Charlie Kirk's assassin captured: Discord communist furfag

[δαίμων]

Here, I saved an extra copy of this for emergencies. It suits you perfectly:

View attachment 917686

You stick out like a sore thumb toe.

If the height of your argument is accusing me of being a sock account, you’ve already admitted you can’t engage on the actual points.

Insults aren’t substance... they’re surrender.

Come back when you’re ready to discuss ideas, not identities. Until then, good luck pretending "YOU'RE A SOCK ACCOUNT!" is a debate strategy.

 

[Jay the Butcher]

You have nothing of value to add. Got it.

Replying to another member You'r retarded, got it.

 

[D.O.A.]

Words aren't harmful? Tell that to every person radicalized by hate speech, every child shattered by bullying, every minority targeted by violent rhetoric.

You think trauma is a choice? Then why bother speaking at all... if your words are so powerless, why do you get so offended when someone disagrees with you?

You can’t claim words are meaningless while using them as weapons. Pick a lane.



You've constructed a strawman by claiming I argued offense "justifies" murder.

I said influential rhetoric can embolden those already predisposed to violence... a well-documented sociological phenomenon, not a moral justification.

School shooters are responsible for their actions, but we cannot pretend that pervasive, dehumanizing language from public figures exists in a vacuum.

This isn’t about "offense"; it’s about the normalization of hatred and its real-world consequences.

As for Kirk’s rhetoric, here’s a sample of his own words... not out-of-context scraps, but a consistent pattern of dehumanization:

• On gun violence: In 2023, Kirk stated, *“I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights”* . This wasn’t a slip-up; it was a calculated argument that trivialized lives lost to gun violence. Ironically, he was shot while debating this very topic .
• On racial equality: Kirk called Martin Luther King Jr. “awful” and “not a good person,” and argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was a “huge mistake” because it created a “permanent bureaucracy” for diversity . This isn’t just criticism; it’s a dismissal of foundational efforts to combat racial discrimination.
• On empathy: Kirk outright rejected the concept, saying, “I can’t stand the word empathy. I think empathy is a made-up new age term that does a lot of damage” . This reflects a broader pattern of dehumanizing those he disagreed with.
• On transgender people: He frequently targeted the LGBTQ+ community, claiming transgender individuals were overrepresented in mass shootings (“Too many”), and supported policies that marginalized them .
• On immigrants: Kirk promoted the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, suggesting undocumented immigrants were coming to the U.S. to “replace white Americans” . This theory has been widely debunked and is known to incite racial fear.

These examples illustrate a consistent pattern of rhetoric that belittles minorities, dismisses violence, and fuels division. It’s not about isolated remarks but a sustained ethos that has tangible effects.

So, to your question: What evidence supports the claim that Kirk’s platform dehumanized others? His own words... repeatedly, unambiguously, and proudly spoken.

If you can’t see how that rhetoric contributes to a culture where violence feels justified to some, then you’re ignoring the very logic you claim to defend: that words have power.

The difference is, I’m not arguing they justify violence... I’m arguing they incentivize it. And that’s a distinction you’ve repeatedly failed to grasp.

You can pretend his rhetoric was harmless “free speech,” but history (and his own words) suggest otherwise.

You’re confusing the legal right to free speech with the social reality of influence and consequence.

The First Amendment protects you from government censorship... not from individuals holding you accountable, criticizing you, or reacting to harmful rhetoric.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from backlash, social condemnation, or the moral responsibility that comes with wielding influence.

You keep hiding behind “free speech” as though it’s a shield against all criticism, but it was never meant to be.

It protects you from the state, not from people calling out dangerous, dehumanizing language.

You talk about freedom of speech, but you don’t really know what it is...or what it actually protects.

Unreal.

What is this ai generated bullshit

Get the fuck out faggot

 

[δαίμων]

You did.

No.

It's not a threat, it's reality.

It was a threat.

Not at all, very comfortable in my skin.

Right.

I'm very familiar with Crowley's work.

Reading Diary of a Drug Fiend as an edgy teenager doesn’t make you familiar with Crowley’s work.

We're done here, I won't be reading or commenting to you further. Good luck.

 

[Jay the Butcher]

No.

It was a threat.

Right.

Reading Diary of a Drug Fiend as an edgy teenager doesn’t make you familiar with Crowley’s work.

We're done here, I won't be reading or commenting to you further. Good luck.

Assumption are for fools like yourself. You can take your leave now.

 

[δαίμων]

The argument is too intelligent for me to understand, so it must be AI.

Fixed it.

 

[K.I.T.T.]

Words aren't harmful? Tell that to every person radicalized by hate speech, every child shattered by bullying, every minority targeted by violent rhetoric.

They're not. I can shout "ALL RABBITS HAVE RABIES!!!" all day long, but that doesn't make it true. Words alone are not harmful. Words have no affect on anyone UNLESS the listener makes a conscious choice to acknowledge. Nobody is forcing anyone else to listen to anything. In fact, it's not even possible to force someone to listen. Sure, they might hear but that doesn't equate to listening.

