jakee

Yeah… by Charlie. That is ironic, since intellectual cowardice is probably his greatest hallmark. As above, shithead spreads a virulently anti trans message in public but is presumably quite different in private.

No kidding? So why did you say shithead was your friend?

Lol, more acceptable to who?

Puts the 'very fine people' remarks in more context, doesn't it.

No idea what that means. Unless he, y'know, turns out to be a lefty. Athough they'd still be massive hypocrites in any case.

He’s a (I assume given the circumstances) socially awkward college age kid who’s spent too much time on gaming sites and message boards. It might just be something he thought was funny because he’s a dumb kid who hasn’t been out in the world much. It equally might have been something he thought would get under Kirk’s skin if Kirk survived to see it. It might be something he thought would annoy the cops when they found the rounds, since LE in general leans strongly right. And he also engraved anti-fascist song lyrics that were (supposedly) popular among the Italian partisan resistance - a movement with a decent proportion of communists among their number. The guns. Yes, it’s more or less a given that a shooter has one or more guns. Obviously. Yet not every shooter is from the right, therefore not everyone with a gun is from the right. Obviously. Halloween. Yeah… as a general rule that’s when you put on a costume of something you think is scary, not something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Very similar to this: In a 2015 speech at the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley, Kirk said he had applied for nomination to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, and was not accepted.[8] He said that "the slot he considered his went to 'a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion'" whose test scores he claimed he knew.[3] He told The New Yorker in 2017 that he was being sarcastic when he said it.[3] He told the Chicago Tribunein 2018 that "he was just repeating something he'd been told",[2][89] while at a New Hampshire Turning Point event featuring Rand Paul in October 2019 he claimed he never said it.[89] A racist, a liar and an intellectual coward - and he’s been fully adopted by the main stream Republican party. And of course he spread insane 2020 election lies and played a big part in organising the stop the steal rally - so like everyone else involved he was also a traitor. But that’s just par for the course for a movement that still idolises the Confederacy.

In fairness I have not yet seen a single fact that suggests the shooter was right of center. And it seems quite unlikely that will turn out to be the case.

It should be some comfort to know that in his last moments he fulfilled his dream.

And how would the shooter have known he was gay? There's only one rational explanation - he was a disgruntled rent boy who Charlie used then stiffed on the bill... and no-one on the right can possibly be offended by that explanation.

Ah, you're parodying his rush to judgement. I thought I'd missed something.

Where is this information from?

Jesse Watters on Fox said “And we are going to avenge Charlie’s death in the way that Charlie wanted to be avenged.” And today a bunch of right wing extremists did begin to take revenge with a message Charlie Kirk would have approved of: Black students across the US were targeted this week by coordinated racist death threats, forcing at least seven historically Black colleges into emergency lockdowns just a day after far-right activist Charlie Kirk was killed at Utah Valley University. ...The manifesto was said to contain “extremely graphic threats of gun violence” and stated the author was “coming for only n******”, citing the number of Black students as taking away from a “safe space” for white people. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/black-students-colleges-racist-threats Should Jesse Watters be fired for inciting this wave of right wing terrorism?

Why do you care so much about shithead getting shot?

Whatever else you might say about him I think shithead is about as far from a holy man as you can get.

Huh? Then why did you say Floyd would have been ok if you’d been there to help restrain him? You know that the murderer Chauvin had plenty of help restraining Floyd but chose to keep suffocating him even after he was already dead and need led no restraining at all.

Err, ‘cos it wasn’t. The USA wasn’t founded with the goal of ending slavery. That’s just nonsense.

I have never once heard that as a justification for physically attacking someone. I don't think I believe anyone has ever used that as a justification for physically attacking someone. No there isn't. The explicit premise of this thread and the absolute statements of fact you made earlier on were that political violence is almost entirely leftwing problem, not a right wing problem. To be clear, you do retract that premise, you do retract those earlier statements, and you do so because you now realise they were made from a position of ignorance before you'd bothered to gather any meaningful data - that is correct, yes?

So to be clear - you retract the title of this thread, you retract everything you said in your first post and you retract every conclusion that you stated as fact before you'd bothered to look for the information that showed you to be wrong? That is the case, yes? You posted the ones from X, and that's Elon's fault. He chose for it to be a bot infested amplifier of extremist content, it didn't have to be that way. But asde from that, Republican Senator Mike Lee is not a bot. Do you not care at all about the online celebration of violence as long as it is right wingers who are clebrating it? Is it only worth mentioning when left wingers do it? Remember, silence is violence. Or is that just another thing you said before doing enough research? You forget that in your first post (the title of the damn thread even) you had already presented your concusions as fact before doing any digging at all. You forget that in your second post you also said this "Since 2015, it’s been riots, bombings and assassinations coming from the left. The only right attacks close to the modern era are Dylan Roof, Giffords, and abortion bombings pre 2010." - an absolutely false statement that you have now acknowledged was made from a position of ignorance. And again, to be absolutely clear, you do acknowledge that what you presented as fact in your first and second posts was really just ill-informed nonsense? That is correct, yes?

Nah bro, that's not it. We know that's not it because you led with your conclusion as fact, and you didn't ask for more data. Look at the very first sentence of this thread, bro. "The left are the ones assassinating their opponents like modern Bolsheviks." Don't you think you should retract that statement because it was purely based on what you knew was incomplete and biased data? That's your narrative. That's the narrative you started this thread with. If you now claim your purpose is to find out whether or not it is true then why did you start by proclaiming it to be true? I can say that because you had already drawn your conclusions from the data set that was so obviously deficient you've already had to revise it ten times in the space of an hour or two. You cared more about decrying comments from random online lefties than you did about doing the most basic due diligence on your data. But you weren;t posting about anyone you know in real life. You thought a bunch of anonymous online accounts that might be bots was worth posting about multiple times, so why is an actual real life Republican Senator not worth posting about? Do you care at all about elected public figures laughing about political assassinations, or do you not care about it one bit? Not even enough to take two seconds to acknowledge that Republican Senator Mike Lee was wrong to do that? Wait, you assume the online glorification of Kirk's murder is bots, not real left wing people? So you're saying it's Elon Musk's fault? Bro... Musk is a hardcore right winger, not a lefty. Sounds like you need to revise that dataset again.

Right, Democrats need to be responsible for the words they say because they definitely cause violence. But don't you dare say that any of the words Charlie Kirk said might have played a part in provoking that violence, and you should be fired if you do.

So why are you knowingly posting hastily compiled, incomplete, biased data and pretending it means something? Is it because you're worried that if you waited until you'd actually had a complete data set that it wouldn't support your point anymore? Sure seems that way, doesn't it? Lol, it's clear to anyone reading this thread that getting data isn't 'just' what you're trying to do. If you don't care about online comments in response to violence, how do you explain your opening paragraphs in this whole thread? How do you explain posting this link? https://x.com/babybeginner/status/1966064272552906996?ref_url= You sure cared enough to spend time researching and writing all of that instead of making any effort to check whether your 'data' was remotely accurate. Or did you literally mean you don't really care about Republican celebration of political violence, you only care when the left does it?

Not really sure how you've managed to miss it but the ideology in question according to Base698 is 'the left'. Like... all of it. If you're saying you feel the same that's not caution, it's extreme paranoia.

If you've missed several of the most famous incidents of political violence from the Trump era then how many others do you think you've missed? If it was on your list then why did you pretend it wasn't? Were you entirely ignorant of the details or were you trying to hide it because it didn't suit your narrative? No, that's what happens if you count - and we've already established that you've made multiple unfathomable omissions of extremely high profile, well known events. So what credence should anyone give your count? And you're still silent on the causes of right wing political violence. Do you not condemn it? Do you not care about it? What should we read into your silence? You still haven't even said that Senator Lee's comments on the Hortman shootings were wrong. Are you too blinded by bias to even be able to do that? To condemn the fact that a senior elected Republican politician feels it is appropriate to joke in public about political violence - and that his party doesn't care? Go on, see if you can do it.

And yet you failed to mention it. Your silence means you approve of the violence? How could it possibly not have been on your list? Are you so ill informed that you didn't know about it, or again does your silence mean you approve of the violence? Exactly - anti-abortion being a key platform of the Republican party in general and Trump/Maga wing in particular, with the murderer being a right wing Trump voter. Yet it didn't make your list. Even after being told about it twice it still doesn't appear to be on your list. Does your silence mean you approve of the violence? And what about Senator Lee? Do you still have nothing to say about his comments? Don't they matter?