Charlie Kirk shot at UVU in Orem

[Kishkumen]

I think based on the information so far, this is correct. Whisky seems unable to differentiate between a motive and justification.

I would add that the accused deals with the situation with the tools that he's learned from being life-long Mormon. It's rather like Rambo. When Rambo becomes the victim of the system that created him he turns on the system with the skills the system imbued within him. I'd also point out that, "It's better that one man perish" logic is drilled into every Mormon's head.

I think it's worth noting that Steve Bannon considers these letters a forgery by the FBI. The Romano report guy seems to agree. If the FBI is forging evidence and brings it to court it could lead to a mistrial.

Kid texts more like a Gen Xer than a Zoomer.

[Kishkumen]

Thank you, Whiskey.

I can't take this place - need a break.

Out!

I don't see how saying Robinson's relationship was a motive is an apologia. Scratch does not approve of the murder any more than I do. Why does this explanation make you so upset? Did you NOT want to link the murder to an LGBTQ+ situation? Hasn't the right-wing media been working hard to insist that it must be because of a trans roommate? Now Scratch affirms his belief that this relationship was the motive, and you say, "This is too much; I'm out!"

Good LORD! What on earth is going on?

[Molok]

Several people were compared to LDS apologists, but I see only one person delivering sermons. You should try Twitter sometime, Whiskey, you’ll have no problem finding people with extreme enough beliefs to justify the tirade, but here it just comes off a bit melodramatic.

[Gunnar]

These apologetic excuses for killing — that the killer was a friend of a victim, so he was a victim, so the act was banal — they’re not explanations. They’re rationalizations. Common, maybe. Plausible or acceptable? Not a chance.

That doesn't diminish the validity of Dr. Scratch's speculation in the slightest! Do you really think no one has ever used such explanations or rationalizations for murder? Of course, they are not plausible or acceptable justifications for murder! Who here is arguing against that? Certainly not Dr. Scratch or Dr. Shades! You keep bending over backwards to find any excuse you can invent to demonize or insult others who disagree with you!

[Kishkumen]

That doesn't diminish the validity of Dr. Scratch's speculation in the slightest! Do you really think no one has ever used such explanations or rationalizations for murder? Of course, they are not plausible or acceptable justifications for murder! Who here is arguing against that? Certainly not Dr. Scratch! You keep bending over backwards to find any excuse you can invent to demonize or insult others who disagree with you!

Whiskey is an unserious hack. He has less game than ajax.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

but I know you are full of crap because clearly it is not only "leftists" who hated Charlie Kirk enough to kill him.

How many white supremacist have been assasinating people lately. I've seen three militant transgender homosexuals (although the media attempted to hide their ideology and manifestos for years). I've seen militant black people killing white people for no discernible reason other than the color of their skin or DeCarlos's baseless claim that Irina used the "N word," hence he was justified in retaliating violently (a leftist doctrine). And I've seen radical Islamic terrorists killing any Jew they might run into all around the world while chanting Mamdami's slogan, "Globalize the intifada." These are all factions of the Democrat party, each with specific justifications and permission structures for the lies they tell and the murders they commit.

Look at what Nick's actual statement after Charlie Kirk was assasinated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTkulVJyVe4

Show me where the Groyper's have killed any mainstream conservatives. Admittedly I don't know much about Nick because it was only recently that I've seen people quoting him on youtube. He's been nearly censored out of existence. I appreciate his unapologetic statements on rights being tied to responsibilities. i.e. if you don't work and are a net tax payer, you shouldn't be voting. That's just common sense and yet people like myself who have come to this conclusion are labeled as extremists for it. I can't even say it out loud in real life without fear of violent retaliation. But Nick isn't afraid to say it. But I'll never understand the far right's hatred of the Jews. It makes no sense to me. Nick isn't even a Trump supporter anymore.

Speaking of militant transgendered:

[Doctor Scratch]

I'm going to make a prediction, based on the information that is beginning to seep out pertaining to the shooter's motive. My guess? The primary motive is going to wind up being something as banal and simple and all-too-human as love. Robinson was in love with his trans roommate, and wound up fixating on Kirk as a major figurehead leading the current wave of anti-trans rhetoric, legislation, etc. Robinson saw Kirk as someone who was making life hard/miserable for his (i.e., Robinson's) partner, and by extension, him, too. How was he supposed to comfortably love his trans partner in a world that seems to be growing ever more hostile towards trans people and trans issues? What do you want to bet that Robinson's defense council winds up saying something similar when the time comes? This is starting to remind me a bit of Dog Day Afternoon.

I think based on the information so far, this is correct. Whisky seems unable to differentiate between a motive and justification.

I would add that the accused deals with the situation with the tools that he's learned from being life-long Mormon. It's rather like Rambo. When Rambo becomes the victim of the system that created him he turns on the system with the skills the system imbued within him. I'd also point out that, "It's better that one man perish" logic is drilled into every Mormon's head.

