this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
15 points (94.1% liked)
News Summary
178 readers
64 users here now
News feed with AI summary.
Rules:
- follow instance rules
- Engage in good faith discussion
- Tag relevant posts with [Meta] or [Request]
- meta = Discussion about the bot or AI summary.
- request = Development request or an rss feed to incorporate into the feed
- No calls for actionable violence
- Congratulations your behavior is now a new rule
Credit:
Community icon @Alice@hilariouschaos.com
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What? You're a hypocrite if you agree with this. The right regularly calls for violence against democratic positions and politicians and laugh at every misfortune, but anyone is supposed to care about this grifter?! Put your money where your mouth is, then I will listen. One does reap what they sow.
Hey I didn't invent the hypocritical argument I'm simply borrowing it from the left. U killed they guy who wanted fair unbiased non hypocritical discussion. And even still I'm not cos the right doesn't kill people over speech that's ur sides activity.
If I was actually a hypocritic I would have deleted ur comment for disagreeing with me but I'm better than that.
Who killed who? I'm a commentor on Lemmy, I haven't killed anyone, so get out of your own ass and wake up. You even saying as much is implying violence, something's ng "your side" does with every breath they take. The guy was biased to the umpth degree and did not want a non hypocritical anything. He died for what he believed in.
Who has threatened to imprison journalists for unfavourable coverage? Who said Democrats should be executed in public as traitors? Oh right, it was Obama?! You are correct that you gain nothing by pretending I don't exist, but I don't have a side. I do live in reality however, and you're obviously mind fucked so have a pleasant life in your altered reality. Ciao Bella!
By you that would clearly imply your side I don't see how someone intelligent could miss that.
He was bias = he had an opinion (yes that tends to be what debaters do)
Give me an example of him being a hypocrit.
He did die for what he believed in for free speech and open dialing and discussion. Mlk dies for what he believed in.
Please show me him threatening to imprison journalists for for unfavourable coverage. Did he say dems should be publicly executed for being dems or did he say certain people should be publicly executed for crimes and they just say happened to be democrats.
Ohh u think by delete u mean ignore ur comment? No my friend this is my community I write the rules I am the rules I gain a lot by silencing decent but I tolerate it cos I'm more tolerant than you.
U have a very clear side and ur side is not one of reality. U claim to not condone violence yet quote the words written on the bullet in the assassination ur discussing. You claim to disagree with hypocracy while being a hypocritic. You claim moral superiority for doing this. You are delusional. You are batshit insane. And at this point I will no longer fight if the hard rights wants to drag u off the a concentration camp I will laugh knowing its what u deserve.
I will ban u if u don't engage in good faith and immediately cease with the insults and personal attacks.
Charlie Kirk compared abortion to the holocaust. He believes that even rape victims as young as 10 should have e to carry to term. This is something that shows his lack of empathy. Sure you save a babies life but at the cost of ruining the life of the mother who was raped.
Charlie Kirk supported gun deaths as the cost of freedom. Mighty ironic that he was killed by a gun, he would be happy I assume. Unless he’s the kind of the only moral abortion is my abortion.
Charlie Kirk constantly opposed LGBTQ+ rights. Which seems awful to me. Like I don’t care what other people do or do not do. It ain’t my business and if they ain’t hurting people then crack on. Surely a Christian would be happy to let people live as they choose, after all he’s willing to let them die so he can have a gun.
Charlie Kirk called global warming a hoax. Dudes a clown. A dead clown.
I disagree with his take on abortion but will defend his right to say it that is liberty and free speech. He supported gun deaths at the cost of freedom the same way we all support car accidents at the cost of modern society functioning. It is ironic yes, but irony is no justification for murder. Sadly we will never know the answer to what he would have though about it.
By opposed lgbt rights I think u mean he opposed t and supported everyone having the same rights. I assume I've seen the video of him ridiculing one of his own supporters for hating on the gays? His speech wasn't hurting anyone why try using it as justification for his murder perhaps you should live by your own moral standards?
Did he never seen his take on global warming but again his opinions do not justify his murder. Have a little compassion for the dead and if u can't manage that how about u practice some of ur famed empathy.
Ok. I’ll take back and not use that quote on the LGBQ stuff if you can provide a link to that video.
As I like to lead by example and show that I can accept correction and being told I was wrong and I will grow from that.
I’m not saying any of this is justification for his murder. I’m saying it’s justification for people not being sad about it.
Would be interesting to go back through your comment history to see if you supported the murder of Brian Thomson by Luigi Mangione to see if you supported that murder. For what it’s worth I did support that murder as we should send a message to people like him. But I don’t believe the same for Kirk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmcqjP8mhk
I don't believe I commented on Brian Thomas assassination except maybe to meme on the Americans about their fucked healthcare system and gloat about my Australian supremacy in that particular regard.
