So, thanks to 2nd amendment 1st amendment is canceled.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
15 points (94.1% liked)
News Summary
175 readers
1 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 7 months ago
MODERATORS
top 28 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Seems the left doesn't like it when they are the ones getting cancelled. U reap what u sow
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.
Ignoring the fact that this just isn’t true.
What you’re essentially saying is that you don’t agree with people being cancelled but because it’s happening to someone you don’t like then you’re down with it.
That double standard doesn’t bother you?
U killed the guy who cared about double standards. Expect no more good faith or fairness in discussions with the right. I and many others on the right no longer care about being mortally consistent as long as the people we oppose lose. U called us hateful before u have yet failed to realise that was us being moderate.
I ain’t kill nobody and it remains to be shown why he did it.
U as in ur side of the political divide, anyone intelligent engaging in good faith could determine that. The evidence of the assassins associations and motives don't look good for you. The smart choice for the whole of the left would be jump on the mossad did it bandwagon there is a lot of evidence supporting it notable Charlie Kirk financially distancing himself from Israel due to wanting the ability to speak more freely on Israels actions in Gaza.
[–]
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)
(1 children)
I am going to reiterate as you seem to not understand.
It has not been shown who this kid affiliated with. It looks most likely that this is just a terminally online weirdo that didn’t really vote dems or reps although he comes from a right wing family.
I don’t care about what looks good for me as that seems messed up mate. I care about what is right and what is wrong. Murder like this is wrong whether “my guy” or “your guy” did it. This isn’t a team sport where I’ll defend my side until death. I will hold my own just as accountable as I would hold you. That’s what integrity is.
You just seem to be blinded by the fact that you’ve picked a side and must defend them until death which is fucking weird man. Like don’t you have morals that you live by? I’m a leftist and I’ll condemn anybody on the left that doesn’t align with my morals.
I can’t even comprehend having double standards like this. Like it literally does not compute for me.
Lived with their transgender partner doesn't sound very conservative to me.
Obviously murder over speech is wrong I'm glad we can agree on that many people on the left who I've been discussing this issue with are celebrating his death as though it where deserved and as though their is some justification for it.
I'm in the side of condemning the political extremism that promoted him to this violence and the political extremism that is allowing people to justify such actions. At the moment from all the evidence I've seen it is the far left that are promoting this sort of hanouse behaviour.
Politically I'm aligned with whoever I think will be most useful to achieve what I want. In this context Charlie is a very useful tool for promoting ideology I want ri sew in this world. Jesus only mattered because he died. Charlie is a martyr in just the same vein.
Politics is all about appearances and at the moment it spears as though a left wing extremist killed a moderate conservative for publicly engaging in free speech. The left has an unwinnable battle to defend themselves on this and will be utterly destroyed by the moderates who make up the majority. If the left adopts a position of blaming Israel it is beneficial to me as it fucks over the Israel lobby and Israeli aligned politicians as well as reduces the far left ideology and also reduces the risks of hard right extremists doing similar things in retribution possibly promoting civil war. Its beneficial to the left as it screws Israel for their actions in Gaza. And allows the hard left and hard right to establish a common enemy which will force all politicians to adopts said shared ideology lest they lose their most loyal voter base. Its a win win.
Not heard about him living with someone else. Care to share a source or 5 as that’s a bold claim and I’ve read countless articles.
Celebrating seems like a strong word. I’m indifferent to his death as many on the left are. Why would I be sad that a hateful person that wanted to dictate how regular people lived tbh wit lives was killed by some nutter who was online more than me. You say this like the prominent right wing people online were not calling for a damn civil war over this. Those being Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, and Libs of TikTok. I can share a screenshot of them advocating for war when they fought it was a leftie.
Again you’re missing the point that I’m saying I don’t know if he was a left or right person and we should wait. Honestly I think he was someone in the middle who was radicalised online, but even then he is more right wing than left if my understanding of the obscure meme references he wrote on the bullets.
