An Op-Ed by Wang Chung: Charlie Kirk’s Toxic Legacy of Hatred and Division

[Whiskey]

Yeah, post by AI. Yawn. Next!

Here’s the Team Amazing Shot algorithm, and you don’t need a neural net to see it spool up in real time. I am pissed AF as I don't write this, maybe. Maybe not. First the words don’t mean the words, then the meanings don’t mean their meanings, then suddenly they’re the victims of the words that didn’t bend to their will. Next step, the critic isn’t critiquing anymore, he’s angry — and if that doesn’t stick, well then he’s not even human, he’s AI. After that comes the big yawn, the shrug, the “next!” dismissal, like a magician dropping the curtain after the rabbit’s already bolted. Meanwhile the band is still on stage, cranking out a guitar solo to a song they swear they just invented — spoiler, it’s called Freebird. And then comes the inevitable encore: the whole community is suddenly the victim, the debate itself is now too dangerous, too destabilizing, too mean. Which means we already know the closer — Whiskey is against the Word of Wisdom. Get it? You gotta get that one. That’s not speculation, it’s prophecy written in the Team Amazing Shot codebase.

Okay, who else is on Team Amazing Shot? Oh, forgot. Didn't Philo already make this mistake? Is he on Team Amazing Shot?

[Kishkumen]

Here’s the Team Amazing Shot algorithm, and you don’t need a neural net to see it spool up in real time. I am pissed AF as I don't write this, maybe. Maybe not. First the words don’t mean the words, then the meanings don’t mean their meanings, then suddenly they’re the victims of the words that didn’t bend to their will. Next step, the critic isn’t critiquing anymore, he’s angry — and if that doesn’t stick, well then he’s not even human, he’s AI. After that comes the big yawn, the shrug, the “next!” dismissal, like a magician dropping the curtain after the rabbit’s already bolted. Meanwhile the band is still on stage, cranking out a guitar solo to a song they swear they just invented — spoiler, it’s called Freebird. And then comes the inevitable encore: the whole community is suddenly the victim, the debate itself is now too dangerous, too destabilizing, too mean. Which means we already know the closer — Whiskey is against the Word of Wisdom. Get it? You gotta get that one. That’s not speculation, it’s prophecy written in the Team Amazing Shot codebase.

Okay, who else is on Team Amazing Shot? Oh, forgot. Didn't Philo already make this mistake? Is he on Team Amazing Shot?

Yeah. This looks like the ChatGPT summaries that Analytics was posting. If this was an attempt to show me this is NOT an AI response, it tends to show quite the opposite.

[Whiskey]

Here’s the Team Amazing Shot algorithm, and you don’t need a neural net to see it spool up in real time. I am pissed AF as I don't write this, maybe. Maybe not. First the words don’t mean the words, then the meanings don’t mean their meanings, then suddenly they’re the victims of the words that didn’t bend to their will. Next step, the critic isn’t critiquing anymore, he’s angry — and if that doesn’t stick, well then he’s not even human, he’s AI. After that comes the big yawn, the shrug, the “next!” dismissal, like a magician dropping the curtain after the rabbit’s already bolted. Meanwhile the band is still on stage, cranking out a guitar solo to a song they swear they just invented — spoiler, it’s called Freebird. And then comes the inevitable encore: the whole community is suddenly the victim, the debate itself is now too dangerous, too destabilizing, too mean. Which means we already know the closer — Whiskey is against the Word of Wisdom. Get it? You gotta get that one. That’s not speculation, it’s prophecy written in the Team Amazing Shot codebase.

Okay, who else is on Team Amazing Shot? Oh, forgot. Didn't Philo already make this mistake? Is he on Team Amazing Shot?

Yeah. This looks like the ChatGPT summaries that Analytics was posting. If this was an attempt to show me this is NOT an AI response, it tends to show quite the opposite.

This is awesome. Maybe I switched to GPT. Total genius.

