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

[johnny karate]

TBF... most of the reason they're making it a left-wing thing, is because the people celebrating political persecution and assassination of people for their political beliefs in this instance are left-wing. And the people proudly and openly discussing who should be assassinated next are left-wing.

So regardless of the political beliefs of Robinson, the response has been extremely partisan - from both parties and their supporters.

And extremely frightening.

For those playing along at home, "left wing" = any rando on the internet and absolutely no one in a position of power or influence.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Oh no. "Gen Zed kiddos" on the internet saying things. Our society is doomed.

Luckily, we don't the people actually running this country saying and doing much worse and actually carrying out their threats with open displays of fascism.

Yes, idiot children sometimes post stupid and disgusting things on social media. Personally I blame the parents...

GOP Figures Mock Paul Pelosi Attack, Spreading Conspiracy Theories

The mean-spirited digs helped spread debunked claims about the attack, as Nancy Pelosi's husband remained hospitalized with a skull fracture

time.com

The son of a former President on Sunday retweeted a photo of a “Paul Pelosi Halloween costume” showing underwear and a hammer, a reference to a debunked conspiracy theory about the attack. On Monday, he posted to Instagram a lewd cartoon image promoting the same conspiracy theory. “Dear fact checkers this has nothing at all to do with anything going on in the news,” he wrote.

 

[ahhell]

I don't think any extremist murderer represents any specific party either.

But many posters here absolutely believe that any extremist murderer with any marginal right-wing views represents the Republican party in its entirety... and that any extremist murderer with any left-wing views no matter how blatant is just a single crazy person and it has nothing at all to do with politics. Many posters here express the view that Republicans are entirely 100% at fault and to blame for any violence committed by anyone with any conservative leanings - any right wing violence is directly caused by Republicans, and supported by and incited by Republicans. On the other hand... Democrats are completely blameless and have absolutely no role in any left wing violence that is committed, regardless of any related factors. Democratic politicians spend a decade telling everyone that Republicans are fascists, and the people need to take action to stop them, Republicans need to made unwelcome in society, and implying that conservative citizens across the board are nazi supporters... and when someone references fascism in their politically-motivated assassination, somehow Democrats had nothing at all to do with that, and have no responsibility for the rhetoric they've been preaching.

By all means, hold Republicans responsible for the abhorrent things they say, and the way they've contributed to schism and division in the US. Absolutely.

But don't excuse Democrats from responsibility for the ways they've incited political strife and riled up citizens.

Some poster hear seem to say that republicans are responsible for left wing violence too.

I do wonder where the talk of stochastic left-wing terrorism is. Trump and his cronies are basically using that logic as an excuse to harass and intimidate folks they don't like hearing from. So, I guess it's a thing.

I do honestly believe the "you too" is true of most of the reactions to political violence and apparently political violence these days. Though, The GOP is as usual worse. If it looks like it might be a shooter aligned with Team A. Team B starts shouting about the mean things Team A says while Team A is all, "Lets not jump to conclusions and the shooter is responsible for their actions not the words someone else says." If the shooter switches sides, the rhetoric mostly switches sides.

That being said, this time almost every Dem in any significant elected role has come out and only said something the effect of political violence is terrible without following it up with "but......". Not entirely true of the talking heads though. The GOP elected officials rarely have such restraint and the executive branch as been uniformly awful and partisan as far as know. Certainly, most of them have.

If say, Oprah had been shot, would folks be all, "Well its a tragedy but she did give a platform to Dr's Phil, and Oz, and the secret so.....you know"

 

[Resume]

But It wasn't frightening when prominent right wing politicians and spokespeople openly mocked Paul Pelosi being assaulted, or ignored when the Hortmans were assassinated, or for that matter when Charlie Kirk said Biden should be assassinated? Does the right even acknowledge any of that?

The rwnj keyboards warriors are all let's imprison/kill dems, trans, et al. As they have in the past and in the future. This nonsense that it's all on the left is just that, nonsense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The Republicans who aren't fascists are fascist enablers.
You do know that "no matter how blatant is just a single crazy person and it has nothing at all to do with politics" is the favourite Republican way of dismissing any killing of Democrats, leftists, Jews and Blacks, don't you?
Unless they were elevated to become MAGA heroes like Kyle Rittenhouse because MAGA murderers are never extremists ...

You realize I'm talking about the rhetoric HERE ON ISF, right? The pervasive compulsion to always paint anything even vaguely conservative as fascist nazi, and to excuse any behavior from liberals.

Like you've done, right here, right now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, because you can't seem to make the connection, we're talking about the party's reaction to violence. Can you detail what the difference between Republican politicians reactions to political violence vs. Democrat politicians to political violence? Not just some faceless nobody's on Twitter. I mean lets actually compare the reactions and words used after tragedies like this because, as per usual, you're just playing the victim here. It's all just some big whataboutism when the two aren't even comparable. Then you cap it all off with your standard, Susan Collin-esque "I'm very concerned" about both sides.

That you can't see the difference is why I don't take your cries as you play the victim seriously.

