Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Black police officer, David Rose, was shot and killed defending a fe government building last month, and he didn't get a presidential me congressional moment of silence, or a lowered flag at the White Hou A white civilian, Charlie Kirk, is shot and killed on a college campus, gets all those things and a promise of presidential attendance at his funeral.
Don't tell me that all lives matter in America. They don't.

+1

Also sick is that there is a fund to donate directly to Erika Kirk. As if the Kirks don’t already have enough money. They are worth millions. Merch is still being sold. And now a bunch of morons who voted for authoritarianism because of egg prices are donating to someone who is already worth more than they’ll earn in their entire lives. These people sure love to give their money away (think mega churches and billionaire tax breaks).

Meanwhile I’ve barely heard of any support of the pregnant widow of David Rose. Her go fund me is at half the amount that Erika has received overnight. She is also a mother. But I guess not the right demographic.

MAGA is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

The shooter was raised by militia parents, enmeshed in right wing internet culture, lived on the computer, reallzed he was gay, and then lashed out against the influencers he used to believe in but now hates.

Possible, as any other theory, the types of motives and potential actions of a human are limitless.

Does there have to be a motive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.

Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.

How dumb do you think people are?

Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.

Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.

We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.

No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.

What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster.

Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?

Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?

Plus half of the country is illiterate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Black police officer, David Rose, was shot and killed defending a fe government building last month, and he didn't get a presidential me congressional moment of silence, or a lowered flag at the White Hou A white civilian, Charlie Kirk, is shot and killed on a college campus, gets all those things and a promise of presidential attendance at his funeral.
Don't tell me that all lives matter in America. They don't.

+1

Also sick is that there is a fund to donate directly to Erika Kirk. As if the Kirks don’t already have enough money. They are worth millions. Merch is still being sold. And now a bunch of morons who voted for authoritarianism because of egg prices are donating to someone who is already worth more than they’ll earn in their entire lives. These people sure love to give their money away (think mega churches and billionaire tax breaks).

Meanwhile I’ve barely heard of any support of the pregnant widow of David Rose. Her go fund me is at half the amount that Erika has received overnight. She is also a mother. But I guess not the right demographic.

MAGA is disgusting.

Hush money. They don't want Erika to sue or come to her senses and renounce the MAGA foolishness. Same with the widow of man killed when trump was "shot".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.

Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.

How dumb do you think people are?

Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.

Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.

We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.

No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.

What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster.

Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?

Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?

Plus half of the country is illiterate.

I said what I said read it again.

[Anonymous]

Anyone trying to claim Charlie Kirk was some great champion of free speech has instantly revoked their own credibility.

There's example after example after example of Kirk trying to shut people down, muzzle them, have them harrassed, threatened and oppressed for speaking inconvenient truths

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.

Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.

How dumb do you think people are?

Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.

Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.

We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.

No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.

What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster.

Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?

Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?

Plus half of the country is illiterate.

Funny how nobody’s commented on what CK said, in his own words, on the transcript. They’re just attacking the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

The shooter was raised by militia parents, enmeshed in right wing internet culture, lived on the computer, reallzed he was gay, and then lashed out against the influencers he used to believe in but now hates.

Being in a trans relationship wouldn’t make the shooter gay.

It doesn't matter what you or I might think. It only matters what he would have thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

The shooter was raised by militia parents, enmeshed in right wing internet culture, lived on the computer, reallzed he was gay, and then lashed out against the influencers he used to believe in but now hates.

If that were the case (big if) he's not a leftist steeped in that idiology. He would be a confused young man who feels personally under attack by the right. Really not a big political statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

It’s a general failure to launch/ drop out/ social media radicalization story and everything will be covered in discovery, but like the looigi case it doesn’t matter for the charges.

Murder is murder.

Maybe some misguided Americans have such little regard for human life that they go judge/jury/executioner and murder public figures they simple don’t like and have never met, but they will get the DP or LWO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

The shooter was raised by militia parents, enmeshed in right wing internet culture, lived on the computer, reallzed he was gay, and then lashed out against the influencers he used to believe in but now hates.

Being in a trans relationship wouldn’t make the shooter gay.

It doesn't matter what you or I might think. It only matters what he would have thought.

And absolutely none of this matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.

Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.

How dumb do you think people are?

Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.

Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.

We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.

No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.

What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster.

Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?

Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?

Plus half of the country is illiterate.

Funny how nobody’s commented on what CK said, in his own words, on the transcript. They’re just attacking the messenger.

Ok...thanks for your meta-analysis of DCUM I guess...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

And what does it matter anyway? Why do I need to care if killer, his roomate, his dog, etc, is trans? Why do I need to care about motive at all? Why are we expected to wait with bated breath for a sign of motive?

PP. you are correct, motive doesn’t matter. But I hope the trans story isn’t true because a lot of innocent people will be hurt. Trump and MAGA are itching to make the trans ppl scape goats. With the economy tanking, the Epstein files and more wars, Trump desperately needs a distraction.

Even if they didn't need a distraction, they are just hateful horrible people who want to blame trans people and immigrants for all the woes of the world. Tired old scapegoating nonsense. No personal responsibility and no placing the blame where it really lies...Trump's horrible policies, the out of control gun culture etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

It’s a general failure to launch/ drop out/ social media radicalization story and everything will be covered in discovery, but like the looigi case it doesn’t matter for the charges.

Murder is murder.

Maybe some misguided Americans have such little regard for human life that they go judge/jury/executioner and murder public figures they simple don’t like and have never met, but they will get the DP or LWO.

It’s like a suicide or attempted suicide by murder. These are mentally ill individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Black police officer, David Rose, was shot and killed defending a fe government building last month, and he didn't get a presidential me congressional moment of silence, or a lowered flag at the White Hou A white civilian, Charlie Kirk, is shot and killed on a college campus, gets all those things and a promise of presidential attendance at his funeral.
Don't tell me that all lives matter in America. They don't.

+1

Also sick is that there is a fund to donate directly to Erika Kirk. As if the Kirks don’t already have enough money. They are worth millions. Merch is still being sold. And now a bunch of morons who voted for authoritarianism because of egg prices are donating to someone who is already worth more than they’ll earn in their entire lives. These people sure love to give their money away (think mega churches and billionaire tax breaks).

Meanwhile I’ve barely heard of any support of the pregnant widow of David Rose. Her go fund me is at half the amount that Erika has received overnight. She is also a mother. But I guess not the right demographic.

MAGA is disgusting.

Neither the left or right in America care about African Americans anymore. The left cares about LGBT, immigrants, Gaza, and carbon emissions. The right cares about keeping Donald Trump happy.