Charlie Kirk shot, another conservative assassination attempt.

I’m just curious. An attractive woman is walking down a street wearing skimpy, provacative clothing. She is attacked and raped.

Charlie Kirk travels around the country saying things that some people find offensive. He gets killed by one of those people (assuming that was the killer’s motive)

In the second case, many people on here are quite okay with saying that Kirk inflamed his attacker and, at least in some measure, brought his fate on himself. Presumably, in the first case, those very same people would take issue with someone saying the woman inflamed her attacker and, at least in some measure, brought the attack on herself.

Why is it ok to say that about Kirk when the very same people who are saying that would tear you a new one if you said the very same thing about that rape victim?

Which blunt objects? Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Hands and feet for starters. Shall we cut them off at birth? Think of all the lives saved.

I’m just curious. An attractive woman is walking down a street wearing skimpy, provacative clothing. She is attacked and raped.

Charlie Kirk travels around the country saying things that some people find offensive. He gets killed by one of those people (assuming that was the killer’s motive)

In the second case, many people on here are quite okay with saying that Kirk inflamed his attacker and, at least in some measure, brought his fate on himself. Presumably, in the first case, those very same people would take issue with someone saying the woman inflamed her attacker and, at least in some measure, brought the attack on herself.

Why is it ok to say that about Kirk when the very same people who are saying that would tear you a new one if you said the very same thing about that rape victim? Originally Posted by Smarty1

I guess the difference is the audience. The way a woman dresses shouldn’t bring on a violent response, neither should someone’s speech.

But the woman dressed provocatively in a very conservative country will get a different reaction than she would get on Miami beach.

The same goes for Charlie Kirk. Certain kinds of speech will generate different reactions depending upon the audience it’s given to.

I don’t think Charlie Kirk deserves to be killed and I hope no one in this forum thinks otherwise but the man made a living delivering controversial speech to audiences that may not have welcomed it.

That kind of thing can generate this kind of response from the unhinged amongst us.

Hands and feet for starters. Shall we cut them off at birth? Think of all the lives saved. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Yes, if you agree that humans by their uncivilized nature are irrational and violent, like other great apes, and that everyone should be neutered with their hands and feet removed... by all means, be an example and offer up your limbs first. How ridiculous.


Anyone find it odd that dear leader was twatting about this even before TMZ and the likes reported on it? Almost like he was reporting a successful military campaign. Maybe maga lost control of Kirk and decided to cull the variable and make him a martyr?

I’m just curious. An attractive woman is walking down a street wearing skimpy, provacative clothing. She is attacked and raped.

Charlie Kirk travels around the country saying things that some people find offensive. He gets killed by one of those people (assuming that was the killer’s motive)

In the second case, many people on here are quite okay with saying that Kirk inflamed his attacker and, at least in some measure, brought his fate on himself. Presumably, in the first case, those very same people would take issue with someone saying the woman inflamed her attacker and, at least in some measure, brought the attack on herself.

Why is it ok to say that about Kirk when the very same people who are saying that would tear you a new one if you said the very same thing about that rape victim? Originally Posted by Smarty1

Well the woman isn't directly interacting with any audience, so there is absolutley no reason for her to draw attention other than a few eyeballs. She gets raped, -it's because she drew the attention of a dude who was looking to rape someone.

In politics- the audience, is ALWAYS being interacted with. So the very fact that this is a participatory event is going to promote engagement and thus responses. The problem that our neuvo conservatives have, especially Christian Nationalists, is that they condemn any /EVERY thing that they do not agree with. If every comment is a scripture lesson, and it's broken down to the level of good as defined by the bible- the level of both hypocrisy and moral overtones is deafening. So then you add on the constant gaslighting of RedHats ( and lets not forget that Kirk was literally throwing those same dumb hats out to the crowd) and it's no longer a conversation. It's no longer engagement to share ideas- or to prove me wrong. It became a forum for breeding hate, xenophobic ideas, and especially hatred of DEI and anyone who doesn't look like CK. I get that he likes being a privileged white male who is chums with the current POTUS and lets not forget his forays into staffing the current administration too. He's literally more influential than Laura Loomer or Susie Wiles; because he has a platform that Trump used and echo's the same nonsense on stage that Trump did/ does.

SO if you wonder why he's disliked- it's not cause of how he looked or what he wore, it was because of the facade that christian nationalism being all good, and racism, and all the bigotry that comes with things that happen. If you really think about it, GOod old Utah is full of rich white folks and polygamists. So how hard would it be to enjoy a crowd of supporters in that state- Not too hard.

When team RedHat see's that spewing out rhetoric of hatred has consequences, and it' sad to see a young man get killed because of the message he was sending- it's not shocking to me that someone did this. It's shocking to see schools get shot up, and cities burned, and all that. But to see a political pundit, who facilitates negative consequences by the virtues of his speech, and gaslighting- have a ultimate consequence, it's not even in the same ballpark as the rapist analogy.

The woman has no interaction with the offender till the crime happens. The politician has been interacting with the offender for days, months, or years before he is met. If you think that you can spew divisive language and have a pious smugness, then this is a reminder; You can say whatever you want, as is your right- but to say it doesn't have any consequence is why there are murders every day - " I didn't like what that dude said or how he looked at Me", mentality. I don't agree with the murder or condone it, but comparing the two is a ruse of similarity.

Covers what? And opinion piece?

Kirk called out many people regardless of their skin color or ethnic background. I might add he called out alot of churches and their views also
Doesn't make him a racist as u suggest or this piece of shit opinion piece x e which proves nothing other than u have squat Originally Posted by oldman2525

An opinion piece with citations that gives you a trail of breadcrumbs to follow depending how far down the rabbit hole you want to go do you can form your own opinion.

I'm not here to convince you. Still remember that classic quote from yesteryear about changing opinions on the internet.

Well the woman isn't directly interacting with any audience, so there is absolutley no reason for her to draw attention other than a few eyeballs. She gets raped, -it's because she drew the attention of a dude who was looking to rape someone.

In politics- the audience, is ALWAYS being interacted with. So the very fact that this is a participatory event is going to promote engagement and thus responses. The problem that our neuvo conservatives have, especially Christian Nationalists, is that they condemn any /EVERY thing that they do not agree with. If every comment is a scripture lesson, and it's broken down to the level of good as defined by the bible- the level of both hypocrisy and moral overtones is deafening. So then you add on the constant gaslighting of RedHats ( and lets not forget that Kirk was literally throwing those same dumb hats out to the crowd) and it's no longer a conversation. It's no longer engagement to share ideas- or to prove me wrong. It became a forum for breeding hate, xenophobic ideas, and especially hatred of DEI and anyone who doesn't look like CK. I get that he likes being a privileged white male who is chums with the current POTUS and lets not forget his forays into staffing the current administration too. He's literally more influential than Laura Loomer or Susie Wiles; because he has a platform that Trump used and echo's the same nonsense on stage that Trump did/ does.

SO if you wonder why he's disliked- it's not cause of how he looked or what he wore, it was because of the facade that christian nationalism being all good, and racism, and all the bigotry that comes with things that happen. If you really think about it, GOod old Utah is full of rich white folks and polygamists. So how hard would it be to enjoy a crowd of supporters in that state- Not too hard.

When team RedHat see's that spewing out rhetoric of hatred has consequences, and it' sad to see a young man get killed because of the message he was sending- it's not shocking to me that someone did this. It's shocking to see schools get shot up, and cities burned, and all that. But to see a political pundit, who facilitates negative consequences by the virtues of his speech, and gaslighting- have a ultimate consequence, it's not even in the same ballpark as the rapist analogy.

The woman has no interaction with the offender till the crime happens. The politician has been interacting with the offender for days, months, or years before he is met. If you think that you can spew divisive language and have a pious smugness, then this is a reminder; You can say whatever you want, as is your right- but to say it doesn't have any consequence is why there are murders every day - " I didn't like what that dude said or how he looked at Me", mentality. I don't agree with the murder or condone it, but comparing the two is a ruse of similarity. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Thats a lot of words, why not make it simple.

You think he deserved it, and so do women who live in countries that dont like how they dress.

See, much easier to read.

I don't agree with the murder or condone it

After 5 paragraphs of doing exactly that.

After 5 paragraphs of doing exactly that. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

He had to admit Kirk was a victim, nuff said.

Im sure glad the Ukrainian girl wasn't dressed provocatively, because she would have deserved to die, so, is she a victim then?

Thats a lot of words, why not make it simple.

You think he deserved it, and so do women who live in countries that dont like how they dress.

See, much easier to read. Originally Posted by Devo

An opinion piece with citations that gives you a trail of breadcrumbs to follow depending how far down the rabbit hole you want to go do you can form your own opinion.

I'm not here to convince you. Still remember that classic quote from yesteryear about changing opinions on the internet. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Oh, dont fear convincing us, never gonna happen.

You only reaffirm what we already know.

412 times a day.....

I'm not here to convince you. Still remember that classic quote from yesteryear about changing opinions on the internet.

Quotes are so 16th century.

Cero miedo, compadre

I also don't need a 5 man security detail like Charlie Kirk did.

Sadly, I keep seeing updates that they have a suspect in custody, but they're old wildly stale and about that older gentlemen from yesterday.

Well the woman isn't directly interacting with any audience, so there is absolutley no reason for her to draw attention other than a few eyeballs. She gets raped, -it's because she drew the attention of a dude who was looking to rape someone.

In politics- the audience, is ALWAYS being interacted with. So the very fact that this is a participatory event is going to promote engagement and thus responses. The problem that our neuvo conservatives have, especially Christian Nationalists, is that they condemn any /EVERY thing that they do not agree with. If every comment is a scripture lesson, and it's broken down to the level of good as defined by the bible- the level of both hypocrisy and moral overtones is deafening. So then you add on the constant gaslighting of RedHats ( and lets not forget that Kirk was literally throwing those same dumb hats out to the crowd) and it's no longer a conversation. It's no longer engagement to share ideas- or to prove me wrong. It became a forum for breeding hate, xenophobic ideas, and especially hatred of DEI and anyone who doesn't look like CK. I get that he likes being a privileged white male who is chums with the current POTUS and lets not forget his forays into staffing the current administration too. He's literally more influential than Laura Loomer or Susie Wiles; because he has a platform that Trump used and echo's the same nonsense on stage that Trump did/ does.

SO if you wonder why he's disliked- it's not cause of how he looked or what he wore, it was because of the facade that christian nationalism being all good, and racism, and all the bigotry that comes with things that happen. If you really think about it, GOod old Utah is full of rich white folks and polygamists. So how hard would it be to enjoy a crowd of supporters in that state- Not too hard.

When team RedHat see's that spewing out rhetoric of hatred has consequences, and it' sad to see a young man get killed because of the message he was sending- it's not shocking to me that someone did this. It's shocking to see schools get shot up, and cities burned, and all that. But to see a political pundit, who facilitates negative consequences by the virtues of his speech, and gaslighting- have a ultimate consequence, it's not even in the same ballpark as the rapist analogy.

The woman has no interaction with the offender till the crime happens. The politician has been interacting with the offender for days, months, or years before he is met. If you think that you can spew divisive language and have a pious smugness, then this is a reminder; You can say whatever you want, as is your right- but to say it doesn't have any consequence is why there are murders every day - " I didn't like what that dude said or how he looked at Me", mentality. I don't agree with the murder or condone it, but comparing the two is a ruse of similarity. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Ok then. Change the setting a bit. The woman is a stripper and she is teasing and grinding on a guy. That guy gets excited and he waits for her after the club closes and rapes her. Are you saying that she brought that attack on herself by publicly flaunting her sexuality, teasing the guy and getting him all revved up?

And it’s also understandable to you then if someone takes a shot at, say Van Jones, because he is out there making inflammatory statements in public? I assume that’s different, though, because you agree with him. The point is that it shouldn’t matter what the victim is saying (just as it doesn’t matter what the rape victim was wearing or doing). Murdering someone simply because they exercised their First Amendment right to free speech is shocking, not understandable,

Massive difference between understandable and acceptable.

That said, Charlie Kirk both understood and accepted that he was a potential target for his views and that protecting the 2nd Amendment involves some gun deaths.

Should he have been? No. But I can understand why he was. It's not that shocking given the many horrors I have seen people inflict on people.

Good thoughts and good vibes to his family, who were at the event. Their futures have forever changed.