The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 67K
  • Politics 
sounds like to me the kid was dick whipped in love and hated charlie kirk and murdered him. all this ai stuff should frighten the beejesus out of anyone who thinks life has meaning

the only thing im 100% certain of is that charlie kirk is dead.....or is he
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Below is the AI synopsis from a Google search “characteristics of authoritarian governments.” If you don’t think Trump and friends are playing most of these tunes or clearly trying to, well, let’s just agree to disagree and be thankful for what has been, IMO, a very civil, good-faith discussion.



An authoritarian government is a political system characterized by the consolidation of power in the hands of a single leader, a small group, or a ruling party
. Unlike democratic systems, authoritarian regimes do not allow for free and fair elections, extensive political pluralism, or robust protection of civil liberties. The stability of these regimes is often maintained through political repression, control over information, and limited political participation.
Concentration of power
  • Centralized authority: Power is concentrated in the executive branch and is not held accountable by the people it governs.
  • Weak checks and balances: Authoritarian governments often weaken or eliminate independent institutions like legislatures, courts, and election administration bodies to remove any limits on executive power.
  • Indefinite political tenure: Rulers or ruling parties in authoritarian systems have no term limits, allowing them to remain in power indefinitely.
Control of information and dissent
  • Limited political pluralism: The government suppresses or controls political opposition by restricting rival parties, interest groups, and political dissent.
  • Controlled media and propaganda: State-controlled media is used to spread propaganda and disinformation, while independent media is suppressed through censorship, legal harassment, or control by government allies.
  • Quashing dissent: Authoritarian regimes actively suppress free speech, peaceful assembly, and protest. Dissidents and activists are often harassed, imprisoned, or face other consequences.
  • Political violence: These regimes may tolerate or actively encourage political violence to intimidate and silence opponents and maintain power.
Control over elections
  • Corrupt and unfair elections:Authoritarian systems often hold elections to create a facade of democratic rule, but the process is heavily manipulated to favor the incumbent. Tactics include suppressing votes, biasing rules, and manipulating results.
  • Limited participation: Political participation is minimal and is often manufactured through state-sponsored rallies to consolidate in-group identity and support.
Legal and social controls
  • Weak rule of law: The government adheres to "rule by law," using the legal system as a tool to advance its interests, rather than the "rule of law," which holds that all are subject to the same legal code.
  • Abuse of state power: The power of the state is misused to advance the personal or partisan desires of the ruling elite. This includes persecuting political opponents and funneling resources to loyalists.
  • Scapegoating: Minority groups, immigrants, and "outsiders" are often blamed for a country's problems to exploit national insecurities and rally support.
  • Stifling civil society: A wide range of social controls are used to suppress civil society, including restrictions on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other forms of collective action.
Click to expand...
He checks all of the boxes...
 
rodoheel said:
Folks this is why the internet is bad for trying to react to events as they happen. There's so much information flying around and it's very difficult to know what is true, what's rumor, what' s guessing, etc. Instead of trying to settle the argument about whose "side" this guy on (it may well end up being nobody's side) everyone would be better served by letting this thing play out, which could take a long time.
Click to expand...
yeah and it's looking more and more like he wasn't on anyone's "side." if there were any evidence of concrete leftist ideology it would've been plastered all over the news for days. being gay or bi doesn't count as leftist ideology no matter how hard the right tries to paint it so. the best/only thing that they've come up with is that he didn't like kirk's "hate" which is assuredly the homophobia.

so, we have a kid who was raised in a right wing, mormon, gun-loving family who is also steeped in toxic, nihilistic, terminally online culture who gets into a same sex relationship and loses it and kills someone who he thinks is propagating homophobia to the masses.
 
aGDevil2k said:
Why are we still on 160+ pages of this?

The actual politicians and good people who were murdered in Minnesota didn't get this much commentary. And they were good humans
Click to expand...
yeah, i keep thinking about hortman and her husband and dog and the other guy and his wife who survived. 4 victims, 2 dead, very dramatic crime although not on video in front of a literal audience....

the entire situation was out of the news in 3 days. i don't wanna hear another damn word about how ThE LiBrUL mEdiA rUnS eVeRyThInG.
 
aGDevil2k said:
Why are we still on 160+ pages of this?

The actual politicians and good people who were murdered in Minnesota didn't get this much commentary. And they were good humans
Click to expand...
I understand your point but (1) this is a nationally more famous person, and (2) when the Minnesota speaker was shot the presidential administration didn't immediately start talking loudly and openly about a repressive crackdown against its political opponents, which is now the biggest element of the story, IMO.
 
aGDevil2k said:
Why are we still on 160+ pages of this?

