Two powerful and relevant quotes from wordsmith Charlie Kirk, whatever the outcome of this incident: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single...
Two powerful and relevant quotes from wordsmith Charlie Kirk, whatever the outcome of this incident:
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am—I think it's worth it.
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."
Or in Japan (completly prohibited), the UK (strict permits),... How many other countries even allow citizenry to carry firearms? Looking at a wikipedia map, they generally are allowed, but almost...
Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
Or in Japan (completly prohibited), the UK (strict permits),... How many other countries even allow citizenry to carry firearms? Looking at a wikipedia map, they generally are allowed, but almost always with permits.
I'm not too opposed to total prohibition, but I really don't understand why people resist the notion of "having proper training to use dangerous weapon". We do it with vehicles (perhaps not strict enough for cars in some cases), and we do it for certified fields like most engineering, doctors, and lawyers. Why not the tool made primarily to kill?
Because "might makes right" is a fundamental principle of American society, whether it's explicitly acknowledged or not. It underpins practically everything. Essentially, you are free to do...
Because "might makes right" is a fundamental principle of American society, whether it's explicitly acknowledged or not. It underpins practically everything. Essentially, you are free to do whatever you want if you're able to back it up. Money might be replacing force nowadays, but it's the same thing.
I really don't understand that second amendment argument. The argument that the second amendment protects our God given rights held a lot more weight before we were in the midst of a fascist...
I really don't understand that second amendment argument.
The argument that the second amendment protects our God given rights held a lot more weight before we were in the midst of a fascist takeover of every aspect of our country. The guns don't seem to be helping.
Well. This is not a good venue for that debate. But, fundamentally, democracy with a state monopoly on violence is precipitous. It relies on the government to act in good faith, despite the work...
Well. This is not a good venue for that debate. But, fundamentally, democracy with a state monopoly on violence is precipitous. It relies on the government to act in good faith, despite the work of governance being simplified immensely if they oppress.
But then we had about a hundred years of the people most likely to own guns being courted by white supremacist groups, and a progressive normalization of police militarization, and a lot of people who might should be armed looked at the gun owners and said "I don't want to be like that, at all". And now all the guns are on the side of the state.
At its core, politics is about power. Even the idea that personal gun ownership may never amount to meaningful rebellion against unjust government doesn't mean that by default we shouldn't have access to power unbidden by power structures. That's a matter of opinion.
I think it's even simpler. we saw governments creaatd 2 dozen other forms of warfare much deadlier than the peashooters we claim our right to have. These days, a remote drone can take you out...
a lot of people who might should be armed looked at the gun owners and said "I don't want to be like that, at all".
I think it's even simpler. we saw governments creaatd 2 dozen other forms of warfare much deadlier than the peashooters we claim our right to have. These days, a remote drone can take you out while the government sits in their chair hundreds, thousands of miles away. How do you really practice your "well maintained militia" against weapons like that (weapons which are indeed illegal to own yourself. Curious...)
I think the 2nd amendment aged poorly, and we either need to take a look at what a "arm" is in the modern world, or re-think the entire idea of what's a right vs. priveledge.
Oppression is not usually dispensed via drones. That's just war or terrorism. Oppression usually requires policing and/or societal buy-in. Those cannot be done with faceless nameless weapons of...
Oppression is not usually dispensed via drones. That's just war or terrorism. Oppression usually requires policing and/or societal buy-in. Those cannot be done with faceless nameless weapons of mass destruction quite yet.
But you're right, I would like individuals to be able to own and operate predator drones. Sounds like a nice step toward personal thermonuclear arms and universal equality.
I think even this is missing the reasons many people don't own guns. The government doesn't even come into the picture with that math for me. I don't avoid them due to not wanting to come off like...
I think even this is missing the reasons many people don't own guns. The government doesn't even come into the picture with that math for me. I don't avoid them due to not wanting to come off like the stereotype either.
Guns make suicide more likely. Six out of ten firearm caused deaths are suicides and suicides have been the majority of those deaths for 30 years. Easy access to a quick way to die with much lower survival rates than other means is flat out unsafe for a large number of households. Probably far more than people think.
Guns also make domestic violence situations far more dangerous and deadly. An argument where you get the urge to slap someone turns into an argument where you get the urge to shoot someone, and you can. And people who would hit their partner in anger will shoot them too.
Finally some of us also aren't willing to kill people and because of that having a gun would only be a liability, not an asset at all. If I'm not willing to pull the trigger, I shouldn't point it at anyone. So I don't, and won't, have one.
I think this is in bad taste, honestly. There needs to be room for gun control, but there's a rational, humanitarian case that gun ownership should be understood primarily as right than a...
I think this is in bad taste, honestly. There needs to be room for gun control, but there's a rational, humanitarian case that gun ownership should be understood primarily as right than a privilege. There's a reason why the harshest crackdown against guns in the USSR happened under Collectivization, which directly led to the deaths of millions of people. In the context of American politics, we need to be able to talk about gun control while still recognizing a general right to bear arms. Whether Charlie Kirk productively contributed to the conversation may be another question, but I don't think taking schadenfreude is appropriate or justified.
If I thought the man ever had any principles, quoting that would be akin to saying he set an example of those principles even in death - the opposite of bad taste, as I see it. Given that I think...
If I thought the man ever had any principles, quoting that would be akin to saying he set an example of those principles even in death - the opposite of bad taste, as I see it.
Given that I think he was an amoral ghoul who would say anything to anybody if he thought it would serve his own interests, it's instead a reminder that he has, perhaps for the one time ever, been forced to stand by his words. Given that they were indeed his words, freely spoken and amplified with the full intent of swaying public opinion, I don't see highlighting that as bad taste either.
The takeaway is that he either truly believed his own death was an acceptable price to pay, or that he was a liar who would callously throw away the lives of others for something he didn't...
The takeaway is that he either truly believed his own death was an acceptable price to pay, or that he was a liar who would callously throw away the lives of others for something he didn't actually believe in and has paid the ultimate price for that. Either of those two possibilities provides powerful context for what's just happened here.
As you said, poor taste, maybe but I found it to be an absurd level of poetic justice that: A guy who loudly proclaimed that the second amendment is needed to protect individuals from a government...
As you said, poor taste, maybe but I found it to be an absurd level of poetic justice that:
A guy who loudly proclaimed that the second amendment is needed to protect individuals from a government trying to take away constitutional rights was shot and killed while pushing propaganda for the government taking away second amendment rights for a specific minority.
But trans folks by way of declaring being trans a mental illness, and trying to take guns away from everyone with a mental illness, which is why the NRA and various 2A groups took the side of...
But trans folks by way of declaring being trans a mental illness, and trying to take guns away from everyone with a mental illness, which is why the NRA and various 2A groups took the side of trans people for once. The precedents were very broad.
I don't think pulling these quotes out is necessarily an endorsement of a complete ban on guns. It's just amusing to point out that, by Kirk's own words, his death is an acceptable necessity so we...
I don't think pulling these quotes out is necessarily an endorsement of a complete ban on guns. It's just amusing to point out that, by Kirk's own words, his death is an acceptable necessity so we probably shouldn't feel to bad about it.
He also believed empathy is a made up New Age term that "does a lot of damage" so I think it's only fair to respond in kind.
I just don't see it. maybe 200 years ago, but even then it was hard for a "well regulated militia" to have any real shot at usurping a government. Driving a car is a near necessity in some...
but there's a rational, humanitarian case that gun ownership should be understood primarily as right than a privilege.
I just don't see it. maybe 200 years ago, but even then it was hard for a "well regulated militia" to have any real shot at usurping a government.
Driving a car is a near necessity in some countries but it is still a privileged, because misuse of it can get you or others killed. why not apply the same to guns?
Political violence begets more political violence. This isn't a match in a powder keg, its a torch, and more violence will probably follow. It is a difficult genie to stick back in the lamp.
Political violence begets more political violence. This isn't a match in a powder keg, its a torch, and more violence will probably follow. It is a difficult genie to stick back in the lamp.
I personally think you're underestimating the impact that a major right-wing infosphere operative being gunned down will have in accelerating other acts of right wing violence, but I suppose it is...
I personally think you're underestimating the impact that a major right-wing infosphere operative being gunned down will have in accelerating other acts of right wing violence, but I suppose it is impossible to know.
There was an assassination attempt on a Presidential candidate last year that was in the media for maybe two weeks before everyone moved on. Wasn’t even a factor four months later during the...
