Transcript of Kirk's killer's messages has been revealed

[rjs330]

*cough*ahem*cough*

View attachment 370202

Who'd they murder? Someone get hanged on that?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Who'd they murder? Someone get hanged on that?

I dont think they got the memo that whataboutism isn't going to work anymore. Charlie Kirk was killed, and in a floating moment of excitement, many on the left took of their mask and showed the world who they really were, and the world was disgusted. There is truly nothing even close in comparison to warrant a what about.

 

[rjs330]

I dont think they got the memo that whataboutism isn't going to work anymore. Charlie Kirk was killed, and in a floating moment of excitement, many on the left took of their mask and showed the world who they really were, and the world was disgusted. There is truly nothing even close in comparison to warrant a what about.

The left has created an environment of permission structures for political violence. And now people, even many on their side are seeing it.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

If he thinks men can become women, he's denying the science of genetics and DNA.

This is probably outside of the scope of this forum but so is your post in that case, so I can at least ask. What does genetics and DNA have to do with gender? Are you thinking about sex chromosomes? If so, was everybody genderless until sex chromosomes were discovered by Edmund Beecher Wilson and Nettie Stevens separately in 1905?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

This is probably outside of the scope of this forum but so is your post in that case, so I can at least ask. What does genetics and DNA have to do with gender? Are you thinking about sex chromosomes? If so, was everybody genderless until sex chromosomes were discovered by Edmund Beecher Wilson and Nettie Stevens separately in 1905?

If you actually follow the science you will find that transgenderism is a psychological disorder. No different than if someone truly believed they were superman. Affirming their disorder is like encouraging "superman" to jump off a skyscraper because they say they can fly. Now back on topic.

 

[mindlight]

Those on the right say he’s left. Those on the left say he’s right. It appears we actually have a rare case of radical centrism.

I always knew it was the centrists. Even when it was the bears.

There is good and evil on the left and the right in your political system. Tyler was on the side of evil, he was deluded, and he committed murder. He created a martyr out of Kirk because the man opposed his agenda on truthful grounds.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

If you actually follow the science you will find that transgenderism is a psychological disorder. No different than if someone truly believed they were superman. Affirming their disorder is like encouraging "superman" to jump off a skyscraper because they say they can fly. Now back on topic.

Are you talking about gender dysphoria which is in DSM-V? You need to experience gender dysphoria to get access to medical care, but you can be transgender without experiencing gender dysphoria. Transgenderism is not a diagnos in DSM-V. It still doesn't explain what genetics and DNA have to do with gender.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Are you talking about gender dysphoria which is in DSM-V? You need to experience gender dysphoria to get access to medical care, but you can be transgender without experiencing gender dysphoria. Transgenderism is not a diagnos in DSM-V. It still doesn't explain what genetics and DNA have to do with gender.

Regardless, the solution is psychological care, not medical care.

 

[rjs330]

Are you talking about gender dysphoria which is in DSM-V? You need to experience gender dysphoria to get access to medical care, but you can be transgender without experiencing gender dysphoria. Transgenderism is not a diagnos in DSM-V. It still doesn't explain what genetics and DNA have to do with gender.

Then tell us what being transgender is then. What does it mean to be transgendered. And transgenderism is an ideology.

 

[rjs330]

It still doesn't explain what genetics and DNA have to do with gender.

There is no such thing as gender outside of biological sex.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Then tell us what being transgender is then. What does it mean to be transgendered. And transgenderism is an ideology.

I usually go by: "You are transgender if you have a stronger affinity to your mental construct of some other gender than to the one commonly associated with your sex." It is is perhaps not perfect, but I find it useful. It also allows us to talk about gender outside of sex, which for some are not connected.

 

[FireDragon76]

Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4 and ChatGPT 5 both estimate the probability that the text messages allegedly sent between Robinson and Twiggs have a 65-75 percent chance of being AI generated.

 

[Yarddog]

Obviously. FYI, they have done multiple press conferences laying out a lot of evidence that points to Robinson being a hard left ideologue. Now, we are starting to learn that he may not have acted alone. Last I heard, over 20 people are being investigated as co-conspirators.

You seem to be listening to some crazy far right space laser preaching podcast because you can find all statements issued by the FBI on their website and there is no mention of Robinson being a leftist or having a co-conspirator.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Who'd they murder? Someone get hanged on that?

In case you missed it, the post to which I was responding said this:

"...if I discovered that my party celebrated murdering political opponents too"

The key part here is the celebrating. That noose, and the people chanting around it, absolutely were celebrating the murdering of a political opponent. That the murder was merely anticipated and, arguably, attempted doesn't make this any less of a celebration of murder and political violence.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

An idiotic statement which goes to the heart of my post above. The only guy people he represents are a small portion of that 0.01%.

Why are there two sets of rules with this?

When that guy was targeting those Democratic lawmakers, I seem to recall statements to the effect of implying that it's the ideologies of the conservatives and their overall rhetoric that lead to those behaviors.

Why have the rules changed with this one? Now this guy is "just a fringe" and in no way represent a manifestation of prior rhetoric surrounding the subject?

As I noted before, trans activism has a unique trait (that's even unique from earlier forms of gay activism).

