There's a lot that can be said, but what stood out to me was how visceral the shot was. Can't imagine the first hand sight from the people right next to him, but it got my neck stiffening for a sec. Jesus.
Someones dead. Some other man has his blood on his hands. This is bad! It's irrelevant, which political side someone's on. Violence is never a way of political dispute.
The violence is likely only going to get worse. Yesterday alone police had to investigate a bomb threat at the DNC headquarters and the U.S. Naval Academy a midshipman and police officer were injured when they attacked each other due to circulating misinformation of an active shooter on campus. The midshipman thought the officer was the gunmen and hit him in the head with a parade rifle, the officer in defense shot the midshipman in the arm. In addition multiple historically black colleges and universities were under lockdown after receiving threats and had to cancel classes for concern for faculty and students.
A recent survey found 1 in 10 Americans believe political violence is sometimes justifiable to achieve political goals.
A recent survey found 1 in 10 Americans believe political violence is sometimes justifiable to achieve political goals.
I'm not sure just how accurate an assessment it is but I've seen a couple of people compare the current political climate to the run-up to the Irish Troubles (at least in the context of an uptick in violence). And as much as I despise Charlie and his ilk anyone trying to normalize this, no matter where they stand politically, might as well be voting for leopards to eat people's faces.
Someones dead. Some other man has his blood on his hands. This is bad! It's irrelevant, which political side someone's on. Violence is never a way of political dispute.
History unfortunately has proven otherwise. Not condoning this terrible act either. I'm just glad I grew up under the cyclical peace phase I was not obliged to kill other people for "freedom" under a dictator in power.
Also, too common political side doesn't matter only when assassin belongs to the same party and not a minority from the other one.
Be more critical of your news before relaying them, please. You're saying things that are just as fake as the one who said the shooter was a trump supporter
"It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment". - Charlie Kirk
Shooter was a Trump supporter so it was prolly a groyper who thinks that Kirk was too moderate.
Conservative family? Yes. Conservative shooter? No. The shooter was living, potentially romantically involved, with a person in transition, and they were also a member of a Democratic Socalist society and a routine member of Antifa rallies.
Conservative family? Yes. Conservative shooter? No. The shooter was living, potentially romantically involved, with a person in transition, and they were also a member of a Democratic Socalist society and a routine member of Antifa rallies.
It's related to the Epstein Files. Kirk has been demanding for the release. But I digress, one less pest not worth mourning. Jerimaiah 16: 3-4
The shooter was living, potentially romantically involved, with a person in transition, and they were also a member of a Democratic Socalist society and a routine member of Antifa rallies.
This is just basseless speculation, because your side try, so hard, to put the blame the death of big head Kirk on the left, so you don't have to admit that the right is a breeding ground for extremist violence.
That is rather disgusting to say about a man murdered because someone didn't like what he said.
It's not disgusting when it's the truth. The verses I mentioned EXPLICITLY state that about how people like Kirk should die and also are not worth mourning for.
Jer 16:3 For thus saith the Lord concerning the sons and concerning the daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them, and concerning their fathers that begat them in this land;
4 They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
5 For thus saith the Lord, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go to lament nor bemoan them: for I have taken away my peace from this people, saith the Lord, even lovingkindness and mercies.
6 Both the great and the small shall die in this land: they shall not be buried, neither shall men lament for them, nor cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them:
7 Neither shall men tear themselves for them in mourning, to comfort them for the dead; neither shall men give them the cup of consolation to drink for their father or for their mother.
8 Thou shalt not also go into the house of feasting, to sit with them to eat and to drink.
If you actually paid attention to the deeper meaning to these words, you will know why I said one less pest not worth mourning for
It's not disgusting when it's the truth. The verses I mentioned EXPLICITLY state that about how people like Kirk should die and also are not worth mourning for.
The Bible doesn't trump basic human decency. You don't need to shed any tears for him, but his murder is nothing to celebrate.
Putting aside the immorality of the whole thing, if the shooting really was due to political disagreement (we still don't know the actual motivation yet), then it was a Cipolla-style stupid act; a harmful act with no benefit to the left. There are plenty that can take Charlie Kirk's place (his wife is claiming she'll take up the mantle) and will fight even harder. The right will gain more fence-sitters and the left is already being demonized for this despite a majority of them also being heavily against the shooter's actions.
That not the issue, Skydragon just desmonstrate the hypocrisy of right-wingers who use the bible in order to justify their shitty behavior, when plenty passages of the same bible outright condamn what the right-wingers are doing.
Also they have such an huge martyr complexe that anything that happen, they will use it to justify their psychotic tendency.
History unfortunately has proven otherwise. Not condoning this terrible act either. I'm just glad I grew up under the cyclical peace phase I was not obliged to kill other people for "freedom" under a dictator in power.
Also, too common political side doesn't matter only when assassin belongs to the same party and not a minority from the other one.
I didn't say, that vioence isn't used for political means. I'm saying, that no good comes of it. In the last 200 years no occasion comes to my mind, where a assasination actually changed the political landscape for the better. The assasination of Reinhard Heydrich only led to massive retaliation by the Nazis, The aasanitation of Franz-Ferdinand of Austria triggered the First World War. All political motivated murders of the Red Army Faction led to nothing but a more repressive political cimate in Germany ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Autumn ). Killing Charlie Kirk made him a martyr.
A cult was broken up AFTER they succeeded in assassinating someone. That's not meeting the burdon of "an assassination that made the world better."
No, it does. "An assassination that made the world better" by definition implies that the hit happened, because it it were to happen before then it'd be a 'planned assassination' instead.
That not the issue, Skydragon just desmonstrate the hypocrisy of right-wingers who use the bible in order to justify their shitty behavior, when plenty passages of the same bible outright condamn what the right-wingers are doing.
Also they have such an huge martyr complexe that anything that happen, they will use it to justify their psychotic tendency.
Repeat after me: Selective reading. Because they dare not read certain scriptures as those scriptures perfectly describe them. Examples being Proverbs 6:16-19 and Matthew 23
Repeat after me: Selective reading. Because they dare not read certain scriptures as those scriptures perfectly describe them. Examples being Proverbs 6:16-19 and Matthew 23
If you opened with those instead of "one less pest not worth mourning" and "The verses I mentioned EXPLICITLY state that about how people like Kirk should die and also are not worth mourning for," maybe your point would've been clearer. More so if you actually explained you were pointing out the hypocrisy instead of relying on the Bible verses to do all the work. Most people here aren't biblical scholars. I'm definitely not one, and it's not immediately obvious to me how a prophet being told to send a warning to a doomed city of idolators via refraining from marriage, funeral attendance, etc. is related to this (unless you're talking about Trumpism in general).