There was an assassination attempt on a Presidential candidate last year that was in the media for maybe two weeks before everyone moved on. Wasn’t even a factor four months later during the election, and there were was no noticeable increase in right wing violence. The only thing that popped up afterwards was the Health Care CEO being assassinated.
Also a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, what, three months ago? But she was a Democrat so I guess right-wing political violence doesn't count when it comes to hand-wringing...
Also a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, what, three months ago? But she was a Democrat so I guess right-wing political violence doesn't count when it comes to hand-wringing...
You see, that was an old white guy dressed up as a cop. What are they going to do, take guns away from old white guys or cops? That'd be ridiculous! What might that solve? The...
You see, that was an old white guy dressed up as a cop. What are they going to do, take guns away from old white guys or cops?
That'd be ridiculous!
What might that solve? The hundreds-if-not-thousands of officer involved cold blooded zero consequence murders?
Given that there are myriad armed right wing reactionary militias active in the US, yeah, I’m more concerned about retaliatory violence in response to this killing. It’s not handwringing. Cycles...
Given that there are myriad armed right wing reactionary militias active in the US, yeah, I’m more concerned about retaliatory violence in response to this killing. It’s not handwringing. Cycles of violence are easy to start and hard to stop, and each step along the way reinforces this. I don’t think this shooting was the start of the cycle, but I do think it has accelerated it, and I think we all lose when that happens.
It’s not handwringing to be apprehensive about how fascists, currently in power, will wield this.
We won't know what the tipping point (turning point?) is until after violence occurs, but if nothing else, there will be significant political ramifications. Trump sent the national guard to DC...
We won't know what the tipping point (turning point?) is until after violence occurs, but if nothing else, there will be significant political ramifications. Trump sent the national guard to DC after a DOGE staffer got beat up and he's already in the middle of a pressure campaign against universities. Who knows what he'll do in response, but Kirk was a pretty important figure in the maga movement.
It was definitely a factor in his camp's rallying. The number of fundie pundits who took it as evidence for the man's status as Chosen One was far from zero.
It was definitely a factor in his camp's rallying. The number of fundie pundits who took it as evidence for the man's status as Chosen One was far from zero.
I saw a comment elsewhere along the lines of "well the pot has to boil over at some point" and it's like you do realize we're all inside this metaphorical pot, right?
I saw a comment elsewhere along the lines of "well the pot has to boil over at some point" and it's like you do realize we're all inside this metaphorical pot, right?
Jan 6th endangered both left and right wing policy makers. I'm not disagreeing, but we've had quite a few situations this decade that should have been a wakeup call for the GOP. I'm not certain if...
the impact that a major right-wing infosphere operative being gunned down will have in accelerating other acts of right wing violence
Jan 6th endangered both left and right wing policy makers. I'm not disagreeing, but we've had quite a few situations this decade that should have been a wakeup call for the GOP. I'm not certain if this is the match that will ignite the cannons, but history can be fickle.
The match in the powder keg was January 6, and with Republicans granting the perpetrators clemency and holding them up as heroes, they've effectively declared that political violence is totally fine.
The match in the powder keg was January 6, and with Republicans granting the perpetrators clemency and holding them up as heroes, they've effectively declared that political violence is totally fine.
As others have noted there is a lot of very graphic footage out there right now that hasn't been caught by social media filters yet. Please be careful with your own wellbeing and consider avoiding...
As others have noted there is a lot of very graphic footage out there right now that hasn't been caught by social media filters yet. Please be careful with your own wellbeing and consider avoiding social media tonight and disabling your autoplay settings for videos.
A moment of silence on the House floor for conservative commentator Charlie Kirk devolved into a moment of chaos as a pair of Republicans called out Democrats.
With every lawmaker standing up in quiet observance, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) demanded a spoken prayer.
“Silent prayers get silent results,” she said, leading to jeers from Democrats, with some shouting about a school shooting that also happened Wednesday.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) stood up and started shouting expletives at the Democrats before Speaker Mike Johnson gaveled lawmakers down. “This is disgusting,” said a House Republican granted anonymity to react candidly to the clash.
It looks to be widely spreading and being confirmed all around. Charlie seems to have died. I'm not an American so I will be largely unaffected, but I do want to express my genuine worry over the...
It looks to be widely spreading and being confirmed all around. Charlie seems to have died.
I'm not an American so I will be largely unaffected, but I do want to express my genuine worry over the possible coming crackdown. I doubt it but I sincerely hope cooler heads prevail.
I won't condone political violence. I hope the perpetrator spends a long time in prison, and I don't know what good they expected to come of this. I will, however, leave some Charlie Kirk quotes...
I won't condone political violence. I hope the perpetrator spends a long time in prison, and I don't know what good they expected to come of this.
I will, however, leave some Charlie Kirk quotes that have aged like fine wine:
"I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage"
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights"
This line from the article in particular throws me pretty hard, just at the absurdity Both that a lot of elected officials made it a point to get something out there within minutes despite it...
This line from the article in particular throws me pretty hard, just at the absurdity
President Donald Trump and a host of Republican elected officials offered prayers for Kirk on social media.
Both that a lot of elected officials made it a point to get something out there within minutes despite it being a non-statement, and that doing so was important enough to be part of the associated press coverage of the event.
I assume they haven't made any mention of who is suspected. Last update about it on AP is a suspect is in custody (NYT blocked me because I blocked their ad blocker blocker).
I assume they haven't made any mention of who is suspected. Last update about it on AP is a suspect is in custody (NYT blocked me because I blocked their ad blocker blocker).
The police have determined that a person who was taken into custody after the shooting was not actually the shooter, according to Scott Trotter, a university spokesman. The university had earlier said a suspect was in custody.
I am just picturing a version of this pre-social media in a small town. It would be like a newspaper article commenting "Mayor's aid seen pinning a paper to the bulletin board at the post office."...
I am just picturing a version of this pre-social media in a small town. It would be like a newspaper article commenting "Mayor's aid seen pinning a paper to the bulletin board at the post office."
For others like me who never heard of him, he was basically a maga influencer. article:
For others like me who never heard of him, he was basically a maga influencer. article:
Charlie Kirk was one of the most high-profile conservative activists and media personalities in the US and a trusted ally of President Donald Trump.
In 2012, at the age of 18, he co-founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a student organisation that aims to spread conservative ideals at liberal-leaning US colleges.
His social media and eponymous daily podcast often shared clips of him debating with students about issues such as transgender identity, climate change, faith and family values.
Absolutely crazy to see Article 4 get invoked and the (likely politically motivated) assassination of a US social media influencer on my 34th birthday. I don't like Charlie Kirk but nobody...
Absolutely crazy to see Article 4 get invoked and the (likely politically motivated) assassination of a US social media influencer on my 34th birthday.
I don't like Charlie Kirk but nobody deserves to be shot dead over their political beliefs.
What I worry about more is how the Trump administration could turn this into an attack against leftists and the LGBTQ community (there was a trans active shooter a few weeks ago.)
Trump announced Kirk's death on social media, and called for all US flags to be flown at half-mast, which means it's a much bigger deal than the hundreds of kids murdered by school shooters yearly.
Well, here's Laura Loomer's response Apparently, Trump is ordering all flags to be at half staff.
What I worry about more is how the Trump administration could turn this into an attack against leftists and the LGBTQ community (there was a trans active shooter a few weeks ago.)
Yup. Charlie Kirk is being mourned by the government more than the hundreds of school kids being gunned down by active shooters every year. This is gonna get ugly and I don't like that.
Yup. Charlie Kirk is being mourned by the government more than the hundreds of school kids being gunned down by active shooters every year.
Not to be pedantic, but unless you're talking about the random lives lost each day in this country, the school shooting in Evergreen hasn't had any casualties. Not that it makes it any less tragic...
Not to be pedantic, but unless you're talking about the random lives lost each day in this country, the school shooting in Evergreen hasn't had any casualties.
Not that it makes it any less tragic and this government any less shit, just pointing out facts as of this time.
This is completely baseless speculation - but this is mighty convenient timing for this administration. Something big to distract the news from the Epstein file that they can conveniently blame on...
This is completely baseless speculation - but this is mighty convenient timing for this administration. Something big to distract the news from the Epstein file that they can conveniently blame on the other political party and use as further "justification" to sned the military to Democrat controlled cities.
I haven't seen any specific evidence to suggest this, but we know that these people are capable and willing to toss their own to wolves (or worse) if it means furthering their agenda
Fwiw while it seems more likely the shooter a few weeks ago was not or was no longer someone who considered themselves transgender, I mention it only because that is the most recent information I...
Fwiw while it seems more likely the shooter a few weeks ago was not or was no longer someone who considered themselves transgender, I mention it only because that is the most recent information I have. Trans folks are absolutely still being targeted, explicitly, over it.
I'm not for violence. But pretty much anything can be a "political belief", including things that might leave assassination as your opposition's only option.
nobody deserves to be shot dead over their political beliefs
I'm not for violence. But pretty much anything can be a "political belief", including things that might leave assassination as your opposition's only option.
I saw a video that someone filmed from about 15 feet away. I would be surprised is he makes it. Either way, this is just more gasoline on the dumpster fire. Edit: apparently he made it to the...
I saw a video that someone filmed from about 15 feet away. I would be surprised is he makes it. Either way, this is just more gasoline on the dumpster fire.
Edit: apparently he made it to the hospital and is in critical condition. Also, somewhat related, another school shooting took place in Colorado right around the same time. We need a bigger dumpster.
Edit 2: now multiple sources are reporting he is dead
Shooter is supposedly in custody according to bbc, nyt. It did not look good, my personal opinion is that Kirk did not survive. He was probably shot for his political views but that is just an...
Shooter is supposedly in custody according to bbc, nyt. It did not look good, my personal opinion is that Kirk did not survive. He was probably shot for his political views but that is just an assumption I'm making.
I saw the close-up footage. It’s a direct hit on his neck (jugular vein if I had to guess). A fountain of blood spurted out of it and he immediately went limp. I’m not a medical expert but would...
I saw the close-up footage. It’s a direct hit on his neck (jugular vein if I had to guess). A fountain of blood spurted out of it and he immediately went limp. I’m not a medical expert but would be surprised if he was still alive.
BBC news is currently reporting that he's dead- Trump posted "The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead" on Truth Social (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt).
BBC news is currently reporting that he's dead- Trump posted "The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead" on Truth Social (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt).
Can anyone confirm if they actually have the shooter in custody or not? From what I can tell it seemed they were reporting that they had one, and now they're reporting that they do not. If they do...
Can anyone confirm if they actually have the shooter in custody or not? From what I can tell it seemed they were reporting that they had one, and now they're reporting that they do not.
If they do not, that's another level of concern on this whole situation for a variety of reasons.
Similar to Brian Thompson last year... I find it hard to feel literally any sympathy whatsoever in moments like this. At the same time, I'm worried about how Trump and co. may/will react to this.
Similar to Brian Thompson last year... I find it hard to feel literally any sympathy whatsoever in moments like this. At the same time, I'm worried about how Trump and co. may/will react to this.
Interestingly, Kirk had just gotten done glibly answering a question about statistics of trans mass shooters when he was shot. That might have been part of the setup.
Interestingly, Kirk had just gotten done glibly answering a question about statistics of trans mass shooters when he was shot. That might have been part of the setup.
The news has been mixed on if he managed to answer that question or if it was just asked (or maybe it was a follow up asked), and I refuse to watch videos because I need to protect my mental...
The news has been mixed on if he managed to answer that question or if it was just asked (or maybe it was a follow up asked), and I refuse to watch videos because I need to protect my mental health more than know the answer.
I've watched footage; he answered with a quip saying "too many" or something along those lines, and then the same person was in the middle of a follow up trying to get him to answer seriously...
I've watched footage; he answered with a quip saying "too many" or something along those lines, and then the same person was in the middle of a follow up trying to get him to answer seriously about who the perceived threats really are.
That is the current status as I'm familiar with it. My mantra remains the same regardless though. Anyone whose identity will be used to attack them - including a history of mental illness tbh -...
That is the current status as I'm familiar with it.
My mantra remains the same regardless though. Anyone whose identity will be used to attack them - including a history of mental illness tbh - will end up with that identity being attacked on a larger scale. It's shifted over the years but has been fairly consistent since 2001.
That South Park episode they did a month ago where they lampooned "masterdebating" influencers like him has suddenly aged like milk. I also detest the many calls I've seen for South Park to be...
That South Park episode they did a month ago where they lampooned "masterdebating" influencers like him has suddenly aged like milk.
I also detest the many calls I've seen for South Park to be cancelled over that. How would they have known?
I fail to see how this makes the South Park episode any less funny. Political violence like this is always wrong. But the episode was written and aired weeks before this happened. And Charlie Kirk...
I fail to see how this makes the South Park episode any less funny.
Political violence like this is always wrong. But the episode was written and aired weeks before this happened. And Charlie Kirk was such a horrible person that I'm really struggling to actually feel bad for him. In 20 years, the majority of what neurons I still have dedicated to his memory will probably be tied to this South Park episode.
I never heard of this guy before, but I'll just say that the death penalty is hardly ever justice, except possibly if he were a serial killer or something like that.
I never heard of this guy before, but I'll just say that the death penalty is hardly ever justice, except possibly if he were a serial killer or something like that.
Haven't heard of Brian Thompson? That might be because the focus was/is primarily on the individual accused of committing acts against him: Luigi Mangione
Haven't heard of Brian Thompson? That might be because the focus was/is primarily on the individual accused of committing acts against him: Luigi Mangione
That's genuinely interesting to me. Based on your posts, I'd say you're clearly very plugged in to news and politics. I know Kirk came from social media, but it's odd that his name never broke...
That's genuinely interesting to me. Based on your posts, I'd say you're clearly very plugged in to news and politics. I know Kirk came from social media, but it's odd that his name never broke into your sources. He was popular, but he also had some pretty serious sway with the MAGA movement.
I had to become truly aware of him when he came to our campus. It was stressful for everyone. Until then I was mostly able to avoid him, though I'd heard his name. If you don't engage with the...
I had to become truly aware of him when he came to our campus. It was stressful for everyone. Until then I was mostly able to avoid him, though I'd heard his name.
If you don't engage with the "debate me, random college student, so I can prove how much smarter I am than you through selective editing" sort of media then it's easy to never see him in any more depth than a random "guy said ____" sort of quote in a larger article.
That makes sense. It's interesting and a bit disconcerting that there's still a huge gap between traditional news outlets and popular online figures with massive influence, so much so that someone...
If you don't engage with the "debate me, random college student, so I can prove how much smarter I am than you through selective editing" sort of media then it's easy to never see him in any more depth than a random "guy said ____" sort of quote in a larger article.
That makes sense. It's interesting and a bit disconcerting that there's still a huge gap between traditional news outlets and popular online figures with massive influence, so much so that someone like skybrian wouldn't recognize the name. Unfortunately, I don't think guys like Kirk are confined to that dark corner of the internet anymore, as evidenced by the fact that Trump was one of the first people to publicly announce his death and has since ordered all flags to fly at half staff. Though Kirk is different in that he is also an organizer outside of social media.
Before 2020, the only way I'd come across a figure like Kirk is if one of my former coworkers or highschool friends shared something on Facebook, and in those instances I'd roll my eyes and ignore it. But after a lockdown-induced rabbit hole (that can be traced back to a tildes post), I came across a few decent online/social media news sources that also cover the online right and it completely recontextualized American politics in a way that made everything make so much more sense. It's like when I watched Skibidi toilet and Huggy Wuggy on YouTube for the first time and realized what my students were actually doing on the playground. 90% of the people I know don't read the NYT, listen to NPR, or even watch CNN. Instead, they get what little news they consume from social media where guys like Kirk dominate. If you don't know who those guys are, it can be hard to understand what people are thinking. It's a blind spot that traditional news can't cover.
I agree he wasn't confined there anymore, he was part of the corner that had only gained in popularity throughout this administration. It's also very easy for your algorithm to start showing you...
I agree he wasn't confined there anymore, he was part of the corner that had only gained in popularity throughout this administration.
It's also very easy for your algorithm to start showing you the videos. My partner recognized the name. He didn't like Kirk but the videos would get served to him on YouTube (he watches a lot of outdoorsy/car/similar trade sort of things)
It also doesn't help that traditional news won't say "hey he's lying" about these sorts of people anymore.
It's quite possible that I've read his name before in news stories, but I not often enough to remember who he is. There are probably other MAGA influencers whom I wouldn't remember either.
