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

Oompa Loompa said:

So tell me, if I were to hypothetically tell you that I thought your ideas were awful and that debating it would be a setback to society. Not saying I am, just a hypothetical question. How would you respond?

Click to expand...

Lol. A random person on the internet? I LITERALLY could not care less.

My time working at the youth treatment centre made me virtually impervious to insults of any kind.


Do you honestly care about others opinions online? Can you?

We don't know each other st all. I have no basis for your values or system of jusgement. If someone inknew and respected said that I may be disappointed but it wouldn't make sense because people I know and respect are likely gonna have similar thought patterns to myself

FireDragon76 said:

Charlie Kirk said that gays deserve to be killed, women should not work outside the home, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and that Martin Luther King Jr. was a person of poor character. Those aren't moderate stances. Those are extreme.

Charlie Kirk also owned two luxury homes. One worth almost 5 million dollars, the other almost a million. Again, not a normal guy. Most people in his generation don't even own a home. However, it does demonstrate how being a right-wing provocateur and grifter can be lucrative and rewarding financially.



Very few serious commentators actually are saying that Charlie Kirk deserved death.

Click to expand...

Charlie Kirk did not advocate for the murder of queers, he spoke of scriptures.
God on the other hand wiped out many sodomites.

"A workman is worthy of his hire."
Any who complain about others more successful than themselves should work harder and smarter.
And vote for Bernie, He only owns three.

ThatRobGuy said:

People will cling to certain reasons that they feel will give them a "public justification" for hating someone... but let's be honest, the real reason they hated him was because of this:

They couldn't beat him in a debate even in a 25 vs. 1 handicap match.

Click to expand...

Are tou serious thatrobguy.

You literally think that the show surrounded is why people don't like him and apparently he performed well?

Never seen an episode of surrounded why rhe surrounders weren't smug and self righteous.

rambot said:

Are tou serious thatrobguy.

You literally think that the show surrounded is why people don't like him and apparently he performed well?

Never seen an episode of surrounded why rhe surrounders weren't smug and self righteous.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not suggesting that the particular show is why they hated him... (sorry if I didn't choose my words carefully)

I was referring to the general concept.

Many progressives have the perception (expectation) that "Conservatives are dumb country bumpkins with backwards views that aren't as smart as us because we went to college". When someone comes along that challenges that narrative, that seems to make them very mad.


Put more plainly... a lot of college liberals operate on the assumption that their status as "college educated" and "liberal" automatically makes them intellectual superiors to anyone who's conservative. When they get out-debated by a conservative, they don't take it well.

The reason why far-left types especially hate guys like Shapiro (and hated - past tense - guys like Kirk) is specifically because they were good at what they do and could present opposing viewpoints in a way that's convincing to other people.

So while they don't like conservatives, they especially don't like conservatives that can articulate points in a way could challenge their sense of intellectual superiority in front of an audience.

Palmfever said:

Fact Check: Did Charlie Kirk say that gays should be shot?

The claim that Charlie Kirk said gays should be shot is not supported by the majority of the sources analyzed [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. These sources either...

factually.co

Charlie Kirk did not advocate for the murder of queers, he spoke of scriptures.
God on the other hand wiped out many sodomites.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because they were prideful and prosperous butndid not feed thr needy

ThatRobGuy said:

No, I'm not suggesting that the particular show is why they hated him... (sorry if I didn't choose my words carefully)

I was referring to the general concept.

Many progressives have the perception (expectation) that "Conservatives are dumb country bumpkins with backwards views that aren't as smart as us because we went to college". When someone comes along that challenges that narrative, that seems to make them very mad.


Put more plainly... a lot of college liberals operate on the assumption that their status as "college educated" and "liberal" automatically makes them intellectual superiors to anyone who's conservative. When they get out-debated by a conservative, they don't take it well.

The reason why far-left types especially hate guys like Shapiro (and hated - past tense - guys like Kirk) is specifically because they were good at what they do and could present opposing viewpoints in a way that's convincing to other people.