If you opened with those instead of "one less pest not worth mourning" and "The verses I mentioned EXPLICITLY state that about how people like Kirk should die and also are not worth mourning for," maybe your point would've been clearer. More so if you actually explained you were pointing out the hypocrisy instead of relying on the Bible verses to do all the work. Most people here aren't biblical scholars. I'm definitely not one, and it's not immediately obvious to me how a prophet being told to send a warning to a doomed city of idolators via refraining from marriage, funeral attendance, etc. is related to this (unless you're talking about Trumpism in general).
You just don't get it do you? I spoke about what kind of legacy you want to leave behind yesterday. The TL:DR of it is that how you want people to remember you is determined by your actions. Unfortanely for Charlie, because of the rhetoric, the legacy he'll left behind will be an overwhelmingly negative one. As I've said; if you don't want ill be spoken of you when you're dead, then DON'T be an asshole while you're alive. We shouldn't normalize mourning for pricks like Charlie, but at the same time, we shouldn't be celebrating his life either. Call me nihilistic, but it is what it is. Live by the weapon, die by the weapon
We shouldn't normalize mourning for pricks like Charlie, but at the same time, we shouldn't be celebrating his life either.
The fuck? He wasn't murdering people, why are people not allowed to mourn him??
The thing that shouldn't be normalized is celebrating fucking murder.
Why are so many of the comments on this post so batshit insane? Why are the comments saying it's terrible that a man was murdered the ones with the most downvotes?
You just don't get it do you? I spoke about what kind of legacy you want to leave behind yesterday. The TL:DR of it is that how you want people to remember you is determined by your actions. Unfortanely for Charlie, because of the rhetoric, the legacy he'll left behind will be an overwhelmingly negative one. As I've said; if you don't want ill be spoken of you when you're dead, then DON'T be an asshole while you're alive. We shouldn't normalize mourning for pricks like Charlie, but at the same time, we shouldn't be celebrating his life either. Call me nihilistic, but it is what it is. Live by the weapon, die by the weapon
polite debate is something not worth remembering? Man never raised his voice, never uttered slurs, never disparaged anyone who talked or mocked him, and he got a rifle sound to the throat for it.
The fuck? He wasn't murdering people, why are people not allowed to mourn him??
The thing that shouldn't be normalized is celebrating fucking murder.
Why are so many of the comments on this post so batshit insane? Why are the comments saying it's terrible that a man was murdered the ones with the most downvotes?
Such is the political climate we live in. If you think Germany under Nazi rule was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet. And as I said that, have you noticed the parrells between Germany in 1933 and the US in 2025?
Such is the political climate we live in. If you think Germany under Nazi rule was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet. And as I said that, have you noticed the parrells between Germany in 1933 and the US in 2025?
Out of all of the 11,000,000 people killed under Hitler and the Nazi regime, a total of zero Hitler kill can be personally attributed to the man himself.
It is an astonishing fact given the personal history of Hitler and the amount of death that surrounded him.
I say anyone is free to mourn at anyone if they want to... or not. Actions have consequences after all.
You can generally tell how decent a person really is by how vehemently they express hatred for someone else. That's the general impression I'm getting from this conversation.
A single shot was fired, a fired casing found with the rifle read "Notices bulge OWO what's this?". YouTube link
I had to watch this 3 times before it sunk in as real. The way the speaker reads it out is just too hilarious, I know it's linked to the case of a brutal murder, but I just can't, it just sounds too unreal.
The fuck? He wasn't murdering people, why are people not allowed to mourn him??
The thing that shouldn't be normalized is celebrating fucking murder.
Why are so many of the comments on this post so batshit insane? Why are the comments saying it's terrible that a man was murdered the ones with the most downvotes?
It's a confluence of several things.
Charlie Kirk was the exemplar of the debate-me-bro conservative, a man so virulently dedicated to the cause of ensuring the continued rise of the far-right in the US that hardly anyone in the space right now could fill in his shoes. And anyone who has actually paid attention to what Kirk has been saying for years, and those circling around him, would know that they advocated for and celebrated murder all the goddamn time, and spoke ill of the dead to boot. And unlike Twitter leftists and liberals, they had massive audiences who took in that celebration and internalized it. Had this been one of Kirk's political enemies that had been shot and killed, he would not be calling for political murder to not be normalized (and, fundamentally speaking, most of his ilk still have not, because they themselves have called for others to be murdered, which is why they focus on people celebrating his death instead of calling for people not to be murdered). This was a man whose impact was as wide as Alex Jones during his peak (we all know the direct harm his claim that Sandy Hook had been faked had on the people of that community), if not wider and focused on a far broader target.
Is it terrible that he was murdered? Yes, absolutely. I would rather he had died of natural causes, like a sudden brain hemorrhage or something, while emphasizing how much retirement shouldn't be a thing or something similar. But one cannot deny that everything he advocated for lined up for his murder. He died believing some gun deaths were acceptable in exchange for keeping the Second Amendment, with his final debate reportedly being about shootings. He died believing kids should watch public executions, and that they should be televised. He died with selective empathy, with all his allies giving only the most paltry recognition towards him now that he's of no use to the movement, and his death likely to fall out of the news cycle about as fast as the the murders of two Minnesota Democrats, Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, with another set of attempted murders, of state senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, earlier that morning. To mourn Charlie Kirk, to eulogize him, requires reconciling with all of his views, or sweeping it under the rug as the liberal media is doing due to fearing this could turn into another Brian Thompson situation.
Anyone, especially on the right, arguing that "you won't like what will come after him", implying worse things still to come, doesn't realize that worse things are already coming. Anything that Kirk's death could justify is already in the pipeline anyway, it's already coming. Trump had already moved on a day after his murder, trying to tell journalists about the work being done at the White House ballroom over wanting to talk about that further. The government doesn't need him to die to justify anything, it just makes things slightly more convenient at the cost of an important asset when it comes to dealing with younger demographics. It's also why the government hasn't immediately jumped on claiming the shooter to be a left-winger, especially when you know the FBI would likely have all the info already, so that job is left instead to lower officials without federal authority to claim otherwise. So, seeing the escalation for the calls of violence from the right, paired with the death of one of its most prominent ideologues, has people saying "fuck it, I'm going to loudly state that he deserved to die and I don't care in what way that death happened."
Anyone saying we shouldn't be celebrating fucking murder is over two decades late. It's too late to stop people now.