It's quite possible that I've read his name before in news stories, but I not often enough to remember who he is. There are probably other MAGA influencers whom I wouldn't remember either.
Alright, I've been trying really hard to self-censor myself and restrain myself from replying to anything in this thread, out of good faith & respect to other users in the forum, but that is...
Political violence is still bad, even if it happens to the other side.
Alright, I've been trying really hard to self-censor myself and restrain myself from replying to anything in this thread, out of good faith & respect to other users in the forum, but that is simply untrue. Political violence is not always bad, and there are potentially thousands of examples in human history indicating this is the case.
Ok, specifically this political violence is bad. Charlie Kirk, for all his faults, was not a genocidal dictator. Killing him will not save thousands of lives. In fact, I strongly suspect that...
Ok, specifically this political violence is bad. Charlie Kirk, for all his faults, was not a genocidal dictator. Killing him will not save thousands of lives. In fact, I strongly suspect that killing him will save zero lives. It’s more likely that, if anything, the outcome of this sort of political assassination of talking heads will have a net result of more lives being lost.
At what comments exactly? I don't see anyone praising it. There's a lack of sympathy for someone facing consequences of his own actions, sure and quotes from Kirk himself, but what are you aghast at?
At what comments exactly?
I don't see anyone praising it. There's a lack of sympathy for someone facing consequences of his own actions, sure and quotes from Kirk himself, but what are you aghast at?
A man gets shot and the reaction is "well, he had it coming." It's not okay if the man was a teenager with a criminal history and it's not okay if the man was a pro-gun republican podcaster. I...
There's a lack of sympathy for someone facing consequences of his own actions, sure
A man gets shot and the reaction is "well, he had it coming." It's not okay if the man was a teenager with a criminal history and it's not okay if the man was a pro-gun republican podcaster.
I understand that with how polarized America is right now it's very difficult to have empathy for the other side. But that fact should be recognized with sorrow, not worn like a badge of honor.
The closest thing anyone (before your comment) said to "he had it coming" were Charlie's own quotes on gun violence. I don't think that direct quotes from the victim on how he would feel about the...
The closest thing anyone (before your comment) said to "he had it coming" were Charlie's own quotes on gun violence.
I don't think that direct quotes from the victim on how he would feel about the subject can be considered malice.
I don't even see the conversation in this thread being about (or particularly impacted by) polarisation, really. It's about his own actions and positions, more than anything. Person who has harmed...
I don't even see the conversation in this thread being about (or particularly impacted by) polarisation, really. It's about his own actions and positions, more than anything.
Person who has harmed many others finally succumbs to that same harm himself. That's a small sliver of justice done, even by dangerous and probably counterproductive means. And we're giving him as much or more sympathy as he gave others in the same situation - others who actually were innocent victims, rather than victims guilty of causing the very situation they came to harm by.
Do you really draw a distinction between "facing the consequences of his own actions" (your words) and "had it coming" (my words)? Is your position seriously that the former is a reasonable...
Do you really draw a distinction between "facing the consequences of his own actions" (your words) and "had it coming" (my words)? Is your position seriously that the former is a reasonable paraphrase and the latter an indefensible falsehood? Obviously we've completely lost the plot here but that's such a surprising stance that I can't help but get pulled into this.
Yes, I do. Lack of sympathy for the result of the actions or statements one has made is nowhere close to wishing those results upon someone. “I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a...
Yes, I do.
Lack of sympathy for the result of the actions or statements one has made is nowhere close to wishing those results upon someone.
“I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage”
I think the implication that getting shot in the neck is an acceptable “consequence” for being an asshole is not a great thing. Also, there’s at least one comment in this very thread wishing that...
I think the implication that getting shot in the neck is an acceptable “consequence” for being an asshole is not a great thing.
Also, there’s at least one comment in this very thread wishing that the shooter had better aim.
For being an asshole? No. Was Charlie Kirk merely an asshole? No. Did he make multiple statements that reiterated that certain laws in the US are worth the violence they beget? Yes. Which was made...
For being an asshole? No.
Was Charlie Kirk merely an asshole? No.
Did he make multiple statements that reiterated that certain laws in the US are worth the violence they beget? Yes.
Also, there’s at least one comment in this very thread wishing that the shooter had better aim.
I don't think it's an acceptable consequence. But we are allowed to not feel any empathy over the death of a man who repeatedly argued that empathy is a weakness. It's what he would have wanted...
I don't think it's an acceptable consequence. But we are allowed to not feel any empathy over the death of a man who repeatedly argued that empathy is a weakness. It's what he would have wanted after all. And I think every Republican throwing a fit over this is a truly massive hypocrite after they pardoned all the J6 insurrectionists.
I see literally nobody saying otherwise? Top comment is basically “you reap what you sow”, the next two are explicitly concerned about escalating political violence, and the other couple are about...
I see literally nobody saying otherwise? Top comment is basically “you reap what you sow”, the next two are explicitly concerned about escalating political violence, and the other couple are about the facts and reaction. What’s concerning you in particular?
I get it to an extent, but... Honestly, I think we're at a point where Americans are just too emotionally fatigued. I think that if this happened in another country, even one with a similarly...
Exemplary
I get it to an extent, but... Honestly, I think we're at a point where Americans are just too emotionally fatigued.
I think that if this happened in another country, even one with a similarly polarized political landscape, there would be a lot more sympathy and horror from the opposing side. But the United States has an epidemic of gun violence. We're honestly desensitized to it. People dying to gun violence (or any violence really) isn't a tragedy anymore, it's normal for us. It is, quite literally, a basic fact of life in the United States. The sky is blue, grass is green, people get murdered every day.
Hearing about a political figure getting shot isn't some horrible, tragic event here anymore. Not when we're used to regular reports of mass shootings of children and other innocents. Not when there are far too many news stories about children messing around with unsecured guns and shooting each other. Not when it's just... normal.
For me, one of the most sobering moments of my life was hearing a news report about a school shooting with a single victim and thinking, "At least only one person died this time." The weight of that super casual thought, at how much I just automatically minimized a tragedy, slammed into me full-force a moment later. Because that singular death was a tragedy, it absolutely devastated all the people close to that poor, poor individual. Chances are the family never recovered from that loss, that it set off a domino effect leading to others dying or having their lives otherwise ruined.
But in the face of every other mass shooting at schools with double-digit casualty numbers? And all the other shootings outside of schools? That one death just doesn't register as particularly tragic to me anymore. And that's horrifying.
I am NOT saying this to rag on Charlie Kirk's stances on gun violence or just empathy in general (though that absolutely diminishes any shreds of sympathy I might have felt for him). I'm saying that to explain that in America, we're just too emotionally fatigued to see this sort of event as a major tragedy anymore. We can acknowledge it's tragic from an intellectual standpoint, but we're too used to it to feel the degree of horror we should be feeling. We HAVE to be numb to it because humans just aren't capable of handling 24/7 grief and trauma. We don't have the emotional bandwidth to feel too much grief for a stranger.
And from that emotional fatigue and numbness, arise more callous emotions and responses. US politics in general are highly fatiguing and emotionally taxing at this point. All the systems meant to keep our government running fairly are just... nonexistent. Trump and his cronies largely ignore the rules to do what they want. Courts challenge them when they make extreme oversteps, but that's a process that takes months and in the meantime, all sorts of damages will incur. And even when courts do rule against some action, who, exactly, is going to enforce it?
There's no way for the average American to do anything about the broken "checks and balances" system because the corruption and issues are just too deep rooted. I honestly don't know if any of the "proper" channels will be able to undo all the damage that's been done just since Trump took office this year. I feel like I now understand how Hitler and the Nazis rose to power, because I'm watching the same thing happen within the US, and there's very little I and others can do to stop it. I have to step away from certain news stories because it will just get me feeling unbridled rage, and there are no outlets for me to act on that rage in a positive, non-harmful way.
So, combine the fact Americans are desensitized to gun violence and even assassinations, and the frustrations over how screwed up our country is... Yeah, a lot of people aren't going to mourn this particular man's death. Not when we barely have the energy to mourn for famous strangers we actually like. And especially not when the victim is a person who certainly wouldn't have expressed any sort of grief or sympathy if anyone from "the other side" was assassinated.
We're emotionally burnt out on multiple levels, and we need to save our energy for the other fights that will arise from the inevitable fallout from this death. My personal objections to this assassination come not from a moral standpoint about how murder and political violence are bad, but a purely pragmatic one about to the damages it will incur politically. Charlie Kirk's death will not bring any good change even in the immediate short-term, it will fuel fires for more violence and political unrest. This will absolutely be used by the Trump administration to further their twisted agendas.
