Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Elixir]

Somebody is against male boxers punching female boxers? He hates trans people. Somebody is against illegal immigration? He hates brown people. Somebody is against affirmative action? He hates black people. Somebody is against abortion? He hates women. Somebody is against socialism? He hates poor people. Get some new material for chrissakes!

***Somebody*** is paranoid.

I know for sure that I do none of your “somebody” things, and don’t know anyone who does. What you say reeks of totalitarian generalities employed to suppress.
Just like Trump’s new executive order to
“Dismantle left wing groups” including ones that don’t exist (e.g. Antifa).
Create boogeyman groups, assign individuals to it and put them away.
What individuals would you name as members of Antifa? Trump’s answer:
WHOEVER THE FUCK FAILS TO BEND THE KNEE TO ME!!

Your “somebody” is everyone in the country outside of core MAGA, the very moment they stand up to the coming fascism.

I find that despicable and shameful.
You assign me to your hated “outgroup” for observing Robinson’s hate of anti-trans people, accusing me of being in his group of capital criminals, a member of the leftist hate group of your fantasy. One might presume that you think Robinson was ambivalent toward trans people, and any perception to the contrary is a symptom that *somebody* is leftist and needs arrested.

Almost as if you’ve been marinating your brain in Stephen Miller’s X-tra hot Trump sauce.

 

[Elixir]

Robinson got presumed leftist because he quacked like the left

Oh, you only think that because you are steeped in right wing fascist conspiracies!!
They TOLD you to think that! I HEARD them tell everyone that, but I know better!

/turnabout

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Robinson got presumed leftist because he quacked like the left

Oh, you only think that because you are steeped in right wing fascist conspiracies!!
They TOLD you to think that! I HEARD them tell everyone that, but I know better!

/turnabout

Yeah tell me again racism isn't a problem on the right wing.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alligator-lives-matter-trump-pal-170858014.html

The whitewashing is getting really old. I'm sure some dumbfuck will claim this is "out of context" or whatever bullshit though.

 

[Elixir]

The whitewashing is getting really old. I'm sure some dumbfuck will claim this is "out of context" or whatever bullshit though.

Whoever wrote it is obviously a member of Antifa, one of the 65 million who can be done away with to Make America Great Again. They shouldn’t have dissed Saint Charlie.

Far-right activist Laura Loomer has come under sharp condemnation after saying the wild animals surrounding President Donald Trump’s new immigration detention center, dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” will have “at least 65 million meals.”

I think she’s doing the math the lazy way - one person = one meal.
In fact, an alligator can only eat so much at a time. Trump would probably make a breakfast lunch and dinner.

 

[Politesse]

An interesting piece in the Times this morning:

What the Public Memory of Charlie Kirk Revealed​

“I said it’s natural to be sad and I don’t want to change your opinion about being sad,” Durant recounted to me. “But I am explaining to you that the gentleman who just got shot was under the impression that you, as a young Black woman, don’t have the brain processing power. So I am explaining it to you to let you know what he said was wrong and not true.”

As a Christian, Durant also felt he had to address Kirk’s version of Christianity, which condemned and disparaged people who are gay and transgender. Kirk once posted, “The pride and trans movements have always been about grooming kids.” And, in another instance, he had pointed to a passage in the Bible that said men who lay with other men “shall be stoned to death,” saying it “affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

This intolerance was not reflective of Durant’s own understanding of Jesus or the Gospel, nor the faith his family practiced. “I reminded her not to be a hypocritical Christian,” he said. ”I told her, You know, the Good Book, the Bible, says you judge a man as he lived, not as he died.”

Gets across a lot of the conflicted feelings many of us on the target list have, in the wake of this incident. I was as horrified as everyone else by the manner of Kirk's death, and I do not think the murderer was in the right. Whoever he was, he has caused far more harm than he prevented with this assassination.

But to be commanded to publically grieve someone? It is untenable in a democracy. Grief should be personal, not political. It's not just that I don't want to grieve Charlie Kirk, I couldn't if I tried. Anything I said would sound ungenuine coming from my lips. Unlike most of the people you see weeping on tv these days, I knew exactly who Kirk was long before the assassination, because I had to. He threatened to kill me. He threatened to kill many other people that I love. And he turned my students, who I also love in their own way, into weapons of an malignant political regime. As much a threat to their careers as to mine, really. And I'm supposed to just forget that and treat him as some sort of culture hero, because he's dead? Everyone dies. Not everyone becomes a Christofascist student organizer first.

 

[Elixir]

I'm supposed to just forget that and treat him as some sort of culture hero, because he's dead?

Did you forget you’re gay?
You’re supposed to STFU and be fed to alligators if you don’t.

 

[Politesse]

I'm supposed to just forget that and treat him as some sort of culture hero, because he's dead?

Did you forget you’re gay?
You’re supposed to STFU and be fed to alligators if you don’t.

