Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[bilby]

There’s plenty footage of the interaction. She’s an obnoxious pos.

You and she share a first amendment right to be that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

There’s plenty footage of the interaction. She’s an obnoxious pos.

You and she share a first amendment right to be that.

For now.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There’s plenty footage of the interaction. She’s an obnoxious pos.

You and she share a first amendment right to be that.

I hope Tswizzle is never on a jury. Would judge someone guilty based on their "obnoxiousness".

 

[bilby]

There’s plenty footage of the interaction. She’s an obnoxious pos.

You and she share a first amendment right to be that.

I hope Tswizzle is never on a jury. Would judge someone guilty based on their "obnoxiousness".

 

[Bomb#20]

Yeah. Thats pretty bad. The university claims it wasn’t for those reasons but apparently never gave her a chance to know what Their issues were with her or for her to defend herself.

Presumably she would file a lawsuit against the university. Do you know what came of that?

I never heard whether she sued; but from how institutions typically operate my guess is the university refused to tell her the grounds for dismissal because their legal department told them that was how to minimize the chance of being held liable.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is racist to assume there is a “white person’s slot”.

In the first place, what's your point? That it's okay to put words in someone's mouth if he's racist? That making up something and calling it a quote isn't lying if you have grounds to think it's a sentiment the guy you ascribed the words to would agree with?

that

Have you lost your mind? Of course making up something and calling it a quote is lying, whether the guy would agree with what you put in his mouth or not. "Quote" means you're claiming he said it, not thought it. Besides which, you might be wrong about whether he'd agree, but your readers won't know you made up the words so they won't know his agreement is doubtful. This is how lies that go half way round the world before the truth gets its boots on start going.

As for whether putting words in racists' mouths is okay, how would you like it if somebody put words in your mouth because he decided you were too reprehensible to deserve truthfulness?

In the second place, Kirk appears to have imagined the existence of white persons' slots was an implication of Rep. Lee's own statement. Accepting some of the other side's premises for the sake of argument and examining what else those premises imply is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic. It isn't grounds for imputing belief in the conclusion to the guy who tries to take his opponent's argument to its logical conclusion.

And in the third place, even if Kirk really was claiming on his own account that white persons' slots exist, the existence of white persons' slots in no way implies the words pood put in his mouth, "that black women lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously". It only implies that black women with that level of brain processing power aren't numerous enough to earn as many high-brain-power jobs as Ms. Lee et al. are advocating they get.

That is a lot of failure to defend a racist dirt bag.

That is a lot of failure to think. To be a failure to defend him I'd have had to be trying to defend him. Why do you think I mentioned he was a dirt bag? I wasn't defending him; I was calling out BuzzFeed for lying about him, calling out HuffPost for reprinting articles from rags without fact-checking them, and calling out pood for relying on HuffPost as if it were any better journalism than the Daily Mail. Charlie Kirk's character flaws are beside the point.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yeah. Thats pretty bad. The university claims it wasn’t for those reasons but apparently never gave her a chance to know what Their issues were with her or for her to defend herself.

Presumably she would file a lawsuit against the university. Do you know what came of that?

I never heard whether she sued; but from how institutions typically operate my guess is the university refused to tell her the grounds for dismissal because their legal department told them that was how to minimize the chance of being held liable.

A lawsuit may have required discovery and then they would have to say or settle I would think.

 

[laughing dog]

It is racist to assume there is a “white person’s slot”.

In the first place, what's your point? That it's okay to put words in someone's mouth if he's racist? That making up something and calling it a quote isn't lying if you have grounds to think it's a sentiment the guy you ascribed the words to would agree with?

that

Have you lost your mind? Of course making up something and calling it a quote is lying, whether the guy would agree with what you put in his mouth or not. "Quote" means you're claiming he said it, not thought it. Besides which, you might be wrong about whether he'd agree, but your readers won't know you made up the words so they won't know his agreement is doubtful. This is how lies that go half way round the world before the truth gets its boots on start going.

As for whether putting words in racists' mouths is okay, how would you like it if somebody put words in your mouth because he decided you were too reprehensible to deserve truthfulness?

I may have lost my mind, but I never wrote or said it was okay to put words in anyone’s mouth. I

In the second place, Kirk appears to have imagined the existence of white persons' slots was an implication of Rep. Lee's own statement. Accepting some of the other side's premises for the sake of argument and examining what else those premises imply is a perfectly legitimate debating tactic. It isn't grounds for imputing belief in the conclusion to the guy who tries to take his opponent's argument to its logical conclusion.

