Charlie Kirk shot at campus event in Utah

[rainatthetraintrack]

 

[Dejected 55]

Oh boy what a book of nonsense.

Lawyers don't exist to get rulings of not guilty or innocence first of all. They exist to ensure you get fair due process. Defending someone doesn't mean you agree with them. So going after a lawyer solely on the basis they secured wins for someone isn't a fair metric on its own nor is it comparable. If it were we'd be talking about lawyers who also openly mock murder victims and the laws around murder, then getting murdered. And yes I'd laugh in that case.

People keep coming at this writing their versions of metaphors wholly excluding the fact that Charlie Kirk championed the philosophy that got others and then himself killed, and was openly asking his audience to bail out the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband with a hammer. You wanna talk about what my response would be for other people in different situations, I'll happily tell you, but most of these defenses are well wasted on protecting Kirk.

So, this is weird... read what you wrote there in the first paragraph: "Defending someone doesn't mean you agree with them." So, it's like you're saying... follow me here... that someone can reasonably defend Charlie Kirk's right not to be shot in the head in front of his family and NOT agree with him. Which is exactly what a bunch of us are saying... Don't have to agree with him, but do believe killing him is wrong. That's your logic I'm using to assert my position. I don't like Charlie Kirk. I don't think he deserved to be shot.

People just want to keep moving the line as to when they think it is acceptable to kill someone. Justify murder, assassination all you want if you think that makes sense. It is, after all a free country, and I'll defend your right to have that opinion. But much as you want to mock Charlie Kirk for irony... be aware that there are others who are with you today in mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination, who might very well laugh at your misfortune someday too if you should ever say something that they disagree with.

It's a slippery slop when you decide it's okay to just kill someone you disagree with. We formed civilizations and created laws in large part to stop just that sort of mob justice. Fortunately I'm not planning on being in this world much longer to see it evolve into the hellscape of violence that some seem eager to encourage.

 

[PixelAngel]

So, this is weird... read what you wrote there in the first paragraph: "Defending someone doesn't mean you agree with them." So, it's like you're saying... follow me here... that someone can reasonably defend Charlie Kirk's right not to be shot in the head in front of his family and NOT agree with him. Which is exactly what a bunch of us are saying... Don't have to agree with him, but do believe killing him is wrong. That's your logic I'm using to assert my position. I don't like Charlie Kirk. I don't think he deserved to be shot.

People just want to keep moving the line as to when they think it is acceptable to kill someone. Justify murder, assassination all you want if you think that makes sense. It is, after all a free country, and I'll defend your right to have that opinion. But much as you want to mock Charlie Kirk for irony... be aware that there are others who are with you today in mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination, who might very well laugh at your misfortune someday too if you should ever say something that they disagree with.

It's a slippery slop when you decide it's okay to just kill someone you disagree with. We formed civilizations and created laws in large part to stop just that sort of mob justice. Fortunately I'm not planning on being in this world much longer to see it evolve into the hellscape of violence that some seem eager to encourage.

I'm genuinely unsure if you think you've got someone in a logical trap of some kind. You were JUST suggesting that a lawyer shouldn't be killed for defending people, which I elaborated on and specified was a flat comparison considering it omits the behavior analogue to Kirk. And I've said numerous times that I never wished the man dead and that I think his murder was wrong. So who exactly is the condescending lecture for? If I die because of my own blind political ignorance then you and the whole world have my permission to laugh, not that it'll matter since I'd be dead and you could laugh regardless of how I feel. That's the privilege of the living.

 

[Dejected 55]

I'm genuinely unsure if you think you've got someone in a logical trap of some kind. You were JUST suggesting that a lawyer shouldn't be killed for defending people, which I elaborated on and specified was a flat comparison considering it omits the behavior analogue to Kirk. And I've said numerous times that I never wished the man dead and that I think his murder was wrong. So who exactly is the condescending lecture for? If I die because of my own blind political ignorance then you and the whole world have my permission to laugh, not that it'll matter since I'd be dead and you could laugh regardless of how I feel. That's the privilege of the living.

All I've been saying is you can hate the man and still not cheer his murder. Anyone cheering his murder is wrong based on what our country is supposed to believe. Cheering murder is welcoming more of it. If you aren't one of the ones cheering, then good on you. But your argument seemed to indicate that you were because you seemed to be supporting it.

Again, as I've also said... people can cheer if they want... I mean it is a free country supposedly... but if the argument is its okay to cheer Charlie Kirk's murder because he said horrible things and believed it was okay for people to die for gun rights... then don't be surprised if the world continues to escalate and determine that it's also okay to kill people who cheer murder because that's just killing people who think it is okay to murder people you disagree with... and the violence escalates until nobody is left.

And as I concluded, I don't plan on being around to see how this crapfest of a world turns out anyway, so honestly, I'm losing the will to bother trying to help people towards a kinder path because if they don't want it and they plan on living in that world, then maybe I'm wrong and violence is the way of the future for those who will survive me.

 

[WallTermite]

I'm just gonna ignore anyone who wants to argue with me so save your breath.

The dude got what he deserved. Argued to not have stronger gun laws and said it was okay if some people had to get shot. What a fucking tool, hope his kids grow up to recognize that he argued for his own demise.

Saying this one more time for the people in the back: HE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF PEOPLE GETTING KILLED. WHEN ASKED HE SAID IT WAS OKAY IF PEOPLE GOT MURDERED!

You are giving femboys a bad name.

 

[PixelAngel]

All I've been saying is you can hate the man and still not cheer his murder. Anyone cheering his murder is wrong based on what our country is supposed to believe. Cheering murder is welcoming more of it. If you aren't one of the ones cheering, then good on you. But your argument seemed to indicate that you were because you seemed to be supporting it.

Again, as I've also said... people can cheer if they want... I mean it is a free country supposedly... but if the argument is its okay to cheer Charlie Kirk's murder because he said horrible things and believed it was okay for people to die for gun rights... then don't be surprised if the world continues to escalate and determine that it's also okay to kill people who cheer murder because that's just killing people who think it is okay to murder people you disagree with... and the violence escalates until nobody is left.

And as I concluded, I don't plan on being around to see how this crapfest of a world turns out anyway, so honestly, I'm losing the will to bother trying to help people towards a kinder path because if they don't want it and they plan on living in that world, then maybe I'm wrong and violence is the way of the future for those who will survive me.

People in this thread repeatedly go back to, "celebrating murder," which I keep responding to by saying, I'm not celebrating his murder (I'm against murder, Charlie thought it was an acceptable price). I'm celebrating that hubris and irony can still come back to bite people. With regard to him being a shit person, yeah, no lie I'm glad the world has one less of him. He's been living the dream by capitalizing on making life hell for people I love for many years, his very rhetoric used to make them feel they don't deserve to live and making spaces unsafe for them just because they exist. Should society avoid a slippery slope of celebrating political violence? Yeah (though again, go tell that to Charlie and his ilk). Are some people here doing that, even from behind a veneer of fact? Probably. I have no interest in speaking for or defending their views and this whole time, I haven't tried to.

But we're talking about a guy who everyone tried to tell for years about this exact outcome, and he didn't care. That he suffered the consequences of his beliefs for once instead of Black/Brown people, women, or lgbtq people in the end, is funny. Just like you're not asking me to like the guy, I'm not asking you to laugh at him. But there's nothing wrong with acknowledging the humourous irony that he is now a statistic against his own views.