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.
correct. for example, if you convince enough people that black people are inferior and deserving of murder, and a bunch of racists go out and kill black people, that would make you responsible and worthy of a response against.
..yes, when fascists do fascist things, i'd be right to point it out and criticize it.
i am not a free speech absolutist and do not believe in the American concept of freedom of speech so.. this doesn't bother me.
you are severely downplaying the role of stochastic terrorism in this country and i am not interested in your assessment of my opinions based on that. "small amount?" lol please.
what are those views? go ahead and tell me. you see, the difference here is that i am right and people like Charlie Kirk are wrong. you shouldn't have the right to spread fascism in public nor have a platform dedicated to it. you are the antithesis of human progress and must be stopped, because your ideology is inherently violent and destroys people and ideas. this isn't mere opinion, this is a despicable and immoral ideology infecting the world.
edit: omfg you're not even American. please don't have such strong opinions on the culture of the people i live with 24/7 and then act like you have more knowledge than me on what is and isn't impacting us socially. your view of stochastic terrorism as being a small contributing factor is laughable. you clearly know nothing about the people here.
I disagree with you here. The American dominance on media means your bullshit is exported everywhere. I know people who are Indian MAGA.
As in people who never ever left the India but still think Trump is a great president fighting against wokeness and communism etc.
i'm not saying not to have an opinion on the culture exporting, sure that's fine: my point is to avoid making statements about what is and isn't happening here as if you are living it or have better knowledge than me, an American being forced to experience it 24/7 up close.
Essentially my political arguments since the election. Tell me again what “liberal” means. No it doesn’t.
Yeah, the slogan of everyone who thinks restricting speech is ok.
I'm not absolutist either, but without objective standards for censorship you are left with a shouting match and a society in which there is no proscription against suppressing speech whether through the law, intimidation or violence. This directly contributes to fascism.
You can't argue honestly that trump's censorship of criticism is wrong because it breaks fundamental liberal principles. You're left arguing that it's wrong because it suppresses what you agree with, while MAGA argues it's right for the same reasons. Great job.
You imply that non-Americans are incapable of understanding what Kirk caused. I'm not going to accept your experience as the arbiter if truth any more than I'd claim mine is. Your experience of a tiny sliver of America doesn't give you a meaningfully more objective understanding of what's going on, because you're not capable of directly experience what happens to the vast majority of people. We're both able to read articles and talk with other people though. Over-privileging your own experience is a good way to make sure you never risk changing your mind though.
In short, come up with some facts about so-called stochastic terrorism.
You can read all you like, but as with many things when you study a place not your own, you will miss all or most of the nuance of the lived experience.
Is there un-lived experience?
Sure.
Whats the difference in this context?
I don't know but charlie experienced un-aliving.
I think you should reconsider how important freedom of speech is. You say expressing fascist views shouldn’t be allowed - but that denial of speech is itself fascistic.
If the government can limit any speech they deem dangerous, they’ll change the goalposts and suddenly all your liberal speak is made illegal and we’re repressed.
denial of speech itself is not fascism. i would not say that at all, sorry.