You just don't get it do you? I spoke about what kind of legacy you want to leave behind yesterday. The TL:DR of it is that how you want people to remember you is determined by your actions. Unfortanely for Charlie, because of the rhetoric, the legacy he'll left behind will be an overwhelmingly negative one. As I've said; if you don't want ill be spoken of you when you're dead, then DON'T be an asshole while you're alive. We shouldn't normalize mourning for pricks like Charlie, but at the same time, we shouldn't be celebrating his life either. Call me nihilistic, but it is what it is. Live by the weapon, die by the weapon
Clearly, I didn't get it. I said as much in my last sentence. The same logic applies to you as well; if you don't want your point misconstrued, then you need to be careful in how you express it (the MSNBC reporter that got fired learned that the hard way). It's not about being more sensitive, but about knowing your audience and getting your point across more clearly. Case in point, I actually took the time to look up the Bible verses you cited to get some context, but again, I'm not well-versed in the Bible and I probably misunderstood quite a few things. I would not expect most users here to put in that much effort, and they shouldn't have to.
I acknowledge you eventually explained your point clearly, but doing so from the beginning would have saved time, prevented misunderstandings, and maybe even spared you a few downvotes.
The fuck? He wasn't murdering people, why are people not allowed to mourn him??
The thing that shouldn't be normalized is celebrating fucking murder.
Why are so many of the comments on this post so batshit insane? Why are the comments saying it's terrible that a man was murdered the ones with the most downvotes?
Because this site, much like the rest of the internet, is an echo chamber. The guy wrote "hey fascist, catch" on one of the bullets and had a gay relationship with a transexual but comment #2545223 is at -9 because it goes against the hive mind narrative. It's pathetic.
What seems to be emerging from the investigation is that years of calling people you don't like nazis and saying they're out to get you personally will in fact convince schizos on the internet that those people are nazis and should be murdered.
Keep in mind that these are the same people that then act surprised when these events only galvanize the affected party. Just look at the comments under the various posts for 2024 attempted assassination of donald trump to see a gallery of clueless muppets who think they know all about how the world works. If anything, it's good entertainment to go back every few months after events like these happen and see how badly they're proven wrong. comment #2444406 is always a treat.
Damian's comment is particularly ironic. Tons of upvotes for what is essentially "murder is bad, BUT". I do wonder if these are the same people that end up surprised over and over again whenever the far right all around the western world makes "surprising" gains just by campaigning against them. It's the delusional kind of view of the world you can only find on the internet.
What Kirk's murder did end up achieving was propelling Nick Fuentes and his army of groypers on the forefront of the alt-right. Kirk was the moderate, I suspect his opposition will like the alternative even less.
Because this site, much like the rest of the internet, is an echo chamber. The guy wrote "hey fascist, catch" on one of the bullets and had a gay relationship with a transexual but comment #2545223 is at -9 because it goes against the hive mind narrative. It's pathetic.
Damian's comment is particularly ironic. Tons of upvotes for what is essentially "murder is bad, BUT". I do wonder if these are the same people that end up surprised over and over whenever the far right all over the western world makes "surprising" gains just by campaigning against them.
I find it particularly ironic you call this site an echo chamber when it doesn't fit your own narrative, given your own track record politically, especially when you of all people would be aware of the coopting of anti-fascist rhetoric by Groypers to cause confusion. If the federal government themselves doesn't explicitly state that the claims being spread by the Utah governor are correct, which you absolutely know they would if they were true, then I think that speaks to the veracity of the claims.
I make no allusions to the fact that, even with me disagreeing with the fact that Kirk got killed, I think it's good he's dead, but you can't just claim I argued "murder is bad, BUT". blindVigil asked why people were celebrating, why people are willing to normalize murder, and I stated the facts and rationale as they were. Additionally, since 2016 I haven't been surprised at all by the gains made again and again by the far-right. Liberals are too emaciated by their presumption of the world having moved past ideology that their only arguing points are now that they aren't the other guy, a position they chose to take back in the 90s when they decided emulating Reagan and Thatcher is the only way forward to achieve political victory. The left is politically cucked, the liberals having pulled the rug under them and kicking them out of the house, and forced to watch they eat up the continued demonization of the left on the part of the right, deluding themselves that the right was just dominated by a handful of far-right bad apples and that the spoiling can be ignored.
The fact that so many liberals keep getting surprised that the far-right is succeeding is all down to the fact that they think their conciliary actions towards them should be working, that at some point the far-right will stop being the far-right and return to neoliberal politics. But it's been 30 years and they have nothing to show for it. They have no one but themselves to blame.
What seems to be emerging from the investigation is that years of calling people you don't like nazis and saying they're out to get you personally will in fact convince schizos on the internet that those people are nazis and should be murdered.
What Kirk's murder did end up achieving was propelling Nick Fuentes and his army of groypers on the forefront of the alt-right. Kirk was the moderate, I suspect his opposition will like the alternative even less.
If it turns out that the murderer is in fact a Groyper, which I'm honestly currently doubtful of (reports seem to suggest some sort of enlightened centrist type, which would honestly be the worst case scenario here, since there'd be no real motive aside from internet brainrot making him go shoot the guy, and if that kind of political violence gets normalized that's absolutely not good), I'm 100% believing that the right establishment will not back Fuentes. Adin Ross already alienated Trump with that Cybertruck that had his post-assassination attempt picture plastered on it, forcing him to continuously remember what was probably the worst day of his life, and Trump knows Ross associates with Fuentes. Nick is too terminally online for the establishment, he has no shot of succeeding Kirk, and I'll stake my moderatorship on it.
Keep in mind that these are the same people that then act surprised when these events only galvanize the affected party. Just look at the comments under the various posts for 2024 attempted assassination of donald trump to see a gallery of clueless muppets who think they know all about how the world works. If anything, it's good entertainment to go back every few months after events like these happen and see how badly they're proven wrong. comment #2444406 is always a treat.
That comment was ultimately right though. The assassination did not in fact skyrocket him to the White House. Trump completely avoided talking about it shortly after it happened, as the man got fucking traumatized by it. He would've won the election even without the assassination. Of course, the commenter didn't mean it in that way whatsoever, but that doesn't change the facts. The Harris/Walz campaign dropped the ball almost immediately after Biden began dictating conformity, and all but the liberals recognized that.
If it turns out that the murderer is in fact a Groyper
This level of cope is frankly insane. Was this "groyper" also fucking that transsexual completely ironically just to pass as an antifascist?
Damian0358 said:
That comment was ultimately right though.
The fact that you can spin a comment like that one into the complete opposite of what it means DESPITE a real world outcome proving it wrong, is the reason why I never bother participating in internet debates about politics. Why bother arguing with people who can type things like these with a straight face?
This level of cope is frankly insane. Was this "groyper" also fucking that transsexual completely ironically just to pass as an antifascist?
I'm already doubtful that the murderer is a groyper, so I don't understand why you bothered with this response.
The fact that you can spin a comment like that one into the complete opposite of what it means DESPITE a real world outcome proving it wrong, is the reason why I never bother participating in internet debates about politics. Why bother arguing with people who can type things like these with a straight face?
And here I already specified that the commenter didn't mean it like that at all. What's the point getting angry at my comments when you choose not to fully read them?
You wrote four paragraphs about "what if the shooter is actually a groyper? Just kidding haha unless..." I don't know how you can't see how annoying it is to engage with this kind of argument. It's the kind of shit redditors get up to. The kind of debate that is not in good faith, but is only presented as a way to "gotcha" the other party.
>"trump's assassination won't help him win!" >trump's assassination helps him win >"uhhm actually it traumatized it and made it worse for him, the comment was right!"
This is retarded. I could spend a hour engaging you over this nonsense and none of us would gain anything. It's pointless semantic masturbation.
The fact that so many liberals keep getting surprised that the far-right is succeeding is all down to the fact that they think their conciliary actions towards them should be working,
You wrote four paragraphs about "what if the shooter is actually a groyper? Just kidding haha unless..."
I only implied the odds of the shooter being a groyper in half a sentence. You're spinning my comments to fit your own narrative.
I don't know how you can't see how annoying it is to engage with this kind of argument. It's the kind of shit redditors get up to. The kind of debate that is not in good faith, but is only presented as a way to "gotcha" the other party.
>"trump's assassination won't help him win!" >trump's assassination helps him win >"uhhm actually it traumatized it and made it worse for him, the comment was right!"
And this is ignoring your earlier attempt to use his assassination as a gotcha moment as well, attempting to claim that it ensured Trump's victory at the election when all the stats we have point to it having an ultimately negligent effect on his results. The comment's intent was wrong, we both agree on this, the commenter has egg on their face, but the words in of themselves weren't.
"conciliary actions" such as murder lmao
And here you're implying that the murderer is a liberal, when just like my own opinion on him potentially being an enlightened centrist, we have no evidence for that, and most liberals don't call for violence either. The left and the right do.
This is retarded. I could spend a hour engaging you over this nonsense and none of us would gain anything. It's pointless semantic masturbation.
And here you're implying that the murderer is a liberal, when just like my own opinion on him potentially being an enlightened centrist, we have no evidence for that,
I was going to say "if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and flies like a duck and looks like a duck", but as I was typing this comment I actually saw a news article that directly states (quote from the director of FBI, whether you believe the glowies is another story):
This is the textbook example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Plenty of liberals, just like plenty of conservatives, call for murder all the time. Some republicans were openly calling for the death of Obama back when he got elected. Now the pendulum is in full swing, and it's the other side of the political spectrum being radicalized into murderous extremism. You just have to look at the wave of people getting fired for openly celebrating their murder on social media, it's gotten so big that several articles have been written about it - hell, people are celebrating their death in this very comment thread.
Hell. This piece of "art" was made in celebration of his death.
You don't have to like the guy or agree with everything he said. You don't have to mourn him. But you also don't have to celebrate his death. You could just participate in polite society and keep that fucking thought to yourself. But that would be asking too much, clearly.
Let's not forget what the first comments were here, and how they were downvoted to hell. The Left is out of touch with reality. We even have videos of them going to the vigils just to be disruptive and hateful, and even trash the memorials. We have videos of them chanting "We got Charlie in the neck"
They celebrated it, they said shit like "Do this person next", and it was all built off of years of calling Republicans things like "Fascists", "Nazis", "a basket of deplorables", "enemies of the state", "an extreme threat to our democracy", and a myriad of other colorful little insults.
The Left tells on themselves, and then pretends it doesn't happen, especially when there's backlash. Look at all the cope about how it must be a right winger that did it. Oh, sorry, I wasn't talking about the Charlie Kirk assassination, I meant the Trump assassination attempt(s). But they did it there too.
I was going to say "if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and flies like a duck and looks like a duck", but as I was typing this comment I actually saw a news article that directly states (quote from the director of FBI, whether you believe the glowies is another story):
Well, there we go then. I don't believe the glowies either, but that is one step closer to the federal government finally claiming that he's a leftist, though you'd think they would've done so sooner regardless.
This is the textbook example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Plenty of liberals, just like plenty of conservatives, call for murder all the time. Some republicans were openly calling for the death of Obama back when he got elected. Now the pendulum is in full swing, and it's the other side of the political spectrum being radicalized into murderous extremism. You just have to look at the wave of people getting fired for openly celebrating their murder on social media, it's gotten so big that several articles have been written about it - hell, people are celebrating their death in this very comment thread.
I don't think the pendulum has swung the other way at all, as that'd imply that the Republicans stopped openly calling for death. The pendulum has stopped mid-swing and now, after all these years, the other side has decided to do as the Republicans do. Regardless, I don't think the folks in the comment section here are liberals. You can't look me in the eyes and tell me that someone like Skydragon0 is a liberal with their active citing of scripture to justify Kirk's death, or say that I of all people am a liberal. That'd be like someone calling you a liberal.
Aw, am I making you uncomfortable? Good. Let's keep talking reality.
You weren't going to make the Right convinced that you're being sincere with your talk of "turn down the temperature" and "I didn't really mean that we wanted someone to get killed"
What you DID convince is the normies that don't get wrapped up in this much. They went online, saw everyone cheering, dancing, singing, celebrating, chanting that someone got killed. Then they looked into who it was and why. They saw how he died. For fuck's sake, at least consider what it looks like.
Even if he really was a fascist (and let's ignore the irony in killing someone over politics you disagree with whilst claiming they are a fascist), when you say something like "live by the sword, die by the sword", look at what he had in his hand when he got a bullet in the neck.
It was a microphone. And the last question was, completely legitimately, about the problem of violence, and how the Left are supposedly more peaceful. You made people leave your party, and you made everyone else who really wasn't that into politics start sprinting away from you.
And you kept doubling down, and tripling down, and so on. And instead of thinking "Hmm. Maybe this really doesn't look good and we should stop the rhetoric", you're taking the time to blame the Right for being a "breeding ground for violence"
Even if you are correct in that assertion, that's not how it looks to people. Use your damn brains for once.
"live by the sword, die by the sword", look at what he had in his hand when he got a bullet in the neck.
It was a microphone.
*facepalm* That's not what that means! To 'live by the sword' means to make a living with a sword. Who made their living with swords? Knights and sellswords. How did they often meet their end? By the pointy end of somebody else's sword, and that's where 'die by the sword' comes from. You live by the tool of your trade, you die by it. That's what it means!
Charlie Kirk believed that a certain number of gun deaths were necessary to defend the Second Amendment. That's his 'sword' - his rhetoric, not a literal microphone! He died by being shot. Live by peddling gun violence, die by gun violence.
*facepalm* That's not what that means! To 'live by the sword' means to make a living with a sword. Who made their living with swords? Knights and sellswords. How did they often meet their end? By the pointy end of somebody else's sword, and that's where 'die by the sword' comes from.
Charlie Kirk believed that a certain number of gun deaths were necessary to defend the Second Amendment. That's his 'sword'! He died by being shot. Live by peddling gun violence, die by gun violence. That's what it means!
Yes. It is necessary. In the same way it is necessary to have some deaths if you have cars. Or transportation, or industrial machinery. All of these things cause deaths but are still necessary to raise the quality of life. We can talk about ways to mitigate these costs (and we often do), but guns themselves are not the problem.
You can't even get rid of all guns. You could make all guns illegal right now, this very second. And you still won't solve the "gun problem epidemic", you won't solve the violence, and you're just going to make an uptick in violence because people will refuse to roll over for that.
Look at how people in the UK can be jailed for the things they say. The gun control you all talk about would see him in jail. Alive, yes. But criminal for daring to speak. In the one place where you SHOULD be able to speak and challenge ideas. Are you actually that stupid?
Yes. It is necessary. In the same way it is necessary to have some deaths if you have cars. Or transportation, or industrial machinery. All of these things cause deaths but are still necessary to raise the quality of life. We can talk about ways to mitigate these costs (and we often do), but guns themselves are not the problem.
No they are not. You can have guns and not have any deaths. Anybody who suffers from a mental illness shouldn't have access to guns, anyone who was convicted of a serious crime shouldn't have access to guns, anyone who talks about committing crimes on social shouldn't have access to guns - in a sane country all of these things should be red flags when they conduct the background checks when purchasing guns. But not in America, you hand out guns to anybody who wants them. Handguns, machine guns, snipers, anything they want!
You can't even get rid of all guns. You could make all guns illegal right now, this very second. And you still won't solve the "gun problem epidemic", you won't solve the violence, and you're just going to make an uptick in violence because people will refuse to roll over for that.
Nobody is talking about taking guns away from people who went through the proper procedures, you asshole. It's all about making the acquisition more stringent, to prevent kids from being able to shoot up schools!
Look at how people in the UK can be jailed for the things they say. The gun control you all talk about would see him in jail. Alive, yes. But criminal for daring to speak. In the one place where you SHOULD be able to speak and challenge ideas. Are you actually that stupid?
False equivalence. The UK is currently descending into an authoritarian state, it is not a model to emulate. He should not have had a public forum to peddle his homophobic, transphobic, violent ideas though.
You don't have to like the guy or agree with everything he said. You don't have to mourn him. But you also don't have to celebrate his death. You could just participate in polite society and keep that fucking thought to yourself. But that would be asking too much, clearly.
This connects to what I said about liberals thinking their conciliary actions towards the far-right would work eventually. What happened instead was the far-right taking the liberal playbook and using it against them to further their own position. Saying "You could just participate in polite society and keep that fucking thought to yourself" is quite literally a liberal talking point, one that Charlie Kirk himself regularly did not engage in. He quite literally said that someone should bail out the guy that attacked Paul Pelosi and left him with a fractured skull, live on his show, and no one told him to fucking keep that thought to himself, same with every other instance of him making similar remarks since 2020 through his show.
You made people leave your party, and you made everyone else who really wasn't that into politics start sprinting away from you.
What party? The Left was kicked out of the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton and the neoliberal New Democrats took charge back in the 90s, and effectively turned the party into the "Republicans-but-better" knockoff party. The Left has not had a proper foot in the door for decades in national politics due to Democratic gatekeeping (with the closest the Left had gotten since being blocked by the wife of the man who represented the New Democrats). You can't have someone spring away from you when they hardly know your politics to begin with, when they're given the options of center-right neoliberal and right/far-right neoliberal (and when given the choice between the knockoff and the original, why would you choose the former?).
It was all built off of years of calling Republicans things like "Fascists", "Nazis", "a basket of deplorables", "enemies of the state", "an extreme threat to our democracy", and a myriad of other colorful little insults.
Completely ignoring the years of both Republicans and even Democrats demonizing anyone further left from either party, because that would change the context of those insults.
They went online, saw everyone cheering, dancing, singing, celebrating, chanting that someone got killed. Then they looked into who it was and why. They saw how he died. For fuck's sake, at least consider what it looks like.
And this happened any time the Right also celebrated someone being attacked or killed too, if there was footage available.
You weren't going to make the Right convinced that you're being sincere with your talk of "turn down the temperature" and "I didn't really mean that we wanted someone to get killed"
What group are you even speaking about? In all the commentary in the days since his murder, I've not seen anyone express that combo of views together, on any side of the political spectrum, except like, Nick Fuentes, and that was only because Groypers began gaslighting themselves that the shooter was one of them, and he needed to get ahead of that and get them in line to not ruin his political odds.
Even if he really was a fascist, when you say something like "live by the sword, die by the sword", look at what he had in his hand when he got a bullet in the neck.
It was a microphone. And the last question was, completely legitimately, about the problem of violence, and how the Left are supposedly more peaceful.
A microphone which he repeatedly used to advocate things which one would not say in "polite society," if we both agree on what that term entails. Someone decided to answer his stochastic terrorism with armed terrorism.
Instead of thinking "Hmm. Maybe this really doesn't look good and we should stop the rhetoric", you're taking the time to blame the Right for being a "breeding ground for violence"
Even if you are correct in that assertion, that's not how it looks to people. Use your damn brains for once.
If the right is not going to stop its rhetoric in light of Kirk's murder, then why shouldn't anyone follow in their footsteps? It is increasingly obvious that liberals are braindead to the thought of holding anyone responsible to their rhetoric, and with the right in charge, that means their word is what everyone will emulate. Their strategy clearly works in invigorating people to support them, as you yourself pointed out by the Left using the Right's own playbook to boost their opinions on Kirk's murder, as well as previously with Brian Thompson's murder. If you want the Left to stop escalating the rhetoric, then the Right has to turn down the temperature.
When even the fucking Economist recognizes that the right has historically been overrepresented in political violence, anyone using their damn brains knows which group needs to turn the heat down, and it's not the folks who only get brought up in this discussion because they're loud on social media.
