Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Trump clearly has his priorities straight. They're all clearly farming CK for content right now.


“He had a passion for this. I spoke to his wife yesterday. She’s like devastated, but in between the devastation, they want to keep Turning Point going,” he said on Fox News.

Trump said that there have been donation offers to the organization.

“They want to keep Turning Point going. They think they can do that. He had a very good staff,” the president said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents are who I go to for opinions of the non-perpetually online and here is my mother’s take, which I think was spot on:

“All the news was talking about was this guy that was killed yesterday, like the whole time. Who is this guy anyway? Kids are being killed every day, let’s care about that, not some stupid YouTube guy. I don’t know what’s going on with NBC, I’m going to stop watching if this is what the coverage is like.”

Essentially my mother honed in on how the media is desperately flailing to make people care about Charlie Kirk more than the dozens of children dying every day due to gun violence.

He wasn’t just some youtube guy - he founded a movement. Don't go to the clueless for advice.

When you call a nonprofit a “movement“ you sound culty.

We really need to figure out why white people in America at this moment in time are so desperate for a cult savior. Is it just the pressure of not being born at the apex of society anymore? Like, they are kind of lost because they realize that being born White doesn’t award them any special powers?

Because most white people are racist and are going to follow anyone who tells them they aren’t racist.

Oh the irony in your statement.

You don’t even understand the word irony, maga. Go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Uh you’re forgetting the two legislators in MN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents are who I go to for opinions of the non-perpetually online and here is my mother’s take, which I think was spot on:

“All the news was talking about was this guy that was killed yesterday, like the whole time. Who is this guy anyway? Kids are being killed every day, let’s care about that, not some stupid YouTube guy. I don’t know what’s going on with NBC, I’m going to stop watching if this is what the coverage is like.”

Essentially my mother honed in on how the media is desperately flailing to make people care about Charlie Kirk more than the dozens of children dying every day due to gun violence.

He wasn’t just some youtube guy - he founded a movement. Don't go to the clueless for advice.

When you call a nonprofit a “movement“ you sound culty.

We really need to figure out why white people in America at this moment in time are so desperate for a cult savior. Is it just the pressure of not being born at the apex of society anymore? Like, they are kind of lost because they realize that being born White doesn’t award them any special powers?

White culture is in shambles and people are looking for a community. White people are not allowed to view other white people as their community in the same way that latinos or AA or Asians because racism. That leaves a void. Nature abhors a vacuum.

White men were facing some slight collective struggle for the first time in American history. More challenges getting jobs, into college, and girlfriends. Women were dominating college and career wise, with many of them foregoing marriage and children. They felt like they were getting left behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

We don't know what the shooter's motive is just yet. Lets try not to jump to conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Uh you’re forgetting the two legislators in MN.

That was not a public assassination. It took place in a private home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Uh you’re forgetting the two legislators in MN.

"Publicly."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Harvey Milk and George Moscone would like a word.

[Anonymous]

Looking forward to finding out the identity of the shooter so we can all stop speculating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Uh you’re forgetting the two legislators in MN.

That was not a public assassination. It took place in a private home.

What difference does THAT make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

We don't know what the shooter's motive is just yet. Lets try not to jump to conclusions.

The reality is people commit shootings for all sorts of reasons. Many of the people who have shot at presidents were mostly trying to get attention (Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, the kid who shot at Trump last year).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents are who I go to for opinions of the non-perpetually online and here is my mother’s take, which I think was spot on:

“All the news was talking about was this guy that was killed yesterday, like the whole time. Who is this guy anyway? Kids are being killed every day, let’s care about that, not some stupid YouTube guy. I don’t know what’s going on with NBC, I’m going to stop watching if this is what the coverage is like.”

Essentially my mother honed in on how the media is desperately flailing to make people care about Charlie Kirk more than the dozens of children dying every day due to gun violence.

He wasn’t just some youtube guy - he founded a movement. Don't go to the clueless for advice.

When you call a nonprofit a “movement“ you sound culty.

We really need to figure out why white people in America at this moment in time are so desperate for a cult savior. Is it just the pressure of not being born at the apex of society anymore? Like, they are kind of lost because they realize that being born White doesn’t award them any special powers?

White culture is in shambles and people are looking for a community. White people are not allowed to view other white people as their community in the same way that latinos or AA or Asians because racism. That leaves a void. Nature abhors a vacuum.

I mean, this is BS. We have Scottish walks, hughland games, Irish heritage parades, October festivals and German celebrations, Italian celebrations.

