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 the Tech Oligarchs all being at Trump's inauguration wasn't enough of a hint that social media and tech is now fully in bed with the Trump regime the TikTok messages glazing Trump should have been.
We often talk about Russian propaganda, but American propaganda machine exists and you better believe that these ghouls jumped and started directing it as soon as humanly possible.
And all of these countries with huge investments in their technological abilities to influence masses are all now very closely aligned to making minorities, sexual, religious and ethnic as well as "the left" whatever that means the enemy. China, India, Russia, Israel and US all have right wing leadership and they are actively working on ensuring that they never lose power and that they get the rest of the world on board of their project. Bannon has been very transparent about this since 2015., I mean CPAC was in Hungary, only reason why Brazil has 50 % tariffs is trying to pressure them to free Bolsonaro.
The most chilling moment of this year when I knew we are all truly fucked was the JD Vance speech in Munich. Key quotes:
"The most dangerous threat to the West is not a foreign army, but the corrosion of our own confidence, our own values, and our own societies."
"We are told to fear the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon, but we should be more afraid of the cultural Marxism that is rotting our institutions from the inside out."
"There is a growing chasm between the governed and those who govern. When the people’s legitimate concerns about their culture, their borders, and their children’s future are dismissed as bigotry, you are creating the conditions for profound instability."
"Mass, unvetted immigration is not a strength, but an act of national self-harm. A nation that cannot control its own borders will not long remain a nation."
I finally found one video where the creator did actually reveal a bit of Kirk's extremism in the beginning (and further elaborated in the comments). It's actually a video about the shooter, but of course you can't speak the whole truth about Kirk unless you want to face right-wing backlash. Most people in the comments are heavily pushing back against Flemig calling Kirk an extremist. I hope the translate option is good enough for ya'll to understand the discussion, but I'll post a few examples because they're VERY revealing of how conservatives/right-wingers defend their own extremism (in this case they're in Germany I should be able to safely assume). It seems important to understand how exactly they relativize and justify themselves to understand why they're pushing for right-wing extremism nowadays without acknowleding it. I don't think these are bots, they speak just like people would.
Quotes are below the video (I used auto-translate because it's actually quite accurate).
You should look at the definition of extremism before you denigrate someone for being an extremist. You can have your left-wing views, but labeling everything that doesn't conform to your norms as extremist is very unprofessional.
So that's the premise of conservatives/right-wingers, and the unfolding discussion is a true eye-opener. Lets take a look at their reasoning. But first here's Flemig's response:
"Anyone who wants to abolish the separation of church and state, opposes equal rights for men and women, calls for tribunals with the death penalty for doctors, and spreads the right-wing extremist conspiracy myth of the "Great Replacement" is not "conservative." And it's a disgrace how many crackpots consider such ideas to be part of the normal political spectrum."
Alright, lets delve into people's justifications for Kirk's extremism:
80% of them are completely rational, the rest are fundamentalist Christians. None of it has anything to do with extremism.
Charly Kirk was there to discuss things with left-wing students. Extremists don't do that.
Christian fundamentalism is 1,000 times more compatible with our value system than mild Islamism. Your compass is completely misaligned, not ours.
Right-wing extremist would mean that he is not only right-wing, but also willing to use violence to enforce his views. It is precisely this framing that ensures that people like Charlie Kirk are at least morally outlawed (among leftists), and in this sad case, he actually was. By building his platform and his commitment to exchanging views, he has clearly demonstrated that he is interested in civilized debate and rejects violence (Editor's note: Charlie Kirk has never openly rejected political violence while Turning Point USA was building a "Professor Watchlist" that resulted in harrassment, threats and intimidation). One may reject his opinions, even find them abhorrent, but that has nothing to do with extremism. Labeling people as "Nazi," "fascist," or "extremist" contributes to the decline in the exchange of views in the Western world, which will lead to an increase in such acts. Therefore, I would strongly advise against framing people in this way without justification.
And he didn't say the "black pilot" thing in that form either. It was taken completely out of context. It's easier to uncritically parrot the shameless lies of someone like Thevesen on Lanz.