Luckily, I took an alligator wrestling class once. (No lie! It was college, there was a dare involved...) I should go dust off my notes from that...

 

[laughing dog]

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.

So when you replied "that", you meant "that second one", not "that paragraph I quoted". Thanks for clarifying; sorry to misunderstand; such is the price of ambiguity.

No worries. Misunderstandings are the spice of life: sometimes enhancing the didcussion, sometimes ruining it.

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.

Oh, is that what I was doing? You appear to be assuming your conclusion as a premise.

Just calling them as I see them. I didn’t mean to imply intent on your part.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have to say, this kind of situation really does exemplify what I have been saying about how those who have been apparently merely "rhetorically cheeky" up to now only did so as a pretext to support hate and horrors being visited on people, and that this was always where they were headed.

Yes, you were always Nazis, the word Nazi always applied, and none of it was a Godwin after all (although Godwin himself admitted that sometimes, the guy calling the other a Nazi... Well, sometimes in the current climate they are right!)

We always knew that fascism would come to the world wrapped in the visage of Christianity, but representing utter mal-social selfishness. It was written over 2000 years ago describing the actions of tyrants of the day and humanity at that scale is still the same as it ever was.

The hate will be spun so that it's image confuses people as to whether it is hate; the effects of the hate will be people harmed horribly and tortured all the same, but it will be presented to everyone else confusingly.

And that is what we see... Many words used to confuse the issue that Charlie Kirk was a fascist Nazi who hated gay people and preached that hate.

 

[Elixir]

An Arizona Republican state lawmaker on Wednesday called for the execution of a Democratic congresswoman from Washington state because she urged people upset with President Donald Trump to protest in the streets.
But she is probably a closet 'lib, because Republicans are non-violent and need no restraint. Just like Chuckie.
She should probably be put to death as a a lib'rul, preferably in some very bloody manner with all the children in attendance, just as Chuckie would have prescribed for someone recommending a death sentence for the exercise of free speech.

 

[Politesse]

Republican Arizona lawmaker makes post calling for execution of Democratic congresswoman​

The comment on X by state representative John Gillette of Kingman, Arizona, first reported by the Arizona Mirror, was a reaction to a short clip drawn from a YouTube video in March by US representative Pramila Jayapal, a longtime Democratic congresswoman representing Washington state, entitled “The Resistance Lab.” In the video, Jayapal discusses preparations for street protests against the Trump administration.

“Until people like this, that advocate for the overthrow of the American government are tried, convicted and hanged … it will continue,” he posted.

Just one of several Republican politicians who have openly endorsed political violence in recent years.

Has any sitting Democrat politician ever openly called for the violent execution of a political rival? Not some kid on Libs of tikTok, but an actual lawmaker? I don't think so.

 

[Elixir]

Has any sitting Democrat politician ever openly called for the violent execution of a political rival?

Well, there was this sitting guy…
Looks rather ill-intended, doesn’t he?

And then there’s me, praying to Ronald McDonald. But I’m not asking him to do anything violent, just a tiny blockage or something. And I’m not sitting.

 

[ZiprHead]

“Bob Dylan Just Ignited a Firestorm With One Sentence About Charlie Kirk — And the World Is Watching”
He could have stayed silent. He could have deleted the post and let it fade.
But Bob Dylan didn’t. The music legend doubled down, setting the internet ablaze and sending shockwaves through concert halls, news outlets, and living rooms worldwide.
His words about the late Charlie Kirk — “If you want people to speak kindly after you’re gone, speak kindly while you’re alive” — struck like a match in a powder keg. Critics immediately circled, fans were divided, and social media erupted with debate, praise, and outrage.
Dylan’s response was simple, but unwavering: “I stand by this. Be kind — now more than ever.”
Some hail it as an act of bravery, a rare voice of conscience in a fractured culture. Others wonder if it will spark a controversy that could reshape Dylan’s legacy forever.
One thing is clear: the sentence didn’t just make headlines — it ignited a conversation about kindness, accountability, and the power of words that shows no sign of dying down. Read our full analysis in the comments.

 

[Toni]

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?

We, the people.

Yes, it would involve revolution, possibly/probably armed.

Is it different in Australia?

 

[TomC]

From John Gillette:
"“Until people like this, that advocate for the overthrow of the American government are tried, convicted and hanged … it will continue,” he posted."

Can someone with better Internetz than me,
Make a video of the Jan 6 insurrection, complete with cutaways to Trump and Hawley and such, with an overlay of this quote?
JAQ
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

I have to say, this kind of situation really does exemplify what I have been saying about how those who have been apparently merely "rhetorically cheeky" up to now only did so as a pretext to support hate and horrors being visited on people, and that this was always where they were headed.

