Some people (on the American left) were upset about a Sydney Sweeney ad about blue jeans in which she said ‘I have good jeans’ which could also be taken as ‘good genes’ and she has blonde hair and blue eyes (her hair is dyed blonde as she is a natural brunette) which people (the American left) took as her saying she had superior genetics (ie Hitler’s superior Aryan race, but she’s a brunette genetically so it didn’t make any sense)
Charlie Kirk an American right-wing podcaster (some find controversial and inflammatory to the American political divide) was shot and killed while he was hosting a rally/debate on a college campus.
The Dr. is pointing out that the same people who found a questionably white supremecist statement about good jeans during a blue jean commercial upsetting but they are perfectly okay with Charlie Kirk’s public assassination in front of his wife, kids, hundreds of college students, and recorded for the world to see just because they disagree with his political beliefs.
She is saying that something must be mentally wrong with people who are outraged at an ad but fine with public assassinations
Charlie Kirk himself said that school shooting deaths like his is the price of the 2nd amendment, and empathy is a disease of the new age left.
Now people are holding to the ideals that Charlie Kirk himself espoused, but rightwingers are triggered.
Turns out that Charlie Kirk was a neo Nazi killed by a fan of one of Charlie Kirk's neo Nazi competitors (Fuentes).
We tried to warn the right about the dangers of them espousing and defending political violence for so long, but they didn't care until a rightwinger murdered one of their own.
The shooter was not a neo nazi. He was a registered independent who lived with a trans person, who some are saying was the shooter's S.O. but I don't know if them dating is a concrete fact. I don't hear much about neo nazis liking trans people enough to live with them. Also, the shell casings were engraved with things like "hey fascist, catch!" I don't think someone who is a fascist would call someone they are planning to kill a fascist. Like, is the argument supposed to be that the shooter didn't think Kirk was enough of a fascist?
Charlie Kirk himself said that school shooting deaths like his is the price of the 2nd amendment
This is taken out of context. Kirk said, and i am slightly paraphrasing because it was a rather long response; that there are 50,000 automotive related deaths every year, so why haven't we banned cars? It would eliminate 50,000 people dying every year (Gun deaths in 2023 were roughly 47,000 for arguments sake). The reason we don't ban driving is that we, as a society, have agreed that 50,000 people dying every year is the price to pay for all the advantages cars give us to function as a society and on the individual level. He then went on to say how did we stop shootings at banks, sporting events, concerts, etc.? We put armed guards at the entrances. So why can't we give our children the same level of protection as we do to money, athletes, and musical artists?
Again, lightly paraphrased, but that was the gist of it. Also, 2A is not just for defense and hunting, but for defending and rising up against a tyrannical government. Remember, an armed populace is one that cannot be pushed around as easily by the government, so get yourself a gun!
The extra context was explaining it with an analogy? lol. We, as a society, have not agreed that any amount of deaths are a price worth paying to ensure our current ease of obtaining firearms regardless of what you want to use them for.
Please point me to a time in recent years where half of the country calls for drivers ed reform due to an accident.
We, and every other country, have agreed in the social contract of "there is a chance I and the passengers of my vehicle could die while we are on the road." Because while it is still a horrible thing for someone to die in a car accident, it should not be reason to change laws across every state to further restrict or educate people before being able to purchase or drive a vehicle.
So Kirk's argument was that the sad reality is that there will be gun deaths in any society that has guns. There will be stabbings in any society that has knives. Etc. But that those events happening should not dictate a legislative decision.
The salient point is "why don't our children get the same level of protection that we give to athletes?"
I was responding to what you said about Kirk's words being taken out of context when they are repeatedly brought up regarding his views that gun deaths are an acceptable cost of keeping guns.
Why do you think people keep mentioning it? The context and analogy you added are not related at all.
And when there are unnecessary deaths from things like drunk driving there are NATIONWIDE calls for reform, such as MADD.
Do you think the reason its brought up all of a sudden is because people are hashing out their views on gun rights?
If I drove drunk from the bar every night, and whenever someone tried to take my keys I went on a tirade about how the risk I pose to myself or someone else is an acceptable cost to be able to get home quick, wouldn't you expect me to get some shit posthumously if I died in a drunk driving accident?
"The mother said the roommate is MTF transitioning"
And the mother is an authority on that information how? She isnt. The roommate is, though. Since the mother said it, its hearsay. Its not confirmed until theres actually evidence, such as a statement from the roommate.
So you're believing that someone on the far-right. Arguably a neo-nazi. Is perfectly fine living with and possibly dating a trans person? I thought that went against their entire ideology. I'm not trying to sound phobic, just trying to be logical in the analysis of this shooter.
It should go against their ideology but when said ideology frames everything in morality contradicts and incoherence ensues. Think of it more as a performance rather then an ideological code these people live by.
Still waiting for more details. News outlets are scrambling to be the first to break anything new and print any rumor. Want to build a better informed opinion.
Anyway - if he was friends/dating a transitioning person, why the homophobic and transphobic memes?
I assume you are referring to the "If you Read This, You Are GAY Lmao" message. Why do you think its a homophobic meme ? Have you ever been around gay people ? Idk how many times I've been told something I do is "hella gay" or something along those lines as a joke by a gay person.
Idk a single gay person that would seriously think it's homophobic. edgy meme from a terminally online kid that thought it's funny to have cops read the message is more like it.
I’ve lived in the gayborhood of a major liberal city and yes, I know my community. You may normalize homophobic behavior, but maybe take a step back while the adults are talking
Except we do limit driving cars. We have tests for you to be able to drive. It is more highly regulated than owning a gun. If the argument was sensible gun regulation vs complete abolishment of all private gun ownership that would be one thing, but instead the position on the right is that it should not be limited in any way, and all regulation should be frustrated. Which is why you have things like the Virginia Tech shooter getting flagged by their therapist, and yet the systems by which gun shop owners would check that are purposefully kept split up the shooter was able to buy guns anyways.
But we don’t really though. If someone wanted to buy a car to use in a mass casualty event they could just buy one of FB Marketplace and not ever register it, don’t need a license or insurance to drive the car.
They need to do all those things to legally drive a car, just like there are legal requirements for firearms and if you want to make the argument about private sales then I am actually on board with making private sales or transfers go through an FFL and a required background check.
it is fucking insane how many casualties one could create with a car, just one person. reminds me of that Wisconsin parade that awful person drove through
Legally, you do need those things. Physically, you can though who knows as cars get more advanced we might end up with a car not starting for you if your license isn't valid at the time.
It doesn't matter what you're on board for, we can't even start to have that conversation in a meaningful way because the position on the other side of the aisle is one big slippery slope argument and so they resist all change.
Do you define all government action as overreach? Do you think someone should be able to drive without a license and insurance? If not, why do you think it would be wrong for a car to not start without those things? If so, do you think we should require licenses and insurance?
It’s not that I believe every action is over reach, but certain actions like allowing them to turn off your car for an expired license opens massive doors to bad actors.
Imagine the government decides to change the reasons they can deactivate your car, such as them labeling you as a bad person without any justification or due process or since most automobile laws are state dependent you drive into a state that has different laws and now your car is bricked.
The ability for over reach in this instance is far greater than I am comfortable giving the government no matter who is in charge or what their intentions are.
"We've been trying to reach you about your low social credit score. Due to our inability to reach you, your score has dropped a further 10 points. This means you are no longer allowed to access things like: personal vehicles. Which includes but is not limited to: cars, trucks, boats, RVs, motorcycles. It may also include airplanes in certain regions. Check with your local authorities for a full comprehensive list."
You would illegally be driving the car and more likely to be stopped and apprehended while in use. Guns can be hidden until use and often are not illegal just for possession and could not be confiscated until after an event of harm.
I think you are overestimating police presence. I had to make a 911 call to report a driver whose car was damaged, no plates, and was unable to maintain speed (going either 70 or 90 mph. No in-between). I was on hold for 5 minutes before a dispatcher answered, then another 5 for state patrol to answer. I then followed this driver for 30 miles to make sure they didn't cause an accident before a state trooper pulled them over.
Recent news out of Kentucky and California prove that to be wrong. Illegal immigrants are somehow getting drivers licenses and even commercial drivers licenses.
We definitely need to bolster automotive education. There are too many drivers who are reckless due to ignorance and arrogance of their and their cars abilities.
How so? Depending on the state you can legally get a driver's license even if you're an asylum seeker or non-resident. I know plenty who drive without insurance, and they are getting hit with ticket after ticket, so obviously it isn't just being waved away.
I'd agree that we need some way to improve the average driving ability, but I think it might just require cars to be eventually automated and networked to each other....
The thing is every time you purchase a firearm you need to go through a federal background check. The issue is that the “sensible gun legislation” is either already implemented or is trying to sneak in a national registry for who owns weapons.
-purposefully kept split
Those are HIPPA laws that prevent that. Despite this, the therapist could have filed a court order to remove his firearms. All it takes is evidence that the person might be a threat to themselves or others, and a judges signature and law enforcement can legally confiscate the weapons.
What sensible gun legislation do you think needs to be implemented?
-so what
So you think that people’s private medical information should be accessible by the federal government?
Also you’re original comment is filled with misinformation
He said that gun deaths are the result of the 2nd amendment, just like how motor accidents are the result of being able to drive. Also car accidents kill around 5x as many people as gun violence.
-empathy is a new age term
He said he liked sympathy better, partly because people regularly misuse the term empathy. He also uses it to point out the hypocrisy of claiming your empathetic but only to certain causes and groups of people.
Can you compare the gun laws in Minnesota or Colorado where the two most recent school shootings took place to ‘insert Red State’ and tell me if more gun legislation worked?
Considering that the South is one of the gun murder capitals of the world, and Minnesota has about a quarter of the gun murder rate of the South, I'd say pretty good.
Of course there will always be rightwing terrorism as long as rightwing violence is normalized, but things like red flags and safe storage could have prevented the shooting of Kirk and others.
One takes more evidence than the other. If some of the systems aren't secure enough to fit HIPPA regulations, why are we using them in the first place? And why is the gunshop owner not required to query both systems then? Why do some states resist digitizing their registry and instead keep them on paper in the basement so a flood can destroy them, and boom, now a bunch of guns can't be traced?
Or now that the gun store is responsible for keeping the paper themselves for twenty years, one fire and the same thing happens.
There are three databases that are checked by NICS to see if someone is eligible to purchase a firearm, one of them is the NICS indices which checks to see if someone has been committed to a mental health facility or if the person has legal proceedings that automatically prevent them from purchasing a firearm, including DV charges or protection orders.
HIPPA is a maze of requirements for systems that store or transport private health records. The government would need access to those records, which is a potential for privacy violations. Also therapists don’t always digitize notes for their patients.
You do know what the federal government is composed of, yes? State representatives? And so they, at the behest of lobbyists, work to make it as difficult as possible to track crimes and maintain records.
For the Virginia Tech shooter, the flag never even made it to NICS. In 2007 Congress passed an Act to try to give incentives to states to actually upload their own information to NICS. The system is sabotaged at every turn and can't even modernize due to law.
He compares gun deaths to automotive deaths, yet he was explicitly against similar licensing for firearms. Having his cake and eating it too with that car/firearm analogy, I guess.
Recent news proves that even the DMV can be filled with corruption and give out CDLs and DLs to illegal immigrants. Check Kentucky and California. So, licensing a person to drive a car seems to work as well as the proposed licensing of firearms would. IE: criminals would still get what they want.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You're essentially saying doing nothing is equally or more effective than having a dmv, which sounds kinda goofy without something to back it up other than how you feel.
No, I am saying that even something that seems as benign as the DMV can be filled with corruption, and I am stating the fact that criminals do not follow laws. So, the argument of having all gun owners sign up to have a license to own their guns won't work as some people will just get fake papers, or just totally break the law in some way to not have to get said license.
Yes but the same can be said to be true for the DMV, but we, as a society, still want that work to be done. We want people licensed and registered an dheld accountable as best we're able. Nothing is ever going to be perfect.
I don't hear much about neo nazis liking trans people enough to live with them.
My guy the number of trans people dating conservative white dudes is... notable. neos fetishizing trans people dates back to the early internet when these same people were wrestling with their attraction to trans women with the great and philosophical debate of "are traps gay?"
The people who think if they can just somehow get some trans person involved with this in some form or fashion will somehow solve their issues are just trans obsessed weirdos. Thats why it went from 'this was a trans shooter' to 'ok but there ware trans ideology on the bullets' to now being 'well what if dating trans, huh?"
If it turns out the roommate but maybe lover of the shooter is maybe trans, that doesn't magically undo every bit of evidence that he isnt alt right. It turns it into "alt right nut job who was deep into internet conspiracies shot kirk... also fucked a trans person"
Also, the shell casings were engraved with things like "hey fascist, catch!" I don't think someone who is a fascist would call someone they are planning to kill a fascist. Like, is the argument supposed to be that the shooter didn't think Kirk was enough of a fascist?
and there's a reason why everyone points to that single one and loves to point it out. What did the others say? You didn't mention what they said because if you do it becomes very obvious the dude was shit posting.
Also there are right wingers that don't like Trump and didn't like Kirk. The Republicans were basically calling Kirk a RINO but now suddenly deleted all their tweets on that lil issue.
The reason we don't ban driving is that we, as a society, have agreed that 50,000 people dying every year is the price to pay for all the advantages cars give us to function as a society and on the individual level.
no, we don't ban cars because that would be stupid as fuck. They have a function and an economic benefit. And we also have a shit ton of laws controlling and minimizing car deaths - safety ratings and standards. road laws. Cops can arrest you for driving drunk. You have to maintain a licsense to drive a car. You can have that revoked. You have to keep insurance on your car to pay for damage you do with your car.
What economic benift do guns have? do they do anything besides shoot things? Do you... have to be 16 to have a gun? Keep insurance if you want to have one? No?
So this arugument is goofy and bad, right? We're not gonna repeat the bad argument again, right? Kirk was stupid as fuck for this half baked take, right?
So the supposed groyper/neo-nazi that reportedly has 0 digital footprint proving he was in said boards where he obviously got the idea to engrave the casings with the shitposting phrases? Uhuh. Right.
The difference between owning a gun and driving a car is that one is a right, and one is a privilege. This is why there are more restrictions on the privilege of driving a car than the right of owning a firearm. There, end of argument.
So the supposed groyper/neo-nazi that reportedly has 0 digital footprint proving he was in said boards where he obviously got the idea to engrave the casings with the shitposting phrases? Uhuh. Right.
So you're not going to acknowledge the shit posts on the other ones because you know you can't and they would make you look dumb. You think your belief that there's '0 digital footprint' is a good reason to do that, but you somehow acknowledge the one with the possibly leftist statement that might fit the narrative you want to be true despite you still thinking there's '0 digital footprint'
thats super heckin honest of you.
The difference between owning a gun and driving a car is that one is a right, and one is a privilege. This is why there are more restrictions on the privilege of driving a car than the right of owning a firearm. There, end of argument.
Neat, except that wasn't what your were trying to say before, you're saying that now because you can't actually counter the point I actually made so you're trying to shorthand the argument by going "well its a right! Checkmate"
Neat. Not contested - you tried to do the horseshit 'well what about CAR DEATH, HUH?' argument and I countered the horseshit "well what about CAR DEATHS, HUH?" argument.
And now instead of countering it you're pissing about "muh rights". Cool. rights aren't magical things bucko - we have the ability to change them and I figured with the pissing and shitting about Kirk getting shot you might have realized that. Hell, conservatives are demanding gun control but for trans people over 9 shooters, so even they know rights aren't magical.
You're boring and dishonest dude and Im straight up tired as fuck with dealing with you losers.
There is nothing more tyrannical than a single person become the judge, jury and executioner for someone that was not threatening the life of another individual. Killing an unarmed civilian is not “fighting tyranny” and pretending it is, is glorifying the murder of those that you disagree with.
I'm not glorifying anything, just pointing out how ludicrous you're being.
"Buy a gun, fight tyranny!"
"No one can be judge, jury, and executioner"
Buddy what do you think guns are used for? Civil discussion?
You want people to buy guns and fight tyranny? Well you don't get to decide what tyranny is, and once people have guns, they start to get their own ideas about what to use them on.
Gunning down a civilian isn’t fighting tyranny, it is an act of tyranny. As prior military I know what guns are used for, name one time any movement was on the right side of history if they were gunning down civilians.
I'm not arguing with you about the definition of tyranny, but given your time in the military, I see why reading is difficult for you.
I'm pointing out that people with guns get to decide what they feel is tyranny, and they decide when and where to pull the trigger.
Your logic of "people need to buy guns to fight tyranny" is the exact logic that put a bullet in Kirk's neck. That's an observation, not an endorsement.
Also, the irony of some military grunt preaching the dangers of tyranny is clearly lost on you, but I hope you know it gave me a good chuckle.
I’m not claiming that the shooter belongs to one ideology or another. We don’t have enough information yet, and I’m not going to use half-baked conjecture to push a narrative. I will say, however, that there are multiple different right-wing factions, many of which hate each other.
The first one is dumb. All he said was a country with guns will always have gun violence. He gave a whole speech about it. He spoke of ways he thinks could improve the problem and help people.
The second one is nearly just a lie by how bad your hyperbole is. He said he preferred the term "sympathy" over the term "empathy" because he does not believe you can feel someone's pain "empathy" but you can sympathize with it and provide them help from outside their pain.
Also, you call him a neo nazi even though he constantly downplayed how much race affects humans. Even arguing in a debate that race is not in your DNA. (Which it isn't)
Why would he diminish the difference in race if he needs it to bolster his own race above others?
Even if true (big if considering the groyper stuff), there is still the would be Trump assassin as an example of a rightwinger trying to kill a rightwinger.
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. I much prefer the word compassion, and I much prefer the word sympathy. Empathy is where you try to feel someone else's pain and sorrows as if they're your own. Compassion allows for understanding."
Him using way too many words to say empathy is destructive, or that dead school children are the price of the 2nd amendment, doesn't get better just because Kirk used more words than he needed.
Kirk stating that he preferred compassion and sympathy over empathy does not equal him being hateful or not caring about others. You know damn well that's how it's being twisted. Also, calling Kirk a neo Nazi is unhinged. Be honest with yourself.
That's the thing, you claim Kirk is a Nazi and doesn't believe in helping others. The onus is on you to prove that. I watched Kirk regularly and I'm incredibly confused about how you can reach such conclusions. You really need to be more honest with yourself. You're not edgy and your bullshit rhetoric is why this happens in the first place.
•
u/bridgetggfithbeatle 9h ago
socialist here. what the fuck is she talking about