Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 12 2025 01:46 Jankisa wrote: In the meantime, WSJ is quoting Steven Crowder and "people familiar with the investigation" that the recovered bullets had "transgender and antifa" messages on them, other news agencies including Reuters are saying that it was too soon to draw conclusions.
This kind of messaging is likely to become more popular after Luigi, but it is also something that can be easily fabricated, and I would not put it past this administration to do so. Especially if they are overly generic and no manifestos are found, or the suspect dies.
Hey I wouldn’t rule it out, but is it too much to ask to hold off for something more official than Steven bloody Crowder saying he has inside info?
On September 12 2025 01:46 Jankisa wrote: In the meantime, WSJ is quoting Steven Crowder and "people familiar with the investigation" that the recovered bullets had "transgender and antifa" messages on them, other news agencies including Reuters are saying that it was too soon to draw conclusions.
Lmao, why would anyone ever believe this? If I'm going to assassinate a hatemongerer on behalf of some minority they're targeting, then putting a giant bullseye on that same minority is the absolute dumbest thing possible.
If it is good, old-fashioned terrorism, one kind of has to make the ‘why’ and what cause it was ostensibly in service to kinda known.
That wouldn’t be especially atypical, nor especially surprising to me anyway.
It's fascinating that you are willing to pretend that your memory of what you write from day to day is so bad that you cannot hold yourself accountable and are willing to lie about things that you need to click 2 pages back about.
I'm not even going to engage on your obtuse attempts to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify your shizo posting around here. You do you, buddy.
In the meantime, WSJ is quoting Steven Crowder and "people familiar with the investigation" that the recovered bullets had "transgender and antifa" messages on them, other news agencies including Reuters are saying that it was too soon to draw conclusions.
Based on the photos released by the FBI (which honestly could be yet another person that isn't the shooter based on their incompetence), I'm not getting big "left-wing lunatic" vibes.
Gonna see the conservative posters dip out for a few days if its another right wing freak shooter, lmao.
America's fallback is always domestic terrorism, that's basicly what "all the 2nd ammendment people" say what the need to have military grade guns for.
On September 11 2025 18:32 Gorsameth wrote: I was thinking about how how we got here and I couldn't help but think about this quote.
“By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
This is what I think of when people say Charlie Kirk got what he deserved, that Republicans paved the way for this to happen.
We might not want to live in this world, but the path of how we got here is very clearly lit.
That single quote about Clinton, no matter how you interpret it, didn't cause any assassination attempts on Clinton, because there weren't any.
Then it couldn't have paved the way for shooting a media figure who debates random people at university as a response or retribution, because it didn't happen. What it's a response to is 10 years of people calling their opponents Nazis and fascists, saying Nazis and fascists should be met with violence, and then half of them cowering hypocritically "oops we condemn violence actually" after it happens. And the other half enthusiastically celebrating still, as you can see, as people called Charlie Kirk, and still now continue to call him. Bringing up Clinton... that's incredible.
Or my favorite, that he deserved to get shot because he didn't believe in the magic pipe dream button that vacuums up 500 million guns and makes the USA the Garden of Eden, which the naive among gun control advocates are under the impression Republicans control but have secretly hidden away somewhere. Which is roughly analogous to saying someone who doesn't believe in banning cars, and thinks there will probably always be at least some amount of traffic deaths because there's no perfect world - it's analogous to saying therefore a random person is justified in specifically driving a tractor trailer into that guy's parked car and flattening him. Utter psychopathy on display from many, with exceptions like TYT. People who still want to finish the job from Butler, PA last July, can't accept that they don't get to kill Trump, and so celebrate "getting" somebody else as a kind of vicarious death of Trump because they're all just as bad anyway.
Charlie Kirk was a far-right Christian nationalist. Ideologically speaking that's only minimally removed from Nazis. Practically it's a distinction without a difference. If you argue that he was killed because people called him a Nazi, then I'll ask: who forced him to cosplay as basically a Nazi?
Assuming he was killed because of his political activism (which we don't know yet), then he was killed because he was closely aligned with Nazism, not because he was called a Nazi.
Actually I agree with Legan. Why stop at the truth when you can add some truthiness. He was a meth dealing far-right Christian nationalist.
On September 11 2025 18:32 Gorsameth wrote: I was thinking about how how we got here and I couldn't help but think about this quote.
“By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
This is what I think of when people say Charlie Kirk got what he deserved, that Republicans paved the way for this to happen.
We might not want to live in this world, but the path of how we got here is very clearly lit.
That single quote about Clinton, no matter how you interpret it, didn't cause any assassination attempts on Clinton, because there weren't any.
Then it couldn't have paved the way for shooting a media figure who debates random people at university as a response or retribution, because it didn't happen. What it's a response to is 10 years of people calling their opponents Nazis and fascists, saying Nazis and fascists should be met with violence, and then half of them cowering hypocritically "oops we condemn violence actually" after it happens. And the other half enthusiastically celebrating still, as you can see, as people called Charlie Kirk, and still now continue to call him. Bringing up Clinton... that's incredible.
