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

d4m10n said:
Let me get this straight. You think Kirk was proposing a new extrajudicial process by which an individual would be inducted into a federal prison and then perhaps moved onto death row?

That strikes me as beyond bizarre. Whenever I hear someone say "X should be in prison" I assume they are invoking the usual process unless they explicitly say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Rule of So, you just skipped the word at the start.
 
Ziggurat said:
What studies? And it's not my feelsies, it's my eyes. Damn straight I will believe my personal experience over a claim about a study that hasn't even been presented.
Click to expand...
Here is the source of my claims. And yes I understand this is about actual violence rather than violent speech but its pretty obvious where the violent speech is mainly coming from. How anyone could claim that calling people who exhibit nazi sympathies (like Miller) or who call out obvious fascist tendencies is in any way the same as politicians that literally hold events where they have supporters shoot cardboard cutouts of their opponents with military grade weapons is the same?

I'm sure you will simply hand wave away these 4 analysis but for others that are interested...

Is “radical-left” violence really on the rise in America?

Distinguishing madmen and militants is never simple, but the Prosecution Project, led by Michael Loadenthal of the University of Cincinnati, analyses felony criminal cases involving political violence to see which ideologies are most common. The project examines criminal complaints, indictments and court records, looking for crimes that seek “a socio-political change or to communicate” to outside audiences, says Mr Loadenthal. Its data show that extremists on both left and right commit violence, although more incidents appear to come from right-leaning attackers (see chart 1).
Click to expand...

One paper by Celinet Duran of the State University of New York at Oswego studied political violence between 1990 and 2020. It found that there were far more frequent and deadly attacks by the hard-right than the hard-left, although left-wing violence increased throughout the study period.
Click to expand...

A separate tally by the Anti-Defamation League, an advocacy group, shows that 76% of extremist-related murders over the past decade were committed by those on the right. Such tallies, however, depend on how extremism is defined and how ideology is assigned.
Click to expand...

New research from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think-tank, suggests that 2025 could be the left’s most violent year in decades. For the first time in the 30-plus-year history of the dataset, left-wing terrorist attacks and plots look set to outnumber right-wing ones—though this is mainly driven by a sharp drop in right-wing incidents, which have traditionally dwarfed the left-wing kind in frequency.
Click to expand...

The article also notes that often these violent actors are not easy to categorize as they often leave a messy trail of baggage that can be difficult to assign to one side of the political spectrum or the other. But when you have 4 different analysis, using different methodologies that come to the same basic conclusion, its pretty hard to hand wave away.
 
d4m10n said:
So…do you think Kirk wanted Biden sent to prison in the usual way or not?
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with how and why he wanted to send Biden to prison or the death chamber. It was about stirring up and inflaming irrational people with little regard for the consequences of his actions. He knows full well that he may whip someone into a frenzy by making them think that Joe Biden has somehow escaped accountability and will take vigilante action and he simply doesn't care or even relishes the idea.
 
d4m10n said:
Saying Biden committed crimes against America goes back at least as far as the 2020 campaign:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313996348694433792

MAGA kiddos really believe this ◊◊◊◊, and if you don't see that please come visit the SEC bits of the USA.
Click to expand...

So Kirk didn't start the rhetoric, he simply continued it and amplified it and this somehow absolves him?
 
LiteBright said:
It had nothing to do with how and why he wanted to send Biden to prison or the death chamber.
Click to expand...
Evasion noted.
LiteBright said:
So Kirk didn't start the rhetoric, he simply continued it and amplified it and this somehow absolves him?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about absolution?

MAGA mouthpiece repeats MAGA talking points isn't exactly a man-bites-dog story, though.

The party of "LOCK HER UP" also wants to abuse the criminal justice system when their opponent is a man; breaking news at 11.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Evasion noted.
Who said anything about absolution?

MAGA mouthpiece repeats MAGA talking points isn't exactly a man-bites-dog story, though.
Click to expand...

Then what exactly are you arguing here? Your position seems to be built on sand so you can shift it at will.

Can you try to be clear about exactly what it is you are trying to say in this thread? I am really struggling to understand your point.
 