Valen25 said:
Look at how people in the UK can be jailed for the things they say. The gun control you all talk about would see him in jail. Alive, yes. But criminal for daring to speak. In the one place where you SHOULD be able to speak and challenge ideas. Are you actually that stupid?
Then why wasn't Nigel Farage arrested for the multiple occassions where he expressed his support for the relaxing of UK's gun laws, to the point of petitioning the government on the issue back in 2015? I assume you're just using 'gun control' as a proxy because otherwise it would require mentioning somethingelse.
No they are not. You can have guns and not have any deaths. Anybody who suffers from a mental illness shouldn't have access to guns, anyone who was convicted of a serious crime shouldn't have access to guns, anyone who talks about committing crimes on social shouldn't have access to guns - in a sane country all of these things should be red flags when they conduct the background checks when purchasing guns. But not in America, you hand out guns to anybody who wants them. Handguns, machine guns, snipers, anything they want!
Nobody is talking about taking guns away from people who went through the proper procedures, you asshole. It's all about making the acquisition more stringent, to prevent kids from being able to shoot up schools!
False equivalence. The UK is currently descending into an authoritarian state, it is not a model to emulate. He should not have had a public forum to peddle his homophobic, transphobic, gun violence ideas though.
The acquisition is already stringent. In fact it wasn't even any of the kinds of guns that you normally talk about controlling that ended up killing Charlie Kirk. If he's homophobic, why are there so many gays that he ended up being friends with? If he's transphobic, how come there's the interview where he clearly and plainly said that instead of putting potentially dangerous drugs into your body or making irreversible life-altering surgeries, you should try to love and respect the body you were born in?
He wasn't even advocating for gun violence. He advocates for the ownership of guns so that you can protect yourself. As for Damian, if we want to start pointing to other examples, tell me how gun control would have saved Iryna Zarutska, then.
You will not solve violence by taking weapons away. People will always find a way to hurt other people. Guns level the playing field for those that may not be as physically strong as their attackers. A little old lady can put a dangerous thug down just the same.
You can say it's a false equivalence. But when you disarm the populace, you make it easier for the government to do whatever they want to them. Are we really pretending that the Online Safety Act isn't a cancer? That Keir Starmer isn't pushing things that I'm pretty sure everyone here should rightfully be opposed to? Seriously?
Swinging back around; No, you can't just buy machine guns, or snipers, or "anything they want", if you're going to talk about these things, at least be sure you actually know what the gun laws are. The majority of these guns that are used for violence are either purchased illegally, or they were taken from someone else. OR, they don't have any kind of record that could be used to deny them. Probably because our mental healthcare systems suck.
But sure, just ban more guns because "peddling gun violence"
As for Damian, if we want to start pointing to other examples, tell me how gun control would have saved Iryna Zarutska, then.
I didn't even say anything good or bad about gun control, I just asked why Nigel Farage hadn't been arrested for his advocacy towards relaxing the UK's gun laws, because, again, he's been supportive of that for over ten years at this point. And if we're bringing up Iryna Zarutka and non-gun violence, I will just once more point to what Kirk said in regards to the hammer attack suffered by Paul Pelosi. Gun control would not have stopped that from happening either, and he seemed quite eager to support the attacker.
I didn't even say anything good or bad about gun control, I just asked why Nigel Farage hadn't been arrested for his advocacy towards relaxing the UK's gun laws, because, again, he's been supportive of that for over ten years at this point. And if we're bringing up Iryna Zarutka and non-gun violence, I will just once more point to what Kirk said in regards to the hammer attack suffered by Paul Pelosi. Gun control would not have stopped that from happening either, and he seemed quite eager to support the attacker.
I don't know why. I only know that people ARE being arrested for the things they say, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
As for Paul Pelosi, I don't know what to think about that either. I think that whole situation is odd and I feel like everyone chose a side when everyone should have actually been like "This is just really weird, and probably shouldn't involve me", and that flies for everyone in the political landscape.
I can only suppose that people wanted to free the attacker in order to speak to him, which is just as silly as letting someone go after being arrested 14 times for criminal activity.
Silly, yes. But does that warrant shooting him, killing him, and celebrating it? Because if we're advocating for that for every dumb idea someone has, we'd clean the entire world out.
But does that warrant shooting him, killing him, and celebrating it? Because if we're advocating for that for every dumb idea someone has, we'd clean the entire world out.
No, it doesn't, and, as I emphasized back at the start, it is a terrible thing that he got murdered.
I was fully prepared (as were many others) to continue engaging with his horrible rhetoric into my twilight years, as he becomes remembered as this generation's Rush Limbaugh, speaking at the White House in 2081 after another right-wing neoliberal wins the election and cites him as the reason why he got into electoral politics, peddling the same violent rhetoric and lies as he always had. But I'm not going to chide those celebrating his death, when he himself wouldn't have chided his peers were this political violence against his opponents.
No, it doesn't, and, as I emphasized back at the start, it is a terrible thing that he got murdered.
I was fully prepared (as were many others) to continue engaging with his horrible rhetoric into my twilight years, as he becomes remembered as this generation's Rush Limbaugh, speaking at the White House in 2081 after another right-wing neoliberal wins the election and cites him as the reason why he got into electoral politics, peddling the same violent rhetoric and lies as he always had. But I'm not going to chide those celebrating his death, when he himself wouldn't have chided his peers were this political violence against his opponents.
I still don't know what was so horrible or violent about his rhetoric. I don't know what lies he spoke of. The one legitimate thing I have seen is that he had an honest god weird take involving Paul Pelosi -- and you got me there, that's a damn weird thing to push for.
The thing is, a lot of people know even less than I do, and no one seemed to slow down and consider that before plastering their glee up for the world to see. When they actually look into his videos (same as I did), they're not going to find these wildly offensive things you're talking about. They just see a guy, about as old as I am, who was trying to spark debate.
And now I have to wonder if it's safe for me to talk, or if people would want me dead, full stop, no reservations. That's the cost of letting that kind of thing fester.
If he's homophobic, why are there so many gays that he ended up being friends with?
"I can't be racist, I have black friends!" Very good defense! /sarcasm
If he's transphobic, how come there's the interview where he clearly and plainly said that instead of putting potentially dangerous drugs into your body or making irreversible life-altering surgeries, you should try to love and respect the body you were born in?
Do you seriously think that trans people are normal their whole lives and one day on a whim decide to change their whole body? For what, the lulz? They have lived their whole lives feeling that there is something wrong with them. They try to cope and power through, to fit in, to be normal for years, decades. And then whether through seeing allegory or another trans person they get a name for that feeling. And for better or worse, it is their body and they should be free to decide what to do with it. I'm certain they put serious thought into the decision.
tell me how gun control would have saved Iryna Zarutska, then.
