Rest in peace Charlie Kirk

[fluffy]

if, say, a trans activist got executed on stage while talking about trans issues, and someone said "gee, that's terrible, but his opinions might have been inflammatory to right-wingers", i suspect the reaction would be rather different

Do you consider trans rights to be about imposing violence onto others? I guess if you are advocating for something like guns then that has something to do with violence but why would you say trans rights are on the same level?

Like a boy wants to ware Pink clouse, advocates for that right. But then a guy says deaths are necessary to protect free speech. Are those the same things? Which one is more likely to get shot? It's a statistics question And also a psychological question. Who or what motivation can we infer from those who would shoot trans advocate from those who would advocate for violence as necessary in the the USA as aside from who does so. Many people advocate those two positions not necessarily at the same time.

 

[dr froyd]

@fluffy do you know what i consider to constitute "imposing violence onto others"? Shooting someone in the neck with a high-powered rifle. Let me know what Charlie Kirk did that was in the same category

 

[fluffy]

@fluffy do you know what i consider to constitute "imposing violence onto others"? Shooting someone in the neck with a high-powered rifle. Let me know what Charlie Kirk did that was in the same category

He was famous.

Just so you know.

It happens to them all the time.

 

[fluffy]

I have two bullet holes in my house because someone didn't like one of my neighbors.

It's common that if you don't like someone that sometimes those people try and hurt them.

Imagine two people in public

Teenage boy says: I like to ware pink

Some guy says: violence is necessary in America.

Neither deserve to be hurt in any way. That doesn't mean people would not hurt them.

 

[dr froyd]

i don't intend to play mental gymnastics to make this look trivial or acceptable

if leftists had a modicum of moral principles in them they wouldn't do either. Like I said; when you're drunk on ideology, any means towards the end start to look acceptable

 

[fluffy]

i don't intend to play mental gymnastics to make this look trivial or acceptable

if leftists had a modicum of moral principles in them they wouldn't do either. Like I said; when you're drunk on ideology, any means towards the end start to look acceptable

Who would advocate means twords an end?

You mean to say all leftist are immoral?

You must be saying that because then you can say everyone who disagree with you is and immoral leftist. Which is very sad state of mind to have because not all leftist are that way i.e. immoral or believe in means twords an end.

When people say things to upset others it upsets them. That doesn't mean violence should be done but not everyone is moral enough to accept disagreement and they do violence. Bad people exist and it's not based on left or right. It just the way people are.

 

[dr froyd]

yeah i shouldn't say "leftists" as in leftists in general. But go to the comment section under, say, the MSNBC coverage of this, you will see people who, at best, justify this event, and at worst are celebrating it

here is an example of how people should react - the young turks who are overtly leftists. Note how at no point do they try to minimize this based on his political views or say "but, he was a divisive figure"

 

[Hadoblado]

@Hadoblado well let's put it this way: to me, someone getting murdered for their opinions is a heinous crime in general - not just against that person but against humanity as a whole. I would be equally horrified at that regardless of the political leaning of the victim. I wouldn't start inserting caveats like "yeah but he had inflammatory opinions". For this particular case, let's not pretend politics doesn't play a role.

if, say, a trans activist got executed on stage while talking about trans issues, and someone said "gee, that's terrible, but his opinions might have been inflammatory to right-wingers", i suspect the reaction would be rather different

A trans person isn't endangering people by talking about trans issues.

If a trans person was on stage advocating for the left to tool up (or something along those lines) and they get shot and die, then that's equivalent. They've opted in. They played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

You're being surgical with your empathy and with your engagement with the point. People die everyday as a result of the gun crisis Kirk contributed to. He was an enormously influential individual and it's highly likely more people died by gun as a result of his rhetoric, when he explicitly knew this was the cost and he'd accepted it.

But I don't see you crying for these innocent bystanders, just like you don't see me crying for Charlie Kirk. But Kirk was a participant whether he pulled the trigger or not, just like the person who shot him. Just like all these violent actors and the people who contribute to the violent atmosphere. But the children in schools and other innocents are not. I haven't heard you concerned for them?

I could understand your position if I was gleefully celebrating his death or something, and there will be leftists who are (and I think they're becoming participants themselves in doing so). But I'm not and won't.

My first and enduring reaction to it was:

 

[Hadoblado]

Shooter's been caught. People are trying to push them onto the other side claiming they're a trans furry or a groyper.