I'm talking about the behavior and reactions of posters here on ISF.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But It wasn't frightening when prominent right wing politicians and spokespeople openly mocked Paul Pelosi being assaulted, or ignored when the Hortmans were assassinated, or for that matter when Charlie Kirk said Biden should be executed? Does the right even acknowledge any of that?

FFS, I've been concerned - and have been expressing my concern - for nearly a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ decade. And it's not limited to one party or the other, unlike the sentiments that you and several others have expressed.

We've gone from

• demonizing and insulting political opponents to
• demonizing and insulting citizens to
• assassinating politicians to
• assassinating citizens for their political affiliation

If you don't see that escalation as extremely troublesome, then you might be part of the problem.

 

[johnny karate]

You realize I'm talking about the rhetoric HERE ON ISF, right? The pervasive compulsion to always paint anything even vaguely conservative as fascist nazi, and to excuse any behavior from liberals.

Like you've done, right here, right now.

I'm talking about the behavior and reactions of posters here on ISF.

I'm struggling to imagine the staggering lack of intellectual curiosity it takes to base one's entire political worldview on what a handful of random strangers post on an obscure internet forum.

 

[johnny karate]

Some poster hear seem to say that republicans are responsible for left wing violence too.

I do wonder where the talk of stochastic left-wing terrorism is. Trump and his cronies are basically using that logic as an excuse to harass and intimidate folks they don't like hearing from. So, I guess it's a thing.

I do honestly believe the "you too" is true of most of the reactions to political violence and apparently political violence these days. Though, The GOP is as usual worse. If it looks like it might be a shooter aligned with Team A. Team B starts shouting about the mean things Team A says while Team A is all, "Lets not jump to conclusions and the shooter is responsible for their actions not the words someone else says." If the shooter switches sides, the rhetoric mostly switches sides.

That being said, this time almost every Dem in any significant elected role has come out and only said something the effect of political violence is terrible without following it up with "but......". Not entirely true of the talking heads though. The GOP elected officials rarely have such restraint and the executive branch as been uniformly awful and partisan as far as know. Certainly, most of them have.

If say, Oprah had been shot, would folks be all, "Well its a tragedy but she did give a platform to Dr's Phil, and Oz, and the secret so.....you know"

Here, let me clean this up for you a little:

The violent rhetoric from the left is coming from randos on social media.

The violent rhetoric from the right is coming from the most powerful and influential people in conservative politics and media, and also randos on social media.

The right overwhelming commits more acts of political violence than the left.

You're welcome.

 

[johnny karate]

FFS, I've been concerned - and have been expressing my concern - for nearly a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ decade. And it's not limited to one party or the other, unlike the sentiments that you and several others have expressed.

We've gone from

• demonizing and insulting political opponents to
• demonizing and insulting citizens to
• assassinating politicians to
• assassinating citizens for their political affiliation

If you don't see that escalation as extremely troublesome, then you might be part of the problem.

I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice for every post of yours you can quote expressing concern about the right wing terror attacks on Pelosi and the Hortmans or condemning the rhetoric from the right about those attacks.

As a point of comparison, your post count in this thread complaining about left wing violence and rhetoric is in double digits.

 

[mumblethrax]

If say, Oprah had been shot, would folks be all, "Well its a tragedy but she did give a platform to Dr's Phil, and Oz, and the secret so.....you know"

Nah. Timing's all off.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You realize I'm talking about the rhetoric HERE ON ISF, right? The pervasive compulsion to always paint anything even vaguely conservative as fascist nazi, and to excuse any behavior from liberals.

Like you've done, right here, right now.

No that's on topic, Kirk did blame the jews for communism exactly like the nazi's did. Not that you would ever admit to such a comparison. But finally we can talk about the JQ and Judeo Bolshevism with out being called nazi's is what you want.

 

[Walter]

Who, exactly, was Charlie Kirk threatening? Better yet, what institution was he threatening, if any?

Think about it. If Charlie, this lone individual, was talking in a town square in China, every member of this forum would know what institution was being threatened.

Rushdie and Galileo were two individuals who threatened some pretty big institutions. I have no doubt there would be a consensus on both. I have never thought of atheism or secularism as institutions, but I seriously doubt they felt threatened by a 31 year old Christian.

So. Who, or what, was being threatened by Charlie Kirk?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So. Who, or what, was being threatened by Charlie Kirk?

Well we can start with a basic list of the lower orders of humans in his world view, namely jews, women, homosexuals, and people of color.

 

[stanfr]

FFS, I've been concerned - and have been expressing my concern - for nearly a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ decade. And it's not limited to one party or the other, unlike the sentiments that
you and several others have expressed.

We've gone from

• demonizing and insulting political opponents to
• demonizing and insulting citizens to
• assassinating politicians to
• [*]assassinating citizens for their political affiliation

Then point it out! Don't hold back LOL. I'll call out either side if they are being stupid or inciteful. For example, a good number of folks on the left right now are spreading conspiracy theories about this event that suit their narratives, they are just as nutty as those on the right. Again, it is a matter of proportionality. The hundreds of cultists who drove up my street a few days ago, waving thousands of cult flags with pics of Jesus on them and 'Don't Tread on Me' alongside their AR-15 symbols, could never in a million years be replaced by leftists in this town. Won't ever happen, for better or worse.
I won't speak for anyone else here, but I am here not to spread my 'politics' but here to hone my critical thinking skills.
For example, I would not imply "we" are "assassinating citizens"--presumably you are referring to Kirk (?) since we don't know the killer's motivation at this point, my best guess at this point in time is that it was apolitical, but may have been shaped by politics.

