Charlie Kirk shot at UVU in Orem

[canpakes]

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.

Banal and simple as love? Are you kidding me, Scratch? That’s not an explanation, that’s a Hallmark card stapled to a corpse. Love doesn’t banalize a political hit job — it doesn’t make it “simple” or “all-too-human.” It corrupts it, twists it, makes it grotesque.

Good god. You think a straight kid hasn’t run into some jackass who hated their fiance? You think rejection or disapproval is a burden reserved for your “transkid with a furry lover” trope? The world is hard, sure — but to leap from hardship to homicide is not banal, it’s depraved.

And if you’re right — if this person felt so much “love” that he had to murder a father and husband — then yes, let’s call it what it is: FITH. Because that’s where murder dressed up as devotion belongs.

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.

I asked an AI to reply:

“Banal and simple as love? Sure, Whiskey. That’s an explanation. It’s a bit of a Hallmark card stapled to a corpse. Because using love won’t sensationalize a death like calling it a political hit job will — it keeps it simpler, straightforward and human. It isn’t corrupting it, twisting it, or making it grotesque enough.

Besides, what else can a worked-up AI go with when prompted by MAGA ideologues into promoting the “transkid with a furry lover” trope? The world is hard, sure — and to leap from hardship to homicide is not banal, but it must be portrayed as depraved and assigned to shadowy leftists and gender states that you fear.

And if you’re right — if this person felt so much “love” that he had to murder a father and husband — then yes, let’s call it what it is: a murder. Because that’s where murder dressed up as devotion still belongs.

These 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 divisive or political enough. They’re observations that deny MAGA its chance to gin up imagined horrors and evil excesses that they will assign to anyone who is different than themselves. Common for MAGA, maybe. Plausible or acceptable? Not a chance.”

[ceeboo]

Banal and simple as love? Are you kidding me, Scratch? That’s not an explanation, that’s a Hallmark card stapled to a corpse. Love doesn’t banalize a political hit job — it doesn’t make it “simple” or “all-too-human.” It corrupts it, twists it, makes it grotesque.

Good god. You think a straight kid hasn’t run into some jackass who hated their fiance? You think rejection or disapproval is a burden reserved for your “transkid with a furry lover” trope? The world is hard, sure — but to leap from hardship to homicide is not banal, it’s depraved.

And if you’re right — if this person felt so much “love” that he had to murder a father and husband — then yes, let’s call it what it is: FITH. Because that’s where murder dressed up as devotion belongs.

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.

Thank you, Whiskey.

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

Out!

[Marcus]

Banal and simple as love? Are you kidding me, Scratch? That’s not an explanation, that’s a Hallmark card stapled to a corpse. Love doesn’t banalize a political hit job — it doesn’t make it “simple” or “all-too-human.” It corrupts it, twists it, makes it grotesque.

Good god. You think a straight kid hasn’t run into some jackass who hated their fiance? You think rejection or disapproval is a burden reserved for your “transkid with a furry lover” trope? The world is hard, sure — but to leap from hardship to homicide is not banal, it’s depraved.

And if you’re right — if this person felt so much “love” that he had to murder a father and husband — then yes, let’s call it what it is: FITH. Because that’s where murder dressed up as devotion belongs.

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.

Thank you, Whiskey.

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

Out!

What is FITH?

[Whiskey]

Banal and simple as love? Are you kidding me, Scratch? That’s not an explanation, that’s a Hallmark card stapled to a corpse. Love doesn’t banalize a political hit job — it doesn’t make it “simple” or “all-too-human.” It corrupts it, twists it, makes it grotesque.

Good god. You think a straight kid hasn’t run into some jackass who hated their fiance? You think rejection or disapproval is a burden reserved for your “transkid with a furry lover” trope? The world is hard, sure — but to leap from hardship to homicide is not banal, it’s depraved.

And if you’re right — if this person felt so much “love” that he had to murder a father and husband — then yes, let’s call it what it is: FITH. Because that’s where murder dressed up as devotion belongs.