You think trauma is a choice? Then why bother speaking at all... if your words are so powerless, why do you get so offended when someone disagrees with you?

Physical trauma is not always a choice. Anyone traumatized by words is a pussy and deserves a bullet to the head. I don't get offended when people disagree with me. I feign offense for the sheer sake of entertainment.

You can’t claim words are meaningless while using them as weapons. Pick a lane.

That's exactly why I use them as weapons, because I know they're meaningless. I don't need a lane. You're cruising along in regular traffic, but I'm above you in my flying saucer.

You've constructed a strawman by claiming I argued offense "justifies" murder.

Strawman, you say? Like, in The Wizard Of Oz? Wtf?

I said influential rhetoric can embolden those already predisposed to violence... a well-documented sociological phenomenon, not a moral justification.

Apparently it only emboldens weak-minded simpletons.

School shooters are responsible for their actions, but we cannot pretend that pervasive, dehumanizing language from public figures exists in a vacuum.

This isn’t about "offense"; it’s about the normalization of hatred and its real-world consequences.

As for Kirk’s rhetoric, here’s a sample of his own words... not out-of-context scraps, but a consistent pattern of dehumanization:

• On gun violence: In 2023, Kirk stated, *“I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights”* . This wasn’t a slip-up; it was a calculated argument that trivialized lives lost to gun violence. Ironically, he was shot while debating this very topic .
• On racial equality: Kirk called Martin Luther King Jr. “awful” and “not a good person,” and argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was a “huge mistake” because it created a “permanent bureaucracy” for diversity . This isn’t just criticism; it’s a dismissal of foundational efforts to combat racial discrimination.
• On empathy: Kirk outright rejected the concept, saying, “I can’t stand the word empathy. I think empathy is a made-up new age term that does a lot of damage” . This reflects a broader pattern of dehumanizing those he disagreed with.
• On transgender people: He frequently targeted the LGBTQ+ community, claiming transgender individuals were overrepresented in mass shootings (“Too many”), and supported policies that marginalized them .
• On immigrants: Kirk promoted the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, suggesting undocumented immigrants were coming to the U.S. to “replace white Americans” . This theory has been widely debunked and is known to incite racial fear.

These examples illustrate a consistent pattern of rhetoric that belittles minorities, dismisses violence, and fuels division. It’s not about isolated remarks but a sustained ethos that has tangible effects.

So, to your question: What evidence supports the claim that Kirk’s platform dehumanized others? His own words... repeatedly, unambiguously, and proudly spoken.

If you can’t see how that rhetoric contributes to a culture where violence feels justified to some, then you’re ignoring the very logic you claim to defend: that words have power.

The difference is, I’m not arguing they justify violence... I’m arguing they incentivize it. And that’s a distinction you’ve repeatedly failed to grasp.

You can pretend his rhetoric was harmless “free speech,” but history (and his own words) suggest otherwise.

You’re confusing the legal right to free speech with the social reality of influence and consequence.

The First Amendment protects you from government censorship... not from individuals holding you accountable, criticizing you, or reacting to harmful rhetoric.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from backlash, social condemnation, or the moral responsibility that comes with wielding influence.

You keep hiding behind “free speech” as though it’s a shield against all criticism, but it was never meant to be.

It protects you from the state, not from people calling out dangerous, dehumanizing language.

You talk about freedom of speech, but you don’t really know what it is...or what it actually protects.

Unreal.

Ugh, I don't have the time to answer all of your bullshit, Norme or Grimhelm or whomever you are this time.

 

[CaIJeT09]

Hopefully the are wrong again....God willing that hero shooter will never get caught ❤️

God forbid you get stuck under a car one day and we get a video of you somewhere around here 😂

 

[Dirl]

Where is this faggot?

 

[45cal1911]

No.

It was a threat.

Right.

Reading Diary of a Drug Fiend as an edgy teenager doesn’t make you familiar with Crowley’s work.

We're done here, I won't be reading or commenting to you further. Good luck.

Your bullshit in multiple threads leads me to one single conclusion.

You justify Charlie’s murder over words and his offering of a different point of view vs your indoctrination. He never obligated anyone to change their views. It was their choice.

Yet you weaklings were unable to just listen to a different point of view and hence his murder.

 

[45cal1911]

Where is this faggot?

View attachment 917692

Texting back and forth with @Solomon Kane?

 

[K.I.T.T.]

If the height of your argument is accusing me of being a sock account, you’ve already admitted you can’t engage on the actual points.

Insults aren’t substance... they’re surrender.

Come back when you’re ready to discuss ideas, not identities. Until then, good luck pretending "YOU'RE A SOCK ACCOUNT!" is a debate strategy.

It's not an insult, it's an observation. Why would I have a discussion with someone that is pretending to be someone else? What's the point of that?

 

[Dirl]

Texting back and forth with @Solomon Kane?

Or making new socks?

