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

d4m10n said:
A bit, tbh. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
That's...something. You think Kirk was an honest person? By what standard?

Oh that's right, we're using the "if they believe it, then no matter how much evidence exists in reality, then they are being honest" standard for Kirk....not for anyone else, just for him.
d4m10n said:
I've a few years of experience being around fully paid-up conservative ideologues, and that's just what they sound like with their censors off.
Click to expand...

The "everyone does it" defense. Another timeless classic.
d4m10n said:
If you're publishing ideas with the intent to make them readable to the entire world (e.g. social media, ISF) I'm going to hold you to the same standard as anyone else doing the same thing, despite my profound respect for Uncle Ben Parker.
Click to expand...

Weren't you just commenting about generalizing, now you're saying literally anyone posting on the internet (no matter what their reach) is held to the same standard? What is that standard because it seems to be a moving target when we're talking about Kirk.
d4m10n said:
And...? This is how MAGA people sound. What did you expect from the "Lock Her Up!" crowd? They've promoted abuse of the justice system since 2015.
Click to expand...

So it's ok for them because that's just "how MAGA people sound". This appears an awful lot like you just giving them a pass because they're MAGA, but for some reason those on the left are not held to this same standard. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
So it's ok for them because that's just "how MAGA people sound". This appears an awful lot like you just giving them a pass because they're MAGA, but for some reason those on the left are not held to this same standard. Why is that?
Click to expand...
It's the same as it's up to the Democrats to extend the olive branch arguments. It never seems to be a requirement for the right to change behavior, everyone just expects them to be toddlers.
 
The underlying logic is "we are in the Right, you are in the Wrong, so obviously you will have to come to our point of view, eventually. If what we are saying makes no sense, it's just because we haven't learned how to sell it as well as those fancy academics. And if we are sounding mean, aggressive, racist, misogynistic etc. it's just that we believe so much in Murica that we can't be more careful and PC."

If the US practiced what Kirk preached, it would become a Handmaiden's Tale in economic decline, shunned by the world and dying in poverty.
 
Last edited:
personally i think the both sides are the same crap wore thin years ago. but this week the conservative leader president of the united states gave speeches about his intent to send the military into american cities and authorize the use of force so they can round up more people based on their race and put them in the camps they built.

even in this charlie kirk thing, what is worse to you? some internet randos saying they're happy he died, or the president who falsely accused everyone who disagrees with him for being responsible for his death and designating them terrorists? how is that holding everyone to the same standard when you're only worried about the internet randos?
 
Disbelief said:
It's the same as it's up to the Democrats to extend the olive branch arguments. It never seems to be a requirement for the right to change behavior, everyone just expects them to be toddlers.
Click to expand...
The underlying logic appears to be that Republicans are the spoiled, screaming child behind you on the airplane, kicking your seat. Democrats are their parents, unable to keep the child under control.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If the US practiced what Kirk preached, it would become a Handmaiden's Tale in economic decline, shunned by the world and dying in poverty.
Click to expand...
Isn't the USA already a Handmaiden's Tale in economic decline, shunned by the world and dying in poverty, with a president practicing what Kirk preached - and everybody who is not an oligarch or an acolyte dreaming of escaping to Canada?
Trump has accelerated the process and made it more apparent.
I repeat myself, but Trump is the Boris Yeltsin of the USA, Putin's revenge.
And much like Yeltsin, he is appreciated and supported by the enemies of the country he rules.
 
AmyStrange said:
What if they're deported to a country that might get them killed or maybe even executed?
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised by that, since there have already been high-profile cases about the infamous Salvadoran facility known as CECOT.
johnny karate said:
If your argument is that only a leftist would kill a fascist and therefore Robinson was a leftist, all you've done is beg the question.
Click to expand...
Killing someone specifically to oppose their fascist ideas strikes me as an tactic I've heard much more from the left than anywhere else, but admittedly I'm on Bluesky much more than Truth Social.
johnny karate said:
It's wild that you don't think the people waiting for Pence with a gallows are representative of Kirk and MAGA in general.
Click to expand...
Most of MAGA thinks Mike Pence should be hanged? Big, if true.
johnny karate said:
And that you think an authoritarian regime that has abandoned due process and constitutional order is going to stop there and go no further with their authoritarianism is breathtakingly naive.
Click to expand...
Did I say "go no further" or did I say something more specific? Once again—as usual—you generalize far too much from far too little.
dirtywick said:
damion, would you agree that kirk’s job was making viral propaganda clips?
Click to expand...
Aside from promoting grassroots campus organizing, yes.
plague311 said:
we're using the "if they believe it, then no matter how much evidence exists in reality, then they are being honest" standard for Kirk....not for anyone else, just for him.
Click to expand...
Who said the highlighted part?
plague311 said:
The "everyone does it" defense.
Click to expand...
Defense?
plague311 said:
now you're saying literally anyone posting on the internet (no matter what their reach) is held to the same standard?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that I don't change my own ethical standards based on platform size.
plague311 said:
What is that standard because it seems to be a moving target when we're talking about Kirk.
Click to expand...
Are you asking whether it was ethical for Kirk to say/publish certain things?
plague311 said:
So it's ok for them because that's just "how MAGA people sound"
Click to expand...
Where did I say it was okay? Seems like you—among others—are faulting me for failing to condemn him enough.
Reformed Offlian said:
It's telling that you would reflexively equate holding Kirk to some sort of standard with condemning him.
Click to expand...
Was that not the ask?
 