So while they don't like conservatives, they especially don't like conservatives that can articulate points in a way could challenge their sense of intellectual superiority in front of an audience.

Click to expand...

While I accept your reasoning, I would say it applies almost exclusively to early 20somethings and those currently in post sec and not as a broad comment.

ThatRobGuy said:

The reason why far-left types especially hate guys like Shapiro (and hated - past tense - guys like Kirk) is specifically because they were good at what they do...

Click to expand...

Whoa...back the truck up a little. I had lot less time for Kirk than I do for Shapiro (but I have to turn the Youtube speed down to about 70% to listen to Shapiro*). But Shapiro was petty smart. He could hold his own in an honest debate. Here he is talking about religion with Alex O'Connor;


I don't expect you to watch it all - it's well over an hour. I'm just linking to show that I've seen him have a reasonable conversation with someone with diametrically opposed views. Kirk isn't in the same game, let alone in the same league. And I don't hate Shapiro. I just dislike his views (difficult to separate the two, but it's possible). But I found Kirk to be a deeply unpleasant person.

* Yeah, I know. Cheap shot...

ThatRobGuy said:

No, I'm not suggesting that the particular show is why they hated him... (sorry if I didn't choose my words carefully)

I was referring to the general concept.

Many progressives have the perception (expectation) that "Conservatives are dumb country bumpkins with backwards views that aren't as smart as us because we went to college". When someone comes along that challenges that narrative, that seems to make them very mad.


Put more plainly... a lot of college liberals operate on the assumption that their status as "college educated" and "liberal" automatically makes them intellectual superiors to anyone who's conservative. When they get out-debated by a conservative, they don't take it well.

The reason why far-left types especially hate guys like Shapiro (and hated - past tense - guys like Kirk) is specifically because they were good at what they do and could present opposing viewpoints in a way that's convincing to other people.

So while they don't like conservatives, they especially don't like conservatives that can articulate points in a way could challenge their sense of intellectual superiority in front of an audience.

Click to expand...

Charlie Kirk's cleverness is vastly overrated. I concur with @Bradskii . Ben Shapiro is a serious intellect, Charlie Kirk was not.

I've seen debates where Charlie Kirk doesn't seriously engage with the points raised by his interlocutor. In fact this didn't seem to be a rare pattern for him. What Charlie Kirk tended to do on his own channels was cherry-pick the most naive or uninformed voices to represent "liberals", and excluded any voices that are more informed.

Russia Secretly Worms Its Way Into America’s Conservative Media​

In early 2022, a young couple from Canada, Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, registered a new company in Tennessee that went on to create a social media outlet called Tenet Media.

By November 2023, they had assembled a lineup of major conservative social media stars, including Benny Johnson, Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, to post original content on Tenet’s platform.

The site then began posting hundreds of videos — trafficking in pointed political commentary as well as conspiracy theories about election fraud, Covid-19, immigrants and Russia’s war with Ukraine — that were then promoted across the spectrum of social media, from YouTube to TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram and Rumble.

It was all, federal prosecutors now say, a covert Russian influence operation. On Wednesday, the Justice Department accused two Russians of helping orchestrate $10 million in payments to Tenet in a scheme to use those stars to spread Kremlin-friendly messages.

..... The Kremlin has long sought to exploit divisions on both sides of the American political spectrum, but contentious conservative voices provide ample fodder for its own propaganda, especially when it involves criticism of the Biden administration or, more broadly, of the country’s foreign policy, including support for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

...... Ms Chen also produced podcasts on Blaze Media and served as a contributor to Turning Point USA, the conservative organization run by Charlie Kirk. Her profiles on Mr. Kirk’s site and on Blaze Media’s disappeared this week. Her account on X, which remains active, has nearly 600,000 followers.
.....
Tenet Media President Liam Donovan is the husband of Lauren Chen, a Canadian influencer who has appeared as a guest in several Tenet Media videos. Chen is affiliated with the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA and has hosted shows for the right-wing network Blaze Media. RT’s website also lists her as a contributor of several opinion articles from 2021 and 2022.

lifepsyop said:

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

Click to expand...

