Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Bomb#20]

he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs.

Can we sue the apricot for trademark infringement?

Yes. It's America -- you can sue anyone for anything.

”I HATE MY OPPONENTS!”

You won't win your lawsuit with that one, though -- nobody has a trademark on hating his opponents. It's interpreting your opponent disagreeing with you as proof that he hates some group higher up on the progressive stack that's the shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

 

[unapologetic]

Kirk in his own words

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Are you really intending to say that if the SC woke up tomorrow and said that the first amendment of the constitution says that left-handed people can be purchased as livestock and eaten for food, you think that would actually work, and we'd all just be stuck selling our left-handed cousins and having "Lefty Lou Lasagne"?

Who would have the authority to contradict them?

The President and Congress. SCOTUS has no actual enforcement powers.

The US Government lasted through 2016 (minus a minor scuffle in the 1860s) because everyone behaved. That has ended.

 

[Elixir]

It's interpreting your opponent disagreeing with you as proof that he hates some group higher up on the progressive stack that's the shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

Wut!?
What’s the “it” to which you refer?
My “opponent” (Trump) categorically states, announces, and embraces hate of the entire category of his “opponents”, which includes some nine digit number of American Citizens.
Yet you characterize that as shrink wrapped leftism.
Trump as a leftist is a bit much of a stretch. It reeks of desperation. You COULD just acknowledge that it was a mistake to imply hate is a leftist slur.
If a leftist (or anyone else) ascribes hate to Trump, that’s simple observation of his own expression. No “interpretation” required. It’s certainly not “a leftist slur”, or any slur at all. That’s who he is.

 

[Elixir]

The President and Congress. SCOTUS has no actual enforcement powers.

The controlling faction of Congress has abdicated their role. So in your scenario The President has total enforcement power. He says “indict that guy, he dissed my hair!” and they do it.
Sounds pretty accurate, but -
Actual enforcement is conducted by flunkies like ICE thugs who get their power from the presidunce.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

Big difference--those are self-inflicted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There have been some pretty bad things but not at the genocide level. Nobody set out to annihilate a population for religious reasons. Yes, there has been genocidal intent towards armed groups, not against groups that aren't attacking.

You will forgive me for not taking your word for any of this.

You don't need to take Loren's word for it. All you need to do is look around.

Which countries are christian theocracies enforcing fundamentalist regimes? Which christian groups have a stated intention of exterminating all non-christians from the planet? Which have actively funded recent terrorist acts targeting civilians? Which christian sects are currently engaged in religious wars? Which christian theocracies outlaw the practice of any other religion?

Exactly. There are Christian loons that would like to do that but they are in the loon category, not in power. Loons exist on every side, the question is how much acceptance they have.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moved some more posts to the sex work thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.

I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.

People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".

But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.

What point do you even think you're making? How does claiming that your victims were attacking you, however incredibly, make it not a genocide?

If I walk into your house and murder you, your wife, your child, and your elderly father, and use your finger bones to make a necklace for my girlfriend, I don't get to claim that it was self defense in all four cases because your wife brandished a steak knife while I was doing it. Of course she fucking did. Because I was murdering her family. That doesn't even justify under the killing her, let alone everyone else.

That's not how it started. It wasn't originally attacks on the Indians, it was taking what appeared to be open resources but they were actually claimed by the Indians.

 

[Politesse]

Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.

I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.

People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".

But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.

What point do you even think you're making? How does claiming that your victims were attacking you, however incredibly, make it not a genocide?

If I walk into your house and murder you, your wife, your child, and your elderly father, and use your finger bones to make a necklace for my girlfriend, I don't get to claim that it was self defense in all four cases because your wife brandished a steak knife while I was doing it. Of course she fucking did. Because I was murdering her family. That doesn't even justify under the killing her, let alone everyone else.

That's not how it started. It wasn't originally attacks on the Indians, it was taking what appeared to be open resources but they were actually claimed by the Indians.

Let's start an actual thread on this. I don't want to drag this thread further off-topic, but you are deeply and fundamentally wrong about what happened and in what order.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Do you genuinely believe that someone saying hurty words in a generalized sense is justification for such behavior? We should have empathy for the instigator behaving in an uncivil and aggressive manner... because her feelings were hurt by something said many months ago?

All you're doing is justifying the use of aggression and violence in response to words. That can turn against you very, very easily. We all have a duty and responsibility to behave civilly toward our fellow citizens regardless of whether we agree with them, and regardless of whether we even like them.

If Andy says something mean about Bob, that's not at all a good reason for Carl to attack Dave.

Your question, “Do you genuinely believe that someone saying hurty words… is justification for such behavior?” builds on a problematic premise. By calling racist speech “hurty words,” you’re minimizing it, which stacks the deck rhetorically. That’s a form of a loaded question fallacy—like the old example, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It forces me to accept your framing before I can even respond.

Two clarifications:

1. I never said her actions were justified. Please show me where I did. You won’t find it.
2. I did say empathy is important. Empathy ≠ justification. Empathy means trying to understand why someone acted as they did. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. Understanding the causes of behavior doesn’t excuse it, but it can sometimes mitigate how harshly we respond.

On that basis: yes, her behavior was uncalled for and immature. No, it wasn’t “justified.” But it is understandable in context. Charlie Kirk has made repeated derogatory remarks about Black women and has built a career provoking 18–20 year olds on college campuses for the sake of viral clips and quote mines. When racist rhetoric becomes mainstream—amplified by political parties, media, and influencers—it’s predictable that some young people will react emotionally, especially in a so-called “free speech zone.” To act like this is simply “hurty words” ignores the broader reality of systemic racism and propaganda campaigns.

Now, as for the hat incident: technically, yes, it could be considered minor assault. But context matters. College students have had far more serious scuffles without facing multiple criminal charges. To treat this like a major criminal event is disproportionate. One disorderly conduct citation? Maybe. Only a $50 fine? Maybe. But three, four, five, or six charges and an expulsion? That’s not justice; that’s punitive performance theater.

You also wrote: “We all have a duty to behave civilly.” I might agree in principle—but let’s not pretend racism is “civil.” Racist speech presented politely is still racist speech. Kirk showing up at campuses with cameras, baiting students, and then weaponizing, cherry-picking and quote mining their reactions into viral clips is not civil discourse—it’s propaganda dressed up as free speech. As the saying goes: “Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.” Racist rhetoric dressed in suits and podiums is still harmful, no matter how flowery the delivery.

So again: her reaction was not justified. But it was predictable and understandable. If you ignore that distinction, you’re not arguing in good faith—you’re just minimizing racism while magnifying an 18-year-old’s bad decision.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's interpreting your opponent disagreeing with you as proof that he hates some group higher up on the progressive stack that's the shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

Wut!?
What’s the “it” to which you refer?
My “opponent” (Trump) categorically states, announces, and embraces hate of the entire category of his “opponents”, which includes some nine digit number of American Citizens.
Yet you characterize that as shrink wrapped leftism.
Trump as a leftist is a bit much of a stretch. It reeks of desperation. You COULD just acknowledge that it was a mistake to imply hate is a leftist slur.
If a leftist (or anyone else) ascribes hate to Trump, that’s simple observation of his own expression. No “interpretation” required. It’s certainly not “a leftist slur”, or any slur at all. That’s who he is.

Good lord, that's disconnected from what I said. No, I did not in any way characterize Trump as a leftist; neither did I in any way imply hate per se is a leftist slur. You are cherry-picking my words and dropping them in a blender along with a bunch of your own baseless assumptions, and setting it on max. So no, I cannot "acknowledge" making an alleged "mistake" that's a confabulation of your imagination. You evidently either didn't read or have forgotten the posts that led up to the exchange, so how about you acknowledge your mistake? JH and I weren't talking about Trump; we were talking about Tyler Robinson.

JH keeps griping about Robinson being portrayed as a leftist as though it were some kind of invention to discredit the left. So I'm pointing out that Robinson explained his crime thus: "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out." He was accusing Charlie Kirk of hate, not Trump! So you proving Trump is a hater is a complete red-herring. And if as JH says the assassination was "some entitled white boy shot another white boy over something personal" then the people Robinson was accusing Kirk of hating were the transgendered. Well, why did Robinson think Kirk hated trans people? What did Kirk ever say about trans people that indicated he hated them? Kirk reportedly said trans people are mentally ill. That's not hate. That was mainstream medical opinion in the DSM-4. The DSM-5 still lists bipolar disorder as a mental illness; do you think that means psychiatrists hate bipolar people? So where did Robinson get his conviction that Kirk hated trans people? Maybe someday Robinson will tell us; in the mean time, when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras. The horses are the millions of leftists pushing the meme that rejection of gender ideology equals transphobic hatred -- part and parcel of the broader pattern of leftists incessantly calling other people's opinions "hate" merely for being non-leftist. For gods' sake, I've been accused of hate just for liking capitalism! It's a shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

