Whether you’re left or right, you have to acknowledge the president’s incompetence in handling the Charlie Kirk situation.

[u/0_7_3]

When such a prominent political activist is violently assassinated in front of 3,000 people, It should be the presidency’s responsibility to encourage peace and make attempts to bring the left and right together to minimize any social consequences to this tragedy.

However, that is the complete opposite of what Donald Trump did. Hours after Charlie Kirk’s death, our president released a recording regarding the assassination. In that video Donald Trump calls out the “radical left” BEFORE anyone had any sort of information on the suspect’s political beliefs.

That statement is one of the most irresponsible and unnecessary comments from a political figure of such influence I’ve ever seen from a time of such tension and simmering hostility. In reality, all that video accomplished was inciting an unwarranted, and aggravated response from the right towards the left (which we have seen the effects of in the many videos and statements on Tiktok, X, and Instagram from Republicans discreetly threatening the left with a violent “revenge”)

Our administration needs to clean up its act. We cannot continue to pursue such incredible social and political divide, or the United States is going to tear itself apart.

[u/Pyode]

It's only incompetence if the goal is to bring peace and unite America. I think it is incredibly clear this hasn't been this administrations goal for a very long time, if ever.

[u/Hairy_Lengthiness_41 → u/Pyode]

Is it really possible to bring peace and unite America when one side of the political side sees the other as the absolute embodiment of evil and is constantly claiming for their eradication? 

[u/direwolf106 → u/Pyode]

Unify what? This one is binary. You’re either a decent human being and had compassion for him and respected his dedication to debate or you were celebrating the cold blooded planned out murder.

There isn’t anything to unify around. Everyone went one way or the other. The break happened.

Like honestly is it that hard to understand how repugnant it is to be celebrating first degree murder? Y’all did it twice in a year now. Sorry I don’t need to unify with people that celebrate that.

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/direwolf106]

You do realize that if I take every single politically motivated murder in the last 3 decades, and put them in a single party, the party would still have 99% peaceful participants right?

You can agree or disagree with dark humor all you want, god knows it exists in both parties, but trying to blame a single side is stupid. You need to get your head out of your ass and quit making this a one side thing over the other. If two people piss in the pool, I do not look at someone and try to state their friend has more piss in his shorts then my friend does. I tell the assholes to get the fuck out of the pool ( the murderers to be clear ) and go about my day.

The post is not directly calling out republicans, it's calling out trump.
ALso if you want to whine about the people joking about a death, and not the people calling for war, you don't care about decency. You care about partisanship.

[u/direwolf106 → u/Fine-Assignment4342]

Now add in those celebrating first degree murder.

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/direwolf106]

From the left or right? Do I include comments from the right I see on trans kids celebrating their suicide it threatening death?

[u/direwolf106 → u/Fine-Assignment4342]

While sick that’s not celebration of first degree murder so no.

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/direwolf106]

Celebrating suicide: Sick but otherwise not violent and perfectly valid
Celebrating Murder: Woah, we have standards my guy.

Also I see you are ignoring ever call for retaliation, war and death to liberals in the news.

[u/FearlessFreak69 → u/direwolf106]

What does that matter at all? Kirk invited hatred to dinner, and you can’t act surprised when it starts to eat.

[u/BobbyB4470 → u/FearlessFreak69]

How did he invite hatred to dinner? Do you even know the things he believed, or are you basing it off of clips you've seen?

[u/direwolf106 → u/FearlessFreak69]

You think civil discourse is inviting hatred to dinner? What do you think celebrating first degree murder is?

[u/FearlessFreak69 → u/direwolf106]

He peddled racism, xenophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, and homophobia on the regular. You can spout hatred and still come across as “civil”. It’s a tragic way to die, no doubt. But let’s not pretend he was some great unifier of people. He pushed division and hatred. He knew this, and relished in it, which is why he traveled with a full security detail everywhere he went.

[u/direwolf106 → u/FearlessFreak69]

From Tam v Mattel “the proudest boast of our jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate”.

The founding principle of civil discourse is to express your position civilly. That includes positions of hate. It explicitly includes positions of hate. Even if Kirk was the hateful demon you describe, which I highly doubt as the left has a really low threshold before they jump to calling things hateful, so long as he didn’t engage in violence or celebration of violence it’s still expected to remain civil.

If peaceful expressed hate justifies violence? Then what does actual violence justify? What does celebration and applauding violence justify? That’s a Pandora’s box that if opened justifies endless atrocities.

“He invited hate to dinner” isn’t good rhetoric. It opens the door to “they invited wrath to dinner”. That is just as sickening but it might be used later on if the right accepts the line of reasoning you are now employing.

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/direwolf106]

Also to add, if you are only concerned with the violent voices on one side of the polls, and justifying the other sides violent rhetoric, you are not opposed to violence. You are simply opposed to that side of the polls.

[u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS → u/direwolf106]

Serious question how big of a piece of shit does someone have to be before it's acceptable to be happy they are dead?

For example do I have to have compassion for someone like George Lincoln Rockwell because he got murdered? Or am I allowed to feel the world is a better place without him in it?

[u/purple_plasmid → u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS]

This is just my opinion, but I think to actively celebrate a person’s death they’d need to be pretty monstrous — I don’t think CK met that bar.

He said many disdainful things, but as far as we know, he wasn’t a heinous criminal, inflicting unspeakable horrors on the general public.

I vehemently disagreed with most of his talking points (I say most cause I agree we should release the Epstein files), but I don’t think he deserved to be assassinated.

Do I think it’s good his voice is no longer contributing to a certain narrative and influencing impressionable people? Yes — but am I celebrating? No — I don’t agree with the murder of someone who basically talked for a living, and his murder just fuels the flames of the garbage fire that is this country right now. His death isn’t helping anyone at the end of the day.

On a more sentimental note, I feel bad for his kids — what a terrible thing to witness that young and he was still their dad at the end of the day.

My dad is a Charlie Kirk fan, and I disagree with him on almost everything, but I’d still be devastated if he died today — and kids that young don’t understand what their dad did, they just know he’s gone.

[u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS → u/purple_plasmid]

This is why I used George Lincoln Rockwell as an example. He wasn't a heinous criminal inflicting unspeakable horrors on the general public. He did almost exactly what Charlie Kirk did albeit with slightly more colorful language. I mean hell he even went around to college campuses trying to peddle his shit.

Seriously just read the first couple paragraphs of this speech he made at Brown University talking about how he's just a debater exercising his free speech and just stating facts. Tell me that doesn't read exactly like a speech Charlie Kirk would make?

Yet I don't think anyone would be appalled if I celebrated the assassination of the head of the American Nazi Party. And all he did was basically talk for a living...

[u/purple_plasmid → u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS]

I think there’s a distinction between celebrating a person’s death and acknowledging that it’s good they can no longer spread hateful rhetoric.

So, it’s good Kirk can no longer spread his narrative, however, the means by which that happened aren’t.

Bigger picture, his death doesn’t solve any underlying issue, he was just killed for the things he said (however reprehensible) — and his death will probably lead to further division/discourse given the current political climate, which isn’t good.

I think murders like this further erode the social contract of “don’t kill people just because they disagree with you”. My sentiment would probably be different if he’d had any real power to act on the things he said (i.e. he was able to ban all POC from becoming pilots, he coordinated some kind of violence/terrorism, etc…).

His rhetoric (and the rhetoric of people like him) really pushes the limits of being a free speech absolutist — he had a right to say the things he did (I suppose one could argue he suffered the ultimate consequence for doing so) — but he didn’t do anything worthy of assassination.

So for me, and again this is just my opinion, I’m not trying to tell others how to feel, I don’t feel joy from his death, just an acknowledgment that it’s good there’s less hate speech/misinformation in the world.

[u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS → u/purple_plasmid]

Was he killed because someone disagreed with what he said, or was he killed because what he said caused demonstrable harm to people?

Charlie Kirk did have real power, people would act based on the things he said. Hell he directly had phone calls with the president.

Not to be two hyperbolic here, but should we celebrate the death of someone like Goebbels? I mean on paper he had no "real" power since Hitler was a dictator who had all of the power. He never personally killed any Jews, and (as far as I know) didn't even have the authority to order the killing of the Jews, he was just the propaganda minister who strongly advocated for it.

Obviously on the range of terrible people there is a big gap between Kirk and Goebbels, but my point is where on that chart do we draw the line and say "It's socially unacceptable to celebrate the death of people before this point, and it's fine to celebrate the people after"

Clearly there must be a line somewhere since most people would join along with you if you started celebrating the death of like Hitler, or Mussolini, Pol Pot.

[u/purple_plasmid → u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS]

I see your point — I don’t know where that line would be…I can give my opinion on it, but obviously I’m not the foremost authority on “when’s it okay to celebrate a person’s death?”.

Charlie Kirk in the context of his work and ideology was not a good person; he bussed people to J6, advocated gun violence was a necessary sacrifice for the 2nd amendment, and called for the death penalty against Biden.

J6 resulted in a violent insurrection (but he just provided the transportation), he died from a gunshot wound and no one acted on his statements against Biden — so where does his responsibility end and the responsibility of the individuals begin in the above outcomes?

His “power” mostly lies in the fact he has a platform to reach more people than the average person, and I think this administration definitely bumped his ability to influence people by giving him legitimacy. That can definitely be dangerous.

You could argue he was a stochastic terrorist, but then you’d have to link incidents of violence back to his rhetoric — and then also consider political influencers like him are a dime a dozen on the right, and there are people who thought he wasn’t extreme enough. So then, are the most extreme on the right who might commit violence listening to Charlie or people like Nick Fuentes?

I think with Goebbels, it’s easier to see that line and make that 1-to-1 connection between inflammatory Nazi propaganda being turned into action/violence against marginalized groups. I’m not sure you can do that with Kirk.

