• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

I didn't. That was my example, not yours. An analogy. The point is that it is wrong to deprive any entire social class of rights based on how scared you feel about the crimes some of them have been accused of, even if some members of that class are genuinely guilty of the crimes that scare you. Is that more clear?
Your point is errant and related to nothing outside or your imagination. I don't want to deprive anyone of their rights.
 
...
Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.
smh
That is sick. In fact, your whole post is ... sick.
I guess B20 ...
...
I don’t think B20 would disagree, except maybe about what “culture” he was immersed in. He certainly goes off though, if it is implied that Chuckie in any way brought it on himself by hating or threatening trans people.
...
:picardfacepalm:
Good lord, what a firehose of stupid posts. The garbage you guys are saying about me, you have no right to believe on such evidence as is before you*. Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place -- but seriously, you've gone off the deep end. Teaching all of you how to stop relying on invalid inference procedures is going to be a problem -- it looks to be a lifetime of work and I don't have that kind of time -- I'm already an old man. But we might as well get started, and just see how far we can get before my clock runs out. Who wants to go first?

(* The Ethics of Belief, Clifford, https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf )
Nice bunch of personal invectives.
[Insert emoji of Spock raising an eyebrow] Do you object to personal invectives? Would you like me to post links to a selection of yours against me?

Your lofty opinion of yourself is belied by a stunning inability to address the points that have been laid out.
"Inability"? That's premature -- it was only in your present post that you volunteered to go first. What did you have in mind -- was I supposed to reply to firehose with firehose, or was I supposed to answer your charges ahead of everyone else's because you're special, or was I supposed to hop in my DeLorean and hit 88 mph?

Your clock could tick on forever at this rate and you’d still just be an old redneck ranting semi- coherently about the intellectual shortcomings of anyone who isn’t a lockstep conservotard. I thought you could do better, and that’s on me.
The heck are you talking about? Lockstep conservotards have just as severe intellectual shortcomings as their mirror images on the left.

Who wants to go first?
I’ll go first. Show me the golden wisdom of blaming your shortcomings on libtards!
:rolleyesa: Quote me ever blaming anything on libtards. If you mean I blame something on you guys, that really isn't on point -- not a one of you shows any sign of being liberal.

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.
smh
Had to look that up. You appear to mean you're shaking your head at me, but you should be shaking it at folks like Jarhyn. Seriously, they imagine I'm comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary. Never happened. They, and you apparently, can't tell the difference between a comparison and a counterexample. I was proving by counterexample that Don had relied on an invalid inference procedure. I'm trying to teach you guys to stop relying on those; so far all you're doing in response is doubling down on them.

That is sick. In fact, your whole post is ... sick.
I guess B20 thinks I have made a giant unwarranted leap of faith, to believe that a guy in a relationship with a trans person killed someone who evinces hate for trans people, leaving an apologetic note for his trans partner … and making the unwarranted conjecture that these things could be related.
SHEESH!!
I guess you haven't stopped beating your wife. You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely, that Kirk evinced hate for trans people. Of course Robinson believed he did. It isn't any leap of faith to believe that a guy in a relationship with a trans person killed someone he thinks evinces hate for trans people, leaving an apologetic note for his trans partner. The conjecture that these things could be related is certainly warranted -- and nowhere did I suggest otherwise.

But it’s not a leap of faith for him to imply that since we don’t know that he’s not a boilerplate liberal gunslinger, (common as such folk are) he might well have been a Hillary-loving lib’rul murderer.

Ooookay, dude.
You really need to cut back on the snark at me for words you put in my mouth. Of course we know he's not a boilerplate liberal gunslinger or a Hillary-loving lib’rul murderer. "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship." If you're for censorship then you're not a liberal.

I think I must be missing something; B20 isn’t usually so reactionary.

Something SURELY unrelated, but to feed his confirmation bias, the MI shooter’s lifted pickup truck flying its dual ‘Murkin flags, - tha guy was probably another lib.
But we wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions, right?
What you're missing is that you really are full of baseless assumptions about people.

An unstable man immersed in gun culture and online extremism did not need a settled definition of "hate" to justify violence
I don’t think B20 would disagree, except maybe about what “culture” he was immersed in. He certainly goes off though, if it is implied that Chuckie in any way brought it on himself by hating or threatening trans people.
By "goes off", you mean "points out lack of evidence"? Chuckie brought risk of assassination on himself in any number of ways, and threatening trans people appears to have been one of them. But Robinson didn't mention threat. He mentioned hate.
 
What's with the eyerolls? Still not going to admit we know Project 2025 is happening and the impact it will have on marginalized groups?

Project 2025 is being implemented with gusto by that creep Russell Vought who is the real power behind the stupid evil Trump. There is no way that stupid Trump could think up all of the thousands of his executive orders. Vought is pulling all the strings. And Trump loves it. The destruction of a Nation.
Crowing ad nauseum about how your opponent is evil over and over again, framing them as the absolute worst possible person... that's the tactics used by the inquisition, jihadists, and authoritarians across the world and throughout time.

Then stop doing it.
Demonstrate where I've done so.

To the extent that the poster you were responding to did so, if you really stretch words, you've done the same thing repeatedly including in the post I responded to. So it was already demonstrated.

Let's go over the receipts:

1. "Crowing ad nauseum about how your opponent is evil over and over again..." -- this is you saying over and over again that your opponents are bad people because they don't both sides Nazis or whatever your latest thing is--to include this last post I responded to where you implied the poster was acting like an inquisitionist, jihadist or authoritarian: CHECK.
2. "framing them as the absolute worst possible person..." -- that's what you are doing by calling them an inquisitionist, jihadist, or authoritarian. INSTEAD, let's look logically here. A person who does this could simply be correct and that is fairly broad. A specific example, sure: the Allied Armies of WW2 or any person in leadership could say over and over that the Nazis were the worst people or that Hitler was the worst or some victims of pogroms might say Stalin was the worst kind of person...and this would not be unreasonable and they could easily be correct, BUT here you specifically only point to the worst possible person. Ergo, CHECK.
3. "that's the tactics used by the inquisition, jihadists, and authoritarians across the world and throughout time..." But it's your tactic here. You just did it in this phrasing, you've used the tactic of comparing the poster to inquisitionists, jihadists, and authoritarians. CHECK.

Now instead of using ad hom, you could have responded to the substance of the Project 2025 stuff and noted that Trump is indeed a big fat liar, that he is indeed implementing unconstitutional measures, and we are headed toward fascism. OR you could have argued with substance why any of those things are not true. But you did not.
 
I just see a lot of distraction from the fact that Kirk fronted for people that like how Alan Turing was “dealt with”. It is hard for me to take arguments in good faith when it is a steady deviation from the facts of Turning Point USA policy positions and advocacy.
 
The guy literally ran a whole platform just to doxx and intimidate professors and school boards he disliked - nearly all them queer, female, or black, a coincidence I'm sure - and we're supposed to pretend he wasn't anti-democratic, and moreover that he was pro- free speech. Because he did debates as well, and that proves he liked dialogue. That he was a pacifist, because he only intimated too many times to count that violence solves problems. It's fucking absurd. I hope none of these Kirk apologists want me to take them seriously on any other topic.
 
You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely, that Kirk evinced hate for trans people
You have to narrow the definition of hate to microscopic proportions to make that claim.
I do suppose Jeffrey Dahmer never evinced hate for his victims, either. In fact he loved them, every bite, right?

Robinson didn't mention threat. He mentioned hate.
Yeah. Like I said (conjectured), it was probably personal rather than political.
But I’m sure poor Chuckie would have blessed all the attempts to leverage his death to further the success of the fascist junta. The hero didn’t die in vain.
 
Last edited:
Lesson plans for St. Charlie Kirk.


This push to treat him like a martyr is absurd and counterproductive. I seriously wish everyone would knock off both extreme ends of this. Stop pretending like he's the antichrist spouting violence and hatred, but also stop pretending he's some saint who's incapable of being mean or petty or wrong.

I'm so fucking tired of this need to make everything so extreme all the time.

I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.

