Rest in peace Charlie Kirk

[threeStepfourStep]

Not sure. If you wanted me to answer, considering that he was in college in Utah during the last US presidential election, it's mostly the case that he voted for Trump, if he had at all. However, the trans issue isn't under the camp of the right. The most likely case is that he saw Trump and Charlie Kirk as disconnected, (and perhaps his relationship with his roommate was something that developed more recently).

Utah's political mileu is something to comment as well, since it's Mormon state. The people who've come out of that state were Never-Trumpers, but they always voted Republican, hence why their grandmother and their family is purportedly Republican.

Again, he's 22 from a very homogenous state. It's most likely the case that he wasn't fully versed in the national conversation. I think the most simplistic answer is that he had sympathy for trans people (as he was actually living with one at the moment, for whatever reason, romantic or otherwise) and saw Charlie Kirk as someone who didn't fit into his worldview.

If I were to be incredibly crude, if Charlie Kirk were several notches down from how policymakers thought about politics, Tyler Robinson is probably some notches below Kirk.

Either way the politics is just noise. This isn't a left or right issue, it's just a tragedy.

To me it seems more personal rather than an indoctrination. Whew, this stuff is stressful.

 

[Hadoblado]

We disagree but that's okay. I see you as someone trying sincerely to understand even if we don't see things the same.

 

[fluffy]

I cannot shift through the noise but if he was 22 and he didn't have anything much of a foundational political philosophy then I am not sure if he was thinking in left vs right terms.

Certain issues can be seen as being part of a partisan groups system of belief but it's not always the case that all people finds those issues as being exclusive to left or right.

It's hard to see a motive that's not in the case just something that personally upset him and not to do with what usually tends to an agenda or goal the person has when motivated politically. If there was one we wouldn't have to wait a long time before we actually know?

 

[dr froyd]

jimmy kimmel's show canceled lmao

on his propaganda comedy show he said republicans have to admit that the killer was "one of them". I puked a little bit in my mouth when i heard that, but this is great news

 

[ZenRaiden]

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.

Its only straightfoward if its true.
What is the truth, if we ever get to know it is important.

I am not sure what the media says right now is truth.

I hear all kinds of theories, from mossad killing him making this a professional hit, all the way to Charlie Kirk being alive still and faking his death to become martyr, and every theory inbetween.

All I mean to say is I don't believe any story right now.
They are highly politicized stories and everyone wants to win.
Truth is secondary to journalism in the West.
So I am probably going to be respectfully skeptical of even official investigation.

Given this was a clean shot from great distance, and the guy got away and then got caught in very unusual circumstances I am guessing this is not a crazy looney, but a pro hit and elaborate political action. I am not sure of the motive at all.
But the action was very smooth for someone his age. He had to have help and he had to be planning this for a good while now.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

The shot was taken 430 feet away (per NYT), and that equals 131 meters. In the military (when I was in it) I regularly shot 200 meter targets. Not all that difficult. Mind you the military in my country was mandatory and most guys who went in were able to take the 200 meter shots, so..

 

[Hadoblado]

I think there's a lot of obfuscating factors. Kash Patel can't be trusted (no evidence of Epstein trafficking to anyone other than himself? Really?!). He will say and do whatever Trump tells him to. Trump can't be trusted, he claimed it was left wing violence before the shooter was known. Social media can't be trusted for so many reasons. The media... you get the idea.

I'm not really buying all the conspiratorial narratives about this being more than a disturbed/radicalised individual. These are just less likely (although possible I guess).

Regarding the shooter's skill, he grew up hunting and the shot wasn't that crazy. In the context, it's harder because he's doing everything as fast as he can while trying not to be seen, but it's not crazy that he made the shot. It's not as if Kirk was zigzagging.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the neck isn't where I'd expect a trained assassin to aim for?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Him shooting into a crowd of people, being closer than necessary to kill someone points him not being a professional hit?
Him being slightly politically unhinged makes this less likely a professional hit?
I am not sure I agree with those kinds of reasons.
Him being a pro shooter also does not diminish this being a pro hit.
You got to look at this from Ti perspective.

Why be so prepared. Why having that route of escape. Why then he gets caught under circumstances he gets caught. Why the gun had to be handed over and assembled there.
Given the flimsy information I am not even sure they caught the right guy even to be honest.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

I think you should just read news from news organizations. I have no idea where you're getting your information from. BBC, the Guardian, NYTs, there are the places where you should be getting your facts from.

The kid knew Kirk was coming a week in advance. He had week to premeditate the murder.

 

[Hadoblado]

Raiden it's not clear who or what you're responding to. Can you make it more clear?

 

[Hadoblado]

jimmy kimmel's show canceled lmao

on his propaganda comedy show he said republicans have to admit that the killer was "one of them". I puked a little bit in my mouth when i heard that, but this is great news

Goddamit now I'm going to have to watch this drivel to have an opinion.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think you should just read news from news organizations. I have no idea where you're getting your information from. BBC, the Guardian, NYTs, there are the places where you should be getting your facts from.

The kid knew Kirk was coming a week in advance. He had week to premeditate the murder.

OK fair point. I got my info from various sources, discussing the issues. Maybe bit black pilled from that, but certainly it seems there is more to it than meets the eye.

Raiden it's not clear who or what you're responding to. Can you make it more clear?

Generally to both of you @threeStepfourStep and @Hadoblado .
But I was also trying to add my thoughts about this.

That said maybe I am reading too much into it, but I wouldn't be the only one these days.

Given a lone gunman with a rifle in US trying to kill someone for no good reason it would be quite possible. Even so I think there is something fishy about it, could be more to the story behind the scenes.

 

[Hadoblado]

No good reason? Seems like there's believable motive to me.

 

[ZenRaiden]

No good reason? Seems like there's believable motive to me.

What motive do you think fits the crime?

 

[Hadoblado]

Their partner is trans. They see Kirk as turning the world against them. The stigma around trans people is substantial and nobody is more aware of this than trans people and the people close to them. For these people it's not just a difference of opinion, it's life and death. Trans suicides are extremely high and they're mediated largely by parental, peer, and societal acceptance.

He's 22, impressionable, knows how to shoot, and finds himself with an opportunity and time to plan.

Let's just say this makes more sense to me than most shootings, including the Neo Nazi school shooting that occurred on the same day. IMO people are conspiratorial about this one only because it's ambiguous and high profile.

 

[Old Things]

All the people who are saying Charlie was a racist, misogynistic, anti-LBGTQ+ person probably never sat down to have a conversation with Charlie. Charlie invited others to disagree with him. He felt that when a country stops talking through its differences, civil war ensues. Frankly, saying that Charlie had hate in his heart is the same exact thing the killer thought. But that's the problem: when words become violence, then you can use violence to silence words.

I saw someone ask this, and I think it's a good question: Does the Left have a Charlie Kirk? Does the Left have a person who is willing to encourage dialogue with everyday people, no matter if they disagree or not? Because I don't think they do. The closest thing it comes to that is Joe Rogan, but Joe is literally conservative now, so we see how that can play out when you just talk to lots and lots of people of different backgrounds.

I feel Charlie was the best of us. His wife said he never raised his voice against her. That's a kind of discipline that is extremely rare. He never used ad hominems, he never belittled people, even though he disagreed with them. He gave people the opportunity to disagree with him. He said, "If you disagree, come to the front." I don't think the Left has a person like this.

Also, according to Charlie's own words, he was not that far right. He was basically a liberal from the 70s. But y'all don't want to have that conversation.

 

[Old Things]

Seeya.

I find this highly ironic given the conversation about free speech.

 

[Hadoblado]

Seeya.

I find this highly ironic given the conversation about free speech.

Welcome back.

Your behaviour two weeks ago in DM was... I won't go into it. But you need to sort your shit out. Dial down the conflict, and try harder to both understand and be understood.