Or my favorite, that he deserved to get shot because he didn't believe in the magic pipe dream button that vacuums up 500 million guns and makes the USA the Garden of Eden, which the naive among gun control advocates are under the impression Republicans control but have secretly hidden away somewhere. Which is roughly analogous to saying someone who doesn't believe in banning cars, and thinks there will probably always be at least some amount of traffic deaths because there's no perfect world - it's analogous to saying therefore a random person is justified in specifically driving a tractor trailer into that guy's parked car and flattening him. Utter psychopathy on display from many, with exceptions like TYT. People who still want to finish the job from Butler, PA last July, can't accept that they don't get to kill Trump, and so celebrate "getting" somebody else as a kind of vicarious death of Trump because they're all just as bad anyway.
Charlie Kirk was a far-right Christian nationalist. Ideologically speaking that's only minimally removed from Nazis. Practically it's a distinction without a difference. If you argue that he was killed because people called him a Nazi, then I'll ask: who forced him to cosplay as basically a Nazi?
Assuming he was killed because of his political activism (which we don't know yet), then he was killed because he was closely aligned with Nazism, not because he was called a Nazi.
Actually I agree with Legan. Why stop at the truth when you can add some truthiness. He was a meth dealing far-right Christian nationalist.
Only one very skilled in deception could have passed the barriers and hurdles that prevent anyone but a True Conservative from obtaining a shirt like that. So the person of interest is either obviously a conservative, or they're a hitherto unseen legendary force of spy genius.
Not to mention I almost overlooked, like the shirt of Nessus, if any Herculean extremist on the left were to put on a garment like that, it would soon dissolve them. You couldn't wear it without some kind of protection.
Or it's anyone with $20 who thinks "Duh, I need to blend in here," and realistically the only thing that picture reveals at all is someone needs to identify the shirt and subpoena the records of who it was sold to.
It's fascinating that you are willing to pretend that your memory of what you write from day to day is so bad that you cannot hold yourself accountable and are willing to lie about things that you need to click 2 pages back about.
I'm not even going to engage on your obtuse attempts to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify your shizo posting around here. You do you, buddy.
In the meantime, WSJ is quoting Steven Crowder and "people familiar with the investigation" that the recovered bullets had "transgender and antifa" messages on them, other news agencies including Reuters are saying that it was too soon to draw conclusions.
Based on the photos released by the FBI (which honestly could be yet another person that isn't the shooter based on their incompetence), I'm not getting big "left-wing lunatic" vibes.
It's fascinating that you are willing to pretend that your memory of what you write from day to day is so bad that you cannot hold yourself accountable and are willing to lie about things that you need to click 2 pages back about.
I'm not even going to engage on your obtuse attempts to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify your shizo posting around here. You do you, buddy.
In the meantime, WSJ is quoting Steven Crowder and "people familiar with the investigation" that the recovered bullets had "transgender and antifa" messages on them, other news agencies including Reuters are saying that it was too soon to draw conclusions.
Based on the photos released by the FBI (which honestly could be yet another person that isn't the shooter based on their incompetence), I'm not getting big "left-wing lunatic" vibes.
Well, despite WSJ and others picking it up and stating it as a matter of fact, seems like this was redacted:
According to a preliminary internal report circulated inside the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, federal and local officials recovered ammunition with the shooter's rifle that appeared to be engraved with statements "expressing transgender and anti-fascist ideology." But a senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation cautioned that report had not been verified by A.T.F. analysts, did not match other summaries of the evidence, and might turn out to have been misread or misinterpreted.l In fast-moving investigations, such status reports are not made public because they often contain a mixture of accurate and inaccurate information.
I know that my country's biggest portal took it and run with the "Transgender and antifa" headline, I'm sure many others did.
Regardless of what comes out as truth later, it's so fucking irresponsible to do this, but in 2025 WSJ will get sued over publishing legitimate letters from Trump and probably settle and no one will even bat an eye over this.
Either side trying to salvage the event politically is bad. What‘s required is less polarization, not more.
It‘s not good for anyone if deadly violence gets normalized more than it already has been. It‘s something that stokes fear and pushes people to the right.
From a BBC snippet about misinformation surrounding this:
There were also attempts to pass off old footage as related to the killing, like that of US comedian Sam Hyde, whose images holding a gun regularly get shared in the aftermath of violent incidents
On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote: Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder. He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor.
This type of thinking is so dumb. To think murdering someone for voicing his opinions is doing humanity a favor is so backwards, I don't know where to even start.
You have lost the entire point of what humanity is. If this guy was truly a threat to you and your ideology so much, you should take a hard look as to why he was connecting with so many people and question your own ideology. Taking an intellectual debate to the level of violence is an intellectually cowardly way of debating and everyone loses in that scenario. You can have your opinions but imo you are despicable for having those beliefs. You've let group think and tribalism ruin a beautiful part of your humanity and I hope you get it back some day.
Charlie Kirk was a partisan political commentator, political fund raiser, and political influencer. He was a family man and most people described him as a very nice guy. He had strong opinions and even though I'm on the complete opposite side of him, I respected his courage to put himself and his beliefs out there.