Last edited:
Sort of crazy that this thread has generally drifted into blaming the deceased victim instead of thinking about whether we might reduce political violence going forward.

:czhmm:
 
d4m10n said:
Sort of crazy that this thread has generally drifted into blaming the deceased victim instead of thinking about whether we might reduce political violence going forward.

:czhmm:
Click to expand...
Fair point, but what do you do about ye olde lone nut job? A murderer like Robinson will always be out there, waiting to be triggered by a mouth that is loud enough, so the loudness of the mouth takes center stage in the discussion.
 
i think an honest assessment of who charlie kirk was necessitates pointing out his role in pushing a political philosophy that promotes political violence. does he not have any responsibility for his voluntary contributions to a political climate where violence is becoming more common? if we want to reduce political violence, people like charlie kirk need to talk less imo

it's not a flattering picture of the guy, but he wasn't a great person. i don't think that's victim blaming.

edit

you said it yourself above, charlie kirk was a propagandist. he produced political material that showed a distorted version of the truth to forward a harmful and dangerous political agenda. is it victim blaming to point that out? is it honest to deny that discussion because it makes charlie kirk look bad?
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
You were the one who brought up holding people to standards, in post #2132.
Click to expand...
That was about when it is acceptable to "have opined that Trump should be in prison" if I'm tracing it back correctly.

I don't think it is wise to share such opinions (about either Trump or Biden) unless you can point out exactly which laws were likely broken, but people are going to keep doing it anyhow because the prevailing norm on the socials appears to be that it's just fine to share opinions without undergirding them with facts.
 
Thermal said:
Fair point, but what do you do about ye olde lone nut job? A murderer like Robinson will always be out there, waiting to be triggered by a mouth that is loud enough, so the loudness of the mouth takes center stage in the discussion.
Click to expand...
It also bears recalling that the stuff that loudly came out of Kirk's mouth is the *only* reason anybody in the public cares about him or the fact that he was shot. The school shooting that happened the same day, as well as other mass shootings that have already happened since, passes largely without comment; it's all Kirk this, Kirk that. And the reason is the stuff that he said, so it's more than a bit disingenuous to insist that discussion of his content is somehow off limits.
 
d4m10n said:
That was about when it is acceptable to "have opined that Trump should be in prison" if I'm tracing it back correctly.
Click to expand...

Okay, so what? Doesn't explain how you jumped from "holding somebody to a standard" to "condemntation" umprompted.
d4m10n said:
I don't think it is wise to share such opinions (about either Trump or Biden) unless you can point out exactly which laws were likely broken, but people are going to keep doing it anyhow because the prevailing norm on the socials appears to be that it's just fine to share opinions without undergirding them with facts.
Click to expand...
You do recall that Trump was actually tried and convicted in a court of law, right? That anybody in his legal situation not only *should* be in jail, but *would* be if they were anybody other than Donald Trump, is an observation that shouldn't even be politically contentious, yet here we are.
 
dirtywick said:
i think an honest assessment of who charlie kirk was necessitates pointing out his role in pushing a political philosophy that promotes political violence.
Click to expand...
To the extent that he lionized folks like Babbit, this is clearly true.

That's every MAGA influencer, though. Had the victim been Ben Shapiro, Jack Posobiec, Candace Owens, or Laura Loomer then we could still try to make this about FAFO.
 
Thermal said:
Fair point, but what do you do about ye olde lone nut job? A murderer like Robinson will always be out there, waiting to be triggered by a mouth that is loud enough, so the loudness of the mouth takes center stage in the discussion.
Click to expand...

you also have to consider charlie kirk's position that he wanted these people to continue to have access to guns. his job, which he made a lot of money doing, was pushing propaganda videos of that vision for the world to make it a reality. why would he not have any responsibility for the consequences of the political and legal landscape he helped to create?
 
d4m10n said:
To the extent that he lionized folks like Babbit, this is clearly true.

That's every MAGA influencer, though. Had the victim been Ben Shapiro, Jack Posobiec, Candace Owens, or Laura Loomer then we could still try to make this about FAFO.
Click to expand...

i mean, if any of them were shot and killed by a lone gun nut i think i'd have the same reaction. yeah, there's a lot of them doing it. that doesn't absolve kirk, he's not unique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom