Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

[plague311]

I found the quote I was looking for:

Robinson mentioned during a dinner conversation with a family member that Kirk would be visiting Utah Valley University, according to Cox. Robinson and the family members discussed why they didn't like Kirk and his viewpoints, and the family member stated Kirk was "full of hate and spreading hate," Cox said.

That doesn't really sound like a conservative family, if true. Though I suppose even conservatives have a bridge that goes too far. I just can't seem to confirm the conservative thing.

 

[dann]

Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals? | Daily Question

Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?

today.yougov.com

On this last one, younger people are more likely to think that violence is justified to achieve political goals (20% of people age 18-29), as are Democrats (14% Dem, 13% Ind, 6% Rep).

Conducted Sep 11, 2025!!!
So on the day that MAGAts are being told by Trump and Republicans and are easily convinced that the 'radical left' are violent and that one of their own has been killed by them, fewer Reps than Dems think that violence is justified to achieve political goals.

Notice also the exact wording of the question: "Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?"
How about for cops, soldiers or presidents? MAGA have been yelling for the 'radical left' as well as for Democrats to be made victims of regime violence because of Kirk's killing.

 

[johnny karate]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966064272552906996

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966125860903334215

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966228836615594212

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966256300167430551

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966384205837029496

https://x.com/babybeginner/status/1966438635147792407

Polls Show Rising Number of Americans Justify Political Violence

On Wednesday, Turning Point USA president Charlie Kirk was assassinated on the grounds of Utah Valley University.

www.yahoo.com

Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals? | Daily Question

Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?

today.yougov.com

On this last one, younger people are more likely to think that violence is justified to achieve political goals (20% of people age 18-29), as are Democrats (14% Dem, 13% Ind, 6% Rep).

You're not hearing it here, most ISF members are intelligent enough to keep their joy contained (although not all). But there's no lack of people on social media posting tik toks and tweets laughing and being happy about it.

Wow, imagine a bunch a random online nobodies saying a bunch of inflammatory things. What a startling new phenomenon that is only occurring for the first time now.

I'll call your list of random online nobodies and raise you:

A prominent conservative politcal strategist and former member of the Trump administraiton

A prominent conservative broadcaster

A prime-time Fox News host

Link

A prominent conservative political commentator

A conservative social media account with millions of followers

The wealthiest and one of the most powerful people in the world

The President of the United States


Your turn.

 

[Olmstead]

I didn't really know much about Kirk (I know a lot more about him now than I did before he was killed). I don't much care for a lot of his rhetoric, some of it was truly vile. But I also don't care that he said it. I believe Free Speech should be absolute so long as it does not directly incite criminal actions... you should be free to say what you like about classes of people, but not free to direct violence or murder against their members either individually or as a group. I'm not seeing anything among the vile stuff Kirk is quoted as having said that rises to the level of directing violence against any group. However, it seems that it was his rhetoric that got him killed....
And there's the problem. When society starts judging free speech as hate speech, it ultimately legitimizes the actions of people like the assassin. I think some of the posters in this thread believe he had it coming (even if they haven't publicly said that quiet part out loud). I find that more vile, more at odds with my beliefs than anything Kirk might have said. If anyone reading this truly believes Kirk deserved to be assassinated for his rhetoric, then know that I think you are a despicable and evil person.... but guess what? I will defend your right to believe it, and even to say it. I always will.

Where do you draw the line? If I were to create a movement that regards a certain class of people as subhumans, but don't directly call for violence, even though it's very obvious where this rhetoric will lead, is that still okay?

 

[dirtywick]

if this is a free speech issue, you must defend to the death their right to say they're happy about kirk's death as equally as you do kirk's right to say what he says.

 

[dirtywick]

Where do you draw the line? If I were to create a movement that regards a certain class of people as subhumans, but don't directly call for violence, even though it's very obvious where this rhetoric will lead, is that still okay?

it's the dichotomy of expecting to be defended by the social contract as you break it.

 

[smartcooky]

Conducted Sep 11, 2025!!!
So on the day that MAGAts are being told byd Trump and others and are easily convinced that the 'radical left' are violent and that one of their own has been killed by the same 'radical left', fewer Reps than Dems think that violence is justified to achieve political goals.

I find the result filtered by age group very disturbing and a red flag for the future...
I'm in the bottom group. I'm guessing most of the people here are further up the chart.

 

[Resume]

Donald Trump has said he “couldn’t care less” about reuniting America and fixing the country’s divisions in the wake of the assassination of his close associate, the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk.

In an interview on Fox & Friends on Friday morning, the US president was asked what he intended to do to heal the wounds of Kirk’s shooting in Utah. “How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?” he was asked by the show’s co-host Ainsley Earhardt, who commented that there were radicals operating on the left and right of US politics.


Less than 48 hours after Kirk was shot in broad daylight at the campus of Utah Valley University, Trump replied: “I tell you something that is going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less.

If none of the other bull ◊◊◊◊ you've said and done hasn't gotten you in trouble, this quote will not.

Donald Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself and that includes all those morons sitting on the couch and all the morons watching him and nodding, but they do care about hurting those they hate.

 

[smartcooky]

if this is a free speech issue, you must defend to the death their right to say they're happy about kirk's death as equally as you do kirk's right to say what he says.

Are you replying to me?
If so, isn't that what I said?

 

[plague311]

I find the result filtered by age group very disturbing and a red flag for the future...
I'm in the bottom group. I'm guessing most of the people here are further up the chart.

Lol why is that disturbing? That's the most ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ vague ass question ever. Of course violence can be justified. We used violence to resolve WW2. It seems like yougov asks stupid questions.

 

[johnny karate]

I didn't really know much about Kirk (I know a lot more about him now than I did before he was killed). I don't much care for a lot of his rhetoric, some of it was truly vile. But I also don't care that he said it. I believe Free Speech should be absolute so long as it does not directly incite criminal actions... you should be free to say what you like about classes of people, but not free to direct violence or murder against their members either individually or as a group. I'm not seeing anything among the vile stuff Kirk is quoted as having said that rises to the level of directing violence against any group. However, it seems that it was his rhetoric that got him killed....
And there's the problem. When society starts judging free speech as hate speech, it ultimately legitimizes the actions of people like the assassin. I think some of the posters in this thread believe he had it coming (even if they haven't publicly said that quiet part out loud). I find that more vile, more at odds with my beliefs than anything Kirk might have said. If anyone reading this truly believes Kirk deserved to be assassinated for his rhetoric, then know that I think you are a despicable and evil person.... but guess what? I will defend your right to believe it, and even to say it. I always will.

I like how you go off about "free speech" in the first paragraph but then in the second paragraph complain about the dangers of people exercising free speech.

Charlie Kirk was just innocently free-speeching but the people who use their free speech to say mean things about him are pro-murder

 

[johnny karate]

Where do you draw the line? If I were to create a movement that regards a certain class of people as subhumans, but don't directly call for violence, even though it's very obvious where this rhetoric will lead, is that still okay?

Of course it is! Free speech baby! But if anyone criticizes you for doing that they are condoning your murder.

 

[Buckaroo]

We used violence to resolve WW2

Hell, our country was founded by political violence. While it would be nice for political disputes to be resolved peaceably, sometimes that isn't an option, particularly when one side is hellbent on removing the mechanisms for peaceful change. Not saying we're there yet, but knee-jerk "political violence is never acceptable!" sentiments are useless unless the person offering them has a viable alternative to it under repressive authoritarian conditions.

 

[jimbob]

Indeed, eulogizing him as the intellectual and moral foundation of the MAGA movement isn't the flex his fans think it is.

A burn reaction emoji would be useful here

 

[johnny karate]

Lol why is that disturbing? That's the most ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ vague ass question ever. Of course violence can be justified. We used violence to resolve WW2. It seems like yougov asks stupid questions.

If only we had some data that tracks actual acts of violence to determine which side of the political spectrum more often justifies it.

 

[dirtywick]

Are you replying to me?
If so, isn't that what I said?

not directed at anyone in particular.

although i think having the opinion that a particular bit of free speech is hate speech would be allowed under free speech, therefore you should defend to the death their right to declare certain bits of speech hate speech as well.

 

[Walter]

Thanks for not participating. Write back when you're more involved with the future of our country.

You are welcome. Years later, when the World Wide Web opened up, I came across a comedian named George Carlin who shared some of my views on voting.

In 1972, I did a little arithmetic and determined that those who were running the federal government's 1964 charity for the poor were syphoning off at least 50% and most likely 75% of the money budgeted. Any reasonable person would have stopped that program two years in.

In the private sector, this would have been considered criminal and everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would have wanted those private citizens in jail for, let's say, 30 years. But since it was run by government, no standard was applied.

In 1974, I went to vote for a family friend running for the House of Representatives. Her philosophy was one of fiscal restraint. Even though a Republican, the parties of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson wanted nothing to do with fiscal restraint. I imagined that someone like her made a motion in 1963 for the first sentence of the Welfare Bill to state that the administrative cost could not exceed 10%. I think we can all guess how that would have gone over.

I asked my brother if he would divert 1% of the emotion and energy directed toward Donald Trump to that 54-year hoax. He understood my request but gave no indication that he would agree. It is now 61 years since the government told those living in poverty that they would be helped. A wonderful hoax perpetrated by the Federal Government. I'll run right out and vote next year. Promise.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I like how you go off about "free speech" in the first paragraph but then in the second paragraph complain about the dangers of people exercising free speech.

Charlie Kirk was just innocently free-speeching but the people who use their free speech to say mean things about him are pro-murder

Yeah, that's them in a nutshell.

 

[Resume]

I'll run right out and vote next year. Promise.

Atta . . . Walter.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

I didn't really know much about Kirk (I know a lot more about him now than I did before he was killed). I don't much care for a lot of his rhetoric, some of it was truly vile. But I also don't care that he said it. I believe Free Speech should be absolute so long as it does not directly incite criminal actions... you should be free to say what you like about classes of people, but not free to direct violence or murder against their members either individually or as a group. I'm not seeing anything among the vile stuff Kirk is quoted as having said that rises to the level of directing violence against any group. However, it seems that it was his rhetoric that got him killed....
And there's the problem. When society starts judging free speech as hate speech, it ultimately legitimizes the actions of people like the assassin. I think some of the posters in this thread believe he had it coming (even if they haven't publicly said that quiet part out loud). I find that more vile, more at odds with my beliefs than anything Kirk might have said. If anyone reading this truly believes Kirk deserved to be assassinated for his rhetoric, then know that I think you are a despicable and evil person.... but guess what? I will defend your right to believe it, and even to say it. I always will.

You think things that have not been posted, and without any evidence that have even been thought, are more vile than anything Kirk said? That's interesting.

Free Speech that is hate speech is still hate speech, regardless of whether it is protected or not in any given situation. And since hate speech does exist I think it can and should be called out when it occurs. How else do we combat it? For good or for bad, in these times people with big audiences should be careful how they speak because the nut jobs out there hear a call to action all too easily. Just because it's too bad that this is the situation, doesn't mean it isn't the situation.

I don't believe Kirk should have been assassinated for his views, and I truly wish it had not happened. He did deserve to be called out for inciting hatred. And while I'm genuinely saddened for his family, friends, and the people who had to see that, as I said in the beginning of this thread, he personally gets no sympathy from me.