School Teachers, Nurses, Government Workers, CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk's murder

[rambot]

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) took to X on Thursday and vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

Higgins said that any social media accounts from people who “ran their mouths with their smartass hatred, celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man” must come down.

The Louisiana Republican also demanded that any users who posted those “belittling” posts be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”

“I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” he wrote.

Free Speech! Cancel Culture!

That cannot be correct.

A poster in another thread indicated that liberals never say things to conservatives that cause them to emote feelings.

 

[Bradskii]

Regardless of whether or not they were in the same league didn't seem to be relevant to the college kids. Many of the younger progressives reacted to their presence on campuses the same way.

And while Charlie had a specific 'gimmick' that he did on campuses, after going back and watching some of his content from the past view years, I don't think he gets enough credit for his being able to sit down and do a formal debate in structured setting and hold his own pretty well

Against my better judgement (because comments on his ability are simply personal opinions) I'll watch it later.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Against my better judgement (because comments on his ability are simply personal opinions) I'll watch it later.

In Charlie's case, the fact that he's getting some loving comments from former sparring partners I think says at least something about his character and to the fact that for the most part, he was pretty nice to people.

If folks recall, when Rush Limbaugh died, we didn't see that (because he was genuinely mean spirited in most cases)

For instance, this exchange (which the Whatever podcast put out in tribute) shows a more human side than the click-baity "Charlie Kirk owns" videos.


https://www.tiktok.com/video/7549930504712129847

 

[Bradskii]

In Charlie's case, the fact that he's getting some loving comments from former sparring partners I think says at least something about his character and to the fact that for the most part, he was pretty nice to people.

I'm not arguing that he was an all round bad guy. I'm sure he was a loving father and husband and looked after stray puppies. My opinion of him is based on his views, most of which I found abhorrent, and his abilities as a debater. Which I found to be very poor. He was quite often demeaning and sarcastic to those he obviously thought to be not worthy to share a mike.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My opinion of him is based on his views, most of which I found abhorrent, and his abilities as a debater. He was quite often demeaning and sarcastic to those he obviously thought to be not worthy to share a mike.

And that's different from the way a significant of the left talks to most of the right, how?


And as far as his views being "abhorrent", which ones? How many of his views are radically different from views that a mainstream democrat or independent would've held in 2010?

Has the Overton window really shifted that much that what would've been perfectly acceptable and mainstream a decade ago is now "abhorrent"?

In my estimation, the only view he has that I would consider "far-right" is the views on abortion.

"Trans issues" weren't even a thing back then.

And his views on immigration, crime, drugs, and gay marriage weren't much further right than that of mainstream democrats circa 2010.

Was the 2010 incarnation of Senators Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer "abhorrent"?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

And that's different from the way a significant of the left talks to most of the right, how?

People from the left aren’t expecting people to universally mourn them in their passing, nor did they develop lists of people to target after things like Nancy Pelosi’s husband being attacked or the assassinated Minnesota official. In fact, I think people who aren’t in the far right weigh the behavior that we’ve seen from the right’s representatives and figure their behavior is par for the course and don’t expect any better from them. We know when Obama dies, people will say vicious things. Same with Hilary and Bernie. We saw what people said when Biden was diagnosed with cancer, after the events I already mentioned. We’ve had plenty of time and experience managing the vitriol and know that’s just how the right is.

And as far as his views being "abhorrent", which ones? How many of his views are radically different from views that a mainstream democrat or independent would've held in 2010?

Uhhhhh… Basically all of them… From forcing a raped daughter to give birth to rejecting feminism to his comments on Islam… Lots and lots and lots of things.

A really interesting thing I read on Facebook that got me thinking was that, previously, when an influential icon died you’d see people flood social media with the poignant, insightful quotes from that person. Speeches, books, influential art. Didn’t matter if it was Martin Luther King (“I have a dream”) or Maya Angelou (“I know why the caged bird sings”) or David Bowie (“there’s a starman waiting in the sky”) or John Lennon (“imagine”). People knew it, could recite it, their contributions folded into everything from award ceremonies to school curriculums.

