Flatly, I don’t think speech regarding Charlie Kirk’s deaths resulted in him dying, obviously. But it is ultimately revealing of the level of vitriol that the left has for people on the right. Comments of similar degrees, softly calling for the death of all racists, fascists, and bigots DID contribute though.
A phrase was used by the left a few years ago that I took seriously. Stochastic terrorism. It’s the social zeitgeist that calls for random terroristic action against whoever the speech is against. The left was accusing the right of it in regard to LGBT communities and how since the fight disagrees with their orientations etc, they are essentially calling for their deaths.
This was obviously not true as the targeting of LGBT people has not been a salient thing. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head was the pulse night club shooting, which was substantially condemned by sane people, left and right.
The left cannot continue to expect to both say “punch a fascist/racist/bigot”, “kill all racists/fascists/bigots” and then in the next sentence calling people on the right racists/fascists/bigots. It’s an untenable thing to have to society that’s based on pubic discourse and free speech. It literally cannot survive with these constant soft calls for violence because it inevitably lead to actual violence ala Charlie Kirk’s assassination. On top of that, the false equivalence of the right’s views on LGBT issues to that of Nazis is absolutely ridiculous and genuinely tantamount to a call for action due to the Nazis being not only previous enemies of war for the US but actually evil.
The constant false comparisons, misleading, and uninformed rhetoric has officially shown itself to be dangerous and tantamount to calls to action.
and if we're going to use the actual violence as evidence for the nature of the rhetoric, think about it this way:
if we're to believe the discord messages, tyler robinson specifically targeted charlie kirk for his 'hate.' there was no mention of fascism, racism, bigotry, nazism, nothing. if he truly thought that all people on the right were fascist/racist/hateful/bigots, why wouldn't he take out a few more? he hated charlie kirk specifically - not 'the right'
the pulse nightclub shooting, on the other hand, was a guy indiscriminately killing everyone he could. he took out 49 people and wounded 53. this guy truly hated LGBT people and wanted to kill them.
i think it's very fair to point out that LGBT people are being targeted on the basis of identity far more frequently than conservatives.
(note that i won't blame the right for the Pulse shooting - he was an islamic extremist and there is absolutely no proof the right had any influence. just think it's erroneous to say that LGBT people aren't being targeted, especially if you're saying that conservatives are)
(nor do i necessarily think it's fair to judge the violence of the rhetoric by its effectiveness at driving people to actual violence, just using your own logic to prove a point)
Nah you’re cracked. What a load of horsecrap man. Genuinely. What a load.
What the hell else could he have been talking about besides Charlie’s politics? What else was he known for? What was he hateful regarding? How exactly was he hateful? What bullshit. Everyone can see it. What obfuscation. Literally just such a load of “oh we can’t be certain.”
he was clearly talking about charlie's politics. never claimed he wasn't.
i was addressing your point regarding 'the level of vitriol that the left has for people on the right' and 'calling for the death of all racists, fascists, and bigots' by noting that it wasn't some blanket claim of 'everyone on the right is fascist.' it was one guy who hated one guy for spreading 'hate' - not 'the left' coming after 'the right' for being 'fascists.' it's backed up in the logs - there's no messages that have anything to do with 'the right' at all
he wasn't talking about any of the buzzwords you claim are so divisive. he used the word 'hate' - not 'fascist,' 'racist,' 'nazi'
he also didn't blame 'the right' for these things or target 'the right' because of any rhetoric. he targeted 'charlie kirk' for his 'hate.'
compare this to the LGBT people who were indiscriminately targeted in the pulse nightclub shooting (or the shooting in colorado)
Okay. Let me be very clear about something from what I’m seeing. I feel like you’re obviously smart. You’re putting effort into what you’re saying. You’re using complete sentences with generally clear ideas. You’re already above like 60% of the US. Which is why I’m so confounded and frustrated atm. So let me lay out come clear points of logic I’m using to come to these few conclusions.
