The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 107K
  • Politics 
Bill Maher, on his podcast with Billy Corgan, really nailed it about Charlie:

Quote:
Charlie built bridges and the left burned them down.

You know they're the people [the left] who don't want to talk. It's my main issue with them. Charlie Kirk was a guy who...was ALWAYS talking.

The right wingers, say what you want about them, but they talk to you. They're not into this leftist think...the left really has much more of a I don't talk to you. I don't want to deal with you, you're deplorable. I can't break bread with you.

All of the right wingers...they don't have that attitude. Unquote
 
Ramrouser said:
I see A LOT of libs celebrating Kirk's death on my social media feeds - not just purple haired barista's - educators, administrators, nurses, Drs., a Secret Service agent, police officers and business owners. It's pretty widespread unfortunately.

No question the social media algorithms are giving us what we want to see but I see a danger in getting people too fired up. The problem is that many people are giving them content to send out.
Click to expand...
Do you know any of these people? Does it happen to be posts that are shared by other MAGAs?

I bet I have a lot more liberal friends than you do. I have not seen a single post where one was celebrating Kirk's death. Not a single one.

If you are seeing some posts from strangers (either because friends shared them or the algorithm put them on your feed) then you are getting a terribly biased view of the left. It could be 20 people and the Internet would amplify those to make it appear that all liberals are celebrating the death.

I will see random posts from MAGAs that are disturbing but I'll try to put them in perspective. I am seeing them because they are disturbing. The only posts that make me really think are from 1) people I know (and I have more MAGA "friends" than liberal ones) or 2) people with great influence (politicians, media members, social media influencers).
 
Ramrouser said:
Bill Maher, on his podcast with Billy Corgan, really nailed it about Charlie:

Quote:
Charlie built bridges and the left burned them down.

You know they're the people [the left] who don't want to talk. It's my main issue with them. Charlie Kirk was a guy who...was ALWAYS talking.

The right wingers, say what you want about them, but they talk to you. They're not into this leftist think...the left really has much more of a I don't talk to you. I don't want to deal with you, you're deplorable. I can't break bread with you.

All of the right wingers...they don't have that attitude. Unquote
Click to expand...
The concept that Charlie "built bridges" is just so hard to reconcile. For you to believe that he was actually interested in building any bridges, you have to ignore so so so so so so so many things that he said. He built a strong following, but only among those who already felt like he did.
 
Ramrouser said:
Bill Maher, on his podcast with Billy Corgan, really nailed it about Charlie:

Quote:
the left really has much more of a I don't talk to you. I don't want to deal with you, you're deplorable. I can't break bread with you.
Click to expand...
Animated GIF

and I'm damn proud of it. Fuck those bridges.
 
What a bunch of bullshit. I suspect you will sidestep these questions, Ram, but let's try for kicks.

1. I think the largest group of people who are professional conversers are academics. They are overwhelmingly not conservative, and the majority are on the left. Do you agree with that? So right off the bat, our initial data point is that liberals, not conservatives, are the talkers.

2. Do you agree that the right-wingers are hostile to academia? It sure seems that way. Many right-wingers routinely express that academics are the enemy of the people or the country. I remember very well when that scumbag from the NRA said that. Trump has said it. Vance has said it. So second data point: conservatives do not like discourse.

3. Which states are the ones putting certain subjects off limits for discussion? It's the red states. They are saying we can't talk about slavery, we have to paint American history in a positive light, we can't be negative about this country, etc. Is that talking? I'm pretty sure the opposite is true. So third data point. Do you contest this?

4. Most importantly, lying is not discourse. Lies are the opposite of discourse. Lies are the co-optation of discourse for purposes of violence. Since the GOP is addicted to lies -- surely you can't contest this -- then that would be a huge strike against the idea that conservatives are pro-discourse.

Since Charlie Kirk, like the vast majority of right-wingers, loved to lie, I would not say he was interested in discourse at all. Yes, he loved to talk. But he didn't love to debate -- he loved to talk at people, without regard to any shared basis of conversation.
 
I should also say that no person should be forced to debate their existence, their dignity as humans, or their equal moral standing.

So if someone is saying, "trans people are sick and mentally ill," there is no discussion to be had there. That is a form of violence. Think about how pissy you get when it is merely mentioned that MAGAs aren't very smart. If national figures were to say that white MAGAs are psychopaths, you'd lose your fucking mind. But you have no problem at all debating whether trans people are mentally ill. And it wasn't too long ago that you guys contested that gay people could be mentally adjusted (and in some quarters, that's not accepted).

It is fundamentally violent to expect that people continually debate their own worth as humans. Why should black people have any tolerance for someone who says that black women lack the brain power to hold positions of authority. That is a debate that white people have wanted to have for hundreds of years. It's always asymmetric. And if someone were to return the insult, again you lose your fucking minds.

So I'm not interested in talking to the Charlie Kirks of the world. I would debate him and if he was honest I'd mop the floor with him, which is probably why he never tries to debate faculty. But in reality he would just lie -- which is why he never debated in written word. Oral conversation is susceptible to lies, because he can just lie and I can say, that's not true, and he says it's true, and the audience basically just goes with whatever position that matches their prior beliefs.
 
I have lots of very liberal people who post on my feed. I haven't seen any of them celebrating the killing of Kirk. I've seen lots of comments condemning political violence. And I've seen lots of comments critical of how Kirk is being celebrated. But I haven't seen any celebrations about his death.
 
superrific said:
I should also say that no person should be forced to debate their existence, their dignity as humans, or their equal moral standing.

So if someone is saying, "trans people are sick and mentally ill," there is no discussion to be had there. That is a form of violence. Think about how pissy you get when it is merely mentioned that MAGAs aren't very smart. If national figures were to say that white MAGAs are psychopaths, you'd lose your fucking mind. But you have no problem at all debating whether trans people are mentally ill. And it wasn't too long ago that you guys contested that gay people could be mentally adjusted (and in some quarters, that's not accepted).

It is fundamentally violent to expect that people continually debate their own worth as humans. Why should black people have any tolerance for someone who says that black women lack the brain power to hold positions of authority. That is a debate that white people have wanted to have for hundreds of years. It's always asymmetric. And if someone were to return the insult, again you lose your fucking minds.

So I'm not interested in talking to the Charlie Kirks of the world. I would debate him and if he was honest I'd mop the floor with him, which is probably why he never tries to debate faculty. But in reality he would just lie -- which is why he never debated in written word. Oral conversation is susceptible to lies, because he can just lie and I can say, that's not true, and he says it's true, and the audience basically just goes with whatever position that matches their prior beliefs.
Click to expand...
Cook Wok GIF
 
Just when I thought I was out (on routine political discourse online), this crazy shit pulls me back in!

The charging document has been made public. Interesting quote from some texts between Robinson and his partner:

“remember how I was engraving bullets? The fuckin messages are mostly a big meme, if I see "notices bulge uwu" on fox new I might have a stroke”

So, it doesn’t sound like the bullets were specifically engraved for this action, and he admits it’s “mostly a big meme.” Other quotes make clear that he definitely did NOT intend to get caught, so the casings weren’t some big message to anyone, either.

Full doc (with a gift link that should work?):
www.nytimes.com

Read the Charges Against Tyler Robinson

Robinson will be charged with aggravated murder, an offense that is eligible for the death penalty, according to Jeff Gray, the Utah County attorney.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
superrific said:
I should also say that no person should be forced to debate their existence, their dignity as humans, or their equal moral standing.

So if someone is saying, "trans people are sick and mentally ill," there is no discussion to be had there. That is a form of violence. Think about how pissy you get when it is merely mentioned that MAGAs aren't very smart. If national figures were to say that white MAGAs are psychopaths, you'd lose your fucking mind. But you have no problem at all debating whether trans people are mentally ill. And it wasn't too long ago that you guys contested that gay people could be mentally adjusted (and in some quarters, that's not accepted).

It is fundamentally violent to expect that people continually debate their own worth as humans. Why should black people have any tolerance for someone who says that black women lack the brain power to hold positions of authority. That is a debate that white people have wanted to have for hundreds of years. It's always asymmetric. And if someone were to return the insult, again you lose your fucking minds.

So I'm not interested in talking to the Charlie Kirks of the world. I would debate him and if he was honest I'd mop the floor with him, which is probably why he never tries to debate faculty. But in reality he would just lie -- which is why he never debated in written word. Oral conversation is susceptible to lies, because he can just lie and I can say, that's not true, and he says it's true, and the audience basically just goes with whatever position that matches their prior beliefs.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with the sentiment of your post in that arguing that someone's "existence, their dignity as humans, or their equal moral standing" is not part of reasonable discourse and people who argue those things should be told that. I have been frustrated about people conflating the tone of Charlie Kirk's debates with the substance of what he was debating - just because Charlie said things with a smile and in a calm voice does not mean the things he was saying were respectful or reasonable (I was particularly disappointed n Ezra Klein holding him up as someone who did politics "the right way" while conveniently ignoring all the ways he contributed to worsening our political discourse and polarization). I don't think I agree, though, that any words - no matter how vile or insulting - can be considered "violence" and I think that trying to classify words as "violence," on either side, is part of the problem we have here. Because once you acknowledge that some words are violence, you will just get into a never-ending debate about what crosses the line and no one will ever in a million years be able to agree, and we will just get into this vicious cycle of everyone constantly trying to classify their opponents' speech as not just odious, but criminal (see what Trump, Miller, and Bondi, et al., are doing right now).
 
hndrx222 said:
Just when I thought I was out (on routine political discourse online), this crazy shit pulls me back in!

The charging document has been made public. Interesting quote from some texts between Robinson and his partner:

“remember how I was engraving bullets? The fuckin messages are mostly a big meme, if I see "notices bulge uwu" on fox new I might have a stroke”

So, it doesn’t sound like the bullets were specifically engraved for this action, and he admits it’s “mostly a big meme.” Other quotes make clear that he definitely did NOT intend to get caught, so the casings weren’t some big message to anyone, either.

Full doc (with a gift link that should work?):
www.nytimes.com

Read the Charges Against Tyler Robinson

Robinson will be charged with aggravated murder, an offense that is eligible for the death penalty, according to Jeff Gray, the Utah County attorney.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
More evidence he was a groyper. They are big into the memes.
 
hndrx222 said:
Just when I thought I was out (on routine political discourse online), this crazy shit pulls me back in!

The charging document has been made public. Interesting quote from some texts between Robinson and his partner:

“remember how I was engraving bullets? The fuckin messages are mostly a big meme, if I see "notices bulge uwu" on fox new I might have a stroke”

So, it doesn’t sound like the bullets were specifically engraved for this action, and he admits it’s “mostly a big meme.” Other quotes make clear that he definitely did NOT intend to get caught, so the casings weren’t some big message to anyone, either.

Full doc (with a gift link that should work?):
www.nytimes.com

Read the Charges Against Tyler Robinson

Robinson will be charged with aggravated murder, an offense that is eligible for the death penalty, according to Jeff Gray, the Utah County attorney.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Well unless Utah is making up shit, pretty clear he is not a Groyper.
 
Zoo_View said:
If law enforcement has found left-leaning posts, comments, writings, etc. on the alleged killer’s computer(s), phone(s), device(s), and/or social media, we’d hear about it to the nth degree.
Click to expand...
I think that text message with his transitioning boyfriend/girlfriend is pretty left leaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top