I think the carvings on the shell are a non-starter. Shooters tend to want to control their narrative, and this can mean false flagging blame or doses of brain-broken irony so deep interpretation is just guessing at the meta level.

I think the best available evidence is how people describe them. Their conservative family describe them as rejecting their values, and people from their school describe them as lefty. It might come about that this was all 5D groyper memes but I doubt it.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

The most telling thing is that the boy is just 22.

To add on, I really don't believe in much of the media at the moment. It's probably best not to make huge judgements about things. Can't be too sure until all the pieces fit in.

Also, if this boy goes to court, it'll have an impact on the midterm elections. Apparently midterms are 7 months from now on. Dems need to tread carefully lol. edit: sorry, not 7 but 13 months.

 

[dr froyd]

I think the carvings on the shell are a non-starter. Shooters tend to want to control their narrative, and this can mean false flagging blame or doses of brain-broken irony so deep interpretation is just guessing at the meta level.

mental-gymnastics gold medal goes to hado

and regarding gun laws, that's a debate one can have, and a debate i believe Kirk was willing to engage in. The gun laws weren't written by Kirk, they're in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. So at the end of the day, you're just echoing the ghoulish mainstream-leftist narrative that if you're on a certain side of a debate, you "had it coming" when someone picks up a rifle and shoots you for your opinions. It's quite disturbing, but like i said; politics and ideology do funny things to people's brains

i'll quote Cenk from the Young Turks (who, as far as i know, is against the 2nd amendment): "it is deeply immoral to not be outraged by this".

 

[threeStepfourStep]

This is probably out of the current scope, but I always find it interesting that emotions caused by passionate politics and the natural emotions which are poured out by the virtue of being a human cause dissonance. I think it's part of being a human that one cannot hold two strands of emotions at once (or hold emotions that come from two different sources). It's noteworthy that political pundits sometimes try to exploit this glitch without even realizing the perplexity of it. I don't have the answers, but it's such a human feature that eludes scrutiny.

 

[ZenRaiden]

"it is deeply immoral to not be outraged by this"

We going to pretend like what we say on larger platforms does not have impact on how people think and act, after the guy got shot right there.
I am not trying to moralize here, but what you say matters no matter how many laws you or amendments you have. Id say morality is not entirely independent of how humans feel and think and operate.
Point being if you are going to push immoral narratives there is consequence to what you are pushing, so I kind of agree with Hado that what the guy said if I understand it is pretty immoral all around.

 

[Hadoblado]

How is the conclusion that the shooter is most likely left wing an exercise in mental gymnastics? Listen to yourself.

Actually don't answer that. I find you very difficult to talk to when you're on your high horse. On a Tuesday you'll be gleefully drinking liberal tears then on Wednesday you'll be accusing liberals of not crying enough tears or the right sort. Brain broken culture war bullshit. Leave me out of it.

 

[dr froyd]

ok it's possible i misunderstood, when i read "false flag" and whatnot

but yes, he appears to be of the "anti-fascist" leftist flavor

 

[dr froyd]

"it is deeply immoral to not be outraged by this"

We going to pretend like what we say on larger platforms does not have impact on how people think and act, after the guy got shot right there.
I am not trying to moralize here, but what you say matters no matter how many laws you or amendments you have. Id say morality is not entirely independent of how humans feel and think and operate.
Point being if you are going to push immoral narratives there is consequence to what you are pushing, so I kind of agree with Hado that what the guy said if I understand it is pretty immoral all around.

as long as you're not inciting violence you're entitled to any opinion you like, end of story

 

[ZenRaiden]

as long as you're not inciting violence you're entitled to any opinion you like, end of story

Yes, true, my way of explaining this would be if you say something it has impact.
Hence why we don't let people talk about inciting violence.
Policies that shape outcomes do have impact on what happens agree? or disagree?

 

[threeStepfourStep]

To be fair though, Kirk never incited violence. He condoned the violence, as much as a free market capitalist would say there are losers in the system, thus crimes happen.

Kirk isn't a government or policy offical with decades of experience. He's just someone who speaks his mind with the experience and knowledge he has. If you place his voice at the level of policy, then chances are we are not as invested in the workings of policy at the higher level in which we want to idealize. A lot of the voices in the media are just that.

