Charlie Kirk's assassin captured: Discord communist furfag

[Smooby]

Was he not a 'Groyper'? A follower of Nick Fuentes? I'm sure we'll find out, in due course.

No that is some bs cope shit from the left

 

[K.I.T.T.]

That’s why I said the right just silently observes the left making fools of themselves, bc their freedom of speech and expression are protected. Even if they’re not agreed with.

The boding warnings related to physical attacks being committed from one side to another.

The left does not want to get into a fist fight with the right. It won’t bode well for them.

Also, fuck off Norme deplume sock cunt.

I thought this motherfucker seemed familiar. Good catch!

 

[Smooby]

Still think this guy was a republican?

 

[Fäthër Cörpsë]

Still think this guy was a republican?View attachment 917674

Oh man, the left must be struggling with the reality they’re violent and intolerant.

 

[DirtyDiamonds]

Still think this guy was a republican?View attachment 917674

What a faggot.

 

[δαίμων]

Killing someone over words, not going to sit well with some voter's wouldnt go far to say retribution, just an outcome.

The shooter is solely responsible for pulling the trigger... but let’s not pretend words from influential figures exist in a vacuum.

When someone with a large platform consistently dehumanizes others or frames certain groups as threats, it doesn’t just offend people... it validates and emboldens those predisposed to act out.

That’s not about left vs. right... it’s about cause and effect.

Free speech protects his right to speak, but it doesn’t absolve him of the social responsibility that comes with influence.

Words have weight, especially when they’re amplified.

And nobody literally has to say ‘retribution’... it’s already implied by what they said.

 

[Jay the Butcher]

The shooter is solely responsible for pulling the trigger..

Yes, and people have the choice to make fools of themselves.

When someone with a large platform consistently dehumanizes others or frames certain groups as threats, it doesn’t just offend people... it validates and emboldens those predisposed to act out.

Your fucking stupid, words are not a justification for murder.

Words have weight, especially when they’re amplified.

They sure do, as well as actions.

And nobody literally has to say ‘retribution’... it’s already implied by what they said.

You are the only one crying about retribution. Can't help your too stupid to understand that people are put off by this.

 

[δαίμων]

Your fucking stupid, words are not a justification for murder.

You’ve misunderstood (or perhaps deliberately misrepresented) what I said.

At no point did I claim words justify murder.

I said influential rhetoric can embolden those already inclined toward violence... a well-documented social phenomenon.

If you can’t engage with that distinction without resorting to insults, then you’re not actually interested in discussion, you’re just looking for a fight I won’t give you.

You are the only one crying about retribution. Can't help your too stupid to understand that people are put off by this.

It's telling that your only rebuttal is yet another insult, avoiding the substance entirely.

Claiming America will be "more red" as a direct consequence of others' beliefs is itself a threat of political punishment, a form of weaponized outcome meant to silence dissent .

If you genuinely believe in respectful discourse, why is your default to insult rather than engage? 🤔

So, let me ask: if warning of a political "reckoning" isn't meant to intimidate, what exactly is its purpose... and how does that align with supporting free speech?

 

[K.I.T.T.]

The shooter is solely responsible for pulling the trigger... but let’s not pretend words from influential figures exist in a vacuum.

Let's also not pretend that words are harmful. If someone claims to be offended or injured by the words of another, they made a choice to be offended or injured. Perception is not inherent, it's a construct of the psyche that is 100% dependent upon the choices of the individual. Period.

When someone with a large platform consistently dehumanizes others or frames certain groups as threats, it doesn’t just offend people... it validates and emboldens those predisposed to act out.

What evidence can you provide to support your claim that Kirk's platform "dehumanizes others or frames certain groups as threats"? Additionally, to be offended is a conscious, deliberate choice as I mentioned above. According to your logic, being offended supplies legitimate validation to commit murder. School shooters have massacred little kids, considering themselves validated and emboldened because they were offended. This directly translates to "It's okay if someone shoots up a school if they do so because they're offended." That's the hill you're gonna die on?

Free speech protects his right to speak, but it doesn’t absolve him of the social responsibility that comes with influence.

Yes, it does. That's exactly what "Freedom Of Speech" guarantees .

Words have weight, especially when they’re amplified.

No, they don't. Only weak-minded people allow the words of others to affect them on an emotional level.

 

[Jay the Butcher]

At no point did I claim words justify murder.

It was implied.

Claiming America will be "more red" as a direct consequence of others' beliefs is itself a threat of political punishment, a form of weaponized outcome meant to silence dissent .

No, it's reality. Some people don't want to see this country burn over political violence let alone cheer it on.

If you genuinely believe in respectful discourse, why is your default to insult rather than engage? 🤔

I don't have patience for stupidity.

So, let me ask: if warning of a political "reckoning" isn't meant to intimidate, what exactly is its purpose... and how does that align with supporting free speech?

Your getting boring. Cause and effect, is not retribution.
Do what tho wilt.

 

[D.O.A.]

Still think this guy was a republican?View attachment 917674

How's the media going to spin this?

"He wasn't a faggot though"
"Trump did this"

 

[δαίμων]

Let's also not pretend that words are harmful. If someone claims to be offended or injured by the words of another, they made a choice to be offended or injured. Perception is not inherent, it's a construct of the psyche that is 100% dependent upon the choices of the individual. Period.

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.

What evidence can you provide to support your claim that Kirk's platform "dehumanizes others or frames certain groups as threats"? Additionally, to be offended is a conscious, deliberate choice as I mentioned above. According to your logic, being offended supplies legitimate validation to commit murder. School shooters have massacred little kids, considering themselves validated and emboldened because they were offended. This directly translates to "It's okay if someone shoots up a school if they do so because they're offended." That's the hill you're gonna die on?

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.

Yes, it does. That's exactly what "Freedom Of Speech" guarantees.Words have weight, especially when they’re amplified.

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.

 

[K.I.T.T.]

I am totally not a sock, I swear!

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

You stick out like a sore thumb toe.

 

[Jay the Butcher]

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.

Thanks ChatGPT for your input.

 

[Jay the Butcher]

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.

You've constructed a strawman

How many times have you been accused of strawman?

 

[δαίμων]

It was implied.

You invented a claim I never made because you can’t engage with the one I did: that words have influence.

If you need to put words in my mouth to argue, you’ve already lost.

Try harder. Or don’t. Either way, your dishonesty is showing.

No, it's reality. Some people don't want to see this country burn over political violence let alone cheer it on.

You condemn political violence while weaponizing the threat of a "red America" to silence dissent... so much for opposing coercion.

I don't have patience for stupidity.

Then you must find every mirror unbearable.

Your getting boring. Cause and effect, is not retribution.
Do what tho wilt.

"It's Do what thou wilt" a philosophical principle from Thelema, not your shallow "you do you" sentiment.

But I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

 

[δαίμων]

Thanks ChatGPT for your input.

If the best you can do is accuse me of being an AI because you can’t refute the substance of what’s being said, then you’ve already conceded the argument.

Focus on the message, not the messenger... unless you’re just looking for an excuse to ignore what you can’t intellectually dismiss.

 

[Demented_Diva]

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

Hopefully a “hero shooter” will show up to your house ❤️

 

[δαίμων]

How many times have you been accused of strawman?

You have nothing of value to add. Got it.

 

[Jay the Butcher]

You invented a claim I never made

You did.

You condemn political violence while weaponizing the threat of a "red America" to silence dissent... so much for opposing coercion.

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

Then you must find every mirror unbearable.

Not at all, very comfortable in my skin.

It's Do what thou wilt" a philosophical principle from Thelema, not your shallow "you do you" sentiment.

But I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

I'm very familiar with Crowley's work.