If u want my take tho here we go: Their is no moral justification for the murder of anyone Brian Thomson included. If you are to justify it then you must do so through the lens of warfare. Warfare is not a moral action it is the practised systematised usage of violence to achieve ends that cannot be achieved by other means. Morality has no power in the face of overwhelming violence. It is the execution of Darwinian selection by the strong upon the week. Luigi practised warfare to shift the balance of probability in favour of approving claims (lest u be shot) and it worked until black rock shifted them back by suing them for not being profitable enough. Their is no moral justification for warfare or such actions short of "I have the capacity for superior violence and I will use it to take what I want". Luigi is now finding out that he did not in fact have superior violence Brian Thomson did as he is backed by the rule of lsw and thus the states monopoly of violence. The best definition of a nation is an area in which a single entity holds a near monopoly on violence. Luigi will spend the rest of his life locked in a box experiencing the practised, systematised, and agreed upon near monopoly on violence the state holds.
This of course is closely linked with revolution as u get revolution when the rules of the system are considered unjust by the people who control said monopoly of violence. We have law and order and rules because we have all agree that we have these things. The second the monopoly on violence is held by someone who claims these things are different they utilise their monopoly of violence to change the rules in their favour. This is also an excellent justification for the second amendment (Charlie Kirk commented on exactly this). This is why the celebration of Charlie Kirk's assassination by the left is so monumentally stupid because if democracy and free speech fail they do not hold a monopoly on violence (the Republicans will be 2 for 2 when it comes to winning civil wars).
If the people own guns the people can collectively at any point come together to make monopoly of violence and impose their will upon those without. The intention behind the second amendment was this exact purpose. To ensure the continued ability for the people to revolt against their own government in the case of democracy failing. Democracy has only broken down once in american history at which point the people collectively came together to exercise their monopoly of violence against the confederates. This is the second amendment working as intended. Unfortunately the second amendment has been watered down to the point it can no longer fulfill its intended purpose. The second amendment in its original interpretation mandated that every conscriptable man had the right and obligation to receive military training and bear military weapons. This was of course borrowed from the Swiss as this is the same concept they used to become a free, independent, self determinant nation.
Thanks for the source. Very interesting if not terrifying that that dude got so many cheers and that people like Kirk are seemingly obsessed with a book written thousands of years ago. They don’t even stick to its teachings either. I’m sure half of America pretends to be religious as that’s how you get followers.
As to your point in law and order and violence. You’re correct that we all agree to a social contract and abide by laws etc. until that contract is broken, then people have nothing left to lose and you get a Luigi that takes matters into their own hands.
Well I'm not religious I believe we don't have sufficient evidence to confirm or deny the existence of god. To stick to one side and claim it with absolute certainty is plain ignorance, an atheist has just as much evidence against religion as Charlie has for it (except maybe he can quote a book of questionable reputation at you).
Ur almost certainly right if you've read Machiavelli's "The Prince” it comments on exactly this that to be leader you must appear to your follows to be religious. I would consider a religion in this specific context to be an agreed upon set of beliefs of your followers ie communism, wokism, Nazism, etc all qualify along with traditional religions.
Yep pretty much.
PS. Thanks for the civil good faith discussion I think it was insightful for both of us. I believe this is exactly what Charlie Kirk wanted to see in this world. I think he would have been honoured to see such civility and open communication between disagreeing parties in a time of such divide. See you round the fediverse my friend.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion too. Although I don’t agree that Charlie’s intentions were as you said but we can agree to disagree on that.
Have a great day.
I don't know what to say beyond "you're incorrect" but I'll try I guess. Unbiased? C'mon. Charlie wasn't some blind scale master.
Kirk’s promotion of free speech was tinged with hypocrisy, look atTurning Point USA’s “Professor Watchlist,” in which students were asked to list professors with leftist positions, for just the official tip of the fatberg
He said America wasn't fixated on race until 'The Left' started 'venerating' the 'awful person' that was MLK jr
Mr. Kirk believed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a destructive force in American politics, calling its passage a “mistake” that he said has been turned into “an anti-white weapon.”
He said people like me and my friends should be stoned to death in the streets just for being who we were born as.
He was a proponent of “replacement theory,” a once-fringe conspiracy theory positing that Jews are trying to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants. That ideology directly spread by Kirk motivated the gunman who killed 11 worshipers at a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018.
“The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country,” - Charlie Kirk, The Charlie Kirk Show, 2023
“America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank, large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America." -Charlie Kirk, April 2025
That's what he was, what his 'thought' was.
So in short I do not see how he was ever fair, balanced, or non hypocritical
Kirk promoted unbiased non hypocritical discussion not that he was himself unbiased and not hypocritical.
I'm not claiming he was fair or balanced he simply encourage discussions that where so.
Also why u bring up all the things he has said about the Jews? U also forgot the part where he refused to take funding from an Israeli backed Jewish organisation for turning point USA as he wanted to distance himself and give himself more freedom to talk about his concerns regarding Israel (gaza) and the Jews. This was 2 days prior to his assassination. Not to mention all the other inconsistencies related to his Israel's commentary on his assassination, and his commentary of Israel leading up to his assassination. I'm not saying anything but the coincidences are getting unrealistically numerous.