That he was assassinated was horrific but imo no more horrific than the children slaughtered at Sandy Hook or any other school or church shooting. Probably less so because I think there is an entirely different t level of horrific for the slaughter of children compared with the murder of adults. Children have their entire lives before them. Adults, or most of us, have found ways to be pretty terrible at least a few times.
 
1. "Crowing ad nauseum about how your opponent is evil over and over again..." -- this is you saying over and over again that your opponents are bad people because they don't both sides Nazis or whatever your latest thing is--to include this last post I responded to where you implied the poster was acting like an inquisitionist, jihadist or authoritarian: CHECK.
2. "framing them as the absolute worst possible person..." -- that's what you are doing by calling them an inquisitionist, jihadist, or authoritarian. INSTEAD, let's look logically here. A person who does this could simply be correct and that is fairly broad. A specific example, sure: the Allied Armies of WW2 or any person in leadership could say over and over that the Nazis were the worst people or that Hitler was the worst or some victims of pogroms might say Stalin was the worst kind of person...and this would not be unreasonable and they could easily be correct, BUT here you specifically only point to the worst possible person. Ergo, CHECK.
3. "that's the tactics used by the inquisition, jihadists, and authoritarians across the world and throughout time..." But it's your tactic here. You just did it in this phrasing, you've used the tactic of comparing the poster to inquisitionists, jihadists, and authoritarians. CHECK.
You are what you claim to hate.
 
I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.
Okay, I get that this is abstract reasoning here, but bear with me.

You perceiving Kirk's views as hateful views is not the same as Kirk advocating hate.

My grandfather believed that miscegenation was sinful. My stepdad is black. My grandfather didn't hate my stepdad.

I can absolutely understand that many people see my grandfather's belief as hateful; my grandfather himself wasn't hateful - he didn't see it as hateful, and he didn't have any hate in his heart toward my stepdad. Doesn't mean there wasn't tension especially early on. There were arguments, there was a lot of anger, it went on for years. It sucked and it was sad and it was painful... but it wasn't hate.
 
I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.
Okay, I get that this is abstract reasoning here, but bear with me.

You perceiving Kirk's views as hateful views is not the same as Kirk advocating hate.

My grandfather believed that miscegenation was sinful. My stepdad is black. My grandfather didn't hate my stepdad.

I can absolutely understand that many people see my grandfather's belief as hateful; my grandfather himself wasn't hateful - he didn't see it as hateful, and he didn't have any hate in his heart toward my stepdad. Doesn't mean there wasn't tension especially early on. There were arguments, there was a lot of anger, it went on for years. It sucked and it was sad and it was painful... but it wasn't hate.
Of course, expressing hateful views may mean advocating hate as well.

What I find fascinating is the amount of effort to sanitize Mr Kirk’s bigoted and hateful stupidity.
 
I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.
Okay, I get that this is abstract reasoning here, but bear with me.

You perceiving Kirk's views as hateful views is not the same as Kirk advocating hate.

My grandfather believed that miscegenation was sinful. My stepdad is black. My grandfather didn't hate my stepdad.

I can absolutely understand that many people see my grandfather's belief as hateful; my grandfather himself wasn't hateful - he didn't see it as hateful, and he didn't have any hate in his heart toward my stepdad. Doesn't mean there wasn't tension especially early on. There were arguments, there was a lot of anger, it went on for years. It sucked and it was sad and it was painful... but it wasn't hate.
My mother’s stepfather had raised two unrelated boys during the Great Depression, although he was far from well off himself. He married my grandmother who was widowed with four children. They farmed, and made a modest living from that. Part of the farm included an apple orchard , from which he raised apples and made cider which they sold during my childhood until my grandfather—step grandfather, I suppose, died. During all of those years, although they were not well off enough to afford indoor plumbing until I was 8 or so, my grandfather donated apples every fall to the nearby elementary schools. He thought children should have good food, and fresh fruit. He also sent us to school the first week with a large, perfect and well polished apple for our teacher’s desk. My dad often helped his father in law with heavy work and we kids spent most Sunday afternoons helping or rather ‘helping’ in the apple house for which we were paid a quarter. He was full of stories and liked to let me sit in his lap while he rested in his recliner. He told me stories and I believe was a bit of an artist: I remember him showing me some sketches he had done of the orchard. There was also a fishing pond on the property and for a dollar, people could go back to the pond and try their luck.

