Charlie Kirk shot at campus event in Utah

[Pessimist]

mossad. The guy started criticizing Israel

I swear people are getting more and more retarded with their conspiracy theories. Guy was extremely pro-Israel and said "Palestine doesn't exist". 0 evidence of Israel having anything to do with his assassination (shooter isn't even Jewish). If Israel wanted to go after someone it would obviously be Zohran Mamdani, who said Netanyahu would be arrested in New York City.

 

[quietwoods]

I think far more people are simply going, "He reaped what he sowed" than actively saying, "Yeah, he deserved to be killed for his beliefs".

Most people are reacting to his death the same way someone would if he had simply died in a car accident or from a heart attack.

I can understand what you're trying to say but it's also an inaccurate generalization and only something that applies to a subsection.

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread and counted at least 6 people openly celebrating and glorifying the violence against him, which are distinctly separate from the people (like me) just shrugging their shoulders and saying "he reaped what he sowed".

These same sentiments of celebrating the violence are echoing all across social media.

These things aren't 0 or 100. There's a wide diversity of opinion and nuance here.

And that's probably why there's backlash from others regarding the glorification of violence. Hence my earlier posts. Not saying I necessarily agree again as a lot of the backlash is just self-serving virtue signaling, but I can understand where it's coming from.

 

[PixelAngel]

Do you sincerely support making laughing stock of a dead child, because of disagreements about toy regulations?
And if so; why? To what end?

There's always a compromise in between safety and freedom, but we all ultimately want both. It shouldn't come as a surprise that some people lean more towards freedom, and others more towards safety.

Didn't say anything about a dead child. The metaphor is obviously related to Kirk and his opposition of reasonable gun safety laws. It's not some kind of gotcha to insert that instead of attending the actual person I was referring to, like you're intending to take me wrong. When it comes to not thinking dead children are an acceptable price, I was already holding this opinion. Charlie, in this metaphor, didn't.

 

[Hvergelmir]

...like you're intending to take me wrong.

That's fair. I did use a very literal interpretation, with implications that might seem unwarranted.
But I think the wider pattern still holds.

If I oppose cars, and a driver dies in an accident, would it then be appropriate to laugh at it?
The deeper question is whether this it's good and honest rhetoric to make fun of dead victims. I'm also questioning the purpose of it.

 

[PixelAngel]

That's fair. I did use a very literal interpretation, with implications that might seem unwarranted.
But I think the wider pattern still holds.

If I oppose cars, and a driver dies in an accident, would it then be appropriate to laugh at it?
The deeper question is whether this it's good and honest rhetoric to make fun of dead victims. I'm also questioning the purpose of it.

If you and I support driver safety laws, and good old Charlie doesn't, and then Charlie dies to lax driver safety, it doesn't mean I don't support driver safety that I found his hubris funny. And it IS funny that he is now an example in favor of my belief that safety should be more important, even if I didn't want him dead, even if I think murdering him was wrong. And personally I'm more interested in the topic of whether gun violence is wrong, than the one of whether a dark sense of humor and poetic justice are wrong.

 

[sinfonia]

I'm also questioning the purpose of it.

The purpose is to deal with feelings of powerlessness on the left-liberal side of things after the secomd Trump victory, the possibility of which still seemed like a bad joke to many (myself admittedly included) until about a year ago.

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes, and that Trump isn't a 'glitch in the matrix' anymore, but part of a historic trend that will most likely continue for centuries to come.

 

[PixelAngel]

The purpose is to deal with feelings of powerlessness on the left-liberal side of things after the secomd Trump victory, the possibility of which still seemed like a bad joke to many (myself admittedly included) until about a year ago.

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes, and that Trump isn't a 'glitch in the matrix' anymore, but part of a historic trend that will most likely continue for centuries to come.

Epstein defender says what

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

The purpose is to deal with feelings of powerlessness on the left-liberal side of things after the secomd Trump victory, the possibility of which still seemed like a bad joke to many (myself admittedly included) until about a year ago.

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes, and that Trump isn't a 'glitch in the matrix' anymore, but part of a historic trend that will most likely continue for centuries to come.

