To quote the empathetic words of that esteemed stateswoman Joni Ernst: "We are all going to die."
Charlie Kirk Assassinated
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm really worried about the backlash, I wouldn't do any public appearance if I was a democrat for quite a while.
But it really suck that his dead is blowing up, while the far more serious assassination of democrats lawmaker barely a months ago did almost nothing. Ultimately Kirk was just a regular citizen, who pretty much had nothing interesting to contribute (saying that gun assassination are okay so long as gun manufacturer gets to keep making money isn't exactly high level thinking). It just reek of kid bullying someone else, but going to cry to mommy when the bully fight back. Once again the democrat are expected to take the high ground while the GOP punch them from below.
Anyway, this is an easy problem to fix, but the guy who just got killed would have been the first one to oppose the fix, so I dunno, I hope he's proud that nothing is done to prevent the next one.
But it really suck that his dead is blowing up, while the far more serious assassination of democrats lawmaker barely a months ago did almost nothing. Ultimately Kirk was just a regular citizen, who pretty much had nothing interesting to contribute (saying that gun assassination are okay so long as gun manufacturer gets to keep making money isn't exactly high level thinking). It just reek of kid bullying someone else, but going to cry to mommy when the bully fight back. Once again the democrat are expected to take the high ground while the GOP punch them from below.
Anyway, this is an easy problem to fix, but the guy who just got killed would have been the first one to oppose the fix, so I dunno, I hope he's proud that nothing is done to prevent the next one.
Meanwhile, Trump says he has an "obligation" to attend Charlie Kirk's funeral.
www.newsweek.com
But no obligation to attend the return of the bodies of US soldiers who died in Lithuania.
Charlie Kirk death: Trump feels an 'obligation' to attend Arizona funeral
Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck during a student Q&A at Utah Valley University. Follow Newsweek's rolling coverage.
www.newsweek.com
But no obligation to attend the return of the bodies of US soldiers who died in Lithuania.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 16,498
- 5,099
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Kirk did more to help the orange bastard then those solders ever did and he knows it.Meanwhile, Trump says he has an "obligation" to attend Charlie Kirk's funeral.
Charlie Kirk death: Trump feels an 'obligation' to attend Arizona funeral
Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck during a student Q&A at Utah Valley University. Follow Newsweek's rolling coverage.
But no obligation to attend the return of the bodies of US soldiers who died in Lithuania.
Melissa Hortman made all the news, was honored in Congress, laid in state in Minnesota, had candlelight vigils in her honor, had flags at half mast around the country, had a parade (in a perfectly good sense) of lawmakers attend her funeral... I think other than a Presidential Medal, she got full attention and equal treatment to this.
The biggest distinction that is driving the conversation is that with Melissa Hortman, everyone condemned the killing. Democrats and the left condemned it, Republicans and the right also condemned it, if sometimes from a slightly different perspective that the left was annoyed by. The bad take from the right there was that the killing was terrible, but it was done by a secret communist. With Charlie Kirk, a lot of the left just isn't condemning the killing, the bad take is supporting political assassinations. Kirk is also the dramatically better known of the two, but even still, the scale of this is being driven by people celebrating.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,039
- 3,716
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Charlie Kirk got the world he wanted.
He said that sacrificing some people is worth it for the right to keep guns. He got to be one of the sacrifices.
He said that he couldn't stand empathy and thought that it did a lot of damage. He doesn't get any empathy since he wouldn't have wanted it.
He got his monkey paw wish. Why would anyone be sad about that?
He said that sacrificing some people is worth it for the right to keep guns. He got to be one of the sacrifices.
He said that he couldn't stand empathy and thought that it did a lot of damage. He doesn't get any empathy since he wouldn't have wanted it.
He got his monkey paw wish. Why would anyone be sad about that?
Because rules for three, but not for me.
Kirk thought the so called Left Wing and woke people would take his hateful shit lying down and now someone has shown empathy to the woke and left wing people by killing him. Now the question is when the shooter is found, we wonder what was the reason for it
Kirk thought the so called Left Wing and woke people would take his hateful shit lying down and now someone has shown empathy to the woke and left wing people by killing him. Now the question is when the shooter is found, we wonder what was the reason for it
Because I don't want a world where people use bullets against voices they do not wish to hear.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,039
- 3,716
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
So some folks are trying to play CSI/ get their 5s of internet fame by using AI to 'enhance' that one picture of a person of interest law enforcement has released.
Last one adds an entire person in the background and none of them can seem to figure out the print on the shirt is most likely an eagle on a US flag, but sure, very helpful having AI invent pictures of a possible suspect. AI is very good at this kind of thing after all
Last one adds an entire person in the background and none of them can seem to figure out the print on the shirt is most likely an eagle on a US flag, but sure, very helpful having AI invent pictures of a possible suspect. AI is very good at this kind of thing after all
Yeah, that's a very lovely sentiment, but if you look around you I'm sure you'll notice we are not on an even playing field. Charlie Kirk's was not simply a voice I didn't wish to hear, his was a voice that was inescapable, elevated by an algorithm in the hands of fascist tech giants. A voice that spoke constantly about how black, and queer people deserve scorn and worse, how women have no bodily autonomy, including his own daughter. A voice who said an amazing patriot should bail out the Pelosi attacker. All with a smile while he was racking in millions of dollars, spreading hatred and violence. And now, that what all the thousands of people he's made to feel unsafe for years have experienced, he got a lethal dose of.
He was a fascist propagandist. Fuck. Him. He got what he deserved.
Kirk was not just a random talking head. Plenty of Americans are suffering under a government that abuses its powers and tramples all over their rights. Kirk appeared publicly as a spokesman of and advisor to that government. The peoples frustration over how they're being treated wasn't gonna stay bottled up forever.
Things like these will keep happening until the American leadership will respect the rights of its people. Not making any assumptions about the assassin's personal motives, of course, but if it was done out of protest, he has excercised his right to bear arms exactly as the American constitution intended: In defense against a government that infringes upon the rights of its citizens.
Last edited:
The above, I think, is perhaps one of the more incisive things I've read here.
* * *
Charlie Kirk ultimately promoted a world which rejected caring about others in all sorts of ways. He was racist, Islamophobic, sexist. He advocated a vision of America that was perhaps more akin to the 1950s, and anyone who was outside that 1950s vision just didn't really matter that much. This is the context of the US right's attacks on empathy: "stop caring about other people [so we can treat them as inferiors]".
Well, maybe that sort of talk caused some of the population to stop caring about him. And that's okay.
I will absolutely bet you that just about everyone furious about people making light of Charlie Kirk's death don't care, make light of, or are outright satisfied by, the deaths of certain other people themselves. They do so because they don't like those people, or what they stand for. We could even take the very successful "Darwin Awards" meme, the success of which relies squarely on the concept that real people really dying can be funny. That's some useful perspective to remember if we step back from the immediate emotional responses and outrage hoo-ha.
We should oppose Kirk's death because murder isn't okay over this sort of political disagreement, and it's appropriate to signal that (I'm also okay with some dark humour, tactless as it may be). But I also have very little time for the emotionally incontinent outrage incoherently spat out about some if it. Fine, be angry that users here are laughing at Charlie Kirk's murder. But if you're not also calling out comments like:
Steven Bannon: "Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country."
Elon Musk: "If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is to fight or die."
Jesse Watters: "They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. What are we gonna do about it?"
then, I'm sorrry, you're just full of shit.
Some are speculating that people in the pro-israel crowd (like Mossad) had a motive to kill Charlie Kirk. Given a few of his recent statements in conversation with Megyn Kelly, it is surprisingly not so implausible:
he complained of being called antisemitic or "doing the bidding of Hamas" and otherwise being treated in a "repulsive" way by some israel supporters,
he has publicly entertained the idea that Epstein was a Mossad agent,
he is sounding the alarm over israel losing support in the United States due to the length of the "war" in Gaza,
he hosted (platformed!) Dave Smith (who is anti-israel), and
this is a direct quote: "And the more you try to tell me I can't criticize Israel, the more likely I am to do it."
This does fit the pattern of noises someone like a Dave Rubin made before his "why I left the left" moment, except in regards to israel rather than "the left". But that doesn't actually mean much; we can find patterns where they don't exist and extrapolating from this one is very thin reasoning.
The evidence in favor of it being an organization like Mossad behind the killing is so far limited to this speculation over motive, the apparent professionalism of the killing, and the speed with which Netanyahu announced his condolences, all of which are hardly compelling no matter if taken together or separately.
But still, it is worth exploring the idea if only to counterbalance the unfounded claims of those who are sure it is the work of trans Marxist DNC antifa and because it is the funniest reason it could have happened: someone who currently has a very pro-israel audience taking a turn like Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson could be much more damaging to the israeli cause than the work of any one of the hundreds of Palestinian journalists the israeli regime has killed in Gaza-- a disgusting reality, but it may be reality nonetheless. Those seem to be the power relations: israel depends on the government of the United States, the government of the United States is notionally responsive to public opinion in the United States sometimes, at least in theory, and MAGA seems to be guided by its well-paid influencers. Anyway, if killing were the method of dealing with that potentiality, it would have to be done very early in the process of that turn, ideally so that he can be portrayed as a martyr to the israeli cause (or "conservatism" in general) rather than a victim of its fanaticism. Otherwise it would be largely counterproductive. And of course the motivations of the perpetrator would have to be kept an absolute secret in such a case; there is no way it would be helpful to the israeli cause if they weren't. So it would be a very rash action even from the most amoral, self-interested point of view, but on the other hand israel seems to be doing a lot of those lately.
