Husseinisdoingfine

Conservative activist, Charlie Kirk, has been shot and killed at University

1,523 posts in this topic

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No one is even taking about how his parents gave him the rifle.

Most of these shootings could be stopped if we raised the legal age to own a gun to like 25 and charged parents for giving their kids guns.

People below age 25 are too immature to own guns.

Yeah when I was 19 I wanted to end the world over all kinds of dumb stuff. The thought of using guns never occurred to me because they weren’t around me growing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Recursoinominado said:

Did you consider that what you believe about this issue might itself be an ideology? 

Please explain how. I literally crave to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

If Robinson didn't believe in transgenderism, why would he care about Charlie dismissing the value of transgenderism? What would have made Robinson want to murder Charlie?

If Robinson did believe in transgenderism, and he did have a boyfriend who identified as a transwoman, why would he not feel personally attacked by Charlie's constant criticism of gender identity?

Are murderers "stable?" If I'm misinterpreting this, correct me.

What do you mean by "believe in transgenderism"? If someone is gay, they don't have to "believe in being gay". This isn't computing for me. 

It's not common, but It's possible to be a relatively stable murderer. The human psyche is very dynamic. 

I explained why we simply can't know most of what you're claiming and you're not refuting anything I said, so I feel like you didn't process or address any of my points.

Edited by Joshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

What do you mean by "believe in transgenderism"? If someone is gay, they don't have to "believe in being gay". This isn't computing for me. 

It's not common, but It's possible to be a relatively stable murderer. The human psyche is very dynamic. 

I explained why we simply can't know most of what you're claiming and you're not refuting anything I said, so I feel like you didn't process or address any of my points.

Transgenderism is a belief system that puts value in subjectively identifying as the opposite sex. Identifying as the opposite sex is different from one's sexual orientation (whether someone is gay, lesbian, or bisexual). I think it makes no sense that the TQ+ was latched onto the LGB. For example, there is no LGB if transwomen can be "lesbians," because transwomen aren't female and never will be.

There's a big difference between murdering a man for raping our daughter vs murdering someone because they held mostly popular beliefs (Trump won again) we may strongly disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Transgenderism is a belief system that puts value in subjectively identifying as the opposite sex. Identifying as the opposite sex is different from one's sexual orientation (whether someone is gay, lesbian, or bisexual). I think it makes no sense that the TQ+ was latched onto the LGB. For example, there is no LGB if transwomen can be "lesbians," because transwomen aren't female and never will be.

There's a big difference between murdering a man for raping our daughter vs murdering someone because they held mostly popular beliefs (Trump won again) we may strongly disagree with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb-JIOWUw1o&list=RDJb-JIOWUw1o&start_radio=1

Sylvia Rivera was transgender though, and advocated for gay liberation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Transgenderism is a belief system that puts value in subjectively identifying as the opposite sex. Identifying as the opposite sex is different from one's sexual orientation (whether someone is gay, lesbian, or bisexual). I think it makes no sense that the TQ+ was latched onto the LGB. For example, there is no LGB if transwomen can be "lesbians," because transwomen aren't female and never will be.

Is it possible for a dick to tingle at the sight of a trans without having any beliefs about transgenderism? Of course it is. Therefore, it's possible that Robinson wasn't steeped in any belief system. You're conveniently making leaps to a conclusion you want to be the case, but you can't know yet. 

18 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

There's a big difference between murdering a man for raping our daughter vs murdering someone because they held mostly popular beliefs (Trump won again) we may strongly disagree with.

This doesn't address or refute my point about murder at all.

From the little info we have, this dude appears to be low in neuroticism. He's possibly an ISTP. These people are often highly physically competent, stoic, and lone-wolf types. I know a couple of these types. They could murk your ass and easily suppress it and not make a big deal about it. They're more stable than I am. lol. 

I think you're doing a lot of projecting, because we don't have enough info about his ways of the thinking yet. You may turn out to be right, but it's too early to tell. 

Edited by Joshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Please explain how. I literally crave to be proven wrong.

I don't know if it is possible to be proven, because it is a metaphysical realization you must have for yourself. You must be new here, because Leo talks about it in almost all of his videos.