That didn’t happen for Charlie Kirk. Pictures in front of fireworks and flags, AI nonsense with Jesus, occasionally his tagline, proclamations that he’s a good Christian, and resume-style “oh he founded this and has that website.” But even those who mourned his death the loudest, from his wife to Trump to cousin Eddie on Facebook… But not an all-encompassing quote or speech or pivot point contribution they could point to as a pivotal cultural touchstone people could draw in in grief. Because what quote will they use that is a rallying cry? “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”? Or “If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” Or maybe “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” Or “all men are created equal in the eyes of God, all men and women, but not all cultures are created equal.” Not quite “I have a dream,” is it?

And that says a lot, I think.

I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t a case of the dialogue between Hamilton and Burr about Mercer Street from “Hamilton.” Or if the real shock is that there was this belief of invincibility and infallibility, and now realizing that republicans too can be the victim of the culture they created, they’re scared. It went from being “it won’t happen to us” to “it happened to us” and they’re rattled.

 

[Bradskii]

And that's different from the way a significant of the left talks to most of the right, how?

I'm really not interested in whataboutisms.

And as far as his views being "abhorrent", which ones?

Women, gays, trans, guns, abortion...is that enough to be getting on with?

And his views on immigration, crime, drugs, and gay marriage weren't much further right than that of mainstream democrats circa 2010.

It looks like I'll have to point out this rather obvious fact again (well, it seems rather obvious to me): His views on matters such as those that I have just listed were abhorrent AND he was a conservative. They weren't abhorrent just BECAUSE he was a conservative.

It seems to be a surprise to some people that being conservative doesn't necessarily mean that you denigrate gays and trans people, suggest that a few dead kids are the price you have to pay for the right to bear arms and abortion and contraception are evil.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Wouldn't that be true of most public debates though?

Plus the aspect of having real-time fact checkers has always been a point of contention (understandably so) due to the fact that the "checkers" can skew the perceptions based on when, and how much, they decide to wield their power of the pen.

Most public debates that I watch spend a considerable time hammering out matters of fact, if they can't settle it the debaters have to reference their sources as best they can. If many arguments just are disagreement about facts then it's a bad debate. Sure, this is sadly common in many public debates, but to be good debater one have to be good at getting your view across and correct. If it only the first, it's demagoguery.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Leftists show their true colors after Charlie Kirk is shot — and it's absolutely sickening | Blaze Media

When someone shows you who are they are, believe them.

www.theblaze.com

This article doesn't even describe the worst of it.

There are countless social media messages and videos of people laughing, cheering, dancing that Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

This isn't some fringe group hiding in a dark hole in the corner of the internet.

They are school teachers, academics, healthcare workers, government workers, city officials, administrators, members of military, etc.

Hundreds of them, at least, on record proudly expressing their joy over this murder. If you have X you can go watch them now.


The more "moderate" leftists / liberals are running cover for this ghastly reality, as the media desperately tries to churn out reports of "conservatives politicizing the event" "Right-wingers are just as bad!!!"

But we can see the truth.

This is who the Left is - not their fringe but their core. They celebrate violence and death against their political enemies - especially someone like Charlie Kirk, who was just a mainstream moderate conservative guy whose only crime was openly challenging Leftist ideology. To them, that was worse than being a murderer or a rapist, and deserving of death, which they now cheer on.

It has never been clearer that the supposed "moral equivalence between the Right and Left" is an illusion.

The Left / Liberals are going to be working overtime to try and make this reality go away but it's too late - too many people have seen it.

The level of open depravity even shocked me and I had considered myself desensitized to this sort of thing.



We better pray these people never get back into power because they know they've been seen now and will not hold back.

Yes, Kirk voted for a man, that takes jobs away from School Teachers, Nurses, Government Workers. So , why would they care about someone, that takes their job away.

 

[MrMoe]

It’s interesting that a thread about people celebrating the killing of a man has been derailed into criticism of the victim. It seems that a man having disagreeable opinions about minorities is more reprehensible to the left than people celebrating the assassination of that man.

This just goes to show how much the left coddles and infantilizes minorities. That any criticism of them is not just a criticism but an ‘attack’ on them, and are labeled as ‘awful’ and ‘abhorrent’.

To quote comedian Dave Chappelle when he saw that a rapper got societal backlash over homophobic comments rather than over killing a 19 year old in public.

“In our country, you can shoot and kill a (black man), but you better not hurt a gay person’s feelings.”