1) Tenet Media's content included coverage of illegal immigration, diversity in video games, supposed racism against white people, free speech and Elon Musk,[13] as well as climate change denial content.[ content included coverage of illegal immigration, diversity in video games, supposed racism against white people, free speech and Elon Musk,[ as well as climate change denial content.

2) Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan who had connections with both Charlie Kirk's "Turning Point USA" and "Blaze Media" which is responsible for circulating "School Teachers, Nurses, Government Workers, CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk's murder!" was the "public face of this attempt to hijack conseervative media and could be charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act!

3) Tenet Media paid conservative INFLUENCERS, including those associated with Blaze Media ( Dave Rubin "The Rubin Report") received $100000 signing bonuses and some receiving $400,000 a month for those promoting social unrest in America and sympathetic to Putin's policies - such as the war in Ukraine!

4) The 2,000 videos financed with Russian money to influence American public opinion have been seen by 16 million viewers on "You Tube" alone = Republican National Co-Chair Lara Trump, Project 2025 Director Paul Dans, Republican Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and FBI Director Kash Patel!

5) Topics promoted by Tenet Media included support for the Trump Administration''s methods to deport illegal immigrants, racism against white people, Elon Musk's X as free speech and denial of climate change - some prominent public opinion influences also contracted for Tenet Media to produce videos making false claims about Ukraine!

6) Lauren Chen also produced podcasts for both "Blaze Media" and Kirk's "Turning Point USA - Chris Enloe who wrote "
Leftists show their true colors after Charlie Kirk is shot — and it's absolutely sickening

Bradskii said:

'm just linking to show that I've seen him have a reasonable conversation with someone with diametrically opposed views. Kirk isn't in the same game, let alone in the same league.

Click to expand...

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

ThatRobGuy said:

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

Click to expand...

I tried to watch the video (I jumped around a bit), but are there no fact checkers? How is the audience supposed to know who is right?

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!

ThatRobGuy said:

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

Click to expand...

He didn't really "hold his own" against Seder in that debate unless you count a successful Gish Gallop as a good performance.

essentialsaltes said:

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!

Click to expand...

I agree that those who did belittle the death of Charlie Kirk should not be banned from the internet platforms and should not have their videos taken down BUT like they do with TV shows, movies, video games and some books these people's website should have a tag on them saying this is a website with hateful speech on it.

Now before you argue, "who determines which websites should be labeled with this message", know right now I am only talking about websites that praised the death of Charlie Kirk. From that point on, there should be a bipartisan committee that will label future horrendous events and those praising those horrendous events.

The people of the US need to see what hateful and evil speech is. And I not talking about stuff like "abortion is right or abortion is wrong" or "LGBTQ society is right or LGBTQ society is wrong". That is not hate speech that is debating speech. But when someone praises killing or the death of someone who supports any of those options - that's hate speech. Label those people's websites so all the world will see what hate is.

And one more point before I sign out here. What God has said is off the table but people who take what God has said and twisted it to kill other people, those people are in play. Now, did I cover all my bases. I guess I'll find out if people start throwing weird scenarios at me.

Oh and the only way you can have the label taken of the website is by denouncing truthfully the horrendous stuff said and the person converts to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy or alright Evangelicalism, maybe traditional Anglican too, it's up for debate on Baptist )(boy am I going to catch it for this last statement, but all in fun).

Hvizsgyak said:

Now before you argue, "who determines which websites should be labeled with this message", know right now I am only talking about websites that praised the death of Charlie Kirk. From that point on, there should be a bipartisan committee...

Click to expand...

No, that's government censorship and unconstitutional. The only appropriate way to handle something like this would be for the social media platforms to make these choices, should they decide to do so.

essentialsaltes said:

No, that's government censorship and unconstitutional. The only appropriate way to handle something like this would be for the social media platforms to make these choices, should they decide to do so.

