Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

Ehhh, not a very good reply there. You're saying that school shootings are so normalized as to be irrelevant to any discourse. This is the very environment that CK was part of creating.

A gun suicide in a high school will never get the attention of a sniper attack and killing of a fairly well known public figure.

Sorry. But that’s true everywhere in the world.

Also true, if every shooting was newscasts everywhere at all times, people would indeed tune out. Even in countries with more handgun or assault weapon bans and difficult processes- like Mexico.

The school shooting in Colorado this week was also ideologically driven.

But here's the thing - if there's no meaningful action to reduce gun violence, ideologically driven or not, then like it or not, the shooting of a well known public figure like Charlie Kirk will be just as irrelevant as the school shooting/suicide that everyone is likewise choosing to ignore.

Too bad instead of parenting, parents let social media, video games, unknown online strangers, and screens raise their kids.

I’d start there, yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Trans is relevent because it changes the meaning of two of his meme engravings. Making him someone who was torn between his internet reality and his life reality and very cliche.

It could be part of the story...but then we get to the 'so what?' What is to be done? Take their guns? Go for it.

Yes, it doesn't need to be part of the story. Yes, the far majority of people should not have access to guns, like the way it is in the U.K.

Yes only allow domestic and foreign criminals to have guns. And LEOs but not on their body.

Haha, why do you need a gun? Are you afraid of being shot by a Mexican landscaper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Trans is relevent because it changes the meaning of two of his meme engravings. Making him someone who was torn between his internet reality and his life reality and very cliche.

His meme engravings don't matter either actually. What only matters is that this particular individual decided to murder someone. That's it.

What the internet and our society have become matters. If this is true then he's a smart incel groyper gamer raised in a loving 3%er LEO Utah Mormon MAGA home that dropped out of college during Covid then got laid with a pre-op male to female transgender gamer from Utah and his mind couldn't handle all the contradictions.

The layers of crap all converge. He's a poster child for everything about these last few horrible years. He's a walking rorsach test.

Ok so what should we, as a society do? Provide more guns? Continue to ostracize these people? Condemn them for being different?

Yep, if trans is an important part of the story, then we get to the "ok, so what's the plan exactly?" Continue to demonize them while simultaneously making sure they have access to diverse weaponry of their choosing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Have you been on reddit lately? I doubt it. I can only imagine what's going on discord. It's relevant. Very.

Why? Do Tyler and twigg have a ton of previous posts on their big plans and hatreds?

I can see ad dollars dropping across the board in all social media platforms. Too much toxicity.

It’s totally and utterly irrelevant. Are you really unable to see the bigger picture?why do you need a gun?

Huh? U must be mixing up your posts, this was the one telling others to go in Reddit to discuss some Trans angle and news or OpEds.

I have a gun to shoot intruders. And squirrels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

It's not irrelevant. Lie down with dogs and you get fleas. It's predictable, esp from the rwnjs who see everything in black and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Have you been on reddit lately? I doubt it. I can only imagine what's going on discord. It's relevant. Very.

Why? Do Tyler and twigg have a ton of previous posts on their big plans and hatreds?

I can see ad dollars dropping across the board in all social media platforms. Too much toxicity.

It’s totally and utterly irrelevant. Are you really unable to see the bigger picture?why do you need a gun?

Huh? U must be mixing up your posts, this was the one telling others to go in Reddit to discuss some Trans angle and news or OpEds.

I have a gun to shoot intruders. And squirrels

How many intruders have you had?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Over 300 million people in the country who will almost all be eligible to own guns, and over 400 millions guns currently in the country. No murder is justified...but this is just bad math if you're out in the public eye. Somebody from one side or the other is going to hate you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has been a very interesting few days, but it’s pretty clear that this is right on right violence and a far right civil war brewing. Fuentes hates JD Vance so much that he is telling people that they should stay at home or vote for democrats. He’s going to fight maga, and he has been. Democrats should bow out and let them sort it on their own, we aren’t their therapists to work through anger.

Lol

Someone from page 100 showed up again!

[Anonymous]

I hope everyone who has been fired for exercising their inalienable right to free speech to say what they thought of Kirk sues their employers and wins big $$$$$$$$$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

It's not irrelevant. Lie down with dogs and you get fleas. It's predictable, esp from the rwnjs who see everything in black and white.

So a trans murderer is worse than a nontrans murderer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Which is why nobody really GAF about the faux outrage over a trans being involved with this case. An indoctrinated far-right shooter shot two high school kids the same day. Too many guns in this country. No attention being paid to mental health.

Chicago has had 50 shootings this weekend. Get over there and do some good.

Yes, it’s disastrous, can anyone step up to the plate? Perhaps rather than upholding faux Christian ideals and outdated practices, someone can come up with an innovative way to rid society of guns.

Exactly, and start with getting rid of the gangs’ guns.

Why not do all at same time? No need to just start with one group (as you say, black people).

You need to visit public high scjools. Gangs are filled with teens of all skin colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been a very interesting few days, but it’s pretty clear that this is right on right violence and a far right civil war brewing. Fuentes hates JD Vance so much that he is telling people that they should stay at home or vote for democrats. He’s going to fight maga, and he has been. Democrats should bow out and let them sort it on their own, we aren’t their therapists to work through anger.

Lol

Someone from page 100 showed up again!

Did you get your cookie yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A Virginia anesthesiologist was fired after making "highly inappropriate comments supporting violence" against Charlie Kirk following his assassination, according to Riverside Walter Reed Hospital. The employee's contract was terminated by North American Partners in Anesthesia.

Hmmm another one of these articles that doesn’t actually include the post in question.

The employer in that article didn’t release the anesthesiologist’s name.

But here’s a different anesthesiologist who said she is glad Charlie Kirk got himself shot. She is not a bot.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, some conservatives openly celebrated her passing. A right-wing commentator called her a “mass murdering hag” who had “ruined more lives than Hitler, Mao & Stalin combined.” Another conservative pastor framed her death as “celestially ordained” and proclaimed, “This belongs to God.” Gordon Klingenschmitt, an evangelical activist and former Republican lawmaker, said he mourned only that she “apparently did not know Christ,” making clear he saw her death as spiritually justified. Even within Republican circles, Trump aides were quoted privately saying her death was “super” in terms of political impact, treating her passing less as a tragedy and more as an opportunity.

Unclear if the above examples are public figures with large followers base, a show, income from it, etc. Or just a little jerk from podunk online.

As you know, with the internet, everyone and anyone can post whatever. And opinions are like a-holes, everyone’s got one.

So what's your point, not following.

Your claim: a pastor somewhere said this, some commentator said that.

Other person: unclear if your commentators are big names or podunk people. Everyone has an opinion, whose do you follow?

And RBG she lived an awesome life so lots to celebrate.
Unf Obama didn’t replace her in a timely manner….

I am still lost because why does if they are big names or not matter, I still don't get the point.

Lol. You don’t have a point now nor when you quote a bunch of randos.

You were the one claiming random people and notable people were celebrating C.K.'s death. Random people and notable people celebrated R.B.G. death. So that is why I am confused by your follow up to mine 100%. Why does it matter that they are random (and they are not actually, but again, accordingly to you originally, it doesn't matter). If people can celebrate one, why not the other?

Ruth bader Ginsburg wasn’t shot to death at work. She was in her mid 80s and got ill. Wtf

Both Charlie and ruth had many accomplishments to celebrate. But one was 31 with young kids and shot to death on stage, and the other was old with great grandchildren and refused to retire.