So I’m going to try and put this thread back on the rails. Here are a video of people celebrating his assassination.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It’s interesting that a thread about people celebrating the killing of a man has been derailed into criticism of the victim. It seems that a man having disagreeable opinions about minorities is more reprehensible to the left than people celebrating the assassination of that man.

Two facts can exist at the same time: the rejecting of a murder based on politics with the intent to silence free speech, unsettle our sense of security, spread discord, and undermine democracy, AND the rejection of the legacy of a man who spent his life building a platform of hate, stereotypes, division, prejudice, and marginalization.

My criticism for him as a person isn't how he died or about his murder... I criticize the shooter for that. It's how he lived.

This just goes to show how much the left coddles and infantilizes minorities. That any criticism of them is not just a criticism but an ‘attack’ on them, and are labeled as ‘awful’ and ‘abhorrent’.

To quote comedian Dave Chappelle when he saw that a rapper got societal backlash over homophobic comments rather than over killing a 19 year old in public.

“In our country, you can shoot and kill a (black man), but you better not hurt a gay person’s feelings.”

I think it's admirable how completely and totally you misunderstand that quote, which is about his frustration in the marginalization of black people even behind other minorities. He wasn't observing that black persons are coddled and infantilized, he was complaining that in the year of our Lord 2021, a black life is not worth as much as any other life. A mood and attitude that Charlie Kirk actively contributed to and advocated for, I might add.

 

[Larniavc]

No — there is no verified evidence that Charlie Kirk has said that gay people “deserve to be killed.” Multiple fact‑checks have looked into this claim and found it to be false or misrepresented.

Also from Chat GP

• On a June 2024 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show Kirk criticized YouTuber Ms. Rachel’s “love your neighbor” remark and said, referring to Leviticus, “thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death” while calling that scripture part of “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

 

[hedrick]

Also from Chat GP

• On a June 2024 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show Kirk criticized YouTuber Ms. Rachel’s “love your neighbor” remark and said, referring to Leviticus, “thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death” while calling that scripture part of “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

He avoided clearly calling for the death of gays. Christians commonly don't want OT punishments to be employed, even when they (selectively) want to follow the moral principles. One of the problems with people on both sides is that they avoid clearly saying certain things, but their more extremist followers understand them to mean it. It's called a "dog whistle." The problem is that you can't prove that that's what it is. He may truly not have intended that implication. Lots of people quote that verse without intending the death penalty for gays.

 

[Yarddog]

Leftists show their true colors after Charlie Kirk is shot — and it's absolutely sickening | Blaze Media

When someone shows you who are they are, believe them.

www.theblaze.com

This article doesn't even describe the worst of it.

There are countless social media messages and videos of people laughing, cheering, dancing that Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

This isn't some fringe group hiding in a dark hole in the corner of the internet.

They are school teachers, academics, healthcare workers, government workers, city officials, administrators, members of military, etc.

Hundreds of them, at least, on record proudly expressing their joy over this murder. If you have X you can go watch them now.


The more "moderate" leftists / liberals are running cover for this ghastly reality, as the media desperately tries to churn out reports of "conservatives politicizing the event" "Right-wingers are just as bad!!!"

But we can see the truth.

This is who the Left is - not their fringe but their core. They celebrate violence and death against their political enemies - especially someone like Charlie Kirk, who was just a mainstream moderate conservative guy whose only crime was openly challenging Leftist ideology. To them, that was worse than being a murderer or a rapist, and deserving of death, which they now cheer on.

It has never been clearer that the supposed "moral equivalence between the Right and Left" is an illusion.

The Left / Liberals are going to be working overtime to try and make this reality go away but it's too late - too many people have seen it.

The level of open depravity even shocked me and I had considered myself desensitized to this sort of thing.



We better pray these people never get back into power because they know they've been seen now and will not hold back.

It's disgusting to celebrate death and it's disgusting not to note that most on the left do not celebrate Kirk's killing.

 

[BCP1928]

And that's different from the way a significant of the left talks to most of the right, how?


And as far as his views being "abhorrent", which ones? How many of his views are radically different from views that a mainstream democrat or independent would've held in 2010?