 

[δαίμων]

They're not. I can shout "ALL RABBITS HAVE RABIES!!!" all day long, but that doesn't make it true. Words alone are not harmful. Words have no affect on anyone UNLESS the listener makes a conscious choice to acknowledge. Nobody is forcing anyone else to listen to anything. In fact, it's not even possible to force someone to listen. Sure, they might hear but that doesn't equate to listening.

If you truly believe words have no power, then why are you wasting yours so passionately trying to prove they don’t?

Your rabbit analogy is childish.

We’re not talking about rabbits... we’re talking about targeted dehumanization that history shows leads to real violence. But sure, hide behind semantics while others face the consequences of rhetoric you refuse to acknowledge.

You don’t get to decide what harms others.

Your ignorance isn’t an argument, it’s a privilege.

Physical trauma is not always a choice. Anyone traumatized by words is a pussy and deserves a bullet to the head. I don't get offended when people disagree with me. I feign offense for the sheer sake of entertainment.

You just said people traumatized by words “deserve a bullet to the head.”

So which is it...are words powerless, or are they worth killing over?

You don’t get to play unbothered philosopher while casually calling for violence against those you deem weak.

Your contradiction isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s cowardice.

If words mean nothing, why are you so eager to use them like a weapon?

Come back when your philosophy extends past your own ego.

That's exactly why I use them as weapons, because I know they're meaningless. I don't need a lane. You're cruising along in regular traffic, but I'm above you in my flying saucer.

If words are truly meaningless, then your insults, your threats, and your entire performance are just sad, empty noise.

You’re not in a flying saucer, you’re on a lonely carousel going in circles, trying to convince yourself the ride is thrilling.

But if you really believed any of this, you wouldn’t need to say it.

Strawman, you say? Like, in The Wizard Of Oz? Wtf?

If ignorance is your strategy, don’t be surprised when no one takes you seriously.

Apparently it only emboldens weak-minded simpletons.

Then by your logic, you’re not making a point, you’re just admitting you’re talking to an audience you consider “weak-minded simpletons.”

Ugh, I don't have the time to answer all of your bullshit, Norme or Grimhelm or whomever you are this time.

Translation: "I can't defend my argument, so I'll attack your identity instead."

If the strength of an idea depends on who says it (and not the truth behind it) you never really had an argument to begin with.

Come back when you have one.

Actually never mind, we're done here.

Good luck.

 

[45cal1911]

Or making new socks?

I lost count of how many clowns have gotten banned since Wednesday.

 

[δαίμων]

Your bullshit in multiple threads leads me to one single conclusion.

You justify Charlie’s murder over words and his offering of a different point of view vs your indoctrination. He never obligated anyone to change their views. It was their choice.

Yet you weaklings were unable to just listen to a different point of view and hence his murder.

You can’t cite a single thing I said that justifies murder because I never did... you’re building a strawman because you can’t engage with the actual argument.

And you have the audacity to cry indoctrination while regurgitating echo-chamber talking points you didn’t even come up with yourself?

The lack of self-awareness is almost impressive.

 

[ZeroK]

 

[Dirl]

I lost count of how many clowns have gotten banned since Wednesday.

It as been a genocide...
...of Nihilianths and Bad Hippos.

 

[D.O.A.]

You can’t cite a single thing I said that justifies murder because I never did... you’re building a strawman because you can’t engage with the actual argument.

And you have the audacity to cry indoctrination while regurgitating echo-chamber talking points you didn’t even come up with yourself?

The lack of self-awareness is almost impressive.

How the fuck are you posting walls of text in two threads within two minutes?

Goodbye AI slop

 

[45cal1911]

If you truly believe words have no power, then why are you wasting yours so passionately trying to prove they don’t?

Your rabbit analogy is childish.

We’re not talking about rabbits... we’re talking about targeted dehumanization that history shows leads to real violence. But sure, hide behind semantics while others face the consequences of rhetoric you refuse to acknowledge.

You don’t get to decide what harms others.

Your ignorance isn’t an argument, it’s a privilege.



You just said people traumatized by words “deserve a bullet to the head.”

So which is it...are words powerless, or are they worth killing over?

You don’t get to play unbothered philosopher while casually calling for violence against those you deem weak.

Your contradiction isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s cowardice.

If words mean nothing, why are you so eager to use them like a weapon?

Come back when your philosophy extends past your own ego.



If words are truly meaningless, then your insults, your threats, and your entire performance are just sad, empty noise.

You’re not in a flying saucer, you’re on a lonely carousel going in circles, trying to convince yourself the ride is thrilling.

But if you really believed any of this, you wouldn’t need to say it.

If ignorance is your strategy, don’t be surprised when no one takes you seriously.


Then by your logic, you’re not making a point, you’re just admitting you’re talking to an audience you consider “weak-minded simpletons.”


Translation: "I can't defend my argument, so I'll attack your identity instead."

If the strength of an idea depends on who says it (and not the truth behind it) you never really had an argument to begin with.

Come back when you have one.

Actually never mind, we're done here.

Good luck.

Your argument becomes old and you justify murder over freedom of speech and here you are while celebrating the permanent silence of another with opposing views.

The right is not afraid or intimidated.