[RD] Charlie Kirk assassinated

[Gori the Grey]

I think the question as to whether we should label the shooter as left-wing is an interesting one.

Assume for the sake of this argument that that transcript is authentic.

Robinson is in a relationship with a transitioning individual. That says he's open to what gender dysphoric people report about their own psychological experience, and supportive of a person who is transitioning to female.

In our culture, it is people on the left who tend to be open and supportive in that way.

And in fact in all policy matters that pertain to this, if there are any supporters of trans individuals rights, they tend to come from the left, whereas the right tends to be positively hostile to such policies. (I am not saying the left supports trans rights sufficiently.)

On this one issue, then, Robinson aligns more with people who are on the left. But there haven't come out about him his support for any other left policies. We don't know his position on forgiving student loans or global warming or the federal debt or . . .

But he has to be sorted, and there have to be only two piles into which to sort. So a single data-point is sufficient.

This happened instantly, of course, before anything was known about the shooter: if a right-wing person is shot, it must be a left-wing person who shot him. QED.

In other words, this political division is regarded as axiomatic and primary.

We now have some evidence that one one point he tends to align with the left, and so left-and-only-left he must be.

It's not so much the lack of nuance that I'm complaining about, so much as just noting the rigor with which this two-and-only-two sides is applied to a particular case that arises.

I'm not yet fully getting my point expressed. The fact that we are polarized as a nation is of course a banal observation. I'm interested in the speed with which one particular binary instantly imposes itself on our processing of a new set of details.

What I'm saying is equally true of Kirk in this case. There are other possible reasons someone might have shot him. But his being a spokesman for right wing causes instantly came up as the only relevant detail about him and only possible explanation for his being shot. He is right-and-only-right.

 

[Evie]

Well articulated, Gori.

As to Hygro's post, I've seen many times many people who were raised on conservative religious (especially) moral absolutes built around the whole concept of damned and righteous, breaking away from Christianity and adopting new political views - but trying to replicate the comforting moral absolutes of their old lives in the new worldview. They look at intersectionality, at power imbalance analysis, and rather than use them as tool of understanding and analysis (which they actually are) turn them into a new series of absolute moral commandments to set the sinners apart from the righteous. The individual principles they champion change, but the fundamental framework in which they fit those principles remain the one they absorbed from childhood. It's an interesting (read: freaking annoying) combination. Whether it was at play in this specific case, I don't know.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't agree Charlie Kirk was dangerous to anyone. Maybe we have different definitions of 'danger'. We sure don't agree, but that's ok.
He was shot while debating others...
If anything, other people were dangerous to him.

Can you finish your thought though.
Charlie Kirk was dangerous... therefore....?
Or
Charlie Kirk was dangerous... but .... ?
I'm curious what you're trying to argue here. Or just. "He was dangerous".

What you try to say with that spoiler-God thing - I have no idea.
Is it your seriously your opinion? Is it a quote from someone else? Is it sarcasm? What?

I did finish my thought:

"Charlie Kirk: very dangerous to non Christians, gays, trans, and people who believe in empathy. "

He was a Christian Nationalist and all that that entails and advocates for which includes punishing gays and trans people. Charlie was against empathy too. He preached for sympathy (thoughts and prayers) rather than empathy which should be limited to one's family and not offered to humanity in general. He was a racist and white supremist. That makes him dangerous to to all non white people and to people who embrace racial diversity.

Spoiler: Within Evangelical Christianity having a personal relationship with God/Jesus is the highest calling. Following His teachings and preaching his gospel is one's life's work. The expectation is that when Jesus comes again, those who believe will be "captured" and taken to Heaven to be with God. All the rest will be condemned to Hell. Many Evangelicals see our times as the End Times and the Rapture will be soon. Their hope is to be with God in Heaven. Clearly many of Kirk's followers "know" he is in Heaven with God the very place they long to be. Their grief for him is selfish when it was an all powerful God that took him Home.

