The Charlie Kirk Thread

theel4life said:
Again this kid was clearly a Groyper."
Click to expand...
Still waiting for this discussion to gain ANY traction on MSM. The nearly universal assumption is that the bullet with "hey, fascist! Catch!" proves he shot Kirk for his right-wing rhetoric. All the attention has been on the How? and not the Why? of the shooting.
 
IMG_9680.jpeg

[TBF, though he clearly articulates “July of 2001” I am sure he meant 2021 — it is a weirdly common type of slip-up after a certain age]
 
ChileG said:
Violence against people? The right kills five times as many people as the left when it comes to political violence. It’s sad that that isn’t being acknowledged. When it gets painted as a problem equal on both sides, then the main perpetrators don’t get held responsible.
As an example, just look at how the guy at MSNBC (iirc) got immediately canned for saying something merely insensitive, while the guys on Fox News literally call for war and violence and nothing happens to them.
Click to expand...
It's not just the violence. It's the rhetoric. Trump gets a ton of shit, rightfully so, for his rhetoric on J6. That same type of rhetoric is very common from Dems.

It doesn't have to be equal on both sides for both sides to be culpable.

Surely you agree that "We kill less than you" isn't exactly taking the high road.
 
ZenMode said:
It's not just the violence. It's the rhetoric. Trump gets a ton of shit, rightfully so, for his rhetoric on J6. That same type of rhetoric is very common from Dems.

It doesn't have to be equal on both sides for both sides to be culpable.

Surely you agree that "We kill less than you" isn't exactly taking the high road.
Click to expand...
Surely you agree that when the violence is so heavily tilted to one side that it should be acknowledged.
And look at the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the democrats compared to the republicans since CK died.
All the calls for violence and retribution are coming from the right. It’s crazy to not acknowledge the vast discrepancy.
 
ChileG said:
Surely you agree that when the violence is so heavily tilted to one side that it should be acknowledged.
And look at the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the democrats compared to the republicans since CK died.
All the calls for violence and retribution are coming from the right. It’s crazy to not acknowledge the vast discrepancy.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.
 
ZenMode said:
Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.
Click to expand...
rhetorically speaking, you simply can't compare "they should be killed" to "he's a danger to the country," "he's a racist/sexist/fascist."

it's like this new trend where conservatives insist that people simply quoting Charlie Kirk are besmirching his memory or celebrating his death.
 
akillesheel said:
rhetorically speaking, you simply can't compare "they should be killed" to "he's a danger to the country," "he's a racist/sexist/fascist."

it's like this new trend where conservatives insist that people simply quoting Charlie Kirk are besmirching his memory or celebrating his death.
Click to expand...
Again, there doesn't have to be equality to have culpability and, yes, it does matter when the rhetoric (fascist, racist, putting gays in cages, etc) is repeated day after day, week after week, year after year.

If Trump would have said "The 2020 election was stolen" one time, most likely nothing happens. It's repeating the claim over and over and over that eventually has an impact on peoples' behavior. That works both way.

If OAN or Fox News wanted to cover nothing but crimes committed by black people and/or people here illegally, 24 hours a day/7 days a week, they could. They could do it and be 100% accurate in their reporting, right?

Would that have an impact on peoples' views of black people and illegal immigrants over time? Of course it would. The same is true as it relates to Trump. He's the biggest POS ever to hold the Presidency, but the wall to wall coverage and rhetoric absolutely contributes to the violence.

But, hey, what do I know. I'm just a disingenuous sleaze. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.
Click to expand...
See, this is why we need to look at data.

You cannot point to a metric that says the left’s rhetoric has been the same, worse, or better than the rhetoric coming from the right. Neither can I. Calla gave some examples but they looked pretty tame compared to what I hear from the right, but I can’t prove that.

So we look at the results. I do, anyway.
 
ChileG said:
See, this is why we need to look at data.

You cannot point to a metric that says the left’s rhetoric has been the same, worse, or better than the rhetoric coming from the right. Neither can I. Calla gave some examples but they looked pretty tame compared to what I hear from the right, but I can’t prove that.

So we look at the results. I do, anyway.
Click to expand...
Neglecting audience size and how it's received would hopelessly skew any opinion.
 
ZenMode said:
Again, there doesn't have to be equality to have culpability and, yes, it does matter when the rhetoric (fascist, racist, putting gays in cages, etc) is repeated day after day, week after week, year after year.

If Trump would have said "The 2020 election was stolen" one time, most likely nothing happens. It's repeating the claim over and over and over that eventually has an impact on peoples' behavior. That works both way.

If OAN or Fox News wanted to cover nothing but crimes committed by black people and/or people here illegally, 24 hours a day/7 days a week, they could. They could do it and be 100% accurate in their reporting, right?

Would that have an impact on peoples' views of black people and illegal immigrants over time? Of course it would. The same is true as it relates to Trump. He's the biggest POS ever to hold the Presidency, but the wall to wall coverage and rhetoric absolutely contributes to the violence.

But, hey, what do I know. I'm just a disingenuous sleaze. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's telling that you had to pivot to Trump saying "the 2020 election was stolen" instead of the example I gave, which was a summation of right-wing politicians and other high-profile figures actually inciting violence.

There is a huge difference between rhetoric that is negatively polarizing and rhetoric that is explicitly violent. Politics have been full of the former since they were invented. Only one side does the latter.
 
1moretimeagain said:
Nancy Mace would have given us video of the full production starting with her trip to Sherwin Williams to buy the paint and roller brush, but still a good effort from Ted.

Click to expand...

Uh, maybe some acetone might be a better idea... or a paint color that is similar to the wall being painted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top