Posting for the "Now guys he was MURDERED! Don't celebrate!" Crowd
-
Yep. I've already said this like three times on other platforms: it's ok to be happy about this. He gave you permission. Twice, actually. The "it's worth sacrificing a person every now and then if it means we get to have guns" and this empathy thing.
This is maybe the only time it's ok to be happy someone died.
It's what he would have wanted.
-
Except the word nazi denotes and is defined by the hate of Jews.
You might say that sionists and nazis are similar, but they are categorically different. Or it would be slightly self-destructive as a Jewish state to want to exterminate all Jews, dont you think?
-
Exactly the opposite. We should have empathy, tolerance, and inclusiveness for all, unless people choose to exclude themselves from that collective. I’m saying those who only have parochial empathy shouldn’t expect to receive empathy from others they’ve already cut themselves off from, and it’s not something those they shut out to be shamed for that they experienced the repercussions of their actions.
unless people choose to exclude themselves from that collective
He made it very clear he excluded himself from that collective.
-
Have empathy instead
It might be surprising, but it's not a limited resource that needs to be spend sparcely. You do not need to make the world worse for those in an other tribe in order to make it better for your own tribe. That false dichotomy - which you and him probably share - is the root of a lot of evil in this world.
it's not a limited resource that needs to be spend sparcely.
People's empathy absolutely can get exhausted.
That's why, for example, I am pissed about the situation in Gaza but I am capable of going to work instead of spending every day sobbing on my couch.
-
unless you use it as a overgeneral brush, and fill it with only minorities, and use it as a short hand for black people like it’s used in this context. are you a native english speaker?
dog whistles specifically use words with a cover meaning and the group agrees to internally change its meaning.
wrote last edited by [email protected]He didn't use "gang violence" as short hand for "black violence." That wouldn't make sense in the context of mass shootings. He said “Counting or not counting gang violence?” more as a shorthand for "Are we counting criminals killing each other?" Whether it's hispanic, white, or black gangs isn't very relevant.
Gangs contribute to the majority of designated "mass shootings," and are often excluded from conversations that want to focus on innocent victims of mass shooting as opposed to cases of criminals killing each other. After all, if all mass shootings were just gangsters shooting each other, people wouldn't care nearly as much as they do now. They care about the mass shootings that don't involve gangs.
EDIT: Seems like many sources explicitly exclude gang violence in their stats. So my statement may be incorrect that gangs contribute to "designated" mass shootings as they are not designation such by many sources.
-
He had shitty opinions, we know. I won't follow them. I will have empathy and I will not celebrate his death. Still, I think the world's population improved with one less hateful person around.
I'd also add the argument of, "Don't stare into the abyss, lest we become the monsters we're denouncing."
-
unless people choose to exclude themselves from that collective
He made it very clear he excluded himself from that collective.
In words and actions he did so incredibly clearly.
-
You sound like a very sad and lonely individual.
During natural disasters where society and infrastructure completely collapses and is destroyed, it is in human DNA to help eachother, collaborate, cooperate, and rebuild. Your 'ape-based species' bullshit is not founded in science, but founded by eugenisists stupid enough to look at apes and say "we're like, the same."
Human history is nothing but a series of people figuring out how to get along with eachother. People who focus on all the war and violence stuff are scary, and need some serious professional help. Yes, I'm talking about you, HugeNerd.
Human history is nothing but a series of people figuring out how to get along with eachother.
I've rarely laughed that hard. Thanks!
-
Thank you for that. Even though he died, he has won. Look at the amount of hatred he has nourished. Furthermore, I don’t believe his death will bring any justice to the people he impacted with his hatred. While I see people celebrating, I’m terrified.
Terrified this is how things are at the moment. If you can celebrate the death of Charlie, it means you have it in you to celebrate anyone’s else given a motive. And I think that is The first step of the dehumanisation process he so fondly used.
I take a little solace from the fact that win or not, he will not be here to see it through
-
He had shitty opinions, we know. I won't follow them. I will have empathy and I will not celebrate his death. Still, I think the world's population improved with one less hateful person around.
What would you say if someone on the left was killed as revenge?
-
He had shitty opinions, we know. I won't follow them. I will have empathy and I will not celebrate his death. Still, I think the world's population improved with one less hateful person around.
wrote last edited by [email protected]He had shitty opinions
I think we should stop saying this.
He was killed for his actions, not his opinions. His audience members are the ones who kill for opinions.
Discussing his personal opinions feels like a bit of a republican both sidesing talking point, honestly. I mean, if one side can kill the other just for having conservative opinions, then certainly they can fight back and kill people just for having blue hair and using the "wrong" bathroom!
It was the same with talk radio hosts decades ago. People would argue whether Limbaugh or Hannity really believe all the BS or if they just do it for ratings.
I only remember caring about that distinction when I was still immersed in the conservatism I was born into.
edit: added many word was not there
-
Here’s the frustration and why this should not be celebrated:
Charlie Kirk spent years dehumanizing people, making lives measurably worse, and profiting from hatred. The cosmic irony of him being shot while calling trans people dangerous and minimizing gun violence feels like the universe delivering a punchline he wrote himself. There’s a cathartic release in seeing someone who seemed untouchable suddenly silenced by the very violence he dismissed.
But that catharsis is blinding, vile, and destructive. Every celebration post, every "rest in piss" meme, every "fucked around and found out" joke is already being screenshot and weaponized. The worst people imaginable, those eager to exploit violence, are being handed exactly what they want: supposed proof that “they were right,” justification for crackdowns, and, most dangerously, a martyr whose blood sanctifies every awful thing he stood for.
Celebration may feel like a dunk on fascism, but in reality it accelerates it. It may feel like strength, but it exposes a movement so strategically bankrupt that it mistakes emotional satisfaction for political victory. Kirk alive was one influencer among many; Kirk dead is a rallying cry that will outlive us all.
The rage at what he represented is justified. But celebrating his death guarantees those very ideas will flourish. American democracy is dying, and a gravedigger falling into the hole is no victory when it only deepens the grave.
His ideas needed to be defeated. Instead, they’ve been immortalized.
Cool story bro.
-
What would you say if someone on the left was killed as revenge?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7717mk1gk6o.amp
They have a time machine
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'll sleep ever so slightly better now.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
trump is honoring him with a military procession, to distract from epstein. people said he was killed over, because he was pining for epstein files to be released. Kirk did more harm than good, but MSMS seems to try to sanewash him.
-
Exactly. I've been saying this all day, but we literally hanged people at Nuremberg for doing exactly what Kirk made his whole career doing. Kirk was guilty of incitement to genocide.
he fomented, and encouraged hate+ violence amongst susceptible incel population, hes culpable.
-
Quick note to say legally speaking Nuremberg trials were kangaroo courts, and many prosecutors and judges were uneasy about the whole thing because many of the offences were not illegal in the Third Reich, and international law wasn’t yet developed enough to make them offences in a wider sense. That said, Nazis deserved a comeuppance and subsequently international laws were made more useful. But Nuremberg should never be held as the gold standard of jurisprudence. They were a starting point and we should always aim higher. People can look to The Hague for more effective and legally sound judgements on the matters of war crimes and human rights violations.
Why were they kangaroo courts? They were established by an International Charter.. You can point out that the Nazi's crimes weren't illegal under German law, but who cares? Multiple jurisdictions can exist simultaneously. Sure there's an element of ex post facto in making crimes against humanity a legal charge after the fact, but the ex post facto protections are something we democratically agreed to adopt. And maybe we can just agree to not let genocide be subject to ex post facto protections under international treaty. Yes, this was all just made up by people, but ultimately all laws and legal systems were first dreamed up by people doing a lot of improvisation.
-
They were gonna do it, anyway. They were just waiting for an excuse. Any excuse. In a world as big and complex as ours, probability would have provided them with some pretext sooner or later. As we can see, they don't know anything about the shooter, or his ideology. It's just an excuse. If the world didn't provide them one, they'd manufacture it. Walking around on eggshells and trying to avoid giving them one was never tenable.
You're right that they manufacture pretexts, but there's a crucial difference between forced fabrications and genuine ammunition. When they have to invent threats, their propaganda requires constant maintenance and reality-bending. When we hand them actual violence to point to, we transform their lies into prophecies. Yes, probability ensures incidents will occur, but the question is whether we contribute to that probability or work against it. "They'll do it anyway" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that absolves us of strategic thinking. I say, let us not make the Fascist's job easier.
-
Then dont tell me youre the good guy. Cool?
Hoes mad
-
Cool story bro.
Your "cool story bro" response is exactly the kind of thinking that creates space for demagogues to thrive. When someone offers strategic analysis about why celebrating political violence backfires, and you respond with a thought-terminating cliché, you're demonstrating the same anti-intellectual reflex that makes populations vulnerable to manipulation.
Think about what made Charlie Kirk successful: he offered simple, emotionally satisfying answers to complex problems. "Your problems aren't from complicated economic systems, it's those people over there." His audience loved him because he never asked them to think harder than a bumper sticker.
And here you are, faced with someone explaining why emotional satisfaction isn't political victory, why martyrdom empowers the very ideas we need to defeat... and your response is a meme. You're operating at exactly the level of discourse that Kirk counted on: where snark replaces strategy, where being dismissive feels like being strong, where "cool story bro" seems like a clever response to warnings about tactical disaster.
The movements that win understand complexity. The movements that lose mistake attitude for analysis. When you brush off strategic thinking with internet catchphrases, you're not fighting against the Charlie Kirks of the world. You're proving that their reduction of politics to tribal reflexes and emotional reactions was right all along.
The system that produces Charlie Kirks depends on people refusing to think beyond the satisfaction of the dunk, the own, the sick burn. Your dismissal isn't rebellion; it's compliance with the exact intellectual laziness that powerful interests count on to keep populations manageable and movements ineffective.
