Charlie Kirk shot at campus event in Utah

[rainatthetraintrack]

 

[Dejected 55]

Oh boy what a book of nonsense.

Lawyers don't exist to get rulings of not guilty or innocence first of all. They exist to ensure you get fair due process. Defending someone doesn't mean you agree with them. So going after a lawyer solely on the basis they secured wins for someone isn't a fair metric on its own nor is it comparable. If it were we'd be talking about lawyers who also openly mock murder victims and the laws around murder, then getting murdered. And yes I'd laugh in that case.

People keep coming at this writing their versions of metaphors wholly excluding the fact that Charlie Kirk championed the philosophy that got others and then himself killed, and was openly asking his audience to bail out the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband with a hammer. You wanna talk about what my response would be for other people in different situations, I'll happily tell you, but most of these defenses are well wasted on protecting Kirk.

So, this is weird... read what you wrote there in the first paragraph: "Defending someone doesn't mean you agree with them." So, it's like you're saying... follow me here... that someone can reasonably defend Charlie Kirk's right not to be shot in the head in front of his family and NOT agree with him. Which is exactly what a bunch of us are saying... Don't have to agree with him, but do believe killing him is wrong. That's your logic I'm using to assert my position. I don't like Charlie Kirk. I don't think he deserved to be shot.

People just want to keep moving the line as to when they think it is acceptable to kill someone. Justify murder, assassination all you want if you think that makes sense. It is, after all a free country, and I'll defend your right to have that opinion. But much as you want to mock Charlie Kirk for irony... be aware that there are others who are with you today in mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination, who might very well laugh at your misfortune someday too if you should ever say something that they disagree with.

It's a slippery slop when you decide it's okay to just kill someone you disagree with. We formed civilizations and created laws in large part to stop just that sort of mob justice. Fortunately I'm not planning on being in this world much longer to see it evolve into the hellscape of violence that some seem eager to encourage.

 

[PixelAngel]

So, this is weird... read what you wrote there in the first paragraph: "Defending someone doesn't mean you agree with them." So, it's like you're saying... follow me here... that someone can reasonably defend Charlie Kirk's right not to be shot in the head in front of his family and NOT agree with him. Which is exactly what a bunch of us are saying... Don't have to agree with him, but do believe killing him is wrong. That's your logic I'm using to assert my position. I don't like Charlie Kirk. I don't think he deserved to be shot.

People just want to keep moving the line as to when they think it is acceptable to kill someone. Justify murder, assassination all you want if you think that makes sense. It is, after all a free country, and I'll defend your right to have that opinion. But much as you want to mock Charlie Kirk for irony... be aware that there are others who are with you today in mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination, who might very well laugh at your misfortune someday too if you should ever say something that they disagree with.

It's a slippery slop when you decide it's okay to just kill someone you disagree with. We formed civilizations and created laws in large part to stop just that sort of mob justice. Fortunately I'm not planning on being in this world much longer to see it evolve into the hellscape of violence that some seem eager to encourage.

I'm genuinely unsure if you think you've got someone in a logical trap of some kind. You were JUST suggesting that a lawyer shouldn't be killed for defending people, which I elaborated on and specified was a flat comparison considering it omits the behavior analogue to Kirk. And I've said numerous times that I never wished the man dead and that I think his murder was wrong. So who exactly is the condescending lecture for? If I die because of my own blind political ignorance then you and the whole world have my permission to laugh, not that it'll matter since I'd be dead and you could laugh regardless of how I feel. That's the privilege of the living.

 

[Dejected 55]

I'm genuinely unsure if you think you've got someone in a logical trap of some kind. You were JUST suggesting that a lawyer shouldn't be killed for defending people, which I elaborated on and specified was a flat comparison considering it omits the behavior analogue to Kirk. And I've said numerous times that I never wished the man dead and that I think his murder was wrong. So who exactly is the condescending lecture for? If I die because of my own blind political ignorance then you and the whole world have my permission to laugh, not that it'll matter since I'd be dead and you could laugh regardless of how I feel. That's the privilege of the living.

All I've been saying is you can hate the man and still not cheer his murder. Anyone cheering his murder is wrong based on what our country is supposed to believe. Cheering murder is welcoming more of it. If you aren't one of the ones cheering, then good on you. But your argument seemed to indicate that you were because you seemed to be supporting it.

Again, as I've also said... people can cheer if they want... I mean it is a free country supposedly... but if the argument is its okay to cheer Charlie Kirk's murder because he said horrible things and believed it was okay for people to die for gun rights... then don't be surprised if the world continues to escalate and determine that it's also okay to kill people who cheer murder because that's just killing people who think it is okay to murder people you disagree with... and the violence escalates until nobody is left.

And as I concluded, I don't plan on being around to see how this crapfest of a world turns out anyway, so honestly, I'm losing the will to bother trying to help people towards a kinder path because if they don't want it and they plan on living in that world, then maybe I'm wrong and violence is the way of the future for those who will survive me.

 

[WallTermite]

I'm just gonna ignore anyone who wants to argue with me so save your breath.

The dude got what he deserved. Argued to not have stronger gun laws and said it was okay if some people had to get shot. What a fucking tool, hope his kids grow up to recognize that he argued for his own demise.

Saying this one more time for the people in the back: HE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF PEOPLE GETTING KILLED. WHEN ASKED HE SAID IT WAS OKAY IF PEOPLE GOT MURDERED!

You are giving femboys a bad name.

 

[PixelAngel]

All I've been saying is you can hate the man and still not cheer his murder. Anyone cheering his murder is wrong based on what our country is supposed to believe. Cheering murder is welcoming more of it. If you aren't one of the ones cheering, then good on you. But your argument seemed to indicate that you were because you seemed to be supporting it.

Again, as I've also said... people can cheer if they want... I mean it is a free country supposedly... but if the argument is its okay to cheer Charlie Kirk's murder because he said horrible things and believed it was okay for people to die for gun rights... then don't be surprised if the world continues to escalate and determine that it's also okay to kill people who cheer murder because that's just killing people who think it is okay to murder people you disagree with... and the violence escalates until nobody is left.

And as I concluded, I don't plan on being around to see how this crapfest of a world turns out anyway, so honestly, I'm losing the will to bother trying to help people towards a kinder path because if they don't want it and they plan on living in that world, then maybe I'm wrong and violence is the way of the future for those who will survive me.

People in this thread repeatedly go back to, "celebrating murder," which I keep responding to by saying, I'm not celebrating his murder (I'm against murder, Charlie thought it was an acceptable price). I'm celebrating that hubris and irony can still come back to bite people. With regard to him being a shit person, yeah, no lie I'm glad the world has one less of him. He's been living the dream by capitalizing on making life hell for people I love for many years, his very rhetoric used to make them feel they don't deserve to live and making spaces unsafe for them just because they exist. Should society avoid a slippery slope of celebrating political violence? Yeah (though again, go tell that to Charlie and his ilk). Are some people here doing that, even from behind a veneer of fact? Probably. I have no interest in speaking for or defending their views and this whole time, I haven't tried to.

But we're talking about a guy who everyone tried to tell for years about this exact outcome, and he didn't care. That he suffered the consequences of his beliefs for once instead of Black/Brown people, women, or lgbtq people in the end, is funny. Just like you're not asking me to like the guy, I'm not asking you to laugh at him. But there's nothing wrong with acknowledging the humourous irony that he is now a statistic against his own views.

 

[Hellis]

You are giving femboys a bad name.

Astolfo wpuld say trans rights, bros amazing like that. Hell yeah femboys rock

 

[amerie]

Posting this here because I feel like a new thread would cause more harm than good + this one already has traffic so I'm going to mooch off of it

All imma say is, be careful when talking about him too…"loosely" yall, this guy had a pretty cult like fanbase and was very, very influential

 

[dead dav]

Whatever your political views or general views on life you don't deserve to die I think America needs to have a serious debate about gun ownership

 

[iamanavalanche]

will never mourn him

 

[Winterreise]

I'm pleased regardless of how a maga person dies.

 

[Hvergelmir]

I'm pleased regardless of how a maga person dies.

Why? And also, what's the intent of expressing this satisfaction?

 

[Skallagrim]

Going to repost the most sane comment in the whole thread.

I'll not be called sane!

Also, it's gotten even worse out there, even more convoluted. The reversal of the usual stances on freedom of speech vs the right to express oneself (or, more accurately, vent one's spleen all over over social media) has given opportunities to detractors of both demographics. Now screenshots of what someone said in the past are being thrown into various faces. "What about this, Zuby? You a commie now?"

It's a culture war extravaganza with everyone having forgotten which side they were on last week, which goes to show just how fickle and unprincipled the most loudest of people generally are.

The *actual murder* seems to have been largely forgotten about by most at this point. The only ones discussing that are people who are looking into the conspiracy theories, of which there are two camps:

1. Israel did it (something to do with Kirk turning down funding).

2. Trump did it (to get Epstein off the front pages).

It's all a depressing microcosm of human absurdity and just how far we've fallen as a culture. A naked demonstration of just how little humanity has the ability, or perhaps inclination, to control its worst impulses.

And I just do not understand any of it. At all.

Let's say you're in the camp who found what the man said detestable - fine, but there is no point in arguing with him now, he's dead. Expressing your satisfaction that someone who dared disagree with you has been violent murdered in front of his children says something about you, and it's not good.

Let's say you're in the camp who found his positions noble - one of his core beliefs was free expression without fear of consequences, and you're using the man's death to try to censor? That says a whole lot about how solid your principles and values are, and again, it's not good.

But after all said and done, and I truly mean this; the response to this is absolutely confusing the shit out of me.

People don't need to "come together". People don't need to agree. People can be at each other's throats for eternity if it gives them something to do with their short lives. Want to argue that everything Kirk *said* was awful? Say that. Want to say that *his words* were like those of Confucius reborn? Let it out.

But you don't have to make it about *him*. Not right now.

For the love of crap, let this young family bury the man they loved in peace. Like him or not, the incessant bickering, the meme generations, the exploitation for political clout and the gloating about this is no good at all for them, and they've done nothing to earn this pain.

 

[Winterreise]

Why? And also, what's the intent of expressing this satisfaction?

LGBT (or whatever it is) people didnt choose to be gay/trans.

MAGA choosed to be MAGA.

They have access to knowledge, facts - still they chose to disregard.
They abuse the patience of those they debate.
They escalate regardless of circumstance. They said the same thing before this killing , as they do after.

 

[Dejected 55]

When the oppressed people can't wait to oppress their oppressors, society dies. Turning the tables, rubbing your enemies' noses in it, that's not about justice or proving them wrong... it's about celebrating yourself and how you now have the power they once had. History tells us this does not work. Look at WWI Germany vs WWII Germany.

Arguably WWI Germany was on the right side of the war. Consider that was was kicked off by one country assassinating the leader of another. Germany was an ally of the country whose leader had been assassinated. Germany was supporting a friend... other countries took sides, it so happens countries like the US were on the other side of Germany... Germany lost along with its allies and Germany in particular was made as an example and crushed and left poverty-stricken after the end of WWI, demoralized in their defeat.

From the ashes of that defeat, someone like Hitler ultimately was able to rally people in his country who felt oppressed by the world... in turn the Nazi regime oppressed other people (notably Jewish people) and attempted to take over the world because the world had shit on Germany in WWI. WWII ended the same way for Germany and they were kept separate not allowed to unify as a country for decades because of fear they might do it all again. The USA and Soviet Union basically each took a half of German and oppressed each side and did not allow them to unify again until Reagan in the 1980s got the Berlin wall taken down through diplomacy.

Meanwhile... those oppressed Jewish people from WWII? Now they have a country and a leadership in Israel that keeps reminding people how they were oppressed multiple times in their history... enslaved, murdered, the Jewish people do have a horrible history of being oppressed... so... in their desire to never be a victim again, current Israeli leadership (not so much the entirety of its citizens) seek to oppress others.

And on the cycle keeps going...

We have to conquer oppression, free people, and to some degree punish the oppressors. Fine. But when the previously oppressed start to themselves oppress... the cycle just switches sides and continues. This is part of why we can't have nice things.

 

[WallTermite]

This thread is genuinely depressing

 

[2muchpain2]

oh damn that video is crazy

Well that explains why the site went down like an hour ago, too many visitors

detrimental to the transgender community now that someone has pulled some info out about the shooter having a trans gf. which idek if that's confirmed or not... the right is insisting there were "6 transgender people in the shooter's ear"...that seems like a stretch but who knows. as if the lgbtq community doesn't have enough issues to deal with, this is why i doubt they had anything to do with this. Also, why didn't the shooter kill himself? If he were gay or whatever, he knew his family would be surprised, possibly freak out and they'd dig into his personal life, which I would imagine would be something that would be troubling to this guy. I don't even know what my point is here but I wish I could have taken that bullet for him, not because I like him, but because I hate life, and it's getting even harder now...i'm a member of the lgbtq community and I am already feeling the blowback. I work in retail and a customer came in the day of the shooting and went on a loud transphobic tangent that ultimately got her kicked out of the store but not soon enough as my mental health took a nosedive. it's been a difficult couple of days and I'm so ready to leave

 

[Dejected 55]

Lots of wild rumor floating around, but let me pull one of them out of the air and take it to a logical conclusion...

Charlie Kirk says anti-trans things. Someone sympathetic to trans people kills him. Some supporters of trans people say they are happy to see him dead and cheer the assassination. Right-wing folks chime in and say, "See we told you trans people were dangerous!" And all this just serves to churn the next cycle of violence.

Quite possibly nothing above is true beyond speculation except that I gather Kirk has said anti-trans things... but no reason to tie anything trans to his death. However, if you're someone one side or the other speaks out about and you cheer death on their side, guaranteed it will be spun to support you being inhuman and not deserving of compassion and churn up violence from their side against someone on your side.

I quoted the movie once before... "They send one of yours to the hospital, you send two of their to the morgue." The only way escalating violence is going to ever end is for one side or the other to completely abolish it on their part OR everyone on both sides dies.

 

[Winterreise]

To destroy transgender medicine , you must destroy medicine itself.
Because the devices you use to destroy one, can be used to destroy the other.
So its ironic that all those who died from not taking covid vaccine, died on THEIR OWN DEVICE.
I dont know.
it must be a very destructive toolkit you apply , when you refuse to take a vaccine, only to be hospitalized in intesive care, then to claim that the hospital murdered you.

A toolkit of denial , reluctance, blame. A toolkit that is reinforcing itself through cause and effect.

A positive feedback loop of destruction.

 

[ConfettiSpaghetti]

I'm going to try once more at rationality with an analogy that I think works on all the levels...



Okay, look at Charlie Kirk's quote above. He's for the 2nd Amendment. He's acknowledging that the freedom to have guns is going to come with the consequence that some innocent people will die from them. He is saying that is "acceptable loss" essentially. Now, I don't entirely agree with this, I think there are compromises that could be made to keep people safer while also allowing freedom to own guns... but that's a different topic. People use a quote like this to justify laughing and cheering that this man was brutally murdered in front of his family as schadenfreude or irony or "just desserts" or whatever... but I'm going to try a rational approach.

In the American justice system, if you rape or kill, for instance, you have a right to a trial and a jury of your peers. You also have a right to a lawyer for defense. Our criminal justice system is not perfect, but one of the tenets it is built upon is the concept that it is better to let some guilty men walk free than to punish even one innocent person. Of course, historically we have failed at both... but the point is meant to be that everyone gets a fair trial even if you think you have the guilty person in custody because you want to make 100% if you can that you punish the guilty person and not an innocent one.

