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

[Oompa Loompa]

Wait. Hold on here. I'm missing something.

Someone that I would class as being far right, who said a lot of disparaging things about liberals and gays and transsexuals and Democrats and others on the left was shot. Now you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to know that whoever shot him didn't like either what he stood for or what he said. Someone whose views were antithical to Kirk. Someone whose beliefs were on the opposite side of the ledger. Someone who thought that killing the guy would...well, I don't know. It gets murky here.

Did he shoot him as punishment? As retribution? To make a change in some way? To make a point? To make a stand? To make a name for himself? Answers to those questions may arise in due course. Who knows. But we ALL know that it was the wrong thing to do. 99.99% of people know it's wrong. Including everyone in this forum and in this thread.

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? Wht he did was obviously wrong so you arguing about whether he is a liberal is about as meaningful as arguing if he was was left handed. It is utterly irrelevant as to the morality of his actions.

So say he was a MAGA supporter. Does that make MAGA supporters evil? Say he voted Democrat. Are Democrats then evil? Say he was in love with a transsexual. Are transexuals then the problem? No. HE was the problem. That 99.99% of people who think that killing someone for their politics is wrong still leaves 0.01% of people who think that it's OK. And to try to to subdivide that tiny, tiny proportion of the population into right or left is a fools errand. It's madness.

Text messages to his boyfriend reveals that he shot Kirk because he hated him for his views on LGBT. So basically, Kirk was killed because he said men cannot become women.

 

[Chesterton]

For all we know he is still otherwise "fully MAGA."

Tell us "all we know" on that point.

Not sure why people are so averse to simply saying "yeah, it was one of our nutjobs this time"

Because you don't concede any ground to the enemy when you're at war.

 

[Chesterton]

So basically, Kirk was killed because he said men cannot become women.

And Kirk was killed by a "science-denier".

 

[RileyG]

Text messages to his boyfriend reveals that he shot Kirk because he hated him for his views on LGBT. So basically, Kirk was killed because he said men cannot become women.

That's terrible. If people cannot learn to disagree about manners on opinion, then we as a society, are in big trouble. ugh

Robinson is apparently bisexual, not straight, from what I read. Not that it really matters, to begin with.

 

[RileyG]

And Kirk was killed by a "science-denier".

Can you elaborate?

 

[Chesterton]

Can you elaborate?

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

 

[RileyG]

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

Then yes, you hit it right on the nose! Well said, sir!

 

[Bradskii]

Text messages to his boyfriend reveals that he shot Kirk because he hated him for his views on LGBT. So basically, Kirk was killed because he said men cannot become women.

Quite possibly. That would make sense. I've got three people on permanent ignore in this forum because of the vicious and disgusting things they said about a relative of mine who is trans. I was angry enough that I felt it was lucky that they didn't say it to my face because I may have done something I regretted.

But the guy doesn't represent me. He doesn't represent liberals or LGBTQ supporters or Democrats or anyone else at all. He represents me as much as anyone who happens to be white or male. That is...not at all. If he was MAGA and a Republican supporter then he wouldn't represent you either. His views and his anger and his actions are just his. Trying to pigeonhole him into some political faction just because it scores some points for whatever side one is arguing for is idiotic. And, it must be said, trying to paint him as someone who doesn't support your political opinion to try to to defend one's position is just as dumb.

'He's not one of us. He's one of you lot!'

No. He's not one of anyone's lot. He is one of the tiny percentage of people whom are dumb enough, immature enough, angry enough, mentally deranged enough to do someothing we all know is wrong. It's all of us on one side - you me and everyone else, and this tiny fraction of a small percent of people like him on the other.

You and I are literally on the same side in this matter.

 

[Chesterton]

'He's not one of us. He's one of you lot!'

No. He's not one of anyone's lot. He is one of the tiny percentage of people whom are dumb enough, immature enough, angry enough, mentally deranged enough to do someothing we all know is wrong. It's all of us on one side - you me and everyone else, and this tiny fraction of a small percent of people like him on the other.

I would love to be able to agree with you, except that I'm a realist and this sentiment does not reflect reality.

 

[Bradskii]

I would love to be able to agree with you, except that I'm a realist and this sentiment does not reflect reality.

Please explain why not.

 

[Chesterton]

Please explain why not.

You said of Kirk's assassin that "He is one of the tiny percentage of people...". Over the last week we've seen and heard hundreds of people laughing and celebrating the murder, mocking Kirk's children, disrupting vigils and destroying memorials to Kirk, and calling for more murders of conservatives. And this is only the people stupid and evil enough to do this stuff online or IRL. There have to be lots more who feel the same way but are smart enough not to expose themselves.

This is good vs. evil. This is decent humanity vs., I don't know, the minions of Satan or something. Bob Dylan once sang "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind's blowing". Apparently some of you do need a weatherman.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

He's not one of us. He's one of you lot!'

Listen, I get it. I would probably be in denial if I discovered that my party celebrated murdering political opponents too.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Listen, I get it. I would probably be in denial if I discovered that my party celebrated murdering political opponents too.

*cough*ahem*cough*

 

[Bradskii]

You said of Kirk's assassin that "He is one of the tiny percentage of people..."

Yes. An incredibly small amount of people who would resort to that level of violence. They don't represent any of us. Not you. Not me. No-one on this forum. To try to to divide people into two groups, to insist on an 'us and to them' is rarely a good idea in the first instance. To then try and include those who would kill for whatever reason as a representative of one side or the other is madness.

