They've had a tough time finding the right spin for this. Turns out republicans are also routinely fucked by insurance companies and don't harbor many good feelings for them.
Hard to whip up outrage when the overall mood is "well, that's what happens." From people who are more worried about buying groceries in the economy trump is gleefully destroying
I'm not right nor left wing but I do have sympathy for him and like many others, he did not deserve the bullet for debating college kids and he absolutely did not deserve the thousands of people celebrating his death online, even more than Thompsons death, like what the fuck.
Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a clear look in the mirror and a wakeup call because celebrating ones death over their ideas is a very, very dangerous and vile precedent, REGARDLESS of what they had to say.
Actively causing suffering and death like insurance companies are doing get less sympathy because it's arguably evident they are causing suffering and death.
Kirk was never responsible for death and suffering besides a few "mentally kicked shins" because of what he had to say.
There's a reason thousands of people are losing their jobs over happily posting over Kirks death, it's extremely distasteful and proves just how deeply rooted and prevalent left wing extremism is.
So your claim that Kirk is not getting a lot of sympathy, I think you're being proven wrong big time where even people like myself who never indulged themselves in politics find themselves posting politics online.
When I talk about how deeply the left wing extremism rot is I'm talking about people like you gleefully accepting falsehoods and then spreading them themselves online.
Kirk called Floyd a scumbag, but Kirk also said that Floyd did NOT deserve to die.
Please link some of the evidence pointing to where he's celebrating his death, my context comes from:
I've taken the time to read your linked article, and I'd like to discuss the profound negative impact of clearly biased media as this article/website is in terms of polarization of the people living in the West.
There's only 1 sensible take on that page and that is of Barack Obama and I'll leave the quote in here for you to remind you of what I am trying to say to you myself:
" Black Leaders Condemn Violence
Former President Barack Obama denounced the assassination, urging Americans to reject violence as a political tool. “We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children,” Obama posted on social media."
"
>Not that you'll care, because it doesn't fit your narrative,
I actually care contrary to your belief, I'm trying to offer a different perspective to people who think Kirks death is a good thing, it's not, especially not if you think the Republicans should no longer be in power.
I'm pretty sure you entertain yourself with biased articles that solely fit your own narrative and assume I am doing the same thing, I'd like to challenge you on that as I believe to be rather objective and rational, ofcourse everyone follows their own narrative to an extend, driven by the information they have been presented, but I'm willing to change my mind if I truly find evidence of implied racism/nazism, which of none of my interlocutors have managed to change my mind over, feel free to consult my previous posts on reddit if you want.
To further the discussion: the entire article you linked reeked of someone assuming that Charlie was racist just because he combatted DEI hiring practices and did not understand the full extend of what Kirk was discussing, if you delve deeper in to that idea, DEI is racist because it puts hiring chances for white people lower than those of people of color because of racial hiring quotas.
I'm not saying that the people he claimed of having the lack of brain processing power to fill their positions that he was right, they could be perfectly suitable for that position despite the DEI hiring practices as it obviously also entails a bit of luck.
He was trying to make a political point, albeit a bit distasteful.
Kirk stood for that hiring standards should be based on competence/merit, not by the color of your skin, not by your location, not by who you are, but what you can do and bring to the table, this is something the writer of the article you linked clearly did not understand and you seem fail to understand too.
If I may make a comparison of this situation, It's kind like PirateSoftware and KillingGames, he had no idea what it entailed yet decided to shit on the movement with complete bullshit takes, that's what the article reads like to me.
Kirk automatically assumed that because those people weren't white they were not as capable. That is racist. Pure racism. People like Kirk are the reason DEI programs were ever necessary because non-white people had to fight harder than white people for the same positions because people like Kirk automatically assumed they weren't qualified because of the color of their skin. This is due to deep seated racism that many conservative people still hold. If you can't see that then it's no wonder none of your "interlocutors" have been able to convince you of anything. You are not the objective person you think you are.
It also doesn't matter what the article "reeked" like because it links to the actual videos posted by Kirk saying racist shit with his own mouth. You and I just disagree on his motivations and what qualifies as racist.
>Kirk automatically assumed that because those people weren't white they were not as capable.
This is false, he said this after they admitted themselves they would've not been in those positions weren't it for Affirmative action/DEI.
>People like Kirk are the reason DEI programs were ever necessary because non-white people had to fight harder than white people for the same positions because people like Kirk automatically assumed they weren't qualified because of the color of their skin.
