Posting for the "Now guys he was MURDERED! Don't celebrate!" Crowd
-
Then dont tell me youre the good guy. Cool?
-
Sorry to break it to you, but PBS Newshour is not immune to corporate and political bias, just because it is(was? Idk honestly) partially publicly funded. They have sponsors to please and viewers to pander to just like other stations. I do generally think they are better than most broadcast news but they are still biased towards a general pro-corporate sanitized viewpoint. If a CEO (or any important western figurehead) dies they aren't going to focus on harms they did, they will focus on telling how they were such a great loving family man regardless of if it is true.
Sounds like you don't know much about PBS but confidently wanna mansplain it to me
-
Only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.
He wasn't just a racist he was a fucking Nazi.
I get the impulse, truly. He spread hate and did real harm, and the anger at that is justified. But celebrating his death doesn’t hurt his cause, it builds it. The right has shown us the playbook: when left-wing leaders are killed, they shrug it off, Trump even said it 'doesn’t matter.' Yet with Kirk, before there’s even a suspect, they’re already framing it as the start of the left’s downfall. When we celebrate, we feed that narrative. We give the Nazis exactly what they want. The real strength is being better than them, and making sure their ideas lose.
-
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.
But that catharsis is blinding, vile, and destructive.
My friend, you've got the right stuff. You have a very smooth and relatable style of communication and I really do value when those like you say something that I espouse and would otherwise butcher.
I won't tell people not to celebrate because I know how disliked that sort of sentiment is on a thread like this. But you're absolutely right and it sucks. They know that they just hit the "not crying wolf" lottery and will never stop banging that drum.
I'm frightened for whom the bell tolls.
-
Sounds like you don't know much about PBS but confidently wanna mansplain it to me
If I'm wrong about something let me know instead of throwing out insults. No one knows everything.
-
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.
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.
-
When one group proclaims the sadness of tragedy of a great harm upon a member of an intolerant group and the intolerant group refuses or even celebrates that same sort of great harm against the other, that normalizes the one sidedness of that for that society. Calls for reciprocity become decried as politicization
bullshit. You're just intellectualizing being a creep.
-
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.
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.
-
How anyone can sympathise for him I don’t know
At the end of the day he is a human being, that's why. I'm not trying to defend the guy, but fundamentally that's what is supposed to divide the progressives/liberals vs the conservatives. The conservatives don't care except when it's their own while the progressives and liberals are supposed to care about all people supposedly.
while the progressives and liberals are supposed to care about all people supposedly.
This is like saying "so much for tolerance" when progressives don't tolerate intolerance. It's a social contract: if you are intolerant of others you don't get the benefit of tolerance extended to you.
If you are unsympathetic towards others then you don't get the benefit of sympathy.
-
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
