DOJ Quietly Deletes Study After Charlie Kirk's Death That Says Right-Wing Extremists Engage in 'Far More' Political Violence

[eclipsenow]

You need to catch up on American news.

Are you just referring to the fact that his romantic partner is trans? His mum said something about him becoming more left-leaning because of that. Maybe in America being protrans is a sign of being left leaning now? Because I guess trendy new cultural and identity politics is more important than the old conventions of how one thought the country should run, or how a economy should run.

If being sympathetic to his choice of romantic partner is the main indicator you are referring to, then I just don't think that's enough to draw up a whole manifesto we can tag him with. He's not registered to any political party. Tyler seems a bit like a lone wolf - out to do his own thing. He seems confused about having done it, and apologised to his family afterwards. I just don't think we have a consistent read on this strange and dangerous outsider.

Get back to me when they find a manifesto, or a party membership, or even a few democratic books from his bookshelf or something.

Anything else is just grandstanding by MAGA attempting to justify their increasingly harsh language against fellow citizens that happened to lean left. The rhetoric is appalling, and unjustified in the vast majority of cases. And for those few crazy bread tube nutters that were celebrating Charlie's death? I condemn them as fiercely as anyone loyal to MAGA! How dare they! Watching his assassination is one of the saddest things I have seen in a long time. We are fragile creatures.

In the meantime the question is how on earth does Trump pouring fuel on the fire help America right now? It helps him! But dividing a nation between us loyalists and "them" is the crass move of the political populist who does not care about the well-being of their nation, but instead only cares about maintaining power by appealing to fear.

Watch the ABC video by my favourite ABC reporter Matt Bevin. (Link above.)
He used to go to my church before he moved to Newcastle. Compare the speeches of RFK to Trump.

The fact of the shooting was horrible enough. But watching MAGA milk it for political gain is just horrific!

 

[Servus]

Are you just referring to the fact that his romantic partner is trans? His mum said something about him becoming more left-leaning because of that. Maybe in America being protrans is a sign of being left leaning now? Because I guess trendy new cultural and identity politics is more important than the old conventions of how one thought the country should run, or how a economy should run.

If being sympathetic to his choice of romantic partner is the main indicator you are referring to, then I just don't think that's enough to draw up a whole manifesto we can tag him with. He's not registered to any political party. Tyler seems a bit like a lone wolf - out to do his own thing. He seems confused about having done it, and apologised to his family afterwards. I just don't think we have a consistent read on this strange and dangerous outsider.

Get back to me when they find a manifesto, or a party membership, or even a few democratic books from his bookshelf or something.

Anything else is just grandstanding by MAGA attempting to justify their increasingly harsh language against fellow citizens that happened to lean left. The rhetoric is appalling, and unjustified in the vast majority of cases. And for those few crazy bread tube nutters that were celebrating Charlie's death? I condemn them as fiercely as anyone loyal to MAGA! How dare they! Watching his assassination is one of the saddest things I have seen in a long time. We are fragile creatures.

In the meantime the question is how on earth does Trump pouring fuel on the fire help America right now? It helps him! But dividing a nation between us loyalists and "them" is the crass move of the political populist who does not care about the well-being of their nation, but instead only cares about maintaining power by appealing to fear.

Watch the ABC video by my favourite ABC reporter Matt Bevin. (Link above.)
He used to go to my church before he moved to Newcastle. Compare the speeches of RFK to Trump.

The fact of the shooting was horrible enough. But watching MAGA milk it for political gain is just horrific!

I'm referring to the latest reports from the investigation. What you're going on about is inconsistent with current facts. This is Sept 20th not Sept 12th.

 

[eclipsenow]

I'm referring to the latest reports from the investigation. What you're going on about is inconsistent with current facts. This is Sept 20th not Sept 12th.

Please enlighten me as to your sources because I've already had a look

 

[Servus]

Please enlighten me as to your sources because I've already had a look

No. Find someone else to have this days old argument with. I don't feel like going back in time.

 

[Say it aint so]

Chuck kirk also.


But hey. Trump is JUST the president. What do you expect from him...decency?