You can compare it to people who murder abortion doctors. It's easy enough to say, "Oh, yeah, this person was motivated by right-wing Christian nationalist ideology." Or, "toxic progressivism that supports killing babies is to blame." But if you ask the actual murderer what motivated him to do this? Is that what he's going to say? Or is he going to say something like he "had a deep conviction," or "felt that this is what God wanted," or that he "is a family man who really cares about babies," or something like that? To rephrase Whiskey's rather clever phrasing: it would be like pinning a trite Bible verse to a corpse. But my basic point is the same: I suspect that there are simpler and more "banal" human reasons underneath the supposed political "ideology."

And with Robinson, it may very well be accurate to blame his crime on "progressive ideology." Left-wing progressivism does indeed push for treating trans people with kindness, acceptance, and, yes, even love, and it would appear that this branch of progressivism managed to somehow penetrate beyond his hardcore Republican LDS upbringing such that he fell in love with his trans roommate. But you could also argue that right-wing ideology is to blame because of its insistence on demonizing trans people as if they're "monstrous" aberrations of "normal" biology who do not deserve access to sports, medical treatments, or even bathrooms. Trans people already have it rough and the conservative Powers That Be have only made things worse, and so it's not hard to see how someone like Robinson, with his trans partner, would be feeling like the walls are closing in, and like their chances at getting to live a happy life are dwindling away, and how that could turn into misguided desperation. I don't think this in any way justifies what Robinson did, but to me, this makes more sense that ascribing his motives to one-sided "ideology." Plus, as I noted, this is pure speculation based on the information that has been released so far.

[Whiskey]

I think based on the information so far, this is correct. Whisky seems unable to differentiate between a motive and justification.

I would add that the accused deals with the situation with the tools that he's learned from being life-long Mormon. It's rather like Rambo. When Rambo becomes the victim of the system that created him he turns on the system with the skills the system imbued within him. I'd also point out that, "It's better that one man perish" logic is drilled into every Mormon's head.

You can compare it to people who murder abortion doctors. It's easy enough to say, "Oh, yeah, this person was motivated by right-wing Christian nationalist ideology." Or, "toxic progressivism that supports killing babies is to blame." But if you ask the actual murderer what motivated him to do this? Is that what he's going to say? Or is he going to say something like he "had a deep conviction," or "felt that this is what God wanted," or that he "is a family man who really cares about babies," or something like that? To rephrase Whiskey's rather clever phrasing: it would be like pinning a trite Bible verse to a corpse. But my basic point is the same: I suspect that there are simpler and more "banal" human reasons underneath the supposed political "ideology."

And with Robinson, it may very well be accurate to blame his crime on "progressive ideology." Left-wing progressivism does indeed push for treating trans people with kindness, acceptance, and, yes, even love, and it would appear that this branch of progressivism managed to somehow penetrate beyond his hardcore Republican LDS upbringing such that he fell in love with his trans roommate. But you could also argue that right-wing ideology is to blame because of its insistence on demonizing trans people as if they're "monstrous" aberrations of "normal" biology who do not deserve access to sports, medical treatments, or even bathrooms. Trans people already have it rough and the conservative Powers That Be have only made things worse, and so it's not hard to see how someone like Robinson, with his trans partner, would be feeling like the walls are closing in, and like their chances at getting to live a happy life are dwindling away, and how that could turn into misguided desperation. I don't think this in any way justifies what Robinson did, but to me, this makes more sense that ascribing his motives to one-sided "ideology." Plus, as I noted, this is pure speculation based on the information that has been released so far.

Thanks, Dr.

ETA:

Scratch, don't believe everything they say about me. I do see the common ground. You’re right that people reach for ideology when sometimes the motive is more personal, more human. That’s the overlap with what I’ve been saying.

Perhaps my miss or haste was with “banal.” I don’t buy that love makes murder simple or ordinary. I called it a Hallmark card stapled to a corpse for a reason. It doesn’t strip the act down to something common.

That’s the line between our takes: you’re seeing “banal” as human motive under ideology, I’m seeing “banal” as a false comfort that risks excusing depravity. I accept that it may not be a line to cross but rather a shared line or just a line within the drawn image.

Respect for laying it out and returning to the conversation.

[Whiskey]

That doesn't diminish the validity of Dr. Scratch's speculation in the slightest! Do you really think no one has ever used such explanations or rationalizations for murder? Of course, they are not plausible or acceptable justifications for murder! Who here is arguing against that? Certainly not Dr. Scratch! You keep bending over backwards to find any excuse you can invent to demonize or insult others who disagree with you!

Whiskey is an unserious hack. He has less game than ajax.

Who does have game then, Kish? Can you rank at least the top 25 by “game had”? Most importantly, how much game do you have? The most, right? I mean, just look at the genius of this post. Only someone with maximum game could come up with this kind of masterpiece.

So let’s hear it. Break out the leaderboard. Give us the stats. If “game” is the measure, then your contribution here is pure Hall of Fame material.

[Kishkumen]

So let’s hear it. Break out the leaderboard. Give us the stats. If “game” is the measure, then your contribution here is pure Hall of Fame material.

Oh, there's a leaderboard indeed. Neither of us are on it. Neither is Hound to be found. The leaders of this game leave it to the junior league to kick balls around while they smile bemusedly on the sidelines. They throw in a comment here or there, or maybe they stay silent. They don't see a real challenger here, just kids learning the ropes.