[RD] Charlie Kirk assassinated

[Kaitzilla]

The Senate has passed a National Day of Rememberence for Charlie Kirk.
It is on October 14th, his next birthday.

It is not a federal holiday.

Senate passes 'National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk' ahead of memorial service

Days before funeral of Charlie Kirk, the Senate has unanimously passed a "National Day of Remembrance" for the conservative influencer after he was killed last week.

abcnews.go.com

President Trump will attend the memorial in 2 days at the NFL stadium in Phoenix, Arizona.

Is Donald Trump attending Charlie Kirk's memorial? What to know

President Donald Trump is set to appear at the Charlie Kirk memorial in Arizona on Sept. 21. Here's what to know.

www.usatoday.com

The event is organized by Turning Point USA, the conservative activism organization Kirk co-founded, at State Farm Stadium outside of Phoenix. The memorial is scheduled to have speeches from the president, high ranking Trump administration officials and other conservative figures.

There are no ticket prices.
Simply register and 1st come, 1 serve.
Red, white, and blue dress code, but no idea how they will enforce it.
Once the stadium fills up, overflow will go to a nearby stadium?

Starts at 11AM local time, so 1 pm East Coast I think.

How to attend Charlie Kirk’s funeral in Arizona

Beyond the stadium, mourners near and far will be able to watch the funeral live online through multiple news networks, including many Fox and CBS affiliates.

nypost.com

The rest of the speakers primarily come from the Trump Administration’s cabinet, including Secretary of Health and Human Services RFK Jr. and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who both spoke at Kirk’s memorial at the Kennedy Center.

Fox News alums Tucker Carlson, who organized a fundraiser for the Kirk family through his nicotine pouch company, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth will also speak at the funeral.

Tucker has a nicotine pouch company.

 

[Arakhor]

The Department of Homeland Security has designated Charlie Kirk's memorial service as a Special Event Assessment Rating Level 1 event, which is "reserved for events of the highest national significance," a department official said.

Charlie Kirk, a man so beloved that apparently you need an official day to 'remind' people to mourn him.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So which other people in recent history have had this hono(u)r?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Cold War Patriots
Indian Boarding Schools
Liberation of Auschwitz
Holocaust survivors

(I just Googled and am reporting the first things that came up; i.e. not an exhaustive list).

There already is one for Homocide Victims, Sept 25.
National Pregnancy and Infant Loss

(not finding any for individual people)

Titanic

Here is a "National Day" calendar:

https://www.nationaldaycalendar.com/year-at-a-glance

You can pick each month, select the "days" tab and then Ctrl-F "remembrance" You have to say "remembrance" because there are all sorts of National Days. Today is National Talk Like a Pirate Day (matey!). October 14 is National Real Sugar Day, National Dessert Day and National Be Bald and Be Free Day.

The ones that come up with "remembrance" might be ones celebrated annually. Kirk's is a this-year-only thing (per this resolution). So maybe those are more common for individuals, I don't know.

 

[danjuno]

When you categorise any sort of dissenting voice as an active attempt at extermination, it's easy to justify pretty much anything isn't it.

I don't care about your word games. LGBT people being attacked in the streets and having their rights stripped away by the government is not "dissenting voice".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't care about your word games. LGBT people being attacked in the streets and having their rights stripped away by the government is not "dissenting voice".

Using rhetoric to repackage "people talking" as violence or imminent existential threat is purely word games. Switching from "man on a stage talking" to "people being attacked on the street" is word games. Pointing out word games as being word games is not itself word games.

Remember you said "lashing out at someone who is actively trying to get your partner killed", a sentence wherein:

"lashing out at someone" = actively actually killing someone
"actively trying to get your partner killed" = expressing negative opinions about a demographic to which your partner belongs.

In other words, a total rhetorical inversion of reality.

 

[danjuno]

Using rhetoric to repackage "people talking" as violence or imminent existential threat is purely word games. Switching from "man on a stage talking" to "people being attacked on the street" is word games. Pointing out word games as being word games is not itself word games.

Remember you said "lashing out at someone who is actively trying to get your partner killed", a sentence wherein:

"lashing out at someone" = actively actually killing someone
"actively trying to get your partner killed" = expressing negative opinions about a demographic to which your partner belongs.

In other words, a total rhetorical inversion of reality.

Charlie Kirk was not just some random dude with opinions, he was an active part of a right-wing media complex that made millions smearing LGBT people as sexual predators and murders. He was literally blaming mass shootings on trans people as he was shot. The bolded part is an undeniable, observable, and well-documented fact.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ok, but Turning Point was Charlie Kirk. Unless she's going to pwn liberal college students in political "debates," then Turning Point has lost its point.

It's turning pointless.

You've made a similar argument about Trump and MAGA... I'd say this development has reinforced my disagreement with that line of reasoning.

There is no shortage of conservatives (or progressives for that matter) who can successfully wipe the floor with a student in a debate. After last week's events you will see many of those coming out of the woodwork, not because they enjoy debating a student, but because they feel they finally have a reason and a duty to. I already heard several popular voices vowing participation. Success of turning point, their rapid growth within the infrastructure of education system during those 10 years is not due to Charlie being a wizard of debate. He was average, in my opinion. Well, to be fair, he was pretty good. But not nearly as good as people debating in congress and similar places.

His schtick, which was popular/successful, was that he was well prepared and articulate, fully loaded for bear with catchy talking points and one-liners... often bolstered by well timed, cleverly disguised logical fallacies, red herrings, goalpost switches and overall bad faith. Kirk was perfectly equipped for debating unprepared college students. Then his stuff was curated to showcase his most lopsided "victories". His bit was built perfectly to make fools of young college students and it was wildly entertaining for his supporters for not the least of the reasons being, that they loved seeing those smug, know-it-all, ivory tower elitist, socialist, woke-mob, dei, antifa, blm, lgbtq, lefties get pwned.

However, anytime Kirk found himself accidentally matched up against a well prepared student, he typically ended up getting stumped, spanked and overall just taken to task. Charlie Kirk was like a well known, but unranked Division I team playing against a Division III team. Its gonna be a blowout, but its just because he was always punching down. If that same school faces a ranked Power 5 conference team, they are going to get embarrassed. That's how it was with Charlie Kirk... he wasn't necessarily a great debater, so much as he was a great Youtube entertainer and content creator. His bit was highly effective at what he set out to do. Make fools of silly, unprepared college students who's positions were based more on their feelings and social structures.

Who has filled Rush's shoes?

Charlie Kirk

 

[Theov]

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.

Opinion: dangerous.
Welcome to the age of the Thought Police.

Apparently the anti-Kirk movement was far more dangerous; it got a man killed.
Some self-reflection would be in place.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You've made a similar argument about Trump and MAGA... I'd say this development has reinforced my disagreement with that line of reasoning.

I have, and I believe it in both cases. But "this development" can't yet give you evidence about the validity of my principle. In a year, without Kirk, will TP be remotely the cultural force that it has been with Kirk?

Answer: No. We won't be thinking about it. Just like you can't name (without Googling) who it is that broadcasts in Rush's timeslot, or anything they've said in the last year.

 

[Wastl]

Opinion: dangerous.
Welcome to the age of the Thought Police.

Apparently the anti-Kirk movement was far more dangerous; it got a man killed.
Some self-reflection would be in place.

Charlie Kirk didn't have "an opinion", he riled up the masses and targeted groups in the most vile and disgusting way.
And no, he didn't die because of an "anti-Kirk movement", as there never was any such thing. He died because one person decided on his own that he couldn't stand the hate-campaign Kirk was driving anymore and did something about it. Just like quite a few Kirk-followers did take matters into their own hands and targeted people Kirk was railing against on a constant basis. Something Kirk "totally didn't agree with" *wink wink nudge nudge*
There might indeed be a need for some self-reflection, on your part that is. Maybe don't lie about things, or create fictional groups you can hate on.

And now "conservatives" fall all over themselves pretending they liked Kirk (Trump already showed how much he cared: "i'm good, oh, look at that shiny ballroom we are building") or trying to turn him into everything he wasn't. Now they go full Horst Wessel mode. It's always good for an authoritarian regime if they have some martyrs that "died for the cause". People they don't really care about but can use to their advantage. Just like they take advantage of their followers so they can enrich themselves at their cost some more, all while shifting those peoples' attention elsewhere so they blame someone even worse of for their own fate.

 

[Theov]

Charlie Kirk didn't have "an opinion", he riled up the masses and targeted groups in the most vile and disgusting way.

no, he didn't

And no, he didn't die because of an "anti-Kirk movement", as there never was any such thing.

yes, there was - this thread is an example of one.
He's compared to Hitler FFS.

He died because one person decided on his own that he couldn't stand the hate-campaign Kirk was driving anymore and did something about it.

Charlie Kirk wasn't driving a hate campaign. That's the point. Tyler Robinson believed that he did. "did something"
You're allowed to say it. He shot him in the neck. He killed him. He murdered him.

Just like quite a few Kirk-followers did take matters into their own hands and targeted people Kirk was railing against on a constant basis. Something Kirk "totally didn't agree with" *wink wink nudge nudge*
There might indeed be a need for some self-reflection, on your part that is. Maybe don't lie about things, or create fictional groups you can hate on.

I will. Thanks.

And now "conservatives" fall all over themselves pretending they liked Kirk (Trump already showed how much he cared: "i'm good, oh, look at that shiny ballroom we are building") or trying to turn him into everything he wasn't. Now they go full Horst Wessel mode. It's always good for an authoritarian regime if they have some martyrs that "died for the cause". People they don't really care about but can use to their advantage. Just like they take advantage of their followers so they can enrich themselves at their cost some more, all while shifting those peoples' attention elsewhere so they blame someone even worse of for their own fate.

 

[Theov]

This Florida college will get a statue of Charlie Kirk. Here’s what it looks like​

MSN

It is unknown where exactly the statue of Kirk will be located at the New College of Florida.

 

[Gori the Grey]

yes, there was - this thread is an example of one.

Before this thread, there hadn't been a single mention of the man in these forums.

Some movement.

Edit: This has turned out to be incorrect, based on a misunderstanding of how the search function on the site works. My bad.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Before this thread, there hadn't been a single mention of the man in these forums.

Some movement.

The Right always being the biggest hypocritic snowflakes ever.

Kirk can say all the vitrolic stuff, that's fine, but you can't criticize him for it because then it's, oh look how mean they're being to us!

Opinion: dangerous.
Welcome to the age of the Thought Police.

Accusation, confession, it's getting old

 

[Theov]

Before this thread, there hadn't been a single mention of the man in these forums.

Some movement.

Yet everyone knows him perfectly well and what kind of monster he was.

The Right always being the biggest hypocritic snowflakes ever.

Kirk can say all the vitrolic stuff, that's fine, but you can't criticize him for it because then it's, oh look how mean they're being to us!

Opinion: dangerous.
Welcome to the age of the Thought Police.

Accusation, confession, it's getting old

You can criticize him all you want.
But telling lies isn't 'criticizing'.
Oh, and shooting a bullet in someone's neck also doesn't fall under 'criticizing'.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, and shooting a bullet in someone's neck also doesn't fall under 'criticizing'.

Oh yeah, that's right. This forum shot Charlie Kirk.

Sorry, forgot about that.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yet everyone knows him perfectly well and what kind of monster he was.

Right, but there was literally zero "movement" against the guy.

And the shooter was not part of a "movement" against the guy.

I myself knew him only for his "'debate' college students" schtick and that his face seems disproportionately small for his head, and that people made memes about that.

When the question comes up "should we honor him?" I look deeper into what he said in those silly debates, and conclude "no." Others conclude "he's Hitler." But it's the internet ffs. Everyone is Hitler. It's the only way anyone knows how to make a point on the internet. That dynamic of internet exchange has got a freakin' "Law," almost as ironclad as the Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But it's the internet ffs. Everyone is Hitler.

It's fun to see the internet being held to a greater standard than a vice-president.

And when I say fun, I mean sad of course.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Before this thread, there hadn't been a single mention of the man in these forums.

Makes you wonder why there's this sudden need to list everything bad he ever said, when there apparently wasn't a need at the time he said them.