Wait a minute, you mean Charlie Kirk himself was mocking the hammer attack on Mr Pelosi?

 

[Servus]

Wait a minute, you mean Charlie Kirk himself was mocking the hammer attack on Mr Pelosi?

You guys are still running with the world's weakest whataboutism to justify the left celebrating someone's murder eh?

 

[rambot]

Wait a minute, you mean Charlie Kirk himself was mocking the hammer attack on Mr Pelosi?

Not quite.
I haven't seen everything he's had to say about the attack (perhaps somewhere he had a decent human response) but he seems to believe that a true american would bail out the attacker.

I mean he's not totalyl wrong. What is MORE American than attacking someone with a hammer.

Well, I guess with a gun....

 

[Say it aint so]

Not quite.
I haven't seen everything he's had to say about the attack (perhaps somewhere he had a decent human response) but he seems to believe that a true american would bail out the attacker.

I mean he's not totalyl wrong. What is MORE American than attacking someone with a hammer.

Well, I guess with a gun....

I looked it up. Kirk says the attack was wrong, but he is certainly belittling it.

 

[Lukaris]

The overall context of Kirk’s comments on the violence against the Pelosi’s.

Charlie Kirk called for an 'amazing patriot' to bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker in 2022

Kirk also said he thought the attack was "awful."

www.snopes.com

 

[eclipsenow]

No. Find someone else to have this days old argument with. I don't feel like going back in time.

If you're getting your data from Fox propaganda outlet - I can with 90% confidence tell you it's rubbish.
If you're getting it from Trump himself - what can I say?

All I can find on his motives from yesterday is the BBC - and it's the pro-trans stuff I mentioned yesterday.

The accounts do include a few scattered comments on politics, none of them particularly conclusive or directly indicative of a motive. The BBC has reviewed the accounts, but has not been able to confirm that they belong to the pair.​

One of the highest quality reporting institutions I know of is The Conversation. They tend to have true experts commenting on societal trends. They report that Tyler Robinson appears to have been radicalised by the darker side of video game culture - which almost always skews alt-right. His social media memes and inscriptions on shell casings certainly indicates this!

It seems maybe you need to get up to date - and / or switch the channel?

In the meantime, for the rest of the list:-

THE CONVERSATION on Right Wing Extremism​

Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.​

​

Illustrative cases include the 2015 Charleston church shooting, when white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23 people. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example, killed 168 in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.​

​

By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, have made up about 10& to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities."​

Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence − what the data shows​

 

[probinson]

It's good thing people were asked to mask up and social distance. Those two actions did help stop the spread of covid.

 

[probinson]

I have read numerous studies and have attended several classes and forums focused on violent extremism over the years, and while the methodology and definitions used in these studies may vary, the outcome is always the same: far-right violence has and continues to outpace any other ideology in the United States over the past 30+ years. While the studies themselves may be challenged because of their biases or the methodology used, the outcome of the studies can't be denied.

Why did you attend numerous classes and forums on this? What did you hope to accomplish?

 

[Belk]

You guys are still running with the world's weakest whataboutism to justify the left celebrating someone's murder eh?

Odd. I think you would consider me on the left yet I did not celebrate his murder. None of my friends celebrated his murder. So how exactly the "the left" celebrate his murder?

 

[Servus]

Odd. I think you would consider me on the left yet I did not celebrate his murder. None of my friends celebrated his murder. So how exactly the "the left" celebrate his murder?

Sorry, all those many people on the left celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder.

Not all, but way too many. More than enough to make the party look less appealing. Probably especially to young adults.

 

[probinson]

I can't attest to that, I don't tik tock or Instagram.

It was pretty vile.

There's another reel making the rounds on social media where a mother is talking with her two daughters, who are probably no more than 8 and 5, and she tells them she has the best news ever. Their first guess is that Trump died. Then the mother laughs and says, no, the second best news ever. So then they guess that Vance died. And then she says, no, it's the third best news ever, and the girls guess that perhaps Elon Musk died. Then finally, she tells them, no, the best news ever is that her "best friend" is getting married, and her "best friend" is Taylor Swift.

Isn't it sad that there are people out there teaching their young children that the "best news ever" is that people are dead?

I think trying to be funny with conspiracy theories or memes, or jokes given anyone's death be it Kirk or George Floyd; is no beuno.

On that, we agree.

My views of Kirk does not prevent me thinking about the loss given his wife and his young kids. I extend to them something Kirk would disapprove of, and that's empathy. Apparently empathy, that thing that is said separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, is just some made up word to Kirk.

Have you ever had a family member assassinated right in front of you? No? Then by definition, you CANNOT empathize with the Kirk family, because you have absolutely no idea how that feels. According to Miriam Webster, yhe word empathy means:

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another​

​

This is what I believe Charlie Kirk meant when he said empathy had done much damage. For reference, here is the context of that statement.

So the new communications strategy for Democrats, now that their polling advantage is collapsing in every single state… collapsing in Ohio. It's collapsing even in Arizona. It is now a race where Blake Masters is in striking distance. Kari Lake is doing very, very well. The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time.​

​

Charlie Kirk once said empathy was 'made-up, new age term'

The authentic quote from the CEO and co-founder of Turning Point USA circulated online following his fatal shooting on Sept. 10, 2025.

www.snopes.com

​

​

What Kirk is saying here is that in many (probably most) cases, it is impossible for you to empathize with someone, because you couldn't possibly know how another person is feeling. None of the married women on this forum can empathize with Charlie Kirk's wife, because they've not had their husband gruesomely murdered right in front of them, For another woman to say that she "empathizes" with Erika Kirk is indeed damaging, because how could you possibly even pretend to know how that feels? They can sympathize with her, but the word empathy implies that you know how she feels. Few, if any, of us can claim to understand how she feels.

 

[probinson]

So basic questions about the study are "just off the top of your head"?
Didn't you think that reading the study would answer those questions? There's usually a glossary of terms. Could probably fet all that info within 5 minutes.

I know you've never read the first paragraph of something and had questions. No, I know you're super-duper thorough in everything you read always, at all times and forever!

What was the purpose.. just to sow doubt?

The purpose was to raise the questions. And then, just a few posts later, another member posted the definitions. As I suspected, those definitions were quite broad and left an awful lot open to interpretation.

When I see a study like this, the first thing I ask myself is, what's the purpose?

I'll give you an example. During COVID when vaccine-zealotry was at its peak, there was a "study" that found that unvaccinated people were more likely to have a car accident than vaccinated people. Now why on earth would someone even conceive of such a study? The article explains:

Of course, skipping a COVID vaccine does not mean that someone will get into a car crash. Instead, the authors theorize that people who resist public health recommendations might also “neglect basic road safety guidelines.”​

​

Why would they ignore the rules of the road? Distrust of the government, a belief in freedom, misconceptions of daily risks, “faith in natural protection,” “antipathy toward regulation,” poverty, misinformation, a lack of resources, and personal beliefs are potential reasons proposed by the authors.​

​

So you see, the purpose of this study wasn't to link traffic accidents to unvaccinated people. No, the purpose of this study was to tell you how people who don't follow government health regulations are just awful people in general and increase the stigma on them.

Of course, we later found out that "study" was bunk.

The news media uptake of Redelmeier et al. (1) shows the potential real-world impacts of public health research–for example, increased stigma and higher auto insurance fees, which could disproportionately impact certain marginalized groups. In this response, however, we have outlined several concerns that cast serious doubt on the conclusions and recommendations offered by both the study authors and the media. ​

​

Vaccine hesitancy was not shown to be associated with traffic safety or driver behavior - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

​

So what is the purpose of a study that finds right-wing extremism is more problematic than left-wing extremism? Is it to prevent it from happening? It doesn't seem so. It's just to generate some talking points that the right is more violent than the left.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Have you ever had a family member assassinated right in front of you? No? Then by definition, you CANNOT empathize with the Kirk family, because you have absolutely no idea how that feels. According to Miriam Webster, yhe word empathy means:

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another​

​

This is what I believe Charlie Kirk meant when he said empathy had done much damage. For reference, here is the context of that statement.