Has the Overton window really shifted that much that what would've been perfectly acceptable and mainstream a decade ago is now "abhorrent"?

In my estimation, the only view he has that I would consider "far-right" is the views on abortion.

"Trans issues" weren't even a thing back then.

And his views on immigration, crime, drugs, and gay marriage weren't much further right than that of mainstream democrats circa 2010.

Was the 2010 incarnation of Senators Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer "abhorrent"?

You are certainly making an overbroad self-serving generalization about Democrats there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Uhhhhh… Basically all of them… From forcing a raped daughter to give birth to rejecting feminism to his comments on Islam… Lots and lots and lots of things.

I noted his position on abortion was pretty far right in the previous post, which is what I said "apart from that issue"

What were the mainstream democratic party stances on the various issues back around the time period I mentioned? (Gay marriage, immigration, Islam)

I recall Obama running on "marriage is between a man and woman" back then.

Biden (2004): “The greatest threat we face is from Islamic extremists who are intent on killing Americans and undermining our way of life.”
Pelosi (2006): "Islamic terrorism remains the greatest threat to our nation."


Want to venture a guess at which politician said this?:
"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."

Or which one said?:
“We all agree on the need to better secure the border… and punish employers who hire undocumented workers.”

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

roll_call_vote.xml

www.senate.gov

My point wasn't that people are claiming his views are abhorrent "just because he's conservative", my point was about how fast the overton window is moving... where things that would've been perfectly acceptable for a democrat to say 10-15 years ago, are now labelled as "abhorrent far-right" positions.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

My point wasn't that people are claiming his views are abhorrent "just because he's conservative", my point was about how fast the overton window is moving... where things that would've been perfectly acceptable for a democrat to say 10-15 years ago, are now labelled as "abhorrent far-right" positions.

Generally speaking, the Charlie Kirk quotes that people point to when talking about his "abhorrent" views are not things that would have been acceptable for a Democrat to say 10-15 years ago. Or a Republican, for that matter. What you're doing is called "sanewashing" - you're focusing on the broad-brush nature of Kirk's views to make them sound more normal, while ignoring the far more radical and extremist details that he espoused.

There's a difference between "I am adamantly against illegal immigrants." and "The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different." Both express a general objection to illegal immigration, but Kirk takes it a step further, extending it into a racist conspiracy theory.

There's a difference between "Islamic terrorism remains the greatest threat to our nation." and "We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization." (even laying aside the context of when those statements were made). Again, Kirk takes a step further, from Islamic terrorism to Islam as a religion in general.

You can't tell me that "If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified." would have been an acceptable thing to say in polite company at any point since the 1960s (or maybe even before that). And yet Charlie Kirk said that less than two years ago.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A really interesting thing I read on Facebook that got me thinking was that, previously, when an influential icon died you’d see people flood social media with the poignant, insightful quotes from that person. Speeches, books, influential art. Didn’t matter if it was Martin Luther King (“I have a dream”) or Maya Angelou (“I know why the caged bird sings”) or David Bowie (“there’s a starman waiting in the sky”) or John Lennon (“imagine”). People knew it, could recite it, their contributions folded into everything from award ceremonies to school curriculums.

That didn’t happen for Charlie Kirk. Pictures in front of fireworks and flags, AI nonsense with Jesus, occasionally his tagline, proclamations that he’s a good Christian

I think the "influential icon" aspect has become just one aspect. Increasingly over the past decade, the circumstances by which one dies (and how it ties in with certain political conversations) is just as big a driver in if (and how) people mourn a death.

People were painting murals with George Floyd having angel wings, circulating generated images of Floyd with a halo hugging Jesus, writing poems about him to hang in school hallways, etc...

Was that because Floyd was a good person who lived a good/moral life worthy to aspire to? Or was that largely driven by the nature of how he died, and the fact that the video footage of his death was widely circulated?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I noted his position on abortion was pretty far right in the previous post, which is what I said "apart from that issue"

That still leaves every other issue.

What were the mainstream democratic party stances on the various issues back around the time period I mentioned? (Gay marriage, immigration, Islam)


I recall Obama running on "marriage is between a man and woman" back then.

Obama supported gay marriage in 1996 before shifting to undecided, then in 2004 supporting civil unions and domestic partnerships, but not marriage. In 2006 in his book he wrote "it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Then he famously said "I've been going through an evolution on this issue" and became a supporter of gay marriage by 2012.

Kirk never evolved. He devolved. Saying because Obama didn't support marriage (but did support unions) in 2006 excuses Kirk's worse views in 2024 is like saying because black people couldn't vote until 1965, anybody who supports slavery today is perfectly reasonable.

Biden (2004): “The greatest threat we face is from Islamic extremists who are intent on killing Americans and undermining our way of life.”
Pelosi (2006): "Islamic terrorism remains the greatest threat to our nation."

Ignoring the fact that the Internet can't seem to source those quotes to anything other than a Reddit thread, in 2004 and 2006 we were in the immediate after-effects of the largest terrorist attack in US history, engulfed in a war in the middle east with extremists, Saddam and Osama were still alive, and we were intercepting intelligence that we thought indicated we were under a continuous threat. At that time, yes, it was a huge problem that needed attention. Translating that to today, where we aren't in a war, both those leaders are dead, and intelligence indicating as much is not increasing is not the same. Again, it would be like excusing anti-Japanese rhetoric because during WWII, they were an imminent threat, or excusing anti-Vietnamese, Korean, or Cuban sentiment because at various times they were our biggest threats.

What somebody was afraid decades ago and is since no longer a threat does not excuse prejudice that exists today.

Want to venture a guess at which politician said this?:
"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."

A quote from 2003, and an irrelevant one at that. The idea that Democrats don't have an issue with illegal immigration is a fallacy created by the right. Just because they don't support the tactics we are using now to deal with illegal immigration does not mean they support illegal immigration.

Or which one said?:
“We all agree on the need to better secure the border… and punish employers who hire undocumented workers.”

A quote from 2005 that again assumes the fallacy that not supporting what's going on now means supporting illegal immigration.

My point wasn't that people are claiming his views are abhorrent "just because he's conservative", my point was about how fast the overton window is moving... where things that would've been perfectly acceptable for a democrat to say 10-15 years ago, are now labelled as "abhorrent far-right" positions.

The most recent quote you presented was from 19 years ago and depends on a false equivalency fallacy. The others are from 20+ years ago taken when the country was at war, or taken devoid of context that showed a support for the spirit of an ideology (civil unions/domestic partnerships) but not the letter of the ideology (gay marriage). The window is not moving that rapidly at all.

In 1995, if somebody said black Americans do not deserve to vote and we should remove their right to vote, the general populace would be horrified. If they said "well, 30 years ago it was ok for me to say that because that's when blacks were given the right to vote," nobody would say "well, that's a relatively recent opinion, we can forgive the people campaigning to kill the black right to vote." Everybody, universally, would crash down on that person for racist ideology, de-platform them, and regularly call them out for hate speech... As they should. Because it doesn't take 30 years to accept the inherent rights of fellow Americans. In 30 years, the situation is resolved.

Charlie Kirk was born in 1993 and wasn't influenced by the rhetoric of 30 years ago. When 9/11 happened, he was 8. When Obama was making comments about gay marriage in 2006-2008, he was 15. His entire adult life and his entire life in politics were during a time where the court of public opinion, law, and society supported gay marriage, black/minority rights, abortion rights, women's rights... He does not have the "but 30 years ago..." excuse. He absolutely should and could have known and done better.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I think the "influential icon" aspect has become just one aspect. Increasingly over the past decade, the circumstances by which one dies (and how it ties in with certain political conversations) is just as big a driver in if (and how) people mourn a death.

People were painting murals with George Floyd having angel wings, circulating generated images of Floyd with a halo hugging Jesus, writing poems about him to hang in school hallways, etc...

Was that because Floyd was a good person who lived a good/moral life worthy to aspire to? Or was that largely driven by the nature of how he died, and the fact that the video footage of his death was widely circulated?

I think you're right. Both represent movements, one accidentally and one by deliberate positioning. In their deaths, the represent an attack ideological movement (Kirk) or a demographic (Floyd and I guess Kirk) or the assigning of a name and face to an injustice that felt too hard to define (Floyd).

I will say, though, Floyd was held up as more a symbol than a luminary, where as Kirk is being raised up as a luminary who's death prevents him from sharing influential insight that shapes society.