So... imagine a person who vehemently supports this. Someone who does not like mob justice or knee-jerk rulings or shoddy police work that leads to an innocent person being in prison for decades or being executed for a crime they didn't commit. Many such people exist. Sometimes, though, this does mean a rapist or a murderer will get away because the case against them cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt. The family of the victim of that person's crimes will be angry, and justifiably so that they see the perpetrator get away with their crimes.

Now, imagine the lawyer who advocates that everyone gets a fair defense, and he defends someone and successfully gets a not guilty verdict... but the victims' family is sure the guilty man got away with murder... Now imagine that lawyer gets killed by someone who, when they catch him, they discover is someone with a record of previously having been accused of a murder and found innocent and literally got away with murder... only to kill a lawyer who defends such people and advocates that it is better to let some guilty go free than to punish innocent people.

Would you cheer for that lawyer's death? Would you laugh at the irony? Do you think the lawyer who defends and gets murderers free deserved to get killed himself by a murderer who was free thanks to such beliefs?

That's the core of what we are talking about here. Charlie Kirk might have been a horrible person. I honestly don't know because I heard enough from him that I tuned him out because I didn't like him. But the glee supposedly nice and good and fair people are showing over his death because they strongly (and perhaps fairly) disliked him... it makes no sense if you're someone who believes in rights, believes in good, etc.

He supported policies that reduce other people's rights and make crime, death, and violence more common all for the sake of unfettered access to guns and prejudice. If people are going to be killed, lose rights, and suffer because of that world, why should only the innocents suffer the consequences? What you're arguing for is that ordinary people suffer the harms his world creates but not him. You want a level of protection, sympathy, and care for him that the groups he targeted rarely, if ever, receive.Trans people denied healthcare, children in school shootings, people of colour targeted on the streets, and women denied reproductive care do not get the same sympathy or protection. This isn't just an American problem. The same politics of exclusion are happening in the UK and elsewhere. How many must suffer so that people like him can be insulated from the world they helped build? People like him across the world promote beliefs and policies that harmed others and then expect to be spared when the consequences arrive. If people have to suffer the consequences of him and people who share his beliefs, then it is better those people be amongst them.

 

[Dejected 55]

He supported policies that reduce other people's rights and make crime, death, and violence more common all for the sake of unfettered access to guns and prejudice. If people are going to be killed, lose rights, and suffer because of that world, why should only the innocents suffer the consequences? What you're arguing for is that ordinary people suffer the harms his world creates but not him. You want a level of protection, sympathy, and care for him that the groups he targeted rarely, if ever, receive.Trans people denied healthcare, children in school shootings, people of colour targeted on the streets, and women denied reproductive care do not get the same sympathy or protection. This isn't just an American problem. The same politics of exclusion are happening in the UK and elsewhere. How many must suffer so that people like him can be insulated from the world they helped build? People like him across the world promote beliefs and policies that harmed others and then expect to be spared when the consequences arrive. If people have to suffer the consequences of him and people who share his beliefs, then it is better those people be amongst them.

How about if nobody suffers? If you decide who you think deserves to suffer and who doesn't... what does that make you? Who says we have to "allow" hate mongers to hurt others with their words and ideas? Why can't we work to make the world a place where nobody thinks like that?

Are we in the business now of each of us gets to decide who should live or die based on whether we agree with them or think their ideas are harmful? What if your neighbor is an asshole and his dog shits in your yard all the time? Maybe he doesn't deserve to live either? Then maybe your other neighbor doesn't think you have the right to live because they don't like the way you dress and conduct yourself. Where does it end?