That unique trait being the branding of anyone who doesn't go along with it as fascists who want to partake in genocide and "erase someone's existence"


So while we can have conversations about how political violence has no place in democratic systems, it does have a place in communistic, totalitarian, and fascistic systems (in fact, it's often times unfortunately the only way to get out of those systems). So if you convince a percentage of the public (through activism and rhetoric) that they're circling the drain into one of those 3 systems, they're going to respond accordingly.

Take a look at any of the political violence that's occurred in the past decade... it's almost always been for things that have been portrayed in that light. "XYZ happening is the fast track to <insert aforementioned system>"

Nobody is shooting speakers over viewpoints on labor unions
Nobody is storming a government building over drug legalization opinions
Nobody is "doxxing" private citizens and trying to get them fired over their positions on SNAP benefits
Nobody shows up at a protest with a sign depicting an opponent with a Hitler mustache over their views on solar panels

It's because those items are still discussed in the context of "something we hash out at the ballot box", and not being framed in the context of conversations about "existential threats to our very existence".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Did he shoot him as punishment? As retribution? To make a change in some way? To make a point? To make a stand?

If we take the shooter's own words at face value, they stated that it was because some things "can't be negotiated out".

So I would venture a guess and suggest that it's because the shooter had some warped sense of:
"we're not winning this argument in the marketplace of ideas, and public opinion is shifting away from our viewpoint on it, so if we take out one of the people who we see as responsible for that public opinion shift, perhaps reverse the trajectory or make others afraid to express that viewpoint"

Or more succinctly, an entitled sense of "This thing that's important to me is so important, that it can't be left up to the will of the people at large"

So what is the point of arguing about what the guy's political position position is? Whether he is in love with a trans guy or his parents were Republicans or he was a church goer or supporter of some right wing or left wing group?

I see it as less about "which half of the spectrum" he's on, and more about which forms of activism have traits that lead to radicalization. And it's important to recognize those traits in the name of prevention of it happening again. I elaborated on it in my previous post.

The forms of activism that seem to be rooted in "this presents an existential threat" seem to produce these kinds of outcomes.

An example from the right-side of the fence.

If you convince people that "democrats winning" is manifestation of "they rigged this whole thing so they can tare down everything tradition and value we have, and remake America as a socialist country"... then you're going to have a subset of people (the J6'ers) who respond very irrationally to the scenario of democrats winning.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As I noted before, trans activism has a unique trait (that's even unique from earlier forms of gay activism).

That unique trait being the branding of anyone who doesn't go along with it as fascists who want to partake in genocide and "erase someone's existence"

I mean, you have seen the opinions about transgender people that have been expressed even here on these (relatively moderated and mild) forums, have you not?

 

[durangodawood]

Take a look at any of the political violence that's occurred in the past decade... it's almost always been for things that have been portrayed in that light. "XYZ happening is the fast track to <insert aforementioned system>"

I want to see examples set at the top. Thats where pressure should be applied. Herding the cats of "the conversation" down here on the ground is not realistic, even if the effort is laudable.

So, for example, I'd like the president to desist from labelling political opposition as "evil". Thats a line crossed by a particular individual from whom we should expect better. He is particularly influential. And he is responsive to public pressure - should it materialize.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I mean, you have seen the opinions about transgender people that have been expressed even here on these (relatively moderated and mild) forums, have you not?

Yes, but I haven't seen any that call for genocide.

If a person was born male and named Kevin..

Kevin says, I feel like I'm in the wrong body, I feel like I'm actually a woman, and will be changing my name to Allison, and I expect you to address me as such and affirm what I feel is true.

There's a big difference between saying:
"Sorry Kevin, but I don't agree with that, I think what you're actually dealing with is a mental health issue, and I'm not going to be an active participant in this"

...vs someone saying
"We need to eugenically eliminate Kevin and everyone like Kevin"


However, some activists have portrayed it as if the two positions are comparable.

And do so based on, what I feel, is the flawed premise that "If you don't go along with what and affirm I want and abandon your own beliefs, and that makes me so upset that I kill myself, that's basically tantamount to you killing me"... it would often get framed as things like "you can either have an alive daughter or a dead son"


You didn't see that kind of pervasive emotional blackmail with the gay rights movement back in the day. They weren't saying "you not only have to support gay marriage, you have to say it's a good thing, and if you don't, I'll kill myself and it'll be your fault". Their position seemed to be more of a "look, we just want the right to get married and not face housing and employment discrimination, you don't have to like it or even pretend to like it, we weren't planning on inviting you to the wedding anyway"

And while their advocacy process to get those things may have not happened overnight (which seems to be expectation that younger activists have these days), I would say their approach was much more durable (evidenced by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't have much of an issue with it now...and according to public polling, even over half of the party that's labelled "the anti-LGBT party" supports it now.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, but I haven't seen any that call for genocide.

If a person was born male and named Kevin..

Kevin says, I feel like I'm in the wrong body, I feel like I'm actually a woman, and will be changing my name to Allison, and I expect you to address me as such and affirm what I feel is true.

There's a big difference between saying:
"Sorry Kevin, but I don't agree with that, I think what you're actually dealing with is a mental health issue, and I'm not going to be an active participant in this"

...vs someone saying
"We need to eugenically eliminate Kevin and everyone like Kevin"

Limiting access to gender-affirming care does that effectively.