Charlie Kirk- and the reality

[Tandora]

So here we are- they have a suspect.
The very little we know about his politics suggests he was likely to be right wing, and came from a family/ culture that supported Trump. He also is said to be an introvert, in to video games , and possibly quite mentally unwell.

So there we have it- fancy that - when you live in a context where people have access to guns and some minority of people are not well, people get shot.

Nothing to do with the evils of the “left”. Nothing to do with trans people or “trans ideology”. Just senseless violence, because people who are not well have access to guns.

So what are we going to take/ learn from this?

AIBU?

I don’t get spoon fed my opinions from the Guardian or anywhere else. I’ve read a range of sources, some not particularly official. I’ve not said I know what his motivation was. But as a pp said, people were happy to trust the report about the bullet casings when they could use it to control the narrative, but now apparently we are not to listen to any source at all.

“The idea that he was left wing has been retracted” is an example of declaring a news article as fact, you could say.

Who is ‘’we?’’ I never trusted any report about the bullet casings. I haven’t commented on that on this thread at all. I also haven’t quoted AI like some. I don’t want to put a lot of trust in any news articles at the moment because they’re just all based on hear- say. Best to wait for the trial, IMO.

I said the idea that he was on the left had been retracted, yes. Sorry, perhaps I should have clarified I meant specifically from the guardian, but I trust you’re intelligent enough to deduce that without me saying given the post I had replied to and what I had said taken in it’s entirety. I suspect this is your way of getting another pointless little dig in.

It was a FACT that that piece had been redacted for inaccuracy. Maybe I over estimated your comprehension skills.

The Guardian held no sway over this story whatsoever. Who gives a fuck what they do or don’t say.

to paraphrase your post:

”oh look the silly idea that some silly biased people had that he was on the left was completely retracted lol lol lol aren’t you silly and gullible for believing that completely unlikely scenario. Internet bros say he’s a “goyper” so that’s what I’m going with!” You couldn’t have been more smug if you tried.

it’s amusing seeing you attempt to walk it back

The point was, someone else has quoted the article and declared he was leftist like it was a fact and some kind of gotcha moment, even though the guardian pulled it because it wasn’t accurate in the first place. That’s what I commented on. You know full well. Which they were right to do because it shows at least some desire to be accurate and transparent in their reporting practices.

The guardian is wrong and has no sway when it suits you, but all the other news articles which fit with what you want to believe and your biases do. Got it

Speak for yourself, not everyone here reads the Faily news.

There was never a point where there was no evidence that he was left wing as you so confidently claimed. The evidence pointed much more that way than the other way. The Guardian’s “retraction” not withstanding.

I actually said something along the lines of people were desperate to blame based on one later redacted bit of information. It isn’t enough evidence at all. Even if it hadn’t been redacted it still wouldn’t be very reliable given the fact it was second hand information from someone he knew fleetingly years ago.

It’s lazy and shows they don’t have high thresholds for total, unquestioned belief.

Didn’t see you commenting in the same way (with the laughing emojis for effect) on all the people sharing the same view as you that he was a “groyper” based on precisely fuck all, funny that.

I didn’t say he ‘’was’’ I said it sounded like if you asked me (that’s an opinion). Do be accurate.

Alas, dear reader:

No examples were forthcoming ☹️

Other people were very definite it was the case. Did you jump on their posts and lecture them about not believing unsubstantiated internet nonsense?

Also why does it sound like it was the case? Was it because you didn’t want to believe he was on the left? Was it because you felt the random internet theory that you’ve only just found out about was particularly convincing?

No, because it wouldn’t quite make sense if I had speculated the same thing as them and posted a link to then jump on someone else’s post and say ‘’this is inaccurate’’ would it? What a ridiculous thing to say.

I did say in my own post that I wasn’t sure of the accuracy of it but that I had read it and it was interesting. That’s all I needed to say.

The only reason I jumped on the guardian post is because I knew for a fact it was inaccurate by virtue of the fact it had been pulled. No information in my article had been proven incorrect, and still hasn’t.

Yeah, this is how it read it to me too

What would have made sense, given your strong views about not trusting news reports, is if you didn’t “speculate” on any of it at all until more information is known. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it.

Maybe leave out the smuggery and emojis next time, it makes you look silly when information emerges that contradicts your view.

That’s hilarious. This is a discussion forum, where ideas and opinions about all sorts of subjects can be discussed. That’s the whole fucking point of it. I’m not the one thinking others should just ‘’accept’’ things as fact with no reliable evidence.

There’s no evidence of ghosts, they still get discussed on here on a regular basis. No one expects people just to accept their existence without concrete proof.

You laughed at other people for believing a news report while going off on a flight of fancy about some theory you’d heard all of five minutes before.

I’m genuinely interested, @Teanbiscuits33

They aren’t comparable. I didn’t take what I had read as fact unlike the person who posted the guardian article and nothing in my article has been proven inaccurate either, whereas that information in the guardian had been removed hours before the link was posted on here. I knew as I had already seen it before.

People are allowed to post news articles. It’s a discussion forum, right? You’re the one who thought random internet nonsense was more convincing. As I said, you were so incredibly sure of yourself.

We haven’t learned very much, have we. Most of the statements in this post are looking increasingly false.