The bad guys are supposed to be the ones using questionable words and threats and harming others. If your argument is that the Charlie Kirks of the world are bad people and harmful to society, I will not disagree with you. But when your argument becomes that he doesn't deserve to live and you're happy when he gets killed. Just keep in mind that people loved and agreed with him... and they will look at you the same way as you look at him... and if you get to cheer for his death, they get to cheer for your death... and that becomes the world we live in where it's kill or be killed all the time and everyone cheers when someone they hate dies.

Someone once said an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

 

[Pessimist]

Two things can be true at the same time:
1. Kirk was a fascist.
2. Kirk didn't deserve to be assassinated.

 

[ConfettiSpaghetti]

How about if nobody suffers? If you decide who you think deserves to suffer and who doesn't... what does that make you? Who says we have to "allow" hate mongers to hurt others with their words and ideas? Why can't we work to make the world a place where nobody thinks like that?

It's a nice idea. But people ARE suffering because of the views he held and people and policies he supported. They have been, and its only getting worse, and its affecting more and more people. But yet I hear more people talking about how sad the death of the guy who encouraged political violence, thought school shootings where justified to keep the second amendment, and wanted minorities stripped of rights than the people ACTUALLY affected by what he wanted.

Are we in the business now of each of us gets to decide who should live or die based on whether we agree with them or think their ideas are harmful? What if your neighbor is an asshole and his dog shits in your yard all the time? Maybe he doesn't deserve to live either? Then maybe your other neighbor doesn't think you have the right to live because they don't like the way you dress and conduct yourself. Where does it end?

No. But he did die, because someone wanted to kill him. Whether its his business or anyone's is irrelevant. Kirk died. Because its not about business or right to decide who lives and dies. It is as simple as he is only as safe as the society he lives in. He contributed to a society that was less safe to some. People just didn't expect it to affect him. Not to mention. Specifically supporting taking away peoples rights and justifying the deaths of innocents to maintain access to guns is not the same thing as being an annoying neighbour. Falsely equating situations does not change the reality.

The bad guys are supposed to be the ones using questionable words and threats and harming others. If your argument is that the Charlie Kirks of the world are bad people and harmful to society, I will not disagree with you. But when your argument becomes that he doesn't deserve to live and you're happy when he gets killed. Just keep in mind that people loved and agreed with him... and they will look at you the same way as you look at him... and if you get to cheer for his death, they get to cheer for your death... and that becomes the world we live in where it's kill or be killed all the time and everyone cheers when someone they hate dies.

This only really works if you pretend that both sides are equal. Do you think advocating for stripping peoples rights away, and succeeding in convincing people that its justified and contributing to the rampant misinformation and fearmongering is the same as not trying to strip people of human rights? Just because people can view me the same way does not change the fact that one of us advocated for stripping various minorities of human rights and the other didn't. Acting as if all opinions are equal so we can pretend that its a tragedy that the person who would otherwise never suffer the consequences of actions he supported but others would have is not going to work for most people. His murderer is likely not a good person and ideally we would solve this without violence. But people are being shot up in schools constantly, and yet despite justifying it it was never him that suffered the consequences, now he has.

People ARE suffering. They ARE dying. They ARE losing rights. Are the people who deserve it the least, who never wanted this, supposed to face the brunt of the consequences while Kirk is sheltered from them? while Kirk gets to go "oops" and then retire and live a normal life.

Someone once said an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Playground politics we teach kids to get them to play nice often does not capture the nuance of the world. It's not an eye for an eye. its ensuring that they deal with the consequences of the world they wanted. If you push people to be more violent, it doesn't only affect people you don't like. If shootings are a worthy cost of having the second amendment, it's not just kids and poor people getting shot. If minorities don't deserve empathy and should be dehumanised, it doesn't stop with them. As I said. People are suffering because of his beliefs and others who agreed with him. But yet if he was never killed, innocents still would have. The more others like Kirk keep doing the same thing, the more violent people will get on all sides, the more innocents suffer, and the more rights people lose. Do you disagree that if this is where it leads, it is better the people who want the world to head the direction its heading to suffer the consequences alongside everyone else?

