You are credulous to a degree I find implausible.
Same here.
Thirded.
Ditto
That was obviously disjngenuous on Kirk’s part.
Likewise, when Kirk’s killer is caught and people start donating to his bail fund (if he’s even allowed bail) or defense fund, those will be despicable people.
Oh give me a break. You can’t honestly think he was talking about bailing the guy out because, what, he was framed? That he’s innocent and detective Charlie Kirk is going to solve the case? No, it’s endorsement of the violence he committed against a family member of a prominent democrat.
I was wondering if he was shot in the neck to echo the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska. But probably the killer was aiming at his head.
No one can aim that well at that range. Anyone capable of making the shot at all would understand this and not go for a “trick shot” to begin with.
Was it? What I see on his Twitter account is him complaining that Republicans were being blamed for the attack, and endorsing conspiracy theories that would indicate a very different motive. That’s far from laudable, and I don’t see any sympathy for the victim - but I also don’t see him endorsing the attack or praising the attacker.
Maybe I missed it?
No, his tweets indicate he believed the guy was guilty. He just bought into (or maybe was cynically promoting) conspiracy theories about the motive, seemingly in an effort to shift blame away from the right.
If they are donating because they approve of his killing, yes. But charitable bail funds have bailed out people charged with violent crimes before now. Was that also wrong?
Fair enough. And damnit, I did not have ‘defend a dead Charlie Kirk’ on my bingo card for today. Can’t you all please stick to accusing him of things he actually did? 
If he believed the guy was guilty, and he thought the guy wasn’t actually on the Right, why would Kirk want him bailed out??
We are not “becoming” Kirk. We are recognizing the Kirk openly incited exactly what happened to him.
He was 100% in favor of gun deaths. I’m not going to look up the exact quote, but you’ll probably see it again in about five minutes.
I used to go to a regular event near a place with gang shootings. So i followed them for a while. Gang shootings kill innocent people, too. Like the 12 year old girl doing her homework in her living room when a stray bullet from a nearby gang shooting killed her.
Do gang shootings have a different underlying cause than random nutso shots up McDonald’s? Do they both have different causes than “political assassin kills public figure”? Yes. Are they all facilitated by the second amendment? Also yes.
I think he was trying to imply that hang violence isn’t important because it doesn’t kill people like his audience.
I wouldn’t pay a guy to incite violence on my behalf, either.
Eh, he is on the record saying they are an acceptable price. I assume the quote you are thinking of is
Moderating:
I’m not sure what the reason was why the OP started this discussion in MPSIMS, but it has become almost entirely political. Moving to P&E.
I’ve been losing respect for Klein precipitously for about the last year. Even though I often (but certainly not always) agree with him in broad strokes, I often see him making spurious arguments and overlooking (seemingly with intention) issues that are inconvenient to him. He’s the kind of ‘mature progressive’ who is actually politically neutral in many ways and sometimes even bending over backward to conservatives just to demonstrate how even-minded he is when he really shouldn’t be. His interview with Ross Douthat (which I can only imagine was requested by bosses at the New York Times for self-promotional purposes) was a particular low point, and I found Abundance, which he co-authored with Derek Thompson to be full of genuine talking points punctuated with cherry-picked and sometimes completely misrepresented examples.
As for Kirk, “A man reaps what he sows.”
Stranger
Moderating:
This is an an attack on the Poster, not the content of the Post. At the time, it was a MPSIMS thread (now P&E thread), not the Pit thread. While several other posters endorsed this, @Babale did a good job of attacking the same post, not the poster.
Since there is a hydra of Charlie Kirk threads right now, I understand there can be a lot of confusion, but to all, check which thread/forum you’re posting in.
Very true, and Kirk himself claimed that one of his organizations (Turning Point Acton) bussed people to the “rally" on January 6.
So there is a small chance that Kirk’s group bussed in the very person that shot him?
Yes they do, unfortunately, and they receive far too little attention. Most of the population can avoid this kind of violence by paying to live far away from the gangs, so it doesn’t incite the same fear as random shootings. Nor are these crimes particularly useful to either side in pushing their desired gun policies.
Nah. This is the conversation:
It has become a common claim on the right that trans people are overrepresented among mass shooters. It’s clear to me that that is what Kirk and his questioner were getting at, and obviously if you want to compare numbers, you would not include the gang shootings.
It would be the same if you looked at how many mass shooters were motivated by far-right ideology - it makes more sense to use the number of spree killings as denominator rather than all mass shootings.
The quote:
When I bring up examples of ‘cancel culture’, or other complaints from conservatives, people here often complain that they are misleading, and the truth is more complicated and nuanced. And they are usually right.
But the same is true here. Charlie Kirk didn’t praise Pelosi’s attacker or call him a patriot. He wasn’t in favour of gun deaths, except in the same sense that someone who says “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” is in favour or releasing murderers. He didn’t say gang killings don’t matter. What he actually said in each case was something more complicated and nuanced.