Yes, there are morons who dance on graves. On the right and the left. But don't make the mistake that mindless rhetoric is in any way comparative to actual violence. And don't think that for one moment that those morons from both sides of the politically divide represent the majority. They don't represent you or me.

Read these words about Kirk:

“We should all feel a deep sense of grief and outrage at the terrible violence that took place in Utah today. Charlie Kirk’s murder is sick and reprehensible, and our thoughts are with his family, children, and loved ones.

“I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate. His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.

“The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate — never through violence. Honest disagreement makes us stronger; violence only drives us further apart and corrodes the values at the heart of this nation.”

You might not know who said that. If you don't, then you certainly wouldn't be able to tell if he or she was on the right or the left of politics. And you couldn't tell because it doesn't have any bearing on what was said. It was actually Governor Newsom. He saw a moment when we needed to be brought together, not divided. That it was a time to highlight what we have in common as opposed to what separates us.

I will leave it to you to find comments from other politicians that don't do that. I don't want to get into an us v them situation...

 

[Oompa Loompa]

*cough*ahem*cough*

View attachment 370202

That is wrong. And so is this.

But remind me which democrat political figure was assassinated and conservatives cheered, danced, and called for more? I must have missed that.

 

[Bradskii]

Listen, I get it. I would probably be in denial if I discovered that my party celebrated murdering political opponents too.

What's being denied? The killer represents himself. No-one else. We both condemn what he did. I don't care what he might say his politics were. Or what he thought of religion. Or gender. Or immigration. I'm about as liberal as anyone on this forum. But do you think he represents me? Do those on the right who commit violence represent you? Of course not.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What's being denied? The killer represents himself. No-one else. We both condemn what he did. I don't care what he might say his politics were. Or what he thought of religion. Or gender. Or immigration. I'm about as liberal as anyone on this forum. But do you think he represents me? Do those on the right who commit violence represent you? Of course not.

Obviously there is something preventing you from acknowledging what any reasonable person would. That being Robinson was a radical leftist. Why is that?

 

[Bradskii]

Obviously there is something preventing you from acknowledging what any reasonable person would. That being Robinson was a radical leftist. Why is that?

Whaton earth are you on about? I spent most of one post explaining that he obviously thought that Kirk's positions were directly opposed to his own. Or at least some of them. Exactly what will come out in due course. But if Kirk is on the far right and this guy didn't agree with him then where on the political spectrum do you think he'd be!

The point I am making, which you obviously don't grasp, is that he doesn't represent me or anyone else on the left of the political spectrum. If he was a died-in-the-wool MAGA supporter and shot a Democrat then he wouldn't represent you either! His politics, and quite frankly his opinion on everything else, don't matter. He's an a outlier. A small fraction of a tiny majority whom are mad enough, angry enough, ill enough or perhaps just stupid enough to shoot someone in the neck because they don't like what he said.

I honestly don't know if he was your 'radical leftist'. But listen to this very carefully. There is nothing wrong in itself with being a radical leftist. Just like there's nothing wrong in itself being a radical right winger. What is wrong is shooting someone. And all us radical leftists and radical right winger should be together in denouncing it. There should be no divide on this.

However, something tells me you prefer it to remain. That's on you.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Whaton earth are you on about? I spent most of one post explaining that he obviously thought that Kirk's positions were directly opposed to his own. Or at least some of them. Exactly what will come out in due course. But if Kirk is on the far right and this guy didn't agree with him then where on the political spectrum do you think he'd be!

The point I am making, which you obviously don't grasp, is that he doesn't represent me or anyone else on the left of the political spectrum. If he was a died-in-the-wool MAGA supporter and shot a Democrat then he wouldn't represent you either! His politics, and quite frankly his opinion on everything else, don't matter. He's an a outlier. A small fraction of a tiny majority whom are mad enough, angry enough, ill enough or perhaps just stupid enough to shoot someone in the neck because they don't like what he said.

I honestly don't know if he was your 'radical leftist'. But listen to this very carefully. There is nothing wrong in itself with being a radical leftist. Just like there's nothing wrong in itself being a radical right winger. What is wrong is shooting someone. And all us radical leftists and radical right winger should be together in denouncing it. There should be no divide on this.

However, something tells me you prefer it to remain. That's on you.

Kirk is not far right. He is mainstream.

 

[rjs330]

...I would say having sex with a trans person is about as "pro-trans" as one could be.

By hating Charlie Kirk ( who's friends with the the president who founded Maga), pretty safe to say he's not Maga

Not sure why people are so averse to simply saying "yeah, it was one of our nutjobs this time"

I think we all struggle with that. If anyone does anything as bad as this we all want to separate ourselves from that person and the beliefs they held that would lead them down the path they took.

It doesn't help either when the other side says, see this is what your rhetoric leads to.

I mean we see conservatives doing the same thing. Take a look at the Minneapolis shooter or the group that was planning to kidnap the Wisconson governor.

Its hard to be honest about this stuff. We'd all be better off though if we just admitted it. As far as I can tell the Minneapolis shooter was firmly on the right. I know he was appointed to something by Walz, but it seemed his targets were all leftist politicians and such and he was against what they were supporting.

In the case of Kirk's shooter he was obviously left leaning. He spouted things that the left spouts all about "hatred" in what Kirk said. He was fully supportive of transgenderism, he was involved in furry culture a bit. His family and friends talked about his moving left. But denying or minimizing this makes it so one doesn't have to recognize that some responsibility lies on their side.