Charlie Kirk has passed away at just 31. No matter how people felt about his work, it’s always heavy to see a life end so suddenly. Moments like this remind us how fragile life is. 💔💔💔💔💔💔💜🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@Notmesam 1. Scholarship winner 2. From a God-fearing, educated, respectable family, respected in their community. 3. Student pursuing a trade. 4. Had friends, socially engaged, and reserved. 5. Independent thinker.
Yeah, let's go after all people with that profile... immediately.
@Notmesam Oh, so you say we ASSUME the usual suspect profile applies and without a care, a bother, or evidence, we go after people so we can stand up and shout... "we are doing something." The "usual" profile of these mass shooters is that they post messages on discussion forums (ones like this one), post them under anonymous names that they think are untraceable (ones like yours), and make outlandish declarations (like you have) to target specific groups of people based on stereotypes that "usually" suggest those declarations are excerpts from a much more detailed manifesto (do you have one?).
Are you stepping up as a "usual suspect?" If so, give me a 5-minute warning so I can rally everyone so that we can shout, "we are doing something..." in unison.
@MarkPaul I don't think they meant go after literally but I mean the rhetoric that Charlie Kirk, a Maga said was dangerous and fanned the flames. Go after could mean we need more public pressure non violently to end that kind of language.
Though I'm not sure if it's Kirk you're talking about as you never struck me as a kirk fan seeing as how you're anti Trump unless you became Maga last night.
@SatanBurger Ha. No, not hardly. The poster is indicating, based on his observations, there is a profile of the typical shooter-assassin. And simply based on that profile (based on his observations or anyone else's I suppose), he thinks we should "label" them and "go after them." Whether he means that literally as in physically or verbally or on social media that is exactly what we should not do. He claims that's an indication I am promoting doing nothing.
My point is each case needs to be investigated for evidence (as is being done) and we should not "go after" (in any manner, form, or operation) anyone based on a pre-formatted profile. As I pointed out from the evidence so far, this shooter doesn't fit a normal profile and if society goes after "his type" then it would be targeting people from "good" families, with stable relationships, who have shown no signs of instability, etc.
Regardless of who and what Charlie Kirk was and how inflammatory his rhetoric and his legacy he was in no formal position of power, he had no direct control over anyone, and he was not elected to anything. He was a citizen, and his crime that one lone guy executed for was speaking into a microphone. It's not a question of grieving or not grieving for Charlie Kirk. It's the acknowledgement of the tragedy of silencing someone for his spoken words (regardless for what he has said or of his true motives) by choosing to end his life. Again, Charlie Kirk used words. He possessed no formal power. Anyone who was influenced by him did so under their own free will and choosing. If killing someone for their spoken words is not a sign of fascism, then nothing is, but that certainly is not democracy. Likewise, banning books that only one group finds offensive and insists should be universally offensive is as wrong as murdering someone for speaking into a microphone. Unfortunately, most people who strut around pre-announcing themselves as "liberal" or "left" act as though only their ideals are acceptable.
Charlie Kirk is no hero. But, sadly, he is being held up as some moral standard by those who express the most outrage by the legacy of quotes that you have posted. Additionally, because he offered to aid and comfort the nutcase who hit Nancy Pelosi's husband over the head and cracked his skull and stated he didn't believe in empathy that seems to be reason enough for them to act in kind as it relates to his murder in cold blood. That's messed up... in the worst possible way.
Let's say the Democrats do successfully take back power. Is the hope, dream, and goal of those who call themselves "liberals" to carry on pedophile enthusiast Cry-Baby-trump's reign of terror, but against "the base?" If it is, that's a no-win strategy of total annihilation. That's not what I am signed up for. That's not a return to normalcy or democracy. Please don't fall into that trap.
