this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
651 points (95.8% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7920 readers
4 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An important reminder is that Kimmel's monologue did not say anything slightly negative about Charlie Kirk's demonic zionazi and replacement theorgy genocidal supremacism. He only made fun of Trump for interviews in which he was asked about any sympathy he had for his dead dear friend, getting deflect-weaved into "we're building the bestest ballroom in the white house now".
He got in trouble for saying that Kirk was killed by his own side.
He didn't even say that though, this is driving me insane, he said that Trump and them were doing everything they could to pin the blame on the left and score political points from it, which is undeniable. He didn't say anything about who he actually thought the shooter was.
He literally said that the right is "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them".
Which is not saying that the killer was one of them.
I see, you could actually interpret it either way.
How do you interpret it any way other than what it says? You are making an assumption if you interpret it differently than what he clearly stated.
I read it as him saying that the shooter was unquestionably right wing, which is different than saying that the right wing is desperate to prove that it's anyone else.
The right also desperate to prove its somebody else because they want targets for political repression and kirk's death is simply not useful otherwise.
Yes, just as there are those on the left who view the killing as deserved or somehow an acceptable outcome.
Idk how true that is. I think its more that if we're just going to have random people shooting folks at events it seems less bad if the people shot are the ones with a giant megaphone saying that the shootings should be seen as inevitable.
Its like, at least the guy that got shot had lived as millionaire for a decade and its not some kid this time
I can't point to anyone notable that couldn't be an AI or right winger sockpuppet account that actually cheered it on in the same sort of way that like republican politicians gleefully celebrated nancy pelosi's husband being attacked.
Kirk's killing is inherently more political. School shootings are a slightly different matter. I don't think Robinson was capable of killing random people. He chose his target. It was an assassination.
I would argue all school shootings are political because they're a result of a policy and distinguishing Kirk as a political figure is just some bullshit. Kirk also is not a politician. He's just well connected to republican party donors, many of whom also own large portions of the US media.
Kirk was a rich guy and a friend of donors. This makes him "Important" in US media. Avg people probably are largely unaware of who he was before he died, so I disagree that this is a "political" assassination and more like a "celebrity" assassination similar to John Lennon
Still bad and stupid but the shooter's motives were probably more about his loved ones being harrassed by kirk fans than anything truly ideological.
In any event, Kirk was targeted specifically for his views, whereas school shootings are indiscriminate attacks.
Right, which is 100% true. If that upsets anyone they are blatantly admitting the truth outrages them.
He implied it but he straight up was factually saying they're trying real hard to show it wasn't one of their guys. It definitely wasn't any of the people MAGA wanted to pin it on.
Turns out it was some kind of apolitical zoomer whose friends were personally affected by Kirk's rhetoric likely because the problem with living in the most conservative US state is that a lot of people around you are probably repeating the vitriol.
There's still a decent good case to be made that MAGA bullied this kid into killing Kirk by threatening people he loves.
"look what you made me do"
Eyeroll
He lives in Utah. My uncle who had parkinsons would watch fox news all day and thought trans ISIS was going to invade his house in 2019. I can't imagine how difficult it is for anyone othered by these media cartels is in states where people are heavily enthralled.
By that logic all maga should be in trouble for saying it was a dem
There should be consequences for lying??? For GOP??? What are you, 12?
The 2 candidates are Bill Ackman or Nick Fuentes "influence". That Carr, Trump, Sinclair need to protect one of those 2 shows how corrupt democracy is.
Next election needs to promise to nationalize with no compensation all zionazi media, zeroing out all directors and exectutives wealth, decitizenize any politician pledging allegiance to Israel, zeroing out all of their donors, and nationalize defense and oil industry.