The statement on abortion is not my point of view, but he was explicitly asked about his ten-year-old daughter. As a father, he has the right and the duty to make such decisions. But all his other positions are neither right-wing extremist nor wrong. The great replacement really does exist. You only have to look at Western Europe and what is being done to us right now. If you don't see that or are not prepared to admit it, I don't even need to watch your videos. Oh, and a quick word about the alleged separation of church and state: Have you never asked yourself why the German state blows millions up the church's ass every year and why church tax is collected by the state every month? And why does the church have its fingers in everything from NGOs to all media advisory boards? Could it be because we don't have a real separation of church and state?
I'll stop here, this is more than enough. There's also the idea that left-wingers are the only ones becoming more extremist - which is of course entirely unsubstantiated by the data - and thus it is left-wingers who are creating a violent culture and this justifies right-wing "concerns" (i.e. panic and propaganda). My conclusion is that conservatives, in the current political climate, are being heavily pressured into becoming supporters of extremism as long as they remain conservative. I even said years ago that racism can't be separate from conservatism, it's a fundamental feature.
I believe conservatives are incapable of acknowleding their racism because if they were to understand it they would have to leave conservatism altogether. Their other conservative views hold them in place, and their conservative peers (such as Charlie Kirk) keep conservatism in its racist state. As they become more exposed to conservative content, they adopt more extremist views over time such as the Great Replacement Theory, which enters the conservative mainstream and further radicalizes them.
I live in a country strategicly created by american propaganda as last outpost before the communist block.
And I kid you not, I liked it very much over Lederhosn.. but that was back when American propaganda was:
- Nazis are bad - Freedom is good - Woodstock - SuperSoaker® - Star Wars - Video games
Now it's:
- Well there are fine people with the Nazis - Freedom is getting my will, and if I don't .... - 400€ tickets and Music best enjoyed on tikTok. - What the fuck is Nerf? - Star Wars kinda cool with Andor - Heck Yeah! Videogames
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with yours at the time. Or at least you thought. I will still defend free speech. The way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our way is better, and America's way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not defend absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
I dont think you can be accused of having any sort of compassion any more.
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'm not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to check?
It's kind of a meme, but the Overton window is being aggressively pushed to the right for the last 10 years and it's not just an American phenomenon, albeit they are the ones who influence it the most.
Also, MP, youtube comments and audience in general has always been dominated by the right, and while Austria and Germany have been sliding towards the right, I don't think the comments there should be taken as indicative of much, but generally I do think that Europe has a huge propaganda machinery working to demonize Muslims and immigrants.
It started with the reckless moves by Merkel and others because they wanted to prop up the European industries, then it escalated with the slew of terrorist attacks and the rise of ISIS, and just as we were slowly getting back to normalcy COVID happened and people's brains have been collectively broken, and once you are on the "big pharma/5g/sheeple" pipeline it doesn't take a long time to get to great replacement and Trans people should be outlawed.
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with Yours at the TIME. Or at least you thought. I will still Defend free speech. The Way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our Way is better, and America's Way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not Defend Absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put Link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my Social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'M not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to Check?
Again, I wrote this previously, but because you are who you are you ignored it. I know the guy very well, I've been very online since he's been active.
The only way you can think he's not a piece of shit because of the opinions he stated and words he spewed is if you agree with him.
So, let's do it. Do you, Razyda, personally believe or think:
- that the "Great replacement theory" is true? I mean in the literal way CK did, a cabal of globalists (an anti-Semitic dog whistle) is trying to replace white people with Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks etc.? - would you force your 10 year old female child that was raped carry the pregnancy to term? - do you think that countries should be Christian theocracies (no more separation of church and state)? - do you think that Joe Biden should be executed for treason? - would you support Nuremburg style trials for doctors who did Trans care for children? - do you think that the Civil rights act was a mistake? - do you think that MLK jr. was an awful person?
Please don't link random shit on twitter but answer the questions.
These are questions that CK had very strong opinions that were on video, if you think any of them is wrongly stated or out of context feel free to correct them, but please answer them.
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with yours at the time. Or at least you thought. I will still defend free speech. The way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our way is better, and America's way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not defend absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'm not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to check?
I've never said Kirk deserved death, I've said the literal opposite. You're imagining things. Get back to reality.
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with Yours at the TIME. Or at least you thought. I will still Defend free speech. The Way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our Way is better, and America's Way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not Defend Absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put Link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
I dont think you can be accused of having any sort of compassion any more.
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my Social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'M not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to Check?
The only way you can think he's not a piece of shit because of the opinions he stated and words he spewed is if you agree with him.
That is not the only way. Most people don't bifurcate the world into essentially clones of themselves and pieces of shit.
One of the reasons is practical; the more and more conditions one adds (beliefs), that adds up to a greater chance of dissidence somewhere, and one is left with an ever shrinking category of people matching the conditions that aren't pieces of shit, functionally ostracizing oneself in a very tedious, long, roundabout, and indignant way.
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with Yours at the TIME. Or at least you thought. I will still Defend free speech. The Way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our Way is better, and America's Way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not Defend Absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put Link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
I dont think you can be accused of having any sort of compassion any more.
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my Social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'M not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to Check?
Again, I wrote this previously, but because you are who you are you ignored it. I know the guy very well, I've been very online since he's been active.
The only way you can think he's not a piece of shit because of the opinions he stated and words he spewed is if you agree with him.
So, let's do it. Do you, Razyda, personally believe or think:
- that the "Great replacement theory" is true? I mean in the literal way CK did, a cabal of globalists (an anti-Semitic dog whistle) is trying to replace white people with Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks etc.? - would you force your 10 year old female child that was raped carry the pregnancy to term? - do you think that countries should be Christian theocracies (no more separation of church and state)? - do you think that Joe Biden should be executed for treason? - would you support Nuremburg style trials for doctors who did Trans care for children? - do you think that the Civil rights act was a mistake? - do you think that MLK jr. was an awful person?
Please don't link random shit on twitter but answer the questions.
These are questions that CK had very strong opinions that were on video, if you think any of them is wrongly stated or out of context feel free to correct them, but please answer them.
Doesnt matter whether I agree with those or not, I dont think those make him nazi, or particularly hateful.
MLK jr - depends what you believe, dude did some good things and allegedly some bad too. If he indeed witnessed and encouraged rape, then yeah that would make him pretty awful. I dont know if thats the case, but if someone believed it, then statement like this would be fully justified. From article linked below:
"As we note in the piece, Kirk has previously described [King] as a hero and a civil rights icon."
So maybe he found rape story and that what changed his opinion.
"Kirk claimed the federal government was coming after students' free speech "using the mid-1960s Civil Rights Act that was passed with good intentions" as now a permanent diversity, equity and inclusion-type bureaucracy."
seems like he was against it being weaponized.
- do you think that Joe Biden should be executed for treason? - Do you think Trump should? Full disclosure: personally I would extend courtesy to all politicians no matter affiliation.
- do you think that countries should be Christian theocracies - no, but I dont see what is hateful about it, and it is definitely not a nazi position. Also Islamic theocracies exist, what so much worse about christianity that wanting one makes you hateful or PoS?
- would you force your 10 year old female child that was raped carry the pregnancy to term? I honestly dont know and hopefully never will have to make that or similar decision. Would you force your 10 year old daughter to have abortion in such scenario? On the one hand you dont want your child to suffer consequences of rape, on the other abortion doesnt come without risk and without psychological consequences, which would be amplified due to the fact that it is a child.
- would you support Nuremburg style trials for doctors who did Trans care for children? No I wouldnt, this comment of his seems to refer to story of someone who got transitioned without proper assessment.
- that the "Great replacement theory" is true? I mean in the literal way CK did, a cabal of globalists (an anti-Semitic dog whistle) is trying to replace white people with Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks etc.?
Dont think it is some cabal, it seems to be happening organically if you look at birth rates.
So as you can see I dont agree with him on everything, and somehow dont think he deserved getting murdered.
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with yours at the time. Or at least you thought. I will still defend free speech. The way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our way is better, and America's way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not defend absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
I dont think you can be accused of having any sort of compassion any more.
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'm not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to check?
I've never said Kirk deserved death, I've said the literal opposite. You're imagining things. Get back to reality.