You have exhausted all lenience, this is your final warning and final chance. I recommend you begin taking a moment of reflection before hitting post. You need to show me you have the self-control to stop pursuing conflict.

 

[Old Things]

Seeya.

I find this highly ironic given the conversation about free speech.

Welcome back.

Your behaviour two weeks ago in DM was... I won't go into it. But you need to sort your shit out. Dial down the conflict, and try harder to both understand and be understood.

You have exhausted all lenience, this is your final warning and final chance. I recommend you begin taking a moment of reflection before hitting post. You need to show me you have the self-control to stop pursuing conflict.

Define conflict, so I have a clear understanding of what you consider conflict behavior.

 

[dr froyd]

BBC, the Guardian, NYTs, there are the places where you should be getting your facts from.

lmao

to be concrete: if you mentioned any news outlet as the authoritative source of "facts", you should never express an opinion on anything. Because quite simply, you don't understand what "fact" even means in the context of news media

 

[Hadoblado]

Seeya.

I find this highly ironic given the conversation about free speech.

Welcome back.

Your behaviour two weeks ago in DM was... I won't go into it. But you need to sort your shit out. Dial down the conflict, and try harder to both understand and be understood.

You have exhausted all lenience, this is your final warning and final chance. I recommend you begin taking a moment of reflection before hitting post. You need to show me you have the self-control to stop pursuing conflict.

Define conflict, so I have a clear understanding of what you consider conflict behavior.

The conclusion to our last conversation was so frustrating that I lost all hope of your rehabilitation. You made it crystal clear it doesn't matter what I say or how much I clarify or demonstrate.

If you don't understand by now after I've put in this much effort over thousands of words, there's nothing I can say that will make you understand. If you are confused and seeking clarification, please refer to our DMs where I spelt out the issue at length, as well as any number of times I've moderated you on the forum. If it's still in doubt, err on the side of caution.

As a poster I'm going to avoid you. As a moderator I expect these are likely my final words spoken to you.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

BBC, the Guardian, NYTs, there are the places where you should be getting your facts from.

lmao

to be concrete: if you mentioned any news outlet as the authoritative source of "facts", you should never express an opinion on anything. Because quite simply, you don't understand what "fact" even means in the context of news media

I'm confused. Are you sure you're not confusing fact with opinion? Because I can recognize the difference between fact and opinion. I try to gather facts from news sites, not opinions.

Where am I going to get facts from other than news sites? Tea leaves?

 

[ZenRaiden]

For anyone who is not in the loop I recommend this take by grayzone.
It is stuff of legends. Grayzone is killing it.

My question to people here.
What were actual Charlie Kirks beliefs?

 

[Hadoblado]

BBC, the Guardian, NYTs, there are the places where you should be getting your facts from.

lmao

to be concrete: if you mentioned any news outlet as the authoritative source of "facts", you should never express an opinion on anything. Because quite simply, you don't understand what "fact" even means in the context of news media

I'm confused. Are you sure you're not confusing fact with opinion? Because I can recognize the difference between fact and opinion. I try to gather facts from news sites, not opinions.

Where am I going to get facts from other than news sites? Tea leaves?

While we're probably closer aligned on this issue than most, the way you talk about facts is a bit ???

What level of trust must you have in something before you consider it a fact?

 

[threeStepfourStep]

Are you talking about the veracity of what a fact is? Usually new organizations have policy outlines on fact checking and whether it would be appropriate for publication.

There are times when facts can be presented in an order or a fashion that paints a narrative, but it's the reader's job to recognize what a narrative is and to distill the fact from opinion.

This is why in political sensivite news such as the killing of Charlie Kirk I just get the facts and nope out of there. There's so many politically charged posts (CNN, Reddit) that I don't let that influence have an oppurtunity to fester in my head.

I usually read British news to understand American news. The British aren't as compromised as American news sources because they're obviously divorced from the American political scene.

 

[Hadoblado]

Honestly that's probably a good strat. America is pants on head retarded rn.

I think you have a different definition of what a fact is (which is okay but might cause confusion).