 

[fedup1982]

It's just hilariously ironic how he got shot defending the second ammendment

He got what he deserved in an unexpected twist of fate, but yeh, its now going to be used against Democrats and the American public now, making him a kind of martyr. The situation is 100% fked up.

I blame the super wealthy for all of this. The only reason we are where we are is greed.

 

[Dejected 55]

Let's try this from the other side... For everyone arguing it is funny or to be celebrated or "he deserved it" for Kirk to be shot and killed like he was because of his views on various members of society and his views on gun control.

Okay.

So... how did shooting him improve anything? The argument seems to be he deserved to be killed because he was hateful and made life measurably worse for a lot of people... So... did killing him improve trans rights and lower persecution? Did we get gun control measures? How about improvements in mental health care? Did all the irrational hate stop?

From where I sit... it doesn't look like killing him measurably did anything to improve the lives of all the people who would say he made their lives worse... so his "deserving to die" didn't actually help did it?

Maybe that's because violence doesn't solve problems. Violence just moves the problems around and provokes future violence from others.

If you want to get really technical... violence doesn't win wars... STOPPING violence wins wars. The war is over when the fighting stops. Ironic?

If the argument is that you can't show kindness to your enemy or you are weak... how is your strength working? I mean, lots of people are suffering in the world... did being mean to people who were mean to you actually fix any problems? Did killing the man who said bad things stop everyone else from saying bad things? Or are there now now more people saying more bad things?

I'm hoping I'm only on this planet for another few weeks, and nothing I say is going to move the needle... but I have to be true to myself even when my truth doesn't seem to matter in this world. I'll go down swinging (ironically) at the notion of peace being possible if people stop responding to violence with more violence.

 

[ConfettiSpaghetti]

Let's try this from the other side... For everyone arguing it is funny or to be celebrated or "he deserved it" for Kirk to be shot and killed like he was because of his views on various members of society and his views on gun control.

Okay.

So... how did shooting him improve anything? The argument seems to be he deserved to be killed because he was hateful and made life measurably worse for a lot of people... So... did killing him improve trans rights and lower persecution? Did we get gun control measures? How about improvements in mental health care? Did all the irrational hate stop?


From where I sit... it doesn't look like killing him measurably did anything to improve the lives of all the people who would say he made their lives worse... so his "deserving to die" didn't actually help did it?


Maybe that's because violence doesn't solve problems. Violence just moves the problems around and provokes future violence from others.

If you want to get really technical... violence doesn't win wars... STOPPING violence wins wars. The war is over when the fighting stops. Ironic?

Its not about whether killing him is right or not or whether it fixes anything. Peoples lives are already worse. He either A) DOES NOT suffer the consequences of the world he wanted that others are suffering from or B) DOES suffer the consequences of the world he wanted that others are suffering from. Either way, people are dealing with the consequences of it. One involves a person partially RESPLINSIBLE for this, who WANTED this, suffering from the political violence, anger and lack of empathy that others would suffer from regardless with little to no sympathy or justice. The other involves him not suffering that while others suffer from it. It does not "fix" anything, but that's because it isn't a solution. Violence and hate are the result of what he, other influences, media organisations, certain politicians and people who support them wanted. It was always leading to more violence and hate, it just affected certain people more than others and was easier to ignore for a minority when the majority were not directly impacted. Now that hate and violence is getting worse, as it was always going to, and more than just minorities are suffering. You can not like it, but that is the world you live in. That is the direction they wanted the world to head in. And it is not an American only problem. It is happening globally, America is just doing it faster and harder.