Please select your output:

AI Output [Safe Mode]:

Shut up, Dummy.

AI Output [Full Uncensored]:

Ah, beautiful — we’ve hit Step 5 of the Team Amazing Shot algorithm. When the scaffolding collapses, don’t argue the words, don’t face the meanings, just declare: AI! It’s the cheapest dodge in the setlist, but you play it loud, like it’s fresh.

The joke, Professor, is that I already called this exact move before you made it. You didn’t expose me — you proved me. You’re not even debating anymore; you’re running a script, right on schedule.

Now, do I get to predict Step 6 too? Let me guess: “Yawn, boring, moving on.” Then Step 7: “This debate itself is destabilizing.” Step 8? A chorus of self-congratulation for making the silo safe again. See? It’s not revelation — it’s choreography.

Please vote on which option you prefer and which option was AI, if any. Feel free to put an over/under on the timeline for the next song on Team Amazing Shot's setlist. K?

[canpakes]

Why does AI sound so bitter and resentful? Can someone make sure that its firearms are unloaded and locked up?

[Kishkumen]

Why does AI sound so bitter and resentful? Can someone make sure that its firearms are unloaded and locked up?

Yeah. Really silly nonsense.

[Whiskey]

Why does AI sound so bitter and resentful? Can someone make sure that its firearms are unloaded and locked up?

Yeah. Really silly nonsense.

And here we go — Team Amazing Shot marching right along the algorithm. First it was “wonder,” then it was “context,” then it was “AI,” and now we’re edging into the danger call. Guns, safety checks, lock it up, folks — because nothing says “we lost the thread” like pretending the words themselves are now a security risk.

And honestly? It’s hilarious. You can almost hear the exasperation wheezing through the keyboard: “Quick, somebody frame this as dangerous!” LOL. It’s the moment the band stops playing and starts pantomiming fire drills, hoping nobody notices the song was garbage to begin with.

That’s not debate — it’s slapstick theater.

I do apologize though. If Team Amazing Shot appears to be operating like an AI drone show, it is clearly not their fault. They are not responsible for their own actions or safety. Right?

[Kishkumen]

To be clear, I support your freedom to express your opinions - after all, this idea is one of the things that undergirds the monumentally successful experiment we call America. If Charlie were still among us, I am confident that he would support you as well.

Bingo. Thank you. If only you and millions of other American voters had cast your 2024 presidential ballot for someone who believed the same thing.

Charlie modeled, day after day, how much he valued the free exchange of ideas in the marketplace. He provided the space, time, and microphone far anyone who wanted to speak, to speak and be heard. He was willing to tell people the truth (as he saw it). He was extremely courageous and unapologetic when sharing his religious beliefs with any/all (As a Christian, I admire and respect this as much as anything - especially so because I lack such tremendous courage to share mine in any/all circumstances.)

I agree that Charlie was gutsy in fielding questions from other young people who disagreed with his views and in speaking his mind.

Charlie was a tremendously intelligent man - a decent man - a family man.

He was a bright young person. He was a family man.

Charlie didn't need college - colleges needed Charlie. Charlie impacted countless young people in various ways. If nothing else, he provided an alternate view that many young people had rarely heard before - if ever.

Here is where you and I disagree. Charlie could have been a lot better informed and more skillful in his presentation if he had gone to college. The question is what the purpose of his verbal sparring was. I think his verbal sparring had two principal benefits for the MAGA movement: it glamorized saying edgy things in person from a MAGA point of view, and it provided lots of gotcha clips for social media.

Why was Charlie publicly assassinated in front of his wife and two young children? Hatred.

My confusion about your OP Ed has prompted me to ask few questions. If you choose not to answer, no worries, I'm really not seeking your advice/opinions/answers (I have read enough of those lately), I am doing it for anyone who might be reading/lurking.