Click to expand...

I guess this is a difference of opinion then. I do not see that as censorship. I see it as common sense, alerting people to the fact that the stuff they are reading is hateful in nature. They do it with movies, tv shows and music, it can be done with websites.

Hvizsgyak said:

I guess this is a difference of opinion then. I do not see that as censorship. ... They do it with movies, tv shows and music, it can be done with websites.

Click to expand...

'They' in those cases are the content creators voluntarily choosing to do so, e.g. through the MPA for film. These are not required by law or lawmakers.

The MPA rating system is a voluntary scheme that is not enforced by law;

lifepsyop said:

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.

Click to expand...

You know, some people have said some awful things. Things that shouldn’t be said. If they’re said publicly and an employer thinks they’ve crossed a line (because some stuff certainly has) and deserves punishment, then… I mean… That’s (generally) their right. It’s the Internet, not a vacuum. Stuff you say comes back to haunt you and there are consequences.

The doxxing, the lists, the websites tracking people… None of that is ok. It’s quite illegal and it passively encourages retaliatory, violent, harassing behavior. That is highly inappropriate. You go to the law with the comments (if they’re illegal), I guess if you feel so motivated you can inform an employer, but you can’t harass the person who said it, you can’t harass the employer, you can’t break the law in pursuit of retaliation for somebody saying something you don’t like or you find offensive.

And there’s a level of hysteria that goes beyond that which just needs to stop. In one workplace of a family member, a group of people have banded together to bombard the HR with grievances they say attack them and their beliefs personally. Pronoun pins, pride flags, anything they deem “liberal” or “anti-Christian” or “anti-American” they reported saying it creates a hostile workplace where they feel uncomfortable. A place I do freelance contract work for has the same thing happening with conservative employees claiming offense over anything they feel doesn’t reflect their values. I myself got tagged as a violator by two people. Apparently they said because of the “sensitive nature of witchcraft surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death” that my dressing as I do is “inappropriate,” “hostile,” and “makes people uncomfortable.” I wear all black dresses, or jeans with chains and boots and corsets. I wear jewelry with Tarot cards on them, or pewter casts of skulls and animal bones, sometimes an Ouija board planchette, or big crystals and gemstones. Goth girl stuff. The witchiest thing I own is a pentacle with The Charge of the Goddess, a gift from my mother who didn’t know what it was, just thought it was pretty and she bought two: one for her, one for me. I’ve dressed this way for the 15 years I’ve done freelance work… This is not new. In Salem, street preachers are accosting people there to celebrate the season.

Like… For real. Chill.

If you want to be upset about Charlie Kirk, be upset. But don’t use it as an excuse to break the law or harass people, or invent offense where there is none, or generally just be a pest to people who aren’t being disrespectful, but simply aren’t mourning his loss. The man said some really disrespectful, hateful things. Those people who don’t like him shouldn’t use his excuse to be cruel, to make comments that are threatening or violent, but we also can’t attack people who aren’t viewing him as a martyr.

Stopped_lurking said:

I tried to watch the video (I jumped around a bit), but are there no fact checkers? How is the audience supposed to know who is right?

Click to expand...

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.

essentialsaltes said:

'They' in those cases are the content creators voluntarily choosing to do so, e.g. through the MPA for film. These are not required by law or lawmakers.

The MPA rating system is a voluntary scheme that is not enforced by law;

Click to expand...

I'm okay with Google, X, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok and the other major platforms doing that (in a joking manner so don't take it too serious but I'm okay with the government (or everyday normal citizens) twisting a couple of arms at those platforms to get the ball rolling).

lifepsyop said:

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.

Click to expand...

The world is doing what world does. It is not a surprise.

The left is blaming right, the right is blaming left, but is not about that. Our core problem is sin, not the politics and which political side we stand on. We must stand on God's side and spread the Gospel. And if what I hear about Charlie Kirk is truth, then he would be the first person to sharr Christ with his murderer.