Ah yes, bring a totally unrelated issue into the debate. Very good distraction. /sarcasm That man is a repeat offender, he should have not been out.
You will not solve violence by taking weapons away. People will always find a way to hurt other people. Guns level the playing field for those that may not be as physically strong as their attackers. A little old lady can put a dangerous thug down just the same.
Again, it's not about taking away all guns from everyone, it's about making acquisition harder for bad actors! Your poor old granny could still get her gun legally provided she passes all the required tests.
You can say it's a false equivalence. But when you disarm the populace, you make it easier for the government to do whatever they want to them. Are we really pretending that the Online Safety Act isn't a cancer? That Keir Starmer isn't pushing things that I'm pretty sure everyone here should rightfully be opposed to? Seriously?
By that logic Kirk got was coming for him because he was funneling funds into Trump's camp, who are also trying to take over the country for themselves.
The majority of these guns that are used for violence are either purchased illegally, or they were taken from someone else.
And you don't think that stricter gun control laws could curb that in any way?
But sure, just ban more guns because "peddling gun violence"
Sure, disregard every school shooting because "muh freedom".
"I can't be racist, I have black friends!" Very good defense! /sarcasm
Do you seriously think that trans people are normal their whole lives and one day on a whim decide to change their whole body? For what, the lulz? They have lived their whole lives feeling that there is something wrong with them. They try to cope and power through, to fit in, to be normal for years, decades. And then whether through seeing allegory or another trans person they get a name for that feeling. I'm certain they put serious thought into the decision.
Ah yes, bring a totally unrelated issue into the debate. Very good distraction. /sarcasm That man is a repeat offender, he should have not been out.
Again, it's not about taking away all guns from everyone, it's about making acquisition harder for bad actors! Your poor old granny could still get her gun legally provided she passes all the required tests.
By that logic Kirk got was coming for him because he was funneling funds into Trump's camp, who are also trying to take over the country for themselves.
And you don't think that stricter gun control laws could curb that in any way?
Sure, disregard every school shooting because "muh freedom".
Yeah, it wouldn't. If you want to curb violence you have to address the root of the problems. You need to reach the people that feel like they're alone, they have no outlet, and no place in the world, and you need to not pump them full of pharmaceutical drugs as the instant solution.
If you want to make schools safer, stop making guns taboo. Educate people on logical gun safety, stop making them the thing to be scared of. Seek out veterans that need the work, and have them as security on school grounds. THE most violent school shootings always happen in the places where the most disarming, the most gun controlling takes place. You would also be doing something to support the veterans, which we seriously need to be doing more of.
We need to shame culture that encourages and embraces violence. We need to stop pretending it's "cool", we need to stop glorifying it. We need to make living more stable and more responsible. I guarantee you that if criminals knew that they were walking into a situation where they would be met with people that are prepared to fight back not because they want to, but because they have the skills and the means, that crime goes down. It gets stopped before it gets anywhere near as bloody.
You don't see gun stores being robbed for a reason. The ones that DO try it get a prize real quick.
Again, you can make getting guns as stringent as you want, including TOTALLY restricting it for the citizenry. You will never fix it that way. Ever. All you would do is make it more difficult for people to defend themselves. Especially because when danger is seconds away, the cops are minutes away.
You can pretend that all the other examples of violence committed without guns are totally irrelevant, I see the truth about Humanity. Some of them are sick, some of them are deranged, some of them are bound and determined to do whatever they want.
And yeah, funnily enough, you want to discredit the argument of "Oh I have friends that are like this" isn't a good defense, what WOULD be a good defense then? You tell me what is and isn't acceptable, since you seem to be the arbiter that decides these things.
I think people that struggle with gender dysphoria should know all the potential risks. They should be old enough and knowledgeable enough to commit to these things. I also don't want them to hate themselves or their body. I also don't want them to do something they can never take back unless they are CERTAIN that is what they want. If that makes me transphobic, then so be it.
(Edit) BY THE WAY: Please tell me what part of "ILLEGAL" was missed in the whole 'gun control law' part of this. It's already fucking illegal. You can't legislate a solution to something that is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Valen25 said: Seek out veterans that need the work, and have them as security on school grounds. THE most violent school shootings always happen in the places where the most disarming, the most gun controlling takes place. You would also be doing something to support the veterans, which we seriously need to be doing more of.
That requires money. Oh, that's right, Trump slashed the school budget! I will however concede that it is not solely his fault, you've been underfunding schools for years.
We need to shame culture that encourages and embraces violence. We need to stop pretending it's "cool", we need to stop glorifying it.
What do you propose to do, ban every form of media that doesn't meet your standard of depiction of violence? That's censorship, dude! The best you can get is a mandate to the news outlets to not show or name the perpetrators of crimes and impose heavy fines in excess of profits for anyone who ignores this mandate - that'll rob the criminals of their fame. The exception being cases where the criminal is at large and to warn the populace.
Again, you can make getting guns as stringent as you want, including TOTALLY restricting it for the citizenry. You will never fix it that way. Ever. All you would do is make it more difficult for people to defend themselves.
No it won't! You're already waiting a week or so to get your guns, more stringent background checks will not meaningfully increase the wait.
You can pretend that all the other examples of violence committed without guns are totally irrelevant
We are talking about your lax gun control laws, crimes that don't involve guns are not pertinent to this discussion! You purposefully keep muddying the waters because you know there is no one solution that will solve all crime and hope to catch me slipping!
And yeah, funnily enough, you want to discredit the argument of "Oh I have friends that are like this" isn't a good defense, what WOULD be a good defense then? You tell me what is and isn't acceptable, since you seem to be the arbiter that decides these things.
Kirk is on record preaching racist, homophobic, transphobic shit! He got caught in 4k, there is no defense!
Please tell me what part of "ILLEGAL" was missed in the whole 'gun control law' part of this. It's already fucking illegal. You can't legislate a solution to something that is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
That's a job for your police! They should be cracking down on illegal anything instead of harassing innocent citizens. By the way, what's up with that, why is your police harassing people?
That requires money. Oh, that's right, Trump slashed the school budget! I will however concede that it is not solely his fault, you've been underfunding schools for years.
What do you propose to do, ban every form of media that doesn't meet your standard of depiction of violence? That's censorship, dude! The best you can get is a mandate to the news outlets to not show or name the perpetrators of crimes and impose heavy fines in excess of profits for anyone who ignores this mandate - that'll rob the criminals of their fame. The exception being cases where the criminal is at large and to warn the populace.