So the new communications strategy for Democrats, now that their polling advantage is collapsing in every single state… collapsing in Ohio. It's collapsing even in Arizona. It is now a race where Blake Masters is in striking distance. Kari Lake is doing very, very well. The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time.​

​

Charlie Kirk once said empathy was 'made-up, new age term'

The authentic quote from the CEO and co-founder of Turning Point USA circulated online following his fatal shooting on Sept. 10, 2025.

www.snopes.com

​

​

What Kirk is saying here is that in many (probably most) cases, it is impossible for you to empathize with someone, because you couldn't possibly know how another person is feeling. None of the married women on this forum can empathize with Charlie Kirk's wife, because they've not had their husband gruesomely murdered right in front of them, For another woman to say that she "empathizes" with Erika Kirk is indeed damaging, because how could you possibly even pretend to know how that feels? They can sympathize with her, but the word empathy implies that you know how she feels. Few, if any, of us can claim to understand how she feels.

How close does the experience have to be to say that you empathise with someone? Many people have had loved ones unexpectedly die on them, if it has to be exactly the same no one can ever empathise with anyone. But I don't think that is how most people and psychologists understand the term. To me it is actively putting yourself in the others shoes, and feeling it as you percieve they are feeling it. Of course there are no guarantees, the person might have a completely different emotional toolbox than oneself. Disclaimer, I'm no psychologist so I might completely off-base with my take.

 

[Belk]

Sorry, all those many people on the left celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder.

Not all, but way too many. More than enough to make the party look less appealing. Probably especially to young adults.

How many is "More then enough"? Seems I'm being painted as bad based on a very limited subset. How is this any different from those on the left painting all conservatives racist based on a very limited number of actual racists?

 

[probinson]

How close does the experience have to be to say that you empathise with someone?

Pretty close.

Many people have had loved ones unexpectedly die on them,

Yes, but many people have not watched their loved ones KILLED in front of them.

if it has to be exactly the same no one can ever empathise with anyone.

That's pretty close to what I believe.

I'll give you an example. I recently had to put my dog down. I had that dog for 14-1/2 years and he was a part of our family. Making the decision to put him down due to his old age and declining health was one of the hardest things I've ever done. It hurt me greatly.

Around the same time, the bass player on our worship team lost his dog. He had his dog for about 10 years, and putting his dog down was quite sudden. I can tell you that it hit him much harder than it did me. He was a mess for weeks.

Can I "empathize" with him? Maybe a little. But I still personally wouldn't choose that word. I don't know how he feels, and he doesn't know how I feel. We both lost a dog, but how it impacted us was different because we're all individuals. That's why I rarely, if ever, tell people I can "empathize" with them. We can "sympathize" with each other. We can have "compassion" towards each other. But neither of us knows how the other feels even though we experienced the same loss.

But I don't think that is how most people and psychologists understand the term.

But words have meaning,. When you say you can "empathize" with someone, you're saying you know how they feel.

To me it is actively putting yourself in the others shoes, and feeling it as you percieve they are feeling it.

But what good comesfrom that? Why is it important for me to say I can understand how you feel? Why is it not sufficient to just come alongside someone and support and grieve with them?

Of course there are no guarantees, the person might have a completely different emotional toolbox than oneself. Disclaimer, I'm no psychologist so I might completely off-base with my take.

I don't think you're completely off-base. I think that when most people use the word "empathize", they mean it sincerely as you've described here. But for me personally, I have a hard time telling someone I can understand how they are feeling, and that's what I'm saying to them when I say I can empathize with them.

 

[JosephZ]

Why did you attend numerous classes and forums on this? What did you hope to accomplish?

Having witnessed acts of terrorism and the suffering that it leaves in its wake firsthand, I have developed a strong passion for countering violent extremism. The youth in the communities we work in Mindanao are often targets of recruiters for terrorist groups, especially those who live in the conflict regions, and a significant portion of the work we do is related to countering violent extremism, mainly through community engagement and education.

My education and experience in this field are also helpful in countering some of the misinformation and false narratives related to violent extremism and terrorism I come across in this forum and are the reason that you will often find me participating in threads on these topics.