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

[Emily's Cat]

It was central to his entire platform. He parroted the same ◊◊◊◊ Trump parrots and both of them shot at. I would say that them sharing the same beliefs

Are you saying that some beliefs should be punishable by death?

 

[AmyStrange]

I found this by following the link below the first graph:

For example, on January 28, 2025, U.S. Capitol Police arrested Riley Jane English, a 24-year-old from Massachusetts, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., after she approached officers and revealed she was carrying a folding knife, two Molotov cocktails, and a lighter. According to prosecutors, English said she intended to kill senior U.S. officials, initially identifying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom she described as a “Nazi,” before shifting her focus to House Speaker Mike Johnson and then to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. She also expressed a desire to attack the conservative Heritage Foundation.

In a separate incident on March 30, 2025, an assailant set fire to the headquarters of the Republican Party of New Mexico in Albuquerque, igniting the entrance late at night. Graffiti reading “ICE = KKK” was spray-painted on a wall near the site.

It's just below a chart that shows the right is responsible for almost double the attacks than all other categories combined and have a casualty rate nine times higher than the left.

Deeply humiliating for people defending the right to post that chart and think it in any way supports their argument.

I really don't trust Axios, and besides the first one was an attempt not an act, and the other problem is they never explain what they mean by left-wing, or do they just assume anyone attacking republicans is left-wing.

It's like, "Who shot Charlie Kirk?" all over again.

 

[Emily's Cat]

keeping in mind you've agreed that he was a propagandist for the maga movement and considering the rhetoric and actions of the maga movement, particularly as of late, i guess first you'd have to decide if characterizing them as nazis is unfair. do you think that's an unfair characterization?

Yes, I think it's an unfair characterization.

Assuming that you think it's a fair characterization... do you think that's sufficient to justify assassinating them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let me horn in on that.

Yes, it is unfair -- to the historical Nazis. The real warmaking Nazis didn't snivel or haver or whine or retreat.
They jumped into uniform and buckled on their leather gear, and bellowed
their intentions everywhere; carried 'em out, too, with steadily increasing atrocity.
It took killing to put a final end to them, and two generations of horrified
rejection to shame and subdue their children and grandchildren. I say that because
I was obliged to know some of those.

These latter-day Magascum wouldnt make a pimple on a real
Nazi's ass -- and yes, by god I've even met a couple of genuine wartime
unrepentant old Herrenvolk. And yet, there's no blood on my hands.

So it's by way of flattery to call Krik and Thump and Stinky Miller nazis.
"Nazoid" is the most they deserve.

Okay, so if I'm following you... Nazis are so bad that murdering them is justifiable... but Republicans aren't even as good as actual Nazis?

What could possibly be the problem with that rhetoric...

 

[Emily's Cat]

How do you propose to hold the dead accountable?

I would say they meant intimidate and threaten Republicans and Trump supporters until they no longer have the freedom to express their political views under risk of being assassinated.

You know, good old political persecution.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This happens to everyone. If you don't like your views challenged then perhaps don't go into the threads where your views are challenged.

I hate to be Captain Obvious here, but perhaps it might help for someone to say it to you. It's pretty standard procedure for right wingers to dislike your left wing views, and left wingers to dislike your right wing views. When you say you're pro-abortion then the right will call you a baby-murderer....that's expected behavior. Same with the left calling you a far right bigot. The reason is because that's how those positions are viewed by those that oppose them. I don't get why you're so butthurt about it and if you feel that way it shouldn't bother you to defend your positions;

It gets rather tiresome to have people you interact with on a regular basis call one a right winger in one breath... and in the next breath opine that right wingers are fascists and nazis... and then just a few breaths later handwave away memes and posts advocating for killing fascists and nazis

 

[Emily's Cat]

maybe you should, seems it depends how hispanic you look and how stereotypically hispanic your job is right now.

Lol. You know you're talking to d4m10n, right?

 

[johnny karate]

I really don't trust Axios, and besides the first one was an attempt not an act, and the other problem is they never explain what they mean by left-wing, or do they just assume anyone attacking republicans is left-wing.

It's like, "Who shot Charlie Kirk?" all over again.

Here's an interview with one of the authors of the study from where that chart originated.

A couple of key excerpts:

CHAKRABARTI: Okay, so let's just confront something that I'm sure a lot of listeners are shouting at their radio or into their headphones right now. Which is given this small number, even if it's on the rise, there's a massive asymmetry here between acts of left-wing terrorism or violence and the greater numbers of acts from the right wing over the past many years.

So that this is essentially, are we drawing a false equivalence here? Is this whole analysis moot?

BYMAN: So if this were simply a change in the numbers as a blip from a few months to another month, yes, that would be not the appropriate conclusion.
And I would not say the 2025 left wing terrorism threat is comparable to right-wing terrorism at its peak.

BYMAN: This is always the risk. I would highlight in that context though, the relative good news, at least so far, in 2025, which is the decline in terrorism on the political right.

So we are certainly worried that as you see leaders on one side attack, you'll see leaders on the other. That this will be something that becomes part of the repertoire of politics as opposed to rejected firmly by political leaders on all sides. But you have different time periods in American history where violence flared up, and at the same time you have periods where it comes down.

So to me, the cycles are not inevitable.

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Byman, if I can be frank, why resort to political violence when you can just use the Department of Justice? That's what the Trump administration seems to be doing.

BYMAN:
Perhaps, and I actually think that is a big explanation for why you've seen a decline in this violence, but we didn't see it in the first Trump administration.

And one could argue, as I would, that the second Trump administration is far more aggressive in many of the policies, especially on immigration than it was in the first Trump administration. But that's important to note. And if the concern is a cycle of violence that individuals take up arms against one another, and it's actually declining on one side, that's important to recognize the positive as well as the negative.

Let's watch as people desperate to defend the right continue to cite this study that one of its own authors says doesn't prove what they think it proves.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I did not know it meant 'do not'--I always assumed it was a shortened form of 'donut'--as in:
"Don't eat that" --meaning I will eat the donut. or
"Don't be afraid" --as in, be afraid, donut, cause I'm gonna eat you!

This site lacks an appropriate dad-joke-groan emoji...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you mean this graph?

Or this one?

I'm still trying to figure out what the left-wing violence was for this year in the first graph.

Anyone?

In the top graph, it's 5 LW and 1 RW, as of July 2025.

In the bottom graph, it's too small to convey any meaningful information. It would be more effective if they provided the portion of violence committed by each group as well, then you'd have both total volume as well as relative frequency to evaluate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Meanwhile, Trump is directing government tax-funded agencies to post illegal headlines blaming 'radical left democrats' for the shutdown, and his press secretary is saying federal troops are being sent to a state to squash the leftist invaders. Yeah, nothing to see here, move along....

I notice that you're not actually disagreeing with me that the left has been engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that incites violence against a political viewpoint.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I do, because the fat clown isn't just deporting criminals, but woman and children to places like Haiti which more or less has a kind of civil war going on right now.

I can't tell if you're agree with my point that it really depends on which country is the destination, and what the reason for the executions is.

 

[johnny karate]

Let's watch as people desperate to defend the right continue to cite this study that one of its own authors says doesn't prove what they think it proves.

Called it:

In the top graph, it's 5 LW and 1 RW, as of July 2025.

In the bottom graph, it's too small to convey any meaningful information. It would be more effective if they provided the portion of violence committed by each group as well, then you'd have both total volume as well as relative frequency to evaluate.

We should turn this into a drinking game. Every time a bad faith defender of the right cites this study not knowing it disproves the point they think they’re making, we all have to take a shot.

 

[AmyStrange]

I can't tell if you're agree with my point that it really depends on which country is the destination, and what the reason for the executions is.

I don't disagree with either point, but I guess I'm just a softy when it comes to children.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't disagree with either point, but I guess I'm just a softy when it comes to children.

Well yeah, and I don't support sending children to places that kill children.

 

[AmyStrange]

I notice that you're not actually disagreeing with me that the left has been engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that incites violence against a political viewpoint.

I need more proof than, "the left has been engaging in inflammatory rhetoric."

I'm not saying they're not, but don't forget about Ivan Harrison Hunter.

He was definitely not on the left (he admitted to being part of the boogaloo bois/boys), and yet he was at 4 different cities during the BLM protest and caused major trouble (trying to start a race war) along with some other buddies. One of them killed a cop.

 

[AmyStrange]

Well yeah, and I don't support sending children to places that kill children.

Me neither, nor do I support separating children from their families either.

Maybe we can agree on that if nothing else.

 

[AmyStrange]

I was just thinking about lefty and righty violence, and for some reason started thinking about serial killers.

I've done a lot of research in that area, and I can't remember one serial killer who was an outright lefty or righty, but I do know for a fact that Ted Bundy was republican. He helped Daniel J. Evans (a republican) become governor of Washington state.

One of his jobs was to go to opponent's rallies to gauge and gather info about them.

It's where he got the idea to put his arm in a cast to use it to gain sympathy from his victims so he could abduct them before killing them.

We're sorry for this emergency interruption, but we now return you to your regularly scheduled program that is now in progress.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So, for those keeping score...

Accurately stating that someone is a fascist, even while not advocating any violence against that person (because you're probably thinking about it, so just admit it already!)
Thoroughly unacceptable. This must stop at once.

Fabricating accusations against someone as a means of explicitly stating that the person deserves to be put to death
This is totally fine, and how dare you even question it.

 

[stanfr]

I notice that you're not actually disagreeing with me that the left has been engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that incites violence against a political viewpoint.

I think it is a matter of degree...as has been pointed out to you numerous times, some random ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on social media making inflammatory rhetoric is not the same as the POTUS and his top advisors, appointees, and political associates making those sort of statements.

I also think that certain statements, such as calling this administration 'fascist', are defensible positions since the definition of fascism is arguably being met point by point by them. The reverse is simply false. So when Charlie Kirk says (paraphrased) that Biden should be executed as a traitor, it is a meritless argument compared to some hyothetical statement that Trump should be executed for treason. Because, by MAGA's own professed judicial standards, Trump was indicted for several crimes (Jan 6 involvement, documents case fake electors/Georgia) that by Kirk's own words would qualify him for execution. Trump almost certainly would have been convicted at trial for some if not all of those crimes, had he not won reelection. In comparison, If there were *any* truth to the allegations against Biden, they would have already tried and convicted him by now. Instead, all they could muster was wasting millions of $ investigating his son when they knew they did not have the slightest basis for it.
So "Trump is a traitor" is an evidence-based statement, whereas "Biden is a traitor" is baloney.