The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 107K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
I don't have FB so it's not my friends or group commenting.

I see lots of libs commenting on the death basically stating that Kirk had it coming, i.e. he deserved the bullet in his neck.

Others gleefully singing songs sending "thoughts and prayers" to Kirk. While social media may be amplifying this issue I disagree that it is isolated.

There's definitely an assassination culture developing on the left. A September 10, 2025 YouGov poll found that in the immediate aftermath of the Kirk shooting 72% of Americans said violence is never justified, while 11% said it can be sometimes justified. The question asked respondents was whether they think "it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals." Liberals more likely to say that violence is sometimes justified.

25% of respondents who identified as "very liberal" said violence can sometimes be justified to achieve political goals.

17% of those who identified as "liberal" agreed

9% of moderates agreed

6% of conservatives

3% of very conservative.

Younger Americans were also more likely to say political violence can be justified.

25% of liberals under 45 years agreed with this statement.
Click to expand...
post the results.

i haven’t seen one person say he deserved.

i’ve seen a lot of lack of sympathy for him based on his character, lies he spewed, approach to “debating”(trying to embarrass kids), TPA trolls, or the fact that he was part of the radicalization machine.

i haven’t seen 1 person say that he deserved to die like that.

Can you share some?
 
Turd Ferguson said:
It's been evident that he was the day they caught him. Nothing to do with the left at all, but even further right than Kirk.
Click to expand...
That is not the read I'm getting from what I have read about this person. Groypers are not the only online subculture hat are into memes and I think it's more likely that this person's politics will end up being somewhat incoherent.
 
rodoheel said:
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).
Click to expand...
I think you're conflating two different issues. You are worried about social epistemology -- i.e. how can a society arrive at collective knowledge -- which is fine but it's not the same thing as asking whether the words are violent.

I wonder if you'd feel differently if you were on the receiving end. I've heard enough spoken and written testimonials from black people along the lines of, "I've been in fights and had my ass whipped, but nothing hurt me more than when they called me a n*" or "told me I couldn't do it because I was black" or "told I was a criminal because I was black." I've heard the same thing from gay people.

If Alice calls Bob a f*, knowing that it will deeply injure Bob, then how is that not as violent as hitting him in the face?

If a woman is raped, and someone tells her that she had it coming because she was dressing too sexy, how is that not as violent as slapping her for being a silly woman? It's perhaps not as bad as being raped, but I've heard and seen plenty of accounts of women talking about how being dismissed can be so hurtful. This is one reason, of course, that raped women often don't go to the police, or don't press charges. Not the only reason, but it's in the mix.

Trans people commit suicide with abnormally high frequency. Knowing that, if someone with a microphone and an audience demeans trans people, they will have knowingly contributed to their deaths. Why is that not violence?
 
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...
JFC. MAGA media is going to go ape shit with this.
 
rodoheel said:
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).
Click to expand...
TPA was a dishonest, troll operation. Not sure how their operation was the “right way”.
 
Calheel said:
Well unless Utah is making up shit, pretty clear he is not a Groyper.
Click to expand...
I didn't see anything in that charging document that would establish he was not a Groyper.

Also, since the charging document uses the phrase "biological male" multiple times, it isn't really reliable and indeed Utah might be making shit up.
 
Ramrouser said:
I don't have FB so it's not my friends or group commenting.

I see lots of libs commenting on the death basically stating that Kirk had it coming, i.e. he deserved the bullet in his neck.

Others gleefully singing songs sending "thoughts and prayers" to Kirk. While social media may be amplifying this issue I disagree that it is isolated.

There's definitely an assassination culture developing on the left. A September 10, 2025 YouGov poll found that in the immediate aftermath of the Kirk shooting 72% of Americans said violence is never justified, while 11% said it can be sometimes justified. The question asked respondents was whether they think "it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals." Liberals more likely to say that violence is sometimes justified.

25% of respondents who identified as "very liberal" said violence can sometimes be justified to achieve political goals.

17% of those who identified as "liberal" agreed

9% of moderates agreed

6% of conservatives

3% of very conservative.

Younger Americans were also more likely to say political violence can be justified.

25% of liberals under 45 years agreed with this statement.
Click to expand...
You see a lot of libs celebrating on your social media feeds but you don’t have Facebook?
 
Calheel said:
I think that text message with his transitioning boyfriend/girlfriend is pretty left leaning.
Click to expand...
In what way? Groypers can be gay or trans or androgynophilic. Maybe he was a groyper and realized the errors of his ways when he realized who he loved.
 
superrific said:
I didn't see anything in that charging document that would establish he was not a Groyper.

Also, since the charging document uses the phrase "biological male" multiple times, it isn't really reliable and indeed Utah might be making shit up.
Click to expand...
“I had enough of his hatred,” Robinson texted, referring to Charlie Kirk. “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
 
34 is an impressive score on the ACT, but if the test had a criminal mastermind section, his score would have been impacted significantly.

 
Calheel said:
“I had enough of his hatred,” Robinson texted, referring to Charlie Kirk. “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
Click to expand...
That might be probative of whether he was currently a groyper. It doesn't really comment on whether he had been a groyper.
 
1moretimeagain said:
34 is an impressive score on the ACT, but if the test had a criminal mastermind section, his score would have been impacted significantly.

Click to expand...

Yeah. The lack of forethought on the rifle was a huge fuck up. He had to know he couldn’t just ditch the rifle in the woods.
 
Calheel said:
Well unless Utah is making up shit, pretty clear he is not a Groyper.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but my understanding of what a groyper was prior to the shooting was litte more than something like “a weirdo who follows Nick Fuentes.” It’s apparently much, much weirder and more convoluted than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top