Others have speculated that Trump is behind the killing because Kirk called for the release of the Epstein files. I don't find this compelling either, but it is also consistent with what we know so far. The problem is, of course, that there are few ideas that are not consistent with what we know so far because what we know is very little and so we can hardly rule anything out: as regards this question, we are fumbling in the dark. People are rightly skeptical of US legal institutions, so it is likely that we won't really know much of anything in the near future either. May we all enjoy our years of lead paint.
he complained of being called antisemitic or "doing the bidding of Hamas" and otherwise being treated in a "repulsive" way by some israel supporters,
he has publicly entertained the idea that Epstein was a Mossad agent,
he is sounding the alarm over israel losing support in the United States due to the length of the "war" in Gaza,
he hosted (platformed!) Dave Smith (who is anti-israel), and
this is a direct quote: "And the more you try to tell me I can't criticize Israel, the more likely I am to do it."
This does fit the pattern of noises someone like a Dave Rubin made before his "why I left the left" moment, except in regards to israel rather than "the left". But that doesn't actually mean much; we can find patterns where they don't exist and extrapolating from this one is very thin reasoning.
The evidence in favor of it being an organization like Mossad behind the killing is so far limited to this speculation over motive, the apparent professionalism of the killing, and the speed with which Netanyahu announced his condolences, all of which are hardly compelling no matter if taken together or separately.
But still, it is worth exploring the idea if only to counterbalance the unfounded claims of those who are sure it is the work of trans Marxist DNC antifa and because it is the funniest reason it could have happened: someone who currently has a very pro-israel audience taking a turn like Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson could be much more damaging to the israeli cause than the work of any one of the hundreds of Palestinian journalists the israeli regime has killed in Gaza-- a disgusting reality, but it may be reality nonetheless. Those seem to be the power relations: israel depends on the government of the United States, the government of the United States is notionally responsive to public opinion in the United States sometimes, at least in theory, and MAGA seems to be guided by its well-paid influencers. Anyway, if killing were the method of dealing with that potentiality, it would have to be done very early in the process of that turn, ideally so that he can be portrayed as a martyr to the israeli cause (or "conservatism" in general) rather than a victim of its fanaticism. Otherwise it would be largely counterproductive. And of course the motivations of the perpetrator would have to be kept an absolute secret in such a case; there is no way it would be helpful to the israeli cause if they weren't. So it would be a very rash action even from the most amoral, self-interested point of view, but on the other hand israel seems to be doing a lot of those lately.
Others have speculated that Trump is behind the killing because Kirk called for the release of the Epstein files. I don't find this compelling either, but it is also consistent with what we know so far. The problem is, of course, that there are few ideas that are not consistent with what we know so far because what we know is very little and so we can hardly rule anything out: as regards this question, we are fumbling in the dark. People are rightly skeptical of US legal institutions, so it is likely that we won't really know much of anything in the near future either. May we all enjoy our years of lead paint.
It wasn't a "bad take", it was a deliberate lie to encourage voters to believe all political violence comes from the political left, as part of a deliberate and ongoing campaign to demonise the political left whilst the right ramps up their own violent rhetoric and political violence.
What about a world where people wield their voices like weapons? Inspiring and encouraging hate and calling to action those weak-willed yet able enough to affect dissent and damaging change? What about a world where those in power give such voices a platform, legitimacy, and endorsement? I'm no historian, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jews with his own two hands, but he certainly SAID enough that 6 million Jews died. For all we know, the gunman who killed Kirk is that time traveler we've collectively posited were time travel a possibility who came back to 2025 to effectively "kill Hitler."
So yeah, let's not virtue signal that Kirk's "unfortunate passing" is a failure of humanity or a loss to anyone but hate mongers who are chomping at he bit for violence on such a grander scale as to make the one shot that killed Kirk (kudos on the marksmanship) sound like merely the first kernel of popcorn that pops when you microwave a bag of hundreds of them.
We've been here, done this, before.
Last time around, it resulted in only about 70 million deaths...including six million Jews, and approximately five million Slavs, Roma, disabled, and LGBTQ's depending on source. That's just the people who were murdered for identity markers beyond the control of those murdered, not accounting for political dissidence or prisoner-of-war status. That's another five to six million more.
If someone had just put a bullet in Hitler's head sometime in the mid-1920's, it probably wouldn't have prevented World War II. The factors that caused it were bigger than Hitler or the Nazis alone, and if it wasn't them, it would have been one of the other volkisch. Hell, the NSDAP wasn't even the only expressly fascist party in interwar Germany. But, it might've prevented a genocide or two over the course of an otherwise inevitable war along the way.
Last edited: