Charlie Kirk assassin was living with trans roommate

I'm probably being too simplistic, but in my view

Material analysis = based in reality.

Yes, I agree that left/right = economics.

I think conservative/progressive is often in the eye of the beholder. I don't see anything progressive about attacking women's rights, and I think many omnicause positions like re: Israel/Palestine seem quite random.

Liberal/authoritarian also means different things to different people.

Because they asked nicely?

[Sorry, dreadful joke]

And again, this is Utah, a state dominated by a religion that really does exclude gay people from participation in the community in a tangible way in real life - but he chose to assassinate somebody who I am assuming had an outsized presence in his online/virtual communities.

(Or his motivation could be something completely different. We don't have much information, and as I have said, my understanding is hampered by my lack of knowledge of so many parts of US culture).

Classical Marxists, who use the language of Marxism and really believe it's all about class, are matrialts with regard to that, etc, are something of a rarity these days, there is the odd one in academia.
Maybe it depends on definitions, but I think if you aren't basing your philosophy in material analysis, you aren't left wing.

What do you mean by material analysis?

Do you agree with my view that Left Right is mainly about economics, whereas conservative-progressive, liberal-authoritarian are mainly separate from left right?

I am not sure it's this clear cut.

While I don't think there are any number of assassin lesbians out there, I do thing there is a contingent of people who see themselves often as part of the larger "queer" community, who are pushing all of this stuff, and it does include lesbians and gay men, particularly younger ones.

This is why we have lesbians being kicked out of groups, whether in person or online, for resisting GI.

We've also all seen how organisations representing LGB individuals have been captured, Pride, etc. Not all have been happy with this, some have left, but we know plenty who still support these organisations.

So why wouldn't the general public see this as a LGBT movement? Granted that some moderates don't agree, that is still what it will look like.

Yeah that's what I was getting at when I said about adults encouraging it. Especially the fearfulness of trans genocide. There is a kernel of truth there in that there is a rise in homophobic rhetoric in America right now. But it gets twisted out of all proportion into something terrifying for children. And it's responsible adults jobs to address that not join in. Some of it's also neuro diversity I think. It's very:
"Violence is coming for you. Fight back or be destroyed"
But from a different ideological perspective.

I have no issues with what people want to wear, call themselves, their hobbies.

However we keep women's spaces single sex space for good reasons (safeguarding, women's dignity, etc).

Why would we make an exception for one group of men? What would be the justification?

Oh I know. You could make the same argument about most men not being perverts/dangerous so why not share your changing rooms with them.. or why have police officers at all when most people don't want to commit murders or steal things.
Plus, the 10 that are angry enough to show up to an event are also more likely to be among the small percentage that actually want to do harm. The point is really that even if only a tiny minority of a group are acting like twats they can still do a lot of harm. They were allowed to do a lot of harm IMO by some quite unusual policing.

Classical Marxists, who use the language of Marxism and really believe it's all about class, are matrialts with regard to that, etc, are something of a rarity these days, there is the odd one in academia.

Maybe it depends on definitions, but I think if you aren't basing your philosophy in material analysis, you aren't left wing.

The groups are build around race or sexuality or any other thing like that, many of them hard to pin down, or in some cases, like sex, they don't fit well into traditional Marxist ideas about abolishing class.

But they aren't analysing anything. It's a top down approach where charity is doled out to people who don't pose a threat. It's 'noblesse oblige'. We have seen it all before.

This is the form their arguments take around things like surrogacy, for example. Yes, it will benefit individuals as do all benefits for groups. But the argument for it is based on the idea that surrogacy is the only way to create equity for the class of homosexual men..

If surrogacy is to benefit men, you can't put a piece of paper between that and any other man who exploits women's reproductive labour. The only difference is the introduction of technology into the process.

If 'right wing' and 'left wing' have any meaning, it has to be about more than adopting a random set of prescribed views.

Mumsnet seems to have been taken over by hard right Americans obsessed by trans.

Agree it's not only trans ideology - and definitely it's really hard to pin down different ideologies in the online world because they are all based on niche subcultures with seemingly odd combinations of beliefs etc

But I do think because trans is a protected characteristic / vulnerable group etc etc, it makes it that much harder for friends/parents/teachers to raise concerns. We discussed this in another thread - avoiding the Prevent pathway by going down the trans psych pathway.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are individuals who get their jollies pushing the buttons of mentally vulnerable individuals to do all sorts of mad stuff. There was a bloke who encouraged people into suicide, the eunuch bloke, many young people seem to have been bamboozled into transitioning. Mayhem and murder, I can see that being something some on-line nihilist would definitely encourage. Just getting off on the chaos and the control.

An ideology which claims to be morally superior to every other, and which actively believes in using violence to defend itself (including against words, which can themselves be violence) is highly likely to be more violent than any other ideology.

There’s no evidence that the shooter himself engraved those messages on the bullets. I’m hearing, however, that a group he was part of did so. This raises even more questions.

I do agree with this, that it's relatively few people - and also, that some of the people who hear the messages and take violent action were vulnerable and taken advantage of.

However let's say there are 10,000 TRAs in Britain and 10 of them are angry enough to show up to a GC or GC-adjacent event. 0.1% so not worth worrying about right? (I made up these numbers)

Your security arrangements depend a lot on whether you think the worst those 10 people will do is stand outside with some signs, or whether you think they're capable of murder.

Yes, the TRAs really don't like Esther Ghey's idea of restricting online access for vulnerable young people. I couldn't possibly speculate why.

Going into online trans spaces can be quite disturbing because of the number of people talking openly about their very poor mental health and also the cartoonishly violent language. Even the Trans UK subreddit is like that. The American ones are much worse, and they're in a country with much easier access to guns.

If the Trans UK subreddit portrays JKR as some kind of cross between Cruella De Vil and Skeletor, you don't have to imagine how Charlie Kirk was portrayed on the American equivalents.

If there's a community with this combination of poor mental health, who have marinated for years in violent rhetoric, whose misbehaviour has been indulged far beyond what's reasonable... well most of the people in that community might be young and vulnerable, but it's not too much of a stretch to see the danger of them producing some Son of Sam types.

And because groups with TRA links were discussing the murder the day BEFORE it happened.

That's what I hear... but the point I was trying to make is that I don't think it matters... there's no way they would share a flat together unless TR was 100% into the ideology that his "roommate" (god I hate that expression, other than if they literally are not a couple but have to have single beds in the same room!) was into. I simply cannot comprehend a trans person or TRA living with someone who was neutral let alone gender critical.

I agree, and particularly that there are many rabbit holes to fall down - but maybe the problem is more likely to be examined if somebody falls down other rabbit holes?

I think Brianna Ghey's mother was very concerned about online influences, both on the murderers and Brianna, but am I right in thinking she has faced push back?

We need to be absolutely clear. There is an LGB. There is a T. There is a TQ+.

The only time one should ever use the term LGBT or LGBTQ+ is when discussing the fact that the T and the TQ+ should never be grouped with the LGB who they despise.

The trans/ furry Lance wasn’t just a roommate.

Anyone extreme enough to think it’s a good idea to assassinate someone they profoundly disagree with is going to do it anyway, whatever their beliefs, which might be left, right or just weird. Any political or faith system is capable of producing murderers and martyrs. It’s probably irrelevant which system it actually is, except in providing a form of words for the slogans.

That's what EDI is though, and that is it's link to the left.

Classical Marxists, who use the language of Marxism and really believe it's all about class, are matrialts with regard to that, etc, are something of a rarity these days, there is the odd one in academia.

But the activist marxists, people in unions, and most of the marxist parties outside the UK are all now treating class as referring to things other than materialist economics. The groups are build around race or sexuality or any other thing like that, many of them hard to pin down, or in some cases, like sex, they don't fit well into traditional Marxist ideas about abolishing class.

This is the form their arguments take around things like surrogacy, for example. Yes, it will benefit individuals as do all benefits for groups. But the argument for it is based on the idea that surrogacy is the only way to create equity for the class of homosexual men. The argument for race quotas in training courses are about promoting equity between the groups that have been identified as important - "equity seeking groups."

Of course it quickly becomes a thing to become a member of a group like this, or to define new groups, in ways that benefit people who want advantage of some kind. So it creates a push to define all kinds of new inequalities.