The Charlie Kirk Thread

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...
Are those celebrants people you are friends with on Facebook spouting off their joy at his death or are they examples being gathered and shared by people you are friends with on FB?
 
rodoheel said:
You're not seriously surprised by this, are you? This has been the right's MO for years now. Thy started doing this basically the second Kirk was shot. This is "LibsofTikTok" writ la
Click to expand...

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...
I am glad you see a danger of getting people too fired up, and I agree many people have been stoking it once Obama was elected president ?

I assume you would support the call for Trump, JD Vance, and GQP members of Congress to stop stoking the MAGAs and have them be responsible as leaders and call for the country to come together and heal the country.
 
Last edited:
WaynetheDrain said:
What is your definition of “celebrating?”

And be honest.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Now check the polls before Charlie Kirk's killing. You're going to find very different results. Polling has consistently found over the past decade that conservatives are much more comfortable with political violence that liberals.

It's a very weird question to ask. Of course it is sometimes justified for citizens to resort to violence to achieve political goals. Our country's founding was based on violence for political aims. We fought a civil war over political aims. The author of our Declaration of Independence wrote that political violence was sometimes justified. We also killed lots of native Americans. So anyone who thinks the US has legitimacy as a country must also admit that political violence is sometimes justified.

My view is that violence is justified to overcome oppression when all other means have failed. The Civil War was a good thing because it ended slavery, and because there did not appear to be any other means of accomplishing that. Coup plotters should be executed, because by definition they are seeking to eviscerate law and politics and thus leaves violence as the only resort.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top