And in the third place, even if Kirk really was claiming on his own account that white persons' slots exist, the existence of white persons' slots in no way implies the words pood put in his mouth, "that black women lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously". It only implies that black women with that level of brain processing power aren't numerous enough to earn as many high-brain-power jobs as Ms. Lee et al. are advocating they get.

That is a lot of failure to defend a racist dirt bag.

That is a lot of failure to think. To be a failure to defend him I'd have had to be trying to defend him. Why do you think I mentioned he was a dirt bag? I wasn't defending him; I was calling out BuzzFeed for lying about him, calling out HuffPost for reprinting articles from rags without fact-checking them, and calling out pood for relying on HuffPost as if it were any better journalism than the Daily Mail. Charlie Kirk's character flaws are beside the point.

Your sanitizing Mr Kirk’s racism fooled me.

 

[southernhybrid]

We sure are good at going all over the place in these so called discussions. But, I found an article that is needed about how Kirk is being treated like a martyr and there is more evidence of the assholes doing their best to end the SCS. They have no idea that the founders weren't Christians although a few may have pretended to be. Regardless, they all supported the SCS and had no intention of making the us a Christian country. They certainly had their flaws, like most owning slaves despite knowing it was wrong, but what's happening these days is as if we are going way back in time to some type filled with hatred toward minorities, including the LBGTQ community. Sadly, the shooter did the Republicans a favor by providing them with a horrible person who they now consider a martyr. Hope we can all sleep tonight as we see more of our basic rights being threatened.

https://wapo.st/4nKYlN3

"PHOENIX — Republicans extolled conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a memorial Sunday as a religious leader of almost biblical stature who transformed the party and was critical to delivering the presidency to Donald Trump. More than a dozen of the party’s most powerful leaders predicted that Kirk’s slaying will galvanize their political movement for generations to come.“He’s a martyr now for American freedom,” President Donald Trump said after walking onstage to a fireworks display while country singer Lee Greenwood performed “God Bless the USA.” “I know I speak for everyone here today when I say that none of us will ever forget Charlie Kirk, and neither now will history.”Supporters of the 31-year-old co-founder of Turning Point USA packed into the Arizona Cardinals’ stadium, creating an unprecedented event that combined elements of an old-fashioned tent revival with the trappings of a political rally. Posters of Kirk and his family adorned the interior. Packets of tissues had been placed on the seats, along with Turning Point placards. Thousands of people who could not fit into the venue spilled into a nearby arena. Christian worship and gospel music played as people waved “Never Surrender” signs, invoking one of Trump’s campaign slogans made popular in 2024 after he survived an assassination attempt."

President Donald Trump was among those who cast Charlie Kirk as a martyr who died to further the conservative values he campaigned for during a memorial event. (Video: Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)
Vice President JD Vance, five Trump Cabinet officials, Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, and other speakers delivered at times emotional remembrances of Kirk behind bulletproof glass, a doleful reminder of the shooting on Sept. 10 that had brought them here. Many of the speakers invoked religious warfare in response to the widely viewed killing in the middle of an outdoor appearance on a Utah college campus. But the crowd rose to its feet in applause when Erika Kirk, dabbing tears from her eyes, said that she forgave the shooting suspect.



Many of Trump’s political opponents have criticized the level of resources and time that the administration has devoted to Kirk, who made polarizing and offensive remarks in his podcasts and college campus debates about Black people, women and transgender individuals.
Advertisement

Vance said that so many Trump administration officials had traveled to the service because Kirk was a friend and also because “we know we wouldn’t be here without him.” Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, credited him with turning out young voters central to Trump’s victory, calling them “Charlie’s Army.”

The five-hour event blended religious fervor with militant politics, as Trump’s allies invoked Kirk’s legacy to position the conservative movement as a near-apocalyptic clash of truth and goodness against enemies they mocked as “evildoers” determined to destroy a nation that has been ordained by God. With imagery of religious and political war, they signaled that they would leverage Kirk’s memory as an organizing principle for the party moving forward.

 

[Derec]

And I’m saying he could’ve been an alien from a planet orbiting Betelgeuse who used a gravity drive

You mean infinite improbability drive, surely?

 

[bilby]

They have no idea that the founders weren't Christians although a few may have pretended to be. Regardless, they all supported the SCS and had no intention of making the us a Christian country

I don't really get this line of argument.

Your founding fathers are all long dead. It's up to the current crop of Americans to decide whether they want a Christian theocracy, and the opinions of a bunch of dead slaveholders shouldn't be the driver of that decision.

