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

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Elliott said:

conservatives have called for Obama to be killed for 15 years

No major conservative has called for that. You are talking about crazy extremists.

And progressives call for Bush and Cheney to be punished as war crimimals, but that's not the same thing.

[Leo Gura]

46 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Uh, no

11:20

 

What does this prove? A 50 cal anti-vehicle round?

[Jehovah increases]

Shame Mythbusters are gone, they could replicate this one. When JFC was shot in the head, did his body move back and forth, or was he still?

A bullet's kinetic energy must be transferred upon impact, where it is converted into various forms of energy, including damage and movement of the target, internal energy that generates heat, and strain energy that deforms the bullet and the target. This transfer of energy, often called impact energy or ballistic energy, is the mechanism by which a bullet causes injury or damage. Silly YouTube with these age restrictions. The vid is called  Assassinat de John F. Kennedy. Newton's third law". And of course it depends on the calibre being used and other factors as well.

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Jehovah increases

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, ExploringReality said:

This is profound. I am looking from the right wing side, and connecting it to your episodes understanding the liberal mind and the conservative mind, and my entire sense of reality is bending in this weird paradox. 

Now, looking from the opposite perspective I can choose to suspend my judgement or be mindful of my actions and reactions, rather than lashing out or defending from one side.

I am my political opponents, we are each other. It's fucking twisted 

Good. Some progress.

[Hatfort]

Yeah, if we flipped what happened into a leftist being in Kirk's place, the same things would be happening on the other side, and they would be equally wrong. The whole right would be blamed, like the whole left is being blamed now, and that would be wrong, at least as far as we don't know that this guy was part of any organization, and acted on his own, if we take that premise as the correct one. There would be people celebrating it online, and it would be wrong. If you celebrate someone who had so much following being shot, what do you expect? This kind of behavior has to be denounced from the left now, when it happens is when you gotta do it. Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to die like this, and I didn't like him, neither his fundamentalist ideas. Has to be also said that it's not the same the responsibility of political figures than to random TikTokers, and I'm talking especially about Trump now, the president no less. A good leader would try to build bridges, not to fuel the fire of hate, which is what he is doing.

This being said, the facts of the event are not clear yet, and the information made public by the FBI has flaws. It's insane that the autopsy has not been released and verified to stop the speculations about the bullets, vests, and holes. Instead we got an informal report about miracles and magic. 

As previous times, I'm sharing videos that I think offer at least good images or and analysis to understand what happened, whatever it was. The next one has very good aereal images of the Campus and the different shooting lines.

And apparently, they've cemented the area where it happened. The tent was standing on grass, now it's cement and bricks, according to this guy, that's what the students are saying, and it can be compared in the images too. Another big anomaly, added to the list. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Hatfort

[Jodistrict]

14 hours ago, Joshe said:

I say allow your emotions but modulate their expressions in public. You can be happy that Kirk died and that’s fine if that’s what you feel, but if we put out a gleeful expression, we look like fools with no civility. It’s mostly about optics. 

I follow the Yoga Sutras.   Pantanjali said that you should treat a wicked man with indifference.

[Inliytened1]

13 hours ago, Elliott said:

It's not a conspiracy theory. Theory would be an answer,

It is and it isn't.  If the FBI came out with an official statement on this and then you opposed that with your own theory then technically that would be a conspiracy theory.  But since they really haven't yet any theory not validated by the official release from the FBI could be considered conspiracy.  On the other hand since they haven't all you have are theories at this point.  So it depends on how you look at it.

Personally I think they haven't because:

1. It doesnt matter

2. They are right wing and it matters even less 

Hes dead.  The shooter has been captured and the footage shows the bullet going through the neck. 

It's a waste of man hours to spend.  But for you tubers focused on views then maybe it's not a waste. 

I agree if this was the President there would be cause for a deeper investigation and reports of such investigation.  And if it were a democratic President we would probably be asking for that even more.  This would be to rule out a 2nd shooter from different directions etc.  So I do think they should release something and it seems very hush hush from the right at this point.  That is kind of suspect but also again this wasn't the President either.

Edited 10 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:

Pantanjali said that you should treat a wicked man with indifference.

That seems wise regarding how we physically or verbally express ourselves to the wicked one, but being indifferent to wickedness in mind sets up a trap of rejecting reality and shirking responsibility. 

If we judge someone as "wicked", should we feel nothing? I believe it should be acknowledged and the emotions that stir from that acknowledgment be allowed.

Maybe it's best to view it from two perspectives: inner cultivation and external responsibility. 

From the perspective of spiritual development, we should avoid the trap of ruminating too much on wickedness and letting it consume us, but from the perspective of worldly responsibility, rampant wickedness needs resistance.

So, balance and restraint. 

Just my current opinion. I'm sure Pantanjali was much wiser than me. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Joshe

[Jodistrict]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

That seems wise regarding how we physically or verbally express ourselves to the wicked one, but being indifferent to wickedness in mind sets up a trap of rejecting reality and shirking responsibility. 

If we judge someone as "wicked", should we feel nothing? I believe it should be acknowledged and the emotions that stir from that acknowledgment be allowed.

Maybe it's best to view it from two perspectives: inner cultivation and external responsibility. 

From the perspective of spiritual development, we should avoid the trap of ruminating too much on wickedness and letting it consume us, but from the perspective of worldly responsibility, rampant wickedness needs resistance.

So, balance and restraint. 

Just my current opinion. I'm sure Pantanjali was much wiser than me. 

Context.   The goal of the yoga sutras in samadhi.   You simply can’t achieve a peaceful mind if you let an evil man stir up emotions inside of you.  It doesn’t say anything about taking actions to protect or not.  However, in the present situation of an evil man meeting misfortune, indifference means something like neither celebrating nor expressing sorrow.  It seems to be prudent advice in this particular situation.

Edited 9 hours ago by Jodistrict

[Leo Gura]

Patajali said, Vote MAGA!

[Leo Gura]

14 hours ago, Elliott said:

There's no scoreboard.... 

But there is. If some conservative guy killed AOC, you would count that against conservatives. So don't pretend you are too enlightened to keep a scoreboard. You count acts of political violence against your political opponents as proof of their depravity and inferiority to your side.

Leftists want to say that the right is more violent and dangerous than the left. Well, that requires keeping a scorecard if you want to be fair and scientific about it.

How do you know the right is more dangerous than the left unless you make that an empirical matter? Who kills more humans, right or left? You can't assume the answer, you must empirically test it. So here we are.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

14 hours ago, Elliott said:

There's no scoreboard.... This is such a weird take, conservatives have called for Obama to be killed for 15 years, you're worried about offending them with one random guy saying "rest in piss". I wouldn't count anything against their side, it's not a game..... there's not teams..... this is such a Mickey mouse way of looking at things.

 

Not all right wingers or conservatives side with Kirk. Kirk was too wrapped up with Chirstianity in my opinion.  There are many conservatives who also didn't like him.   I'm more moderate but I think he said a lot of stuff that came off as bigoted and arrogant.   So while I am not dancing on his grave I am not afraid to talk about him.  On the flipside he made a few good points on abortion and immigration.  Either way he had the balls to get in front of crowds and speak his mind.  He had a beautiful family with traditional values - something you don't see much of anymore.  And he was a caring father.  So as a human being I think we should take a step back and just pay our respects.   Then we can go on with our criticism

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Inliytened1

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Patajali said, Vote MAGA!

A true visionary.

[Inliytened1]

On 9/10/2025 at 3:10 PM, Leo Gura said:

When tyranny and corruption hold power, political violence becomes the norm. This was expected.

 

Lots of assumptions here.  Defending child rapists (and the Epstein files haven't been released) has nothing to do with fascism 

The problem with your argument is that democracy isn't ceasing to work and the current administration being fascism is highly subjective.   But the term's affiliation with Nazism spreads fear and panic into the general population - having a profound impact on the young and impressionable.   That is where the violence is happening now not due to a failure or dissolution of democracy. 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Defending child rapists (and the Epstein files haven't been released) has nothing to do with fascism 

It has everything to do with corruption, which is at the core of right-wing populism and MAGA.

American democracy is insanely corrupt and MAGA is corrupting it more each day because they are corrupt truthless morons. As they corrupt democracy more each day more and more violence will happen. It could not be otherwise.

There must be a cost for a monster like Trump wielding power. MAGA are such fools they don't understand that.

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But there is. If some conservative guy killed AOC, you would count that against conservatives. So don't pretend you are too enlightened to keep a scoreboard. You count acts of political violence against your political opponents as proof of their depravity and inferiority to your side.

Leftists want to say that the right is more violent and dangerous than the left. Well, that requires keeping a scorecard if you want to be fair and scientific about it.

How do you know the right is more dangerous than the left unless you make that an empirical matter? Who kills more humans, right or left? You can't assume the answer, you must empirically test it. So here we are.

That actually has been empirically studied recently. I'll see if I can track down the study.

According to the study there is a decent amount more right-wing political violence. If memory serves, there are roughly twice as many instances of  right wing political violence compared to left wing political violence. (I was wrong... there's about 5 times more right wing violence than leftwing violence)

But that's only if we're keeping score, of course.

And because of the observation of stochastically violence-inducing rhetoric from the far right in its current form over the past 10 years, I think it would be a fair assessment of the sentiment behind a lot of the far right values... which boils down to the suppression and annihilation of the "scapegoated other." And this rhetoric gets more and more normalized in the Overton Window month by month.

So, I would be contextually more inclined to see the violent targeting of a leftwing political figure as simply the logical expression of those far right authoritarian values as carried out by violent actors on that side of the aisle who have been inflamed by that rhetoric... which is the ultimate intention of stochastic terrorist rhetoric.

I wouldn't see it as an aberration of some rogue actor... but as the intention and the logical conclusion of the popular far right propaganda and rhetoric.

It's sort of like how, when Matt Walsh claimed some children's hospital was genitally mutilating small children and forcibly "transing" them... and then the most violent listeners of his went and called in all sorts of bomb threats to that children's hospital.

Or like when Alex Jones claimed that the parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims were paid actors. And the craziest among his viewers went and harassed and threatened violence against them... and one of the fathers even committed suicide because of it.

I see that kind of violence as the logical conclusion of that rhetoric... as the rhetoric itself is about inducing a crowd to commit violence.

It would be like if a popular rock band refused to play their set until a the crowd murders and dismembers a specific member of the audience. In a crowd of 10,000 probably about 99% of them would refuse and 75% of people would be appalled. But there would be about 100 people in that crowd that would be bee-lining their way to the victim to tear them limb from limb because the band told them to. And then, 25% of people would be secretly or openly glad that those 100 people tore the audience member to pieces... because they really like the band.

So, I think it's perfectly fair to say that the intention of the popular far right wing rhetoric is to have the most violent people in the base go into vigilante mode and enact political violence.

It's not just a looney toon doing a looney toon thing. The intention is to ignite the looney toons of the base into doing violence.

And the left has no such equivalent to that... at least in our current time among popular leftwing pundits and political figures. I'm not saying that it couldn't' happen. But I'm saying that leftwing violence is not normalized or institutionalized in any way. And most far lefties that would be advocating for such things would be pushed back on vehemently by other lefties.

So, if some rogue extreme leftie kills a right winger, I'm more likely to chalk it up to perhaps being in a very fringe militant echo chamber that the vast majority of people on the left disagree with.

If some rogue extremist righty kills a left winger, I'm going to assume that they're being influenced by extremely popular right wing sentiments that many people on the right agree with but probably wouldn't act on in that way unless they were following orders by someone in power... but would absolutely act on if someone in power allowed them to.

I would see it as the logical conclusion of the popular rhetoric... because it is.

Edit: I couldn't find the study because the US DOJ scrubbed it from their website after Charlie Kirk was shot...

But here's a link that talks about the article and the scrubbing of it...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/justice-department-study-far-right-extremist-violence

And here's a quote to share the findings of the study...

"The vanished study opened with: “Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”"

Edited 5 hours ago by Emerald

[PurpleTree]

Don’t take it too seriously 

Gosh i used to love these conspiracy theories when I used to smoke weed.

[Leo Gura]

@Emerald Of course right-wingers are more violent. But we only know that by keeping a scorecard.

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

@Emerald Of course right-wingers are more violent. But we only know that by keeping a scorecard.

Yes, I added what I could find of the scorecard. But the DOJ scrubbed the study from their website after the Charlie Kirk shooting.

But here's what was found in the study...

The vanished study opened with: “Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

[Inliytened1]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It has everything to do with corruption, which is at the core of right-wing populism and MAGA.

American democracy is insanely corrupt and MAGA is corrupting it more each day because they are corrupt truthless morons. As they corrupt democracy more each day more and more violence will happen. It could not be otherwise.

There must be a cost for a monster like Trump wielding power. MAGA are such fools they don't understand that.

Being corrupt truthless morons isn't evidence of democracy eroding away.   I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong but at the same time saying someone is taking a chisel to democracy in a slow discrete fashion is highly subjective.  The more accurate depiction would be that Trump has authoritative characteristics that could impact democratic law but rather than saying he's destroying democracy give me facts as to what he has imposed thus far that has changed or degraded the current law.

We are only 8 months in only goes so far.

Then I might agree with you when it comes to fascism.

Edited 5 hours ago by Inliytened1