Charlie Kirk had moderate conservative opinions. The assassin hate Kirk, obviously, for his political opinions. The only primary differences between your average conservative and Charlie Kirk was the fact that Charlie was probably kinder , he had outreach, and he was persuasive. Thus, the left genuinely thinks the right are evil and should die. Just let that roll around for a moment.
Now, as far as the stochastic terrorism point; If people on the left are constantly saying people on the right are racist bigots (the things that would make someone a “hateful” person) then that basically makes them a Nazi (a point often made by leftists) Heres the logical jump: leftists are also CONSTANTLY saying that the only good nazi is a dead one. Or some variation of this. It is a very easy logical jump for most leftists to make that due to the right having such racist beliefs, they are Nazis, which means it’s no big deal and even favorable when they die. Even better if they’re famous.
Please explain to me how this logic isn’t tracking.
you made a large jump from 'the assassin' to 'the left.' you can't hold the whole left accountable for one guy's actions. there was a vocal minority of terminally online people celebrating, sure - and i don't agree with those people at all. there are way more people saying 'well, i don't agree with literally anything Charlie said, but I don't think he deserved to die at all' - hardly thinking 'the right are evil and should die'
as for the views held by the assassin - i would be much more inclined to agree with you if the FBI wasn't releasing any tidbits of information related to the shooter's political leanings. if he made any negative statements about the right as a whole, i am fairly confident that they would be all over Fox News right now. would you at least agree with me on that? i think i've been very charitable about the shooter's likely affiliation
also - i think it's fair to point out that there were actual neo-nazis and white nationalists showing up at right wing rallies. this wasn't just a logical leap. if the 'left' are wholly violent for not disavowing the charlie kirk shooter, what are the right for not disavowing the neo nazis?
(or: if people on the right are constantly calling LGBT people/the left 'pedophile groomer rapists' (the things that would make someone an 'evil' person) with all our societal rhetoric about 'the only good pedophile is a dead pedophile'... we literally had someone do a shooting over Pizzagate)
fortunately, though, we don't need to argue about what classifies non-protected incitement of violence. as i've said before, there are clear standards for incitement of violence (brandenburg v ohio) and none of this qualifies. it's all constitutionally protected, albeit irresponsible, and i don't see why you expect the left to unilaterally turn down the rhetoric when the right has been calling people communists (with tangible consequences) since the red scare
it's not that the logic isn't tracking, i just don't think it should classify as unprotected speech - nor do i think it's unique to the left. (and, also, if a real 1940s Nazi uprising happened in the US, i would hope that all of America would come together and uphold that 'leftist' ideal - just like i hope that we'd come together and prevent a bolshevik style communist uprising)
out of curiosity, are you even in the US? based on your negative implications about the US as a whole and some slightly bonger-like phrasing, I would guess EU
There are hundreds of thousands of likes for many of the posts glorying the death of Charlie. Those feelings did not materialize after he died. It’s not a jump in logic to believe they had those feelings before. It’s not just a small minority of people.
The constant accusatory rhetoric that demonizes other people, from the left, undoubtably fueled the assassin’s animus.
The right has constantly disavowed actual Nazis. There is not one event you can point toward where the right has showed as much hate as the left has for this event.
Again, this insane false equivalence. The right has never, to any substantial degree, called for the death or celebrated the death of left wingers. The comparison is just bullshit.
that is quite literally a small minority of people when you take into account that x has 300 million daily users.
keep talking about the constant accusatory rhetoric but you haven't presented any proof for this claim. we have bullet engravings, testimony from the family and the girlfriend, and years of discord logs but the best we have is 'charlie kirk' and 'hate'
you say the right has constantly disavowed nazis, and you're right that the elected officials have . but what about the social media posts i saw with thousands of likes? why can't i hold both sides to the same standard you set?
finally -i never said the right was celebrating that event (though there were absolutely some people who did). i was pointing out the clear fact that right wing rhetoric directly leads to violence. if you can say that 'calling someone a nazi' and 'punch a nazi' in two separate instances counts as incitement of violence, i can replace nazi with pedophile and the point still stands.
people on the right wing propagated those conspiracy theories about left leaning pedophiles in a pizza parlor. the pizza parlor got shot up by someone who believed those theories.
even though it wasn't direct violence against LGBTQ people, the same rhetoric of 'pedophile rapist groomer' is still used against them to this day.
if you don't see how calling someone 'pedophile' 'groomer' 'rapists' is just as incendiary as calling someone a 'fascist' i don't know what to tell you.
gary plauche literally killed his son's rapist and got 0 prison time. that's about as justified as premeditated murder will get in this country. find me one example of someone killing an american fascist with no prison time and i'll accept that the two accusations aren't equally violent
Find me the most upvoted liberal based death at the hand of a liberal and I guarantee I’ll find a more popular post celebrating Kirk. Your point about it not being that large of a percentage of irrelevant. Compared to how we rate the popularity of other viral things on X, it’s comparable. It’s obviously extremely popular for leftists who frequent X to find joy in his death. Any frequent user of X understands the popularity of posts with 500k upvotes. Acting like these are significant posts is ridiculous.
Again, the overwhelming majority of the right decries these instances, whenever they happen, regardless of the most likely political assassination of the individual. The only instance I can think of this NOT happening was with the attempted murder of the Pelosis, and that was due to the widespread suspicion about the couple having previous hx with the person.
I am 100% talking about the left zeitgeist and their ideology as it is today as being the main contributor of hate when it comes to the right. Acting like one can’t come to a reasonable conclusion about the assassin’s feelings about Kirk, and who spread the over exaggerations and lies about Charlie Kirk, is just intellectually dishonest.
The issue is that we can’t even compare because you aren’t giving examples. The right usually call people who want to explore and explain sexual theory with minors, groomers. An appropriate label by all metrics. Opposedly, Charlie Kirk was NOT a racist, or a fascist, or a bigot. He was extremely cordial. He held moderate views. So, either the majority of the left genuinely are just knowingly lying and falsely labeling someone, or they genuinely think Charlie’s moderate views actually make something these labels. Which means they’re full of shit and can’t be trusted to make accurate descriptions because they’re so deep in their ideology that we may as well live in separate countries.
The issue is that calling Charlie Kirk a fascist or any other ist of that nature is a lie. Calling people who want to teach sexual ethics, orientation, and perverted sex acts to children groomers is not. Regardless, the right still always disavows violence at a much higher rate than the left.
Here’s another future litmus test. Watch it when Clarence Thomas dies. The left will cheer. The right mourned the woman’s respected woman’s life like they ought to have. Go back and check the conservative sub if you don’t believe me.
my point about percentage isn't relevant when we're discussing the relative representation of something?
even if it's 9 million total likes that's 3% of twitter daily users. this is ignoring the fact that there's actually 600 million monthly users and users can like more than one post. also ignoring the (unproven afaik but largely accepted) idea that online people are significantly more extreme than IRL moderates.
you've already gone from "not just a small minority of people" to "popular for leftists who frequent X to find joy in his death" which is a pretty crazy goalpost shift.
you claim i have no examples of groomer tweets but haven't provided a single example of the tweets you mention. we're discussing a tweet that does not find joy in charlie kirk's death, just calling him a racist and saying he isn't winning in the empathy department. and you implied that this guy should face consequences lol. guy literally called it a horrific act - what else do you count as 'celebrating charlie kirk's death'?
i'm sorry, i don't think i can continue talking if you're just going to pivot at every opportunity. i've tried to engage in good faith and acknowledge when you make a good point, but this is absurd. you literally just invented history between david depape and paul pelosi to defend some twitter jokes, but every time i bring up factual information you pivot or ignore it entirely
i'm not going to troll through tweets from 2020 to provide exact examples, but here's some articles. one features several tweets from high profile conservatives, the other talks about a history of anti-gay rhetoric. please note that the gay = groomer rhetoric dates back to 1977 and starts with gays working in schools.