Heck my grandma was Dutch and we all wore our orange shirts and watched soccer together.

We also have Appalachian culture, Southern culture, white Portland culture.

There's plenty to find. Now if you start talking about white pride, sure I'm going to side eye you. But you attend an Irish parade or do a debutante ball? No problem.

Most white people in the USA are completely disconnected from their native culture. Obviously you don’t see the more stable Scottish, Irish or German ethnic groups committing these acts, do you? That’s because they have a strong cultural foundation and are not as susceptible to influence. Exactly what I described earlier. It’s right there for you to see. There is no unified white American identity in the way that all other groups have. I agree that it’s for legitimate reasons but that doesn’t change the outcome. We need to find and allow for a healthy white identity that young white men can latch onto or else we will continue to have lost young men turn to demagogues for their culture needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many of you leftists have no idea why Kirk's assassination has turned into such a big deal.

Kirk was doing it "the right way" according to the left. Disagree politely, listen, give the other side space.

And he was killed because leftists didn't like what he had to say (as this thread amply shows) and they didn't want him to keep saying it.

Lots and lots of the "Democrat base" are celebrating and cheering the deliberate murder of someone who had the guts to publicly disagree with the left. "Debate this!" I see the signs being posted on college campuses, with a drawing of Kirk bleeding out from his neck.

So.

What value is there is "peace" and "restraint" when leftists murdered the most prominent guy on the right who was all about peace and restraint? And celebrate his death?

If you leftists are so glad to see Kirk killed... well, there's no possibility of peace, is there. He WAS the "peaceful solution". And leftists murdered him for it. Or at least are very happy about it.

If Kirk is not acceptable to the left.... we all know you guys would GLADLY kill the rest of us, too.

Kirk was a sort of "ambassador" to the left... and he was murdered because of it. What happens when an ambassador is killed? That's a casus belli and has been since Ghengis Khan, at the very least.

I don’t appreciate the broad generalization happening here. First off, this person probably worked alone, 75 million people and or anyone official is involved here. I have no control over what others say or do. And I think “lots” is an exaggeration. The celebrators are a minority amongst a large group of people.

It's been less than 24 hours since he was killed, and I've already seen coworkers, people just out in public - and certainly a lot of people on this very board, openly cheering that he was killed.

I think you're wrong in thinking that this is a 'small' segment of people on the left. I wasn't even looking, and saw dozens of examples of it, less than a day after he was killed.

I didn't agree with much of anything Charlie Kirk said. But first and foremost, he was a human being, with a wife and two young kids that will now grow up without a father. I'm deeply disappointed and kind of shocked by my own political party at the moment. There's some sickening stuff being said on reddit/bluesky/twitter, and it's not even been a day.

I am not seeing anyone at all cheering. I am seeing people respond to his death in the exact same way he responded to other deaths. I am seeing people quote him word for word and then being told they are sick for making such comments.

It is sick. To me, it implies they think he deserved it.

Not that he deserved it any more than any other shooting victim would have deserved it. You know the person that Kirk would consider collateral damage just to preserve the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly. The victims don’t deserve to be shot; according to Charlie Kirk, they’re just unfortunate, inevitable collateral damage that results from the necessary adherence to the 2A. Nobody wants innocent people to die, but if we preserve the right to bear arms, some people will abuse that right. Charlie felt that right was worth protecting, even if it means some innocents will die. He was right about the fact that giving everyone the right to bear arms with as few restrictions as possible means lunatics will shoot little schoolchildren. And Bible study groups. And people attending shabbat services. And concert goers. And people in night clubs. And people shopping in stores. And families who line parade routes. And judge’s family members. And CEOs. And politicians. And people who make public appearances to debate college students.

We average more than one mass shooting per day in the US. There are many public officials who are grievously mourning Charlie’s death. Time and time again, these exact same people have blamed the shooting deaths of innocents on mental illness, then opposed funding access to mental healthcare for people who can’t afford it. Even today, their solution isn’t to restrict gun access or increase access to healthcare; it’s to restrict their political opposition.

Charlie was on their side, and he ended up being part of the tragic loss of life that is just unfortunate collateral damage to the GOP. They’ll mourn him, but they won’t change a thing to make the rest of us safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Reagan was shot long after that. Yet we didn’t treat it like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Reagan was shot long after that. Yet we didn’t treat it like this.

Right. We enacted gun reform. Something that's unlikely to result from this. Though I hope I'm wrong.