Charlie Kirk shot at UVU in Orem

[Xenophon]

You'll have to try harder with the indignation and pearl clutching. This is the same song and dance tried here a few times and it never works because it rings hollow and weak.

[canpakes]

Interesting, Xenophon. When the Nice Shot Apologists were out in force turning “amazing shot” into a team anthem, you sat on your hands. But now you step in with a grave meditation on footage, desensitization, and the public psyche. Convenient timing.

You call it morbid curiosity; I call it selective courage. You found the words to wonder about society at large, but not the backbone to address the chorus right here that treated assassination like sport. That silence brands you louder than this post ever will.

If you’re genuinely worried about the public shrugging off violence, maybe start with the shrugging happening under your own moderation and apologetics. Because until you do, this isn’t reflection — it’s deflection. Gravitas after the fact doesn’t erase silence when it counted.

Your disingenuous word substitution in service of painting a dishonest narrative is noted, but get your names straight. It’s ’Team Amazing Shot’. ; )

Again, proving the point. And now in multiple threads.

[canpakes]

Interesting, Xenophon. When the Nice Shot Apologists were out in force turning “amazing shot” into a team anthem, you sat on your hands. But now you step in with a grave meditation on footage, desensitization, and the public psyche.

LOL!!! The irony. I see a lot of handwringing and pseudo-serious blather from one person: you. And yet your grotesquely biased distortions give you away as a singularly unserious and irresponsible person cosplaying as a moral, sober adult.

Perhaps Team Thoughts and Prayers is having a moment of reflection.

[Whiskey]

You'll have to try harder with the indignation and pearl clutching. This is the same song and dance tried here a few times and it never works because it rings hollow and weak.

So the moderator’s grand contribution is to sneer “same song and dance.” That’s not an argument, it’s a shrug dressed up as insight. The fact that the silo doesn’t change isn’t proof that criticism rings hollow — it’s proof the silo is locked tight. Insulation isn’t strength, it’s cowardice.

And the irony couldn’t be richer. This is an anti-apologist Mormon forum built on calling out our Mormon apologists for their deflections and dismissals, yet when the spotlight turns inward, the same tricks come out — wave it off as old news, call it pearl clutching, and hope the repetition makes it go away. That’s not exposing apologetics; that’s practicing them.

And now you’ve joined Team Amazing Shot. Not even with the flimsy defenses others tried, but with the lowest form of complicity: passive admiration. Sit back, label dissent as “pearl clutching,” and pretend that your own silence on the grotesque gibe isn’t a choice. That isn’t neutrality — it’s endorsement by omission. A kind of intellectual pussification where the goal isn’t truth, it’s comfort. Nod along, wave away dissent, and congratulate yourself for keeping the peace in a silo where the only peace is the transaction of ignoring the grotesque again.

You call it weak when someone refuses to normalize applause for an assassin. I call it weak when a moderator mistakes complacency for courage. You can dismiss it all you like, but outside this bubble, nobody buys the idea that “amazing shot” was harmless banter. Inside this bubble, you’re now part of the choir humming along. Team Amazing Shot, you included, may think this is still only about the comment. But you’re missing the greater reality: the alignment, the silence, the rationalizations — that’s the story.

So yes, Xenophon — you’re in the band now. Team Amazing Shot. Your instrument is the shrug, your chorus is the dismissive smirk, and your setlist is indistinguishable from the apologetics this board claims to loathe.

[canpakes]

^^ On the plus side, AI responses are getting much easier to identify.

It seems to have problems with word definitions, though.

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps Team Thoughts and Prayers is having a moment of reflection.

This reminds me of a BYU professor's essay, "When Nice Ain't So Nice." It was all about how the surface niceness of Mormons--the author was active LDS--sometimes masked harmful intentions. I think this applies here, in that what we are seeing is a facade of sanctimony being used to attack people who have nothing to do with the tragic events in question. After spending so many decades denying the humanity of non-white, non-Christian, non-hetero people, and having absolutely zero conscience about it, the same opportunistic bigots are carefully policing the reaction to the sad death of someone they view as "one of their own." They besmirch his death, showing they have learned absolutely nothing, by callously taking the opportunity to double down on their attacks against those whom they do not consider among their own.

[Whiskey]

Perhaps Team Thoughts and Prayers is having a moment of reflection.

This reminds me of a BYU professor's essay, "When Nice Ain't So Nice." It was all about how the surface niceness of Mormons--the author was active LDS--sometimes masked harmful intentions. I think this applies here, in that what we are seeing is a facade of sanctimony being used to attack people who have nothing to do with the tragic events in question. After spending so many decades denying the humanity of non-white, non-Christian, non-hetero people, and having absolutely zero conscience about it, the same opportunistic bigots are carefully policing the reaction to the sad death of someone they view as "one of their own." They besmirch his death, showing they have learned absolutely nothing, by callously taking the opportunity to double down on their attacks against those whom they do not consider among their own.

Ah, here we go again — the professor climbing back into the victim box. First it was “wonderment” dressed up as nuance for an “amazing shot,” now, when that gets called out, suddenly you’re the injured party in some grand morality play about bigots, sanctimony, and BYU essays. The rejection of your apologetics doesn’t make you a martyr, Professor, it just exposes the absurdity of laundering applause for an assassin.

And the self-pity — LOL. It’s almost artful. You shift from admiring the assassin’s “skill” to painting yourself as the oppressed conscience-bearer, forever beset by “opportunistic bigots.” That’s not analysis; that’s theater. Nobody “besmirched” Kirk’s death here but the people who clapped for it in awe-language.