Disbelief said:
His listeners skip right over the idea of a trial and proceed immediately to punishment.
Click to expand...
No doubt Robinson finds this approach ironically relatable.
LiteBright said:
Then what exactly are you arguing here?
Click to expand...
Among other things, Kirk wasn't remotely special or unique; he was remixing MAGA talking points which he absorbed as a child young man.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
What I think he wanted to do was inflame his listeners and couch his violent urges in kinder language. His listeners skip right over the idea of a trial and proceed immediately to punishment.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think he was self-righteous prick.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you want to actually demonstrate that the right is equally responsible for such rhetoric, then you would need to do more than quote just one guy.
Click to expand...

What if the one guy is currently the Republican President of the United States?

Have you seen what that particular One Guy has said about his political opponents just in the last 24 hours?
 
Pixel42 said:
What if the one guy is currently the Republican President of the United States?

Have you seen what that particular One Guy has said about his political opponents just in the last 24 hours?
Click to expand...

Yup, especially since whatever that one guy says is broadcasted to millions of listeners around the world, and some of them are stupid enough to believe everything that fat clown says.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
The study that was deleted by DOJ. You have obviously had your eyes closed, since the first half of this year os the first time left wing political violence has outpaced right wing in 30 years.

https://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research
Click to expand...
"Note that terms such as “left-wing terrorism” and “right-wing terrorism” as used in this brief do not correspond to mainstream political parties in the United States, such as the Democratic and Republican parties, nor do they correspond to the overwhelming majority of political liberals and conservatives in the United States"

I cannot access the raw data to see how different their characterization of "left wing" versus "right wing" is from how I would use the term, but given their explicit warning about their definition, I seriously doubt it's the same.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
They don't ever learn, do they. They'll jump to exactly the same conclusions the next time there is a terrorist attack or assassination :( . Worst thing is, it's probably deliberate. Often the initial story is the one that sticks. If they can flood the zone with screaming about how the assassin/bomber/spree shooter was an illegal lesbian trans-woman globalist Obama-lover, that becomes the Truth in the heads of many trumpkins, regardlessly of what we learn later.
Click to expand...
This is called "gaslighting".

The earlier they get in with Goebbels' "Keep repeating the Big Lie" technique, the more effective it is and the better it sticks.
 
Ziggurat said:
Your link is paywalled. I cannot evaluate the sources it contains.
Click to expand...

You can get it for free if you sign up (not that I don't blame you not doing it), but here's some of it:

ON SEPTEMBER 10th Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist, was shot dead while speaking at a university in Utah. Although a suspect is in custody, the motive of the killer is still unknown. President Donald Trump, who has himself been the target of gunmen, pinned the blame on rhetoric from the “radical left”. Assessing political violence in America is inherently subjective: analysts must determine which forms of violence count as political and assign ideological labels to attackers or victims. But the studies and datasets available—largely compiled by researchers whom sceptical conservatives would probably dismiss as biased—suggest that the killing of Mr Kirk is not representative of broader trends.
Click to expand...

Screenshot 2025-09-30 114259.png


Distinguishing madmen and militants is never simple, but the Prosecution Project, led by Michael Loadenthal of the University of Cincinnati, analyses felony criminal cases involving political violence to see which ideologies are most common. The project examines criminal complaints, indictments and court records, looking for crimes that seek “a socio-political change or to communicate” to outside audiences, says Mr Loadenthal. Its data show that extremists on both left and right commit violence, although more incidents appear to come from right-leaning attackers (see chart 1). The figures do not, however, capture the severity of the crime nor the death toll. In 2001, for instance, there were more cases of right-wing violence than attacks by Islamists, even though the September 11th attacks by al-Qaeda killed almost 3,000 people that year.
Click to expand...
(SNIP)
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I cannot access the raw data to see how different their characterization of "left wing" versus "right wing" is from how I would use the term, but given their explicit warning about their definition, I seriously doubt it's the same.
Click to expand...

The article doesn't really give a definition of what a left or right wing extremist is. When you click on the link "left wing extremist," it takes you to the fat clown being stupid, but here's the chart they display:

Screenshot 2025-09-30 115104.png
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
You are attributing thought and reason to a knee-jerk ◊◊◊◊ - stirrer.

He said:

Biden was bumbling, dementia-filled, yet should be put to death (or imprisoned) for a crime for which Kirk could not possibly prove. It seems he was operating from emotion and hatred rather than reason. It was also good for listens, clicks, and views.
Click to expand...
If some left wing activist were to publicly say...
Donald Trump is a bumbling, dementia-filled Alzheimer's, corrupt, tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America",
...would you criticise them for saying it? Would you find such speech acceptable?
Be honest with your answer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom