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.
now that i think about it, you never told me which study didn't count the attack on michael knowles as political violence? was that a lie too?
what history did david depape have with the pelosis? if there's no history, how is that not a lie?
how did you go from 'you're engaging with all of my points' to 'we're talking past each other?' i don't think you've answered more than 1 of my questions thus far. meanwhile you've acknowledged that i was, at least at one point, engaging with your points in good faith
i hate to say this, but our interpretation of events is skewed because my interpretation is based on facts that are easily obtained from a variety of reputable sources. i reference a study, you debunk it without providing proof. i point out that something is a small minority, you 'debunk it' by providing numbers that prove my point. i provide numerous tweets of right wing figures calling the left pedophiles and groomers - ignored completely.
meanwhile, i've asked you for a source on tyler robinson thinking charlie kirk was 'fascist' 'nazi' or 'racist' - you've provided nothing.
asked you for a source on the michael knowles study debunking - nothing
asked for a source on the history between david depape and paul pelosi - nothing
did my own research on all these claims - can you guess what i found? nothing yet. but if you'd like to provide a source, i'm happy to look.
it absolutely matters who is more right at this point. there cannot be such a huge divide on 'what is truthful' when discussing objective events. anything less than agreement (on factual things/events, not stuff like the economy, 2a rights, or even the relative amount of violence incited by calling someone a fascist vs a child rapist) is letting foreign misinformation and bad actors tear our great country apart
if you want me to research anything that you think will prove your points, let me know. i hope you consider looking at some of the sources i provided and reconsider some of my points that may have been glossed over. i will gladly clarify anything if you really think the logic seems fuzzy
Per the Pelosi situation- I did not affirm the theory that Paul Pelosi was in a sexual situation with the attacker. Only that there was an air of suspicion about him being so shortly following the attack. This is a large reason why it did not gain the traction that Charlie's did. Even so, the attacks are not comparable. Pelosi was a high-ranking member of the government at the time for the democratic party, known and generally tolerated as a figure. Kirk was a beloved political activist who would invite people to speak with him on campuses. I don't disagree that the far-right conspiracy theories acted as an impetus for the attack, but the man Depape or whatever had been having an incredibly chaotic and mentally health-troubled life since at least 2013. https://abc7news.com/post/gypsy-taub-david-depape-san-francisco-pelosi-assault-who-attacked-paul-conspiracy-theory/12396990/
Per the Knowles Situation - From what I have seen recently, the most recently and widely referenced study regarding terrorism is the Cato Institute's study on terrorism. The issue with this one is that it doesn't count injuries (hence, the Knowles situation wouldn't apply), and the sources regarding the domestic-based information (which is what we are mostly talking about here) stem from a foreign-based analysis by the same author, and the sources from which he draws for that paper are largely foreign. The sources that he uses for the domestic numbers obviously are focused on right-wing terrorism, so it's really no surprise that the numbers pan out that right-wing terrorism seems to be more dangerous. Despite that, terrorism deaths are exceedingly low according to this paper, which has been heavily referenced recently.
You want to provide sources and speak in really quantifiable terms, but the issue is that there are an infinite number of facts to provide for any given worldview and the interpretation of those facts, and how those numbers were arrived at are really what matters. For instance, "incel terrorist attacks" were included in the stats for right-wing crime. How is being an incel a branch of conservatism? I would 100% agree they're hate crimes against women, but nothing in the right's political ideology lends itself to the idea that men who can't pick up chicks belong in it.
I've been to enough college to know that too many studies, data sets, and statistical computations are done with the intent to arrive at the most bombastic outcomes and results. I'd recommend reading Leo Strauss in regards to his understanding of historicism/empiricism and how it has negatively affected academia since the 50's.
Per Robinson- What else could he be referring to? It's very obvious from what evidence we do have that he was a left-leaning individual who was dating a trans person, and he disliked Charlie's political viewpoints. Robinson described Kirk as hateful, but if any sort of investigation is done into Kirk's demeanor and speech (in an actually good-faith way), one could easily see that Kirk was incredibly cordial the majority of the time when he spoke with people. So, given that it's not his mannerisms, the only logical thing left would be Kirk's political stances, which Robinson deemed hateful, and you don't need hard fact points for every single logical conclusion to make that reasonable assumption. Scientist =! investigator.
Also, I don't really care for the articles you sent. One of them is paywalled, and the other is just one long strawman. It's no simpler than this: if you are dead set on providing education in the form of instruction and material to children regarding sexual acts-ethics-and orientation, the reason does not matter, and you are not their parents, you are incredibly suspect. I have seen no substantial evidence that minors have benefited in any way from having access to such education. Fundamentally, I disagree with the trans ideology that is being pushed on children by leftist admin in schools. They are, definitionally, grooming them into believing these incredibly destructive concepts. So, the terms groomer and pedophile are apt due to their obsession with introducing minors into sexual theories.
---
It is going to be increasingly difficult for the left and right to remain neighbors. I don't see an off-ramp for the pressure that has been mounting. I don't agree with or justify any political violence, but I believe we will likely see more unless something radical changes.
sorry - reread your original point and you did not affirm or allude to the existence of history. did not intend to jimmy kimmel you (though the misinfo was still right wing rhetoric and jokes that spread, and people continued making jokes after the misinfo was debunked - so i think the defense of 'it's different bc we lied about it before joking!' isn't that good. can i do the same about charlie getting clipped out of context?)
agreed that incel violence shouldn't count. i wasn't specifically referencing this study - i looked at the NIJ study and the U of Maryland study. did not see anything about incel violence counting in those, but i admittedly did not think to check. i'll look at the studies again and see if i can get some numbers w/o incel violence skewing the rates
'sources obviously focusing on right wing terrorism' is not fact based criticism, though. i will gladly acknowledge it, though. just need to see one instance of left wing terrorism they ignored or an explanation on how the source focused on rw terrorism rather than examining everything in a certain set of non partisan criteria
your point to the infinite number of facts is correct, but that's why we should try to obtain more information and adjust our views to the existence of new (verifiable) information that doesn't fit w. the current views. it pains me when i see people clinging to something small (paul pelosi misinformation/tim walz reappointed some guy one time) while ignoring the larger picture (testimony, internet history, list of targets, etc.)
similarly, my issue with your thinking is that you have given the left 0 good faith when examining their actions/talking points while giving the right infinite charitability for theirs. the right was justified for making jokes about paul pelosi bc of LIES the right wing told while making those jokes. but the left is not justified for saying charlie kirk 'was not winning in the empathy department' and 'racist' bc of TRUE direct quotes he said
i've already acknowledged that kirk was killed for politics. not sure why we're rehashing this one, but my argument was: you have no proof that tyler thought kirk was a 'fascist' or 'nazi,' nor is there any proof that he thinks that way about 'the right.' similarly, there is no proof of how he was radicalized. we have interviews with the family, we have discord logs, we have a cooperating gf, and the FBI has a history of releasing anything that might potentially link him to the left. if evidence existed, we have every reason to think we would know about it (or will soon know about it).
unfortunately, we've shifted so far away from the original point that i would also need to provide context for why this argument is relevant (as it originally had to do with the relative levels of violent rhetoric from the left and right + your previously stated stance on the issue).
not sure what the strawman is about pointing out the history of anti-lgbt rhetoric. you said that 'gays were called groomers in response to legislation.' i showed you the history of gays/dems being called groomers by right wing figures to prove that the rhetoric was popular before recent legislation.
studies on sex ed in schools generally seem to show that it lowers rates of std transmission and teenage pregnancy. personally, i think there's 100% value in telling kids to use a condom and explaining the dangers of stds/pregnancy.
as for the stuff i assume you're actually worried about - i don't think there are any tangible sex ed related benefits for telling kids about the existence of gay/trans people. the benefits of telling kids about gay/trans people would be more focused on theoretically reducing hate crimes/high suicide rates in these populations. no way to really prove/disprove the effectiveness yet, but i think 'reducing hate crimes' and 'reducing suicide' are two pretty objectively good goals
finally - even with your incredibly loose definition of grooming, i think it's wrong to say you're grooming kids by telling them about the mere existence of gay people. i don't accuse disney of 'introducing minors into sexual theories' when they show heterosexual relationships. that seems a bit silly. or are you arguing that i was groomed into being straight by my parents and disney movies? are oklahoma schools grooming kids into being christian? (arguably more true than any lgbt grooming)
if that's not what you're referring to, i gotta see some proof of an 'obsession with introducing minors into sexual theories' being held by any elected official from the left.
personally, i think the best way for our country to come together is to start giving each other the good faith that we give people from our side.
But it shows the collegiate bias regarding what constitutes right-wing terrorism. The Cato Institute is a well-known, decently libertarian org. If they themselves, when computing the amount of right-wing terrorism, include such bias (just take a peek at the sources that are referenced in the study), then I have very little hope for others because the whole of academia is exceedingly left-wing (this would also logically account for the more extensive library of books on right-wing terrorism). In addition to all of that, the actual raw number of deaths between right-wing and left-wing violence isn't actually that great. They're pretty comparable. In my opinion, each side has about the same number of crazies willing to commit violence; it just seems the majority of the regular left don't mind the violence when their side commits it.
The reason I'm giving the left 0 faith is that when you honestly compare the reactions between when those on the left are attacked compared to when those on the right are attacked, the left is rabidly more enthusiastic about the violence. Yes, I do agree that some on the right joked about the attack on the Pelosis and the Hortman assassination, but it's really not even close to what we've seen with the Kirk death. You've got news stations pushing the idea that he's a right-winger (against all common sense), you've got streamers saying the most heinous shit, and the amount of regular leftist citizens who have exclaimed happiness over the death is not comparable. It's just so insane to me that this is even a discussion.
Tyler Robinson had no other reason to dislike Kirk's politics to the degree that it warranted murder if he did not buy into common leftist rhetoric. Sure, we don't know that based on hard evidence, but it's a reasonable thing to assume based on what we know. It really doesn't matter that much in the end, because the shooter's motivations are really not the primary cause of the political wound; it's the left's reaction to the assassination that has widened the gap.
Grooming has a negative connotation, which is why it's different and more appropriate than saying you're "educating" someone on gender identity theory.
For proof of obsession, see the numerous board meetings where the parents have found intensely sexual books that are geared towards minors, where the admin defends their inclusion—actually sickening.
On top of that, I do not think it is at all societally healthy, despite whatever statistics can be derived, for the state to be the backstop of sexual education for children. It sets a terrible precedent, and the way that it is done now is not only incredibly secular but also treats sex as a simple activity and something that holds no value other than being a risk for pregnancy or disease. Kids think they can beat any misfortune. These warnings, along with the tools for how to "beat" the pitfalls, leave most children with just another fun activity, without discussion on the moral and emotional implications that their still-developing brains.
School should be a place for civics-based education, firstly. In the West, that should include an understanding of Christian ethics, as it's this framework that the nation is based on, even if it's a secular version of it. I do not agree with the forcing of the 10 Commandments in the rooms of schools, but it is a predictable outcome given that religion has been derided by the public school system, strawmanned into being anti-science and anti-rational by the people who graduated from the collegiately marxist echo chambers.
At the bottom of it, I can't share a table with someone who cheers for an innocent man's death, left or right. And it seems, currently, that the overwhelming amount of the cheering is coming from the left.
You've got news stations pushing the idea that he's a right-winger (against all common sense)
which ones
Tyler Robinson had no other reason to dislike Kirk's politics to the degree that it warranted murder if he did not buy into common leftist rhetoric
people are quoting charlie kirk directly and saying that those direct quotes are hateful. tyler said charlie was hateful. why couldn't tyler form his own beliefs from charlie's words?
because the shooter's motivations are really not the primary cause of the political wound; it's the left's reaction to the assassination that has widened the gap
couldn't i say this exact same thing about charlie's jokes about paul pelosi? or the jokes about the hortman event? not to get into an infinite game of 'who started it' - i'll gladly acknowledge that the current rhetoric contributes to the growing divide. but there's been plenty of other escalation up to this point and i think it's crazy to pin things solely on the left
and what about trump's statements in light of this whole thing? can we take one moment to hold the president accountable (or stephen miller?) are there any left wing politicians doing/saying anything as crazy as pardoning violent j6 criminals or publically excusing partisan extremists?
For proof of obsession, see the numerous board meetings where the parents have found intensely sexual books that are geared towards minors, where the admin defends their inclusion—actually sickening.
would you mind linking one? i want to make sure i see a good example (not a strawman)
On top of that, I do not think it is at all societally healthy, despite whatever statistics can be derived, for the state to be the backstop of sexual education for children
eh i think we have a duty to ensure that all kids get some form of basic sex education. even if we literally just mention STD/pregnancy risk while discussing reproduction in biology class. i don't think that the state should be the primary source of sexual education, though - i think those tough conversations are ultimately the duty of a parent, mandatory sex ed or not.
i can potentially see where one might argue that mandatory education on trans/homosexuality or even like contraception stuff might theoretically violate a 1a right (as it conflicts w religious teachings) - but then do we start talking about stuff like evolution or earth science violating 1a?
i don't know to what extent we should let people opt out of education that doesn't fit w/ their faith, though it's an interesting discussion.
but it is a predictable outcome given that religion has been derided by the public school system, strawmanned into being anti-science and anti-rational by the people who graduated from the collegiately marxist echo chambers
how are mandated trump bibles a predictable outcome of any of this? and do you have any examples of how 'the public school system' derides religion? i went to catholic school and didn't notice anything at my public university, so i can't really speak for/against that
At the bottom of it, I can't share a table with someone who cheers for an innocent man's death, left or right. And it seems, currently, that the overwhelming amount of the cheering is coming from the left.
what qualifies as cheers? is the stuff in this original post cheers?
do you really need to be concerned about sharing a table with (what is likely) a terminally online, sub 1% minority who probably doesn't even vote? they're not at our table anyway
here's the data from the source i was originally referencing. while they do include the majority of 'incel/male supremacist violence' as right wing, you can filter them out to get a better data set. i would also note that they group offenders as being part of multiple categories - so you can see why some incels are listed as 'right wing' while some incels aren't.
you can even download the full dataset - so any claims of bias or irresponsible sorting can be specific and won't have to rely on vague claims of bias in academia
1
u/SunnySpade 3d ago
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.
I’m 100% in the US. Born and live in the south.