I didnt state that you said he deserved death. It is more of a reference to how utterly devastated you were by his murder...
On September 11 2025 06:20 Magic Powers wrote: Guns may not save lives, but they did save my day.
- would you force your 10 year old female child that was raped carry the pregnancy to term? I honestly dont know
My good sir, there is one correct answer and one correct answer only. You should literally never force any rape victim to carry. Ever. And especially not your own daughter.
"I honestly don't know" tells me either one of two things: you refuse to think about it, in which case I advise you to start thinking now and come to the correct conclusion quickly. Or it tells me you are in fact willing to force your own daughter to carry. Just willingness alone, in my book, strictly disqualifies you from fatherhood. Unfortunately I don't have a say in that, but I hope you'll never be in a position to make such a decision because clearly you're willing to make a very evil choice.
And you have the gall to call anybody monsters? You can't be serious.
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with yours at the time. Or at least you thought. I will still defend free speech. The way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our way is better, and America's way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not defend absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
I dont think you can be accused of having any sort of compassion any more.
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'm not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to check?
I've never said Kirk deserved death, I've said the literal opposite. You're imagining things. Get back to reality.
I didnt state that you said he deserved death. It is more of a reference to how utterly devastated you were by his murder...
On September 11 2025 06:20 Magic Powers wrote: Guns may not save lives, but they did save my day.
Oh no, I didn't fall to the ground in tears. Cry me a river. Kirk didn't deserve death, but he did deserve to be shut up for good one way or another, other than through death. Unfortunately he chose not to shut up and someone else decided for him that his time on this planet was over.
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.
Bruh, you never liked me. You may've liked my political views because they weren't so disaligned with Yours at the TIME. Or at least you thought. I will still Defend free speech. The Way it's done in my country is that you can say literally anything that's not a call to violence or a death threat or something like that.You're even allowed to question the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. What you're not allowed to do is question the Holocaust without evidence. In America you don't need a shred of evidence. Our Way is better, and America's Way is worse. This is simply a matter of fact. So I will not Defend Absolute free speech. I've outgrown that phase years ago.
I genuinely did. I found your arguments wanting, but they seemed to be coming from the things like compassion. Here however you picked a side of the people posting shit like this (purposedly put Link instead of image, this shit is sickening):
I dont think you can be accused of having any sort of compassion any more.
On September 15 2025 17:21 Magic Powers wrote: I don't know about ya'll but my Social media search results (just "Charlie Kirk", nothing else) are heavily pushing every content that's defending or honoring Charlie Kirk while heavily censoring anything revealing his racism and his hatred. I can't find literally anything about the latter with neutral search terms. The bias is overwhelmingly in his favor.
Something's up.
Like, he's practically being glorified on Youtube by the search algorithm. I'M not exaggerating.
Maybe, just maybe, all you knew about they guy came from places like this one, or reddit, but you never bothered to Check?
The only way you can think he's not a piece of shit because of the opinions he stated and words he spewed is if you agree with him.
That is not the only way. Most people don't bifurcate the world into essentially clones of themselves and pieces of shit.
One of the reasons is practical; the more and more conditions one adds (beliefs), that adds up to a greater chance of dissidence somewhere, and one is left with an ever shrinking category of people matching the conditions that aren't pieces of shit, functionally ostracizing oneself in a very tedious, long, roundabout, and indignant way.
I don't think the original characterization is the dichotomy that "Person X needs to identically match with all my beliefs, or else they're pieces of shit". Looking at many of Kirk's positions isn't so much as trying to find a single point of disagreement on the issues, but rather the reality that he's so far away on so many issues.
If a person is misogynistic, then maybe there's a small gap between them and me. If a person is both misogynistic and racist, then that gap widens. If a person is misogynistic and racist and anti-LGBTQ, then that gap widens further. And if a person is misogynistic, racist, anti-LGBTQ, xenophobic, Christian nationalist, climate change denier, election fraud conspiracy theorist, flippant about school shootings, and supports forced births for 10-year-old impregnated rape victims, then that person is Charlie Kirk.
And as that gap widens further and further, some people's personal lines will be crossed - lines that delineate between whether a person is acceptably different or unacceptably different.
EPT