The fact is that support for theocracy is very strong, amongst people who imagine that their own sect will be in charge; But that support evaporates when you suggest that a different sect might dominate.

The Founding Fathers were smart enough to understand that, if each state were to have an official state religion, war between states would become the norm. And that any attempt to give any sect the role of nationwide official religion would fail dismally - the majority would inevitably be beholden to a leadership whose religion they despised.

The real question though is "do enough modern Americans understand this?". The Founding Fathers no longer get to vote, and whatever their opinions, whatever their flaws, and whatever their strengths, it really doesn't matter what they thought.

Modern Americans are in charge, and what they want entirely depends on the question. If you ask "Should America become an officially Christian nation?", you will get a clear "Yes" vote. But if you ask "Should America become an officially Southern Baptist nation?" the answer would be a resounding "No". And the answer would be a resounding "No" if you replaced 'Southern Baptist' with 'Lutheran', or 'Episcopalian', or 'Roman Catholic', or 'Eastern Orthodox' or 'Mormon', or...

 

[Arctish]

We don't know anything about how the hat wearer and the hat displacer came to be within arms' reach of each other. Which one approached the other? Was the approach casual, inadvertent, intentional, aggressive, or something else? Was one of them stalking the other, or trying to impede their free association and travel, or to intimidate them?

There’s plenty footage of the interaction. She’s an obnoxious pos.

It would be very helpful if you provided links to the footage.

If things were different, then things would be different.

If the only things different are race/ethnicity/sex/religion of those involved, then that should not affect how the incident is handled.
Of course, to the far left, such identity markers are of paramount importance, but that is the problem with modern, identity politics left.

We don't know anything about the alleged taunt. Was it inflammatory mockery?

There are videos. So we do know what she said.

Please post links to the videos.

We don't all utilize the same news feeds. There's no reason to assume everyone here has seen the same reports.

I found a video that I guess is what TSwizzle and Derec were talking about.

Texas Tech student expelled...

Her knocking the guy's hat askew was deliberate. She should be fined for that. Fifty dollars should do it.

Mostly the encounter was just arguing and being loud. IOW an exercise in Free Speech.

 

[southernhybrid]

They have no idea that the founders weren't Christians although a few may have pretended to be. Regardless, they all supported the SCS and had no intention of making the us a Christian country

I don't really get this line of argument.

Your founding fathers are all long dead. It's up to the current crop of Americans to decide whether they want a Christian theocracy, and the opinions of a bunch of dead slaveholders shouldn't be the driver of that decision.

The fact is that support for theocracy is very strong, amongst people who imagine that their own sect will be in charge; But that support evaporates when you suggest that a different sect might dominate.

The Founding Fathers were smart enough to understand that, if each state were to have an official state religion, war between states would become the norm. And that any attempt to give any sect the role of nationwide official religion would fail dismally - the majority would inevitably be beholden to a leadership whose religion they despised.

The real question though is "do enough modern Americans understand this?". The Founding Fathers no longer get to vote, and whatever their opinions, whatever their flaws, and whatever their strengths, it really doesn't matter what they thought.

Modern Americans are in charge, and what they want entirely depends on the question. If you ask "Should America become an officially Christian nation?", you will get a clear "Yes" vote. But if you ask "Should America become an officially Southern Baptist nation?" the answer would be a resounding "No". And the answer would be a resounding "No" if you replaced 'Southern Baptist' with 'Lutheran', or 'Episcopalian', or 'Roman Catholic', or 'Eastern Orthodox' or 'Mormon', or...

The point is that many conservative Christians make claims that the founders were Christians and the nation was developed to be a Christian nation. The founders wrote the constitution which is supposed to still be relevant today, since we haven't written a new one. The constitution supports religious freedom, as well as the SCS. That's not an argument. It's the truth.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We don't know anything about how the hat wearer and the hat displacer came to be within arms' reach of each other. Which one approached the other? Was the approach casual, inadvertent, intentional, aggressive, or something else? Was one of them stalking the other, or trying to impede their free association and travel, or to intimidate them?

There’s plenty footage of the interaction. She’s an obnoxious pos.

It would be very helpful if you provided links to the footage.

If things were different, then things would be different.

If the only things different are race/ethnicity/sex/religion of those involved, then that should not affect how the incident is handled.
Of course, to the far left, such identity markers are of paramount importance, but that is the problem with modern, identity politics left.

We don't know anything about the alleged taunt. Was it inflammatory mockery?

There are videos. So we do know what she said.

Please post links to the videos.

We don't all utilize the same news feeds. There's no reason to assume everyone here has seen the same reports.

I found a video that I guess is what TSwizzle and Derec were talking about.

Texas Tech student expelled...

Her knocking the guy's hat askew was deliberate. She should be fined for that. Fifty dollars should do it.

Mostly the encounter was just arguing and being loud. IOW an exercise in Free Speech.

Yes that has to be it because you can hear him accuse her of "assault" at that point. Essentially, she pushed the brim of his hat. You don't actually see her make contact with his head and because she was making contact with the brim which is several inches out, most likely his argument is that it was technically assault because she inadvertently used the edge of the hat to push against his forehead, ie. she moved the hat and the hat applied force to him. Ergo, she indirectly applied force to him.

I suppose that in Texas, she's actually lucky that they didn't consider her use of the hat an armed assault, that the rumor mill didn't snowball into something more than this into a public lynching. Cancelling her and expelling her from college, though, could amount to nearly the same thing, destroying her life because she flicked his hat.

Clearly, she was taunting and triggered and we're not supposed to have any empathy for that (according to conservatives and Kirk), but we should. The truth is that her taunting while out of place was a reaction to feeling taunted herself. The racist language and attacks on Black women by Charlie Kirk were a contributing factor to activating her. Such behavior as implying she needs to be silent and respectful and saying things like "you are loud" and "you are angry" are ways to take advantage of being on the top of institutional power that is all supporting reverence for that racist language that was targeting her.

You will note that she also has other charges. Among them is "disorderly conduct." So, even IF she had not tapped his hat, her triggered rejection of silence would still be called illegal by those pretending to be okay with free speech, but really using institutional power to crush dissent (and people).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I saw a recent facebook post, a lie that Simone Biles went off on Charlie Kirk after his death...but this got me reading about some history there. I didn't follow Kirk's idiocy, but found this nugget from reading about him. He said some nasty things about Biles.

Flip to 54 minute mark.



The most outrageous thing was that the gymnastics doctor had already been convicted of many assaults and Biles had first mentioned this back in 2018. In 2021, there were some hearings about the FBI mishandling of the investigation, i.e. that they went easy on him. So, when Kirk says he doesn't know if Biles was actually sexually assaulted before trying to destroy her who is he protecting? Why so much targeting of Black women?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I saw a recent facebook post, a lie that Simone Biles went off on Charlie Kirk after his death...but this got me reading about some history there. I didn't follow Kirk's idiocy, but found this nugget from reading about him. He said some nasty things about Biles.

Flip to 54 minute mark.

The most outrageous thing was that the gymnastics doctor had already been convicted of many assaults and Biles had first mentioned this back in 2018. In 2021, there were some hearings about the FBI mishandling of the investigation, i.e. that they went easy on him. So, when Kirk says he doesn't know if Biles was actually sexually assaulted before trying to destroy her who is he protecting? Why so much targeting of Black women?

Empowered black women. That'd be why.

This man was a hate-monger and he is being canonized as being a better person than Jimmy Carter. Limbaugh didn't get this sort of reaction when he died.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is a lot of failure to think. To be a failure to defend him I'd have had to be trying to defend him. Why do you think I mentioned he was a dirt bag? I wasn't defending him; I was calling out BuzzFeed for lying about him, calling out HuffPost for reprinting articles from rags without fact-checking them, and calling out pood for relying on HuffPost as if it were any better journalism than the Daily Mail. Charlie Kirk's character flaws are beside the point.

I agree fully. The truth is only the truth. Taking words and false attributing them (and positions) to others is not responsible communication. Even worse is taking people out of context. It is vile.

And for the most part, the people taking Charlie Kirk out of context right now are his supporters who have suggested that Charlie Kirk supported the First Amendment and that his positions came from a point of view of good intention. This canonization of Kirk as sickening as was his murder.

 

[Elixir]

This canonization of Kirk as sickening as was his murder.

I'd say more so. Murders happen every day, to people as "good" as Chuckie.
Canonizing dirtbags is a far rarer and more dangerous occurrence.

 

[crazyfingers]

The Founding Fathers were smart enough to understand that, if each state were to have an official state religion, war between states would become the norm. And that any attempt to give any sect the role of nationwide official religion would fail dismally - the majority would inevitably be beholden to a leadership whose religion they despised.

Not really. The establishment clause and free exercise clause of the Constitution originally only applied to the federal government. Many states had state religions into the 1800's. For example Congregational Church was the established Church in Massachusetts until 1833.