The Charlie Kirk Thread

Ramrouser said:
Agree.


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?

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?


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.
Click to expand...
1. I don't give a fuck what Maher has to say about that. Of course he can get conservative guests. Conservatives like nothing more than free publicity. They appear on CNN too and spout the crazy there. There is no actual evidence that Kamala refused to appear on Maher's show.

2. "Teach it in the proper context." So in other words, you don't want to have a discussion at all. What if the proper context is exactly how it is presented? What if American slavery was in fact uniquely evil? We are the only country that had to fight a war to end the practice, at least to my knowledge. We were the only country that held an ideal of equality among men and also condoned slavery. Slavery was not universal, and the spilling of blood cuts against you, not for you. Especially as a fucking Georgian. Georgia spilled no blood trying to end slavery.

3. It is beyond peradventure that today's GOP is addicted to lies. In fact, this entire discussion -- i.e. that the left is responsible for most violence in America -- is a bald-faced lie. They were eating the dogs, eating the cats was a lie. Biden's immigration policy was open borders is a lie. The trans agenda is a lie. I mean, I'm not going into it again. The factual record is incredibly clear. It's more common that they issue multiple different lies on an issue than they tell the truth the first time around. Far more common.

Fuck, their lawyers routinely lie to the courts.

If you're not going to agree about this basic fact, then there is no discourse to be had and that's your fault and not mine. There is no discourse without a shared reality.
 
MOUNTAINH33L said:
JFC. MAGA media is going to go ape shit with this.
Click to expand...
This may sound very tinfoil hattish, but holy shit that text exchange looks totally made up; like a poorly written script. First of all, how did he know that law enforcement first got an old man and then interrogated someone wearing similar clothes?

Second, that’s A LOT of detailed information to be putting into that text exchange. Having such detailed texts seems weird to begin with (people don’t typically provide that kind of serial in text exchanges), but also seems weird considering it appears that for much of that text exchange he’s talking about how he is trying not to get caught. If he’s trying not to get caught, why he is so detailed with everything he did?

Third, it seems very unnatural and contrived and does not have the appearance of a “normal” text exchange. There’s a lot more detail and complete sentences and context than what goes into “normal” text exchanges. For example: Roommate: “Why?” Robinson: “Why did I do it?” [Then goes into detailed explanation]. And it’s even more odd considering the circumstances. That is, Robinson is essentially on the run/hiding out. And he’s not just providing details about what he did; he’s going into his family history.

Fourth, the use of the term “my old man.” Who actually talks like that anymore? Referring to one’s dad as “my old man” is pretty much something that’s just done in the movies these days; not out in the real world, and certainly not a thing among the younger generations.

Fifth, referring to the roommate as “my love” and “love” at the end of sentences. Sounds very unnatural to begin with, but even more so in texts and among 20-somethings.

It all just comes across as a very weird, inauthentic-looking read.
 
Last edited:
Icky Mettle said:
This may sound very tinfoil hattish, but holy shit that text exchange looks totally made up; like a poorly written script. First of all, how did he know that law enforcement first got an old man and then interrogated someone wearing similar clothes?

Second, that’s A LOT of detailed information to be putting into that text exchange. Having such detailed texts seems weird to begin with (people don’t typically provide that kind of serial in text exchanges), but also seems weird considering it appears that for much of that text exchange he’s talking about how he is trying not to get caught. If he’s trying not to get caught, why he is so detailed with everything he did?

Third, it seems very unnatural and contrived and does not have the appearance of a “normal” text exchange. There’s a lot more detail and complete sentences and context than what goes into “normal” text exchanges. For example: Roommate: “Why?” Robinson: “Why did I do it?” [Then goes into detailed explanation]. And it’s even more odd considering the circumstances. That is, Robinson is essentially on the run/hiding out. And he’s not just providing details about what he did; he’s going into his family history.

Fourth, the use of the term “my old man.” Who actually talks like that anymore? Referring to one’s dad as “my old man” is pretty much something that’s just done in the movies these days; not out in the real world, and certainly not a thing among the younger generations.

Fifth, referring to the roommate as “my love” and “love” at the end of sentences. Sounds very unnatural to begin with, but even more so in texts and among 20-somethings.

It all just comes across as a very weird, unnatural-looking read.
Click to expand...
I agree. Which is why I asked about the legal meaning of the document. If it's full of lies, would anyone get in trouble?
 
A sampling of Charlie Kirk's lies.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com

Key word being sampling. His lies were so frequent that they are hard to count. Googling Charlie Kirk's lies pulls up a huge repository of information.
 
Icky Mettle said:
This may sound very tinfoil hattish, but holy shit that text exchange looks totally made up; like a poorly written script. First of all, how did he know that law enforcement first got an old man and then interrogated someone wearing similar clothes?

Second, that’s A LOT of detailed information to be putting into that text exchange. Having such detailed texts seems weird to begin with (people don’t typically provide that kind of serial in text exchanges), but also seems weird considering it appears that for much of that text exchange he’s talking about how he is trying not to get caught. If he’s trying not to get caught, why he is so detailed with everything he did?

Third, it seems very unnatural and contrived and does not have the appearance of a “normal” text exchange. There’s a lot more detail and complete sentences and context than what goes into “normal” text exchanges. For example: Roommate: “Why?” Robinson: “Why did I do it?” [Then goes into detailed explanation]. And it’s even more odd considering the circumstances. That is, Robinson is essentially on the run/hiding out. And he’s not just providing details about what he did; he’s going into his family history.