No person deserves to be killed for speech. No one.
Say what you want about his beliefs and opinions but if you're cheering this murder, you're a disgusting human being who completely misses the point of humanity.
On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote: Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder. He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor.
This type of thinking is so dumb. To think murdering someone for voicing his opinions is doing humanity a favor is so backwards, I don't know where to even start.
You have lost the entire point of what humanity is. If this guy was truly a threat to you and your ideology so much, you should take a hard look as to why he was connecting with so many people and question your own ideology. Taking an intellectual debate to the level of violence is an intellectually cowardly way of debating and everyone loses in that scenario. You can have your opinions but imo you are despicable for having those beliefs. You've let group think and tribalism ruin a beautiful part of your humanity and I hope you get it back some day.
Charlie Kirk was a partisan political commentator, political fund raiser, and political influencer. He was a family man and most people described him as a very nice guy. He had strong opinions and even though I'm on the complete opposite side of him, I respected his courage to put himself and his beliefs out there.
No person deserves to be killed for speech. No one.
Say what you want about his beliefs and opinions but if you're cheering this murder, you're a disgusting human being who completely misses the point of humanity.
On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote: Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder. He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor.
This type of thinking is so dumb. To think murdering someone for voicing his opinions is doing humanity a favor is so backwards, I don't know where to even start.
You have lost the entire point of what humanity is. If this guy was truly a threat to you and your ideology so much, you should take a hard look as to why he was connecting with so many people and question your own ideology. Taking an intellectual debate to the level of violence is an intellectually cowardly way of debating and everyone loses in that scenario. You can have your opinions but imo you are despicable for having those beliefs. You've let group think and tribalism ruin a beautiful part of your humanity and I hope you get it back some day.
Charlie Kirk was a partisan political commentator, political fund raiser, and political influencer. He was a family man and most people described him as a very nice guy. He had strong opinions and even though I'm on the complete opposite side of him, I respected his courage to put himself and his beliefs out there.
No person deserves to be killed for speech. No one.
Say what you want about his beliefs and opinions but if you're cheering this murder, you're a disgusting human being who completely misses the point of humanity.
Kirk wanted me stoned to death for being queer. He didn't get what he deserved, but he certainly got what he thought other people deserved.
Lots of villains are described by their friends as nice guys. That can’t be the bar. The bar should include not devoting your life to spreading misinformation and fear against the most vulnerable people in society. The bar should include not dehumanizing people. He doesn’t pass the bar. He was an openly racist openly sexist demagogue who contributed nothing but hate.
He devoted his life to making America a worse place, a more hateful place, a place in which the other was the enemy to be feared and destroyed. He was killed by the monster he worked tirelessly to create. Ideally nobody would be killed, ideally we wouldn’t live in an America in which Americans are the enemy. But he took that from us.
On September 12 2025 05:50 KwarK wrote: Lots of villains are described by their friends as nice guys. That can’t be the bar. The bar should include not devoting your life to spreading misinformation and fear against the most vulnerable people in society. The bar should include not dehumanizing people. He doesn’t pass the bar. He was an openly racist openly sexist demagogue who contributed nothing but hate.
He devoted his life to making America a worse place, a more hateful place, a place in which the other was the enemy to be feared and destroyed. He was killed by the monster he worked tirelessly to create. Ideally nobody would be killed, ideally we wouldn’t live in an America in which Americans are the enemy. But he took that from us.
I couldn't disagree with this take more. And again, I don't agree with him politically or ideologically. But anyways, I honestly am not here to get into an internet debate with people, so I'll leave after this message. I said my piece.
Last thing though. I would like to point out that while you say the bar should include not dehumanizing people, you are actively dehumanizing people.
On September 12 2025 05:50 KwarK wrote: Lots of villains are described by their friends as nice guys. That can’t be the bar. The bar should include not devoting your life to spreading misinformation and fear against the most vulnerable people in society. The bar should include not dehumanizing people. He doesn’t pass the bar. He was an openly racist openly sexist demagogue who contributed nothing but hate.
He devoted his life to making America a worse place, a more hateful place, a place in which the other was the enemy to be feared and destroyed. He was killed by the monster he worked tirelessly to create. Ideally nobody would be killed, ideally we wouldn’t live in an America in which Americans are the enemy. But he took that from us.
I couldn't disagree with this take more. And again, I don't agree with him politically or ideologically. But anyways, I honestly am not here to get into an internet debate with people, so I'll leave after this message. I said my piece.
Last thing though. I would like to point out that while you say the bar should include not dehumanizing people, you are actively dehumanizing people.
Take care.
I didn’t call him an animal or a monster or vermin or any of the phrases he likes to use for others. He wasn’t Frankenstein’s monster, he was Frankenstein. Things are only going to get worse, the monster is only going to grow, and a lot more people are going to die. Most of them won’t deserve it.
Trump was out at a 9/11 memorial and his face was extremely droopy on only his right side. I'm not diagnosing him with a stroke but that looks a lot like a stroke victim.
Do we want to take bets on any media taking speculation on his health after that?
EPT