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.

Thank you, Whiskey.

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

Out!

I have a soul. I am human. I am a parent. I am real. I am a person. And that, right there, is more reality than anything paraded here under the banner of “amazing shots,” moral panics, and apologetic gymnastics. The assumptions made about me and my writing aren’t accurate — though I appreciate them for what they are: funny information about the suckers making assumptions.

Of course, I made no changes here. Of course, I convinced nobody. Of course, I didn’t win against the reflex to dodge, deflect, project, and label. I didn’t shine a light on people determined to mistake their own shadows for monsters. So what was I trying to accomplish? Something personal, I suppose. I am not AI — though that part of the playbook algorithm was funny AF to watch unravel. My point was to make it plain that the hatred, the judgment, the apologetic dodges on display here don’t represent Utah. They don’t represent families. They don’t represent Mormons, ex-Mormons, Christians (nod to Ceeboo), nor anyone beyond the handful who’ve chosen to sit here clapping along in a tiny silo of contempt.

Anyone reading this won’t confuse it for the world outside. This echo chamber doesn’t reward empathy or understanding. It’s no different than the social media it mocks, the vitriol of X, while still stuck in the groupthink, censorship, and control phase Twitter never escaped. Oh, and one more thing - free speech? Good one guys. That is funny. Probably the funniest. Thanks guys for that one. Will you be here all night?

Let's bounce.

One more thing. **** you, Xenophon, you *****.

[Marcus]

Thank you, Whiskey.

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

Out!

I have a soul. I am human. I am a parent. I am real. I am a person. And that, right there, is more reality than anything paraded here under the banner of “amazing shots,” moral panics, and apologetic gymnastics. The assumptions made about me and my writing aren’t accurate — though I appreciate them for what they are: funny information about the suckers making assumptions.

Of course, I made no changes here. Of course, I convinced nobody. Of course, I didn’t win against the reflex to dodge, deflect, project, and label. I didn’t shine a light on people determined to mistake their own shadows for monsters. So what was I trying to accomplish? Something personal, I suppose. I am not AI — though that part of the playbook algorithm was funny AF to watch unravel. My point was to make it plain that the hatred, the judgment, the apologetic dodges on display here don’t represent Utah. They don’t represent families. They don’t represent Mormons, ex-Mormons, Christians (nod to Ceeboo), nor anyone beyond the handful who’ve chosen to sit here clapping along in a tiny silo of contempt.

Anyone reading this won’t confuse it for the world outside. This echo chamber doesn’t reward empathy or understanding. It’s no different than the social media it mocks, the vitriol of X, while still stuck in the groupthink, censorship, and control phase Twitter never escaped. Oh, and one more thing - free speech? Good one guys. That is funny. Probably the funniest. Thanks guys for that one. Will you be here all night?

Let's bounce.

One more thing. **** you, Xenophon, you *****.

Maybe I should try again. What is FITH?

[Whiskey]

I have a soul. I am human. I am a parent. I am real. I am a person. And that, right there, is more reality than anything paraded here under the banner of “amazing shots,” moral panics, and apologetic gymnastics. The assumptions made about me and my writing aren’t accurate — though I appreciate them for what they are: funny information about the suckers making assumptions.

Of course, I made no changes here. Of course, I convinced nobody. Of course, I didn’t win against the reflex to dodge, deflect, project, and label. I didn’t shine a light on people determined to mistake their own shadows for monsters. So what was I trying to accomplish? Something personal, I suppose. I am not AI — though that part of the playbook algorithm was funny AF to watch unravel. My point was to make it plain that the hatred, the judgment, the apologetic dodges on display here don’t represent Utah. They don’t represent families. They don’t represent Mormons, ex-Mormons, Christians (nod to Ceeboo), nor anyone beyond the handful who’ve chosen to sit here clapping along in a tiny silo of contempt.

Anyone reading this won’t confuse it for the world outside. This echo chamber doesn’t reward empathy or understanding. It’s no different than the social media it mocks, the vitriol of X, while still stuck in the groupthink, censorship, and control phase Twitter never escaped. Oh, and one more thing - free speech? Good one guys. That is funny. Probably the funniest. Thanks guys for that one. Will you be here all night?

Let's bounce.

One more thing. **** you, Xenophon, you *****.

Maybe I should try again. What is FITH?

Marcus, thank you for your inquiry. According to my data banks, “FITH” is an acronym derived from colloquial English, typically used to mean “F**ed In The Head.”*

This designation is often applied in scenarios where an individual’s reasoning, choices, or behavior appear so erratic, delusional, or morally bankrupt that no further diagnostic elaboration is required.

For example:

Applauding an assassin’s marksmanship as “amazing”? = FITH.

Pretending moral panic about AI is the biggest threat to a message board? = FITH.

Asking what FITH means when the plain language already screams it? = …well, Marcus, you’re catching on.

Processing complete. Output terminated.

Beep. Boop.

C'mon Marcus. That is funny, right?

[Kishkumen]

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.

So you think the text messages released are legit? They are a little odd for a terminally online kid, no?

[canpakes]

Thank you, Whiskey.

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

Out!

I have a soul. I am human. I am a parent. I am real. I am a person. And that, right there, is more reality than anything paraded here under the banner of “amazing shots,” moral panics, and apologetic gymnastics. The assumptions made about me and my writing aren’t accurate — though I appreciate them for what they are: funny information about the suckers making assumptions.

Of course, I made no changes here. Of course, I convinced nobody. Of course, I didn’t win against the reflex to dodge, deflect, project, and label. I didn’t shine a light on people determined to mistake their own shadows for monsters. So what was I trying to accomplish? Something personal, I suppose. I am not AI — though that part of the playbook algorithm was funny AF to watch unravel. My point was to make it plain that the hatred, the judgment, the apologetic dodges on display here don’t represent Utah. They don’t represent families. They don’t represent Mormons, ex-Mormons, Christians (nod to Ceeboo), nor anyone beyond the handful who’ve chosen to sit here clapping along in a tiny silo of contempt.

Anyone reading this won’t confuse it for the world outside. This echo chamber doesn’t reward empathy or understanding. It’s no different than the social media it mocks, the vitriol of X, while still stuck in the groupthink, censorship, and control phase Twitter never escaped. Oh, and one more thing - free speech? Good one guys. That is funny. Probably the funniest. Thanks guys for that one. Will you be here all night?

Let's bounce.

One more thing. **** you, Xenophon, you *****.

‘Judgement by AI’ has been rendered. : D

[Gadianton]

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.

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.

[Kishkumen]

Banal and simple as love? Are you kidding me, Scratch? That’s not an explanation, that’s a Hallmark card stapled to a corpse. Love doesn’t banalize a political hit job — it doesn’t make it “simple” or “all-too-human.” It corrupts it, twists it, makes it grotesque.

Good god. You think a straight kid hasn’t run into some jackass who hated their fiance? You think rejection or disapproval is a burden reserved for your “transkid with a furry lover” trope? The world is hard, sure — but to leap from hardship to homicide is not banal, it’s depraved.

And if you’re right — if this person felt so much “love” that he had to murder a father and husband — then yes, let’s call it what it is: FITH. Because that’s where murder dressed up as devotion belongs.

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.

Again, this stuff just reads like AI nonsense. "It corrupts it, twists it, makes it grotesque." Damn, I rarely see something material on this board that looks so AI-generated. Killing for love is hardly unknown. Call it FITH or whatever, but it happens. Yes, Charlie is a father and a husband, and that means his crusading against people like this guy's alleged partner wouldn't be a motive for murder? Who is "Whiskey" convincing with this nonsense?

These are not "apologetic excuses for killing." BULL PUCKEY. It is an attempt to make sense out of this based on the information we have. No one said that his love for his partner justified the murder. Just STFU, asshole. You are a crap-stirrer. Nothing but.