You write that critics “double down on their attacks against those whom they do not consider among their own.” Indeed — I am not among your pretend victim class. On that, you have a point. But that doesn’t validate your theatrics or your posturing. It only shows that when the applause gets called out, you retreat into projection and performance — right alongside your fellow Team Amazing Shot apologists. That’s the class you’ve really chosen to stand in.

It’s not sanctimony to reject applause for assassination — it’s common sense. What is sanctimony is pretending that your hurt feelings for being called out weigh more than the words themselves. And if that’s the hill you want to plant your professorial flag on, fine. Just don’t expect anyone outside this bubble to see it as anything more than self-soothing and self-pity, wrapped in footnotes.

[canpakes]

Ah, here we go again — the professor climbing back into the victim box. First it was “wonderment” dressed up as nuance for an “amazing shot,” now, when that gets called out, suddenly you’re the injured party in some grand morality play about bigots, sanctimony, and BYU essays. The rejection of your apologetics doesn’t make you a martyr, Professor, it just exposes the absurdity of laundering applause for an assassin.

And the self-pity — LOL. It’s almost artful. You shift from admiring the assassin’s “skill” to painting yourself as the oppressed conscience-bearer, forever beset by “opportunistic bigots.” That’s not analysis; that’s theater. Nobody “besmirched” Kirk’s death here but the people who clapped for it in awe-language.

You write that critics “double down on their attacks against those whom they do not consider among their own.” Indeed — I am not among your pretend victim class. On that, you have a point. But that doesn’t validate your theatrics or your posturing. It only shows that when the applause gets called out, you retreat into projection and performance — right alongside your fellow Team Amazing Shot apologists. That’s the class you’ve really chosen to stand in.

It’s not sanctimony to reject applause for assassination — it’s common sense. What is sanctimony is pretending that your hurt feelings for being called out weigh more than the words themselves. And if that’s the hill you want to plant your professorial flag on, fine. Just don’t expect anyone outside this bubble to see it as anything more than self-soothing and self-pity, wrapped in footnotes.

Can AI tell me if calling Hurricane Katrina’s destruction could be termed amazing?

It sure could.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

This reminds me of a BYU professor's essay, "When Nice Ain't So Nice." It was all about how the surface niceness of Mormons--the author was active LDS--sometimes masked harmful intentions. I think this applies here, in that what we are seeing is a facade of sanctimony being used to attack people who have nothing to do with the tragic events in question. After spending so many decades denying the humanity of non-white, non-Christian, non-hetero people, and having absolutely zero conscience about it, the same opportunistic bigots are carefully policing the reaction to the sad death of someone they view as "one of their own." They besmirch his death, showing they have learned absolutely nothing, by callously taking the opportunity to double down on their attacks against those whom they do not consider among their own.

Ah, here we go again — the professor climbing back into the victim box. First it was “wonderment” dressed up as nuance for an “amazing shot,” now, when that gets called out, suddenly you’re the injured party in some grand morality play about bigots, sanctimony, and BYU essays. The rejection of your apologetics doesn’t make you a martyr, Professor, it just exposes the absurdity of laundering applause for an assassin.

And the self-pity — LOL. It’s almost artful. You shift from admiring the assassin’s “skill” to painting yourself as the oppressed conscience-bearer, forever beset by “opportunistic bigots.” That’s not analysis; that’s theater. Nobody “besmirched” Kirk’s death here but the people who clapped for it in awe-language.

You write that critics “double down on their attacks against those whom they do not consider among their own.” Indeed — I am not among your pretend victim class. On that, you have a point. But that doesn’t validate your theatrics or your posturing. It only shows that when the applause gets called out, you retreat into projection and performance — right alongside your fellow Team Amazing Shot apologists. That’s the class you’ve really chosen to stand in.

It’s not sanctimony to reject applause for assassination — it’s common sense. What is sanctimony is pretending that your hurt feelings for being called out weigh more than the words themselves. And if that’s the hill you want to plant your professorial flag on, fine. Just don’t expect anyone outside this bubble to see it as anything more than self-soothing and self-pity, wrapped in footnotes.

Am I the only one here getting tired of Whiskey's AI generated responses?

[canpakes]

Ah, here we go again — the professor climbing back into the victim box. First it was “wonderment” dressed up as nuance for an “amazing shot,” now, when that gets called out, suddenly you’re the injured party in some grand morality play about bigots, sanctimony, and BYU essays. The rejection of your apologetics doesn’t make you a martyr, Professor, it just exposes the absurdity of laundering applause for an assassin.

And the self-pity — LOL. It’s almost artful. You shift from admiring the assassin’s “skill” to painting yourself as the oppressed conscience-bearer, forever beset by “opportunistic bigots.” That’s not analysis; that’s theater. Nobody “besmirched” Kirk’s death here but the people who clapped for it in awe-language.

You write that critics “double down on their attacks against those whom they do not consider among their own.” Indeed — I am not among your pretend victim class. On that, you have a point. But that doesn’t validate your theatrics or your posturing. It only shows that when the applause gets called out, you retreat into projection and performance — right alongside your fellow Team Amazing Shot apologists. That’s the class you’ve really chosen to stand in.

It’s not sanctimony to reject applause for assassination — it’s common sense. What is sanctimony is pretending that your hurt feelings for being called out weigh more than the words themselves. And if that’s the hill you want to plant your professorial flag on, fine. Just don’t expect anyone outside this bubble to see it as anything more than self-soothing and self-pity, wrapped in footnotes.

Am I the only one here getting tired of Whiskey's AI generated responses?

I suppose they’re a useful study. Even for comparing the styles between the sources. This one is easy to peg.