The actual politicians and good people who were murdered in Minnesota didn't get this much commentary. And they were good humans
Click to expand...
I tried to turn it into a conversation about Geraldo's lack of knowledge on the deep lore to the Halo universe, but nobody bit on it...
 
No chance the FBI made this up for this slam dunk case.

It is possible that it was scripted between the two in order to protect the boyfriend from his having prior knowledge of the assassination. They wrote the texts in a highly stylized, formal manner because they knew the cops would eat it up since it was in their "language."

This will not help the 20 or so people who allegedly were in chat groups discussing the event days before the 10th.
 
4thgenheel said:
yeah and it's looking more and more like he wasn't on anyone's "side." if there were any evidence of concrete leftist ideology it would've been plastered all over the news for days. being gay or bi doesn't count as leftist ideology no matter how hard the right tries to paint it so. the best/only thing that they've come up with is that he didn't like kirk's "hate" which is assuredly the homophobia.

so, we have a kid who was raised in a right wing, mormon, gun-loving family who is also steeped in toxic, nihilistic, terminally online culture who gets into a same sex relationship and loses it and kills someone who he thinks is propagating homophobia to the masses.
Click to expand...
It seems unlikely that a highly religious kid would kill a highly religious podcaster on a topic that they should agree on.

What does seem likely is that a kid who was raised hyper-religious, but clearly had inclinations that went against his religious teachings, would rebel against his family's religion, politics and join the other side.
 
ZenMode said:
It seems unlikely that a highly religious kid would kill a highly religious podcaster on a topic that they should agree on.

What does seem likely is that a kid who was raised hyper-religious, but clearly had inclinations that went against his religious teachings, would rebel against his family's religion, politics and join the other side.
Click to expand...
and yet there's no evidence of it. at this point they've got everything that this dude ever wrote or searched on any device he ever owned in their possession and not a shred of evidence of some big leftist conversion or leftist ideology.

and tons of highly religious people are not homophobic. tons of highly religious people absolutely do not agree with homophobia. the fuck?
 

accesswdun.com

Social media has us in its grip and won't let go. The Charlie Kirk killing is a case study

Social media has us in its grip and won’t let go. The Charlie Kirk killing is a case studyBy DAVID BAUDERAP Media WriterThe Associated PressCharlie Kirk’s mastery of social media was key to him becoming a force in conservative politics. The extent to which Kirk’s killing and its aftermath have […]
accesswdun.com accesswdun.com

Social media has us in its grip and won’t let go. The Charlie Kirk killing is a case study By DAVID BAUDER​

Kirk's mastery of social media was key to him becoming a force in conservative politics. The extent to which Kirk's killing and its aftermath have played out on those forums shouldn't come as a surprise. Links to videos of Kirk being shot flooded social media platforms like X, TikTok and Instagram before his death was even announced. Since then, social media has become the town square for increasingly strident debate and the forum for which conservatives have sought to punish people they feel aren't offering Kirk the proper respect. Divisive posts and conspiracy theories are pushed forward through algorithms on social media sites, since they drive interest to advertisers.

Charlie Kirk's mastery of social media was key to his rise as an influence in conservative politics. So the extent to which his death and its aftermath have played out on those forums shouldn't come as a surprise.

In a microcosm of life today, social media is where Americans have gone to process last week's killing in Utah and is the chief tool his supporters are using to police those they feel aren't offering proper respect. Investigators are probing the time the man accused of killing Kirk, Tyler Robinson, spent in the “dark corners of the internet” — anti-social media, if you will — leading up to when he allegedly pulled the trigger.

On the other side of the world, as the Kirk story preoccupied Americans, Nepal reeled from a spasm of violence that erupted when the government tried to ban social media platforms.

All of this is forcing a closer look at the technologies that have changed our lives, how they control what we see and understand through algorithms, and the way all the time we spend on them affects our view of the world.

Cox emerges as powerful spokesman against social media

Utah's governor, Republican Spencer Cox, believes “cancer” isn’t a strong enough word to describe social media. “The most powerful companies in the history of the world have figured out how to hack our brains, get us addicted to outrage ... and get us to hate each other,” Cox said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, urged Americans via social media to “pull yourself together, read a book, get some exercise, have a whiskey, walk the dog or make some pasta or go fishing or just do anything other than let this algo pickle your brain and ruin your soul.”

Chilling videos of Kirk's Sept. 10 assassination immediately overwhelmed sites like X, TikTok and YouTube, and companies are still working to contain their spread. Confrontational material and conspiracy theories are pushed into social media feeds because they do precisely what they're designed to do — keep people on the platforms for longer periods of time.

“I do think we’re in a moment here,” said Laura Edelson, a Northeastern University professor and expert on social media algorithms. “Our country is being digitally mediated. Where we interact with other people, how we interact with broader society, that is more and more happening over feed algorithms. This is the most recent in a long line of ways that society has been changed by media technology.”

Divisive content and the proliferation of the video of Kirk's death may not have been the goal but are the direct result of decisions made to maximize profits and cut back on content moderation, Edelson said.

“I don't think there are people twirling their mustaches saying how great it is that we've divided society, except the Russian troll farms and, more and more, the Chinese troll farms,” she said.

X owner Elon Musk posted on his site this past week that while discourse can become negative, “it's still good there is a discussion going.” President Donald Trump, who created his own social platform, was asked about Cox's comments Tuesday before leaving for a trip to the United Kingdom. He said that while social media can create “deep, dark holes that are cancerous,” it wasn't all bad.

“Well, it’s not a cancer in all respects," he told reporters. “In some respects, it is great.”

Conservative media star Ben Shapiro, who considered Kirk a friend, admired how Kirk was willing to go to different places and talk to people who disagreed with him, a practice all too rare in the social media era.

“How social media works is a disaster area, fully a disaster area,” Shapiro said in an interview with Bari Weiss on a Free Press podcast. “There's no question it's making the world a worse place — and that's not a call for censorship.”

How people act on social media is a bipartisan problem, said Shapiro. The most pervasive one is people who use the third-person plural — “they” are doing something to “us," he said. That's been the case when many people discuss Kirk's death, although the shooter's motives haven't become clear and there's no evidence his actions are anything other than his own.

The liberal MeidasTouch media company has collected inflammatory social posts by conservatives, particularly those who suggest they're at “war.” Meanwhile, several conservatives have combed social media for posts they consider negative toward Kirk, in some cases seeking to get people fired. The Libs of TikTok site urged that a Washington state school district be defunded because it refused to lower flags to half staff.

GOP Rep. Randy Fine of Florida asked people to point out negative Kirk posts from anyone who works in government, at a place that receives public funding or is licensed by government — a teacher or lawyer, for instance. “These monsters want a fight?” he wrote on X. “Congratulations, they got one.”

A Washington Post columnist, Karen Attiah, wrote Monday that she was fired for a series of Bluesky posts that expressed little sympathy for Kirk. But she wrote on Substack that “not performing over-the-top grief for white men who espouse violence was not the same as endorsing violence against them.” A Post spokeswoman declined to comment.

So much of what people use to talk about politics — algorithmically driven social media sites and cable television — is designed to pull Americans apart, said James Talarico, a Democratic state lawmaker in Texas who recently announced a bid for the U.S. Senate. “We've got to find our way back to each other because that's the only way we can continue this American experiment,” he said on MSNBC.

Among the most persistent examples of those divisions are the lies and misinformation about elections that have spread for years through online social channels. They have undermined faith in one of the country's bedrock institutions and contributed to the rage that led Trump supporters to violently storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Whether meaningful change is possible remains an open question. Nepal's unrest illustrated the dangers of government involvement: Social media sites were shut down and users protested, suggesting it had been a way to stop criticism of government. Police opened fire at one demonstration, killing 19 people.

Persuading social media sites to change their algorithms is also an uphill battle. They live off attention and people spending as much time as possible on them. Unless advertisers flee for fear of being associated with violent posts, there's little incentive for them to change, said Jasmine Enberg, a social media analyst at Emarketer.

Young people in particular are becoming aware of the dangers of spending too much time on social media, she said.

But turn their phones off? “The reality of the situation," Enberg said, “is that there's a limit to how much they can limit their behavior.”
 
4thgenheel said:
and yet there's no evidence of it. at this point they've got everything that this dude ever wrote or searched on any device he ever owned in their possession and not a shred of evidence of some big leftist conversion or leftist ideology.

and tons of highly religious people are not homophobic. tons of highly religious people absolutely do not agree with homophobia. the fuck?
Click to expand...
Given that he has never voted, or even registered to vote, it doesn't sound like he was very political, but not being political isn't the same as saying his beliefs don't align with Liberals/Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top