[RD] Charlie Kirk assassinated

[PhroX]

He was an outspoken figure, who was very public about his opinions. Both politically and socially. So you could say he was not in politics, but his personality was political.
Of course that will ruffle feathers (as you can see on this forum).
So yeah, some will not mourn his death one bit, which I understand.
However - no matter left or right, friend or foe, no one deserves to die for having an opinion. If you think they do, you are a fascist, a totalitarian, and a tyrant.

It's not his opinions that were the problem. It was his actions. He was actively promoting hated violence and suffering.

 

[caketastydelish]

He was a demon desperate to whip up physical, mental and legal violence against my community and many others, so spare us your sanctimonious lecture @caketastydelish

If people in "your community" openly celebrate murder, then you proved his point for him better than he ever could.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If people in "your community" openly celebrate murder, then you proved his point for him better than he ever could.

My community is trans people, kirk actively encouraged increasing the suicide rate for us alongside making our lives intolerable.

Nothing you say can change the fact that he was a ****ing scumbag who's death represented a form of karma. A merchant of misery who profited off of human suffering.

He got exactly what he wanted, he just didn't think that he would be the one shot this time.

 

[caketastydelish]

A reaction to this attitude that you present is why Trump and people like him keep getting elected.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Cool story.

Trying to guilt trip me into being sad about a dude who actively encouraged suicide for my community, get a grip, he was evil, he didn't care when others paid the price for his beliefs.

 

[Theov]

It's not his opinions that were the problem. It was his actions. He was actively promoting hated violence and suffering.

I've never heard him promote violence - but I'm open to change my mind if you can find examples.
And even if he did, is that then a valid reason to shoot someone in the neck for?

 

[caketastydelish]

Simply not mourning his death is one thing, but openly celebrating it is another.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Don't care, he was evil.

 

[caketastydelish]

Hitler, Osama Bin Laden were evil. They don't even have to be mass murderers. If they murdered one person, we can say they were evil. He didn't kill or rape anyone as far as I know.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

No, he just advocated for human misery up to and including suicide, accepting kid's deaths as acceptable collateral and biblical punishment against the lgbtq community, which included abuse and murder.

He was evil, he sucked absolute ass, a ghoul of a human being actively making the world worse off for his own profit. A parasite who happily condemned others to suffering whilst he further berated them for existing.

 

[JPetroski]

Fully admitting that my amygdala got the better of me earlier today, when you start looking at the aerial photos, and where the shot probably came from and what sort of skills and training it would take to make it, it just doesn't seem even remotely likely that the primary motivation of this shooter was that they disagreed with Charlie Kirk. Much more likely the goal was to shake up the ant jar.

Frankly, those of you on the left have been frothing for awhile now and it doesn't take much to set you off these days, but I haven't seen folks on the right as pissed off as, well, ever, so mission probably accomplished.

We all need to chill the **** out.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Hitler, Osama Bin Laden were evil. They don't even have to be mass murderers. If they murdered one person, we can say they were evil. He didn't kill or rape anyone as far as I know.

Hitler or Osama Bin Laden probably never killed anyone by themselves, they promoted hate and violence and eventually when reached power, ordered the death of concrete persons occasionally. There is a thin line between being evil by action or by word and when somebody becomes influential the line gets blurry or entirely disappears.

However I will agree with you about some attitudes from some extreme lefties, feminists, LGTBIQ+, etc being pretty annoying, having the counterproductive effect of pushing many center-left heterosexual 'white' middle-class males as myself to the right, which I effort to resist. Fortunately people as the shot guy push me to the left, so I mostly remain in the same place.

Btw, I looked for info about this guy since I never heard about him before;

Who was Charlie Kirk? What we know about the shooting and the suspect

Video of the incident shows Charlie Kirk speaking to a large outdoor crowd when a gunshot rings out.

www.aljazeera.com

Before the shooting, he was seated at his “Prove Me Wrong” debating table, taking questions from an audience outdoors.

Videos show that Kirk was going back and forth with a student about mass shootings and transgender people when he was shot.

“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” Kirk was asked.

“Too many,” Kirk responded as the crowd clapped.

“Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?” To which Kirk replied, “Counting or not counting gang violence?”

Seconds later, Kirk could be seen struck in the neck as he fell from his chair.

Leaving apart how strong his arguments apparently were, we can say he was ultimately proved wrong.

 

[JPetroski]

Lesving apart how strong his arguments apparently were, we can say he was ultimately proved wrong.

I find it extremely unlikely that the assassin who shot him was some whackadoodle civilian with a gun, but I guess we'll see. Not sure this is ultimately going to play out as a good argument for "gun control would have prevented this."

