it's all i hear across the political spectrum: "nobody should be killed for their opinions"
sure, that's fair. you can hold that position, but what does that have to do with Charlie Kirk? if we are going to lend credence to the idea his killer did what he did to stop Kirk from further spreading fascism and bigotry then an opinion would have been the least of the killer's concerns. opinions don't do anything on their own. simply stating how you feel about something and maintaining your beliefs is not oppressive to anyone. it's when you commit action based on that belief and that is what Charlie Kirk had done very, very successfully the last ten or so years of his life.
Charlie Kirk took his beliefs and turned them into a movement. TPUSA, his political organization that he co-founded, has over one thousand chapters nationwide. Imagine if the KKK had that many locations in 2025. He was able to amass an insane amount of support for Trump/MAGA and Christian nationalism as a whole that it blows away anything he did prior to throwing himself in the Trump administration swamp.
people are still stuck on seeing him as some kind of internet guy or podcaster or talking head.. no lol. no, no, no, god i wish. Trump doesn't reach as far without Kirk, Trump doesn't appeal to young crowds without Kirk, Trump doesn't get older conservatives to see him as having longevity without Kirk.. he took the MAGA message and cemented it as an identity; he validated and perpetuated their whole brand.
Kirk is so instrumental in Trump's image and PR that MAGA wouldn't have organized itself as well without him. Jan 6? TPUSA bused folks to the capitol. They were actively participating in the overthrowing of a democratically elected leader.
this was not about opinions; this was not about beliefs. Kirk was shot because of what he did and was doing. acting like he was a victim of having too wrong of an opinion takes away all the real-world damage he contributed to; the literal deaths he was responsible for through stochastic terrorism and COVID denialism.
we have to face and accept the reality of righteous assassinations. this isn't to say to agree with or support them, but to merely acknowledge them as inevitable and not worthy of condemnation. lone assassinations are never helpful for the cause they intend to support, but when there are no peaceful, non-violent options left and you are being systematically killed by the state and its actors, a violent response in self-defense is understandable. don't avoid these actions, show the country what is at risk when we allow fascists to terrify and subjugate us. this is the ultimate fault of those keeping us oppressed, not the person pulling the trigger.
He didn't say the guy who shot him was innocent. He said the person that murdered Charlie Kirk wasn't just because the guy held an opinion, it was because he was trying to spread opinions that would hurt people. Maybe I missed it but no where did they say what was done was right.
Yet here you come labeling someone a form of terrorist... Jeez the next 15 years are going to be rough for all of us
it's because i don't have sympathy for Kirk or feel the need to condemn the shooter. i am unbothered by their misdirected anger because it stems from genuine ignorance.
In that dispute you spoke too contentiously: do not for the future argue with ignorant people: those who have never been taught are unwilling to learn. You reprimanded that man with more freedom than you ought, and consequently you have offended him instead of amending his ways: in dealing with other cases of the kind, you should look carefully, not only to the truth of what you say, but also whether the person to whom you speak can bear to be told the truth.” Seneca on anger book 3 36
He didn't go that far but he said he doesn't condemn the murder.
I don't think "stochastic terrorism" is a useful phrase. It was coined as a pseudo-intellectual way to accuse those who commit one wrong of something that sounds more serious.
So I wouldn't say this is any form of terrorism, but it's worse than hostile speech against minorities because it is directly about violence. Saying wrong and inflammatory shit about some group is not as bad as hemming and hawing about murder.
you deny the existence of stochastic terrorism lol you are not a serious person worth discussing with.
So you decided to tell me this elsewhere than in the thread we already have...
I deny that it's a useful phrase. The phenomenon whereby speech can lead to an increase in harm obviously exists but likening this to terrorism is so hyperbolic everyone apart from a tiny niche finds it absurd. As you hunt for "serious people" you have obviously declared everyone who falls outside your tiny bubble unserious.
Worse, you don't use it to mean that, because if you did you'd call yourself a stochastic terrorist. Or do you deny that apologism for political assassination ("I can't condemn it") increases the likelihood of further violence?
it isn't "speech leading to an increase in harm" you goddamn motherfucker, i am sick of you foreign pieces of shit acting like you know everything. let me educate your dumb fucking ass:
STOCHASTIC TERRORISM IS WHEN YOU PURPOSELY AVOID DIRECTLY CALLING FOR VIOLENCE AND INSTEAD YOU KNOWINGLY USE DOG WHISTLES, CODE WORDS, ESTABLISHED PHRASES, HYPERBOLIC LANGUAGE, AND OUTRIGHT LIES IN THE HOPES SOMEBODY DOES VIOLENCE ON BEHALF OF THE CAUSE YOU SUPPORT.
do you see how that is different from just talking shit and being a bigot and saying a lot of bad things about people? yeah? do you see how maybe i'm not talking about people being mean? and people saying things like "we gotta fight the enemy!!!" because that's not what the problem is here in my country! the problem is WHITE SUPREMACIST FASCISTS encouraging their followers to be violent without saying those words so that people like YOU can downplay what they're doing
good job assface
You used a lot of capital letters to just say you believe Kirk's speech was intended to cause harm rather than merely causing it by chance. I don't think that's a relevant distinction because you can't prove it and I'm sure you hope that more people in MAGA are shot as well.
Other than that non-difference you just use more emotive words to describe the same thing.
yes, i can lol. you just wouldn't accept the evidence as proof because you think life is black and white and apparently fascism only acts one type of way. you are an idiot. you think these people are incidentally inciting violence without any coordination or effort on their part against MOUNTAINS of data showing the opposite is true. i am saddened by your ignorance and encourage you to break free from the manipulation. you are being lied to and being fed comfortable falsehoods.