 

[r16]

the Left doing what the Right does when and wherever given the power to do so

there is no exact moral superiority between the sides , not in the US , not in my country . It has been some mythical stuff that has prevented the current stuff in the US politics happening before . It is utter ugliness of the US Right that has made it possible for the US Left to "create a global democracy" and whatever goodies the US Left wants to assume about itself . Clinton or Obama or Biden didn't do squat about the US global interests that come so much looking like imperialism to the rest of the world . 3 Presidents named , one in the beginning of the unipolar world , second at the clearly impending doom of it and the last stupendously failing at the transition . Trump would have died in Pennsylvania or however you spell that , but the US institutions need his powers of chaos .

as such the spoiler is still uncalled for . When the hounds or whatever come , looking for sinners they might might find out people are not exactly "believers" . They will create crimes and sins for you if they so desire , careful about providing inspiration in the first place . The law abiding , balance of powers America never existed , they are just coming out . Previous experience is unapplicable .

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

All scaled power comes from speech so the danger of an individual will come down to the speech and its ability to get others to act in a dangerous way. Clear

Look forget general gun culture for a second.

Rightwing culture produces way more people who think it’s right or worthy to shoot someone else politically.

This kid is probably leftwing. But he also has instilled in him a right wing culture, and his solution for “his (left) team” was more in line with right wing thinking.

Leftwing culture produces way fewer shooters. The guy switched teams growing up. But he took with him who he was how he was raised.

the mere ownership of a gun does not imbue one with "gun culture"; just saying:
- Kamala Harris supposedly has a gun but she never made a big deal about it.
- An untold number of other left-leaning big wigs probably have armed security, too; I would not chide them for offloading their animus towards the 2A onto their bodyguards. They just want to feel safe at their important jobs. Classist, but I get it.
- Meanwhile the poster here who recently changed his avatar from Malcolm X I'm sure can show the pic of the same guy holding his M1 carbine. His views were not ones of conquest but that blacks had little chance of survival without guns.
- There's also the aspect of some political killers having military training beforehand. Christopher Dorner. Lee Oswald's stint in the Marines.
All of which throw this idea out of whack.

Now if the killer had some "From My Cold, Dead Hands" bumper sticker that was starting to fade in recent years, maybe if he had an NRA membership that just lapsed, yeah I'd see your point.
But ok, so possibly his dad took him out hunting a few times...that puts him in the right-wing galaxy? that he only recently achieved escape velocity out of?

I object to the view that ownership is some inherent right-wing phenomenon. It would be one if the ownership itself becomes politicized. Not the possession.

 

[Moriarte]

On this one issue, then, Robinson aligns more with people who are on the left. But there haven't come out about him his support for any other left policies. We don't know his position on forgiving student loans or the federal debt or . . .

I'm sure I don't want to know his position on federal debt after I heard his position on freedom of speech.

their grief for him is selfish when it was an all powerful God that took him Home.

If grief is selfish, why does the Bible say ‘Jesus wept’ when Lazarus died? Even the Son of God showed grief, so mourning isn’t selfish - it’s love.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If grief is selfish, why does the Bible say ‘Jesus wept’ when Lazarus died? Even the Son of God showed grief, so mourning isn’t selfish - it’s love.

If one believes that Charlie is in Heaven where they too want to be, wishing he hadn't been killed is selfish. Also see my sig,

 

[Cloud_Strife]

He's looking up at us

 

[Moriarte]

Always wanted to say you have a nice quote collection down there, Bird.

If one believes that Charlie is in Heaven where they too want to be, wishing he hadn't been killed is selfish.

I don't believe Charlie is in heaven. I think he was taken out of his home by a cowardly twerp with a rifle.

As an atheist, I'd say that trying to make people feel guilty for loving someone deeply will not prove an efficient tactic.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Always wanted to say you have a nice quote collection down there, Bird.



I don't believe Charlie is in heaven. I think he was taken out of his home by a cowardly twerp with a rifle.

As an atheist, I'd say that trying to make people feel guilty for loving someone deeply will not prove an efficient tactic.