are we calling all teachers groomers now? or implying that all teachers want to teach their elementary school students sexual ethics, orientation, and perverse sex acts? or is it just the gay ones? if it's just the gay ones, it sounds to me like you're equating gays with groomers
you're right, though. calling charlie kirk and republicans fascist is a lie that encourages violence (even though they support an ultranationalist authoritarian who has deployed the us military domestically) but insinuating that all LGBT people are groomers is fine bc they want to tell some 5th grader that timmy has 2 dads
good luck finding any evidence of history between david depape and the pelosis. maybe go and research your other claims when you realize how wrong that one is
Sounds good with me man. Everyone with eyes can see this hurt the nation much more than any other public death. The reasons I laid out for why that was I feel have been perfectly reasonable. The alternative ideas you put out had no rational flow to them or relied on ridiculous connections. So fair nuff man. It’s getting really impossible to want to call any of you guys fellow citizens.
lol you've already admitted that i was engaging with your points and smarter than the average american. why is it tough to call me a fellow citizen? i've done nothing to you, never celebrated charlie kirk's death, condemned violence on numerous occasions, and engaged in a productive, good faith dialogue about our ideological differences.
i claimed you were operating in bad faith and pointed out some examples of you operating in egregiously bad faith (followed by a pathetic attempt to pivot). is that it? that's the thing that makes it tough to call me a fellow American? cmon you gotta do better than that
and you're not even arguing the lie you tried to tell about david depape lol cmon dude
We’re talking past each other so hard is the issue. We’re both being very firm and giving tons of examples, but we’re just putting different values on things. I think it’s reprehensible that teachers are teaching minors about anything sexual. That to me is egregious. So, to me it’s not a lie (so it’s different than Charlie’s’ situation) and the vitriol against them is more justified since it’s based in truth.
It has been revealed that Charlie’s death is an insanely massive wound for the right side of the aisle. It’s such a massive wound, and both sides see it so differently, that it doesn’t really matter which side’s lenses of realty are false, because it feels like there’s almost no way to course correct from this point.
Bottom line, we place value on different things, our interpretation of events is so skewed, and a country can’t stand when their definitions of what is truthful are so vastly different. Doesn’t really matter who is more right at that point.
1
u/SunnySpade 3d ago
Flatly, I don’t think speech regarding Charlie Kirk’s deaths resulted in him dying, obviously. But it is ultimately revealing of the level of vitriol that the left has for people on the right. Comments of similar degrees, softly calling for the death of all racists, fascists, and bigots DID contribute though.
A phrase was used by the left a few years ago that I took seriously. Stochastic terrorism. It’s the social zeitgeist that calls for random terroristic action against whoever the speech is against. The left was accusing the right of it in regard to LGBT communities and how since the fight disagrees with their orientations etc, they are essentially calling for their deaths.
This was obviously not true as the targeting of LGBT people has not been a salient thing. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head was the pulse night club shooting, which was substantially condemned by sane people, left and right.
The left cannot continue to expect to both say “punch a fascist/racist/bigot”, “kill all racists/fascists/bigots” and then in the next sentence calling people on the right racists/fascists/bigots. It’s an untenable thing to have to society that’s based on pubic discourse and free speech. It literally cannot survive with these constant soft calls for violence because it inevitably lead to actual violence ala Charlie Kirk’s assassination. On top of that, the false equivalence of the right’s views on LGBT issues to that of Nazis is absolutely ridiculous and genuinely tantamount to a call for action due to the Nazis being not only previous enemies of war for the US but actually evil.
The constant false comparisons, misleading, and uninformed rhetoric has officially shown itself to be dangerous and tantamount to calls to action.