But, again, people where always going to suffer from that world. This was explicitly made clear by people. The only difference is people are realising that he wasn't the exception in that world. Ultimately, if that is the direction the world is heading due to the actions of those responsible, then it is better they suffer the consequences along side those who aren't rather than being sheltered from that world where no one more vulnerable and more innocent would be. That it is inconsistent to have the view that he can make peoples lives worse while demanding he be sheltered from it If he did not want to get shot and others do not want to be affected by the way the world is going, perhaps its better we simply do not make the world like this. Perhaps we don't try to take away peoples rights, embolden hate and prejudice, condone political violence or try to make minorities the scapegoat for the worlds problems. Perhaps if the gun problem was cracked down on, this one gun crime alongside the countless more would have not happened.
Violence actively has solved many problems and violence is the main method of stopping wars. Violence has solved problems from all of human history. This isn't about fixing a problem. It is about suffering the consequences of a world you want others to suffer the consequences of. People are suffering it, and will continue to suffer it for a long time. It is better that the people respolsible suffer the consequences everyone else is expected to suffer. But if fixing a problem is your main angle here, did correcting the misinformation time and time again stop him? Did appealing to his empathy to which he responded having empathy is a bad thing stop him? Does that mean empathy and reason should be abandoned.

If the argument is that you can't show kindness to your enemy or you are weak... how is your strength working? I mean, lots of people are suffering in the world... did being mean to people who were mean to you actually fix any problems? Did killing the man who said bad things stop everyone else from saying bad things? Or are there now now more people saying more bad things?

I'm hoping I'm only on this planet for another few weeks, and nothing I say is going to move the needle... but I have to be true to myself even when my truth doesn't seem to matter in this world. I'll go down swinging (ironically) at the notion of peace being possible if people stop responding to violence with more violence.

You are willingly refusing to understand the point.

Imagine you help people light a building on fire with people inside expecting not to get burned but knowing others would, whether its because its justified or you can easily ignore them burning or you can deny they are burning at all because, and then when you get burned, expect sympathy and respect from people who suffered directly because of you whom if you were not burned you would not have cared about the fire.

Would it be better to have you regret the situation without being burned? yes. Would it have been better to prevent people being burned at all? yes. Is burning people an acceptable punishment? no. But it happened. People are lighting buildings on fire. You are lighting buildings on fire. People got burned. You got burned. So if people, innocent people, are to be burned, and one person who helped light the building on fire got burned as well, what is the injustice there? That he suffered from the actions that would have harmed others regardless?

Now if people had been specifically pointing out how lighting buildings on fire with people in them is not good, that it could burn people inside, that it could potentially burn you, and spoke out against it and tried to stop it from happening, but you did it anyway and got burned, why are the innocent people at risk of being burned expected to bend over backwards and to sympathise with you? Because you have been burned? Would justice to you be that you get prevented from ever being burned while everyone else burns? You shouldn't have been burned, but neither should anyone else, yet you are the one who wanted to light the building on fire and you did get burned as playing fire often has that risk regardless of whether its right or wrong.

But if I want to prevent people being burned. is it more effective to target the people in the buildings that is being lit on fire and expecting them to bend over backwards for you, or would it be more effective to target the people lighting things on fire and pointing out how this is what you wanted, just for others not yourself regardless of justification. That even after pointing out that lighting buildings on fire is bad and will burn people, potentially even you, you still wanted to do it. And now that you got what you want, people got burned as you were told. I can't save you from burning yourself, but I can point out what the consequences of lighting buildings on fire are, and that you where more than happy when you thought only others would get burned. Lastly, I can point out how if you do not want to get burned, perhaps the best solution is to not play with fire and then complain expect it to burn everyone else but you.

Regardless, you have been burned and there is no changing it. I don't blame people for not caring about you being burned or celebrating one less person burning them. They did not burn you. However, maybe people will think twice about playing with fire knowing that it burns and we will focus on ensuring others do not light fires in the future so that people do not have to be burned again.

 

[not-2-b-the-answer]

I don't feel anything and I don't know why....
I was shocked when I first heard about it. I barely knew who he was. I'm not celebrating his death.
I'm not mourning him being gone either. I live in a mostly conservative area, so I hear their politics alot.
I don't want to hear it anymore.
I think it's wrong to kill someone because you disagree with their politics.
Just my thoughts....