like being againstschool shootings. We don’t see you here speaking against that in the school shooting threads. however.

Maybe you are saying you are really just against murder and violence against political figures. We didn’t see you posting here when the Minnesota democrats were shot.

So maybe you believe you are a centrist but your behavior says otherwise and I see no reason to treat you any differently than you behave.

 

[fskimospy]

I really think that before people break out the hagiography for him that they should throughly review what he stood for. Turning disapproval of the crime in to legitimacy for his actions, opinions, and words is a huge mistake.

The guy very clearly had no problems with political violence. It’s darkly amusing how conservatives are clutching their pearls that some liberals are reacting to Charlie Kirk’s death the way Charlie Kirk reacted to others.

As you alluded to this is because we are fundamentally asked to treat conservatives like children with no agency.