It’s striking that so much of the discussion around Kirk’s death centers on whether ideology drove him to commit a horrific act, while there’s barely a word about the lax gun laws that made it possible to pull the trigger in the first place. More than 50 people in the U.S. are killed every single day at the hands of someone else with a gun—yet all the attention is on this one case. Shouldn’t the real conversation be about how to prevent gun violence, rather than framing it as just another left-versus-right battle?
How dare you politicise this tragic event in this way.
Don't you realise that now is the time for Thoughts and Prayers?
Until ... until everyone has stopped talking about this particular murder. Then you will be free to make your point, when nobody is listening any more. But be ready with Thoughts and Prayers for the next horrific gun killing ...
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I was watching a video of Professor Kevin Carnahan (teaches Philosophy of Religion at Central Methodist University, and used to be the co-editor of the Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics), wherein in he was dismantling an attempt to whitewash Kirk's bigotry and racism. I apologize for not linking the video, it popped in my feed and I can't seem to relocate it.
Carnahan pointed out something that upon a brief look through videos seems to hold water. The Charlie Kirk of pre-2019 wasn't the same as the Charlie Kirk of post-2019. Post-COVID Charkie Kirk was far more extreme. As MAGA and the Republican party become more radicalized during the pandemic, Kirk's messaging and stances radicalized right in step. While people like Tucker Carlson seemed to keep a somewhat steady "true North" of their pre-COVID conservative ideology, Kirk shifted alongside the growing voices of racism and homophobia.
If you look pre-2019, you will find Kirk fiercely taking a homophobe to task at a conference, and defending the LGBT community. Post-2019, you'll find him taking umbrage to Ms. Rachel using verses in Matthew as the reason that she, as a Christian, extends love to gay people. With Kirk saying God's "divine law" is that all gay people should be murdered.
It really helped me realize that the reason so many people see two different Charlie Kirks isn't simply because of tribalism, algorithms, media, and pre-conceived biases. It's also because there was a time where he was a principled defender of everyone's freedom, dignity, and right to equity. It's that ability to cherry-pick from pre-extremist Kirk that allows the compartmentalizing to ignore the vile things he espoused after his radicalization. Of course it's that post-radicalizing Kirk that endears him to the white nationalists and neo-Nazis that have been marching in his honor following his murder.
Now is the time for Democrats in Congress to introduce a "Charlie Kirk Gun Limitations Act." Make the Republicans go on record for voting against it.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Now is the time for Democrats in Congress to introduce a "Charlie Kirk Gun Limitations Act." Make the Republicans go on record for voting against it.
Just for the record, the gun didn’t make Tyler Robinson kill Charlie Kirk. Also for the record, the gun used was an old hunting rifle that belonged to Tyler’s grandpa. His grandpa didn’t shoot anyone with it.
Tyler Robinson was mentally unstable and messed up from influences that turned his mind to the dark side. At the time of the shooting he was simply mentally unstable. We need to help our youth steer their lives in directions that are productive rather than destructive. He went the wrong direction.
Thanks for your perspective Steuss, that's probably the most helpful summary I've seen and it makes total sense. If you think about somebody going from a bratty teen to swimming in millions, what would you expect? I honestly had no idea he was that popular. To me he was just one of the "sneer crowd", the Piers Morgan regulars that have a persistent grin on their face, knowing they are right, and mainly scoff and declare victory and don't say much. I've watched only a few fragments since the incident -- I stick with the right-wing ballistics experts who seem to be exonerating the present suspect -- and those were excerpts pumped by conservatives channels for how he "destroyed" some liberal kid. But then, he doesn't say anything interesting or show any creativity, he didn't corner his competition, he just gives his opinion with gusto and -- he wins? Not even necessarily responding to the points made. I don't think he'd do well in a formal debate.
I'm not saying that just because he was a right-winger, I've mentioned before that I watched a debate between Destiny and Jordan Peterson, expecting Destiny to do well because he's a very quick thinker, but Jordan owned the poor kid. He listened very carefully and was quick to corner Destiny when he wasn't really prepared with any material in particular that advanced his economic views, whereas Peterson has some simple but effective talking points here. And his presence, the guy can command a room. I wouldn't have thought that until I saw this debate.
So having said that, I'm open to a contrasting opinion here. In these many clips you've watched now, did you see any where you felt his interlocutor just got totally owned by his reasoning powers? (something other than some nervous kid gets flustered and can't make their case to begin with)
Now is the time for Democrats in Congress to introduce a "Charlie Kirk Gun Limitations Act." Make the Republicans go on record for voting against it.
Just for the record, the gun didn’t make Tyler Robinson kill Charlie Kirk. Also for the record, the gun used was an old hunting rifle that belonged to Tyler’s grandpa. His grandpa didn’t shoot anyone with it.
Tyler Robinson was mentally unstable and messed up from influences that turned his mind to the dark side. At the time of the shooting he was simply mentally unstable. We need to help our youth steer their lives in directions that are productive rather than destructive. He went the wrong direction.
Regards,
MG
Nor did the cocaine make anyone snort it. But society makes it illegal because of what people do with it, just as guns should be prohibited as people kill others with them. You make yet again another facile, stupid argument. But then, look at the source.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Now is the time for Democrats in Congress to introduce a "Charlie Kirk Gun Limitations Act." Make the Republicans go on record for voting against it.
Just for the record, the gun didn’t make Tyler Robinson kill Charlie Kirk. Also for the record, the gun used was an old hunting rifle that belonged to Tyler’s grandpa. His grandpa didn’t shoot anyone with it.
Tyler Robinson was mentally unstable and messed up from influences that turned his mind to the dark side. At the time of the shooting he was simply mentally unstable. We need to help our youth steer their lives in directions that are productive rather than destructive. He went the wrong direction.
Regards,
MG
Just for the record, didn't the gun make it possible for Tyler Robinson to kill Charlie Kirk? I'm not aware of anyone ever claiming that guns make people shoot other people.
Could your last sentence read: "He went the wrong direction, and had access to a gun."?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Tyler Robinson was mentally unstable and messed up from influences that turned his mind... At the time of the {killing} he was simply mentally unstable.
Couldn't the same be said of Nephi?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Tyler Robinson was mentally unstable and messed up from influences that turned his mind... At the time of the {killing} he was simply mentally unstable.
Couldn't the same be said of Nephi?
Joseph’s Nephi (if you can separate the two) had the convenient justification that “God told him to do it.”
Nephi didn’t have to kill Laban, he could have just taken the plates. It was the voices that made him do so. Today we would generally call that mentally unstable.
Joseph’s Nephi (if you can separate the two) had the convenient justification that “God told him to do it.”
Nephi didn’t have to kill Laban, he could have just taken the plates. It was the voices that made him do so. Today we would generally call that mentally unstable.
Two words: Lafferty brothers.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