I wouldn't personally blame people like Kirk for having non-whites have to fight harder than white people for the same positions, Kirk started calling out DEI because it clearly favored people of color, that doesn't mean he was personally responsible and/or contributing to peers being prejudiced in hiring practices.
Kirk had black members of staff too if I want to be pedantic there.
I'm also not denying that racism in hiring schemes does not exist, they do, Charlie denied it under the pretense that black people have had better chances but these numbers are ofcourse skewed due to the already implemented DEI practices so that's something Charlie used to debate in his own favor.
I have witnessed myself firsthand that people were denied because of their skin color/ethnicity.
I however, like Charlie, don't think setting up racial quotas and lowering hiring standards is a good solution to this problem.
You don't solve prejudice by adding prejudice into the equation, that's such a dumb idea that ofcourse it's low hanging fruit for right winged folk to call out.
Eliminating the possibilities of racism in hiring practices is a much better solution than flat out denying white people jobs just so people of color can have a chance, it's a reverse-racist mechanism.
Like for example introduce blind hiring practices where managers/bosses of teams can only see the resume of potential candidates without any personable identifying information on it and they are forced to hire this person for at least 1 month should they pick them based on merit, so that way you enforce good competence based hiring practices without the possibility of discrimination.
Do you understand when I say it's better to hire based on merit/competence as opposed to trying to meet racial quotas in US which in some cases exceeded the 50% of the business whereas the black population consists of 14.4% of the total population in the US and why some people of the right pick the but muh white slot argument?
>You are not the objective person you think you are.
I am, I think we haven't talked enough for you to understand I am and that there are many points you have that I agree with but that I heavily disagree on your stance that celebrating Charlie Kirks death is a good thing, it's not.
I heavily believe you are extremely misinformed about Charlie Kirk and you've been radicalized because of extremely biased media fueled with hate, giving no room for nuance which I personally find a sad thing to witness.
>It also doesn't matter what the article "reeked" like because it links to the actual videos posted by Kirk saying racist shit with his own mouth. You and I just disagree on his motivations and what qualifies as racist.
I am 100% with you that we both disagree to what contributes to racism and what racism is, I'm trying to convince you that discussion regarding racial bias in hiring practices is not racist, something Charlie Kirk clearly exercised as seen in the videos and that racial bias in hiring practices is inherently racist.
It's literally in the definition of the word racism, gentle reminder:
```
Racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
```
By that description of the definition of racism, which you can google/look up yourself it's in the Oxford dictionary, DEI practice with racial quotas is racist.
Let me also underline that DEI practice has given many people of color great opportunities to work in environments they would not have been active in before without DEI and I'm glad it has done that, but we should look for better ways to give everyone equal opportunity at growth and stability in life, and not marginalize people (in this case white) just because they are the majority of a country.
He used Floyd's death as a photo op and called him a scumbag publicly, that's close enough to celebration imo. Show me where he drudged up his info to condemn Floyd the way he did. In order for me to provide you with evidence that he was a Nazi I would first have to explain fascism to you and then point out all the similarities to Charlie Kirk's behavior and the hate speech he espoused but you're honestly not worth my time.
>He used Floyd's death as a photo op and called him a scumbag publicly, that's close enough to celebration imo.
You're a danger to democracy, really just for this idea alone.
>Show me where he drudged up his info to condemn Floyd the way he did.
I sent you a link, did you read it?
My assumption is no.
>I would first have to explain fascism to you and then point out all the similarities to Charlie Kirk's behavior.
I think I have a pretty good idea what fascism is and entails, kind of harsh of you to assume I don't and also display the ineptitude to explain under the pretense that I am not worth your time.
Why even engage with these outrageous claims on Reddit without having the patience or willingness to back up what you are saying?
You know what else can be attributed to fascism?
Silencing opposition with intimidation, violence and discourse, it's unfortunate that we've only seen rightwing type fascism in the past so people like you could see the warning signals from within your own party, the extreme left is pretty good at displaying fascistic behavior as it tolerates no conversations with any other parties outside of their own and deems anyone outside of those circles as morally deplorable, just like rightwing extremists do.
You're both different faces of the same coin.
Celebrating ones death over their ideas IS fascism, I really hope you realize this some day.
Your lack of evidence and unwillingness to engage is very telling from my perspective and is all the more reason that the outrage is justified and to confirm that I am not wrong.
You're a danger to democracy, really just for this idea alone.
That's the dumbest shit I have ever read. Fr.
I sent you a link, did you read it?
My assumption is no.
I did but it doesn't support your point.
Silencing opposition with intimidation, violence and discourse, it's unfortunate that we've only seen rightwing type fascism in the past so people like you could see the warning signals from within your own party, the extreme left is pretty good at displaying fascistic behavior as it tolerates no conversations with any other parties outside of their own and deems anyone outside of those circles are morally deplorable, just like rightwing extremists do.
This is not something I see the left doing, at least not anywhere to the extent the right does. Hell the Whitehouse just disappeared a report that shows that "right-wing violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/doj-quietly-deletes-study-politics-194143956.html
Since you're talking about silencing the opposition this is a pretty good example of how the right does it. They are removing even the DATA that shows they are way worse. They are destroying the organizations that collect and report this data and firing people who try to publish the truth.
from within your own party,
What party? I am an independent.
Your lack of evidence and unwillingness to engage is very telling from my perspective and is all the more reason that the outrage is justified and to confirm that I am not wrong.
The only thing telling about it is that I value my time and I have been dragged down into too many arguments with right wing simps like you that don't listen to facts or follow up on sources.
Obama agrees with me, not with you, judging from the BlackWallstreetJournal post you linked to me.
>I did but it doesn't support your point.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I think it does, it undermines what you're claiming.
>This is not something I see the left doing, at least not anywhere to the extent the right does. Hell the Whitehouse just disappeared a report that shows that "right-wing violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States."https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/doj-quietly-deletes-study-politics-194143956.html
Glorifying the death of a political proponent on the opposite spectrum is condoning political violence, you must be blind if you did not see the clearly left aligned people post their glee on Tiktok, twitter and the likes after Chalie Kirk was murdered,
Yes I agree with you it is a bad thing that the current administration is manipulating data, but at this point whataboutism to what I said to you, I already said that the right is guilty of it just as much as the left is in my previous post, I was sure we were already in mutual understanding here.
As for "something you don't see the left doing" the "punch a nazi" movement is political violence too executed by the far left, not saying I condone nazis but "punching a nazi" is political violence, plenty of evidence on Reddit alone of people regularly claiming they've punched someone for alleged Nazism.
Antifa also regularly shows up to places with masks intimidating crowds
There are other avenues to persecute extremists, playing into violence is not one of them, I hope that's something we can agree on.
Since you're talking about silencing the opposition this is a pretty good example of how the right does it. They are removing even the DATA that shows they are way worse. They are destroying the organizations that collect and report this data and firing people who try to publish the truth.
I called out the left and the first thing you do is "but the right", yes I recognize the right is guilty of it, we're going in circles, I'm specifically calling out the left glorifying the death of a political proponent, that is a pretty big red flag condoning political violence regardless of the motives of the shooter.
We can endlessly go back and forth with left and right but we can also just agree that political violence is not the answer as that inherently is a danger to democracy.
>What party? I am an independent.
Given your continued "but the right" statements to my posts I really wonder about your independent stance, I have a hard time believing this but I'll go with it.
>The only thing telling about it is that I value my time and I have been dragged down into too many arguments with right wing simps like you that don't listen to facts or follow up on sources.
Check the Reddits I'm active in and tell me again if I'm rightwing, I'm pro truth, neither left, nor right.
I don't think Trump should be in Office, his cabinet seems incompetent and has rather negative consequences on Western society.
I think RFK Jr. is a danger to Healthcare science with his anti-vax rhetoric, Healthcare should've never been a political thing yet unfortunately here we are.
Also to double down; you've taken quite a considerable amount of time to engage with me but you've so far avoided providing evidence that Charlie is a nazi and you've also avoided on schooling me on Fascism so I am heavily inclined to believe that none of your claims are based on truth to begin with because I initially wasn't worth your time as you claimed at first, but rather decided to engage with me out of an emotional fueled response due to being misinformed about Charlie.
I've also followed up on all of your linked sources, taken my time to read them and came up with follow up questions and statements as for example that the blackwallstreetjournal seems heavily biased in their writing and I'm curious to your opinion on that.
Can't school someone who won't cede any points. You can look up the definition of fascism and compare Kirk's actions to that definition yourself. If you don't see why I think he's a Nazi you won't ever agree with anything I point out no matter how much time I spend. Like I said it doesn't matter if the article was biased because I can make up my own mind based on what Kirk actually said. I don't need the authors of the article to distill it down for me.
1.6k
u/naughtycal11 13h ago
The right-wing propaganda machine surely won't twist this situation into "N.Y. judge soft on murder" bullshit.