|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 12 2025 00:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +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. Ok sure, but have you considered that Biden started all of this? And who was it that forced Charlie to be a such an extremely random moderate? Perhaps it's time for ya'll to read a few right-of-center publications to escape your left-wing echo chamber here. I say if we let Trump break every conceivable law, he'll eventually tone down the criminality.
It's not a question of being on the right or the left for me. It's a question of intellectual honesty versus intellectual dishonesty. I don't really have love for any of the mainstream politicians... but I reserve a special circle of hell for people who claim to be educating others on how to think critically and correctly, but are actually just using that as a veneer to make a ton of money by cashing in on groupthink and tribalism.
Krystal Ball and Ben Shapiro are equally ugly human beings in my view.
|
Northern Ireland27096 Posts
I feel some decorum is absolutely in order, as Charlie Kirk himself demonstrated after Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked
Snark aside, I do mean that. Things just seem to be ever-escalating and I don’t like where that road leads.
Now the UK is no perfect place, far from it, but I’m really struck at the difference in the wake of political assassinations in our neck of the woods in Jo Cox and David Amess (Labour and Conservative respectively) and what one observes with increasing frequency in the States.
|
|
|
On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't think he was a threat to my ideology at all. I think he was an ugly human that made society worse by claiming to be an advocate for truth and actively denying legitimate chances at self-reflection so he could continue to capitalize on escalating a culture war.
There's not really a logical way to say, "Well look at yourself!" because I regularly examine my own beliefs and don't make a crap ton of money enflaming a culture war. It's a pedestrian comparison.
The only thing you know about me is that I'm glad he died. Everything else is conjecture. I suppose I could try and feel shame for being happy someone is dead... but I don't think that's necessary or right in this case.
|
Northern Ireland27096 Posts
On September 12 2025 06:37 ThunderJunk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 00:46 Magic Powers wrote: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. Ok sure, but have you considered that Biden started all of this? And who was it that forced Charlie to be a such an extremely random moderate? Perhaps it's time for ya'll to read a few right-of-center publications to escape your left-wing echo chamber here. I say if we let Trump break every conceivable law, he'll eventually tone down the criminality. It's not a question of being on the right or the left for me. It's a question of intellectual honesty versus intellectual dishonesty. I don't really have love for any of the mainstream politicians... but I reserve a special circle of hell for people who claim to be educating others on how to think critically and correctly, but are actually just using that as a veneer to make a ton of money by cashing in on groupthink and tribalism. Krystal Ball and Ben Shapiro are equally ugly human beings in my view.
That pretty much is it. How many of these political commentators/‘influencers’ start playing a rather different tune when they strike it big and don’t want to offend and potentially lose some of their audience, or when they get proximity to those in actual power?
It’s the stench of the grift that most offends. Of U-turns, of utter bullshit, of complaining about the standards of the ‘mainstream media’ while playing so fast and loose with journalistic ethics that you’d be fired from the local paper of Bumtown, pop. 40.
I’m sure leftist equivalents do this just as much incidentally, I don’t really keep tabs as I don’t really need that content to inform my worldview, but do dip into the right sphere just to see what they’re saying.
|
United States10499 Posts
On September 12 2025 03:52 Vivax wrote:
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.
Think we're well past that when the other side was cracking jokes about Paul Pelosi getting his head bashed in and not a peep about Melissa Hortman getting assassinated. Trump didn't even pick up the phone to call Waltz after the shootings in Minnesota.
|
On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Would you say the same thing about Alex Jones? And if not what’s the difference?
To be clear, i am not a partisan of assassinations, ever. Just, that guy was an absolute and utter piece of shit, and while i think the escalation in political violence upsets there benefits of not having him absolutely poison people’s minds, I’m really not going to shed a tear for him.
What is it that he said, that “it was worth it for people to die so that we could have the second amendment”?
As Mark Twain once said, “I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure”.
|
|
|
On September 12 2025 06:06 G5 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wait, being a nice guy is all it takes for you? Lmao, you'd have been defending ol Uncle Adolf then. Plenty of people reported than Hitler was very nice to them as children, is that enough good in the world for you? Does that out weight the unholy genocidal societal damage that Hitler facilitated?
Or do you just disagree that Charlie Kirk was causing any societal damage?
|
Yet another example of "this is supposed to be satire but it's also reality". Sigh.
|
On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's hard to argue with people who think that Charlie Kirk has lost his humanity and has brought many thousands if not millions of other people much closer to losing their humanity as well. You know, at some point you have to ask yourself whether free speech is really this holy relic that should be worshipped until everything breaks. Should it, really?
There's a reason why speech is not actually free. Not even in the free land of the free, the most freedom loving of all the free countries in the history of freedom. This idea that speech can't destroy a nation is, well... I'd call it naive at best.
I won't say Kirk's death was justified. But it's hard to argue that he didn't have some really bad shit coming his way. It shouldn't have been death, but something had to happen. The guy was on a quest to destroy America.
|
United States44170 Posts
On September 12 2025 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote: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. Would you say the same thing about Alex Jones? And if not what’s the difference? To be clear, i am not a partisan of assassinations, ever. Just, that guy was an absolute and utter piece of shit, and while i think the escalation in political violence upsets there benefits of not having him absolutely poison people’s minds, I’m really not going to shed a tear for him. What is it that he said, that “it was worth it for people to die so that we could have the second amendment”? As Mark Twain once said, “I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure”.
For some reason people excuse pushing for institutional violence against political opponents as not political violence. If you shoot one man then you're a terrorist but if you encourage the national guard to forcibly disperse a crowd of leaderless pacifist students milling around at Kent State then you're doing your job. Once you clothe it in uniform then it becomes fine.
The idea that everything other than pulling the trigger is just words is baffling. Zambrah used the classic example of Hitler who, as far as I know, never killed anyone. And the people who did the killing generally argued that it was all legal under German law at the time.
On a playground words are just words. Someone can call you names and you shouldn't beat the shit out of them. The world outside the playground isn't so simple and G5's "it's just words" absolutism is inapplicable to the complexity of the real political environment.
A populist demanding that we clean up the streets and clear the homeless camps is speech. The police showing up with dogs and forcing the homeless into a group at gunpoint while the sanitation department throws everything they own into bin lorries is violence. Especially when they’re subsequently locked up for not being able to produce documents that were forcibly taken from them by the state. Criminalizing the existence of out groups is violence.
|
One thing I think people don't focus on enough is how populist movements heavily rely on stoking existential fear in order to unlock the full power of populism. The right has managed their population's fear much more effectively than the left. As I touched on before, I think many people on the left don't understand how different it is to fear a group rather than feel condescension towards a group.
When a group (the left) views an opposing group (the right) with condescension, they view the opposing group negatively.
When a group (the right) views an opposing group (the left) with genuine existential fear, they view the opposing group negatively.
These are very different "types" of negative. They also can be weaponized very differently. The reason even a unified EU is a second thought on any national power stage is their population doesn't, on average, feel genuine fear of rivals. The risks, costs, and sacrifice the average EU citizen is willing to commit to fighting their rivals is very low because of that. If you aren't scared of something, or don't think anyone will go wrong, why prepare for the event of something going wrong? In short, Europe doesn't actually think anything bad will happen.
Similarly, a lot of people on the left don't really think anything super terrible will happen even if Trump had a 3rd term or something. Many don't genuinely think "actual" nazi shit will happen.
Now stick with me a moment and do this mental exercise: Imagine what most right wingers said would happen if Harris was elected. Now imagine her serving 2 terms. What is the state of the nation at the end of those 8 years, in their eyes? Assume their assessment/fears are accurate and they would happen. After 8 years, the country they once loved would essentially be lost to history, right? The fundamental character of the nation, the country they love, would no longer exist, right?
What would *YOU* do to prevent the country from imploding into a condition as bad as that? You'd do a lot more than you are willing to do right now.
These populations are not actually cohesive in this way. Its more of a normal distribution and its just a matter of where that normal distribution is centered. Is it centered closer or further from "absolute fear"? If it is centered closer to absolute fear, statistically speaking, more of those people will commit acts of political violence. If it is centered further away from absolute fear, less of those people will commit acts of political violence. Its the same reason Russia's population is willing to sacrifice more than Europe's population is. They believe all the "evil imperialist NATO" stuff.
This whole situation has been interesting to me because it has highlighted how a political/national leadership has a core responsibility to maintain a certain level of fear to preserve their group's influence and identity.
|
www.theguardian.com
Judge allows Trump to cut more than $1bn in National Science Foundation grants
Well, I guess the DoW rebrand money has been found. Clearly a much better use for it.
|
On September 12 2025 07:44 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote: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. It's hard to argue with people who think that Charlie Kirk has lost his humanity and has brought many thousands if not millions of other people much closer to losing their humanity as well. You know, at some point you have to ask yourself whether free speech is really this holy relic that should be worshipped until everything breaks. Should it, really? There's a reason why speech is not actually free. Not even in the free land of the free, the most freedom loving of all the free countries in the history of freedom. This idea that speech can't destroy a nation is, well... I'd call it naive at best. I won't say Kirk's death was justified. But it's hard to argue that he didn't have some really bad shit coming his way. It shouldn't have been death, but something had to happen. The guy was on a quest to destroy America.
See free speech actually should be free. If you think otherwise you are just misguided. Why would you be against it? What happened to Kirk is very result of believing that he shouldn't be allowed to say what he was saying. Mind I dont think anyone should be banned for expressing their opinion on this murder. I am actually glad that given opportunity to show their true colours, people will do just that.
You see I used to like you. I did considered your ideas idiotic, but overall it seemed like they were coming from the good place. Now I see there never was a good place.
As for everyone else cheering for this murder: line which shouldn't have been crossed was crossed, enjoy and bear the consequences. Might be worth to remember that right wing people actually went to capitol on January 6, didnt limit themselves to posting mean posts on internet.
|
On September 12 2025 10:38 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 07:44 Magic Powers wrote:On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote: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. It's hard to argue with people who think that Charlie Kirk has lost his humanity and has brought many thousands if not millions of other people much closer to losing their humanity as well. You know, at some point you have to ask yourself whether free speech is really this holy relic that should be worshipped until everything breaks. Should it, really? There's a reason why speech is not actually free. Not even in the free land of the free, the most freedom loving of all the free countries in the history of freedom. This idea that speech can't destroy a nation is, well... I'd call it naive at best. I won't say Kirk's death was justified. But it's hard to argue that he didn't have some really bad shit coming his way. It shouldn't have been death, but something had to happen. The guy was on a quest to destroy America. See free speech actually should be free. If you think otherwise you are just misguided. Why would you be against it? What happened to Kirk is very result of believing that he shouldn't be allowed to say what he was saying. Mind I dont think anyone should be banned for expressing their opinion on this murder. I am actually glad that given opportunity to show their true colours, people will do just that. You see I used to like you. I did considered your ideas idiotic, but overall it seemed like they were coming from the good place. Now I see there never was a good place. As for everyone else cheering for this murder: line which shouldn't have been crossed was crossed, enjoy and bear the consequences. Might be worth to remember that right wing people actually went to capitol on January 6, didnt limit themselves to posting mean posts on internet.
Right. We should all aspire to be rioters and storm every building that we have a grievance against.
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences. This was a consequence of that. Tough titties.
|
On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences..
It is exactly what it means. Otherwise you can argue Hitler as a champion of free speech. Of course you could go and say he is an idiot. You would have to face a consequences, but you were free to say it.
|
On September 12 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences.. It is exactly what it means. Otherwise you can argue Hitler as a champion of free speech. Of course you could go and say he is an idiot. You would have to face a consequences, but you were free to say it.
And I'm finished with this conversation. You know nothing Jon Snow.
|
On September 12 2025 10:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences.. It is exactly what it means. Otherwise you can argue Hitler as a champion of free speech. Of course you could go and say he is an idiot. You would have to face a consequences, but you were free to say it. And I'm finished with this conversation. You know nothing Jon Snow.
Oh my, you watched tv show, holly erudite (R.R. Martin is a twat, for not finishing the series).
You seem to forgot the "north remembers" part.
|
On September 12 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences.. It is exactly what it means. Otherwise you can argue Hitler as a champion of free speech. Of course you could go and say he is an idiot. You would have to face a consequences, but you were free to say it.
If I think you're a moron for this post, does that mean I've violated your free speech?
(I don't think you're a moron, just pointing out that 'free speech' very obviously does not mean 'freedom from consequence')
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