I'm not American and I still think Charlie Kirk reaped what he sowed, Trump is a pedophile, I also wouldn't like a pedophile to be the president in my country.

 

[Cosmophobic]

"Masterdebater" standing in the way of gun reform gets shot and killed: *surprised pikachu face*

School shooting a minute later: *tumbleweed*

 

[Hvergelmir]

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes...

Trumps "landslide" victory was by just a few percent.
I expect right wing voters to be be rather skeptical about Trumps trade policies, and I'd be very surprised if U.S power doesn't shift back to Democrat rule soon.

I fail to see the long term trends you describe.
(Thanks for the clear and respectful reply. I don't know how people managed to associate it with Epstein, or what they're trying to imply.)

 

[rainatthebusstop]

Do you sincerely support making laughing stock of a dead child, because of disagreements about toy regulations?
And if so; why? To what end?

Little reading comprehension test: The op said

I oppose lax safety standards when producing children's toys. If someone disagrees and then dies because an unsafe toy killed them, laughing about it does not detract from my ability to continue opposing bad standards.

Now: Would a child be able to meaningfully oppose child toy safety regulations?
Do children run toy factories or have any meaningful input on the way toys are produced?
Or are you deliberately twisting someones example because you don't like what that person had to say?

 

[PixelAngel]

Ah my bad I misread it as responding to me

 

[sinfonia]

Trumps "landslide" victory was by just a few percent.

Yes, but he ran a horrible campaign. Unlike in 2016, he won not because he was Trump, but in spite of it. People wanted something more serious this time. The fact that he still won shows how strong the currents of history are.

 

[ape]

I'm actually stunned there are people in this thread saying "He was killed for his opinions!" or "He only wanted to debate people!"

Charlie Kirk was a man who built a 12 million dollar fortune spreading hate filled and violent rhetoric. He had power and influence. He spoke to lawmakers and the president of the united states, and pushed them to create and support laws that would actively hurt marginalized groups. He wasn't just a "harmless guy with some bad opinions," he was a guy who was actively hurting others with his actions.

It's actually insane how many posters in this thread are crying that the left is the party of violence, when for the last 11 years in particular the right has been actively screaming for the deaths of minorities and other marginalized people. "Oh but the right isn't violent, they're only SAYING that they would not hesitate to kill you." Charlie Kirk himself laughed at political violence. When Nancy Pelosi's husband got his skull fractured from a hammer attack, Kirk himself laughed on his podcast, called the attacker an american hero, and called for his listeners to donate for the guy's bail.

Charlie Kirk was a terrible person, and the world is better without him in it.

 

[R. A.]

I'm actually stunned there are people in this thread saying "He was killed for his opinions!" or "He only wanted to debate people!"

Charlie Kirk was a man who built a 12 million dollar fortune spreading hate filled and violent rhetoric. He had power and influence. He spoke to lawmakers and the president of the united states, and pushed them to create and support laws that would actively hurt marginalized groups. He wasn't just a "harmless guy with some bad opinions," he was a guy who was actively hurting others with his actions.

It's actually insane how many posters in this thread are crying that the left is the party of violence, when for the last 11 years in particular the right has been actively screaming for the deaths of minorities and other marginalized people. "Oh but the right isn't violent, they're only SAYING that they would not hesitate to kill you." Charlie Kirk himself laughed at political violence. When Nancy Pelosi's husband got his skull fractured from a hammer attack, Kirk himself laughed on his podcast, called the attacker an american hero, and called for his listeners to donate for the guy's bail.

Charlie Kirk was a terrible person, and the world is better without him in it.

Everyone you're surprised about in here is straight up ignoring these points.
There's literally no reason to engage with them, unless the raging makes you feel good.
People don't understand how fascism works, apparently. It's a dead end.

 

[quietwoods]

Watching twitter over the past day has been fascinating.

A whole cohort of people are gloating, generally on the left. People who generally argue very strongly against the death penalty for multiple murderers, decry hate speech, have "Be Kind" plastered all over their bio, and talk about the need to stop "verbal violence" are celebrating this fatal result of actual violence like it's 1999.

A whole cohort of people are threatening, generally on the right. People who yell about freedom of speech, people who demand the right to have their opinions aired, and say that nothing offensive is out of bounds, are threatening violence, finding the gloaters, finding their employers, trying to get them fired, and demanding that people who are saying nasty things be silenced.

It's... it's almost like... virtually everyone is a massive hypocrite who abandons their principles at the precise moment they become inconvenient!

It seems as if... as if... being a complete and utter asshole, without any self-awareness or ability to reflect on one's own behaviour, is baked into the human animal.

It looks like... people just drop their values willy-nilly, and make excuses for why their dearly held belief is completely opposite from what it was ten minutes ago.

Interesting creature, the human. Technologically advanced, yet nowhere near as intelligent as it seems to think it is.

Going to repost the most sane comment in the whole thread.

This thread has just devolved into confirmation bias run rampant, moralistic handwaving, and people inventing realities where their chosen set of facts hold dominance with black and white "sides".

I will settle the argument for everybody:

 

[Hvergelmir]

I was asking myself about political violence the other day, and thought I'd share this article.

The support for politically-motivated murder was measured at:
2.1% for Democrats,
1.8% for Republicans,
(and 2.16% for "MAGA Republicans", specifically).

Support for 'any kind of partisan violence' was presented as <4%.

Meanwhile, Democrats thought that 45.5% of Republicans supported partisan murder.
Republicans thought that 42% of democrats supported the same.

While not directly related to Kirk, I think it offers a good explanation for why political debates have became so darn aggressive.

 

[Pessimist]

Charlie Kirk himself laughed at political violence. When Nancy Pelosi's husband got his skull fractured from a hammer attack, Kirk himself laughed on his podcast, called the attacker an american hero, and called for his listeners to donate for the guy's bail.

Do you have a source for this claim? Too many people are saying things that are false nowadays.

 

[Dot]

Do you have a source for this claim? Too many people are saying things that are false nowadays.

Twittr Sourc

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

I was asking myself about political violence the other day, and thought I'd share this article.

The support for politically-motivated murder was measured at:
2.1% for Democrats,
1.8% for Republicans,
(and 2.16% for "MAGA Republicans", specifically).

Support for 'any kind of partisan violence' was presented as <4%.

Meanwhile, Democrats thought that 45.5% of Republicans supported partisan murder.
Republicans thought that 42% of democrats supported the same.

While not directly related to Kirk, I think it offers a good explanation for why political debates have became so darn aggressive.

That's interesting, I was under the impression it was higher, but maybe they are doing the surveys differently.

This one is from 2024 and lists it as
"Nearly three in ten Republicans (29%) believe that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country, compared with 16% of independents and 8% of Democrats"

I don't think the 2025 American Values Survey has been published yet but it will be interesting to see if Republicans stopped supporting political violence as much while democrats become more in favor of it.

edit (forgot to link it :p) : https://prri.org/research/challenge...indings-from-the-2024-american-values-survey/

 

[rainatthetraintrack]

I am not saying that. I am saying that it is ironic that a man who spend a good chunk of his life being pro gun violence got killed by a person doing a gun violence. You are taking my words out of context. I never said anything about gun ownership or the second ammendment because frankly, I have no leg in that race either way

no he's literally not. many ppl get killed in car crashes does that mean we should ban cars and make driving illegal??? that's what he was literally saying.

Plus it's really funny to say "it's not okay to use tragedies as an excuse for trying to take other ppls rights away" like buddy.... remember 9/11? Or is it just infringing on other peoples rights good actually if they are brown and/or pray on in the direction of Mecca?

so you think there are valid reasons for taking ppls rights away???

 

[Hvergelmir]

Nearly three in ten Republicans (29%) believe that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country, compared with 16% of independents and 8% of Democrats

I've seen this statistic too, and think it comes down to how the question is formulated.
I think those 29% include people thinking that they might have to defend against a Chinese invasion, or be deployed in a Nato response, etc,

Partisan murder is much more specific. Anyone serving in the military would reasonably say that they may resort to violence to save the country - it's kind of their purpose.

 

[Winterreise]

I didnt order the killing.
I dont know who ordered it.
Sorry.