 

[dr froyd]

as long as you're not inciting violence you're entitled to any opinion you like, end of story

Yes, true, my way of explaining this would be if you say something it has impact.
Hence why we don't let people talk about inciting violence.
Policies that shape outcomes do have impact on what happens agree? or disagree?

sure, but Charlie Kirk was someone who merely engaged debates. Who decides what is right or wrong? We do that collectively through debate. But here you have simply decided upfront that he was wrong. The shooter believed he was the authority on right and wrong too, and that's where he was wrong

 

[fluffy]

Kirk never incited violence. He condoned the violence

And because he's in the public sphere the atmosphere of which is really toxic I don't know if he was really trying to get to people as bad as things actually are but the Overton window has shifted.

Anyone taking about any subject can become a target for what they say. It's not funny but how it is. So is free speech something that can be thought of as having no consequences? It's always has had them. I think you're either brave or stupid to go out there and rile peoples emotions up. Like for some cause perhaps?

Why exactly people want to debate in public is up to them but it's really difficult to think people don't know that what they are trying to do affects society. Some people don't want society to change. If you're trying to change something you must think it's important enough to change that people will like you for it.

 

[dr froyd]

and speaking of the effect of words, in light of the "anti-fascist" engravings on this shooter's bullet casings. People have a short memory, but a few months back there were thugs running around torching Tesla cars also under these "anti-fascist" banners. And of course we remember the mayhem and violence caused by these antifa hooligans going further back. Point being, there's a lot of impressionable fools out there who believe, without exactly knowing what the term means, that they are in an existential battle against fascism. Perhaps the people who got in a habit of using that term so liberally should take some responsibility too?

 

[fluffy]

A collection of people doesn't decide right and wrong. A collective can have mass delusional thinking. Right and wrong need objective moral standards otherwise one group can say they have the answers and another group can disagree and there is never going to be a larger consensus. A group can be any size and believe anything.

Objective moral standards are something most people have but most people are afraid to look into where they come from.

 

[ZenRaiden]

as long as you're not inciting violence you're entitled to any opinion you like, end of story

Yes, true, my way of explaining this would be if you say something it has impact.
Hence why we don't let people talk about inciting violence.
Policies that shape outcomes do have impact on what happens agree? or disagree?

sure, but Charlie Kirk was someone who merely engaged debates. Who decides what is right or wrong? We do that collectively through debate. But here you have simply decided upfront that he was wrong. The shooter believed he was the authority on right and wrong too, and that's where he was wrong

I agree with you. I think we should hate the game not the playa. The player Charlie Kirk merely engaged with opinions.
But if I am going to use extreme example why do we hold Hitler culpable. He too only started with opinions. Shouldn't we hold Germans culpable who followed Hitler and endorsed his policies as the ones who were moral agents of nazism? Why then punish a man like Hitler. Or would you say Hitler too was morally culpable for what he said, even tho we could always argue he was just a man with opinions.

 

[fluffy]

But if I am going to use extreme example why do we hold Hitler culpable. He too only started with opinions. Shouldn't we hold Germans culpable who followed Hitler and endorsed his policies as the ones who were moral agents of nazism? Why then punish a man like Hitler. Or would you say Hitler too was morally culpable for what he said, even tho we could always argue he was just a man with opinions.

He had intentions and means and actually accomplished them in that many innocent people died.

Kirk we don't know why he liked making people angry but guns are an issue worth debating as the thing is free speech is the topic he was trying to advocate not anything particularly controversial accept he didn't care about violence happening because of guns.

In free speech debates it gets difficult to assess what constitutes it without devoicing it from peoples intentions but that is still possible. What makes free speech bad or good is something we can talk about without killing each other. That should be simple.

 

[ZenRaiden]

He had intentions and means and actually accomplished them in that many innocent people died.

That is not how it started tho. It started with him just being vocal. The means to do what he did only emerged with growing support.

 

[fluffy]

He had intentions and means and actually accomplished them in that many innocent people died.

That is not how it started tho. It started with him just being vocal. The means to do what he did only emerged with growing support.

So free speech is something you think is not worth having. It's ok to kill anyone under any guise whenever we think a Hitler is on his way? How does that work in society?

Someone on the forum once advocated that Jordan Peterson needed to be eliminated because he might become a Hitler.

Anyone at any time under that pretence could be killed for their free speech.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

I wouldn't say Charlie Kirk was in the public sphere of America. Most people didn't know him until his assassination. The small portion of the younger generation who might have tuned into him might, but the older generation and the vast majority of the youth haven't heard of him.