No it won't! You're already waiting a week or so to get your guns, more stringent background checks will not meaningfully increase the wait.
We are talking about your lax gun control laws, crimes that don't involve guns are not pertinent to this discussion! You purposefully keep muddying the waters because you know there is no one solution that will solve all crime and hope to catch me slipping!
Kirk is on record preaching racist, homophobic, transphobic shit! He got caught in 4k, there is no defense!
That's a job for your police! They should be cracking down on illegal anything instead of harassing innocent citizens. By the way, what's up with that, why is your police harassing people?
THEN SHOW ME THE EXAMPLES OF HIM BEING RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, AND TRANSPHOBIC. Give me the full videos, the full interviews. Not these sixty second viral clips, or what people SAID about what he said. Put up, or shut up.
And yeah, right. Schools have no budget, so the only thing we can do is "more gun control", don't have any realistic conversation about anything else. Of course.
And no, I'm not talking about media. I'm talking about the real problem we have with gang culture. I'm talking about the people that make songs about how gangster they are for popping caps, popping drugs, and fucking bitches. I'm talking about this constant perpetuation of a culture that does nothing but hurt everyone in it. I'm talking about families that end up fractured, where people grow up without the important things and people they they need in their life. You need a mother and a father -- and it certainly helps if both of them have a strong moral foundation -- you know what doesn't help that moral foundation? Teachers showing videos of Charlie Kirk getting shot and talking about how he deserved it. TO THEIR CLASS OF STUDENTS. To kids! Totally normal behavior!
What background checks can we actually do? No, I want to hear specifics. Tell me. Do you want us to check social media? We do. Do you want us to check criminal records? We do. Do you want us to check if they have any mental health issues? We do. Do you want gun vendors to require licenses to sell to people? We do.
What do you think is missing that we need to add? Tell me that clearly.
AND EXACTLY, THERE IS NO ONE SOLUTION THAT WILL SOLVE ALL CRIME. Stop pretending that gun control would solve this. It won't. You have sick people, you have deranged people, you have people that lack any sense of moral integrity that are fucking celebrating the death of people with opposing ideas. BUT SURE. GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM. You fucking dishonest prick.
AND YEAH, I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE POLICE GO AFTER CRIMINALS AND ARREST THEM. Who was it that kept saying "defund the police"? And circle back around to your bullshit of "slashing school funding" and really ruminate in that shit when you decide to answer that one.
Who was it that said that a crime under $1,000 doesn't count as a crime anymore?
So here's my parting thoughts, because I'm clearly not going to convince you, or anyone else that thinks this is okay: Everything you suggest has been tried. It either keeps things the same. Or it makes things worse.
Look up The Prohibition. Look up the War on Drugs. Look at what is happening to the UK -- I believe the latest example is them banning "ninja swords"
But sure. Pretend that all we need to do is just control the guns a little harder and maybe next time, it won't happen! Ignore any historical context, ignore everything else, AND FOCUS ON THE EVIL GUNS, THE ONLY TRUE PROBLEM.
THEN SHOW ME THE EXAMPLES OF HIM BEING RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, AND TRANSPHOBIC. Give me the full videos, the full interviews. Not these sixty second viral clips, or what people SAID about what he said. Put up, or shut up.
Proceeds to put video about people saying what someone else said. Even more, he has no full videos or full interviews about perpetrator having a relationship with a trans room mate, yet he is okay to acept that as true from someone else.
He has a point though. As Andrew Carnegie said:
As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do"
Proceeds to put video about people saying what someone else said. Even more, he has no full videos or full interviews about perpetrator having a relationship with a trans room mate, yet he is okay to acept that as true from someone else.
He has a point though. As Andrew Carnegie said:
It's not just what someone else said. It's what all of you are saying. I don't give one flying toss about what the media has to say, or the dishonest little pricks that will edit their videos to make it be something that it's not.
He recorded every single debate he had. It's all public. Go find me one. Just one. Drop the snark, show the proof.
Because I can show you proof of what the Left is doing, and how it's not both sides:
Proceeds to put yet another video caring what someone else says about someone else from 30 second viral videos. These people never learn. This a big problem with people learning manners from ancient books no one really knows where they really came from (or who touched them before). Always someone else has to dictate for them what to think, what is "bad" and what is "good" then twist it at convenience.
I dream for the day people quit doing things in the name of a being they don't personally know and think for themselves for once with same tools our creator gave us. On that day we won't be cavemen with better tools anymore.
Proceeds to put yet another video caring what someone else says about someone else from 30 second viral videos. These people never learn. This a big problem with people learning manners from ancient books no one really knows where they really came from (or who touched them before). Always someone else has to dictate for them what to think, what is "bad" and what is "good" then twist it at convenience.
I dream for the day people quit doing things in the name of a being they don't personally know and think for themselves for once with same tools our creator gave us. On that day we won't be cavemen with better tools anymore.
Whatever, man. I do know you're making a lot of assumptions about me. Probably because it's easier to do that and mock me instead of making any actual argument. I'm fully capable of saying "this is bad" and no one has to tell me that. It just got a lot easier to document these things.
There is no context in the things that Bob Vylan said that would make it "good" or "better", it's the same for Destiny, it's the same for Hasan. And if we're picking between "an ancient book that tells us not to be assholes" and "the funny streamer told me it was cool to make people afraid for their lives and kill them", "the cool rapper told me that I should shoot people for talking shit" maybe the ancient book is the better alternative.
It'd be nice if people could talk. But we see how that turns out, don't we?
A cult was broken up AFTER they succeeded in assassinating someone. That's not meeting the burdon of "an assassination that made the world better."
I know I'm coming in very late on this but oh my God the illiteracy on display to think the assassination was BY the cult instead of someone taking revenge AGAINST an ally of the cult. How you even reached that point is crazy.
The assassin confessed immediately he had done it because the cult had ruined the lives of his family members by convincing his mother, through cult tactics, to donate the entirety of her savings to them and then abandoning her. He targeted Abe because Abe had shielded the cult and presented a more available target than the actual leadership of the cult itself.
I'm amazed commenting under this wasn't forbidden yet, considering it's just a giant shit-flinging contest between deranged Redditors(Plague of comment sections here sadly) and normal people, that even I didn't want to get involved in, and where even admin himself was downvoted for just telling the facts XD
I'm amazed commenting under this wasn't forbidden yet, considering it's just a giant shit-flinging contest between deranged Redditors(Plague of comment sections here sadly) and normal people, that even I didn't want to get involved in, and where even admin himself was downvoted for just telling the facts XD
Danbooru becoming as big as it is now was a mistake. It just Reddit now.