Also, a revelation I had when writing this that I can't really fit anywhere else: gallows humor is a common coping mechanism among people in high-stress and traumatic fields like medicine, military and law enforcement, as a way to maintain some emotional control over circumstances beyond our control, vent stress/fear/anxiety, and just not emotionally shut down. Ghoulish and callous as it may feel, I think that's exactly what's playing out in most of the replies here.
And... uh, this realization is actually mildly horrifying to me, that it's becoming a coping mechanism for normal, every day people. I already knew we were desensitized, but this just adds another layer to how messed up we Americans really are.
Some political violence is good. Never ideal, but it can be just. This?...Kirk has always been a ridiculous rabblerouser. Cruel, and hateful, and callous, and hypocritical, but probably not...
Some political violence is good. Never ideal, but it can be just.
This?...Kirk has always been a ridiculous rabblerouser. Cruel, and hateful, and callous, and hypocritical, but probably not "worthy" of assassination. However any of us feel though, it's a sign of things to come.
In this era, I don't think any rabble rouser qualifies as ridiculous, regardless of how ignorant or anti intellectual/ anti science they might be. Repeated public hate speech is one of the...
In this era, I don't think any rabble rouser qualifies as ridiculous, regardless of how ignorant or anti intellectual/ anti science they might be.
Repeated public hate speech is one of the stepping stones to genocide. Social media allowing hate speech has been a direct cause of pogroms and riots around the world.
I'm afraid of what comes next and I don't support violence. I just reacted to your comment about ridiculousness because the anti intellectuals are deadly serious about their beliefs.
No, that's fair. But they are ridiculous regardless. Losing sight of this is how people begin to tolerate their hatred. Beside that, the logic of fascism is built on a self-image of power. He...
No, that's fair. But they are ridiculous regardless. Losing sight of this is how people begin to tolerate their hatred. Beside that, the logic of fascism is built on a self-image of power. He deserved to be mocked mercilessly and ignored beside that, and I'm pulling the μολὼν λαβέ card should anyone defend his ideas one way or another.
It's bad, but seemingly ineviatable at this point. When you spend 5 years at the bare minimum fostering and evevn inciting violence upon people, then violence is the result. I don't condone it ,...
It's bad, but seemingly ineviatable at this point. When you spend 5 years at the bare minimum fostering and evevn inciting violence upon people, then violence is the result.
I don't condone it , but when the leadership renames their army to the "department of War" and then threatens to invade a domestic city, I don't see any other result happening, esepcially in such a connected world where information travels the world in minutes.
Considering I've seen legitimate "Luigi is a hero" stuff being upvoted on Tildes, I'm completely not surprised. It really is not different from Reddit at this point, which I guess makes sense...
Considering I've seen legitimate "Luigi is a hero" stuff being upvoted on Tildes, I'm completely not surprised. It really is not different from Reddit at this point, which I guess makes sense considering where the users came from.
Just FYI I'm rate limited for whatever reason (another phenomenal aspect of this website...) and cannot respond.
Surely if you're going to say "ugh, reddit" with a metaphorical eye roll, it's better to engage in the kind of conversation you want to see rather than criticise? There are a lot of very nuanced...
Exemplary
Surely if you're going to say "ugh, reddit" with a metaphorical eye roll, it's better to engage in the kind of conversation you want to see rather than criticise? There are a lot of very nuanced things to discuss here around violence, ethics, and morality and this is one of the very few places I trust that conversation can actually happen without going too far off the rails.
For what it's worth, while I wouldn't call Luigi a hero, I would say that killing someone who has caused the unnecessary deaths of many others is morally justified - albeit very, very likely to backfire from a practical perspective.
One thing from reddit I don't like is when someone states a false narrative about the comment section and then someone else jumps in saying "Yeah, I agree!", as if there is a collective effort to...
One thing from reddit I don't like is when someone states a false narrative about the comment section and then someone else jumps in saying "Yeah, I agree!", as if there is a collective effort to manifest the idea that comments went in a way they demonstrably didn't.
Also, dear domestic intelligence apparatus, we're not celebrating Charlie Kirk's tragic death, we're just musing how Charlie Kirk would celebrate it himself. We're just here to discuss and respect...
Also, dear domestic intelligence apparatus, we're not celebrating Charlie Kirk's tragic death, we're just musing how Charlie Kirk would celebrate it himself. We're just here to discuss and respect his beliefs.
What would you prefer the reaction to be? I think the general tenor here has been fairly appropriate given the context, but you and a few others clearly disagree, so I’m interested in that...
What would you prefer the reaction to be? I think the general tenor here has been fairly appropriate given the context, but you and a few others clearly disagree, so I’m interested in that perspective even though it’s unlikely to change my own.
Lou I generally appreciate your contributions but you don't live here and you are missing important context if you want to understand. Maybe you want to listen to some of his content or read some...
Lou I generally appreciate your contributions but you don't live here and you are missing important context if you want to understand.
Maybe you want to listen to some of his content or read some quotes.
The top comment as of right now states that he considered this kind of death an acceptable tradeoff. Most of us on this site do not agree. If we had our way Charlie Kirk would likely be alive....
The top comment as of right now states that he considered this kind of death an acceptable tradeoff. Most of us on this site do not agree. If we had our way Charlie Kirk would likely be alive. We're not exactly jumping up and down with glee. I don't really give a shit about this guy and him dying doesn't kill the terrible ideas he spread.
Two powerful and relevant quotes from wordsmith Charlie Kirk, whatever the outcome of this incident:
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am—I think it's worth it.
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we
Or in Japan (completly prohibited), the UK (strict permits),... How many other countries even allow citizenry to carry firearms? Looking at a wikipedia map, they generally are allowed, but almost always with permits.
I'm not too opposed to total prohibition, but I really don't understand why people resist the notion of "having proper training to use dangerous weapon". We do it with vehicles (perhaps not strict enough for cars in some cases), and we do it for certified fields like most engineering, doctors, and lawyers. Why not the tool made primarily to kill?
Because "might makes right" is a fundamental principle of American society, whether it's explicitly acknowledged or not. It underpins practically everything. Essentially, you are free to do whatever you want if you're able to back it up. Money might be replacing force nowadays, but it's the same thing.
I really don't understand that second amendment argument.
The argument that the second amendment protects our God given rights held a lot more weight before we were in the midst of a fascist takeover of every aspect of our country. The guns don't seem to be helping.
Well. This is not a good venue for that debate. But, fundamentally, democracy with a state monopoly on violence is precipitous. It relies on the government to act in good faith, despite the work of governance being simplified immensely if they oppress.
But then we had about a hundred years of the people most likely to own guns being courted by white supremacist groups, and a progressive normalization of police militarization, and a lot of people who might should be armed looked at the gun owners and said "I don't want to be like that, at all". And now all the guns are on the side of the state.
At its core, politics is about power. Even the idea that personal gun ownership may never amount to meaningful rebellion against unjust government doesn't mean that by default we shouldn't have access to power unbidden by power structures. That's a matter of opinion.
I think it's even simpler. we saw governments creaatd 2 dozen other forms of warfare much deadlier than the peashooters we claim our right to have. These days, a remote drone can take you out while the government sits in their chair hundreds, thousands of miles away. How do you really practice your "well maintained militia" against weapons like that (weapons which are indeed illegal to own yourself. Curious...)
I think the 2nd amendment aged poorly, and we either need to take a look at what a "arm" is in the modern world, or re-think the entire idea of what's a right vs. priveledge.
Oppression is not usually dispensed via drones. That's just war or terrorism. Oppression usually requires policing and/or societal buy-in. Those cannot be done with faceless nameless weapons of mass destruction quite yet.
But you're right, I would like individuals to be able to own and operate predator drones. Sounds like a nice step toward personal thermonuclear arms and universal equality.
I think even this is missing the reasons many people don't own guns. The government doesn't even come into the picture with that math for me. I don't avoid them due to not wanting to come off like the stereotype either.
Guns make suicide more likely. Six out of ten firearm caused deaths are suicides and suicides have been the majority of those deaths for 30 years. Easy access to a quick way to die with much lower survival rates than other means is flat out unsafe for a large number of households. Probably far more than people think.