 

[Drvladivostok]

Kirk will be the beginning of a long line of leftist terorrism which will be swept under the rug.

America has a problem with left-wing terorrism and criminals using left wing rhetorics to justify their crime, the prevailing ideology of progressivism which has embedded itself in the Press, the academia, and the Political class, have always justified crimes of the minority class, like illegal immigration, assault, and robbery if done by the minority.

These ideologues subtly or less than subtly influence public peception and by extension the government to excuse these criminals.

The same situation can been seen with Islamic Countries and islamic radicalism. radicals would burn or raid a church or two, and the administrative state would give them a slap in the wrist for fear of losing p[ublic support.

The entire situation is a shit show, and the 'right-wings' of the west have no martial spirit to fight back, they always adopt the mentality of 'turn the other cheek' while their oponents are literally trying to destroy them.

The spirit is really apparent when you observe how liberals react when some criminals like Gorge floys gets the knee, which is literally burning and looting, vs how conservative react when Kirk gets assasinated which is just prayer.

The worst part is nothing can be done about it by anyone who subscribe to the believe acceptable to the public.

It's hard not to feel disgusted.​

 

[Hadoblado]

Kirk will be the beginning of a long line of leftist terorrism which will be swept under the rug.

America has a problem with left-wing terorrism and criminals using left wing rhetorics to justify their crime, the prevailing ideology of progressivism which has embedded itself in the Press, the academia, and the Political class, have always justified crimes of the minority class, like illegal immigration, assault, and robbery if done by the minority.

These ideologues subtly or less than subtly influence public peception and by extension the government to excuse these criminals.

The same situation can been seen with Islamic Countries and islamic radicalism. radicals would burn or raid a church or two, and the administrative state would give them a slap in the wrist for fear of losing p[ublic support.

The entire situation is a shit show, and the 'right-wings' of the west have no martial spirit to fight back, they always adopt the mentality of 'turn the other cheek' while their oponents are literally trying to destroy them.

The spirit is really apparent when you observe how liberals react when some criminals like Gorge floys gets the knee, which is literally burning and looting, vs how conservative react when Kirk gets assasinated which is just prayer.

The worst part is nothing can be done about it by anyone who subscribe to the believe acceptable to the public.

It's hard not to feel disgusted.​

I'm gonna give you a heads up @Drvladivostok

The forum stops working when we're this polarised toward political hostilities. I will ban people who conduct themselves this way be they left or right.

Claiming the highest profile killing in the past decade is "swept under the rug", generalising from a lone shooter to the left destroying civilization, speculating (and getting worked up about) future imaginary terrorism... This is not good enough.

If you want to discuss it, fine. But don't just spew vitriol. If you're going to make wild claims, you will need to substantiate them. There are valid critiques to be made, but this ain't it.

This is probably a bit unfair given how much lenience other previous members got before this level of warning, but I'm not having it anymore I'm sorry. If we talk politics, minimal standards of civility will be enforced and that includes requiring substantiating criticism of other views. Getting mad over what you've daydreamed the left doing in the future is wild thought-crime level nonsense. There's no way to civilly engage with you when you're this hostile and unreasonable.

If you need to indulge in mindless culture war please just do it somewhere else. You're welcome here, but this ideological soldiering is not.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Okay, fine.

 

[Kuu]

I don't see anything wrong with what Drvladivostok said. Is stating observations on political situation equivalent to vitriol?

Indeed many people self-described as left not only wanted to minimize the assassination as inconsequential (aka sweep it under the rug), but cheered about it, and even called for more. Hardly a wild claim where there's ample evidence all over social media. To consider that this trend is likely to continue is entirely reasonable.

the prevailing ideology of progressivism which has embedded itself in the Press, the academia, and the Political class, have always justified crimes of the minority class, like illegal immigration, assault, and robbery if done by the minority.

Of this, too, there is ample evidence of.

In any case the guy was a patsy and the noise about his motivations and political leanings is excellent bait to divert people's energy and attention away from the signal: Israel killed Kirk.