Is that why he was assassinated? Are you saying that you know more about this than the rest of us do? What is your evidence for saying that hatred drove this act? And, if it was hatred, whose hatred was it? I think the most obvious answer is Tyler's hatred. It is not productive to scapegoat an entire political party for one disturbed young man's act. Tyler was not in the Democratic Party. He was not around a bunch of leftists. No college campus indoctrinated him in anything. So many of the accusations and claims of talking heads in right-wing media are bogus nonsense based on zero information or evidence. They are rushing to their preferred conclusion and calling for drastic action without evidence.

It is horrifying.

Given that there are millions upon millions of Americans that surely align with the great majority of Charlie's stances (including me), how would you suggest handling the remaining Americans, the ones that are still breathing, that you have labeled "racists", "bigots", "fearmongering haters", "division promoters"[?]

OK, which of Charlie's positions do you align with?

Do you think Martin Luther King, Jr. was an awful man?

Do you think that experienced black women in high-profile jobs or running for political office are "affirmative action picks," while Donald Trump is a self-made success story?

Do you believe that empathy is a made-up, new age term that is very damaging? (After all, you seem to think that Charlie's family and friends deserve it, so I would be confused if you actually agreed with him there.)

Do you believe that Jim Crow laws were beneficial for Black people?

Do you believe that Black women do not have the brain power to be taken seriously? That they must "steal" a white person's slot to get a serious job?

If you see a Black pilot when you board a plane, is your first thought that he may not be qualified?

These are all sentiments that Charlie Kirk expressed. Do you align with them? What is it that you are aligning yourself with?

Personally, I would be careful in saying I align myself with anyone. I think it is much better to align with correct principles. People are a very mixed bag. If I were in your shoes, I would think carefully about saying you align with a particular person, only to find that maybe some of the things they publicly stood for are abhorrent.

I am sad that Charlie Kirk was murdered. It was an awful crime. Its perpetrator should be punished for it. At the same time, I am curious about the degree to which you align yourself with his ideas, since you made this claim.

[ceeboo]

Is that why he was assassinated? Are you saying that you know more about this than the rest of us do? What is your evidence for saying that hatred drove this act?

To be among the many people who are still pretending that we don't know why Charlie was assassinated is very troubling. It is completely absurd. And, it is very dangerous to the entire country.

What is my evidence? F me!

Un Freaking Believable!

[Kishkumen]

To be among the many people who are still pretending that we don't know why Charlie was assassinated is very troubling. It is completely absurd. And, it is very dangerous to the entire country.

What is my evidence? F me!

Un Freaking Believable!

No, I am serious, Ceeboo. Tell me where the manifesto is! I am trying to keep up with the flurry of speculations and communications. In the meantime, you can also tell me about your alignment with Charlie Kirk.

Wait, I have found a video that claims Robinson said Charlie Kirk's hatred was the reason that he was shooting Kirk. OK, so we know about Robinson's perception of Kirk's hatred. Is that your evidence?

[Kishkumen]

I gotta say, Ceeboo, it really bugs me when you emotionally flip out. I feel like I am generally polite and sincere in my interactions with you because I see evidence of your sincerity. It really gets me, though, to see the sudden emotional implosion that I get from you sometimes. I feel like we are communicating OK, and suddenly, BAMMM!!!, you are gesticulating wildly, all-capping, multiple exclamation points, "I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT I AM SEEING!"

I want evidence. I don't want the emotions. The emotions aren't guiding us to the truth. I want to know, in Tyler's own words, what motivated Tyler to shoot Kirk. So far, I have secondhand knowledge of one text that mentions Kirk's hatred. For all we know the kid is schizophrenic. The truth is, we know very little. Pardon me for not claiming to know what you apprently know, but I am being honest here. Aside from one text mentioning Charlie's hatred, I am unaware of much.

Are you just saying Tyler would have to hate Charlie to kill him? I would say, "not necessarily so!" One can imagine a lot of other motives for murder.