 

[Elixir]

It's a shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

Yet another one?
look, I’m no expert in Charlie, his killer or all matters trans. I have the impression that Robinson hated Charlie because Charlie hated trans people. I think Charlie may have said things besides “they’re mentally ill” Perplexity seems think so too;

Charlie Kirk was widely known for opposing transgender rights and often made highly provocative statements about transgender people, especially in his public appearances, podcast, and social media[latimes. He called transgender identities “one of the most destructive social contagions in human history,” referred to transgender people as “perverted,” and described gender-affirming care for young people as “unimaginable evil”[latimes +1]. Kirk also rejected the use of correct pronouns and referred to transgender identity as a “mental disease, needing brain treatment”.
During events, Kirk frequently claimed, without credible evidence, that “too many” transgender Americans have been involved in mass shootings, though studies and organizations strongly dispute these claims, showing that transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. He openly campaigned against gender-affirming healthcare, likened providers to Nazis, and advocated for labeling gender care bans as protective for children.

What’s this shrink wrapped leftist schtick?

 

[thebeave]

It's a shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

Yet another one?
look, I’m no expert in Charlie, his killer or all matters trans. I have the impression that Robinson hated Charlie because Charlie hated trans people. I think Charlie may have said things besides “they’re mentally ill” Perplexity seems think so too;

Charlie Kirk was widely known for opposing transgender rights and often made highly provocative statements about transgender people, especially in his public appearances, podcast, and social media[latimes. He called transgender identities “one of the most destructive social contagions in human history,” referred to transgender people as “perverted,” and described gender-affirming care for young people as “unimaginable evil”[latimes +1]. Kirk also rejected the use of correct pronouns and referred to transgender identity as a “mental disease, needing brain treatment”.
During events, Kirk frequently claimed, without credible evidence, that “too many” transgender Americans have been involved in mass shootings, though studies and organizations strongly dispute these claims, showing that transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. He openly campaigned against gender-affirming healthcare, likened providers to Nazis, and advocated for labeling gender care bans as protective for children.

What’s this shrink wrapped leftist schtick?

Don't believe everything AI tells you. Remember the Big, Ugly Bill fiasco?

 

[Elixir]

It's a shrink-wrapped leftist slur.

Yet another one?
look, I’m no expert in Charlie, his killer or all matters trans. I have the impression that Robinson hated Charlie because Charlie hated trans people. I think Charlie may have said things besides “they’re mentally ill” Perplexity seems think so too;

Charlie Kirk was widely known for opposing transgender rights and often made highly provocative statements about transgender people, especially in his public appearances, podcast, and social media[latimes. He called transgender identities “one of the most destructive social contagions in human history,” referred to transgender people as “perverted,” and described gender-affirming care for young people as “unimaginable evil”[latimes +1]. Kirk also rejected the use of correct pronouns and referred to transgender identity as a “mental disease, needing brain treatment”.
During events, Kirk frequently claimed, without credible evidence, that “too many” transgender Americans have been involved in mass shootings, though studies and organizations strongly dispute these claims, showing that transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. He openly campaigned against gender-affirming healthcare, likened providers to Nazis, and advocated for labeling gender care bans as protective for children.

What’s this shrink wrapped leftist schtick?

Don't believe everything AI tells you. Remember the Big, Ugly Bill fiasco?

I remember the BUB WAS a fiasco and remains such. We have yet to realize its effect.
I don’t believe everything ANY medium feeds me. I cross reference.
What I posted from perplexity was heavily referenced with links. The text of sources carry over with copying, but not as hot links so I removed them for readability. Reuters, Yahoo, X, WSJ and others were referenced in that answer.
You can certainly go to perplexity or other AI and ask it what Chuckie had to say about trans, and check the references, but that’s harder than handwaving.