"If you don't see that escalation as extremely troublesome, then you might be part of the problem."

Oh I definitely see that escalation as troublesome. And I can point to several hundred things that have happened as a direct result of GOP and Trump's leadership that have directly escalated the problem. Not so much on the left.... it is DISPROPORTIONATE. That is what you are completely failing to recognize 'FFS"

 

[dirtywick]

Again, because you can't seem to make the connection, we're talking about the party's reaction to violence. Can you detail what the difference between Republican politicians reactions to political violence vs. Democrat politicians to political violence? Not just some faceless nobody's on Twitter. I mean lets actually compare the reactions and words used after tragedies like this because, as per usual, you're just playing the victim here. It's all just some big whataboutism when the two aren't even comparable. Then you cap it all off with your standard, Susan Collin-esque "I'm very concerned" about both sides.

That you can't see the difference is why I don't take your cries as you play the victim seriously.

we can start with the time kyle rittenhouse mentioned above was given a standing ovation while speaking a turning point usa event. which we shouldn’t joke about because that’s punishable by death

 

[stanfr]

Who, exactly, was Charlie Kirk threatening? Better yet, what institution was he threatening, if any?

Think about it. If Charlie, this lone individual, was talking in a town square in China, every member of this forum would know what institution was being threatened.

Rushdie and Galileo were two individuals who threatened some pretty big institutions. I have no doubt there would be a consensus on both. I have never thought of atheism or secularism as institutions, but I seriously doubt they felt threatened by a 31 year old Christian.

So. Who, or what, was being threatened by Charlie Kirk?

Have you even heard of Christian Nationalism?? Do you have even a clue about what Project 2025 stands for?

 

[plague311]

People who don't have Gen Zed kiddos running around (or Bluesky accounts) might be forgiven for missing the waves of youthful exuberance around Mangione & Robinson, mostly in the form of memes and short videos. It's been somewhat disheartening.

I'm not on right wing media enough to know whether something similar happened after the Pelosi & Hortman attacks, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I have 3 "Gen Zed kiddos" (two 22 year olds, and a 25 year old) and I'm genuinely confused as to what you're talking about because I've heard of none of this. In fact, my two youngest replied with, "Who the hell is Charlie Kirk?" They literally had absolutely no idea who he was at all. My oldest ended up seeing the video and it horrified him, and he felt bad, but he's not overly political. So, again, I'm really not sure what you're talking about here.

Here, let me clean this up for you a little:

The violent rhetoric from the left is coming from randos on social media.

The violent rhetoric from the right is coming from the most powerful and influential people in conservative politics and media, and also randos on social media.

The right overwhelming commits more acts of political violence than the left.

You're welcome.

I don't get why this is so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hard to understand. You've offered many times, and I'd take it up if you didn't, but anyone on the right that wants to compare horrific things that the left has said against the horrific things the right has said then by all means lets do it...but the actual left and right. Not just internet randos.

The fact is, left or right, it's terrible that Kirk got shot, but these asinine statements that he was "peaceful, respectful, always open to debate, and a loving Christian" are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nonsense. He used his religion as a cudgel and toured around college campuses with specific talking points in mind that he could steer young, impressionable kids into a corner and then batter them with fallacies and rhetoric.

 

[plague311]

I'm talking about the behavior and reactions of posters here on ISF.

Oh, in that case, cite your sources. You made a lot of claims in that word salad and I'm expecting them to be backed up.

 

[dirtywick]

The fact is, left or right, it's terrible that Kirk got shot, but these asinine statements that he was "peaceful, respectful, always open to debate, and a loving Christian" are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nonsense. He used his religion as a cudgel and toured around college campuses with specific talking points in mind that he could steer young, impressionable kids into a corner and then batter them with fallacies and rhetoric.

i agree, he wasn't that great of a guy. he was like a new take on glenn beck or rush limbaugh. not that he deserved to get murdered for being a propagandist, but he's simply not a sympathetic figure if you're not completely submersed in an online right wing mediasphere. maybe if logan paul got murdered by a trans that figured out he's rigging his boxing matches a bunch of dip ◊◊◊◊◊ would be sad and since he's friends with donald trump we'd be forced to pretend to be sad about that too. i mean, to me it's just a stupid as that.

like yeah, political violence is something to worry about, i believe the rhetoric on the left has been getting more aggressive and i think they need to police their own better, but why are you right wing guys all pretending to like charlie kirk and acting like he was some kind of good guy legend who needs golden statues at harvard or whatever? it just makes all your legitimate complaints sound like bad faith complaints, like all your other legitimate complaints since maga hijacked conservativism. it's weird.