Charlie Kirk shot at campus event in Utah

[Pessimist]

mossad. The guy started criticizing Israel

I swear people are getting more and more retarded with their conspiracy theories. Guy was extremely pro-Israel and said "Palestine doesn't exist". 0 evidence of Israel having anything to do with his assassination (shooter isn't even Jewish). If Israel wanted to go after someone it would obviously be Zohran Mamdani, who said Netanyahu would be arrested in New York City.

 

[quietwoods]

I think far more people are simply going, "He reaped what he sowed" than actively saying, "Yeah, he deserved to be killed for his beliefs".

Most people are reacting to his death the same way someone would if he had simply died in a car accident or from a heart attack.

I can understand what you're trying to say but it's also an inaccurate generalization and only something that applies to a subsection.

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread and counted at least 6 people openly celebrating and glorifying the violence against him, which are distinctly separate from the people (like me) just shrugging their shoulders and saying "he reaped what he sowed".

These same sentiments of celebrating the violence are echoing all across social media.

These things aren't 0 or 100. There's a wide diversity of opinion and nuance here.

And that's probably why there's backlash from others regarding the glorification of violence. Hence my earlier posts. Not saying I necessarily agree again as a lot of the backlash is just self-serving virtue signaling, but I can understand where it's coming from.

 

[PixelAngel]

Do you sincerely support making laughing stock of a dead child, because of disagreements about toy regulations?
And if so; why? To what end?

There's always a compromise in between safety and freedom, but we all ultimately want both. It shouldn't come as a surprise that some people lean more towards freedom, and others more towards safety.

Didn't say anything about a dead child. The metaphor is obviously related to Kirk and his opposition of reasonable gun safety laws. It's not some kind of gotcha to insert that instead of attending the actual person I was referring to, like you're intending to take me wrong. When it comes to not thinking dead children are an acceptable price, I was already holding this opinion. Charlie, in this metaphor, didn't.

 

[Hvergelmir]

...like you're intending to take me wrong.

That's fair. I did use a very literal interpretation, with implications that might seem unwarranted.
But I think the wider pattern still holds.

If I oppose cars, and a driver dies in an accident, would it then be appropriate to laugh at it?
The deeper question is whether this it's good and honest rhetoric to make fun of dead victims. I'm also questioning the purpose of it.

 

[PixelAngel]

That's fair. I did use a very literal interpretation, with implications that might seem unwarranted.
But I think the wider pattern still holds.

If I oppose cars, and a driver dies in an accident, would it then be appropriate to laugh at it?
The deeper question is whether this it's good and honest rhetoric to make fun of dead victims. I'm also questioning the purpose of it.

If you and I support driver safety laws, and good old Charlie doesn't, and then Charlie dies to lax driver safety, it doesn't mean I don't support driver safety that I found his hubris funny. And it IS funny that he is now an example in favor of my belief that safety should be more important, even if I didn't want him dead, even if I think murdering him was wrong. And personally I'm more interested in the topic of whether gun violence is wrong, than the one of whether a dark sense of humor and poetic justice are wrong.

 

[sinfonia]

I'm also questioning the purpose of it.

The purpose is to deal with feelings of powerlessness on the left-liberal side of things after the secomd Trump victory, the possibility of which still seemed like a bad joke to many (myself admittedly included) until about a year ago.

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes, and that Trump isn't a 'glitch in the matrix' anymore, but part of a historic trend that will most likely continue for centuries to come.

 

[PixelAngel]

The purpose is to deal with feelings of powerlessness on the left-liberal side of things after the secomd Trump victory, the possibility of which still seemed like a bad joke to many (myself admittedly included) until about a year ago.

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes, and that Trump isn't a 'glitch in the matrix' anymore, but part of a historic trend that will most likely continue for centuries to come.

Epstein defender says what

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

The purpose is to deal with feelings of powerlessness on the left-liberal side of things after the secomd Trump victory, the possibility of which still seemed like a bad joke to many (myself admittedly included) until about a year ago.

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes, and that Trump isn't a 'glitch in the matrix' anymore, but part of a historic trend that will most likely continue for centuries to come.

I'm not American and I still think Charlie Kirk reaped what he sowed, Trump is a pedophile, I also wouldn't like a pedophile to be the president in my country.

 

[Cosmophobic]

"Masterdebater" standing in the way of gun reform gets shot and killed: *surprised pikachu face*

School shooting a minute later: *tumbleweed*

 

[Hvergelmir]

They have to accept that America will never be a liberal power ever again, certainly not in our lifetimes...

Trumps "landslide" victory was by just a few percent.
I expect right wing voters to be be rather skeptical about Trumps trade policies, and I'd be very surprised if U.S power doesn't shift back to Democrat rule soon.

I fail to see the long term trends you describe.
(Thanks for the clear and respectful reply. I don't know how people managed to associate it with Epstein, or what they're trying to imply.)

 

[rainatthebusstop]

Do you sincerely support making laughing stock of a dead child, because of disagreements about toy regulations?
And if so; why? To what end?

Little reading comprehension test: The op said

I oppose lax safety standards when producing children's toys. If someone disagrees and then dies because an unsafe toy killed them, laughing about it does not detract from my ability to continue opposing bad standards.

Now: Would a child be able to meaningfully oppose child toy safety regulations?
Do children run toy factories or have any meaningful input on the way toys are produced?
Or are you deliberately twisting someones example because you don't like what that person had to say?

 

[PixelAngel]

Ah my bad I misread it as responding to me

 

[sinfonia]

Trumps "landslide" victory was by just a few percent.

Yes, but he ran a horrible campaign. Unlike in 2016, he won not because he was Trump, but in spite of it. People wanted something more serious this time. The fact that he still won shows how strong the currents of history are.

 

[ape]

I'm actually stunned there are people in this thread saying "He was killed for his opinions!" or "He only wanted to debate people!"

Charlie Kirk was a man who built a 12 million dollar fortune spreading hate filled and violent rhetoric. He had power and influence. He spoke to lawmakers and the president of the united states, and pushed them to create and support laws that would actively hurt marginalized groups. He wasn't just a "harmless guy with some bad opinions," he was a guy who was actively hurting others with his actions.

It's actually insane how many posters in this thread are crying that the left is the party of violence, when for the last 11 years in particular the right has been actively screaming for the deaths of minorities and other marginalized people. "Oh but the right isn't violent, they're only SAYING that they would not hesitate to kill you." Charlie Kirk himself laughed at political violence. When Nancy Pelosi's husband got his skull fractured from a hammer attack, Kirk himself laughed on his podcast, called the attacker an american hero, and called for his listeners to donate for the guy's bail.

Charlie Kirk was a terrible person, and the world is better without him in it.

 

[R. A.]

I'm actually stunned there are people in this thread saying "He was killed for his opinions!" or "He only wanted to debate people!"

Charlie Kirk was a man who built a 12 million dollar fortune spreading hate filled and violent rhetoric. He had power and influence. He spoke to lawmakers and the president of the united states, and pushed them to create and support laws that would actively hurt marginalized groups. He wasn't just a "harmless guy with some bad opinions," he was a guy who was actively hurting others with his actions.

It's actually insane how many posters in this thread are crying that the left is the party of violence, when for the last 11 years in particular the right has been actively screaming for the deaths of minorities and other marginalized people. "Oh but the right isn't violent, they're only SAYING that they would not hesitate to kill you." Charlie Kirk himself laughed at political violence. When Nancy Pelosi's husband got his skull fractured from a hammer attack, Kirk himself laughed on his podcast, called the attacker an american hero, and called for his listeners to donate for the guy's bail.

Charlie Kirk was a terrible person, and the world is better without him in it.

Everyone you're surprised about in here is straight up ignoring these points.
There's literally no reason to engage with them, unless the raging makes you feel good.
People don't understand how fascism works, apparently. It's a dead end.

 

[quietwoods]

Watching twitter over the past day has been fascinating.

A whole cohort of people are gloating, generally on the left. People who generally argue very strongly against the death penalty for multiple murderers, decry hate speech, have "Be Kind" plastered all over their bio, and talk about the need to stop "verbal violence" are celebrating this fatal result of actual violence like it's 1999.

A whole cohort of people are threatening, generally on the right. People who yell about freedom of speech, people who demand the right to have their opinions aired, and say that nothing offensive is out of bounds, are threatening violence, finding the gloaters, finding their employers, trying to get them fired, and demanding that people who are saying nasty things be silenced.

It's... it's almost like... virtually everyone is a massive hypocrite who abandons their principles at the precise moment they become inconvenient!

It seems as if... as if... being a complete and utter asshole, without any self-awareness or ability to reflect on one's own behaviour, is baked into the human animal.

It looks like... people just drop their values willy-nilly, and make excuses for why their dearly held belief is completely opposite from what it was ten minutes ago.

