Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

I’ve heard people argue that if Kirk hadn’t been divisive, annoying, or bigoted, this wouldn’t have happened, that somehow it’s his own fault. But American history is filled with examples of people who preached peace and unity, only to be struck down violently.

They were struck down violently by people like Kirk. And always bears repeating Kirk shared a lot of the same views the Taliban have.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Trump says they have him.
Now about those Epstein files.

 

[Gospel]

I’ve heard people argue that if Kirk hadn’t been divisive, annoying, or bigoted, this wouldn’t have happened, that somehow it’s his own fault. But American history is filled with examples of people who preached peace and unity, only to be struck down violently.

They were struck down violently by people like Kirk.

I hear you, but do you agree it was wrong that MLK and others were struck down violently? If we condemn violence against leaders we agree with, we can’t excuse it against Kirk simply because we disagreed with his opinions and/or didn't like him in general. Otherwise, we’re no different from those who justified silencing voices they opposed. And while plenty of people who believed things similar to Kirk disagreed with MLK, not all of those people wished to see him dead.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I’ve heard people argue that if Kirk hadn’t been divisive, annoying, or bigoted, this wouldn’t have happened, that somehow it’s his own fault. But American history is filled with examples of people who preached peace and unity, only to be struck down violently.

They were struck down violently by people like Kirk.

I hear you, but do you agree it was wrong that MLK and others were struck down violently? If we condemn violence against leaders we agree with, we can’t excuse it against Kirk simply because we disagreed with his opinions and/or didn't like him in general. Otherwise, we’re no different from those who justified silencing voices they opposed. And while plenty of people who believed things similar to Kirk disagreed with MLK, not all of those people wished to see him dead.

I agree it was wrong. That doesn't mean I have to feel sympathy for Kirk or celebrate him.

 

[Elixir]

I am really sick of seeing all the news on Kirk. The guy was a christian nationalist, a white nationalist, an anti-gay asswipe. Denying climate change, a 2020 election denier and antivax troglite. That a piece of shit and flags are at half mast over this.

If I had a flag it’d be flying at mast-and-a-half.
We sure didn’t hear anywhere near this much about the murder of the Hortmans, and Melissa was actually an elected representative, not some bigmouthed punk who flattered Trump.

 

[Elixir]

I hear you, but do you agree it was wrong that MLK and others were struck down violently?

It’s a matter of scale IMHO.
Melissa and Mark didn’t get this kind of attention. No half mast flags, no wall to wall tv coverage, no presidential feigned sadness. Melissa was an ELECTED FUCKING OFFICIAL who was stalked and murdered in her home, along with her innocent husband. Does anyone know who Yvette Hoffman is?
The asymmetry is vast. Open season on elected Dems, but don’t go picking off any loudmouthed unelected trumpsuckers or there will be hell (for all of us) to pay.

 

[Gospel]

I’ve heard people argue that if Kirk hadn’t been divisive, annoying, or bigoted, this wouldn’t have happened, that somehow it’s his own fault. But American history is filled with examples of people who preached peace and unity, only to be struck down violently.

They were struck down violently by people like Kirk.

I hear you, but do you agree it was wrong that MLK and others were struck down violently? If we condemn violence against leaders we agree with, we can’t excuse it against Kirk simply because we disagreed with his opinions and/or didn't like him in general. Otherwise, we’re no different from those who justified silencing voices they opposed. And while plenty of people who believed things similar to Kirk disagreed with MLK, not all of those people wished to see him dead.

I agree it was wrong. That doesn't mean I have to feel sympathy for Kirk or celebrate him.

My argument is not about sympathy so we're good.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I’ve heard people argue that if Kirk hadn’t been divisive, annoying, or bigoted, this wouldn’t have happened, that somehow it’s his own fault. But American history is filled with examples of people who preached peace and unity, only to be struck down violently.

They were struck down violently by people like Kirk.

I hear you, but do you agree it was wrong that MLK and others were struck down violently? If we condemn violence against leaders we agree with, we can’t excuse it against Kirk simply because we disagreed with his opinions and/or didn't like him in general. Otherwise, we’re no different from those who justified silencing voices they opposed. And while plenty of people who believed things similar to Kirk disagreed with MLK, not all of those people wished to see him dead.

I agree it was wrong. That doesn't mean I have to feel sympathy for Kirk or celebrate him.

My argument is not about sympathy so we're good.

My main issue is when people take lack of sympathy to mean "you support murder/whatever bad thing", personally.