Yes, you were always Nazis, the word Nazi always applied, and none of it was a Godwin after all (although Godwin himself admitted that sometimes, the guy calling the other a Nazi... Well, sometimes in the current climate they are right!)

We always knew that fascism would come to the world wrapped in the visage of Christianity, but representing utter mal-social selfishness. It was written over 2000 years ago describing the actions of tyrants of the day and humanity at that scale is still the same as it ever was.

The hate will be spun so that it's image confuses people as to whether it is hate; the effects of the hate will be people harmed horribly and tortured all the same, but it will be presented to everyone else confusingly.

And that is what we see... Many words used to confuse the issue that Charlie Kirk was a fascist Nazi who hated gay people and preached that hate.

Any chance your alter ego is Barbos? Sorry, bad inside joke. Kirk wasn't a Nazi. The danger with considering that everyone is a Nazi, is that you'll be continuously at war with everyone, and the real enemy will grow in power. Just a thought...

 

[bilby]

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?

We, the people.

Yes, it would involve revolution, possibly/probably armed.

Is it different in Australia?

Yes, it is. As a colony, we can appeal our Supreme Court's rulings to the British House of Lords.

Which seems bizarre and stupid, but nowhere near as bizarre and stupid as planning to take on the entire US military and police, with a few handguns and rifles, in an effort to overthrow with violence the very same Constitutional Republic you claim to be defending.

 

[Toni]

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?

We, the people.

Yes, it would involve revolution, possibly/probably armed.

Is it different in Australia?

Yes, it is. As a colony, we can appeal our Supreme Court's rulings to the British House of Lords.

Which seems bizarre and stupid, but nowhere near as bizarre and stupid as planning to take on the entire US military and police, with a few handguns and rifles, in an effort to overthrow with violence the very same Constitutional Republic you claim to be defending.

Who’s planning an armed revolution? Not me. Turns out the people actually calling for an armed revolution got what they wanted: Trumpism. Of course he doesn’t actually like them, so….

 

[Jarhyn]

I have to say, this kind of situation really does exemplify what I have been saying about how those who have been apparently merely "rhetorically cheeky" up to now only did so as a pretext to support hate and horrors being visited on people, and that this was always where they were headed.

Yes, you were always Nazis, the word Nazi always applied, and none of it was a Godwin after all (although Godwin himself admitted that sometimes, the guy calling the other a Nazi... Well, sometimes in the current climate they are right!)

We always knew that fascism would come to the world wrapped in the visage of Christianity, but representing utter mal-social selfishness. It was written over 2000 years ago describing the actions of tyrants of the day and humanity at that scale is still the same as it ever was.

The hate will be spun so that it's image confuses people as to whether it is hate; the effects of the hate will be people harmed horribly and tortured all the same, but it will be presented to everyone else confusingly.

And that is what we see... Many words used to confuse the issue that Charlie Kirk was a fascist Nazi who hated gay people and preached that hate.

Any chance your alter ego is Barbos? Sorry, bad inside joke. Kirk wasn't a Nazi. The danger with considering that everyone is a Nazi, is that you'll be continuously at war with everyone, and the real enemy will grow in power. Just a thought...

Kirk was a Nazi.

I will gladly be at continual war with actual Nazis, thanks.

Charlie Kirk isn't "everyone" and for that matter neither is Bomb.

The each have histories of statements and support whether blatant in Kirk's case or cheeky in Bomb's. Either way, they stand for themselves.

I'm not at war with "everyone" but I will always be at war with "Nazis".

 

[Politesse]

I have to say, this kind of situation really does exemplify what I have been saying about how those who have been apparently merely "rhetorically cheeky" up to now only did so as a pretext to support hate and horrors being visited on people, and that this was always where they were headed.

Yes, you were always Nazis, the word Nazi always applied, and none of it was a Godwin after all (although Godwin himself admitted that sometimes, the guy calling the other a Nazi... Well, sometimes in the current climate they are right!)

We always knew that fascism would come to the world wrapped in the visage of Christianity, but representing utter mal-social selfishness. It was written over 2000 years ago describing the actions of tyrants of the day and humanity at that scale is still the same as it ever was.

The hate will be spun so that it's image confuses people as to whether it is hate; the effects of the hate will be people harmed horribly and tortured all the same, but it will be presented to everyone else confusingly.

And that is what we see... Many words used to confuse the issue that Charlie Kirk was a fascist Nazi who hated gay people and preached that hate.

Any chance your alter ego is Barbos? Sorry, bad inside joke. Kirk wasn't a Nazi. The danger with considering that everyone is a Nazi, is that you'll be continuously at war with everyone, and the real enemy will grow in power. Just a thought...

This kind of equivocation isn't helping anything. No one compares "everyone" to Nazis. People who know history compare those who espouse Nazi ideology to Nazis. Concepts like scientific racism, eugenics, anti-socialism, Aryan supremacy, and radical nationalism aren't inventions of "the left".