One Sunday, we were there and a man and his son knocked on the door and asked if they could go to the pond to fish, two dollars in the father’s hand. They were black. My grandfather, knowing I was there next to him, questioned the man sharply, in ways that were designed to make him squirm. When he felt he had sufficiently humiliated the man in front of his son, who was about my age (6 yo), he agreed to allow them to go back to fish. I don’t remember the next words he spoke to me, but they included something along the lines of ‘He seems ok for a (n word). This was followed up by questioning me about whether or not there were any little ( n-word) boys in my class, and that I needed to be careful they did not ‘ get next to me’ or similar, which, as an adult I recognized he was trying to warn me that another six year old might try to rape me. Because he was black. I remember feeling sick at his words and after that, I avoided my grandfather aside from the obligatory kids bellow and goodbye. I still loved him, but I wanted nothing to do with him.

Decades later, after he had been dead for more than 20 years, we found out he was in the Klan.

So my grandfather, who was in many ways very kind and generous and warm was also a virulent racist who attempted to convert a 6 year old child to his brand of racism.

Most people have many sides. The kindness and generosity that were such a part of my grandfather existed right next to the most hateful display of racism I had ever seen.

I think it is so of most racists. They have jobs, work hard, love their families. Often they are involved in their communities and even churches. They are often well respected.

None of that erases the vile racism. It doesn’t even a little bit mitigate the evil inherent in those racist beliefs.
 
Last edited:
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.
I wouldn't say we knew it would come this way. They wanted it but that doesn't mean they were guaranteed success.
 
I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.
Okay, I get that this is abstract reasoning here, but bear with me.

You perceiving Kirk's views as hateful views is not the same as Kirk advocating hate.

My grandfather believed that miscegenation was sinful. My stepdad is black. My grandfather didn't hate my stepdad.

I can absolutely understand that many people see my grandfather's belief as hateful; my grandfather himself wasn't hateful - he didn't see it as hateful, and he didn't have any hate in his heart toward my stepdad. Doesn't mean there wasn't tension especially early on. There were arguments, there was a lot of anger, it went on for years. It sucked and it was sad and it was painful... but it wasn't hate.
It's good of you to confess what you mean when you "don't hate" such and such group. Opposing someone's right to marry isn't hate. Keeping a hit list of people you're trying to get fired isn't hate. Saying you think someone should be in hell for offending your favorite god isn't hate. The only thing that is hateful is admitting that you hate someone, never mind the actual injuries you do to them. That right?

You clearly learned a lot of important life lessons from your grandfather about how not to hate people. He would be proud of you, even now continuing to fight the good fight against admitting to feelings of 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".
The thing is few would actually admit to being a Nazi. We rarely get evidence as good as a Nazi salute. Thus it comes down to trying to infer whether someone likely actually holds Nazi beliefs by looking at what positions they support. The more Nazi-like their positions, the more people will conclude that they're actually a Nazi--but there's no standard to measure against so whether the observed pattern is a sufficient match to call them a Nazi varies from person to person.
 
I'll be much surprised if you can produce said evidence running in the opposite direction re "perversion", since "perversion" is an entirely subjective pejorative. Re mass shootings, do you mean something like Elixir's Perplexity emission, "transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators"? That's true of pretty much any demographic, since one perpetrator typically has many victims.
No--mass shootings have many victims, but a lot of the violence is one on one or many on one. Trans being far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator is true for society in general.
 
I would tend to think there was a political angle to this. You don't shoot someone over a live video feed unless you want others to see it, you'd wait until they are getting in their car, yeah?
I think the live video is irrelevant.

When someone is on stage like that they are intentionally visible to a large area. They generally are pretty much stationary. Without Secret Service level protection a rifleman can almost certainly find a spot to shoot from. Maximum chance of hitting, lowest chance of getting caught.
 
Back
Top Bottom