Guns also make domestic violence situations far more dangerous and deadly. An argument where you get the urge to slap someone turns into an argument where you get the urge to shoot someone, and you can. And people who would hit their partner in anger will shoot them too.
Finally some of us also aren't willing to kill people and because of that having a gun would only be a liability, not an asset at all. If I'm not willing to pull the trigger, I shouldn't point it at anyone. So I don't, and won't, have one.
I think this is in bad taste, honestly. There needs to be room for gun control, but there's a rational, humanitarian case that gun ownership should be understood primarily as right than a privilege. There's a reason why the harshest crackdown against guns in the USSR happened under Collectivization, which directly led to the deaths of millions of people. In the context of American politics, we need to be able to talk about gun control while still recognizing a general right to bear arms. Whether Charlie Kirk productively contributed to the conversation may be another question, but I don't think taking schadenfreude is appropriate or justified.
If I thought the man ever had any principles, quoting that would be akin to saying he set an example of those principles even in death - the opposite of bad taste, as I see it.
Given that I think he was an amoral ghoul who would say anything to anybody if he thought it would serve his own interests, it's instead a reminder that he has, perhaps for the one time ever, been forced to stand by his words. Given that they were indeed his words, freely spoken and amplified with the full intent of swaying public opinion, I don't see highlighting that as bad taste either.
What's the takeaway, though? That gun ownership should not be understood to be a right, and anyone who thinks it should is a fool?
The takeaway is that he either truly believed his own death was an acceptable price to pay, or that he was a liar who would callously throw away the lives of others for something he didn't actually believe in and has paid the ultimate price for that. Either of those two possibilities provides powerful context for what's just happened here.
As you said, poor taste, maybe but I found it to be an absurd level of poetic justice that:
A guy who loudly proclaimed that the second amendment is needed to protect individuals from a government trying to take away constitutional rights was shot and killed while pushing propaganda for the government taking away second amendment rights for a specific minority.
Who was he trying to take guns away from? I haven't been following news about him.
Trans folks.
But trans folks by way of declaring being trans a mental illness, and trying to take guns away from everyone with a mental illness, which is why the NRA and various 2A groups took the side of trans people for once. The precedents were very broad.
I don't think pulling these quotes out is necessarily an endorsement of a complete ban on guns. It's just amusing to point out that, by Kirk's own words, his death is an acceptable necessity so we probably shouldn't feel to bad about it.
He also believed empathy is a made up New Age term that "does a lot of damage" so I think it's only fair to respond in kind.
I just don't see it. maybe 200 years ago, but even then it was hard for a "well regulated militia" to have any real shot at usurping a government.
Driving a car is a near necessity in some countries but it is still a privileged, because misuse of it can get you or others killed. why not apply the same to guns?
Political violence begets more political violence. This isn't a match in a powder keg, its a torch, and more violence will probably follow. It is a difficult genie to stick back in the lamp.
The torch was thrown in there a long time ago, this is only like the 15th most notable politically charged violent event this year.
I personally think you're underestimating the impact that a major right-wing infosphere operative being gunned down will have in accelerating other acts of right wing violence, but I suppose it is impossible to know.
There was an assassination attempt on a Presidential candidate last year that was in the media for maybe two weeks before everyone moved on. Wasn’t even a factor four months later during the election, and there were was no noticeable increase in right wing violence. The only thing that popped up afterwards was the Health Care CEO being assassinated.
Also a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, what, three months ago? But she was a Democrat so I guess right-wing political violence doesn't count when it comes to hand-wringing...
You see, that was an old white guy dressed up as a cop. What are they going to do, take guns away from old white guys or cops?
That'd be ridiculous!
What might that solve? The hundreds-if-not-thousands of officer involved cold blooded zero consequence murders?
How do you stop a "good guy" with a gun? /s
Ask Nepal.
Given that there are myriad armed right wing reactionary militias active in the US, yeah, I’m more concerned about retaliatory violence in response to this killing. It’s not handwringing. Cycles of violence are easy to start and hard to stop, and each step along the way reinforces this. I don’t think this shooting was the start of the cycle, but I do think it has accelerated it, and I think we all lose when that happens.
It’s not handwringing to be apprehensive about how fascists, currently in power, will wield this.
That's debatable.
We won't know what the tipping point (turning point?) is until after violence occurs, but if nothing else, there will be significant political ramifications. Trump sent the national guard to DC after a DOGE staffer got beat up and he's already in the middle of a pressure campaign against universities. Who knows what he'll do in response, but Kirk was a pretty important figure in the maga movement.
It was definitely a factor in his camp's rallying. The number of fundie pundits who took it as evidence for the man's status as Chosen One was far from zero.
I hope you're right!
I saw a comment elsewhere along the lines of "well the pot has to boil over at some point" and it's like you do realize we're all inside this metaphorical pot, right?
Jan 6th endangered both left and right wing policy makers. I'm not disagreeing, but we've had quite a few situations this decade that should have been a wakeup call for the GOP. I'm not certain if this is the match that will ignite the cannons, but history can be fickle.
The match in the powder keg was January 6, and with Republicans granting the perpetrators clemency and holding them up as heroes, they've effectively declared that political violence is totally fine.
As others have noted there is a lot of very graphic footage out there right now that hasn't been caught by social media filters yet. Please be careful with your own wellbeing and consider avoiding social media tonight and disabling your autoplay settings for videos.
Yeesh.
source
Edit: Double yeesh and Triple yeesh
Lauren Boebert is functionally a professional troll. I am surprised that anyone at that level took her bait.
Only the best and brightest in this administration.
Classiest politicians in the biz.
Headline update: Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event
It looks to be widely spreading and being confirmed all around. Charlie seems to have died.
I'm not an American so I will be largely unaffected, but I do want to express my genuine worry over the possible coming crackdown. I doubt it but I sincerely hope cooler heads prevail.
I won't condone political violence. I hope the perpetrator spends a long time in prison, and I don't know what good they expected to come of this.
I will, however, leave some Charlie Kirk quotes that have aged like fine wine:
This line from the article in particular throws me pretty hard, just at the absurdity
Both that a lot of elected officials made it a point to get something out there within minutes despite it being a non-statement, and that doing so was important enough to be part of the associated press coverage of the event.
Video of the alleged shooter is an old white man. What are they going to say "Take all the guns away from... [checks notes] ...old white men?"
Newest info (per NYT) is that that man is not the shooter.
I assume they haven't made any mention of who is suspected. Last update about it on AP is a suspect is in custody (NYT blocked me because I blocked their ad blocker blocker).
Here is what NYT has to say:
I am just picturing a version of this pre-social media in a small town. It would be like a newspaper article commenting "Mayor's aid seen pinning a paper to the bulletin board at the post office."
I don't know, maybe I am the absurd one.
For others like me who never heard of him, he was basically a maga influencer. article:
Absolutely crazy to see Article 4 get invoked and the (likely politically motivated) assassination of a US social media influencer on my 34th birthday.
I don't like Charlie Kirk but nobody deserves to be shot dead over their political beliefs.
What I worry about more is how the Trump administration could turn this into an attack against leftists and the LGBTQ community (there was a trans active shooter a few weeks ago.)
Trump announced Kirk's death on social media, and called for all US flags to be flown at half-mast, which means it's a much bigger deal than the hundreds of kids murdered by school shooters yearly.
Well, here's Laura Loomer's response
Apparently, Trump is ordering all flags to be at half staff.
Yup. Charlie Kirk is being mourned by the government more than the hundreds of school kids being gunned down by active shooters every year.
This is gonna get ugly and I don't like that.
There were school kids killed today
Not to be pedantic, but unless you're talking about the random lives lost each day in this country, the school shooting in Evergreen hasn't had any casualties.
Not that it makes it any less tragic and this government any less shit, just pointing out facts as of this time.
This is completely baseless speculation - but this is mighty convenient timing for this administration. Something big to distract the news from the Epstein file that they can conveniently blame on the other political party and use as further "justification" to sned the military to Democrat controlled cities.
I haven't seen any specific evidence to suggest this, but we know that these people are capable and willing to toss their own to wolves (or worse) if it means furthering their agenda
Yeah, call me cynical, but I'd place money on this being Stephen Miller's handiwork.
Remind me! 75 years
Fwiw while it seems more likely the shooter a few weeks ago was not or was no longer someone who considered themselves transgender, I mention it only because that is the most recent information I have. Trans folks are absolutely still being targeted, explicitly, over it.