 

[caketastydelish]

Hitler or Osama Bin Laden probably never killed anyone by themselves, they promoted hate and violence and eventually when reached power, ordered the death of concrete persons occasionally. There is a thin line between being evil by action or by word and when somebody becomes influential the line gets blurry or entirely disappears.

However I will agree with you about some attitudes from some extreme lefties, feminists, LGTBIQ+, etc being pretty annoying, having the counterproductive effect of pushing many center-left heterosexual 'white' middle-class males as myself to the right, which I effort to resist. Fortunately people as the shot guy push me to the left, so I mostly remain in the same place.

I’m not white, far too poor to be middle class and disabled and even I think they need to be put in check. Anyway Hitler ordered the invasion of countries and bin Laden was the mastermind of terror attacks did this guy do anything like that? There’s no comparison

Edit: fixed the typo

 

[Theov]

Hitler or Osama Bin Laden probably never killed anyone by themselves, they promoted hate and violence and eventually when reached power, ordered the death of concrete persons occasionally. There is a thin line between being evil by action or by word and when somebody becomes influential the line gets blurry or entirely disappears.

However I will agree with you about some attitudes from some extreme lefties, feminists, LGTBIQ+, etc being pretty annoying, having the counterproductive effect of pushing many center-left heterosexual 'white' middle-class males as myself to the right, which I effort to resist. Fortunately people as the shot guy push me to the left, so I mostly remain in the same place.

Btw, I looked for info about this guy since I never heard about him before;

Who was Charlie Kirk? What we know about the shooting and the suspect

Video of the incident shows Charlie Kirk speaking to a large outdoor crowd when a gunshot rings out.

www.aljazeera.com

Leaving apart how strong his arguments apparently were, we can say he was ultimately proved wrong.

I watched a few debates and he strikes me as the average religious + conservative father in the USA. Strong opinions, sure, that's his job, but reasonable and well-spoken.
I don't agree with many things, but understand where he's coming from.
Agree with some things.

 

[Sarin]

Fully admitting that my amygdala got the better of me earlier today, when you start looking at the aerial photos, and where the shot probably came from and what sort of skills and training it would take to make it, it just doesn't seem even remotely likely that the primary motivation of this shooter was that they disagreed with Charlie Kirk. Much more likely the goal was to shake up the ant jar.

Frankly, those of you on the left have been frothing for awhile now and it doesn't take much to set you off these days, but I haven't seen folks on the right as pissed off as, well, ever, so mission probably accomplished.

We all need to chill the **** out.

It's been what, 12 hours? And we have no suspect, no statement...
It is starting to look like a hit. Not a local lunatic, not a vengeful parent...

 

[Akka]

As much as I am against political violence and suppressing opinions, the fact that someone who said "empathy is made-up BS" and "collateral damages from guns are acceptable" got shot, is too ironic and karmic for me to care in the least.
As usual, there is a pretty big difference between "how society should be run" (political violence is unacceptable outside of existential threat, listening to differing opinions is paramount) and "how one feel about something" (this guy just asked for it, was blown by his own petard and deserve to have his own criteria applied to him).

 

[Sarin]

As much as I am against political violence and suppressing opinions, the fact that someone who said "empathy is made-up BS" and "collateral damages from guns are acceptable" got shot, is too ironic and karmic for me to care in the least.
As usual, there is a pretty big difference between "how society should be run" (political violence is unacceptable outside of existential threat, listening to differing opinions is paramount) and "how one feel about something" (this guy just asked for it, was blown by his own petard and deserve to have his own criteria applied to him).

When he called the school shooting deaths "acceptable cost", I wonder if he counted himself among the acceptable casualties.

You gotta hand it to him. He really put his money here his mouth was.

 

[Senethro]

I find it extremely unlikely that the assassin who shot him was some whackadoodle civilian with a gun, but I guess we'll see. Not sure this is ultimately going to play out as a good argument for "gun control would have prevented this."

Whackadoodle civilian with a gun? Yeah, I'd take that bet as long as it doesn't exclude veterans and current security/cops.

I do not think this is a contract killing or done to order by domestic or foreign intelligence services/organised crime.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

As much as I am against political violence and suppressing opinions, the fact that someone who said "empathy is made-up BS" and "collateral damages from guns are acceptable"

Lol, really he said that? I stand corrected then, I find this particular collateral damage pretty acceptable, so lets say he was kind of proved right.

I watched a few debates and he strikes me as the average religious + conservative father in the USA. Strong opinions, sure, that's his job, but reasonable and well-spoken.
I don't agree with many things, but understand where he's coming from.
Agree with some things.

If a moron that says empathy is BS and school shootings are acceptable is the average religious conservative father in USA then there is a huge problem in USA, and the problem is not inmimgration, drugs or even crime but average religious conservative fathers.