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

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Hatfort said:

I don't know, this furry thing is quite new. I'm a 90's kid, and there were plenty of cartoons with animal-people too, but I don't think this got to be a thing for anyone in my generation after growing up. It's very weird. Besides, why did they leak this intimate internet fetish information about him? 

Another video analysis critical of the FBI narrative that I've found.

 

Those 90s kids grew up and became the first furry movement. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Raze

[Inliytened1]

21 hours ago, Joshe said:

 

When someone calls someone a Nazi, what they mean is, the person not only supports most of these list items, but they do so very seriously, consciously, and with pride. 

Irs not that they do so very seriously they are just an extreme version of them.  A fascist would take it seriously as well- but how to the exteme would they take things.   Since Nazis were Fascists they were just an extreme form of fascism. But they also felt their race was superior above all other races and thus condoned and even promoted genocide.  This is a key thing about genocide. The Nazis committed genocide because they felt their race was superior and weaker races especially the ones they held the most hatred for needed to be wiped out. Which I don't feel by the way is the position of Israel.  And also there is a contemporary, loose use of the word which just refers to the  authoritarianism aspect and not the rest. Ot do they mean they think they will committ even genoicde to achieve their goal.  Concentration camps and the like? Thats how Leo is using it. And I think this presents problems when you throw a term like Nazi around so loosely.

Also to call someone a fascist how do you really know they are anti-democracy.  Did Kirk ever say that or did Fuentes? That's a big one.  You say they have to meet most of the criteria but I think this one would be key to being a fascist along with feeling your race is superior.  Hard to know that's in a lot of these right wing activists or politicians' hearts but the left labels them anyway.

Edited 19 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

15 hours ago, zurew said:

Wait what do you think wouldn't be applicable to Fuentes from your list?

Surely you dont think that he is for democracy, right?

Where are your facts that he isn't. I admit i don't know a lot about him but if you do then where is he coming out with where he is anti-democracy?    The list i made is pretty strong - and it was a list of what a Nazi is. So I guess you'll have to provide facts where he he would commit genocide too.  The white Christian national is racially superior and the rest need to be wiped out. Or maybe we are just using the loose definition of the word.  Right? Where maybe he supports authoritarianism.  Meanwhile they say the same thing about Trump too and we still have a democracy.  It seems the only revolution that will take place might be from the left.

Everytime I ask YOU a direct question you deflect....so i don't expect anything different here.   I also never said the left was worse.  I questioned whether the left's belief that the right is worse is valid.

Edited 18 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Jodistrict]

A Christian church plays an AI generated clip of Charlie Kirk talking from the grave.   A new disturbing use of AI in propaganda.  

 

https://x.com/i/status/1969222601139765437

 

[Hatfort]

5 hours ago, Raze said:

Those 90s kids grew up and became the first furry movement. 

Movement? Is it even a movement now? Just an internet fetish that I thought of. But no, 90s kids, young-adults and teenagers during the 2000s, there was nothing like that in or out of the internet, there was nothing remotely like that in the conversations, and neither a word for it, it's new as fuck. There were animal-people cartoons for the 80s kids too.

Better or worse, I won't say, but this is very new.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

19 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Movement? Is it even a movement now? Just an internet fetish that I thought of. But no, 90s kids, young-adults and teenagers during the 2000s, there was nothing like that in or out of the internet, there was nothing remotely like that in the conversations, and neither a word for it, it's new as fuck. There were animal-people cartoons for the 80s kids too.

Better or worse, I won't say, but this is very new.

Very new???

Just one example - the series Entourage even featured the furry fetish. Episode 07 or series 04 'The Day Fuckers' that aired 2007:

https://youtu.be/RqkoyMQpvRc?si=xi_jEaNMMWY44yck

Kids in primary school I knew talked about it - which is where I first heard about it (90s).

Communities been around for a while.

[Inliytened1]

On 9/18/2025 at 5:11 PM, TrustTheProcess said:

@Inliytened1

 

So because Hamas started it, the IDF is justified in killing and starving 100k+ children?

What is your threshold for volume of starving babies before it becomes a problem for you? Lower than international consensus of diplomats and legal experts surely, but is there a quantification? 

You can make it sound as ugly as you want but Hamas would stop at nothing at this point to destroy Israel as well.   So you call try to call out all of the ugly facts of war but a human is a human right?  Kids, adults.  They are all human lives. I know you guys don't agree with me here but the argument has been presented here before that when Israel tried to make amends they were met with bombs.  Hamas wants to take them out, period. You can make the argument of war crimes being committed but that can be perceived on both sides.  The volume only being different because of the ebb snf flow of opposing forces. 

We talked about this before but was Hiroshima genocide? Many of you think it was but it was war.  We just discussed what defines genocide.  What would have happened had Hitler won?

Edited 14 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Rafael Thundercat]

Well. I will just drop this here. 

https://youtu.be/zt09nzN7Z94?si=Ke8VUF8qD7g-susc

 

[carterfelder]

 

[Jodistrict]

The Kirk killing is being used for propaganda at a level never seen before.  There is now a Kirk memorial, although children killed in school shooting don’t even get a mention from Republicans.  This is a very similar propaganda strategy to the cult of Nazi Martyrs.

“The forthcoming memorial for Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, will have Super-Bowl-level security measures, as the event was designated a Special Event Assessment Rating (SEAR) Level 1 advent.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5513674-man-detained-charlie-kirk-memorial-arizona/

 

[Hatfort]

I gotta link Candace Owens again. A guy enters the crime scene to take the cameras that were hanging on the backside of the tent. It's a fucking crime scene, you are not supposed to touch anything, and even less a camera that may content footage of the crime!! WTF?

I'll also link Kyle Kulinsky, Krystal Ball, and Cenk Uygur discussing the case, they comment on the information made public. 

Also, can't they release the autopsy? Did the bullet stay inside the body, because it didn't seem to get out in any of the images? Did it get stuck in the neck? 

[Elliott]

32 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

 

charlie Kirk said he would enjoy public executions, what's your point? "That will make my day better" kirks words on publicly executing people just like he was.

You'd lose it if you read about the French revolution!

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

There's an enormous moral difference between arguing for the public execution of certain heinous criminals vs being a man killed in front of his family for expressing non-violent opinions shared by myself and a significant percentage of America who had enough common sense to vote for Donny T.

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

There's an enormous moral difference between arguing for the public execution of certain heinous criminals vs being a man killed in front of his family for expressing non-violent opinions shared by myself and a significant percentage of America who had enough common sense to vote for Donny T.

Kirk expressed violent opinions.

He didn't say heinous criminals, he supported death sentences for petty criminals and non-criminals. Do you know how many on death row have been exonerated? Guess. Kirk opposed due process for people given the death sentence, he opposed the appeal process "Kill them quick".

There is objectively zero difference between a convicted murderer sentenced to death by 12 men, and the 12 people your interviewer interviewed that was okay with Kirk's death.

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

Does having what you'd consider bad or awful opinions justify public execution (right in front of one's family)?

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Does having what you'd consider bad or awful opinions justify public execution (right in front of one's family)?

Of course not. Neither does conviction of murder. I would oppose the death sentence for Hitler.

Has nothing to do with the way people are though, you say violent things, violent things tend to come your way.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

16 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Of course not. Neither does conviction of murder. I would oppose the death sentence for Hitler.

Has nothing to do with the way people are though, you say violent things, violent things tend to come your way.

Good, but his death shouldn't be celebrated. Legally I support anyone's right to celebrate anyone's death, but morally it's sick and wrong to celebrate or brush off Charlie's death like it's nothing.

I think anyone who carelessly leaves a country's border open to allow illegal immigrants into the country should be severely punished.

It's not difficult to find controversial or uncomfortable opinions from any major influencer's past, especially if they are honest and transparent. I would argue it's best to express your honest and controversial opinions to others in order to really feel through them and get the feedback you need to refine yourself and your beliefs.

Edited 3 hours ago by carterfelder

[Elliott]

17 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Good, but his death shouldn't be celebrated. Legally I support anyone's right to celebrate anyone's death, but morally it's sick and wrong to celebrate or brush off Charlie's death like it's nothing.

Who are you to dictate how people should feel or act? Get over yourself. And, do you condemn Kirk for celebrating public execution, because there's zero difference.

 

Quote

I think anyone who carelessly leaves a country's border open to allow illegal immigrants into the country should be severely punished.

You're demented.

Quote

It's not difficult to find controversial or uncomfortable opinions from any major influencer's past, especially if they are honest and transparent. I would argue it's best to express your honest and controversial opinions to others in order to really feel through them and get the feedback you need to refine yourself and your beliefs.

Unless it's something YOU oppose! "but his death shouldn't be celebrated", "be severely punished."

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

Thanks for deleting your insults / name-calling. I love you too.

Edited 3 hours ago by carterfelder

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, carterfelder said:

Does having what you'd consider bad or awful opinions justify public execution (right in front of one's family)?

No.

And the left has never called for executions nor is the left happy about it. But we warned that electing an authoritarian will lead to political violence, which is exactly what happened and will continue to happen.

The right cannot elect authoritarians and then act surprised that violence follows. Trump has been stoking division and violence from day one, for 10 years. And Kirk was all for that kind of politics.

You can't elect leaders like Hitler and Mussolini and then act surprised when violence follows. When you elect fascists the only way to get rid of them in the end is with violence. Which is why electing them in the first place is wrong.

Yes, in the end the left will resort to violence to end tyranny. That's not a mistake, that's how this works. Right-wingers are just too selfish and ignorant to understand that.

If Trump keeps going down the road he's going there will be a lot more violence because people do not sit nicely by while you abuse them, dehumanize them, and take away their freedoms.

The error of right-wingers is they think they can dehumanize others without grave consequences to yourselves. That is the narcissism of people like Charlie Kirk. He thought he could go around dehumanizing and oppressing minorities without it backfiring on him.

If you dehumanize anyone long enough, you will live to regret it. To expect otherwise is dumb.

The problem is that fans of Charlie Kirk are not conscious enough to understand that he made a career out of dehumanizing fellow citizens. So they act shocked and outraged when he gets natural blowback, like Kirk was just this sweet innocent guy. Kirk was a key architect and cheerleader for a politics of dehumanization. This is what the right at large is in denial about and blind to.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura