The Charlie Kirk Thread

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.

 
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.
 
Calheel said:
Who cares what he was in the past? The issue is what motivated him to kill Charlie Kirk. Clearly it wasn’t that Kirk doesn’t hate Jews enough.
Click to expand...
1. It could affect predisposition to using a firearm to settle the issue.
2. Conservatives often sound like leftists when they experience an injustice to themselves. They don't care until that point. Does that mean they become leftists, or merely hypocrites or FAFOs?
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree.
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some, but not all, are hostile to academia. I disagree that conservatives do not like discourse. Maher agrees and he's in the talk show business. He says he has no trouble booking conservative guests even though his audience will be overwhelmingly liberal. On the other hand, many liberal folks won't go near his show including Kamala - who refused his repeated requests to appear during the last election. Question: During the last two elections which candidates hid from the media and which candidate went everywhere and talked with everyone?
superrific said:
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?
Click to expand...
Of course we can, and should, talk about slavery. It's history. But teach it in the proper context and don't teach it in a manner that America is uniquely evil in its acceptance of slavery for a part of its history. Slavery was universal and America spilled quite a bit of blood to end it. What about liberals banning Huckleberry Finn (can't talk about it) in schools due to the n word being used?
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Libs tell the truth and Conservatives lie? Charlie most certainly loved to debate. He would put at the front of the line the liberals who disagreed with him. He had respectful debate with all types of people - including trans people, women in porn and on onlyfans and devil worshipers. I venture to say I've watched more Charlie Kirk content than anyone posting here so I speak from experience. Many of you had never heard of him and are now simply watching edited clips of his most outrageous statements edited by liberal content providers.
 
More interesting reporting (and I don’t know Klippenstein’s politics, but have been turned off because he advertises on Twitter):

www.kenklippenstein.com

Exclusive: Leaked Messages from Charlie Kirk Assassin

Accused shooter’s “politics” is not what government and media say
www.kenklippenstein.com www.kenklippenstein.com

I don’t think the kid was/is a Groyper, or had any other obvious left/right bent. The dearth of political posts on these Discord channels seem pretty telling.

That won’t stop the right wing outrage machine from using him (and any beef he had with Kirk’s obvious and outright anti-LGBTQ views) as a representative of “the left” and making excuses for attacks on their political enemies, both using the government, and outside of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top