Fourth, the use of the term “my old man.” Who actually talks like that anymore? Referring to one’s dad as “my old man” is pretty much something that’s just done in the movies these days; not out in the real world, and certainly not a thing among the younger generations.

Fifth, referring to the roommate as “my love” and “love” at the end of sentences. Sounds very unnatural to begin with, but even more so in texts and among 20-somethings.

It all just comes across as a very weird, unnatural-looking read.
Click to expand...
Was a single emoji used in those texts?
 
Icky Mettle said:
This may sound very tinfoil hattish, but holy shit that text exchange looks totally made up; like a poorly written script. First of all, how did he know that law enforcement first got an old man and then interrogated someone wearing similar clothes?

Second, that’s A LOT of detailed information to be putting into that text exchange. Having such detailed texts seems weird to begin with (people don’t typically provide that kind of serial in text exchanges), but also seems weird considering it appears that for much of that text exchange he’s talking about how he is trying not to get caught. If he’s trying not to get caught, why he is so detailed with everything he did?

Third, it seems very unnatural and contrived and does not have the appearance of a “normal” text exchange. There’s a lot more detail and complete sentences and context than what goes into “normal” text exchanges. For example: Roommate: “Why?” Robinson: “Why did I do it?” [Then goes into detailed explanation]. And it’s even more odd considering the circumstances. That is, Robinson is essentially on the run/hiding out. And he’s not just providing details about what he did; he’s going into his family history.

Fourth, the use of the term “my old man.” Who actually talks like that anymore? Referring to one’s dad as “my old man” is pretty much something that’s just done in the movies these days; not out in the real world, and certainly not a thing among the younger generations.

Fifth, referring to the roommate as “my love” and “love” at the end of sentences. Sounds very unnatural to begin with, but even more so in texts and among 20-somethings.

It all just comes across as a very weird, unnatural-looking read.
Click to expand...
Very much my tinfoil impulse. Have the genZers done a thing with texting like they have with 90s fashion? Is it cool now to text and chat in full sentences, like wearing baggy cargos and chunky nike air max?
 
superrific said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what social epistemology has to do with anything. I'm simply saying that I do not think any words can be characterized as "violence." They can be abusive, they can be hurtful, they can be despicable, they can be vicious, but they are not the same thing as "violence." You cannot be convicted for assaulting someone with words. You can't kill someone with words. My point is not to say that speech can't be harmful or to excuse anything said by anybody, but I think it is dangerous to start equating words, of any kind, with violence, even if we recognize that words can have a profoundly negative effect on people.
 
hndrx222 said:
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.
Click to expand...
He’s on the left. That is an interesting article. His discord online group, that one at least, doesn’t seem to have “radicalized” Robinson.
 
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...
None of those statistics you posted remotely support the idea that there is an "assassination culture" on the left.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
You guys are gonna have to decide whether liberals are snowflake beta cucks or cold hard killing machines.
Click to expand...
"The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."
 
I'm hoping for one more plot twist. He volunteered for Trump 2016, he was a Catholic choir boy and donated money to Ted Cruz' campaign....
 
rodoheel said:
I'm not sure what social epistemology has to do with anything. I'm simply saying that I do not think any words can be characterized as "violence." They can be abusive, they can be hurtful, they can be despicable, they can be vicious, but they are not the same thing as "violence." You cannot be convicted for assaulting someone with words. You can't kill someone with words. My point is not to say that speech can't be harmful or to excuse anything said by anybody, but I think it is dangerous to start equating words, of any kind, with violence, even if we recognize that words can have a profoundly negative effect on people.
Click to expand...
You can be convicted of domestic violence from words alone. But regardless, law is just that -- law. It is not truth. That the law distinguishes between certain types of actions doesn't mean that distinction is philosophically defensible.

You are relying on a narrow definition of violence that makes your argument more or less circular. Here's how the World Health Organization defines violence: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." This definition has been widely adopted, including in American statutes.

Again, what is the meaningful distinction between punching someone in the face and calling him or her a slur, if you know they will be equally harmful? Why would you call one "violence" and other "not violence" unless you were establishing some sort of technicality.
 
One thing that has struck me about the MAGA framing of this has been the lengths they’ve gone to in order to claim the parents bear no responsibility. As a parent of a son about the same age, I think it would be wrong to immediately assign blame to parent for their (even young) adult kids, but the race to frame this as the great MAGA Mormon parents whose son went left and turned murderous leaves out something vital — who has been putting high powered firearms in his hands since childhood?

The gun culture angle has been completely eradicated from the conversation.

Now we know the claims that the shooter’s partner was trans came from the mom and the claim that her son’s politics shifted right also come from her, not from evidence from the shooter’s own communications.

Yes, in his own words he was focused on / driven by Kirk’s “hatred”. Why did this stranger’s hatred impact him so much to warp his perspective so totally? We may never really know. But that is characterized by his mom as leftist politics, when all the evidence seems to be that for the shooter this was about what he perceived as hatred of him and people like him for being gay. Is that really a leftist “political”motive or a personal emotional motive? Based on information we’ve seen today, it sounds like the latter and the shooter’s mom and law enforcement have transformed the personal/emotional to the directly political.

Being gay or straight or bi or transgender is not a political act — it’s mostly a matter of existence. There are quite a few openly gay men in high places in Trump 2.0 administration, for instance. There are innumerable right wing politicians who have been outed for seeking gay sex even as they publicly spout anti-gay political beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Today's Ezra Klein podcast opening is pretty good. He interviews Ben Shapiro afterward. I haven't gotten through that yet.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top