This was a dumb thing. Kirk was odious, sure, but of all the people to shoot…They didn’t even take a major player off the board, and the repercussions, the retribution, will not be worth it.
Purely from a hypothetical strategic standpoint: Kirk was one of the young household names being groomed to take the mantle of the angry, populist, old white regressive in the future.
A lot of the current generation are decrepit mummies and could drop dead at any minute, and building gravity for successors takes time. Kirk was also a relative outsider as a cheerleader, keeping the taint of disastrous administration off him.
Retribution is coming either way so you could argue the worst assassination attempt outcome would be giving him a bloody ear and a killer photo op. In that context it’s a decent longterm outcome for the violent opposition wing.
Of course we’ll have to see how the shooter motives and responses play out, nobody really knows.
Also from a tactical standpoint he was a young and influential merchant of hate. He’d inspired fascist propagandists. His death will make some potential ones hesitate.
People on the left will die for this, but they were going to start killing us anyways.
When it comes right down to it, people should have the right to be stupid and say stupid things. I hate watching my country collapse around me, and you can certainly draw a line from this asshole to our current situation, but words shouldn’t be punished by death.
I get why it happened and why people are celebrating, but he wasn’t one of the ones with blood on his hands. Figuratively, I mean.
I dunno. Words can kill. Presidents have ordered the assassination of people with words. I doubt hitler ever killed a single person himself. There is a line somewhere. It just hazy.
Yeah he became rich selling hatred. Julius Streicher was hanged despite being out of favor for the entirety of the third Reich. I believe in artistic freedom but at a certain point one’s art or speech is the sale of mass violence for profit
True, but should people also be protected from the consequences of their own idiocy? Until we can know more, I’m seeing this as a consequence of his talking shit.
Charlie Kirk was a mouthpiece for more powerful and wealthy people, and not particularly novel in his ideas or rhetoric. He can and will be replaced, so what does this even accomplish except to instigate what will no doubt be a disproportionate response?
Well, he’s dead, so that’s a plus. He died in an embarrassing way, so that’s also a plus. Maybe the next would-be shithead will decide “nah, I’m not going to be a right wing grifter. I might get shot dead like Charlie Kirk”. That’s probably the biggest plus.
This was a dumb thing. Kirk was odious, sure, but of all the people to shoot…They didn’t even take a major player off the board, and the repercussions, the retribution, will not be worth it.
Purely from a hypothetical strategic standpoint: Kirk was one of the young household names being groomed to take the mantle of the angry, populist, old white regressive in the future.
A lot of the current generation are decrepit mummies and could drop dead at any minute, and building gravity for successors takes time. Kirk was also a relative outsider as a cheerleader, keeping the taint of disastrous administration off him.
Retribution is coming either way so you could argue the worst assassination attempt outcome would be giving him a bloody ear and a killer photo op. In that context it’s a decent longterm outcome for the violent opposition wing.
Of course we’ll have to see how the shooter motives and responses play out, nobody really knows.
Also from a tactical standpoint he was a young and influential merchant of hate. He’d inspired fascist propagandists. His death will make some potential ones hesitate.
People on the left will die for this, but they were going to start killing us anyways.
When it comes right down to it, people should have the right to be stupid and say stupid things. I hate watching my country collapse around me, and you can certainly draw a line from this asshole to our current situation, but words shouldn’t be punished by death.
I get why it happened and why people are celebrating, but he wasn’t one of the ones with blood on his hands. Figuratively, I mean.
I dunno. Words can kill. Presidents have ordered the assassination of people with words. I doubt hitler ever killed a single person himself. There is a line somewhere. It just hazy.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
https://tubitv.com/movies/499705/becket?link-action=play&tracking=google-feed
Yeah he became rich selling hatred. Julius Streicher was hanged despite being out of favor for the entirety of the third Reich. I believe in artistic freedom but at a certain point one’s art or speech is the sale of mass violence for profit
True, but should people also be protected from the consequences of their own idiocy? Until we can know more, I’m seeing this as a consequence of his talking shit.
It definitely is a consequence of his own actions. I just think that’s a separate thing.
Charlie Kirk was a mouthpiece for more powerful and wealthy people, and not particularly novel in his ideas or rhetoric. He can and will be replaced, so what does this even accomplish except to instigate what will no doubt be a disproportionate response?
Well, he’s dead, so that’s a plus. He died in an embarrassing way, so that’s also a plus. Maybe the next would-be shithead will decide “nah, I’m not going to be a right wing grifter. I might get shot dead like Charlie Kirk”. That’s probably the biggest plus.