As for ideology what place is it for you to push your beliefs on other people. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus Christ. I personally think it’s insane but I won’t judge you for it if you keep it to yourself and not try and push it on other people. The kid was a bloody Mormon but I ain’t how here trying to ban LDS. In fact my boss is LDS and although I can’t comprehend believing in this stuff he is the smartest and nicest person I’ve ever met. I don’t judge him for his belief and he doesn’t judge me for mine. He doesn’t what he can to make the people around him better and live his life as my boss and a minister of his church. He isn’t out here trying to ban people being gay because why the fuck would you want to.
If Jesus was real you think he would be a fan of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Cause if you do then you e not read the bible.
How would you like it if I tried to ban your religion because I don’t like it?
Here's 5: https://news.sky.com/story/charlie-kirk-suspect-tyler-robinson-was-in-romantic-relationship-with-transgender-roommate-utah-governor-13431020 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/14/charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-roommate https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/tyler-robinson-accused-of-killing-charlie-kirk-lived-with-transgender-partner-who-is-now-helping-fbi-report-9274199 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlie-kirks-assassin-lived-transgender-partner-who-now-cooperating-fbi-sources https://www.timesofisrael.com/utah-governor-charlie-kirk-murder-suspect-clearly-a-leftist-lived-with-trans-partner/
I didn't just say celebrating I said justifying u can go look through any comment chain on any lemmy post about Charlie and see exactly that.
Their u go justifying his murder under a thin hander of I don't care, but I care enough to write multiple paragraphs.
Yeah people on the right are calling for civil war. The right holds a monopoly on violence and if they choose to their is nothing u can do to stop them. This is what happens when u kill the moderate "let's talk it out guy" the extremists go extreme and take most of the moderates who just had their role model assassinated with them.
The sources I provided paint a pretty clear picture of his political affiliations. Ur undertaking of a song famously used by antifa must be seriously floored to think its right wing.
"As for ideology what what place is it for the gays to be out in public pushing their beliefs on society" that's literally ur argument and fucking retarded. Everyone has the right to advocate for their beliefs that's freedom of expression, that's free speech, that's liberty.
I assume you've seen this video where Charlie argues directly against the nanny of gay people? Or does that not for ur narrative?
For the record 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, you have just as much evidence against religion as Charlie has for it (except maybe he can quote a book of questionable reputation at you). Your both ignorant in this regard. But it is you who is mortally wrong to justify denying him the right express his beliefs as he pleases.
Although The Guardian is a source I would trust, I can see that all those links are quoting the Utah Gov who has already been shown to be an unreliable source in this case. So we will see how that pans out.
Again. There is a difference between justifying the murder and being unbothered by it. For someone that wants to defend Charlie or at least not have people celebrate his death I find it odd as Charlie himself has said gun violence is the price of liberty.
Would you have shed a tear for Hitler? Would people have celebrated his death? Now Charlie isn’t Hitler but you get the idea. Bad man dead I don’t care. I’m not saying I think we should go kill more bad men but I’m not going to mourn a bully who wouldn’t mourn me if I was shot in a school shooting.
Canceled for what? Mf was not enough right and deserved to die. At least we respect his wise words "empathy is woke and people getting shot is minor cost for gun allowance"
Are u referencing the clip where he says he prefers compassion to empathy? Or have u only seen the chopped up edited clip?
"Deserved to die" motherfucker u justify murder and u expect the right not to do the same when they send u off to a camp. They will take great pleasure in killing you and justifying it the same way u are here.
Actually the clip is about sympathy versus empathy. And that's not the least bit helpful.
People don't want pity. You would need to step in that person's shoes and empathize. People want solutions and you can't have a solution if you don't have the same problems.
Kirk was an inflammatory piece of human garbage and the world is better without him in it. Nice to see him get to enjoy the fruits of his own words. It was fitting as a sacrifice to say the least.
Funny enough that's the exact justification the right will use when they send u to a concentration camp. And if they don't sympathise with ur situation they can't possibly hope to empathise with it. Ill feel bad as u get dragged off the the gas chambers but then I'll remember this conversation and realise this is what u advocated for.