In the public sphere, the political sphere (as in the House and the Senate) the debate about guns is mostly settled. They're just waiting for the political push to be able to pass a common sense gun law. The problem that the talks die down is because both sides become snagged by other issues. This is why it's important to understand the entire American political process.

This is why I say that Charlie Kirk's death might have some huge impact. The amount of attention the issue is getting is considerable. The right cannot ignore the issue because their lowest common denominator voter base (that's a mouthful) will have gone through the arguments, when in the past, the arguments were played out by a different political base (non-MAGA, but Republican, neocons specifically).

 

[ZenRaiden]

So free speech is something you think is not worth having. It's ok to kill anyone under any guise whenever we think a Hitler is on his way? How does that work in society?

Someone on the forum once advocated that Jordan Peterson needed to be eliminated because he might become a Hitler.

Anyone at any time under that pretence could be killed for their free speech.

I never said any of this. You just extrapolated from one point like its my position.
I was using Hitler as example.

So what is your position on all this anyway since we are talking?

 

[Hadoblado]

He had intentions and means and actually accomplished them in that many innocent people died.

That is not how it started tho. It started with him just being vocal. The means to do what he did only emerged with growing support.

So free speech is something you think is not worth having. It's ok to kill anyone under any guise whenever we think a Hitler is on his way? How does that work in society?

Someone on the forum once advocated that Jordan Peterson needed to be eliminated because he might become a Hitler.

Anyone at any time under that pretence could be killed for their free speech.

Who did that?

 

[fluffy]

He had intentions and means and actually accomplished them in that many innocent people died.

That is not how it started tho. It started with him just being vocal. The means to do what he did only emerged with growing support.

So free speech is something you think is not worth having. It's ok to kill anyone under any guise whenever we think a Hitler is on his way? How does that work in society?

Someone on the forum once advocated that Jordan Peterson needed to be eliminated because he might become a Hitler.

Anyone at any time under that pretence could be killed for their free speech.

Who did that?

From the Thread:

Jordan Peterson's Misappropriation of Self Improvement

In that sense I think it's justified to make a wholesale judgment on Peterson and "execute" him just like we did with other harmful figures. If you add things up he's more harmful than he's helpful. It's especially important to communicate this to the audiences that can't make this judgment on their own. Some audiences just need to hear that someone is bad influence and should be avoided and there lies the value of such cancellings and executions.

 

[fluffy]

So free speech is something you think is not worth having. It's ok to kill anyone under any guise whenever we think a Hitler is on his way? How does that work in society?

Someone on the forum once advocated that Jordan Peterson needed to be eliminated because he might become a Hitler.

Anyone at any time under that pretence could be killed for their free speech.

I never said any of this. You just extrapolated from one point like its my position.
I was using Hitler as example.

So what is your position on all this anyway since we are talking?

You were trying to give a moral example of how Hitler should not be held accountable but it just doesn't work and I don't see what possible position that's supposed to support?

Using Hitler as an example is a poor example for saying Kirk deserved what what he got.

It's hard to say you were making any point at all bringing up Hitler as if that means anything in the modern world.

 

[dr froyd]

as long as you're not inciting violence you're entitled to any opinion you like, end of story

Yes, true, my way of explaining this would be if you say something it has impact.
Hence why we don't let people talk about inciting violence.
Policies that shape outcomes do have impact on what happens agree? or disagree?

sure, but Charlie Kirk was someone who merely engaged debates. Who decides what is right or wrong? We do that collectively through debate. But here you have simply decided upfront that he was wrong. The shooter believed he was the authority on right and wrong too, and that's where he was wrong

I agree with you. I think we should hate the game not the playa. The player Charlie Kirk merely engaged with opinions.
But if I am going to use extreme example why do we hold Hitler culpable. He too only started with opinions. Shouldn't we hold Germans culpable who followed Hitler and endorsed his policies as the ones who were moral agents of nazism? Why then punish a man like Hitler. Or would you say Hitler too was morally culpable for what he said, even tho we could always argue he was just a man with opinions.

it's not an entirely silly question, but let's make something clear:
- by the direct orders of Hitler, millions of innocent people were killed purely based on their ethnicity
- he explicitly advocated for subjugation and extermination of entire peoples and races

these are not actions and opinions that would fly within the confines of legality anywhere in the civilized world. Hitler's views constituted overt incitement to things we have all agreed are extremely criminal actions. But people have started to play the games of association where perhaps any opinion, with a bit of creative reasoning, can be linked to the same ideology - even though the opinion itself is legal. That's also bad, because this creates an environment that encourages exactly what we witnessed with Charlie Kirk

 

[ZenRaiden]

Using Hitler as an example is a poor example for saying Kirk deserved what what he got.