First of all, i am not a pro-trans activist, i am a heterosexual white male, but i am progressive and think that we should accept LGBT+ people as they are. If a "biological man" feels like a woman, who i am to say he is wrong? The human brain/mind is very complex; we have all sorts of issues because of it that "normal animals" don't, so transexuality isn't really that surprising, although i don't really understand most of the time because i have a relatively normal brain. 

Basically, categorizations are man-made ideas; there is no "man and woman" in Reality with a capital R. We make these distinctions to make our lives easier, to master our environment, and knowledge is power. First of all, you must get this. The only reason you think "man and woman" is a solid and fixed category, kind of "how things really are," is because that's what you have learned, you normalized it because most people normalized it and never questioned. Also, most people think it's dangerous to question those things because, after all, you are questioning the foundations of Reality and that's threatening to the ego, which will disappear if you question Reality long enough.

In summary, that's your conservative brain; it is just afraid to question what you have learned, and progressives aren't as much afraid. 


From Brazil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Does "gay liberation" include the right for female safety (female-only spaces), privacy (female-only spaces), and fair play in sports?

Fortunately I became more interested in men after switching from testosterone injections to estrogen cream. And lost my sparse distorted (I use this term in reference to my self perception of it) sexual  attraction to women. So I am actually less likely to invade women's privacy than before transitioning.

Any ban on an entire class of people is wrong. If the fair play guidelines for women's sports excludes a few cis women so be it. There's people who are intersex and never went through puberty. Use something like those as guidelines because I never completed my normal male puberty due to my genetic disorder.


Some of the girls were beating me in cross country races. By two or three minutes.  I was doing everything my brothers were doing (they were near the top of mens' records) and finishing every race trying hard. But, hormones I guess. I had 10x less testosterone than cisgender women and I was born with XY chromosomes. So yeah, I'm going to say that hormones can determine athletic performance.

Edited by Talinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building the ISTP case:

Classic ISTP "action over words" pattern:

  • Minimal explanation for massive act
  • Left note, committed act, dealt with consequences - no manifestos or speeches
  • Treats assassination like fixing a broken machine - identify problem, apply solution, handle logistics

The entire sequence reads like Ti-Se in pure form: logical decision-making paired with tactical physical competence, with emotions only emerging for one specific person.

Ti-dominant (Introverted Thinking) evidence:

  • Every message is about solving logical problems: evidence trails, retrieval logistics, forensic concerns
  • "If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence" - pure if/then logical analysis
  • Emotionally massive event reduced to technical problem-solving
  • The decision to kill appears to have been made through internal logic ("Some hate can't be negotiated out") then simply executed

Se-auxiliary (Extraverted Sensing) evidence:

  • Hyperaware of immediate physical environment: "there's one vehicle lingering," "squad car parked right by it"
  • Focused on concrete objects: rifle, scope ($2k value noted), towel, keyboard
  • Real-time tactical adaptation: changed outfits, monitoring police movements, assessing escape windows
  • Comfort with physical action and weapons ("grandpa's rifle")

Ni-tertiary (Introverted Intuition) evidence:

  • Week of planning shows some future projection ability
  • Single-minded focus once decision was made
  • The "notices bulge uwu" bullet engravings suggest dark symbolic thinking

Fe-inferior (Extraverted Feeling) evidence:

  • Only emotional expression is toward one person (the lover) - "you are all I worry about love"
  • No broader social/emotional consideration for victims, community impact, etc.
  • Struggles to manage father's emotional expectations (avoiding dad's calls)
  • Final surrender shows inferior Fe breaking through - concern for lover's wellbeing overrides Ti logic

 

Line-by-line breakdown:

drop what you are doing, look under my keyboard.” — Terse, procedural command; pre-stashed item → direct, tactical ISTP (Ti–Se).

Note under keyboard (“…take out Charlie Kirk…”) — Opportunistic, decisive action framed bluntly → Se action + Ti brevity.

“I am still ok… stuck in Orem… gotta grab my rifle…” — Status + logistics, not feelings → detached problem-solving (Ti), concrete details (Se).

“hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.” — Lone-wolf secrecy → Introversion (I).

“I am, I’m sorry.” — Minimal emotion; just the fact, then a brief apology → low-Fe, Ti-first.

“they grabbed some crazy old dude… drop point… lockdown… one vehicle lingering.” — Live situational scanning, police patterns → Se tactical awareness.

“I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” — One-line moral rationale, then back to ops → Ti over Fe; emotion kept brief.

“If I can grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence… going to attempt to retrieve it again.” — Forensics, opsec, next-step calculus → Ti troubleshooting.

“a bit over a week.” — Short planning horizon → Perceiving (P) over Judging.

“squad car parked right by it… they already swept that spot… don’t wanna chance it.” — Risk assessment from concrete cues → Se + Ti.

“wishing I had circled back…” — After-action self-critique and adaptive thinking → Ti iterative optimizer.

“grandpa’s rifle… serial number… prints… left in a bush… towel.” — Gear + evidence minutiae → Se mechanics + Ti forensics.

“engraving bullets… messages mostly a big meme… ‘notices bulge uwu’.” — Tinkering + dark, distancing humor → Ti–Se tinkerer, affect kept cool.

“delete this exchange.” — Crisp opsec directive → decisive Ti.

“dad wants photos… rifle is very unique… not answering.” — Information control over emotion → Ti control, low Fe.

“since Trump got into office my dad… diehard maga.” — Flat, factual context (no rumination) → Ti reporting, not Fe venting.

“I’m gonna turn myself in… neighbor is a deputy.” — Pragmatic cost–benefit pivot → Ti realism under pressure.

“you are all I worry about love.” — Narrow, selective warmth → inferior Fe pattern.

“don’t talk to media… ask for a lawyer… stay silent.” — Procedural/legal protocol, crisis composure → Ti plan + Se steadiness.

Edited by Joshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard not to have empathy for him after analyzing the texts. I feel sorry for the kid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That word "vehicle" really does stick out like a sore thumb for a 22yo. 

Hard to say for sure, that's what I hate about this FBI the most. Can't trust them.

Edited by Talinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem like the bullet etchings were ideological. 

The bullet etching reveals a complex ISTP psychological pattern:

Craftsmanship as self-soothing (Ti-Se loop):

  • ISTPs often do detailed handwork when stressed - it's meditative for them
  • The physical act of engraving gives Ti something precise to analyze while Se manipulates tools
  • He's literally working through his decision to kill by working on the bullets

Leaving a "maker's mark":

  • ISTPs take pride in their work, even when dark
  • Like a craftsman signing his piece, but perverted into violence
  • The week of planning likely included hours of careful engraving - this wasn't impulsive

Control through absurdity:

  • By making it partly a joke, he maintains Ti detachment from the enormity of what he's doing
  • It's a way to feel in control - "I'm not emotional about this, it's partially funny"
  • Classic ISTP defense mechanism: when overwhelmed, retreat into technical work and dark humor

The ultimate "inside joke":

  • Only he knew what was on those bullets during the shooting
  • If found, investigators would be baffled by "uwu" on attempted assassination evidence
  • It's trolling that requires physical skill to execute - not just typing online

Mechanizing death:

  • By focusing on engraving technique, bullet grain, rifle precision, he turns murder into a technical project
  • The etching time was probably when he was actually deciding to go through with it
  • Each stroke of the engraving tool was him committing deeper to the act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Talinn said:

That word "vehicle" really does stick out like a sore thumb for a 22yo. 

Hard to say for sure, that's what I hate about this FBI the most. Can't trust them.

They'd be taking too big of a risk to fabricate the texts. The roommate could easily squeal. 

Also, those texts are actually detrimental to the whole "far left trans-rotting brain disease caused this" narrative. 

Edited by Joshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@carterfelder For now, here's what I think the actual situation is:

xjQ4l0c.png

Edited by Joshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The distinction is ideological political violence vs. reactive political violence. Robinson's appears to be the latter - still political in nature, just not aimed at advancing a cause."

This is the best we can conclude from the existing evidence, which looks most likely at this point. And of course if this is true, it will be rejected by the right, as it's detrimental to their enormous opportunity to sow maximum division and advance their movement. 

Sorry @carterfelder But "Radical trans activist executes conservative speaker as part of broader leftist violence." doesn't appear to be true up to this point.

Edited by Joshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

People below age 25 are too immature to own guns.

The rest of the world consider any age too immature to give citizens access to guns. But hey, America!

I remember once listening to a kid being interviewed just after a mass shooting in his school: "We were in class and suddenly we hear shots from a semi-automatic rifle." Like how the hell do you have so much gun expertise. For outsiders, it's just very surprising that kids are able to recognise the precise type of gun just by hearing it.

Edited by Davino

God-Realize, this is First Business. Know that unless I live properly, this is not possible.

There is this body, I should know the requirements of my body. This is first duty.  We have obligations towards others, loved ones, family, society, etc. Without material wealth we cannot do these things, for that a professional duty.

There is Mind; mind is tricky. Its higher nature should be nurtured, then Mind becomes Wise, Virtuous and AWAKE. When all Duties are continuously fulfilled, then life becomes steady. In this steady life GOD is available; via 5-MeO-DMT, because The Sun shines through All: Living in Self-Love, Realizing I am Infinity & I am God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2025 at 7:37 PM, Moutushi said:

@Leo Gura I think you've mentioned many valid points of criticism regarding all this. However, I do feel that a slightly more balanced view of this situation would be helpful.

The statement below by Charlie shows that not all that he said was vile, bigoted, propaganda, etc. Despite the valid criticism of many of the things he said, there was some good in some of the things he said.

When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.

What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement—where violence is not an option." - Charlie Kirk

I went back and watched some of his debates at the universities.   He did have some good points in some areas so not all of his stuff was in my opinion close minded.   I think his allegiance to the BIble and Christianity limited him but that is what it is.  I think he made some valid points on the Abortion argument.   But you can argue that both ways.  The problem is he never really gave the students a chance when it came to some of the arguments.  But some of his points on Abortion and Immigration had merit. Although like I said you can make arguments for both sides.  


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2025 at 11:53 AM, Elliott said:

 

 

The party against violence, everyone, the party of love! Coming to a church near you!

WWJD, kill em!

Calling them fascist is inciting violence though.

@Inliytened1 Kilmeade is a POS Nazi

It was only a matter of time before you lost your cool. Not a very good example of what you defend....hence the warning Leo gave you.  


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I’ve had a few days to process it, for some reason Charlie Kirk’s death feels like it’s hit me harder than all the other killings we’ve seen since… well, who knows.

I mean, why does his death feel more impactful than Melissa Hortman and her husband's? Both deaths are equally tragic, yet Charlie’s hits me harder for some reason. Was it just because we actually saw his death?

But then what about all the other shootings I’ve seen online? I remember seeing footage the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which was disturbing, but again didnt hit me as hard. Was it just because I didn’t know those people, yet was familiar with Kirk? 

Is it just because he was a media personality? I’ve seen his face in countless YouTube thumbnails. But being an online commentator doesn’t make you any less mortal than anyone else. 

Is it because he specifically said he was open to debate as a way to avoid political violence? As much as I’ve criticised right-wing politics, I don’t think Kirk was as repulsive as the Stephen Millers and Nick Fuentes of the world. He didn’t strike me as someone as a “true believer” in white supremacy or fascism or anything like that. Don’t get me wrong, I still think his words were useful for worse actors to use, but he himself strikes me as just a typical Trumpist conservative - not an actual neo-Nazi or anything like that. But then again, would that mean killing an even more radical, violent Trumpist be justified? It’s hard not to feel affected by them when their words (and often actions) directly harm people, even to the point of death. What about all the family’s Stephen Miller has ruined? Or, hell, what about the police officers Trump got killed in Jan 6th? Right-wing extremism gets people killed if left unchecked. But then, does that mean even they deserve to die? How can you live in a world where some people want you dead, but then not wish them dead in turn? But then, what happens if they do actually try to harm you, or people you care about? Are you supposed to just roll over and take it? How can you rightfully say you’re against injustice if you’re prepared to fight against it?

Man, I don’t bloody know. This is too confusing.

Edited by Apparition of Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now