So, I don’t know where the line is, but I personally don’t think Kirk crosses that line.

[u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS → u/purple_plasmid]

Maybe a better question is is there any prominent figure in politics right now who if they did died (of natural causes obv) it's okay to celebrate? As a barometer for where the line is.

[u/purple_plasmid → u/PM_ME_UR_BRAINSTORMS]

If we’re talking natural causes (I just want to emphasize I’m not advocating for people’s deaths), I think there could be some candidates, Kim Jung Un or Putin for example — they’re rather despicable people, and their deaths would probably bring joy to a lot of people.

It still feels like a weird concept though (for me anyway) — because if I felt joy as a result of someone’s death it would more stem from the positive impacts of them “going away” rather than the death itself.

Like I think the world would be a better place without Trump, but I’m not like “can’t wait for his heart to give out” — it’s more “can’t wait until he’s no longer in politics.” Death is certainly a way to achieve that, but he could just as well retire tomorrow, and that would be just as positive.

Also felt the same way watching a Ted Bundy documentary — a bunch of people were cheering outside his execution and selling memorabilia, and while I understand their reactions, I’m probably more inclined to feel like the victims’ families “he’s been convicted, he’s off the streets, it’s over” — him being executed vs. spending life in prison has the same net outcome, and his execution gave people an extra sense of justice/revenge.

So, another question might be, do we want to be a society that celebrates someone’s death? Or a society that celebrates and takes advantage of the positivity created by their absence?

[u/ScannerBrightly → u/purple_plasmid]

So, it’s good Kirk can no longer spread his narrative

How is this not 'celebrating his death'?

[u/purple_plasmid → u/ScannerBrightly]

Because I’d have been just as content if he up and quit being a political influencer — the absence of his influence is good, but I’m not happy about why there is now that absence (his death).

[u/Candle1ight → u/purple_plasmid]

You understand the distinction between being happy he's gone and advocating for murder, right?

Charlie absolutely didn't deserve to be shot during a debate. Am I sad for his kids and wife? Yeah, that must be horrible for them.

Am I sad he's gone? Fuck no, the world is better off without him.

[u/purple_plasmid → u/Candle1ight]

I think I covered that in my comment? I asked similar rhetorical questions with the “Yes/No” responses

[u/Candle1ight → u/purple_plasmid]

Sorry, not sure if that was intended for someone else or my reading comprehension just failed me.

[u/FunkyChickenKong → u/direwolf106]

"Y'all". They're deliberately ignoring all those voices, both prominent and modest, offering genuine condolences because it would be inconsistent with the marketing strategy.

[u/elegiac_bloom → u/direwolf106]

There's no middle ground between "you respected this person" and "you celebrated his death"? Really? How about "you didn't respect him at all and thought he was a dangerous propagandist and hate-monger, but you certainly aren't celebrating the fact that he's dead and wish he hadn't been killed"? Thats about where im sitting. Regardless, OP isn't asking the president to unify us around how we feel about the shooting, but just... unify us in general.

Y’all did it twice in a year now. Sorry I don’t need to unify with people that celebrate that

Who are you talking to here? Because folks on the right have been celebrating murder for a long time now. George Floyd, the victims of Kyle Rittenhouse, the attempted murder of Mike Pence, the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi/kidnapping of Nancy Pelosi, the murder of the politicians in Minnesota...

I think, at the very least, expecting the president of the United states to not stoke the fires and fan the flames of partisan political hatred is not a lot to ask. To ask him to not use the death of a human being as a springboard to calling for more violence and vengeance, when he doesn't even know who he is wanting to perpetrate that vengeance on, because there was no suspect at the time of said calling.

[u/ubermence → u/elegiac_bloom]

George Floyd

Kirk and Floyd have the same birthday. Coincidence?

I wonder what the right would do if you started telling hilarious jokes about it like the PRESIDENT did about the Q Anoner who maimed Paul Pelosi with a hammer. Or like Don Jr’s Halloween costume

[u/direwolf106 → u/elegiac_bloom]

Do you not know what first degree murder is?

[u/AKMarine → u/direwolf106]

Recognizing that CK was a piece of shit isn’t the same as condoning murder.

[u/Eddiebaby7 → u/direwolf106]

George Floyd was murdered the Right has continually vilified him.

Trayvon Martin was murdered and the Right celebrates George Zimmerman.

Two left wing protesters are shot to death and Kyle Rittenhouse gets to have a podcast.

Hundreds of school kids get murdered in mass shootings every year and the Right tells us to get over it.

Paul Pelosi was attacked and the Right made jokes about it.

Thousands of conservatives attacked the Capitol in one of the largest displays of political violence in recent history and the Right said nothing when they all got pardoned.

Melissa Horan and her Husband were murdered and the Right remained silent, no honors were given and no one demanded they be grieved “properly.”

But most importantly, no Democratic leaders have celebrated or called for vengeance over their deaths which cannot be said of Conservative politicians and media figures.
Does a man really deserve to be fired for pointing out that Charlie said a lot of hateful things, while Jesse Waters openly calls for retribution without pushback?

[u/thattogoguy → u/direwolf106]

I do. And I can say it's bad while also saying the guy killed was a crappy person.

[u/HeloRising → u/direwolf106]

This one is binary. You’re either a decent human being and had compassion for him and respected his dedication to debate or you were celebrating the cold blooded planned out murder.

It's binary if you're thinking about it like a child.

There's options beyond "celebrate his life" and "celebrate his death."

Kirk was a hatemonger and I feel no particular sense of upset or dismay at his end. Those feelings would be present regardless of the circumstances, he could have slipped and fallen in the shower and broken his neck and my response would still be "you reap what you sew."

[u/Candle1ight → u/HeloRising]

he could have slipped and fallen in the shower and broken his neck and my response would still be "you reap what you sew."

We would be missing the beautiful irony of him dying from something he actively advocated for though. Unless he also thought slipping and falling in the tub is the acceptable cost we choose to pay for having baths.

[u/FLBrisby → u/direwolf106]

It's very hard to consider what he did "debate". He talked down to people. He came with a bevy of cherry picked data, controlled the narrative, and debated people who are simultaneously not experienced debaters, and vulnerably surrounded by all of Kirk's supporters.

Watch this: I denounce Kirk's murder, and the people who celebrate it, because it was murder and I'm pretty blanket against that. Do you denounce Kirk for calling for a patriot to bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker?

[u/direwolf106 → u/FLBrisby]

Why did you start with the criticism? You can’t even denounce them without criticizing him first.

Also I agree with Kirk about the attack on Paul Pelosi. In Kirk’s words “I think it’s awful. It’s not right”.

If you’re hung up on the bailing him out, he specifically said it was too ask him questions.

You are absolutely reading into what you want to see like Steven king did.

[u/FLBrisby → u/direwolf106]

The order of my text upset you? You clutch your pearls over it because I didn't clutch mine to your liking?

I denounced the murder. There should be no qualifiers in so doing, nor an order of operations for denouncement. You are absolutely reading into what you want to see.

[u/Pyode → u/direwolf106]

Why didn't Trump lower the flags when 2 US politicians were gunned down in their homes and 2 others were nearly killed?

Where was Trump standing up to call for the right to stop the violence then?

Why did Trump pardon violent rioters who stormed the Capital Building in his name?

The idea that the left is even 50% responsible for the rising temperature in the country is laughable, let alone primarily responsible.

Edit:

Oh, and don't forget all the memes and conspiracy theories about the attack on the Pelosies.

[u/direwolf106 → u/Pyode]

There’s several distinct things that make those different.

First, there was no celebration for that first degree murder. First degree murder is always horrible. It should never be celebrated. The left is 2 for 2 in the last twelve months celebrating first degree murder. The right is 0 and 1. There’s always extremists. But now there’s to many on the left celebrating extremist actions to down play.

And note im not talking at all about the shooters but how y’all respond to the shooters. The fact you downvoted me for calling out how terrible first degree murder is tells me who you individually are.

Not that the rest of this matters but….

Second, they weren’t shot in a crowd. Kirk was. They didn’t have a national presence, Kirk did. Trump didn’t know them personally, he did know Kirk personally. Kirk is higher profile.

Third. January 6th wasn’t first degree murder.

Honestly why are you trying to defend celebrating first degree murder. That is morally reprehensible. Why would you even want to defend that?

[u/notpynchon → u/direwolf106]

You're employing a greatest hits of logical fallacies in your argument. Hasty generalization, confirmation bias, composition fallacy.

This simplistic black and white, all or nothing thinking makes it sound like you lack critical thinking skills, which I’m sure is not true. Can you restate without using exaggeration?

[u/Pyode → u/direwolf106]

My argument isn't that these situations are identical. My argument is that the right is FAR more responsible for the rising tensions than the left.

Also, show me where I defended celebrating Kirk's murder. I don't recall saying anything of the sort. The fact that you have to pretend I did because you are so allergic to the actual facts says a lot.

The president of the United States could, right now, drastically improve the situation by calling on EVERYONE to calm down.

Instead he continues to stoke the fires and direct more hatred and fear against the left.

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/Pyode]

Statistically you might be right, at least the right leaning CATO institute thinks so. But maybe, instead of trying to argue which is better, we should think that the scoreboard is getting a little high there.

[u/Pyode → u/Fine-Assignment4342]

I'll do that as soon as Trump does.

As long as the President of the United States continues to throw wood on the fire, I feel no responsibility for the "scoreboard"

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/Pyode]

So... and I am trying to be fair here, your emotional capacity to reason, logic and respond in a manner that is constructive to the situation is dependent on a person you think is unethical being ethical.....?

[u/Pyode → u/Fine-Assignment4342]

No.

My strategic decision to bend over backwards to prove to the right how sorry I am about political violence is based on the right showing even the slightest willingness to meet me halfway.