 

[Hadoblado]

I stated it clear:
+ The violence has been acknowledged, not swept under the rug. Cheering for something (itself an issue that I have been moderating) is not sweeping. Like you said, there's ample evidence all over social media.
+ Catastophising from one person getting shot by an individual to the left destroying civilization is not reasonable or conducive to anything remotely bordering on conversation.
+ To hold people who committed no crime to account for something imagined to happen tomorrow is also not reasonable or productive.

These are mischaracterisations. I can see maybe some wriggle room if you interpret "sweeping" as "downplaying the severity" rather than "hiding/suppressing". That's certainly happened. But this other stuff? It's exactly the sort of thing that makes it impossible for people to converse.

I'm not interested in arguing this. If you find me doing that level of baseless inflammatory nonsense ban me. I'm not going to sit by and watch the forum get dragged into the same brain-broken tribal discursive shit hole we've just left.

 

[Kuu]

Getting mad over what you've daydreamed the left doing in the future is wild thought-crime level nonsense.

baseless inflammatory nonsense

Catastophising from one person getting shot by an individual to the left destroying civilization

I think your reaction to his statements is unwarranted. These above quoted statements seem to me to be more inflammatory and mischaracterizing than anything drvlad said. Dismissing what he said like this is what makes it impossible to converse... His post did not seem inflammatory to me at all, though it evidently seems to inflame you, and perhaps you should take a step back to consider that. Maybe you need to take a rest for a bit.

It is certainly neither baseless nor nonsense. "Progressivism" in the US/EU *has* looked the other way at minority crimes for years. Hard left ideologies are explicitly revolutionary and advocate for subversion and mass violence against the current social order, and have done so for more than a century. Radical Islamism is shamelessly anti-western, anti-secular, anti-christian, anti-liberal, etc... These are all facts.

So "the opponents of the 'right-wing' of the west are literally trying to destroy them, and they're not fighting back" is a largely factual observation (one could argue about the 'right-wing' but it was in quotes for a reason, because being moderate is now considered right...). Can facts not be discussed dispassionately anymore? Overly catastrophic? Arguable... but can a person not express some disappointment with the world anymore? Unproductive? Well if calling a spade a spade isn't, what *would* be productive, in your opinion?

I agree with the sentiment that the assassination will be (has been) dismissed by many in the so-called left, that there's a lot of hypocrisy in current political discourse, as well as inaction, and that it's hard not to feel disgusted by the fact that this state of affairs will continue and there's probably not much we can do about it.

If western societies completely abandon the rule of law, ignoring the crimes of certain groups to the point of serious self-damage, then they're already caught on a death spiral. This breakdown of social order revealed in political assassinations is more dire than the economic and social issues that are the general fare of political discourse. It is indeed the complete ending of discourse, replaced by violence. It is a moment where it is very easy for more violence to follow, rather than returning to dialogue. It's entirely reasonable to expect it.

---

Kirk represented dialogue, and people listened. And when what he had to say started to change and was leading the "right" to unify with the "left" against zionism and israel's war crimes and corrupt influence in US politics... now that's worth killing to stop. Talk about crimes of minority groups getting ignored...

 

[threeStepfourStep]

The general atomsphere of the sub had taken a thicker turn because of OT and Cog, so that's the reason for the reaction from Hado.

I think whatever the consensus is, (that we have of the remaining members), is that we're not really capably equiped to talk about the current culture entanglements and the course of global politics- those who got caught by the rhetoric of it are only reporting on what's out there on social media and not every fact or situation is settled. This entire Charlie Kirk thread is a great example- alot of heated emotions in the beginning because of the immediacy of the incident, especially for those who live in the US.

I think the current pool of people aren't too ideologically possessed (at least not yet! ) but I think getting caught up in the reason why those who were recently banned should be reviewed.

I also think we should be mindful of where we're all from- I think perspectives shift dramatically depending on where your base view point is rooted in.

 

[Puffy]

I think Hado's just trying to not let things regress in the direction things were going when Cog and OT were around.