I'm not for violence. But pretty much anything can be a "political belief", including things that might leave assassination as your opposition's only option.
I hope we have more information soon. Is Kirk alive? Why was he shot? What happened to the shooter?
I saw a video that someone filmed from about 15 feet away. I would be surprised is he makes it. Either way, this is just more gasoline on the dumpster fire.
Edit: apparently he made it to the hospital and is in critical condition. Also, somewhat related, another school shooting took place in Colorado right around the same time. We need a bigger dumpster.
Edit 2: now multiple sources are reporting he is dead
more info (gory)
I’ve seen footage of the event that I won’t share here, he got shot through the neck and blood started pouring out
Trump says he's dead.
Shooter is supposedly in custody according to bbc, nyt. It did not look good, my personal opinion is that Kirk did not survive. He was probably shot for his political views but that is just an assumption I'm making.
The guy they've taken into custody has been
released.EDIT: charged with obstruction of justice.Unless they've arrested someone else. It's unclear.
Musk's groomed LLM is saying that Kirk is alive and the videos showing his death are "meme edits". What a great technology.
I saw the close-up footage. It’s a direct hit on his neck (jugular vein if I had to guess). A fountain of blood spurted out of it and he immediately went limp. I’m not a medical expert but would be surprised if he was still alive.
Updates say he's in critical condition. Whether or not he survives is the question at this point.
Deseret news is reporting that Charlie Kirk is dead, according to Utah Speaker Mike Schultz
You got a link? I can't find this news.
BBC news is currently reporting that he's dead- Trump posted "The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead" on Truth Social (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt).
Can anyone confirm if they actually have the shooter in custody or not? From what I can tell it seemed they were reporting that they had one, and now they're reporting that they do not.
If they do not, that's another level of concern on this whole situation for a variety of reasons.
Similar to Brian Thompson last year... I find it hard to feel literally any sympathy whatsoever in moments like this. At the same time, I'm worried about how Trump and co. may/will react to this.
My mantra in situations like this is approximately
"Don't be trans, don't be brown, don't be queer, don't be Muslim"
Interestingly, Kirk had just gotten done glibly answering a question about statistics of trans mass shooters when he was shot. That might have been part of the setup.
The news has been mixed on if he managed to answer that question or if it was just asked (or maybe it was a follow up asked), and I refuse to watch videos because I need to protect my mental health more than know the answer.
I hope it was a coincidence.
I've watched footage; he answered with a quip saying "too many" or something along those lines, and then the same person was in the middle of a follow up trying to get him to answer seriously about who the perceived threats really are.
Got it, like I said, the reporting hadn't nailed it down yet. I don't look forward to the analysis of it all.
Old white guy.edit: after refreshing a news feed, it seems like the suspect is not actually in custody as of 5:24pm estThat is the current status as I'm familiar with it.
My mantra remains the same regardless though. Anyone whose identity will be used to attack them - including a history of mental illness tbh - will end up with that identity being attacked on a larger scale. It's shifted over the years but has been fairly consistent since 2001.
That South Park episode they did a month ago where they lampooned "masterdebating" influencers like him has suddenly aged like milk.
I also detest the many calls I've seen for South Park to be cancelled over that. How would they have known?
if you think that is bad...
Dang... This is just giving right wingers more ammunition.
Article was published 2 days ago. It's a coincidence and nothing more.
I fail to see how this makes the South Park episode any less funny.
Political violence like this is always wrong. But the episode was written and aired weeks before this happened. And Charlie Kirk was such a horrible person that I'm really struggling to actually feel bad for him. In 20 years, the majority of what neurons I still have dedicated to his memory will probably be tied to this South Park episode.
I never heard of this guy before, but I'll just say that the death penalty is hardly ever justice, except possibly if he were a serial killer or something like that.
Haven't heard of Brian Thompson? That might be because the focus was/is primarily on the individual accused of committing acts against him: Luigi Mangione
Sorry, that was unclear. I meant I never heard of Charlie Kirk before.
That's genuinely interesting to me. Based on your posts, I'd say you're clearly very plugged in to news and politics. I know Kirk came from social media, but it's odd that his name never broke into your sources. He was popular, but he also had some pretty serious sway with the MAGA movement.
I had to become truly aware of him when he came to our campus. It was stressful for everyone. Until then I was mostly able to avoid him, though I'd heard his name.
If you don't engage with the "debate me, random college student, so I can prove how much smarter I am than you through selective editing" sort of media then it's easy to never see him in any more depth than a random "guy said ____" sort of quote in a larger article.
That makes sense. It's interesting and a bit disconcerting that there's still a huge gap between traditional news outlets and popular online figures with massive influence, so much so that someone like skybrian wouldn't recognize the name. Unfortunately, I don't think guys like Kirk are confined to that dark corner of the internet anymore, as evidenced by the fact that Trump was one of the first people to publicly announce his death and has since ordered all flags to fly at half staff. Though Kirk is different in that he is also an organizer outside of social media.
Before 2020, the only way I'd come across a figure like Kirk is if one of my former coworkers or highschool friends shared something on Facebook, and in those instances I'd roll my eyes and ignore it. But after a lockdown-induced rabbit hole (that can be traced back to a tildes post), I came across a few decent online/social media news sources that also cover the online right and it completely recontextualized American politics in a way that made everything make so much more sense. It's like when I watched Skibidi toilet and Huggy Wuggy on YouTube for the first time and realized what my students were actually doing on the playground. 90% of the people I know don't read the NYT, listen to NPR, or even watch CNN. Instead, they get what little news they consume from social media where guys like Kirk dominate. If you don't know who those guys are, it can be hard to understand what people are thinking. It's a blind spot that traditional news can't cover.
I agree he wasn't confined there anymore, he was part of the corner that had only gained in popularity throughout this administration.
It's also very easy for your algorithm to start showing you the videos. My partner recognized the name. He didn't like Kirk but the videos would get served to him on YouTube (he watches a lot of outdoorsy/car/similar trade sort of things)
It also doesn't help that traditional news won't say "hey he's lying" about these sorts of people anymore.
It's quite possible that I've read his name before in news stories, but I not often enough to remember who he is. There are probably other MAGA influencers whom I wouldn't remember either.
I am aghast at some of these comments. Political violence is still bad, even if it happens to the other side.
Alright, I've been trying really hard to self-censor myself and restrain myself from replying to anything in this thread, out of good faith & respect to other users in the forum, but that is simply untrue. Political violence is not always bad, and there are potentially thousands of examples in human history indicating this is the case.
Ok, specifically this political violence is bad. Charlie Kirk, for all his faults, was not a genocidal dictator. Killing him will not save thousands of lives. In fact, I strongly suspect that killing him will save zero lives. It’s more likely that, if anything, the outcome of this sort of political assassination of talking heads will have a net result of more lives being lost.
At what comments exactly?
I don't see anyone praising it. There's a lack of sympathy for someone facing consequences of his own actions, sure and quotes from Kirk himself, but what are you aghast at?
A man gets shot and the reaction is "well, he had it coming." It's not okay if the man was a teenager with a criminal history and it's not okay if the man was a pro-gun republican podcaster.
I understand that with how polarized America is right now it's very difficult to have empathy for the other side. But that fact should be recognized with sorrow, not worn like a badge of honor.
The closest thing anyone (before your comment) said to "he had it coming" were Charlie's own quotes on gun violence.
I don't think that direct quotes from the victim on how he would feel about the subject can be considered malice.
I don't even see the conversation in this thread being about (or particularly impacted by) polarisation, really. It's about his own actions and positions, more than anything.
Person who has harmed many others finally succumbs to that same harm himself. That's a small sliver of justice done, even by dangerous and probably counterproductive means. And we're giving him as much or more sympathy as he gave others in the same situation - others who actually were innocent victims, rather than victims guilty of causing the very situation they came to harm by.
No one said he had it coming, don't go changing the words of others to fit your narrative.
We're clearly not going to have a productive conversation, so never mind.
Well, when you start it from an indefensible falsehood, what do you expect to accomplish?
Do you really draw a distinction between "facing the consequences of his own actions" (your words) and "had it coming" (my words)? Is your position seriously that the former is a reasonable paraphrase and the latter an indefensible falsehood? Obviously we've completely lost the plot here but that's such a surprising stance that I can't help but get pulled into this.
Yes, I do.
Lack of sympathy for the result of the actions or statements one has made is nowhere close to wishing those results upon someone.
“I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage”
I think the implication that getting shot in the neck is an acceptable “consequence” for being an asshole is not a great thing.
Also, there’s at least one comment in this very thread wishing that the shooter had better aim.
For being an asshole? No.
Was Charlie Kirk merely an asshole? No.
Did he make multiple statements that reiterated that certain laws in the US are worth the violence they beget? Yes.
Which was made well after my comment above.
And has been deleted now
As I predicted it would be.
I don't think it's an acceptable consequence. But we are allowed to not feel any empathy over the death of a man who repeatedly argued that empathy is a weakness. It's what he would have wanted after all. And I think every Republican throwing a fit over this is a truly massive hypocrite after they pardoned all the J6 insurrectionists.
Person advocating for political violence victim of political violence. My neck of the world we call that karma.
I see literally nobody saying otherwise? Top comment is basically “you reap what you sow”, the next two are explicitly concerned about escalating political violence, and the other couple are about the facts and reaction. What’s concerning you in particular?
I get it to an extent, but... Honestly, I think we're at a point where Americans are just too emotionally fatigued.
I think that if this happened in another country, even one with a similarly polarized political landscape, there would be a lot more sympathy and horror from the opposing side. But the United States has an epidemic of gun violence. We're honestly desensitized to it. People dying to gun violence (or any violence really) isn't a tragedy anymore, it's normal for us. It is, quite literally, a basic fact of life in the United States. The sky is blue, grass is green, people get murdered every day.
Hearing about a political figure getting shot isn't some horrible, tragic event here anymore. Not when we're used to regular reports of mass shootings of children and other innocents. Not when there are far too many news stories about children messing around with unsecured guns and shooting each other. Not when it's just... normal.
For me, one of the most sobering moments of my life was hearing a news report about a school shooting with a single victim and thinking, "At least only one person died this time." The weight of that super casual thought, at how much I just automatically minimized a tragedy, slammed into me full-force a moment later. Because that singular death was a tragedy, it absolutely devastated all the people close to that poor, poor individual. Chances are the family never recovered from that loss, that it set off a domino effect leading to others dying or having their lives otherwise ruined.
But in the face of every other mass shooting at schools with double-digit casualty numbers? And all the other shootings outside of schools? That one death just doesn't register as particularly tragic to me anymore. And that's horrifying.
I am NOT saying this to rag on Charlie Kirk's stances on gun violence or just empathy in general (though that absolutely diminishes any shreds of sympathy I might have felt for him). I'm saying that to explain that in America, we're just too emotionally fatigued to see this sort of event as a major tragedy anymore. We can acknowledge it's tragic from an intellectual standpoint, but we're too used to it to feel the degree of horror we should be feeling. We HAVE to be numb to it because humans just aren't capable of handling 24/7 grief and trauma. We don't have the emotional bandwidth to feel too much grief for a stranger.
And from that emotional fatigue and numbness, arise more callous emotions and responses. US politics in general are highly fatiguing and emotionally taxing at this point. All the systems meant to keep our government running fairly are just... nonexistent. Trump and his cronies largely ignore the rules to do what they want. Courts challenge them when they make extreme oversteps, but that's a process that takes months and in the meantime, all sorts of damages will incur. And even when courts do rule against some action, who, exactly, is going to enforce it?
There's no way for the average American to do anything about the broken "checks and balances" system because the corruption and issues are just too deep rooted. I honestly don't know if any of the "proper" channels will be able to undo all the damage that's been done just since Trump took office this year. I feel like I now understand how Hitler and the Nazis rose to power, because I'm watching the same thing happen within the US, and there's very little I and others can do to stop it. I have to step away from certain news stories because it will just get me feeling unbridled rage, and there are no outlets for me to act on that rage in a positive, non-harmful way.
So, combine the fact Americans are desensitized to gun violence and even assassinations, and the frustrations over how screwed up our country is... Yeah, a lot of people aren't going to mourn this particular man's death. Not when we barely have the energy to mourn for famous strangers we actually like. And especially not when the victim is a person who certainly wouldn't have expressed any sort of grief or sympathy if anyone from "the other side" was assassinated.
We're emotionally burnt out on multiple levels, and we need to save our energy for the other fights that will arise from the inevitable fallout from this death. My personal objections to this assassination come not from a moral standpoint about how murder and political violence are bad, but a purely pragmatic one about to the damages it will incur politically. Charlie Kirk's death will not bring any good change even in the immediate short-term, it will fuel fires for more violence and political unrest. This will absolutely be used by the Trump administration to further their twisted agendas.
Also, a revelation I had when writing this that I can't really fit anywhere else: gallows humor is a common coping mechanism among people in high-stress and traumatic fields like medicine, military and law enforcement, as a way to maintain some emotional control over circumstances beyond our control, vent stress/fear/anxiety, and just not emotionally shut down. Ghoulish and callous as it may feel, I think that's exactly what's playing out in most of the replies here.
And... uh, this realization is actually mildly horrifying to me, that it's becoming a coping mechanism for normal, every day people. I already knew we were desensitized, but this just adds another layer to how messed up we Americans really are.
Some political violence is good. Never ideal, but it can be just.
This?...Kirk has always been a ridiculous rabblerouser. Cruel, and hateful, and callous, and hypocritical, but probably not "worthy" of assassination. However any of us feel though, it's a sign of things to come.
In this era, I don't think any rabble rouser qualifies as ridiculous, regardless of how ignorant or anti intellectual/ anti science they might be.
Repeated public hate speech is one of the stepping stones to genocide. Social media allowing hate speech has been a direct cause of pogroms and riots around the world.
I'm afraid of what comes next and I don't support violence. I just reacted to your comment about ridiculousness because the anti intellectuals are deadly serious about their beliefs.
No, that's fair. But they are ridiculous regardless. Losing sight of this is how people begin to tolerate their hatred. Beside that, the logic of fascism is built on a self-image of power. He deserved to be mocked mercilessly and ignored beside that, and I'm pulling the μολὼν λαβέ card should anyone defend his ideas one way or another.
I learned of Leonidas in my youth, but not by studying greek. Hopefully it won't come to that but it plausibly might.
It's bad, but seemingly ineviatable at this point. When you spend 5 years at the bare minimum fostering and evevn inciting violence upon people, then violence is the result.
I don't condone it , but when the leadership renames their army to the "department of War" and then threatens to invade a domestic city, I don't see any other result happening, esepcially in such a connected world where information travels the world in minutes.
Considering I've seen legitimate "Luigi is a hero" stuff being upvoted on Tildes, I'm completely not surprised. It really is not different from Reddit at this point, which I guess makes sense considering where the users came from.
Just FYI I'm rate limited for whatever reason (another phenomenal aspect of this website...) and cannot respond.
Surely if you're going to say "ugh, reddit" with a metaphorical eye roll, it's better to engage in the kind of conversation you want to see rather than criticise? There are a lot of very nuanced things to discuss here around violence, ethics, and morality and this is one of the very few places I trust that conversation can actually happen without going too far off the rails.
For what it's worth, while I wouldn't call Luigi a hero, I would say that killing someone who has caused the unnecessary deaths of many others is morally justified - albeit very, very likely to backfire from a practical perspective.
One thing from reddit I don't like is when someone states a false narrative about the comment section and then someone else jumps in saying "Yeah, I agree!", as if there is a collective effort to manifest the idea that comments went in a way they demonstrably didn't.
Would the assassination of say Putin be a bad thing?
when the givers of certain principles get to be the receivers thereof
Also, dear domestic intelligence apparatus, we're not celebrating Charlie Kirk's tragic death, we're just musing how Charlie Kirk would celebrate it himself. We're just here to discuss and respect his beliefs.
I'm glad you found a way to take this news and announce how you're morally superior to everyone else on this site.
What would you prefer the reaction to be? I think the general tenor here has been fairly appropriate given the context, but you and a few others clearly disagree, so I’m interested in that perspective even though it’s unlikely to change my own.
Lou I generally appreciate your contributions but you don't live here and you are missing important context if you want to understand.
Maybe you want to listen to some of his content or read some quotes.
The top comment as of right now states that he considered this kind of death an acceptable tradeoff. Most of us on this site do not agree. If we had our way Charlie Kirk would likely be alive. We're not exactly jumping up and down with glee. I don't really give a shit about this guy and him dying doesn't kill the terrible ideas he spread.