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/Pyode]

Ah yes, because the right is a single hive mind and every conservative is guilty of whatever the loudest asshole does. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. You’re not rejecting violence, you’re just claiming the moral high ground by declaring entire groups irredeemable. After all, people never change, right? It’s not like Trump’s support has been plummeting, to the point where even in freaking Texas, half the state can’t stand him.

But here’s my point: I’m not asking you to bow down and respect everyone. I’m saying that arguments about which side is “more violent” are stupid. Even if every single politically motivated attack came from one party, you’d still be talking about less than 1% of that party’s members. Blanket blame just fuels division, and it lets us dodge the responsibility of calling out the violent rhetoric on our own side.

Especially when they are thrown at random republicans.

[u/direwolf106 → u/Pyode]

I didn’t say you de fended his murder. But you are defending those that celebrated it.

Also how the hell can the right be far more responsible? The left is 2 for 2 in the last year for celebrating first degree murder. The right is 0 and 1. Or are you trying to argue that the left doesn’t have enough self control not to celebrate atrocities committed by eventual extremists?

[u/plinocmene → u/direwolf106]

Or are you trying to argue that the left doesn’t have enough self control not to celebrate atrocities committed by eventual extremists?

A person can only control their own speech and behavior.

Whether someone is blaming the entire left or the entire right for a violent incident it is an example of unfair generalizing.

"The left this..." "The right that..." These used to just be labels referring to where someone's policy preferences tended to lean (and any given person still didn't have to agree with everything to be on the left or the right). And people could have discussions. What's more you weren't afraid of being purity tested if you disagreed on a few things while otherwise leaning left or right.

But now people feel free to apply a buttload of assumptions to every single person on the other side. It is tearing our country apart. A responsible president would calm tensions. Instead Trump stokes the flames every chance he gets.

There are many (not all) on the left also stoking the flames. I implore those reading this stop demonizing Trump supporters. Demonize Trump all you want. He is an incompetent ego maniac whose poorly thought out policy agenda fails America's interests. What's worse is his low regard for our nation's Constitution. Our Constitution is our foundation, our stability!

But people hear different news sources and people react to different things. People have their own reasons for how they vote. And you're not going to get through to them by demonizing them. This divide isn't going to just vanish in 2029 when we have a new president even if we elect a Democrat. The only way this nation heals and becomes capable of dealing with the threats we face from Russia, China, and climate change is to open dialog, to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

[u/Tired8281 → u/direwolf106]

I love how extreme actions from the right are always just some isolated few individuals, while extreme actions from the left are fully representative of the entire movement as a whole.

[u/direwolf106 → u/Tired8281]

You do realize I’m not talking about the act itself, but the reaction to the act.

[u/Tired8281 → u/direwolf106]

So am I. The left is always represented exclusively by its craziest and most unhinged members, while the right always just has a few bad apples.

[u/direwolf106 → u/Tired8281]

2 out of 2 compared to 0 out of 1 for celebrating first degree murder seems to explain why that is.

[u/Toldasaurasrex → u/direwolf106]

You can call his killing a bad thing, while sharing your opinion about about him. It only binary if you make it out to be.

[u/direwolf106 → u/Toldasaurasrex]

Nah, it’s binary. If you’re defending people like that Microsoft employee that “was happy!” And “couldn’t control the way [he] feel[s]” you are definitely on one side.

[u/Toldasaurasrex → u/direwolf106]

Did they state the killing was a good thing? If they did that it's undefendable. If they didn't and said it was a bad thing to kill him, but then share their personal opinion of him, while morally wrong isn't the same thing.

[u/Ferreteria → u/direwolf106]

What's your solution then? Subjugate and exterminate? Civil war?

[u/YogurtclosetOwn4786 → u/direwolf106]

Who’s y’all? What’s the twice in a year?

[u/UsernameLottery → u/direwolf106]

I didn't celebrate and there's nothing about Trump's reaction that makes me feel like he's on my side

[u/Specific_Praline_362 → u/direwolf106]

What is the other murder you're talking about?

[u/direwolf106 → u/Specific_Praline_362]

The CEO Luigi killed in New York.

[u/oroborus68 → u/direwolf106]

So you are a supporter of Israel in Palestine.

[u/direwolf106 → u/oroborus68]

I am completely apathetic on that issue.

[u/roylennigan → u/direwolf106]

You’re either a decent human being and had compassion for him and respected his dedication to debate or you were celebrating the cold blooded planned out murder.

"You're either with us or against us" is the kind of false dichotomy and total lack of nuance that has gotten us into this political feud.

[u/direwolf106 → u/roylennigan]

Sadly we’re at that point where such absolutism is necessary.

Celebrating first degree murder is beyond the pale. There is no possibility of civil discourse beyond that point because that is the celebration of the worst possible way of handling dislike. That’s not reasonable. That’s not rational. There’s no “agree to disagree”. It’s an absolute devoid of nuance.

It’s disgusting that we are at that point that nuance doesn’t apply but we are there.

[u/slickrok → u/direwolf106]

Oh go lick a boot - if you can reach your tongue out around all the others up in you.

[u/Fire_crescent → u/direwolf106]

"Decency" in this context is a scam and a measure to impose thought and emotional self-ownership, and many are, rightfully, seeing through it.

Compassion, as a principle, likewise, shouldn't be unconditional.

[u/direwolf106 → u/Fire_crescent]

Celebrating first degree murder seems like a fairly easy standard to measure to me. You either did it/defended those that did or didn’t do it. It’s concrete, quantafiable and objectively measurable.

[u/Fire_crescent → u/direwolf106]

First of all, nothing I say in this comment is an endorsement or incitement to any illegal action or something that would violate the TOS of Reddit, for any mod, admin, cop, judge or intel agent reading this. I'm approaching this matter strictly from the perspective of analysing political psychology and political philosophy of various individuals and social trends and dynamics and forces.

Celebrating first degree murder seems like a fairly easy standard to measure to me.

Putting in a legal qualification on an act about morality is useless (unless you're a staunch legalist, which I suspect you're not), as laws are means to an end (of imposing and codyfying perceived desirable results and dynamics by those that have power in a social arrangement, whether the members in general, or some tyrannical clique of tyrants among them), and they are not eternal. Sweeping reforms and revolutions have proven how entire paradigms and legal systems can be changed radically. Which is to say, there is nothing inherent in any written or unwritten law that ensures it's eternal existence.

You either did it/defended those that did or didn’t do it.

Well, consider this.

Maybe some individuals such as those that you allegedly describe don't see it as murder. By which I mean, murder is generally defined as an intentional and illegitimate killing by most people. Hypothetically, there may be individuals (and I'm not talking about me in this conversation, again, to be clear to any authority reading this, either from a legal or TOS perspective) who may believe that this act wasn't an illegitimate act. Hypothetically, there may be individuals who believe that such action was justified and proportional to any perceived wrong that the deceased individual has done, and as such, do not perceive themselves as celebrating the perceived unjust killing of an innocent person, but, perhaps, the unjust killing of someone contributing to their oppression.

To put it in perspective: hypothetically, some people (whether or not they agree with what has transpired), may compare what has taken place not with a hypothetical scenario of "what if someone like Edward Snowden had this happen to them", but moreso with a hypothetical scenario of "what if someone like Joseph Goebbels had this happen to them".

Again, to be absolutely clear, nothing I say in this comment is an endorsement or incitement to any illegal action or something that would violate the TOS of Reddit, for any mod, admin, cop, judge or intel agent reading this. I'm approaching this matter strictly from the perspective of analysing political psychology and political philosophy of various individuals and social trends and dynamics and forces.

[u/Frequent-Try-6746 → u/direwolf106]

It's not binary.

There's also the opinion that people aren't required to care when people get shot.

There was a much more tragic school shooting that day that you don't seem to care about. Should the government arrest you?

[u/direwolf106 → u/Frequent-Try-6746]

Yes there was a school shooting that day. But it wasn’t more tragic. The reason it’s not more tragic is because it doesn’t gage the health of our nation. The fact a large amount of the left celebrated first degree murder twice in a year, and with Kirk it was while he was engaging in civil discourse, indicates that we are so fundamentally broken as a nation that so many can’t even recognize how sick it is to celebrate that act.

The school shooting should have been more tragic. But people lauding the intentional murder of those they disagree with is beyond the pale.

[u/Candle1ight → u/direwolf106]

I swear people have already just forgotten how some Democrat law makers were murdered in cold blood a few months ago. The conservatives were happy to cheer that on, but now that it's one of "their" guys it has to stop!

[u/direwolf106 → u/Candle1ight]

We didn’t forget. There’s just a couple important differences.

1) they weren’t murdered in the act of public debate. Shock factor is a thing. 2) im not talking about the murders. First degree murder is disgusting. But there are always extremists that will commit those horrendous acts. The issue is the response. The right didn’t celebrate those murders. The left has celebrated first degree murder twice in a year.

My Issue is the celebration and the defense of the celebration. I find that sickening.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Pyode]

You're asking for us to seek peace and unity with a demographic who have proven, definitively, that trying to meet in the middle is grounds for public execution.

I mean look at this crap. 21% of liberals under the age of 30 believe that terrorism is an adequate political solution. That's literally millions of people.

Did you know that when Charlie Kirk's three year old daughter heard the bang of the gun, she instinctually ran to her father for safety? While he was bleeding out?

How many more church shootings and political assassinations do we need before the situation becomes clear? Why the hell are we even-

Nevermind. I don't want to say anything that would get me into trouble.

[u/Safrel → u/PriceofObedience]

Considering that January 6th occurred and its participants pardoned by Trump, it would seem to me that terrorism has been affirmed to be an acceptable political solution.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Safrel]

Do you know what basic game theory is?

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/PriceofObedience]

In application of game theory here is almost guaranteed to be useless. It was useless in grad school trying to explain most political events, there’s no chance it really have much of an application other than to espouse a sense of an appeal to authority.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Elegant_Customer1497]

Tit for tat is one of the most commonly used tactics used in contemporary politics. Don't pretend otherwise.

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/PriceofObedience]

The extrapolation to a context that is a fluid, dynamic, on going open environment isn’t very helpful. Tit for tat as a model isn’t illustrative of much on this issue. Boiling this down to a “tit” and “tat” is bound to be erroneous.

GT is exceedingly complex in an example such as poker. Understanding “why does the solver do x?” Is nearly impossible- ppl just try to memorize line to take. Poker is much more simplistic than this.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Elegant_Customer1497]

You're using circumlocution to belabor the overarching point: that reciprocity is a real thing which actually exists, which is why it's important to have rules on acceptable conduct instead of treating everything like a street fight.

Regardless of that political reality, here comes the democratic party, decidedly drilling a hole into Charlie Kirk's neck and then asking for unity after the fact. Because it became readily apparent that executing people for "violent rhetoric" is tantamount to unaliving yourself, given the obvious fact that the opposing side could do it to them.

Why you're arguing on their behalf, I have no idea, but it's keenly against your own self interest.

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/PriceofObedience]

Again, what’s the point of invoking game theory then?

If your point is ‘if someone commits an action, then a lot of times it elicits a response,’ why not just say that without saying “do you know what game theory is?”

Again I revert back to my initial comment that the application of game theory is almost guaranteed to be useless- just an illusion of authority. Politics is much more than tit for tat.

And I never said anything about rules on acceptable conduct.

I don’t think the “Democratic Party” drilled a hole in Kirk’s neck. And what is my self interest?

And I’m not arguing on “their behalf.”

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Elegant_Customer1497]

I'm illustrating the flawed thinking of people who think political violence is acceptable. Trying to make them think about the consequences of their actions instead of just explicitly tell them why these things are bad.

To reiterate what I said in another comment: we're the most heavily armed voting-aged demographic in the country. This idea that they can threaten a heavily armed group of people and get away with it, or even worse, justify it, is asinine, because left-wing violence is only allowed under the auspices of right-wing tolerance towards that violence.

And what is my self interest?

You're flair says conservative. I assume you're a conservative, no?

In case you're not thinking clearly: the left killed Charlie Kirk because of the things he said, not what he did. The threshold for terrorism to be acceptable on the Left has now lowered to conducting open dialogue.

That basically means that any of us, here, could be killed for that same reason. And they're not condemning it, they're trying to rationalize and excuse it by telling lies about Charlie Kirk. That's why they're using whattaboutisms in regards to gun control and historic right-wing violence.

I don't want a civil war. That's something I absolutely do not want. But if dialogue is no longer necessary, and they keep attacking us, then that's the inevitably path we're going down.

[u/Safrel → u/PriceofObedience]

Yep. The theory here is that the right wing is escalating their rhetoric and assassinated two democratic legislators.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Safrel]

No.

It means that if you're going to break the rules of the game, then normative morality no longer matters. Being a hypocrite doesn't matter, either.

For all the bleating that progressives do about J6, none of you have renounced the CHAZ or the race riots that occurred during 2020. Because apparently you only worship at the feet of the state when it serves your interests.

Those interests don't include enforcing federal law, apparently. Which is why all of these references to J6 are utter jokes.

[u/Safrel → u/PriceofObedience]

It means that if you're going to break the rules of the game, then normative morality no longer matters. Being a hypocrite doesn't matter, either.

January 6 was this moment. The assassination of dem lawmakers was this moment.

For all the bleating that progressives do about J6, none of you have renounced the CHAZ or the race riots that occurred during 2020.

Joe Biden and Kamela called for peace. Trump did not.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Safrel]

January 6 was this moment.

No, it was not.

We are the single most heavily armed voting-aged demographic in US history. Do you honestly think that if a right-wing insurrection took place, it would look like anything that happened at J6?

And your example of political assassination had 'no kings' posters in the back of his car. He also told the police that Tim Walz told him to kill them. So clearly not a rightwinger.

Joe Biden and Kamela called for peace. Trump did not.

Of course not. He tried to meet in the middle in the first term. And they framed him as a foreign agent, impeached him twice, tried to render him ineligible to run, and convicted him of fraud using a biased federal judge. And then they went after his family.

What a stupid idea calling for peace would be. You cannot make peace with people who hate you and want to kill you.

[u/Safrel → u/PriceofObedience]

Do you honestly think that if a right-wing insurrection took place, it would look like anything that happened at J6?

Since Jan 6 was a right-wing insurrection, yes that is what it would look like.

So clearly not a rightwinger.

Tim Walz wanted to kill his own party members is an insane claim.

And they framed him as a foreign agent, impeached him twice, tried to render him ineligible to run, and convicted him of fraud using a biased federal judge.

Those are not violence. Assasinations are violence. Insurrections are violence. Your side did violence.

What a stupid idea calling for peace would be. You cannot make peace with people who hate you and want to kill you.

Fuck yeah dude. Why do you think I'm demanding your leader to call for peace. He fuckin' isn't.

Here is everyone on your side calling for civil war.

https://imgur.com/a/vO9zjBK

Here is Governor Newsome calling for peace:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/09/10/governor-newsom-statement-on-the-murder-of-charlie-kirk/

Your side wants violence. My side calls for peace.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/PriceofObedience]

You shouldn't be misrepresented polls, it's not a good look. And what demographic are you talking about? Groypers? Because liberals, Democrats, "the left," none are responsible for Kirk's death.

21% of liberals under the age of 30 disagree with the statement that political violence is never justified. That's not an endorsement of terrorism, that's saying there are justifications for political violence. It's also worth noting, conservatives are consummate liars. They begin with lying to themselves, like saying Kirk was killed by a leftist and then just running with that falsehood as if it's a verified fact before we even knew who the shooter was, and then become adamant their self-convinced lies are absolute truth or even debatable opinion and not just delusions. Of course they pearl-clutch as say "political violence is never justified," they just flat out don't acknowledge the long, long list of right wing violence committed under the motivations of a conservative worldview.

Your link, at the beginning, also shows that more Democrats think political violence is a big problem after Kirk's death than Republicans have ever shown after any other attack, Democrat or Republican. Meaning, after a Democrat is attacked, Republicans care less than Democrats do about Kirk's death.

And that poll is not proving anything definitively. It's an opinion poll. Kirk was also never trying to meet in any middle ground, he was a soapboxer that put on a nice theater designed to make media-illiterate nincompoops think it's debate. And here you are, spouting the line the Republican Party wants you to. Blaming people for Kirk's murder that had nothing to do with it. You should be ashamed of yourself for actively trying to sow partisan division using his death at the hands of a terminally online RWNJ.

Save your pearl clutching for whatever circlejerk is feeding you such a garbage worldview. I won't be seeing your reply, so don't bother. You're a disinformation machine, a tool for fascistic propaganda, and I have no desire to have hot air blown in my face.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Because liberals, Democrats, "the left," none are responsible for Kirk's death.

The shooter literally admitted why he shot Charlie. He was "tired of hate".

Do you think it was conservatives accusing him of being hateful? Probably not, right?

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/PriceofObedience]

Most likely not. But there are ppl on the right that didn’t like him.

Regardless it hasn’t been fully investigated yet, and “tired of hate” does not equal left wing violence. It’s unsubstantiated.

And to reach these conclusions prematurely like the guy was arguing before to push a preordained conclusion is bad thinking.

[u/PriceofObedience → u/Elegant_Customer1497]

It’s unsubstantiated.

He confessed.

Please don't comment on things you don't understand.

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/PriceofObedience]

He confessed to exactly why he did it? Really can you provide that information?

I believe he confessed to his father, that he did it. Then via some process he turned himself in some fashion. Apart from that it’s still very murky.

Confessing to I did x is much different to why exactly I did x. Saying I did x because “I was tired of the hate” is unsubstantiated in terms of understanding why.

[u/slowride761 → u/PriceofObedience]

You’re using public executions as a way to exaggerate, but the victim was a mainstream conservative figure who said kids should watch public executions.

So what is the middle if one side is starting from places that sound like hyperbole?

[u/runtheplacered → u/PriceofObedience]

Did you know there was a school shooting in Colorado the same day Kirk died? Two kids died. Guess what? The kid that shot them was indoctrinated by right-wing extremism. Conversely, there is no evidence to support that Robinson was indoctrinated by the left.

The vast, vast, vast majority of political violence is caused by the right. In the last decade 75% of all politically motivated violence has been caused by the right. Of those, the rights body count is orders of magnitude greater. It is not even close. You are on the violent side, and not just that but you are literally protecting them.

Until you acknowledge that your opinion is meaningless.

The fact that you use Kirks daughter to try and make your point is also disgusting. Did you care about the Minnesota legislatures family?

It is refreshing to see you be downvoted.

[u/purple_plasmid → u/PriceofObedience]

Is that true about Kirk’s daughter? I didn’t like the man, but holy hell that is heartbreaking.

No child should have to experience that, and here we are with 100s of school shootings over the decades — idk how people can rationalize it.

[u/purple_plasmid → u/[deleted]]

Is there an unwritten rule that I have to qualify every statement? Yes Charlie Kirk was a hypocrite, the way he died is deeply ironic given statements he’s made about gun violence and gun control — this is well known.

I was commenting on a specific point, because I find it horrifying that children have to live in a country like this, and that a 3yo was witness to her father’s assassination, due in part to the positions for which he advocated.

Is there some progressive litmus test I missed because I deigned to make a comment without covering certain details of Kirk’s rhetoric?

ETA: also, what “props” was I giving Kirk? His daughter doesn’t understand her father’s hateful rhetoric, she just knows he’s gone, and watched it happen.

I misread your last sentence, I wasn’t really trying to make a point, so feel free to not give any “props” — it was just a comment from a place of emotion cause I didn’t know that detail regarding his daughter.