 

[Gospel]

I hear you, but do you agree it was wrong that MLK and others were struck down violently?

It’s a matter of scale IMHO.
Melissa and Mark didn’t get this kind of attention. No half mast flags, no wall to wall tv coverage, no presidential feigned sadness. Melissa was an ELECTED FUCKING OFFICIAL who was stalked and murdered in her home, along with her innocent husband. Does anyone know who Yvette Hoffman is?
The asymmetry is vast. Open season on elected Dems, but don’t go picking off any loudmouthed unelected trumpsuckers or there will be hell (for all of us) to pay.

I get what you’re saying about asymmetry, and maybe that’s a fair conversation. But before we go there, do you agree or disagree that it was wrong for Kirk to be killed over his opinions, just like it was wrong for Melissa, MLK, or anyone else?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Trump says they have him.
Now about those Epstein files.

Why do I have a “Round up the usual suspects” feeling about this?

 

[Elixir]

But before we go there, do you agree or disagree that it was wrong for Kirk to be killed over his opinions

Gimme a fucking break Gospel. Any time ANYONE is killed for their views or opinions in a democracy, the act is a threat to that democracy as well as a crime against humanity.
But you knew that.
DIDN’T YOU?

Now, let’s “go there”.

Am I wrong to be more upset about the asymmetry, the lack of concern for the murders of elected officials, than with the loss of a bigmouthed racist punk? EVEN IF THE FELON IS UPSET?

 

[Gospel]

Charlie Kirk 'killer' identified as Tyler Robinson

The suspect in Charlie Kirk's assassination has been identified as Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah resident.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Elixir]

Thanks, Gospel.
Somehow that kid reminds me of … Charlie Kirk.
Am I imagining it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I'm glad the Trump Admin is trying to ease off on the radicalism.

Trump invoked Kirk’s memory to urge supporters to refrain from retaliatory violence. But he also indicated a desire to not just punish the killer, whose identity and motivations remain unknown to the public, but also to tackle what the president and his staff described as a movement bent on the destruction of the American way of life.

“The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy,” Trump said Friday morning on Fox News, where he also announced that authorities had detained a suspect in the case.

At least we seem to be getting confirmation on the shooter and possible motive. Where as it was just presumed earlier. But this whole idea of blowing out that one person being killed for their partisan positions seems a bit blind into a witch hunt, when we are seeing broader partisan level violence is just typical of the alt-right. Some transgender speaks for Bud Light, and they are posting videos online of them shooting cases of Bud Light. Someone murdered a Democrat lawmaker and her husband in Minnesota. A Sanders supporter shot up a GOP softball gathering. Someone tried to kill Nancy Pelosi and nearly killed her husband.

This is broad, and Trump and the AM Radio / Cables news folks are making it a war cry about how in danger they all are from the "radicals on the left".

 

[Gospel]

But before we go there, do you agree or disagree that it was wrong for Kirk to be killed over his opinions

Gimme a fucking break Gospel. Any time ANYONE is killed for their views or opinions in a democracy, the act is a threat to that democracy as well as a crime against humanity.
But you knew that.
DIDN’T YOU?

Now, let’s “go there”.

Am I wrong to be more upset about the asymmetry, the lack of concern for the murders of elected officials, than with the loss of a bigmouthed racist punk? EVEN IF THE FELON IS UPSET?

I appreciate you saying that, though not so much the attitude. I don’t disagree there’s a real difference in coverage, but we can’t let that point get mixed into how we talk about the assassinations themselves. When those lines blur, it can sound like the killing was somehow less of a threat to democracy, and that’s dangerous. Beyond high-profile names, the average person watching these discussions could easily feel discouraged from exercising free speech if it seems society isn’t firmly against political violence in every case. If all we ever talk about is the imbalance in coverage, no one would know whether anyone is explicitly against the assassinations themselves. I just felt it was important to make that distinction.

And no you’re not wrong, I notice the differences in coverage too (story of my life, actually). I get being upset about the lack of concern for elected officials who were murdered, and I agree the asymmetry is real. What I’m saying is that we shouldn't let that frustration blur discussions about the assassinations themselves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But before we go there, do you agree or disagree that it was wrong for Kirk to be killed over his opinions

Gimme a fucking break Gospel. Any time ANYONE is killed for their views or opinions in a democracy, the act is a threat to that democracy as well as a crime against humanity.
But you knew that.
DIDN’T YOU?

Now, let’s “go there”.