Personally I think a part of the problem was that they were spamming the forum with threads related to this stuff so there was no getting away from it and it became a dominant part of the forum culture.

If these threads become less common maybe it won't matter as much. But I agree that left or right, atheist or theist, people should be able to be civil and respectful in the way they engage.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

MURDER = BAD

FREE SPEECH = GOOD

 

[fluffy]

I don't think Charlie kirk was a bad guy and I don't think all of "the left" support what happened to him.

What happened can be attributed in some way to guns, I don't own a gun. Charlie said guns are necessary to preserve democracy but I am not sure he would know how to stop school shootings. I just don't believe this is the fall of the west or anything like that. People just have to respect free speech more.

 

[Hadoblado]

Getting mad over what you've daydreamed the left doing in the future is wild thought-crime level nonsense.

baseless inflammatory nonsense

Catastophising from one person getting shot by an individual to the left destroying civilization

I think your reaction to his statements is unwarranted. These above quoted statements seem to me to be more inflammatory and mischaracterizing than anything drvlad said. Dismissing what he said like this is what makes it impossible to converse... His post did not seem inflammatory to me at all, though it evidently seems to inflame you, and perhaps you should take a step back to consider that. Maybe you need to take a rest for a bit.

It is certainly neither baseless nor nonsense. "Progressivism" in the US/EU *has* looked the other way at minority crimes for years. Hard left ideologies are explicitly revolutionary and advocate for subversion and mass violence against the current social order, and have done so for more than a century. Radical Islamism is shamelessly anti-western, anti-secular, anti-christian, anti-liberal, etc... These are all facts.

So "the opponents of the 'right-wing' of the west are literally trying to destroy them, and they're not fighting back" is a largely factual observation (one could argue about the 'right-wing' but it was in quotes for a reason, because being moderate is now considered right...). Can facts not be discussed dispassionately anymore? Overly catastrophic? Arguable... but can a person not express some disappointment with the world anymore? Unproductive? Well if calling a spade a spade isn't, what *would* be productive, in your opinion?

I agree with the sentiment that the assassination will be (has been) dismissed by many in the so-called left, that there's a lot of hypocrisy in current political discourse, as well as inaction, and that it's hard not to feel disgusted by the fact that this state of affairs will continue and there's probably not much we can do about it.

If western societies completely abandon the rule of law, ignoring the crimes of certain groups to the point of serious self-damage, then they're already caught on a death spiral. This breakdown of social order revealed in political assassinations is more dire than the economic and social issues that are the general fare of political discourse. It is indeed the complete ending of discourse, replaced by violence. It is a moment where it is very easy for more violence to follow, rather than returning to dialogue. It's entirely reasonable to expect it.

---

Kirk represented dialogue, and people listened. And when what he had to say started to change and was leading the "right" to unify with the "left" against zionism and israel's war crimes and corrupt influence in US politics... now that's worth killing to stop. Talk about crimes of minority groups getting ignored...

Not really sure why you chose to do this in public again given we have... four(?) other channels to do this in that are more appropriate without letting the kids see mum and dad fight.

I'm not interested in arguing these points, especially if you're arguing around the observations I made rather than addressing them. You accuse me of being politically involved but you're the one picking up his flag and running with it.

If someone wholesale attacks other tribes, they make those people feel unwelcome here. Those people leave and the forum dwindles. If you do so without substance, you do so without a discursive pay-off. If you want to convince me there's substance to the post, point to where he substantiated the claims I noted, rather than to claims with which you happen to agree.

We can politically disagree. This is not the problem. It's when the friction experienced for attacking is non-existent, that 'stating opinions' just become vectors of attack against perceived opponents.

 

[ZenRaiden]

jimmy kimmel's show canceled lmao

on his propaganda comedy show he said republicans have to admit that the killer was "one of them". I puked a little bit in my mouth when i heard that, but this is great news

I used to watch John Oliver and such shows for brief time, and I want my time back.
I feel like a midwit for even entertaining that propaganda garbage.
Live n learn they say.