Interesting creature, the human. Technologically advanced, yet nowhere near as intelligent as it seems to think it is.

Going to repost the most sane comment in the whole thread.

This thread has just devolved into confirmation bias run rampant, moralistic handwaving, and people inventing realities where their chosen set of facts hold dominance with black and white "sides".

I will settle the argument for everybody:

 

[Hvergelmir]

I was asking myself about political violence the other day, and thought I'd share this article.

The support for politically-motivated murder was measured at:
2.1% for Democrats,
1.8% for Republicans,
(and 2.16% for "MAGA Republicans", specifically).

Support for 'any kind of partisan violence' was presented as <4%.

Meanwhile, Democrats thought that 45.5% of Republicans supported partisan murder.
Republicans thought that 42% of democrats supported the same.

While not directly related to Kirk, I think it offers a good explanation for why political debates have became so darn aggressive.

 

[Pessimist]

Charlie Kirk himself laughed at political violence. When Nancy Pelosi's husband got his skull fractured from a hammer attack, Kirk himself laughed on his podcast, called the attacker an american hero, and called for his listeners to donate for the guy's bail.

Do you have a source for this claim? Too many people are saying things that are false nowadays.

 

[Dot]

Do you have a source for this claim? Too many people are saying things that are false nowadays.

Twittr Sourc

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

I was asking myself about political violence the other day, and thought I'd share this article.

The support for politically-motivated murder was measured at:
2.1% for Democrats,
1.8% for Republicans,
(and 2.16% for "MAGA Republicans", specifically).

Support for 'any kind of partisan violence' was presented as <4%.

Meanwhile, Democrats thought that 45.5% of Republicans supported partisan murder.
Republicans thought that 42% of democrats supported the same.

While not directly related to Kirk, I think it offers a good explanation for why political debates have became so darn aggressive.

That's interesting, I was under the impression it was higher, but maybe they are doing the surveys differently.

This one is from 2024 and lists it as
"Nearly three in ten Republicans (29%) believe that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country, compared with 16% of independents and 8% of Democrats"

I don't think the 2025 American Values Survey has been published yet but it will be interesting to see if Republicans stopped supporting political violence as much while democrats become more in favor of it.

edit (forgot to link it :p) : https://prri.org/research/challenge...indings-from-the-2024-american-values-survey/

 

[rainatthetraintrack]

I am not saying that. I am saying that it is ironic that a man who spend a good chunk of his life being pro gun violence got killed by a person doing a gun violence. You are taking my words out of context. I never said anything about gun ownership or the second ammendment because frankly, I have no leg in that race either way

no he's literally not. many ppl get killed in car crashes does that mean we should ban cars and make driving illegal??? that's what he was literally saying.

Plus it's really funny to say "it's not okay to use tragedies as an excuse for trying to take other ppls rights away" like buddy.... remember 9/11? Or is it just infringing on other peoples rights good actually if they are brown and/or pray on in the direction of Mecca?

so you think there are valid reasons for taking ppls rights away???

 

[Hvergelmir]

Nearly three in ten Republicans (29%) believe that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country, compared with 16% of independents and 8% of Democrats

I've seen this statistic too, and think it comes down to how the question is formulated.
I think those 29% include people thinking that they might have to defend against a Chinese invasion, or be deployed in a Nato response, etc,

Partisan murder is much more specific. Anyone serving in the military would reasonably say that they may resort to violence to save the country - it's kind of their purpose.

 

[Winterreise]

I didnt order the killing.
I dont know who ordered it.
Sorry.

 

[EternalShore]

My parents liked him a lot and even supported him enough to get invited to his wedding (altho, they never went)~ oh boy~ >_< I'm going to be hearing about this for weeks~ They even signed me up to go to 1 of his upcoming events~ I wonder if they're going to try and require me to go now or they're not going to let me go even if I wanted to now~ xDDD

I personally find many of the conservative people they listen to to be annoying, altho they all blend in together, so idk if he was better or not~ when I specifically mentioned him in the past (ctrl+f'ing Discord convos), it appears I found him annoying too, altho my memory isn't good enough to know for sure~

Anyways, may he go to Heaven if that be God's will~ :) Something like this shouldn't have happened~

Hi~ :) I'd like to apologize for my prior remarks~ I didn't know much about him and was merely using this as a venting thread about my parents' commentators (not that my brother's aren't worse)~
After his death, I read quite a fair bit about him and watched videos about him and addressing his death as well~ It turns out that I never told my parents to turn him off, contrary to other commentators who I did do so for~
I get that life isn't very well valued here, but well, what if one finally recovers from their ideation and wants to live before being shot by someone who merely disagreed with them politically~? I agree with many of the things he said and disagree with many others (like on trans issues), however, shooting someone for that is wrong~ Moreover, he didn't hide in his own echo chamber like many right wingers are prone to doing but engaged in dialogue with those from the other side, probably refining his own view points as he went along~ I do hope that God will find him good in His sight~ :)
I can't help but feel really sad for his wife, who lost her husband and may have to live alone for the rest of her life~ :( Sure, she has kids to keep her company thankfully, but being a single mom is a very big hassle as well! and his kids who will hardly or never know their father~ :( That is something truly tragic~ :(

I've seen this statistic too, and think it comes down to how the question is formulated.
I think those 29% include people thinking that they might have to defend against a Chinese invasion, or be deployed in a Nato response, etc,

Partisan murder is much more specific. Anyone serving in the military would reasonably say that they may resort to violence to save the country - it's kind of their purpose.

Adding onto this, I'd probably say yes for that very reason~ xD but like a militia (like the WW2 resistance movements) rather than the army (I'm not even allowed to enlist anyways~) or anything! So this is probably true~

 

[Dejected 55]

I'm going to try once more at rationality with an analogy that I think works on all the levels...

"I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." -Charlie Kirk

I fail to see how context changes this. No amount of self righteous scolding will elicit tears for this racist homophobic piece of human garbage and it takes half a second of looking up his views to know he would have laughed and praised the deaths of multiple friends of mine if it scored him brownie points with his audience. Won't get a tear from me. And nobody should feel bad laughing at the irony of a man who thought others' kids' deaths were acceptable, dying in a way he said was acceptable for them.

Okay, look at Charlie Kirk's quote above. He's for the 2nd Amendment. He's acknowledging that the freedom to have guns is going to come with the consequence that some innocent people will die from them. He is saying that is "acceptable loss" essentially. Now, I don't entirely agree with this, I think there are compromises that could be made to keep people safer while also allowing freedom to own guns... but that's a different topic. People use a quote like this to justify laughing and cheering that this man was brutally murdered in front of his family as schadenfreude or irony or "just desserts" or whatever... but I'm going to try a rational approach.

In the American justice system, if you rape or kill, for instance, you have a right to a trial and a jury of your peers. You also have a right to a lawyer for defense. Our criminal justice system is not perfect, but one of the tenets it is built upon is the concept that it is better to let some guilty men walk free than to punish even one innocent person. Of course, historically we have failed at both... but the point is meant to be that everyone gets a fair trial even if you think you have the guilty person in custody because you want to make 100% if you can that you punish the guilty person and not an innocent one.

So... imagine a person who vehemently supports this. Someone who does not like mob justice or knee-jerk rulings or shoddy police work that leads to an innocent person being in prison for decades or being executed for a crime they didn't commit. Many such people exist. Sometimes, though, this does mean a rapist or a murderer will get away because the case against them cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt. The family of the victim of that person's crimes will be angry, and justifiably so that they see the perpetrator get away with their crimes.

Now, imagine the lawyer who advocates that everyone gets a fair defense, and he defends someone and successfully gets a not guilty verdict... but the victims' family is sure the guilty man got away with murder... Now imagine that lawyer gets killed by someone who, when they catch him, they discover is someone with a record of previously having been accused of a murder and found innocent and literally got away with murder... only to kill a lawyer who defends such people and advocates that it is better to let some guilty go free than to punish innocent people.

Would you cheer for that lawyer's death? Would you laugh at the irony? Do you think the lawyer who defends and gets murderers free deserved to get killed himself by a murderer who was free thanks to such beliefs?

That's the core of what we are talking about here. Charlie Kirk might have been a horrible person. I honestly don't know because I heard enough from him that I tuned him out because I didn't like him. But the glee supposedly nice and good and fair people are showing over his death because they strongly (and perhaps fairly) disliked him... it makes no sense if you're someone who believes in rights, believes in good, etc.

 

[Winterreise]

Murder is illegal in russia too.

So how do Putin get away with it?

 

[ape]

no he's literally not. many ppl get killed in car crashes does that mean we should ban cars and make driving illegal??? that's what he was literally saying.

Do you agree with what he was saying? Because if you think about it for just a little bit, you'll understand that it is an incredibly stupid take to have. Cars are designed to transport people and objects. They are a necessary tool of our functioning world that many billions of people need to use everyday.

Guns are designed with the sole function to kill a living being. That is the only purpose a gun has. A normal average person will never need to use something like that.

When people are killed by a person driving a car, it's because something went wrong. When someone is killed by a person using a gun, it was done deliberately. The gun served its intended function.

 

[rainatthebusstop]

no he's literally not. many ppl get killed in car crashes does that mean we should ban cars and make driving illegal??? that's what he was literally saying.

Gotta love the car comparison because you know what people need to do to drive a car legally? They need to have a license. Which they obtain by learning road safety along with how to prevent accidents by for instance following the traffic laws and regulations. But I digress.

so you think there are valid reasons for taking ppls rights away???

I was saying the exact opposite. I was pointing out that a real tragedy that happened lead to that and asking you if that's okay by your standards.

 

[Zhendou]

For all who called him a white supremacist and racist, why did he create Blexit? The media won't tell you this because it is against their beliefs. Remember that all media is biased, FOX is too, but that is why you need to actually research rather than blindly accept beliefs. He may say things that we don't agree with, but he doesn't deserve death for it. Celebrating his death just because we don't agree with him is celebrating a death just because he had different beliefs. If you actually watched Charlie Kirk's debate videos, he was respectful and challenged ideas. Just because a news sources says he is a racist, doesn't mean he is. Check the bias.

Blexit link

 

[PixelAngel]

I'm going to try once more at rationality with an analogy that I think works on all the levels...



Okay, look at Charlie Kirk's quote above. He's for the 2nd Amendment. He's acknowledging that the freedom to have guns is going to come with the consequence that some innocent people will die from them. He is saying that is "acceptable loss" essentially. Now, I don't entirely agree with this, I think there are compromises that could be made to keep people safer while also allowing freedom to own guns... but that's a different topic. People use a quote like this to justify laughing and cheering that this man was brutally murdered in front of his family as schadenfreude or irony or "just desserts" or whatever... but I'm going to try a rational approach.

In the American justice system, if you rape or kill, for instance, you have a right to a trial and a jury of your peers. You also have a right to a lawyer for defense. Our criminal justice system is not perfect, but one of the tenets it is built upon is the concept that it is better to let some guilty men walk free than to punish even one innocent person. Of course, historically we have failed at both... but the point is meant to be that everyone gets a fair trial even if you think you have the guilty person in custody because you want to make 100% if you can that you punish the guilty person and not an innocent one.

So... imagine a person who vehemently supports this. Someone who does not like mob justice or knee-jerk rulings or shoddy police work that leads to an innocent person being in prison for decades or being executed for a crime they didn't commit. Many such people exist. Sometimes, though, this does mean a rapist or a murderer will get away because the case against them cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt. The family of the victim of that person's crimes will be angry, and justifiably so that they see the perpetrator get away with their crimes.

Now, imagine the lawyer who advocates that everyone gets a fair defense, and he defends someone and successfully gets a not guilty verdict... but the victims' family is sure the guilty man got away with murder... Now imagine that lawyer gets killed by someone who, when they catch him, they discover is someone with a record of previously having been accused of a murder and found innocent and literally got away with murder... only to kill a lawyer who defends such people and advocates that it is better to let some guilty go free than to punish innocent people.

Would you cheer for that lawyer's death? Would you laugh at the irony? Do you think the lawyer who defends and gets murderers free deserved to get killed himself by a murderer who was free thanks to such beliefs?

That's the core of what we are talking about here. Charlie Kirk might have been a horrible person. I honestly don't know because I heard enough from him that I tuned him out because I didn't like him. But the glee supposedly nice and good and fair people are showing over his death because they strongly (and perhaps fairly) disliked him... it makes no sense if you're someone who believes in rights, believes in good, etc.

Oh boy what a book of nonsense.

Lawyers don't exist to get rulings of not guilty or innocence first of all. They exist to ensure you get fair due process. Defending someone doesn't mean you agree with them. So going after a lawyer solely on the basis they secured wins for someone isn't a fair metric on its own nor is it comparable. If it were we'd be talking about lawyers who also openly mock murder victims and the laws around murder, then getting murdered. And yes I'd laugh in that case.

People keep coming at this writing their versions of metaphors wholly excluding the fact that Charlie Kirk championed the philosophy that got others and then himself killed, and was openly asking his audience to bail out the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband with a hammer. You wanna talk about what my response would be for other people in different situations, I'll happily tell you, but most of these defenses are well wasted on protecting Kirk.