Am I wrong to be more upset about the asymmetry, the lack of concern for the murders of elected officials, than with the loss of a bigmouthed racist punk? EVEN IF THE FELON IS UPSET?

I appreciate you saying that, though not so much the attitude. I don’t disagree there’s a real difference in coverage, but we can’t let that point get mixed into how we talk about the assassinations themselves. When those lines blur, it can sound like the killing was somehow less of a threat to democracy, and that’s dangerous. Beyond high-profile names, the average person watching these discussions could easily feel discouraged from exercising free speech if it seems society isn’t firmly against political violence in every case. If all we ever talk about is the imbalance in coverage, no one would know whether anyone is explicitly against the assassinations themselves. I just felt it was important to make that distinction.

And no you’re not wrong, I notice the differences in coverage too (story of my life, actually). I get being upset about the lack of concern for elected officials who were murdered, and I agree the asymmetry is real. What I’m saying is that we shouldn't let that frustration blur discussions about the assassinations themselves.

Currently, this whole ordeal feels like an abusive husband died and the beaten wife isn't allowed to say bad things because his family who loved him are there.

Charlie Kirk was against the First Amendment. He was bigoted against other religions. He doesn't want free speech. He used "free speech" and "dialogue" to camel nose his extremist views onto school campuses. He wasn't debating ideas, he was selling his radicalism and he wants nothing that isn't white and Christian, going as far as supporting the "replacement theory" conspiracy. He loves women as long as they submit to him and his authority. He calls the Civil Rights law a "mistake". He was for violence against liberals, making a call to help post bail for the person who severely beat Nancy Pelosi's husband.

Charlie Kirk was a dangerous fraud.

None of which justifies his murder. However, canonizing a person who has promoted White Nationalism as some sort of free speech hero is nothing short of a lie.

 

[ZiprHead]

I notice he's wearing Trump Team shirt in one of those photos.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I notice he's wearing Trump Team shirt in one of those photos.

Yeah, that'd be the person he killed (and his wife), not him. It is the Daily Mail, so don't expect sensical photo layouts.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I hear you, but do you agree it was wrong that MLK and others were struck down violently?

It’s a matter of scale IMHO.
Melissa and Mark didn’t get this kind of attention. No half mast flags, no wall to wall tv coverage, no presidential feigned sadness. Melissa was an ELECTED FUCKING OFFICIAL who was stalked and murdered in her home, along with her innocent husband. Does anyone know who Yvette Hoffman is?
The asymmetry is vast. Open season on elected Dems, but don’t go picking off any loudmouthed unelected trumpsuckers or there will be hell (for all of us) to pay.

I get what you’re saying about asymmetry, and maybe that’s a fair conversation. But before we go there, do you agree or disagree that it was wrong for Kirk to be killed over his opinions, just like it was wrong for Melissa, MLK, or anyone else?

That's a fair question. However, more is needed.

1. Legally speaking, it was indisputably wrong. From A crime to Z crime that took place until arrest, he was wrong.

2. Morally, it's not as clear cut because taking another life is not always wrong. The great majority of the time it is wrong. There are almost always better ways to act. But silencing a bad-faith voice whose known and clearly stated goal is to take more of our rights away, establish an American theocracy, and advocate apathy and even encourage murder for the sake of his disgusting principles; I don't know. My reason is not sympathy, but because we don't know if in the end it will have made any difference. It's the classic if you could kill Hitler question.

3. Practicality: much as what I wrote immediately above, we don't know the impact, if any this will have. Like everything else now, it will likely fade pretty quickly from the news cycle. It does give American fascism a martyr, but they already have as many martyrs as they wish to manufacture anyway.

3A: If this was a rational act by a rational person, is it the first shot in a burgeoning movement that's realizing that peaceful protests accomplish nothing and believe that concrete action is needed to save our democracy, or is it a radicalized leftist who lost rational thought and misguidedly lashed out over paranoia? Etc. I think that its practical effect will be minimal.

I could go on and on, but the way I see it, it amounts to a small sliver of of satisfaction in a sea of despair; a moment where the fascists saw measurable backlash against the policies they promote. I know what the response to that sentence will be, so I'll wait for it.

Overall the question(s) of right and wrong are a matter of degree and on-the-ground results. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Politesse]

Apparently the bullet casings were inscribed with a bunch of gamer culture crap. No surprise there. But it's great, because shibboleth memes like that are usually so obscure, the media can read whatever meaning they want into them. Cue the explanation pieces where some Boomer in a cheap suit is trying to explain how Helldiver memes are coded references to the trans plot to take over the county library.