No I was not making the point that Kirk deserved anything, but I fault myself for not making it clear. I guess its easy to get caught up in defensive. My bad. Ill try to explain better what I mean.

it's not an entirely silly question, but let's make something clear:

Seriously I thought I was making a clear point, but Ill explain down below.


So lets start with what I am driving at. First Charlie Kirk is influencer.
He talks and presents opinions on larger platforms infront of 100s if not 1000s of people.
You said that he is expressing free opinion and that yes people should not be punished for having opinions or debating.
I agree with this point wholeheartedly. I agree with this because wed all be dead if we got punished for having bad opinions.

However I think there was a point being made, and that point needs to be driven to home base. That is that Charlie Kirk is merely voicing his harmless opinion and exercising free speech and therefore what he says is none issue.

I don't think morality is the problem only here, but the idea that what he says has no impact.
I think what people like Charlie Kirk say has impact, and can have huge negative impact, and can damage public discourse about what policies mean and how they are presented.
Eviscerating public discourse of any nuance, and dumbing down things to plane and simple rhetoric tools and engaging public with not so genuine talking points supporting the with flimsy arguments like random citations of trivia and statistic is going to shape the way people think and understand the topic.


In other words lets imagine I am a body building guru who is championing a preworkout mix and I take huge doses of physical enhancing drugs.

You could effectively argue that I am just being engaging and running a harmless ad and just expressing an opinion, but there will be a lot of people who will be buying make product wanting to be muscle boys like fitness influencer.

I think him having a platform is inseperable from him having influence, and it can never really be only argued that he is just sharing his opinion. The way public engages this topic has impact, and whether that is negative or positive depends on what is being said. But we should and can never separate his influence on the crowds of people and say "Its just an opinion. "

More importantly he was not exercising hate speech, but his arguments do decided life or death on multiple social levels and thus they cannot be seen as just merely light hazard type of things.

Your argument then goes to the fact that yes he has opinion, but he does not shape policy. But Id argue invariably it is people like Kirk that do shape a bulk of policy.
In fact there is good reason why we have Ben Shapiros, Charlie Kirks and Piers Morgans etc. on TV because these people have huge impact in the way the discourse lives in public domain and huge impact the way public perceives this problem.

Ill repeat I do not at any point try to compare Charlie Kirk to Hitler. My main point is that Hitler too started with merely opinions. Then work his way all the way to Auschwitz gasing Jews.

Think about this .... why can't we openly just talk about Jews or blacks or trans people even if its hate speech we could always argue its just opinion and that opinion won't shape policy.
We know exactly why certain things are taboo. Why I cant just give a sex ed class to 4 year olds or start explaining why death is illusion to someone on a funeral.

That is because impact of words is not separable from voicing just opinions.

On the intellectual level we can pretend Kirk just had opinions, but he was realistically running a huge influential ad for guns on college campuses.

I am not saying what he is doing is wrong either. I am saying its impactful no matter how much we try to sanitize this and just call it harmless rhetoric it really is not.

 

[Hadoblado]

He had intentions and means and actually accomplished them in that many innocent people died.

That is not how it started tho. It started with him just being vocal. The means to do what he did only emerged with growing support.

So free speech is something you think is not worth having. It's ok to kill anyone under any guise whenever we think a Hitler is on his way? How does that work in society?

Someone on the forum once advocated that Jordan Peterson needed to be eliminated because he might become a Hitler.

Anyone at any time under that pretence could be killed for their free speech.

Who did that?

From the Thread:

Jordan Peterson's Misappropriation of Self Improvement

In that sense I think it's justified to make a wholesale judgment on Peterson and "execute" him just like we did with other harmful figures. If you add things up he's more harmful than he's helpful. It's especially important to communicate this to the audiences that can't make this judgment on their own. Some audiences just need to hear that someone is bad influence and should be avoided and there lies the value of such cancellings and executions.

Ah, thanks. I'd completely forgotten.

 

[dr froyd]

@ZenRaiden perhaps i wasn't clear enough. I do understand that the Hitler example was taking the logic of free speech to its extreme

obviously all political discourse has an impact on policy. But e.g. US has decided, as a society, that as long as your're not instructing people to commit violent crime, then you are entitled to any speech you like. It's a civil right, and if you allow for censorship based on indirect, 2nd, 3rd order effects, regardless of people's intentions, then you no longer have free speech.

so then, the person who picks up a rifle and kills someone for their speech is attacking that core civil-rights concept. That's an unambiguous crime and act of deep immorality at many levels. Yet, the people who are fine with that argue that hey, maybe, hypothetically, via some butterfly-effects and whatnot, the opinions of the victim could hurt someone. Apparently that is more tangible than someone getting a bullet through their neck. My point has been that if one has the capacity to do such fanciful abstractions of the actual event - that someone got killed for their opinions - then it's quite clear what's going on: they are happy that someone they disagree with got killed

 

[ZenRaiden]

@ZenRaiden perhaps i wasn't clear enough. I do understand that the Hitler example was taking the logic of free speech to its extreme

obviously all political discourse has an impact on policy. But e.g. US has decided, as a society, that as long as your're not instructing people to commit violent crime, then you are entitled to any speech you like. It's a civil right, and if you allow for censorship based on indirect, 2nd, 3rd order effects, regardless of people's intentions, then you no longer have free speech.

so then, the person who picks up a rifle and kills someone for their speech is attacking that core civil-rights concept. That's an unambiguous crime and act of deep immorality at many levels. Yet, the people who are fine with that argue that hey, maybe, hypothetically, via some butterfly-effects and whatnot, the opinions of the victim could hurt someone. Apparently that is more tangible than someone getting a bullet through their neck. My point has been that if one has the capacity to do such fanciful abstractions of the actual event - that someone got killed for their opinions - then it's quite clear what's going on: they are happy that someone they disagree with got killed

In country like US this was really not that shocking that it happened.
What I really wonder is what the motive was, no matter how insane.

 

[Hadoblado]

Just another example of AI muddying the waters. This appears to be an innocent mistake, but it's very easy to see how this breeds distrust in opposing conclusions.

The original image of the shooter was "enhanced" using grok, which took liberties and altered the image, and then subsequently competed with the original across social media platforms.

This created conspiracy fuel, as shots of the person they were looking for no longer matched the mugshot of the person they caught. This is cancer in a media environment that's already an exercise in choosing your own reality.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

@ZenRaiden perhaps i wasn't clear enough. I do understand that the Hitler example was taking the logic of free speech to its extreme

obviously all political discourse has an impact on policy. But e.g. US has decided, as a society, that as long as your're not instructing people to commit violent crime, then you are entitled to any speech you like. It's a civil right, and if you allow for censorship based on indirect, 2nd, 3rd order effects, regardless of people's intentions, then you no longer have free speech.

so then, the person who picks up a rifle and kills someone for their speech is attacking that core civil-rights concept. That's an unambiguous crime and act of deep immorality at many levels. Yet, the people who are fine with that argue that hey, maybe, hypothetically, via some butterfly-effects and whatnot, the opinions of the victim could hurt someone. Apparently that is more tangible than someone getting a bullet through their neck. My point has been that if one has the capacity to do such fanciful abstractions of the actual event - that someone got killed for their opinions - then it's quite clear what's going on: they are happy that someone they disagree with got killed

In country like US this was really not that shocking that it happened.
What I really wonder is what the motive was, no matter how insane.

I think it's pretty straightforward. He thought that Charlie Kirk was hateful towards trans people, so... he did what he did. He's 22.

 

[BurnedOut]

Afaik, the shooter was a conservative, so the joke fell squarely on the right for propogating nonsense theories about the left. The shooter was on the top of some building, he literally parkoured his way away from the scene.

On the other hand, it's quite sad people are getting shot for simply holding opinions. It portends worse for both the left and the right because both sides has extremists.

 

[Hadoblado]

Be aware that conclusions about the killer's politics are stated FAR more confidently than they should be. Regarding the claims he was a groyper, there are not that many people familiar with groyper irony and memes enough to confidently diagnose the intention of the messages. Even fewer who understand it and would want to share this information if he were in fact a groyper.

Don't believe social media or w/e on this one. It's absolutely polluted with misinformation. Probably the worst case I've seen.

 

[Haim]

Afaik, the shooter was a conservative, so the joke fell squarely on the right for propogating nonsense theories about the left. The shooter was on the top of some building, he literally parkoured his way away from the scene.

On the other hand, it's quite sad people are getting shot for simply holding opinions. It portends worse for both the left and the right because both sides has extremists.

You truly believe this nonsense?
Dude had a trans lover.
Had bullet casing with leftist statement, possibly Antifa.
Made a statement that he hate a right wing political figure.
Murdered a right wing political figure.

And people are still vile , saying he said thing he did not.
When did he hate trans people? he only said things against this political identity not sexual identity or any person, saying you do not want men in woman sports is not hating trans people.

You vile people are gaslighting and victim blaming.

 

[Hadoblado]

Haim, I'm not going to have this devolve into left vs. right.

You can make your case for him being a left winger, but none of this "you vile people" stuff.

They just read something online, believed it, and repeated it. Same as you're doing.

 

[Haim]

Haim, I'm not going to have this devolve into left vs. right.

You can make your case for him being a left winger, but none of this "you vile people" stuff.

They just read something online, believed it, and repeated it. Same as you're doing.

The title is "Rest in peace Charlie Kirk", they apparently the opposing side and I am the for side.
You think I am gonna assume they have good intentions?
When people are being this vile it must be said, otherwise it is a signal that I think that this is acceptable behavior in society. A good person that does not act against evil is not a good person but an evil one.

 

[Hadoblado]

Haim, I'm not going to have this devolve into left vs. right.

You can make your case for him being a left winger, but none of this "you vile people" stuff.

They just read something online, believed it, and repeated it. Same as you're doing.

The title is "Rest in peace Charlie Kirk", they apparently the opposing side and I am the for side.
You think I am gonna assume they have good intentions?
When people are being this vile it must be said, otherwise it is a signal that I think that this is acceptable behavior in society. A good person that does not act against evil is not a good person but an evil one.

"You're either with me or against me".

Argue Kirk was a good person who didn't deserve this. Argue that the shooter was a leftist transgender antifa supersoldier. Whatever.

But don't attack forum members over political differences.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

Hado you should catch up if you hadn't already: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/charlie-kirk-shooting-prosecutor-utah

I think Tyler Robinson was just going through a phase. He's just 22. I think the whole 'trying out the lesbian thing at college' trope fits with him.

I wouldn't characterize this as a left or right thing, just a boy caught up in the confusing political time of our era.

 

[Haim]

Haim, I'm not going to have this devolve into left vs. right.

You can make your case for him being a left winger, but none of this "you vile people" stuff.

They just read something online, believed it, and repeated it. Same as you're doing.

The title is "Rest in peace Charlie Kirk", they apparently the opposing side and I am the for side.
You think I am gonna assume they have good intentions?
When people are being this vile it must be said, otherwise it is a signal that I think that this is acceptable behavior in society. A good person that does not act against evil is not a good person but an evil one.

"You're either with me or against me".

Argue Kirk was a good person who didn't deserve this. Argue that the shooter was a leftist transgender antifa supersoldier. Whatever.

But don't attack forum members over political differences.

I will do that when they stop being vile.
When you call Luther King murder a black loving person and mention lies
that were told about him to vilify him before the murder, then it is nothing to do with political differences, there is no political argument to oppose aside from telling them to stop being assholes.

 

[Hadoblado]

Seeya.

 

[Hadoblado]

Hado you should catch up if you hadn't already: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/charlie-kirk-shooting-prosecutor-utah

I think Tyler Robinson was just going through a phase. He's just 22. I think the whole 'trying out the lesbian thing at college' trope fits with him.

I wouldn't characterize this as a left or right thing, just a boy caught up in the confusing political time of our era.

Thanks I hadn't read it yet. I'm leaning towards this being left wing violence still, but am yet to be convinced the left has a problem with violence relative to the right (in fact I view it as the opposite).

 

[threeStepfourStep]

It's not really left violence. He didn't seem to be politically inclined in any which way.

This is my own personal observation and interpretation, but I think he was just in a phase where he was figuring out his own orientation. He's just 22. Someone right out of college. I think it's just a tragedy all around. Either way it's probably best to unplug and make your own conclusions. Social media at the moment is all over the place lol

 

[Hadoblado]

While the memes he had on his casings were somewhat ambiguous due to irony poisoning, they appear highly political in nature. They might be ironic, or they might not be, but they're a reference to politics either way.

If he was political, given what was in that article, which way do you think he leaned?

Yes he was 22 and probably going through a whole bunch of phases. That doesn't make his actions not the result of political indoctrination or whatever else.