What you or I believe is not relevant. Charlie and his Christian companions and followers are evangelical and their beliefs are the context for their response to his death. Your context as an atheist sets the context for your response. As a pantheist, I see his death as a transition of his consciousness from one form to another. I wish him well and hope next time he assumes a more compassionate shape.

 

[Garabaldi]

Man it sure is funny seeing righties go on a cancel culture rampage after snowflaking about it constantly.

As a right wing Catholic I think the Inqusition did nothing wrong and we should bring it back. Free speech is only for people that can get along. People with a particular leftist ideology that show bad faith and resort to violence do not belong in society and loose their rights to free speech. Still very funny and I am enjoying seeing the shoe on the other foot in this country now.

Moderator Action: We take a very dim line on advocation of political violence. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Birdjaguar]

As a right wing Catholic I think the Inqusition did nothing wrong and we should bring it back. Free speech is only for people that can get along. People with a particular leftist ideology that show bad faith and resort to violence do not belong in society and loose their rights to free speech. Still very funny and I am enjoying seeing the shoe on the other foot in this country now.

"There is no hate like Christian love."

Understanding The Saying 'No Hate Like Christian Love' - Christian Website

The provocative saying 'no hate like Christian love' points to perceptions of judgmentalism and hypocrisy among some Christians. This phrase implying that

www.christianwebsite.com

 

[Akka]

As a right wing Catholic I think the Inqusition did nothing wrong and we should bring it back. Free speech is only for people that can get along. People with a particular leftist ideology that show bad faith and resort to violence do not belong in society and loose their rights to free speech. Still very funny and I am enjoying seeing the shoe on the other foot in this country now.

I would say that talking about free speech while defending the Inquisition would be a hailmark of straight trolling, but then lack of self-awareness is, as ironically illustrated, also an espcially common hailmark of blind followers of their own party line.

 

[Gori the Grey]

the mere ownership of a gun does not imbue one with "gun culture"

Here's what people are referencing:

Tyler Robinson Childhood Photos With Guns Spark Debate After Charlie Kirk Shooting

As photos of Tyler Robinson's life flood social media, a disturbing picture of his upbringing is emerging. Robinson, the 22-year-old charged with killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk during an event in Utah, appears in multiple childhood images holding guns, surrounded by rifles, and even

www.latintimes.com

 

[Garabaldi]

I would say that talking about free speech while defending the Inquisition would be a hailmark of straight trolling, but then lack of self-awareness is, as ironically illustrated, also an espcially common hailmark of blind followers of their own party line.

Free speech is obviously not an absolute moral principle, even to classical liberals like John Locke. Locke himself didn't extend religious tolerance to atheists. We are all debating where the line is.

 

[JollyRoger]

As a right wing Catholic I think the Inqusition did nothing wrong and we should bring it back. Free speech is only for people that can get along. People with a particular leftist ideology that show bad faith and resort to violence do not belong in society and loose their rights to free speech. Still very funny and I am enjoying seeing the shoe on the other foot in this country now.

The right has always been big on cancel culture - since well before the Inquisition. I'm suprised they haven't gone after God for pronouns in Genesis

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

 

[Garabaldi]

The right has always been big on cancel culture - since well before the Inquisition. I'm suprised they haven't gone after God for pronouns in Genesis

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Man I know you think you are smart but this is complete ignorance. God is a monarch so the sense in Genesis is God is speaking like a King in the plural form.

 

[JollyRoger]

Man I know you think you are smart but this is complete ignorance. God is a monarch so the sense in Genesis is God is speaking like a King in the plural form.

King, Queen, anywhere along the alphabet spectrum. It's cool with me.

 

[Akka]

Free speech is obviously not an absolute moral principle, even to classical liberals like John Locke. Locke himself didn't extend religious tolerance to atheists. We are all debating where the line is.

Except you were making a point about violent ideology with bad faith that should be subjected to repression while saying that the Inquisition should be brought back.
Man, self-awareness is really not your forte.

 

[Evie]

The right has always been big on cancel culture - since well before the Inquisition. I'm suprised they haven't gone after God for pronouns in Genesis

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Not to mention that pesky singular they that crops up in the supposedly divinely inspired King James' Bible